University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Dimensions of the locational conflict around siting service facilities for the homeless

(USC Thesis Other)

Dimensions of the locational conflict around siting service facilities for the homeless

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DIMENSIONS OF THE LOCATIONAL CONFLICT AROUND SITING
SERVICE FACILITIES FOR THE HOMELESS
by
Robert Jurgen von Mahs
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(Geography)
December 1996
® 1996 Robert Jurgen von Mahs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1383549
UMI Microform 1383549
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. AH rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A LIFO R N IA
THE GRADUATE SCHOO L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CA LIFO RN IA 8 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
Jurgen von Mahs________ _________ _______
under the direction of his. Thesis Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
M aster ■ of. A rts
D/tt, October 8, 1996
THESIS COMM ITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jurgen von Mahs Dr. Michael Dear
Dimensions of the Locational Conflict Around Siting Service Facilities
for the Homeless
This research examines the relationship between community opposition to the siting
of homeless service facilities, and the strategies used by service providers to counter,
or ideally to prevent, community opposition. First, a preliminary framework of the
dimensions involved in locational conflict was devised. Second, the framework was
further developed through an assessment of 31 national case studies of locational
conflicts over controversial human service facilities. Finally, the framework was
tested and revised through an in-depth analysis of two homeless service facilities.
Genesis I and La Posada, in Los Angeles. This research provides an innovative,
comprehensive framework for analyzing case studies concerning locational conflicts.
It also serves as a practical guide for service providers attempting to minimize
locational conflicts which often prevents service delivery to homeless people.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Committee Chair’s Signal
Dedication
To my parents Greta and Jurgen, my brother Christian, and Tante Anni.
To Genesis I and La Posada.
To Homeless People.
To Tolerance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to my interview partners Ronda Flanzbaum, Leda Ramos, Ulises Diaz,
Father Richard Estrada, Ignacio Fernandez, Ted Hayes, and Gustavo Leclerc, for
sharing their time, experience, and insight. Thank you, my friends Andi, Amos,
Austin, Chae, Christian, Fuli, Gerrit, Holger, Oli, Otto, Ray, Sweetie and other friends
and family, who made life meaningful and fun. Thanks and cheers to all professors,
students, and staff of the USC Geography Department who provided an excellent work
environment, support, inspiration, and friendship. Particular thanks to Dr. Melissa
Gilbert, Unna Lassiter, Dr. Curt Roseman, Steve Sidawi, and Robert Wilton, for help
and advice on thesis issues. Thanks to the members of my thesis committee, Dr.
Laura Pulido and Dr. Jennifer Wolch, for their support and insight. Finally, a
particular thank you to my thesis committee chair and advisor Dr. Michael Dear, for
help, advice, and patience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents;
iv
Dedication ii
Acknowledgement in
List of Tables, Figures, and Maps vii
Ch. 1 Siting Human Service Facilities: An Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose and Significance 1
1.2 Contents of this Research 4
Ch. 2 Opposition to and Strategies for the Siting
of Human Service Facilities 6
2.1 Cutting A Path Through the Jungle 6
2.2 Geographical Approaches to the Study of Siting 8
2.3 The Context of Siting 10
NIMBY Conditions 10
NIMBY Behaviors 18
2.4 Siting Strategies and Recommendations 22
Government Based Strategies 22
Community Based Strategies 25
2.5 Methodological Implications for Case Study Research 30
2.6 Summary 34
Ch. 3 Dimensions in Siting: A Framework for Analysis 36
3.1 Overview 36
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Approaching the Locational Conflict 37
Key Factors and Dimensions in the Locational Conflict 37
Conditions 40
Processes 42
3.3 Research Agenda 44
Discovering Dimensions: Analysis of 31 National Case Studies 44
Application, Test, and Expansion: Analysis of Two Case Studies 47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Ch. 4 Dimensions in Siting: Analysis of 31 National Case Studies 51
4.1 Introduction 51
4.2 Case Study Experience Narrated 54
Homeless Services 54
Substance Abuse 78
Mental Health Services 81
HIV/AIDS 85
Youth Services 87
Public Housing 91
Correctional Facilities 94
Women and Children 102
Public Services 104
4.3 Case Study Experience Systematized 106
Facility Context 107
Community Context 109
Government Context 113
NIMBY in the Siting Process 116
Siting Strategies 121
NIMBY and Siting Strategies over Time: Mere Reaction? 128
Ch. 5: Siting Homeless Facilities in Los Angeles: Two Case Studies 130
5.1 Genesis I: Unconventional Ideas for a Complex Problem 131
Conditions: Innovation in a Stagnating Environment 131
The Siting Process I: Approaching the Community Correctly 139
The Siting Process II: Building on Long-Term Relations 145
Summary 150
5.3 La Posada: Serving the Underserved 151
Conditions: Serving the Unde(r)served 152
Siting Process I: Get In Quietly and Co-exist 161
Siting Process II: Site Improvement Denied 162
Siting Process HI: Looking for a Future Site 168
Summary 169
5.4 Lessons From the Two Case Studies 171
Extending the Conditions: Design, Support, and Bureaucracy 171
Rethinking the Siting Process: From Preparation to Occupation 177
5.5 Dimensions of the Locational Conflict: A Final Assessment 181
Key Factors and Dimensions in Siting: A Final List 184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Ch. 6 Conclusion 189
6.1 Summary of Findings 189
6.2 An Agenda for Planning: Normative Implications 193
6.3 Evaluation and Future Research 201
Bibliography 206
1. General Bibliography 206
2. Case Study Bibliography 215
Appendix 219
1. Local Case Study Interviews 219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
List of Tables:
Table 2.1: Profiles of Accepting and Rejecting Communities 15
Table 2.2: NIMBY-Arguments 19
Table 2.3: NIMBY Tools 20
Table 2.4: Siting Strategies 23
Table 2.5: Variables and Dimensions in Siting According To Seley 33
Table 3.1: Service and Client Types 44
Table 4.1: Pre-Determined Dimensions 52
Table 4.2: Facility Context 108
Table 4.3: Community Context 110
Table 4.4: Government Context 114
Table 4.5: NIMBY in the Siting Process 118
Table 4.6: Siting Strategies 123
Table 5.1: Dimensions and Elements of Community Characteristics 137
Table 5.2: Genesis I: Siting Strategies, NIMBY, and Tasks 139
List of Figures:
Figure 3.1: Key-Factors in the Locational Conflict 38
Figure 4.1: Opponents vs. Supporters 112
Figure 4.2: NIMBY and Strategies in the Siting Process 128
Figure 5.1: Floorplan Genesis I 132
Figure 5.2: Floorplan La Posada 155
Figure 5.3: Conditions of and Processes in the Locational Conflict 182
List of Maps:
Map 5.1: Genesis I’s Neighborhood and Land Use 136
Map 5.2: La Posada’s Neighborhood and Land Use 157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ch. 1: Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Significance
i
Locating facilities for homeless people is a complex problem, which all too often
results in intense conflicts between communities and facility operators. Community
opposition is often characterized by "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" (NIMBY) sentiments
geared toward preventing an unwanted land use in "their" neighborhood. Facility
operators, in turn, address NIMBY-opposition with siting strategies in order to educate
a community about a facility, and, if possible overcome opposition. This study
analyzes the dimensions involved in conflicts over siting service facilities for homeless
people. The term ’dimension’ is used to mean structural features that commonly
occur in siting conflicts. By examining the complex relationship between community
opposition and strategies to counter or prevent opposition, this research will contribute
to strategies for minimizing locational conflicts which often prevent service delivery
to homeless people.
In order to understand the relationship between opposition and siting strategies,
one must examine the factors that cause community opposition.- A variety of factors
contribute to locational conflicts including, for example, particular community settings,
characteristics and interests of a variety of actors, local land use regulations, the
political context, the role of the media, and local experience with similar facilities.
The dynamic interaction of these and other factors make every siting situation unique.
Consequently, there is no way to make reliable predictions about oppositional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behavior, or universal recommendations regarding strategies to site successfully. In
other words, what works in one place today may not work in another tomorrow. Yet
it is possible to gain insights from specific locational conflicts that will suggest
potential siting strategies to be used in other locational conflicts.
It is important to understand how siting strategies can be successful because
as homelessness increases, so does the demand for homeless services. Economic
restructuring, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the retreat from social
responsibility have had a devastating impact on the poor. The resulting increase in
homeless people suggests that homeless facilities will continue to be necessary and
that locational conflicts around the siting of these facilities will remain a significant
problem.
The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive and flexible
framework for understanding the relationship between community opposition and
facility/operator strategies in the siting process in order to minimize locational
conflicts over homeless facilities. To accomplish this goal the research has five
objectives. The first objective is to develop an innovative case study methodology to
analyze the siting process. The second objective is to ascertain the important
dimensions of locational conflicts and how they interact in specific stages of the siting
process. The third objective is to devise a conceptual framework for analyzing the
interactions of these dimensions over the course of the siting conflict. The fourth
objective is to test the utility of this framework by using it to analyze specific case
studies. The final objective is to illustrate how this framework can be used as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
normative guide for service providers to understand locational conflict and to plan
their strategic approach to a community accordingly.
The research objectives will be realized in three steps. Based on existing
studies, I first develop a conceptual and operational framework for understanding the
dimensions that occur in the locational conflict. This framework will serve as a
flexible, preliminary heuristic, which will be refined and complemented in the
subsequent analytical steps. Next, I narrate, and then analyze the siting experience of
31 case studies from across the nation. The main goal of this portion of my research
is to discover and systematize the dimensions involved in siting homeless service
facilities, and to gain insights about the nature of the locational conflict. I have
deliberately chosen a broad sample of cases, given that homeless people utilize a
variety of human services due to the complex nature of homelessness. This portion
of my research is based primarily on the content analysis of newspaper articles.
F inally , with an in-depth analysis of two case studies on homeless services in Los
Angeles, I apply the previously identified dimensions, and thereby test whether and
how they occur. I also address dimensions that were insufficiently discussed in the
national set of case studies. Information on the two case studies was obtained through
interviews with the corresponding service providers, and through participant
observation, on-site visits, and interpretation of census data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1.2 Contents of this Research
4
In chapter 2, I review existing literature on the locational conflict. First, I briefly
outline geographical approaches to the study of facility siting. Second, I discuss two
principal contextual factors for understanding locational conflicts, namely NIMBY-
conditions and NIMBY-behaviors. To assess NIMBY conditions, I focus on the
nature of NIMBY controversies, the role of different actors and their attitudes, and
governmental interventions, such as zoning regulations and legal provisions. The
discussion of NIMBY-behaviors focuses more specifically on the arguments and tools
utilized in siting conflicts. Third, I introduce normative recommendations for siting
strategies, distinguishing between government-based and community-based strategies.
Fourth, I discuss previous findings on the use of dimensions in the analysis of case
study experience. I conclude with a summary of the most important research
questions that surfaced in the discussion of the literature.
In chapter 3 ,1 first devise a preliminary theoretical and operational framework
for this research, drawing on existing studies and concepts. I offer a primary,
temporary heuristic to systematize dimensions. This framework will be repeatedly
revised over the course of this research. In the second section, I discuss in more
detail the analytical method, the research instruments, and the data I used for this
research.
In chapter 4 , 1 narrate the experience of 31 national case studies, discussing
each siting situation in its own context. I then present the results of a comparative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
analysis of these case studies. With the help of the theoretical framework devised in
chapter three, I extract and systematize the dimensions that surfaced in the individual
siting stories. The result is a preliminary list of siting dimensions. I conclude with
a brief discussion of the relationship between community opposition and siting
strategies.
In chapter 5 ,1 reconstruct the siting experience of two case studies in more
detail. The first case study is Genesis I, a transitional housing facility for homeless
people, located in downtown Los Angeles. La Posada, the second case study, is a
group home for homeless undocumented Latino immigrant youth and is located in
East Los Angeles. For each case study, I describe the local conditions and their
implications for NIMBY behavior. I then systematically reconstruct the siting
processes. I do so by applying the preliminary framework to assess the utility of those
dimensions identified in chapter 4 for understanding the siting histories. Finally, I
interpret the results of both cases, and expand the initial framework. The result
should be a final refined list of dimensions in siting homeless facilities.
In chapter 6 ,1 conclude by summarizing the most important findings of this
research. I also offer a more explicit discussion of the potential utility of this research
for service providers engaged in the siting process. I present an normative agenda for
understanding the dimensions in siting, for anticipating opposition, and for planning
accordingly. I conclude this research by evaluating this research in terms of contents
and methodology, and outline questions for future research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ch. 2: Opposition to and Strategies for the Siting
of Human Service Facilities
2.1 Cutting a Path Through the Jungle
There has been a significant amount of research in many disciplines on the complex
nature of siting human services. This literature was written from a variety of
theoretical/ disciplinary perspectives, including urban studies, law, sociology,
medicine, architecture, and geography. Given this diversity of disciplines and
approaches, it is not surprising that hardly any comprehensive studies are available
that specifically attempt to provide an overview of dimensions involved in siting.
This can be also attributed to the fact that:
. . . the nature of the locational conflict and the appropriate strategy for its
resolution might be as varied as the types of facilities that are trying to be
located. If we add the variety of neighborhoods in which these facilities are
proposed, we see the potential range of aggregate situations.
(Poster, 1992: 5)
These problems have caused me to consider the following. First, in order to give a
broader account of the dimensions involved in locational conflicts, I have expanded
the discussion to include a range of human service facilities in addition to those for
homeless people. Second, I have structured this review of relevant literature in a
relatively broad fashion in order to situate the various aspects as comprehensive as
possible. An examination of nine detailed studies (Strickney, 1977; Axleroad and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Toff, 1987; Homebase, 1989; Norman and Stem, 1989; Armour, 1991; Dear 1991a;
Beggs, 1993; Davis, 1995; Dear and Wilton, 1995a) suggest the existence of two key
factors in the siting conflict. They explore the issues of locational conflict and
community opposition, as well as siting strategies to overcome them. Hogan (1986a)
sum m arizes these two dimensions as "context" and "strategies." To understand the
context, Seley (1983) provides a further distinction. He suggests the existence of two
general factors, namely "conditions" and "behaviors."
Before discussing the conditions, I first introduce the geographic literature on
locational conflict and siting human service facilities (section 2.2). In section 2.3,1
discuss the conditions of siting, such as the nature of NIMBYism, the role of actors
in the siting process, and present findings on attitudes and patterns of acceptance and
rejection. To conclude the section about conditions, I detail findings on land use
regulations and the role of the government in the siting process. For assessing
behaviors, I focus on what actors in NIMBY opposition actually said to voice their
rejection of facilities (NIMBY arguments), and on what they ended up doing to
achieve their goals (NIMBY tools). In the proceeding section 2.4,1 present normative
strategies for siting human services. I differentiate between government based and
community based strategies. In section 2.5, I discuss the methodological
considerations for case study research. I particularly draw on Seley’s work, who
introduced a dimensions methodology for siting public service facilities (Seley, 1983).
I conclude this chapter with a critical summary of the most important research
questions that surfaced in this review.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.2 Geographical Approaches to the Study of Siting
Geographers have made important contributions to our understanding of the processes
involved in locational conflicts and the siting of human services. Research on
locational conflict has been conducted in political geography and urban studies (Dear,
1976, 1991; Cox and Johnston, 1982; Stoddart, 1983; Lake 1994). For example,
research has documented the spatial consequences of the deinstitutionalization
movement for mentally disabled people, which has led to an increasing service
concentration in impoverished inner-city areas, and an intensification of demand on
community based facilities (Dear and Wolch, 1987; Smith, 1989; Wolch, 1990). The
actual distribution of services and corresponding considerations of service
concentration and dispersion have attracted the attention of urban geographers and
urban and regional planners (Wolpert, 1975,1984; Kim and Wolch, 1989; Lake, 1992,
1994; Dear, Wolch, and Wilton, 1994). The research has demonstrated that
proximity and distance (Smith, 1976 & 1981; Dear 1991a), and spatial modeling
a
(Poster, 1992) are important geographic concepts that are useful for understanding the
siting process. Land use regulation and exclusionary land use practices have also
generated interest among geographers (Dear and Laws, 1986; Dear, 1991a). They
bring together urban-planning aspects such as land use planning and service
distribution with social geographic considerations, such as achieving social justice over
space via equitable service distribution (Dear and Laws, 1986; Wolch, 1987). These
considerations are intertwined with legal-administrative issues that have alerted legal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experts and advocates to think about reforms in current land use practices. Another
component of social geography deals with siting as a spatial behavior. Geographers
have studied community attitudes and their spatial implications such as differences in
attitudes over space in the context of demographic, socio-economic, and political
factors (Dear and Taylor, 1982; Dear and Gleeson, 1989; Lake, 1994; Takahashi,
1994; Dear et al., 1995a,b; Gleeson et al., 1995). This research has greatly
contributed to our understanding of the NIMBY-phenomena, by showing how NIMBY
opposition works over space and time. Geographic research is also an important
source of relevant empirical information that can be used in analyzing and
understanding the various components of siting.
While the geographical aspects of siting are crucial to understanding the
complex nature of siting, the analysis cannot focus entirely on explicitly spatial
dimensions. The multidimensionality of the locational conflict can only be understood
by examining non-spatial factors as well, such as, for example, legal provisions, public
policies, mass cultural influences, or community relations. Geographers have
successfully demonstrated that a comprehensive analysis is possible. Michael Dear’s
1991 study "Gaining Community Acceptance," although geared toward normative
recommendations for siting successfully, demonstrates the possibility of a
comprehensive analysis of siting. This study has been revised and in part extended
in Dear and Wilton’s (1995a) handbook, "Community Relations: A Resource Guide."
In sum, geographers have contributed greatly to an understanding of the
locational conflict. Moreover, geography as a discipline offers a broad,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
multidisciplinary framework that seems particularly appropriate for providing a
comprehensive investigation of the various dimensions in siting. However, it appears
that no comprehensive explanatory framework has been devised in geography that (i)
analyses dimensions in a cognitive way, and (ii) focusses on homeless service facilities
specifically. Having introduced the geographic literature, I shall now review in more
detail the substantial contributions of previous research on siting, drawing on literature
form a variety of disciplines, but also revisit some of the themes I have only briefly
sketched in this section.
2.3 The Context of Siting
NIMBY-Conditions
Many comprehensive studies on homelessness are available that introduce the
various facets of this complex problem (Dear and Wolch, 1993; Burt and Cohen,
1989; Momeni, 1990; Wolch and Dear, 1993; Timmer et al., 1994; Hombs, 1994).
The tenor of all these findings is that the number of homeless has significantly risen
and the homeless population has become more diverse in terms of their ethnic and
gender composition. Homeless people are furthermore disproportionately affected by
a multitude of problems such as substance abuse, mental illness (often dually
diagnosed), poor physical health (particularly HTV/AIDS), crime, and, of course, the
lack of affordable housing. Moreover, an increasing number of municipalities have
enacted ordinances that outlaw many homeless activities (panhandling, sleeping in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
public, the use of a blanket, etc.) and significantly reduce the spatial radius of
homeless people (National Law Center, 1994). In addition to these problems, the
often negative public perception of, and attitudes toward homelessness, only increase
the animosity toward homeless people and facilities that serve them, resulting in
NTMBYism.
What is NIMBY?
In plain language, NIMBY-sentiments are "the motivation of residents who want to
protect their community tu rf (Dear, 1991a: 8). They demonstrate the "persistent
paradox between individual freedom and public responsibility" (Hoch, 1994: 8). For
some, NIMBY can be interpreted as the individual’s constitutionally guaranteed right
to express an opinion and to resist a development. Morris (1994) praises NIMBY as
an expression of local political activism and introduces us to all facets of a campaign
to resist a locally unwanted land use, or LULU. The question, however, is where can
we draw the line between NIMBY as a legitimate response to an unwanted, even
hazardous land use (e.g., incinerator, landfill, etc.), and NIMBY as a presumably
illegitimate and ill-founded response to a seemingly necessary and harmless human
service facility? Gaber identified two types of controversial facilities that generate
NIMBY, (i) environmental or by-product facilities (e.g incinerators, land fills), and
(ii) human service facilities (e.g. homeless shelters, drug treatment centers). This
suggests two different types of NIMBY, the first responding to the fear of the facility
and its environmental impact, and the second responding to the fear of the clients that
these facilities serve (Gaber, 1995). Accordingly, Gerrard (1994) suggests a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
differentiation between environmental NIMBY that may be viewed positively since
it deals with potentially negative impacts on society, and social NIMBY that can be
regarded as having a negative impact on society, as it prevents necessary service
delivery, and is primarily based on prejudice, misinformation, and stigma (see also
Gleeson and Memon, 1994; Mann, 1992). My intention in the present study is to
focus on this latter aspect of NIMBY, which Gleeson et al. (1995) state, can be a
serious obstacle to the equitable provision of human services:
Social justice for service dependent people means the achievement of
equity of access to housing, recreation, and employment ... NIMBY
opposition to human service facilities represents a potentially unjust threat
to the exercise of this right. (Gleeson et al., 1995:7)
Having described what NIMBY is, I next take up the question who displays NIMBY
sentiments, and what their motivations for NIMBY are. Specifically, I discuss
NIMBY actors and NIMBY attitudes, which are important prerequisites for NIMBY
behavior.
Actors and Altitudes in NIMBY Opposition
In a survey by Lubin et al. (1983) of 331 state certified residences for mentally
disabled people, 40 percent of facilities surveyed identified neighbors as the
predominant source of opposition, followed by local politicians (6.6%), community
associations (6.6%) and the community-at-large (5.3%). Interestingly, Lubin’s study
shows no opposition by local businesses. In contrast, a study on opposition to
homeless services indicates that business owners were particularly and vehemently
opposed to siting (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1987). One important
psychological prerequisite for understanding and predicting oppositional behavior is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the factor of attitudes and acceptability. Analyses of hierarchies of acceptance give
us an opportunity to investigate changes in attitudes toward specific human service
types, clients, and the facilities serving them. Dear et al. (1995c) reviewed 44 studies
on acceptance and hierarchies over the past 25 years. Studies focussing on the
acceptance of human service clients (Tringo, 1970; Abroms and Kodera, 1979; Austin,
1985; Westbrook et al., 1993) indicate significant levels of stability of attitudes over
time. Not surprisingly, people with psychogenic conditions (mental illness, psychiatric
disorders, substance abuse) can be found at the bottom of the hierarchies in terms of
acceptability. Similarly, people with HIV/AIDS, a fairly recent medical condition
associated with an often negative, stigmatized public perception, can also be found on
the low end of acceptability. Compared to people with these conditions, the public
perception of homeless people is rather mixed (Westbrook et al., 1993).
Hierarchies of acceptability regarding service facilities reveal that group homes
for people with HTV/AIDS again form the least acceptable type (Takahashi, 1992;
Daniel Yankelovich Group, 1990). Services for homeless people can be found in the
medium range of acceptability (Takahashi, 1992; Dear, 1991a; Daniel Yankelovich
Group, 1990). However, in contrast to these findings on acceptability of homeless
services among the general public, Gaber’s (1995) survey among planning directors
of the 67 largest cities in the country found out that homeless shelters are the most
controversial facilities to site within a sample of 26 facility types. The siting of
homeless shelters (17.8%) and drug treatment facilities (13.1%) were the most
problematic; more so than the siting of incinerators and waste treatment centers, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
far more than a prison/jail (Gaber, 1995: 6). Based on a survey of 1326 interviews
from across the United States on the spatial variations of acceptance and rejection,
Dear and Wilton (1995b) distinguish between five variables:
(i) "Regional variations" deal with aspects of social restrictiveness,
(intolerance, and liberal support across the nation. These findings suggest
western and northeastern regions are comparably more tolerant than
southern and midwestem regions;
(ii) "City and neighborhood variations" indicate that metropolitan areas are
less accepting than non-metropolitan areas and suburbs are less tolerant
than non-suburban areas (particularly mixed and inner-city neighborhoods);
(iii) "Neighborhood stake" refers to the resident’s stake in a neighborhood
and their protective attitude. Consequently more mobile, younger people
tend to be more accepting than older people with tenure;
(iv)"Racial/ethnic variations" show that African American and Hispanic
respondents tend to be more accepting than White people;
(v) "Information and the role of leadership endorsement" describes the
importance of sources of information, who is providing and endorsing it,
and how credible this information might be.
Particularly important for my study are the geographic dimensions of attitudes. These
locational variations are related to socio-spatial characteristics (e.g., diverse
neighborhoods are less rejecting than homogeneous ones) and to aspects of
geographical proximity. Proximity is a major contributing factor to rejection,
opposition and NIMBY (Dear et al., 1995c).
Attitudes toward a facility and its clients may indicate potential opposition, but
actual active opposition is usually confined to a small, but vocal minority in proximity
to a proposed location. The closer a facility is to potential opponents, the more likely
is opposition, and the greater the distance, opposition and awareness of a facility
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
decrease (Dear and Taylor, 1982; Dear, 1991a; Dear and Wilton, 1995a: 39).
Approximately 2-4 blocks away from the site one may find the "silentmajority" which
may even be supportive
of a proposed facility
(Dear et al., 1995a).
Summarizing the findings
of 11 previous studies,
Dear et al. (1995a) have
developed a simplified
model for profiles of
accepting/ rejecting
communities (see table
2.1). However, Dear and
Wilton acknowledge that
the locational conflict
cannot be reduced to "a
series of accepting/
rejecting variables.
Rather, the dimensions here serve as a starting point to indicate potential reactions to
facility siting" (1995b: 20). They are important psychological prerequisites for
potential opposition and support. A final condition that remains to be discussed is the
role the government plays in the locational conflict.
Table 2.1: Profiles of Accepting/
Rejecting Communities
Accepting
Young
Female
Low Income
Educated
Politically Liberal
Black
Working Class
Renter
Small City/Non-Metro
Non-Suburban/Inner City
New Resident
Rejecting
Old
Male
High Income
Conservative
White
Homeowner
Metropolitan
Suburban
Long-term Resident
Single Detached Homes
Previous Contact w. Client Group
Public Housing
Low Belief in Just World
Northeast/West U.S. Northcentral/South U.S.
Source: Dear et al., 1995:14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Land Use Regulations an Other Governmental Interferences
Facilities and accepting or rejecting communities are not the only parties involved in
siting conflicts. In addition, the state often plays an important role in locational
conflicts. For instance, a variety of planning regulations are important in the siting
process within a particular jurisdiction of a local government. They set precise
guidelines and standards for location, density, scale, design, quality, and use. Such
regulations include zoning ordinances, housing codes, building and safety codes, and
environmental ordinances (Hoch, 1994: 149). They include categories of "permitted
use", and "conditional-" or "special use" (Axleroad and Toff, 1987). Zoning
ordinances are particularly important as they are a prominent oppositional tool to
block a facility from moving into a neighborhood or even remove it, which clearly is
a form of "land use discrimination" (Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Beggs, 1993).
Therefore, the only legally viable solution for siting homeless services specifically, but
also human service facilities more generally, is finding "risk-free-locations" in
heterogeneous, inner-city neighborhoods. This leads to an increasing concentration
of services, also referred to as facility ghettoization (Dear, 1991a).
The issue here is power and equitable distribution-more powerful,
homogeneous, organized, and financially influential communities have more of the
political clout necessary to resist an unwanted land use, whereas already deprived and
powerless communities in the inner cities lack the organizational, financial, and
political means to stop almost any development. This situation has compelled human
service advocates and activists to organize against what is in effect a form of social
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
discrimination via land use restriction, taking up a civil rights struggle for the
autonomy of service providers to locate in any neighborhood (Dear, 1991a).
During the 1980s, this struggle and the associated lawsuits have begun to show
results. First, various state legislatures began to override exclusionary practices,
introducing pre-emptive zoning legislation (Yeager, 1983; Dear and Laws, 1986;
Vandagriff, 1986; Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Steinmann, 1987; and Mental Health Law
Project, 1989b). Second, there have been attempts to introduce siting "as-of-right"
which would enable human services to locate without any zoning considerations (Dear
and Laws, 1986; Axleroad and Toff, 1987). Third, in 1989 the federal "FairHousing
Amendment Act" (FHAA) was enacted (Mental Health Law Project, 1989b; Milstein
et al., 1989; and Beggs, 1993). Extending the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the FHAA
protects developmentally, physically, and mentally disabled people, recovering
substance abusers, and people with HTV/AIDS and other diseases from housing
discrimination (see also Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1989).
Another legal device for protecting the civil rights of disabled people was the
"Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA) enacted in 1990 (see Dear, 1991a).
Although the federal laws did not stop discriminatory land use practices and
exclusionary zoning, it gave facilitators more leverage in achieving their goals.
Moreover, a recent Supreme Court decision supported the protective character of the
FHAA so that local ordinances cannot bar group homes from locating in a residential
neighborhood (Savage, 1995). Since enactment, the FHAA has already been
successfully used in many instances (Beggs, 1993). However, as the FHAA and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
ADA protects only certain groups, it can be expected that zoning will continue to play
a significant role as a barrier for siting many other types of service facilities, including
facilities for the homeless. Thus, attempts to disperse homeless facilities have
reportedly met with fierce resistance from particularly residential communities.
NIMBY-Behaviors
After having introduced the conditions of the locational conflict, I shall now
discuss how NIMBY-attitudes are put into practice. Therefore I focus on two
particular aspects, first NIMBY-arguments (i.e. what actors object to), and then
NIMBY-tools (i.e. what actors actually did to block a facility from being sited).
NIMBY-behavior has been discussed in the context of time, indicating that opposition
is most intense during the initial phases of "youthful anger" and then gradually
declines through phases of "mature debate," and "old age" (Dear et al., 1995b).
NIMBY Arguments
What are the typical arguments used by opponents to block or remove an unwanted
facility? Dear et al. (1995b: 6) summarize the findings of 13 studies that indicate
oppositional arguments. Although these findings dealing with a variety of different
service and client types, there is a strong consensus about why facilities are opposed
(see table 2.2.). The most frequently used oppositional argument is that a "noxious"
facility might result in a decrease in property values (Strickney 1977; Lubin et al.,
1982; Anello and Shuster, 1985; Homebase, 1989; Mental Health Law Project, 1989a;
Dear, 1991a; Beggs, 1993). Arguments used frequently included a concern with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
undesirable nature of clients, who were often thought to be responsible for increased
crime, vandalism, and a general decline in the neighborhood quality and character
(Strickney, 1977;
Sigelman et al., 1979;
Lubin et al., 1982;
Mental Health Law
Project, 1989a; Norman
and Stem, 1989; Beggs,
1993). This concern is
particularly directed
toward facilities serving
hom eless people
(National Coalition for
the Homeless, 1987;
Table 2.2: NIMBY Arguments
1. Declining property values 11. Loss of business
2. Threat to safety 12. Agency not competent
3. Saturation 13. Increased loitering
4. Crime 14. Pressure on parking
5. Altered neighborhood 15. Vandalism
characteristics 16. Public urination
6. Negative contact with clients 17. Increased trash
7. Brings in undesirable 18. Facility as eyesore
8. Threat to local children 19. Fear about clients
9. Increased traffic/noise 20. Unsuitable location for
10. Lack of supervision clients (caring face NIMBY)
Source: Dear et al., 1995a: 6
Homebase, 1989). Anticipated negative side effects of facility siting and its operations,
particularly if the facility is large, were also mentioned (Lubin et al., 1982; Homebase,
1989; Beggs, 1993). Many opponents, however, also display so called "NIMBY-with-
a-caring-face" attitudes, purporting to be acting in the client’s best interest, as with
arguments about the unsuitability of locations for clients (Dear 1991a, Sundeen and
Fiske 1982).
However, many smdies point out that some of these concerns are unfounded.
Arguments about the impact of facility siting on declining property values, increased
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
crime and traffic can be described as myths (Sigelman et al., 1979; Anello and
Shuster, 1985; Mental Health Law Project, 1989a; Lauber, 1990; Beggs, 1993;
Manifold and Skelton, 1994; Dear and Wilton, 1995a).
NIMBY Tools
Like oppositional arguments, oppositional tools are almost always the same. Dear et
al. (1995b: 7) have summarized the oppositional tools mentioned in 16 studies on
siting and oppositional behavior (see table 2.3). The use of zoning regulations is,
according to most
studies, the most
common oppositional
tool, featuring a
formal oppositional
device. As discussed
earlier, it has been
used to prevent siting
in residential areas,
particularly with
respect to single
family zoning (Bergin, 1987; Cupaiolo, 1987; Baron Poliak, 1994). Other forms of
formal opposition are legal actions, court appeals, delays in the permit process, or the
use of political pressure (Strickney, 1977; Weber, 1978; Sundeen and Fiske, 1982;
Homebase, 1989; and Mental Health Law Project, 1989a). Informal oppositional tools
Table 2.3: NIMBY Tools
1. Restrictive zoning/covenants
2. Building codes
3. Housing discrimination
4. Public demonstrations
5. Vocal opposition
6. Petitions
7. Neighborhood associations
8. Newsletters/fliers
9. Informal alliances
10. Political champions
resistance/political pressure
11. Lawsuits
12. Public hearings
13. Distance restrictions
14. Procedural permit delays
15. Dissuasion of land owner
16. Physical threats
17. Harassment
18. Violence
19. Arson
Dear et al., 1995a: 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
such as community organizing, vocal protesting and demonstrations, flyer circulation,
petition signing, as well as extreme forms of opposition (inflammatory rhetoric, even
violence and arson) have been reported (Strickney, 1977; Sigelman et al., 1979;
Weber, 1978; Sundeen and Fiske, 1982; National Coalition for the Homeless, 1987;
Homebase, 1989; Knox, 1994). Knox (1994) noticed a rapid growth of powerful and
autonomous community or neighborhood associations which he links to the increasing
retreat of local government functions. In effect, however, the new "private"
governments put little emphasis on broader issues of social justice and democracy.
In sum, Dear and Wilton (1995a) have suggested four factors that determine
a host community’s response: client characteristics (including demographic profile and
type of disability); the nature of the human service facility (including physical
condition, appearance, and operating procedures); the structure of the host community
(including socio-economic and physical characteristics); and programmatic
considerations (including political/ administrative factors, such as zoning ordinances
and the service distribution in the neighborhood).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
2.4 Siting Strategies and Recommendations
In a comprehensive discussion of strategies for siting homeless services, the Homebase
report (1989) offers a general differentiation between two siting approaches,
"government based strategies" and "community based strategies." The purpose of this
differentiation is to show that:
. . . through joint efforts between government and the community we can
address the problem of NIMBY in a manner which considers the need of
all segments of society. Together we can change "not-in-my-back-yard" to
"neighbors-in-my-back-yard." (Homebase, 1989: 2)
In order to offer a general overview of the magnitude of strategies available, Dear et
al. (1995b) have extended Homebase’s original framework and have incorporated 31
additional studies on siting strategies. This comprehensive typology is based on a
variety of studies ranging from rather general approaches to siting to more specific
strategies formulated for particular service and client types (see table 2.4).
c
Government Based Strategies
The use of "regulatory state legislation" to override exclusionary local
practices, attempts to achieve siting "as-of-right,"the enactment of protective federal
legislation (FHAA, ADA), and the formulation of "fair-share" regulations are all
increasingly important formal tools for providers to combat exclusionary local land
use regulations. Important government-based strategies can also be associated with
the utilization of enabling or legitimizing federal legislation. Homeless service
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
providers have a chance to utilize vacated military bases through the federal "Stuart
B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act" (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1987).
Table 2.4: Siting Strategies
Government/ Legal Based
1. Challenge local zoning ordinances 21. Be prepared to offer incentives
2. Create development policy 22. Attach program to existing facility
3. Override to zoning ordinances 23. Use local media
4. Establish regional mediation process 24. Know all laws, codes, etc.
5. Increase neighborhood-based planning 25. Understand structure of local politics
6. Lobby decision makers 26. Present good agency image
7. Create regional advisory group 27. Involve clients (where possible)
8. Use existing anti-exclusionary legislation 28. Be prepared to use legal action
(local and national) 29. Initiate/maintain resident-neighbor
9. Work toward ’fair-share’ siting policy contact
30. Increase useful presence of clients
Community-based 31. Continue Dialogue with community
10. Develop well-informed site selection procedure in post-entry phase
11. Decide on merit of high/moderate/low profile 32. Anticipate/respond to problems
12. Conduct information/outreach campaigns 33. Expect resistance
13. Gain support of community leaders
14. Use past success to provide assurance
15. Hold ’open house’ meetings
16. Hold public forums prior to any formal hearing
17. Dispel myths/ allay fears
18. Involve community
19. Establish Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC)
20. Be prepared to compromise
Dear et al, 1995b: 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
This option will become increasingly important considering the many planned military
base closures over the next few years. The federal "Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act" appears to be a promising source for funding and initiating needed services for
homeless youth.
In contrast to the protective and enabling use of official regulations, we also
observed more aggressive applications of the law by service providers. An offensive
application would be the use of legal tools to disencourage opposition and to counter
unfairly perceived oppositional tactics. Such a practice is termed "Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation," or SLAPP (Enos, 1991), which have been
predominantly used by real estate developers, but also recently by human service
providers. SLAPPs pose a difficult challenge to the legal system, as they become
embroiled in the collision of the rights of individuals, as expressed in the first
amendment to the U.S. constitution, and the rights of developers. SLAPP suits,
however, are a highly questionable tactic, since on average about 90 percent of
SLAPPs are dismissed. Moreover, they cost approximately $9 million in damages,
and take about three years to resolve. Hence, they often result in SLAPP-backs,
which are a legal tool through which accused individuals fight back and most often
win the lawsuit. In any event, SLAPPs only increase opposition (Enos, 1991). Legal
and government-based strategies, however, can be utilized by both providers and
opponents. Thus, the Homebase-report points out that "while lawsuits can force
government action, they can not force community acceptance" (Homebase, 1989:35).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Community Based Strategies
Dear et al. (1995b) divide community based strategies according to the time
in the siting process when they are predominantly utilized. The authors distinguish
between three sequential phases in the siting process:
1. The "pre-entry-phase" includes decision making, site selection, and
planning until official public announcement, and determining the strategic
approach to the community is determined as well;
2. The "entry-phase" describes the period of actual establishment/
construction of the facility until opening day;
3. The "post-entry-phase" characterizes the time after facility opening.
I proceed with this framework, as few other studies differentiate siting strategies and
approaches according to their temporal occurrence (Anello and Shuster, 1985;
Normann and Stem, 1989). Those studies that consider temporal aspects usually did
not investigate potential opposition in the context of siting strategies.
Pre-Entry Phase
The predominant task in the pre-entry phase is site selection. The most important
aspect of this task is to become familiar with the local conditions. Knowing and
understanding the local political and administrative processes are crucial (Strickney,
1977; Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Dear, 1991a; Davis 1995), especially regarding local
zoning ordinances, and building and safety requirements (Strickney, 1977; Anello and
Shuster, 1985; Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Dear, 1991a; Vannemann, 1995). A
community assessment, including demographic and economic prerequisites, and
existing service distributions is also suggested (Strickney, 1977; Normann and Stem,
1989). Other authors point out the necessity to be aware of spatial patterns of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
attitudes in a prospective host community (Armour, 1991; Dear, 1991; Davis, 1995).
Finally, service providers should always be aware of possible alternatives (Strickney,
1977; Normann and Stem, 1989). Having an "Agency Information Packet" ready in
case of unexpected opposition has also been recommended (Normann and Stem, 1989;
Rizzo et al., 1992). The consistent message of all these findings is "preparedness"
(Dear, 1991).
Entry-Phase
The most important task during the entry-phase is to determine to what degree and
when the community will be involved in the siting process. Poster calls this the
"timing-dileimna" in siting (Poster, 1992:7). Many studies differentiate between low-
profile, medium/moderate-profile, and high profile approaches (Coates and Miller,
1973; Strickney, 1977; Weber, 1978; Sundeen and Fiske, 1982; Anello and Shuster,
1985; Budson, 1988). Anello and Shuster (1985) recommend a high-profile approach
(acknowledging the presence of all actors in the siting process, including opponents)
if there is some level of support, the agency is local, and if resources are available.
A low-profile approach (get-in-quietly) may be suitable if there are pre-existing social
and political tensions, the community is heterogeneous and mobile, the agency is not
local, or if there is insufficient time, staff, and money to maintain a high level
campaign. Vannemann (1995) also recommends a low-profile approach for small
scale projects, such as group homes, in order to avoid unnecessary alarm. However,
the researchers point out that these categories may easily be transformed, if
circumstances change (i.e. a low-profile approach may be changed into high-profile,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
if opposition is unexpectedly intense). In practice, however, Manifold and Skelton
(1994) have found in a survey of social service providers that only a third of the
sample carried out public relation strategies continuously. After deciding on the
overall approach, the service provider in question may choose from a vast variety of
strategies. For medium and high-profile approaches, Dear et al. (1995b) further
differentiate between three, often interrelated and overlapping strategic categories: (i)
education; (ii) persuasion; and (iii) involvement and input.
The purpose of educational strategies are to "overcome community resistance
by understanding the causes and interpreting and clarifying the issues through public
education efforts" (Strickney, 1977: 42). This task can be fulfilled by distributing
information packages, the proper use of media, and the distribution of fliers and other
info-material (Strickney, 1977; Armour, 1991). Small scale information meetings with
adjacent neighbors and community leaders as well as larger educational forums are
also promising strategies to inform the local neighborhood (Strickney, 1977; Lubin et
al., 1982; Homebase, 1989; Dear, 1991a; Rizzo et al., 1992). Other authors stress the
importance of outreach campaigns, which partly overlap with pre-entry strategies
(Balukas and Baken, 1985; Homebase, 1989).
The second set of community based strategies are those geared toward
persuading the local community of the rightfulness, and legitimacy of a project
entering the neighborhood. A first persuading strategy, if applicable, would be
reference to positive previous experiences elsewhere (Strickney, 1977; Dear, 1991a;
Beggs, 1993). The use of formal and informal key political and community figures
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and experts is another persuasive way to address a community and to advertise for
approval (Weber, 1978; Lubin et al., 1982; Anello and Shuster, 1985; Homebase,
1989; Dear, 1991a; Rizzo et al., 1992; Fox, 1994). Offering incentives to a local
neighborhood, such as providing services and resources, hiring local contractors and
employees, or recruiting clients from the area are often recommended as siting
strategies (Strickney, 1977; Gaylin and Rosenfeld, 1978; Ross, 1984; Anello and
Shuster, 1985; Homebase, 1989; Armour, 1991; Dear, 1991a; Beggs, 1993; Fox,
1994). Another important strategy is offering concessions and compromises to the
local community, such as compromises in design and program-related issues,
upgrading and maintaining a facility, and alleviating security concerns (Strickney,
1977; Gaylin and Rosenfeld, 1978; Weber, 1978; Lubin et al., 1982; Anello and
Shuster, 1985; Rivkin, 1986; Dudley, 1988; Davis, 1995). Mediation, both formal and
informal, can also be a promising way to overcome opposition through persuasion,
especially in cases where siting collides with land use issues (Tomain, 1989; Lake,
1994; Susskind, 1995).
Involvement/Input puts an emphasis on more direct integration of, and
cooperation with corresponding communities. Providing open houses, conducting
neighborhood surveys, and door-to-door visits for community feedback are often
mentioned involvement strategies (Strickney, 1977; Lubin et al., 1982; Ross, 1984;
Homebase, 1989; Rizzo et al., 1992; Hurand and McClure, 1994; Davis, 1995). The
establishment of "Neighborhood Advisory Committees" (NACs) is a promising way
to gain support, legitimacy, and feed-back in all stages of siting (Strickney, 1977;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Ross, 1984; Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Normann and Stem, 1989; Rizzo et al., 1992).
More specialized forms of NACs, such as "planning tribunals" (Gleeson et al., 1995),
or "design committees" (Fox, 1994; Hurand and McClure, 1994), may give service
providers an opportunity to benefit from the input offered from the community.
However, it has to be remembered that the financial and psychological costs associated
with such extensive strategies may be quite significant and should be considered in
advance (Mental Health Law Project, 1989a).
Post-Entry Phase
Most previous research has focussed on the time before facilities start to serve their
clients, but "problems of siting do not end when the facility opens its doors," as Dear
et al. (1995b: 14) have argued. The post-entry phase is still part of the siting process
as some researchers have pointed out. The emergence of crisis after opening demand
continuous involvement of and ongoing information for the community (Seley, 1983;
Beggs, 1992; Rizzo et al., 1992). Post-entry strategies are important components of
day-to-day facility operations (Weber, 1978; Dudley 1988; Homebase, 1989; Normann
*
and Stem, 1989; Rizzo et al., 1992). However, compared to findings on the earlier
stages in siting, little has been discovered about the post-entry phase, and siting
strategies for this period.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
2.5 Methodological Implications for Case Study Research
The existing literature suggests that there is a lot of good advice available, however,
"it must be remembered that each local situation is likely to be very different from the
next; what works in one place today may not work in another tomorrow" (Dear and
von Mahs, 1995: 7). The previously discussed literature has revealed a variety of
factors that come into play during the siting process, most of which are qualitative and
non-quantifiable. Moreover, not every factor is necessarily relevant in a particular
siting situation. When dealing with various circumstances and the uniqueness of
specific locales, quantification and extensive research has often proven to lack
explanatory power to understand the specifity of local contexts. Qualitative research
on the other hand, is often more suited to interpret the outcome of interactive
processes. The main objective in qualitative research is interpretation. Interpretative
geography is therefore mainly concerned "with the understanding and analysis of
meaning in specific contexts" (Eyles and Smith, 1988:2). Some social and urban
geographers have explicitly discussed interpretative research and their qualitative
methods, such as participant observation, unstructured interviews, and case studies
(Rowles, 1978; Jackson, 1983; Ley, 1988; Eyles, 1988).
Case Study Analysis fo r Siting
The literature on siting human service facilities employs a variety of research methods
both extensive and intensive, quantitative and qualitative. Case study analysis has
been used by many authors on siting issues. I suggest a distinction being made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
between research that is i) based content analysis of case studies, and ii) supported by
case studies. Research supported by case study experience is often extensive, and
utilizes case studies to substantiate and describe findings or regional experiences, but
do not directly base findings on the case studies (Axleroad and Toff, 1987; Homebase,
1989; Normann and Stem, 1989; Beggs, 1993; Davis, 1995; Gleeson et al., 1995).
An interesting use of supporting case studies can be found in the Homebase-report
(1989). For each siting strategy discussed, one to four example case studies on
homeless facilities are presented and corresponding contacts are listed. Although no
comprehensive analysis of them has been done, they clearly help to exemplify and
contextualize the issues involved. Content analysis of case studies is usually confined
to small scale, intensive analysis of the experience of particular facilities or
communities (Breyer and Malaffonte, 1982; Ross, 1984; Budson, 1988; Armour, 1991;
Rizzo et al., 1992, Lamb, 1992; Fox, 1994). Consequently, none of the research has
included a content analysis of a national set of case studies. Moreover, studies based
on case study analysis paid only passing attention to broader methodological issues.
Dimensions Methodology fo r Case Study Analysis
One exception is John Seley’s book on public facility planning in which he introduces
the principles for a "dimensions methodology" for case study analysis of siting public
facilities (1983: 23-27). This systematic methodology is based on the premise of
"learning through experience." According to the author, it offers "simply a way of
eliciting systematic data from otherwise anecdotal and eclectic accounts" (Seley, 1983:
34). This multipurpose methodology addresses a variety of readers, such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
participants, public officials, and planners. The dimensions methodology
. . . is used to discover what happened in facility siting in the past and to
clarify perceptions and behavior in the future. If we understand the past
better, we still may not know what to do in the future, but we will have
at least some indication of what to avoid and some benchmark with which
to measure success. (Seley, 1983: 23).
For a general theoretical assessment of dimensions involved in siting, he suggests the
existence of 6 key-factors, or variables. Each variable consists of several dimensions,
which again are differentiated by a number of elements. Unfortunately, however,
Seley never provides a definition of these terms. Overall, there are 32 dimensions and
150 elements that might be important. Seley has presented the variables, dimensions,
and elements in an extensive five-page table, in which he also suggests ways of
coding them (Seley, 1983: 26-31). To give you an idea about this categorization, I
have summarized the variables (boldface) and dimensions in table 2.5. Looking at
these categories, certain problems become apparent. Most importantly, it is not clear
what Seley is actually trying to accomplish with these dimensions, how to apply them,
and what they mean. His original, overly detailed list is even more confusing, and
Seley neither explains the meaning of the categories, nor provides any definition of
the terms he uses. Later on in his book he promises to apply this framework, but the
direct relevance of the dimensional methodology for these applications remains unclear
to me. Seley raises important questions, such as the dynamic nature of dimensions
and the importance of three intervening processes in siting, namely interaction,
change, and interdependence. He suggests that interaction matrices and interaction-
cycles be devised to give an account of the dynamic nature of siting controversies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Table 2.5: Variables and Dimensions in Siting
According To Seley
1. Physical Impact of a Facility
Distributional Impacts
Land use Impacts
Quality of Life Impacts
2. Antecedent Variables
History of Relationship of Local Policymakers with Community Groups,
History of Relationship of the City with the Specific Community
3. Intervening variable I: Actors and Setting
Citizens:
General Characteristics,
Opposition-Group Characteristics
Opposition-Leader Characteristics
Professional Advocates
Policymakers:
General Decision-Making Discretion
Day-to-Day Decision Makers
4. Intervening variable II: Community Basis of Action and General Goal
Basis of Action of the Community
General Intracommunity and Intercommunity Coalition Goals
5. Intervening variable HI: Dynamics of Controversy
Community Goals, Demands, Strategies
Policymakers Goals, Demands, Strategies
Media Involvement
6. Outcome
Tangible
Decision Making. Source: Seley, 1983: 26-31
In siim, Seley’s approach offers a few important considerations and ideas for
the purpose of my study, but its overall conceptual basis is seriously underdeveloped.
In the subsequent chapters I will build on this approach to develop a more rigorous
dimensional methodology for investigating the siting process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.6 Summary
34
The foregoing review of previous studies showed that a significant amount of
literature is available on the different aspects of the locational conflict. However, this
research was conducted under disparate theoretical/disciplinary frameworks, and only
a few studies have specifically dealt with the siting of homeless facilities. In the
previous section I have further argued that, except for Seley, hardly any
comprehensive methodologies for case study analysis of facility siting have been
designed and applied. The foremost research task therefore is to devise a more
rigorous and comprehensible methodological framework, which particularly deals with
homeless services.
There also remain unanswered questions in terms of research. Most
importantly, little has been found out about the temporal dynamics of the locational
conflict. More specifically, how does opposition relate to siting strategies over time?
Have siting strategies been used rather in response to opposition, or in order to
prevent opposition? Is there a specific rationale behind sequencing siting strategies
and which strategies appear to be particularly suitable for specific phases in siting?
These questions imply a need to pay attention to the dynamic temporal relationship
between NIMBY and siting strategies.
Previous research has dealt with NIMBY in terms of both, conditions and
behavior. Thus, over time studies have remained fairly consistent in terms of NIMBY
attitudes, arguments, and tools. However, little has been found out about important
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
actors in NIMBY opposition other than residents. In terms of supportive and rejecting
communities, it has been shown that most studies focus on actually opposing
communities, but so far little has been found out about supportive communities.
Therefore I will also investigate cases for which little or no opposition has occurred.
I would like to discover why cases might be unopposed, and whether specific
precautionary and preventive siting strategies are responsible for little opposition or
acceptance.
In the discussion of siting strategies there seems to be quite some overlap in
the categories of siting strategies suggested in the literature. Is there a better way to
categorize siting strategies? Moreover, little information is available on processes
after the facility opening, the so called post-entry phase. Do we still have to expect
opposition, and if yes, how do service providers respond to post-entry opposition?
Moreover, what are appropriate post-entry siting strategies?
In the following chapter I present a framework for analysis on how to realize
this research agenda. I hope that the subsequent methodology and analysis helps to
shed some light onto these so far neglected aspects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Ch. 3: Dimensions in the Locational Conflict:
A Framework for Analysis
3.1 Overview
In this chapter, I develop a dimensions methodology for examining case study
experience. In the first section I devise a theoretical framework for approaching
specific siting situations. I suggest 6 key factors that help to describe individual case
study experiences. They help to conceptualize case study experience as a series of
siting dimensions, featuring structural commonalities that together outline the
fundamental elements of siting conflicts. To select key factors, I have relied on
existing findings and concepts, and appropriated them to suit my conceptual thinking.
This categorization serves as a preliminary heuristic for the subsequent analytical
steps.
In the second section, I show how I utilize this framework in two analytical
steps and discuss the basic rationale behind the analysis. First, I describe how I intend
to analyze 31 case studies from across the nation with primary purpose of identifying
dimensions in siting. I examine each case study individually and in context of each
other to derive a preliminary listing of dimensions in siting. To do so, I analyze
secondary data sources, primarily news-stories. I provide information on data
acquisition, characteristics, and sources. I also discuss the potential benefits and the
more obvious pitfalls of the analysis. Second, I analyze two case studies with the
purpose to get a comprehensive understanding of the dimensions that mattered in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
particular siting processes. I apply the previously devised typology of dimensions, and
test the underlying framework. I have chosen two particular cases studies on homeless
services in Los Angeles, because they seemed particularly suitable for expanding the
results of the national set of case studies. To realize these objectives, I relied on
intensive interviews, on-site visits, participant observations, and census-data analysis.
Again, I explain the rationale behind choosing these methods, and discuss data
characteristics, acquisition, and sources.
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Approaching the Locational Conflict
To devise a dimensions methodology for case study analysis, it is first necessary to
develop a preliminary heuristic for approaching locational conflicts. Therefore, I need
to establish a set of key factors in siting. To do this, I have relied on existing
concepts (Seley, 1983; Hogan, 1986; Homebase, 1989; Dear et al., 1995a, b) and
synthesized them to form a new framework.
Key Factors and Dimensions in the Locational Conflict
I suggest six key factors that help to systematize the locational conflict over
time. I have presented a diagram that helps to visualize the key-factors in the
locational conflict (Figure 3.1). I start with the conditions of the locational conflict,
featuring three fundamental key-factors, the (i) facility context, the (ii) community
context into which a facility is proposed, and the (iii) government context. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
government, operating on different levels, has to be seen as independent from facility
and community, since it may act in the interest of either side. These conditions are
responsible for whether (iv) NIMBY-opposition and/or IMBY-support (In-My-Back-
Yard) occur. In turn, the facility employs (v) siting strategies to counter possible
NIMBY-opposition and to generate/maintain IMBY-support. The government again
may benefit either side and thereby strongly influence course of events. Opposition
and siting strategies are processes that are determined by the conditions. The result
of this relationship determines the (vi) outcome of a siting situation. The outcome
may lie somewhere along the continuum between undisputed successful siting without
NIMBY opposition, or unsuccessful siting with massive opposition, where the entire
siting process had to be terminated.
Fig. 3.1: Key-Factors in the Locational Conflict
Conditions Processes
* .>
* *
Facility
A Community Government &
1 Siting 1 N I M B Y
Context
•M s
Context
%
Context
£
| Strategies
1 imby
Outcome
This basic framework is expected to differentiate each individual siting situation. The
framework will also serve as a heuristic to interpret the case studies in comparison to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
each other. Here, I attempt to extract common elements for the individual cases,
which I categorize into dimensions. To properly structure dimensions in the siting
process, dimension may need to be further differentiated into sub-dimensions. The
smallest unit in this hierarchy are elements, which may be non-quantifiable or
quantifiable. Quantifiable elements further contain values. Let me explain this by
using two simple examples: Let’s assume a service provider has provided an open
house to educate the neighbors about the project. How should we categorize this?
This action by the service provider would have to be discussed within the key-factor
"siting strategies." The consequent dimensions would be the siting approach, which
is "education." The actual strategy "providing open houses" is the non-quantifiable
element of the dimension education. An example for a quantifiable element would
be "household income," which I would categorize within the key-factor "community
context," the dimension "community characteristics," and the sub-dimension "socio
economic status." The element household income can be expressed in values, such
as monetary units.
Key-factors and dimensions are interactively connected, and scenarios for
potential interactions are countless, and vary from one siting situation to another.
This necessitates investigating each siting situation in its own, unique context, before
making generalized assumptions about dimensions and how they interact. Another
theoretical consideration for case study analysis is the occurrence of intervening
variables, such as coincidences, unexpected events, and unpredictable behaviors. Case
studies are describing real-world experiences, which are influenced by changes that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
affect both conditions and processes. Uncertainty, unpredictability, and the uniqueness
of siting situations warn against making clear-cut generalizations, or attempting to
accurately quantify dimensions. Next, I describe what I expect from each key-factor,
and what this might imply for dimensions and interactive processes.
Conditions
Three key-factors describe the conditions of a siting process, namely the
facility, community, and government context. Conditions inevitably change over time
and are characterized by a variety of dimensions. Actors play an important role,
because they have different interests in siting. I shall consider the social, political,
and economic factors that influence individual actions. Thus, how do conditions vary
over time and space? I also have to account for the fact that conditions are influenced
by processes on different scales. For instance, cultural processes on the macro-scale
have an impact on the attitude formation of individual actors (micro-scale), and these
attitudes find expression in either acceptance or rejection of a facility on the
meso/community level. As I proceed with the analysis, I have to consider these
explanatory factors, and how they shape the conditions of a particular locale. Let me
continue with a brief description of each key-factor and which dimensions I would
expect to be relevant in the particular context.
Facility Context
The service type is a dimension that has a significant impact on the perception of, and
attitude toward either a particular client group, or a particular facility type. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dimension facility characteristics encompasses various sub-dimensions such as the type
of facility within a service type (e.g.,homeless mission, shelter, feeding program), or
the facility size, style, and design. Specific facility-internal policies and programmatic
aspects may also have an impact on the external perception. They may include sub
dimensions such as service concept, management, or the availability of funds, but may
also influence the service provider’s ability to perform siting strategies.
Community Context
The community context includes dimensions that influence the response of a chosen
host community to siting. I investigate the dimension general location of a potential
host community, such as inner city, urban, suburban, or rural locations. Within the
general location we can identify the predominant land use (e.g. .residential, industrial,
mixed). Important neighborhood characteristics may include economic, socio
economic, and demographic composition of the host community. Finally, actors
involved in the siting process may display varying degrees of either opposition or
support. We need to differentiate between different actors (e.g.,residents, business
owners, etc.), and consider dimensions like the proximity of actors to a proposed
facility. As the literature review revealed, there appears to be a clear link between
community context and NIMBY opposition.
Government Context
Within the key factor government context I discuss the dimension local political and
administrative fram e, which may incorporate local zoning regulations and practices,
building and safety codes, and other planning ordinances. Similarly, federal legal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
provisions might also have a significant impact on siting. Again, I shall discuss the
role that actors, such as politicians, administrators, or judges may play in the siting
debate.
Processes
To understand the locational conflict as a process over time, I borrow Dear et
al.’s (1995b) typology of three phases in siting process, namely pre-entry (decision
making, site selection, public announcement), entry (establishment until opening), and
post-entry (after facility opening). I use this typology to describe both NIMBY and
siting strategies over the course of the siting process. Having a temporal heuristic, we
shall be able to learn about the rhythm of a siting process.
NIMBY vs. IMBY
When examining NIMBY reactions to a proposed facility, we have to distinguish
between two principal types of opposition, informal community opposition and formal
political-administrative opposition. I shall investigate two important dimensions of
NIMBY, namely oppositional arguments and oppositional tools. I further investigate
the use of oppositional tools in context of the siting phase in which they have been
utilized. However, a community may also be supportive (IMBY) of a case, a response
that needs to be examined as well.
Siting Strategies
Knowledge about siting strategies is crucial for properly addressing the community
and to counter potential opposition. Siting strategies are basically public relations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
tools. Siting strategies are elements that need to be discussed within the dimension
of a siting approach (e.g. educational, persuasive, involvement), and ought to consider
the degree of outreach (high-profile, medium, and low-profile). However, as there
seems to be some overlap in existing typologies, I develop a more effective way of
differentiating siting approaches and strategies over time.
Outcome
To assess the overall outcome of a case, I need to consider whether i) the entire siting
process led to the anticipated result, and ii) whether NIMBY opposition was
successfully overcome. I discuss the status of case studies according to four possible
outcome-dimensions. First, successful cases are those, where the entire siting process
has led to the anticipated result, and potential NIMBY-opposition has been
successfully overcome. Second, successful, yet controversial outcomes are those,
where a facility was successfully established, but where either NIMBY continued, or
significant concessions had to be made. Third, I also examine ongoing cases that
were still pending at the time of data collection, and where the outcome is yet
x
unknown. Finally, unsuccessful were those cases where the entire siting process had
to be terminated. One of the presumed benefits of case study analysis is, that it
allows to learn form both positive and negative experience. Therefore, I investigate
non-conflicting siting processes as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.3 Research Agenda
44
Discovering Dimensions: Analysis of 31 National Case Studies
The purpose of the analysis of 31 case studies is to identify dimensions of
locational conflict over the siting of homeless service facilities. I want to examine the
advantages and disadvantages of different siting approaches and strategies. More
specifically, I want to establish when strategies were used and how they relate to and
interact with NIMBY opposition.
General Characteristics o f the Case Studies
I have deliberately chosen a broad set of cases that display a range of situations,
outcomes, strategies, and oppositional behaviors. Moreover, I have selected a broad
set of service and facility types. By doing so, I am acknowledging that homeless
people are a diverse group with a variety of service needs, which warrant attention by
a variety of services other than those specifically serving the homeless, such as
shelters, missions, and other housing
facilities. For instance, homeless Table 3.1: Service and Client Types
people are disproportionately i. Homeless Services (N=12)
2. Substance Abuse’ (N=2)
affected by psychogenic conditions 3 . Mental Health Services (N=2)
4. Services for HIV/Aids (N = l)
such as substance abuse and mental 5 . Youth Services (N=5)
6 . Public Housing (N=2)
illness (often in combination, termed 7 . Correctional Facilities (N=4)
8 . Women and Children (N=2)
"dually diagnosed"), or medical 9 . Welfare Office (N=l)
conditions such as HIV/AIDS. An
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increasing number of women and children, as well as adolescents have joined the
ranks of the homeless. Finally, with the recent political emphasis on fighting crime,
homeless activities are increasingly outlawed, which puts more and more homeless
people into jails and prisons. Table 3.1 lists the nine service and client types I have
investigated. However, a little over half of the facilities are explicitly designed to
serve homeless people. Findings can therefore be regarded as indicative for this client
and service type.
Data Characteristics
The case studies come form a variety of locations from across the United States,
including one example of a Canadian prison. The majority of cases, however, deal
with locations in California and the greater Washington D.C. area. Data for this study
are predominantly based on newspaper articles (38 items), primarily from the Los
Angeles Times (19) and the Washington Post (10). I also used journal articles (5),
institutional publications (6), and extensive facility siting evaluations (3). The sources
for this contents analysis have been compiled over the course of one year (May 1994 -
May 1995), and most sources (70%) were published during this period. The
remainder are sources that were published between 1990 and 1993. Each case study
should have provided enough information to give an account of all 6 key-factors
outlined in the theoretical framework. Whereas the journal articles and the extensive
evaluations provided plenty of information, the use of news-stories as a data-source
presented certain problems. Due to the media’s focus on persons, opinions, action,
and crisis, much important background information was often excluded. Subjectivity,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sensationalism, and inaccuracy in the primary data are further potential problems.
Newspaper content analysis, however, also has advantages. News-stories are brief,
easy to collect, and contain pre-selected information. Moreover, they detail the exact
information the corresponding community got at the time when the siting story was
relevant enough to catch local media interest. It gives account of the issues that were
perceived to be important at that time, reflects the opinions of key-community figures,
and reveals the role the government played during the siting process.
Procedure
First, I analyze each case study separately. Each narrative is structured in order to
give a brief account of (i) facility and community context; (ii) the government
context; (iii) NIMBY and/or IMBY; (iv) siting approaches; and (v) status/ outcome.
This typology resembles the list of key-factors in siting, except that I have put two
key-factors (facility and community context) into one category, because news stories
reveal little information on these factors. In chapter 4.1,1 have summarized the siting
experience of the 31 case studies in 1-3 page narratives. The sources for each case
study are indicated at the end of the corresponding narrative and listed in the case
study bibliography on page 215. After discussing each case in its own context, I
attempt to identify common siting dimensions. I organize these dimensions under the
six key-factors presented above to provide a preliminary list of dimensions in siting,
describing conditions and processes. The results of this analysis are presented in
chapter 4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Application, Test, and Expansion: Analysis of Two Case Studies
The purpose of this analysis is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
dimensions that mattered in the siting of two homeless services in Los Angeles. I
apply the previously devised typology of dimensions, and test the underlying
framework. I focus specifically on those dimensions that were insufficiently dealt
with in the national case studies.
General Characteristics o f the Case Studies
I focus on two homeless service facilities in Los Angeles. Living in L.A.,I have been
able to investigate the community and government contexts in more detail, including,
for instance, precise information on zoning regulations, or local political preconditions.
Additionally, I have been able to maintain close and continuous contact with my
respondents. I also have had the opportunity to experience the local circumstances in
person. The two case studies have been selected because of their innovative and
successful approaches to siting.
The first case study is Genesis I, located in downtown Los Angles. Genesis
I is based on an interesting service concept, that is geared toward helping homeless
people to return into mainstream society. Genesis I provides transitional housing for
homeless using easy-to-erect, flexible geodesic dome structures. Moreover, facility
operators have taken an empowerment approach to combat homelessness by providing
residents with an inspiring environment to regain self-reliance and self-esteem. Not
only has Genesis taken an innovative approach to the homeless problem, it also
demonstrated the use of a variety of interesting siting strategies which have resulted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
in unprecedented local community support. More specifically, this case study reveals
promising strategies to gain and maintain good community relations in the post-entry
phase. My involvement with Genesis I goes back to 1994 when Michael Dear,
Kaerensa Craft, and I conducted an evaluation of Genesis I’s progress in terms of
service concept and community relations. I have been in contact with Genesis I
eversince.
The second case study is a group home for homeless, undocumented Latino
youth. La Posada is located in a residential neighborhood in East Los Angeles. In
this case, facility operators took a different approach to the community. When the site
was originally occupied by residents in 1985, facility operators tried to avoid attention
and informed only the immediate neighbors of their intentions. Despite their low-
profile approach, NIMBY-opposition by community members has yet to occur. An
interesting objective is to find out why that is, and what this implies for potentially
supportive communities. This case also demonstrates the difficulties the service
providers experienced with local planning authorities when they tried to renovate and
expand the facility. Due to administrative opposition this site-improvement effort
eventually failed. Although I have been in contact with La Posada for 6 months, I
have managed to accumulate considerable information on this case study.
M ethods and Data
To find out about the case studies, I conducted a series of semi-structured, open-ended
interviews with the service providers. Overall, I conducted 9 interviews, each between
1 and 2.5 hours long. For each interview I prepared a series of rather broad questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on the siting process, concerning all key-factors. For these general questions I was
more interested in obtaining narratives by my interview partners and the way they
interpret their siting experience. This enabled me to find out which dimensions
mattered to them. Furthermore, it helped me to test whether the information
respondents gave me fit into the dimensions I had derived earlier. In order to get
feed-back on the dimensions I had extracted from the foregoing analysis of national
cases, I presented a standardized list of dimensions to all respondents. I systematically
went through that list and elaborated orally on the meaning of each dimension.
Through this process I intended to find out a) whether the rationale made sense to my
respondents; b) which of the presented dimensions mattered in the particular siting
context of my interview partners; and c) whether there were other dimensions that I
overlooked so far in my framework. Information on interviews, respondents,
locations, times, and primary interview topics is summarized in appendix 1.
Besides interviews, I also relied on participant observations. By walking the
neighborhoods surrounding the facilities I familiarized myself with the community
setting to get a "feeling" for the particular environments. I informally talked to clients
and neighbors, and investigated the built environment. Independent from these rather
informal research strategies, I also looked at census data to obtain more accurate and
formal information on the community context, particularly the characteristics of the
local neighborhoods. I examined social, demographic, economic, and housing data
for the corresponding census tracts, and compared it the corresponding data for the
County of Los Angeles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
For Genesis I, I have also drawn from results of a formal survey conducted in
the adjacent neighborhood of the facility (Dear, von Mahs, and Craft, 1994). In this
survey we had asked neighbors about their perception of the so called "dome village".
I initially intended to conduct a similar survey in the neighborhood of La Posada, but
given the volatility surrounding the issue of illegal immigration in California, I
decided against a survey given its potential to cause unnecessary alarm which could
adversely impact the lives of the facility’s undocumented clients (i.e. detention,
deportation).
Procedure
The first two sections detail the siting experience of each case study separately. Each
case study is discussed in two parts. I discuss the conditions of the case by
elaborating on facility, community, and government context. Then I provide an
account of the actual siting process, specifically focussing on events during each stage
of the process. I focus specifically on the use of siting strategies, and show how
conditions influence the siting process. In the third section, I discuss those dimensions
t
that surfaced in the description of either case, but remained undebated in the national
sample. In the fourth section, I combine the findings from the local and national
analyses, and offer a final, comprehensive list of siting dimensions. The results of the
local case study analysis are summarized in chapter 5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Ch. 4 Dimensions in Siting: National Case Studies
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I analyze thirty-one case studies of a variety of service and client
types. I extract common dimensions in the locational conflict, and situate them
around key-factors and pre-determined dimensions. Table 4.1 summarizes the key-
factors and dimensions I have discussed in the previous chapter. I shall add
dimensions to this preliminary framework and extract suitable elements for
corresponding dimensions and sub-dimensions. Where there are contradictions in the
preliminary framework, I redefine and resituate dimensions accordingly.
General Characteristics o f the Case Studies
The present set of case studies is very diverse in terms of location, service and client
types, and overall outcome. The rationale behind this selection of a variety of services
is to discover a broad range of dimensions. I investigate nine different human service
types, because homeless people are a diverse client group that necessitate a variety of
services. However, general conclusions for individual service types cannot be drawn
because of the small number of cases within each client groups. The set of case
studies details fairly recent siting situations; nearly 80 percent of the siting processes
started during the 1990s. Whereas most case studies detail occurrences in the pre
entry and entry phases, only two cases deal with the post-entry phase. This may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
attributed to the fact that the interesting events (i.e, media and publicity generating)
take place during the initial stages. Consequently, hardly any conclusions can be
drawn for the post-entry phase.
Table 4.1: Pre-Determined Dimensions
CONDITIONS PROCESSES
I. Facility Context
Phases in Siting Process
1. Service Type/ Attitudes
1. Pre-Entry
2. Entry
2. Facility Characteristics
1
in
2
a: Facility Size
b: Facility Design
IV. NIMBY
3. Program and Provider
n . Community Context
1. Oppositional Arguments
2. Oppositional Tools
1. Community Structure
a: Formal
b: Informal
a: Actual Location
c: Timing
b: Land Use
c: Characteristics of the
V. Siting Strategies
Local Community
2. Actors 1. Government Based
a: Informal Opponents 2. Community Based
b: Informal Supporters
a: Educational
EH. Government Context
b: Persuasive
c: Involvement/ Input
1. Institutions
VI. Outcome
a: Administrative Dimensions
b: Political Dimensions
1. Successful
c: Judicial Dimensions
2. Successful, yet Controversial
2. Actors
3. Ongoing
a: Formal Opponents
4. Unsuccessful
b: Formal Supporters
Explanation:
I. Key-Factor
I. Dtmemioa
t: Sub-Dimension
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
The present set of cases is also diverse in terms of actual outcomes. Over 50 percent
of the cases were either sited successfully (29%), or led to a successful, yet
controversial outcome (26%), meaning that either opposition continued or significant
concessions had to be made. Only nine percent of the siting experiences led to an
unsuccessful outcome in which the entire siting process had to be terminated. A
significant portion of the case studies were still ongoing at the time the data was
collected (39%).
Contents o f Chapter
In the following section, I discuss each case study in its own unique context with the
purpose of discovering dimensions. Each case study is discussed in sections that are
structured following the outline of key-factors. The intention is to get a sense of how
various dimensions have interacted in particular siting situations, and learn from a
variety of different siting situations. The broad key-factors around which a siting
story is re-narrated, further allows us to understand how each case evolved over time.
In this way we can better understand how NIMBY and siting strategies are related to
each other in a particular context.
In section 4 .3 ,1 analyze the results from the individual cases. Specifically, I
systematize the occurrences that surfaced into common dimensions. Wherever
feasible, I count dimensions to get a sense about the frequency of occurrence. I
elaborate on each key factor separately, summarize dimensions, sub-dimensions, and
elements that surfaced in the siting stories, and explain the rationale behind their
selection.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2 Case Study Experience Narrated
54
HOMELESS SERVICES
Union G ospel M ission, Yakima WA.
Community and Facility Context: In early 1992, the operators of the "Union
Gospel Mission" decided to move from their facility in the Central Business District
(CBD) to an available site on the outskirts of the CBD. There, a former 76-room
motel and the adjacent properties seemed suitable for an expanded homeless mission
providing shelter for the increasingly diverse local homeless population. The new
facility was intended to serve up to 258 homeless people. Thirty-one units were
reserved for families, the fastest growing portion of the homeless population. The
surrounding area of the proposed site consisted of light industrial, retail, service land
use, and further away, modest residential areas and a RV-park.
NIMBY: The proposed facility was a source of major concern among local
business people who subsequently founded the "Yakima Gateway Organization" to
oppose the mission’s relocation. They feared that the mission would have an adverse
effect on their businesses, because of expected undesirable pedestrian activity (chug
and alcohol, trespassing, urinating, loitering) which would deter customers, reduce the
business volume, and have a negative effect on property values.
Government Context: At the time of the proposed relocation, a homeless
mission was classified as a Class 1 land-use, which did not require a public review of
the siting decision and left the responsibility entirely to the city council. A local
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
business person therefore requested a use interpretation with the result that the
mission was redefined as a Class 2 land use, requiring public input for siting approval.
As the Yakima City Council had a split decision (3-3) on the issue, a de novo public
hearing was ordered. First, the appellant (the Yakima Gateway Organization) had the
burden of providing evidence for the incompatibility of the project, and second, the
applicant (Union Gospel Mission) had the burden of proof. The examiner evaluated
the material provided by both sides and had to reach a final decision. It was the first
time that this practice was applied in Yakima.
Siting Strategies: First, the examiner evaluated the legal provisions for siting
practices in a top down approach. Constitutional-federal issues, as well as local
regulations, did not contradict the proposed mediation practice. Therefore, the issue
could be handled under the City of Yakima’s land use ordinances. The "Yakima
Urban Area Comprehensive Plan" did not provide specific guidelines for local
community services, but outlined as one primary objective the compatibility with
existing land use. Compatibility is based on aspects of traffic, pollution, light, density,
economic value, and citizen preference. Based on the Yakima Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, the examiner justified his decision by carefully considering arguments of
both sides. Regarding general land use compatibility, the examiner concluded that the
conversion of the existing motel would not significantly alter the compatibility of the
building. These findings were based on the examiner’s own investigations. One main
argument of the opponents of the proposed facility was the impact of pedestrian
activity on the economic value of the area and the local businesses. To evaluate the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impact of the facility, the examiner considered the responses of neighbors at the
mission’s existing site near the historical and tourist-oriented inner city. The
responses were generally supportive and pointed out the unproblematic co-existence
with no noteworthy impact on business activities. In addition, the examiner concluded
that the proposed site is even more suitable than the prior one, as the new facility site
contains a huge court yard, enough parking and fencing. The most crucial aspect of
the proposed relocation was the impact on property values. Here, both sides relied on
expert testimonies. Experts hired by the appellants predicted up to an 8% decline in
net operating income for most businesses, which might have threatened some with
bankruptcy. However, prior experience of former neighbors of the mission, as well
as the convincing testimony of a leading expert, based on market value analysis across
the nation, contradicted these assumptions. The final controversial compatibility
criteria was citizen preference. A list of letters and comments on the proposed site
revealed that a majority of concerned residents (489 to 324) approved the new
location of the mission.
Status: After the controversial issues of economic value and citizen
preference had been discussed, and the other criteria of traffic volume, increased
pollution, street lighting, and building density had been satisfied, the examiner
approved the proposed relocation. This approval, however, was subject to certain
conditions (amount of parking, fencing, placement of gates, public transit,
signification) that could be met fairly easily by the mission’s operators.
(Source: Lamb, 1992)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
777 Homeless Shelter, San Pedro CA.
Community and Facility Context: In 1993, plans became public to transform
parts of the naval housing area in the heart of San Pedro into housing units for
homeless. 144 dwellings on a 27 acre site will be rededicated to the shelter and
education of up to 600 homeless people. The federally owned property had formerly
been occupied by Navy personnel of the nearby Long Beach Naval Station. After the
closure of the base in September 1993, no other military branch expressed interest and
the property became available.
Siting Strategies (I): According to the "Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act" (1987), groups representing the homeless have the priority of first
refusal on vacated Department of Defence buildings. Johnathon Marzet, deputy
director of "Turner Technical Institute" (TIT) came across the corresponding notice
published in the Federal Register and submitted an application. This application was
approved by the Department of Health and Human Services in late February 1994.
The siting practice, based on federal legal provisions, does not necessitate community
a
input and participation.
NIMBY: In March, 1994, over 1,000 residents of San Pedro and the
neighboring Rancho Palos Verdes attended a public meeting organized by TTL
Opposition centered around the actual siting practice without community input and
prior notification. Local residents felt that the area was already over-saturated with
social services, particularly homeless shelters and public housing projects. The
opposing residents were supported by local politicians like Barry Glickman, Chief of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Staff for Los Angeles, City Councilman Rudy Svorinicli jr., and Rancho Palos Verdes
Councilwoman Susan Brooks. Brooks stated: "The federal bureaucracy is out of
control, and I think this is a perfect example."
Siting Strategies (II): Speaking in support of the development, Lorraine
Cervantes, a TTI representative, reminded residents that "the homeless problem isn’t
going to go away," referring to the impact of ongoing economic restructuring. TTI
also announced certain measures to appease the angry residents, such as gating the
facility, screening for substance abuse, and having curfews for the residents
(concessions).
Status: Given the legal provisions, it is likely that the building will be
rededicated as envisioned. Community opposition, however, seems likely to continue.
(Source: Kennedy and Woodward, 1994)
Homeless Drop-In Center, Los Angeles CA.
Community and F acility Context: In September, 1994, the Los Angeles City
Council approved plans to build a 24-hour drop-in center for up to 800 homeless
people. The city suggested that the facility be developed on a four to six acre property
in a predominantly industrial zone east of downtown L.A. Currently, a vacated
Salvation Army property is the leading site among four selected by the committee
responsible for overseeing the project. The city plans to decide on the location in
September, 1995. The new center will cost $4 million (out of a $20 million HUD
federal grant) and should be completed within two years. About 80 percent of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
area would be transformed into a landscaped, grassy fenced lot where homeless people
could camp and rest. The plan also calls for building a 50 bed shelter, showers,
restrooms and lockers, along with a service center providing employment advisement
and substance abuse counselling. A van, staffed with social workers, will shuttle
homeless from the Downtown/Skid Row area to the center on a voluntary basis. The
idea, first formulated by Mayor Riordan, was inspired by a similar facility in San
Diego, the N eil Good Center. The San Diego facility, however, was troubled by a
high incidence of crime during its initial stages of operation. L.A. city officials
claimed they will consider these problems and refer to San Diego’s drop-in center as
being impressively functional and under control now.
Government Context: This proposed facility triggered an intense debate
between city officials and local business owners on one side, and homeless people,
homeless advocates and local social service providers on the other. City officials
favor the idea and interpret the proposed center as a "first step out of homelessness,"
as Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas stated. Giving the homeless another "option" is
the major argument of Don Spivak of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment
Agency and Deputy Mayor Rae Franklin James. Local business groups have
supported the project and encouraged the city in its attempt to deal with homelessness.
Tracey Lovejoy of the Central City East Commerce Association said that "this is not
a solution for homelessness but it is a place to deal with them [homeless] until the
city, county and federal governments find a better answer." Carol Schatz of the
Central City Association said that her organization wants "a human solution because
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
we don’t think anything else works." The decision to create the drop-in center has
undoubtedly pleased members of the downtown business community who had become
increasingly concerned about the impact of homelessness on the local business
environment. As Schatz puts it: "It’s affecting business, that’s the bottom line."
Reversed NIMBY: Homeless advocates have accused business leaders and city
officials of trying to hide homeless people in an industrial area far from the high-rise
business district. They state that they will continue their fight to ensure that the center
does not become an internment camp. According to Alice Callaghan, director of the
Skid Row service center Las Familias Del Pueblo, the proposed center is, by its
fenced design, "nothing but a prison," similar to an "Orwellianpoorhouse." Many
homeless people fear that the city just wants them out of sight, out of mind, and
suggest that the proposed center will do little to meet their immediate needs.
Homeless people and advocates alike feel that the $4 million grant could be better
spend on food, clothing, and programs that help them to leave the streets permanently.
Finally, advocates and homeless are concerned that the City Attorney’s office, which
has so far declined to persecute homeless people in downtown, will use the opening
of the shelter as justification for tougher measures to clear the homeless from the
streets of downtown.
Siting Strategies and Status: Despite the City Council’s approval, the
controversy still continues. This case study reveals an interesting alternative to
conventional siting practices and controversies since it involves "reversed" siting
controversy. Clients and their advocates are opposing a facility proposed for them by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
the city and supported by local businesses. The attitudes of the city and the local
businesses clearly show characteristics of "NIMBY with a caring face."
(Sources: Daunt, 1994; Daunt and Nguyen, 1994; Los Angles Times, 1995; Mahoney, 1995)
St. Vincent De Paul, San Diego CA.
Community and F acility Comext: The "St. Vincent de Paul Village for the
Homeless," located in an industrial section of San Diego’s downtown (Center City
East), is a complex of buildings with 850 shelter beds. The center provides food for
1450 to 1650 people per day, dispenses clothing, and offers child care, medical care,
and rehabilitation services. It has 270 employees and operates on a $20 million
annual budget. The issue here is a feud between operators who want to expand the
village and the services it provides, and the City that wants the center to shrink. In
August 1994, the debate intensified when the City Council adopted a plan to prevent
social services from offering food to people other than current facility residents.
Government Context: There are two main actors involved in the controversy.
The first is City Councilman Juan Vargas, a Harvard Law graduate, ex-jesuit novice,
and moderate Democrat, who has worked with homeless people in other cities. He
believes that the village attracts homeless, many of whom are substance abusers, and
giving them food and shelter is effectively "enabling them to wallow in their
addiction." He has also suggested that the high concentration of social services is
detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, warning that "we are only going to
create a ghetto." His concern is shared by some local Latino activists who have long
complained about the negative impact of the center on the predominantly Hispanic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
neighborhood. Most importantly, Vargas has portrayed the center as a roadblock for
the city’s efforts to build a downtown sports arena. The area around the St. Vincent’s
was the City Council’s preferred site.
NIM BY-Conflict: The second actor is Roman Catholic Msgr. Joseph Caroll,
head of St. Vincent’s since 1982. He wanted to expand the facility and its services to
meet the growing demand by homeless, but also to provide services for the
impoverished Hispanic community. Msgr. Caroll has been supported by influential
local businesses and by San Diego Municipal Judge and expert on homelessness,
Robert C. Coates. The dispute between Vargas and Caroll has included clashes of
politics, social welfare, and theology. Interestingly, the debate has taken a somewhat
religious turn. Both men have employed religious arguments to support their
arguments, with Vargas arguing that Christ would have regarded drug use as a sin.
In response, Caroll has dismissed Vargas’ notions as "flawed social theory and flawed
Christianity." Carroll has also argued that the City has failed to provide any
alternatives or practical solutions. "They [City Council] are not solving city problems,
they’re all running for election, and I think that’s dumb," concluded Msgr. Caroll.
Status: San Diego’s Mayor Susan Golding, a former supporter of Caroll who
sided with Vargas more recently, has plans to initiate a dialogue between the
opponents, but the outcome of the case remains undetermined to date.
(Source: Perry, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Pioneer Square, Seattle WA.
Community and Facility Context: In 1994, a woman was raped in an ally
outside the Downtown Emergency Service Center in the Pioneer Square area in
downtown Seattle, Washington. In the two weeks following, three other women were
raped in the same neighborhood. Especially at night, women in local low-income
housing feel scared and isolated. They often hesitate to call the police because of
mistrust and the feeling that they will not be taken seriously anyway.
Siting Strategies: In response to the attacks, Block Watch, an organization
composed of homeless, formerly homeless, and advocates was founded by activist
Julie Fisher. The main concern of the new organization was to address issues of
violence in Pioneer square, particularly violence against women. It has attempted to
address the fears of residents in several ways. Block Watch seeks practical measures
to increase both personal and community safety. Some improvements have already
been made through levelling alcoves, closing a dangerous alley during night-times
(frequently the site for drug deals and other crimes), and increased police presence.
One important aspect of the attempt to improve security has been the relocation of the
entrance to the Downtown Emergency Service Center from the alleyway where one
recent attack took place out onto the main street.
NIMBY: Local business owners have expressed concerns that Block Watch
draws too much attention to the negative aspects of Pioneer Square, which hurts
business activities and therefore business owners’ financial interests. Hence, it will
take time and money to complete the remodeling geared toward security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Status: In the meantime, Block Watch has been exploring temporary options,
such as hiring security guards to patrol the alley, or possibly adding a staircase to
another, suitable side of the building to gain safe entry.
(Source: Delaney, 1994)
Homeless Encampment, Silverlake CA.
Community and Facility Context: Until April, 1995, between 6 and 30 cars,
vans, and trailers of homeless people have been parked along Riverside Drive in
Silverlake, a community in Los Angeles. For up to six years, predominantly male,
unemployed homeless campers have lived there, just about a block away from the
nearest residences. Most of the homeless residents claimed that they couldn’t afford
rent, or pay the fees for a trailer park, and therefore had basically no other place to
go. Others said that this place was safer than most shelters and other parts of the city.
Many, particularly those who stayed in the area for a while, considered the area their
"home." Because of massive community opposition and the city’s failure to find an
alternative site, the encampment was finally broken up in April 1995. Although this
t
case is not about siting a facility, it illustrates the attitudes of the neighborhood and
reveals commonly used oppositional arguments. It also indicates the inability of the
local administration to properly deal with the issue.
NIMBY: The immediate neighbors of the encampment blamed the homeless
for many things, such as urinating, littering, defecating, intimidating residents,
panhandling, and also for the local incidence of crime and vandalism (mainly graffiti
and car-burglaries). However, there is little evidence to link the homeless campers to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
local crime. According to LAPD senior officer Paul Afdahl, there is only little
indication for this link. Afdahl also suggested that the homeless were more often
victims of crimes than offenders. Local residents have also argued that the presence
of the homeless campers lowers property values and makes rental units difficult to let.
Residents founded the "Silver Lake Residents Association" (SLRA) to represent the
community in its efforts to remove the encampment.
Government Context: In response to various complaints in the past (which
have decreased over time), City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg’s office set up
garbage cans, initiated garbage pickups, established a portable toilet, and restricted
parking to a one-block area. The city’s attitude toward the homeless population was
relatively tolerant. According to one of Goldberg’s aides, it would be "unfair" for the
city to harass the campers unless there is a suitable alternative location. Hence, the
office promised the complaining residents that the homeless would be gone by March
31,1994, and an alternative site would have been available for them by the proposed
deadline. Goldberg’s office had hoped that a trailer court could be included in the to-
be- established homeless drop-in center, proposed by Mayor Riordan’s office.
Members of the SLRA, however, also proposed an alternative site for the homeless
campers.
Status: In April, 1995, ’No-Parking’ signs were erected forcing the campers
to leave. Councilwoman Goldberg and staff kept their promise to the residents, but
could not fulfill their goal to provide an alternative site for the homeless. Even
though the Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority (LAHSA), which had worked
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
with the encampment residents over time, succeeded in providing some campers with
passes to utilize state campgrounds, the majority of the homeless were again forced
to go elsewhere.
(Sources: Grange, 1990; Los Angeles Times, 1995; Ni, 1994; Silver Lake Residents Ass., 1994)
Homeless Residence, Berkeley CA
Community and Facility Context, NIMBY, and Status: In 1994, three residents
of Berkeley, CA, attempted to stop the conversion of a vacated motel building into
a housing facility for homeless people. Fearing that the facility would bring
increasing numbers of drug addicts and mentally ill people into the neighborhood, the
local residents organized meetings, published a newsletter, and distributed
informational materials opposing the anticipated conversion. They even filed a lawsuit
at the local court. This lawsuit was eventually defeated, and the conversion is
currently in progress.
Siting Strategies-. Not only did the residents lose the lawsuit, the case triggered
an investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on
whether the residents had violated the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA).
Among other regulations, the FHAA prohibits housing discrimination against people
with disabilities, including those with drug-problems and the mentally ill. In Texas,
HUD had already successfully sued a white supremacist landlord for discriminatory
and violent actions against an African-American tenant, resulting in a $300,000 fine.
The practice of using legal tools to discourage opposition and to counter unfairly
perceived oppositional tactics is termed "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Participation," or SLAPP. In the Berkeley case, HUD had the opportunity to SLAPP
the opponents. Since HUD’s claim was based on federal regulations, this SLAPP
could have resulted in a $10,000 fine for each of the residents. However, HUD
finally decided not to SLAPP the accused residents and dropped its investigation in
August of 1994 due to the increasing intensity of the debate, and the fact that the
facility was to be converted anyway. Roberta Achtenberg, HUD’s assistant secretary
for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunities, stated that HUD would only intervene with
such intense legal measures in cases where opponents had resorted to physical harm
or coercion. Since the Berkeley case involved only legitimate legal opposition based
on peaceful, non-coercive protest, there did not seem to be sufficient reason to initiate
a SLAPP. Achtenberg also mentioned that out of 10,000 annual complaints under the
Fair Housing Act only about 23 cases would interfere with HUD objectives and result
in SLAPPs.
(Sources: Enos, 1991; Galperin, 1990; Hager, 1991; Los
Angeles Times, 1994; New York Times, 1994)
Guy M ason R ecreational Center, W ashington D .C.
Community and Facility Context: In September 1990, plans became public to
use portions of the "Guy Mason Recreational Center" as an emergency hypothermia
center for homeless people. The center is located in Ward 3, an affluent,
predominantly white area, just a few blocks north of Georgetown University. The
plans called for a 50-bed facility which would be open between 7pm and 7am, when
the temperatures reach life-threatening levels. The city followed a 1989 court order
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
which, in extension to Initiative 17, required every ward to operate a homeless-shelter.
Prior to 1990, Ward 3 had been the only ward without a shelter. City officials
confirmed that during the day the recreational center would continue to gear its
services to meet the needs of older local residents. After successful zoning hearings,
D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly announced the opening would occur in December of
1992.
NIM BY (I): As soon as plans became public, local residents and their elected
representatives started to oppose the anticipated rededication of the facility.
Opposition arguments included declining property values, and the concern that the
facility would displace senior citizen programs. Some opponents questioned the city’s
practice of closing a shelter in Foggy Bottom (CS 1.10), then opening one in their
neighborhood. Moreover, residents were incensed because they were not consulted
by the city earlier in the siting process. Finally, citizen leaders felt that a federal
approval was needed for the anticipated building code change.
Government Context: City officials denied the accusations, and stated that
neither a prior notification was required, nor a federal approval needed. City officials
pointed out that the Foggy Bottom shelter closure could not have met the badly
needed hypothermia center requirements. The city tried to counter local opposition
in a press statement. The city was also supported by 15 influential local religious
leaders who pointed out the principles of "elemental equity and fairness." Despite the
city’s approval, community opposition would continue, according to D.C. Council
member and facility opponent Jim Nathanson. In a letter to the Washington Post he
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
offered alternatives for the establishment of comprehensive emergency shelters in non-
residential areas with supportive services, but did not specify details. He did,
however, suggest that the city ought to involve the community earlier in the process
to avoid opposition.
NIM BY (II): Other opposition arguments included plans for "warehousing" the
homeless, and suggestions for group homes providing accommodation for six to eight
people. Some 50 opposing neighbors eventually founded the Ward 3 Committee fo r
Responsible Housing Policy to find a "more suitable location." Whether or not these
arguments display "NIMBY with a caring face" is difficult to assess. Extremely
hostile and intimidating opposition arguments were also expressed: "I don’t not want
the quiet streets of my neighborhood to become infested with the lazy, the addled and
the drag addicted beggars who already litter too much of this city. The ethnicity of
these bums is irrelevant; the content of their character my only concern."
Status: The sources of this case study did not indicate which siting strategies
and information tools the city used to gain community support. However, evidence
suggests that the city’s insistence on an administrative siting approach, without
community input and without consultation, was not effective enough to help reduce
animosities.
(Sources: Baum, 1991; Cataneda, 1992; Letters to the Editor, 1991; Session Stepp, 1991)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Cameron Station, Alexandria VA.
Community and Facility Context: In July 1994, it was announced that the
Cameron Station-military base would close in 1995. The 164-acre military facility is
located on high value property ($1 millions per acre) outside Washington D.C. in
Alexandria County. It is adjacent to apartment buildings and condom in ium s, and a
shopping center. City officials had already made plans in the event of its closure.
One hundred and fourteen acres were supposed to be sold to developers for homes,
shops and offices, with the remainder slated to remain as undeveloped parklands. The
proposed development would have generated valuable and badly needed tax revenues.
Siting Strategies: As in San Pedro, CA, the federal 1987 "Smart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act" gives homeless organizations the right of first
refusal. Correspondingly, three homeless organizations have already claimed their right
to use parts of the military base. On a first-come, first-served basis, interested service
providers file an application which must be ruled within 25 days. So far, Abundant
Life Christian Outreach M inistries (5 buildings), Capital Area Community Food Bank
(1 building), and Carpenter’ s Shelter (1 building) have successfully filed applications.
They were permitted to convert existing buildings without consideration of local
zoning regulations. Abundant Life planned the largest project, including housing for
several hundred homeless, educational services, a medical clinic, child care, and
Christian guidance.
NIM BY and Status: These developments have triggered an immense debate
between social service providers on the one hand, and local administrators, politicians,
business people, and residents on the other. Opponents point out that Alexandria had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
already done enough for the homeless, and claim that valuable economic resources are
being given up too easily. Residents express fears of an "overwhelming facility" and
are ready to go to court, if necessary. Service providers, such as Rev. Rachel Ewell
from Abundant Life counter that the current proposals utilize only one third of the
entire base, leaving ample space for commercial development. She also mentioned
that she had attempted to meet with Alexandria planning officials but she was simply
and bluntly told to go away. This case is ongoing.
(Source: Bates, 1994)
Homeless Shelter/ Drug Rehab Center, Arlington VA.
Community and Facility Context: On April 27, 1991, the Arlington County
Board unanimously decided on a location for a new 68-bed homeless shelter combined
with a drug treatment center. This decision put an end to a controversy that lasted
over a year. The new site is shielded from the directly adjacent residential
neighborhoods. However, nearby residents continue to oppose some aspects of the
development.
Siting Strategies: The actual siting process, prior to the board’s decision,
involved the formation of a "Citizen’s Panel," which had an advisory role in finding
a suitable location for the facility. The panel, however, was unable to find a location
acceptable to all interested parties, and, in fact, pitted one neighborhood against
another. The Arlington County Board therefore had to make a decision without
ongoing community input.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
NIMBY: During the board’s debate, about 40 local residents protested against
the new facility. They feared for their safety and questioned the County’s spending
priorities. Furthermore, they submitted alternative proposals, such as converting a
soon-to-be vacated county jail, or suggested an alternate use for the prospective site.
Both suggestions were dismissed.
IMBY: Supporters, including Board Chairman and nearby neighbor William
T. Newman, generally pointed out the need for a community drug treatment facility.
One woman argued that her son, who committed suicide because of drug problems,
might not have done so, had the center (Arlington’s only one) existed. Other
supporters pointed out the positive experience Arlington has had so far with its
homeless shelters.
Status: After the board’s decision, the proposed center still had to negotiate
a lease with the property owner, and obtain a conditional use permit from the local
zoning administration. These hurdles might give opposing neighbors additional
opportunities to block the development. Unfortunately, available sources did not
indicate the ultimate outcome of this issue, but facility operators hoped that the facility
would be opened by 1993.
(Sources: Hsu, 1991-; Washington Post, 1991)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Logan Circle, Washington D.C.
Community and Facility Context: This case study focuses upon an intense
clash of interests between increasingly assertive religious social service providers, and
local residents and property owners. The debate centered on plans to designate the
area around Logan Circle (Ward 2) as an "historic district." Logan Circle is one of
the most diverse sections of D.C.. It contains a growing population of upwardly
mobile, predominantly white young professionals. It is also home to an increasing
number of marginalized residents and homeless persons, who receive assistance from
the area’s many charitable organizations. The area, aesthetically and architecturally
appealing and renowned, consists of about 700 houses and buildings, mainly spacious
old row houses. The discussion of redesignating the area as an historic district has
been going on since the early 1980s. An historic district designation means that it
would be more difficult in the future to achieve changes in land use and zoning
requirements. This would, on the one hand, help to prevent unsuitable land use and
the destruction of architectural land marks, but would also make it more difficult for
social service providers to expand services, enlarge or alter facilities, and to build new
service facilities.
NIM BY Controversy: The underlying question in this conflict is, whether
neighborhood preservation, or the needs of low-income, mainly minority people
seeking housing, are more important. Can religious institutions be restricted in their
faith and enterprise to help those in need? About 340 churches, synagogues, and
mosques in the district provide assistance to the poor and the homeless, making the
outcome of this conflict relevant not only to the ward but the district as a whole.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Arguments on both sides clearly display frustration and anger, even irony. Rev.
Beecher Hicks, pastor of the local Metropolitan Baptist Church, accused his opponents
of having "filed this application to prevent such unhistoric activities as feeding the
hungry, clothing the naked and caring for children from proliferating in our
neighborhood." Having the area designated as an historic district would mean longer
and more costly bureaucratic procedures to get permission for site improvements,
enlargements, or new projects in the area. In 1994, three local charities intended to
expand their services. Newly created zoning and regulatory obstacles might exhaust
the charity’s financial resources, which could be used more efficiently on actual
services. On the other side, Helen Cramer of the Logan Circle Community Association
stated that the churches "simply don’t seem to want any community input on any of
the properties they want to develop." She was supported by D.C. Council member
and area representative Jack Evans who insist that the clergy is mischaracterizing the
community’s motives. However, according to church officials, community
organizations distributed fliers that warned of the "dire escalation of drugs and crime"
if homeless services were allowed to proliferate.
Status: It is now up to the 11-member Historic Preservation Review Board to
decide on the issue of historic designation. No matter what result, a legal battle is
possible. In this case, the charities might have an advantage. Lois Williams, a
Washington lawyer said: "Issues of fair housing and of religious freedom go well
beyond what a zoning or historic preservation board should be dealing with."
(Source: Spayd and Sanchez, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
M iriam ’ s Kitchen, W ashington D .C.
Community and F acility Context: This case documents the successful
relocation of a soup kitchen, called "Miriam’s Kitchen," serving up to 200 homeless
people in Foggy Bottom (Ward 2). It also illustrates a variety of increasingly unusual
oppositional tactics employed by antagonistic local residents. Before the relocation,
the Western Presbyterian Church operated a soup kitchen in the basement of its old
church, just a few blocks further downtown. In 1990, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), which surrounded the church’s property, expressed an interest in
acquiring the Western’s parcel of land to build a 19 story office tower. The IMF
offered the church a $23 million deal, including a $4 million donation. Western
Presbyterian accepted the deal and purchased land in Foggy Bottom (5 blocks west
of the church’s old location) for $10 million. The new site is in a residential
neighborhood, comprised of a significant percentage of senior citizens. The Church
built a new structure for $9 million and included a state-of-the-art kitchen for
$200,000 in order to continue its food services for the homeless. Local residents did
not mind the relocation of the church per se, but when they found out that the soup
kitchen was to be relocated as well, fierce opposition and an ongoing struggle were
launched.
NIM BY (I): Neighborhood activists were concerned about the safety of the
over 700 elderly residents who are at particular risk from aggressive panhandling,
outright robbery, or even more serious criminal incidents. Barbara Kahlow, board
member of the Foggy Bottom Association (neighborhood organization) claimed that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the neighborhood had already experienced increased violence and a rising number of
victims. She also suggested that the residents are in favor of continuing feeding
programs, but she felt that such programs should be run in the very areas homeless
people live - not in their residential neighborhood. Other arguments included
reference to reports of increased criminal activity around the soup kitchen’s old
location. Kahlow was supported by D.C.Council member Jack Evans, who also sided
with residents in another case. For him, the issue is "simply that a church cannot do
whatever it wants to." This view is vehemently opposed by Western Presbyterian
Rev. John Wimberly, who referred to his Christian commitment to help, and he
objects the residents’ intolerance. He was supported by a coalition of District
ministers.
Siting Strategies: The entire issue escalated in February, 1994, when residents
initiated an investigation by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. After a controversial
debate revealed certain zoning inconsistencies, the board ruled against the church.
The board found that the feeding program was not a primary mission of a church.
Rev. Wimberly immediately appealed the decision in the U.S. District Courts.
Western Presbyterian’s attorney justified the appeal by arguing that the city’s zoning
ruling not only violated the first and fifth constitutional amendments, but also violated
the 1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as well as Washington, D.C.
law. Judge Stanley Sorkin eventually approved the appeal and generally expressed his
support for the church’s efforts, questioning why the government should interfere with
church-internal affairs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Post-entry NIMBY (II): Miriam’s Kitchen opened April 18,1994. However,
neither the court ruling nor the consequent facility opening could deter opponents
from continuing efforts to stop the feeding program. By April, 1995, the Foggy
Bottom Association, with the assistance of the Cooperative Urban Ministry Center, set
up a feeding program of their own-eight blocks away. With the help of a $346,000
corporate grant (ironically by the IMF as compensation for closing an alley) the
community purchased a "CARE-a-VAN" mobile soup kitchen. Barbara Kahlow said:
"We didn’t feel we could attempt to close [Western’s] program until we had one up
and running. We want the homeless fed, and we want them fed in downtown, where
they live." This measure was strongly supported and praised by Councilman Jack
Evans. Rev. Wimberly strongly objected the resident’s steps, and ironically stated that
"this has to be the first time in history someone has set up a feeding program to
destroy another feeding program." He asked why this was happening when other parts
of the city have no feeding programs at all.
Status: Despite the loss of approximately 30 clients a day, Western
Presbyterian intends to continue its feeding program.
(Sources: Brown and Vogel, 1995; Flynn, 1994;
Goodstein, 1994; Goodstein, 1994; Kain, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Tabitha’ s House, Washington D.C.
Community and Facility Context: In 1985 the "Samaritan Inns of
Washington," a respected private non-profit organization, purchased a small apartment
building in the Brightwood-16th Street neighborhood within the District of Columbia.
This building, which had been vacant prior to 1985, was successfully renovated to
serve as a drug and alcohol free residence for 45 individuals who try to m aintain sober
living. The building, renamed Tabitha’s House, contained several clusters of 5-9
rooms, each of which shared one kitchen and bathroom, as well as a community room
and a fitness center. Each tenant was to have paid $260 per month for rent, and
would have been required to stay sober as a part of the lease, which would be
renewed on a monthly basis. Samaritan Inns had established a similar residential
facility three years earlier, the Lazarus House, which was operating successfully.
NIMBY: The neighbors of the newly renovated Tabitha’s House opposed the
development because they feared the potential impact on crime and safety of a facility
x
for ex-drug users. In 1993, they charged that Tabitha’s House should be reclassified
according to local zoning provisions. Samaritan Inns received a classification as a
boarding house by the district government, following the same application procedure
successfully applied for the Lazarus House. This classification permits Samaritan Inns
to operate the facility in the intended way. Neighbors, however, challenged this
classification and requested that Tabitha’s House should be classified as a "Community
Based Residential Facility" (subcategory Substance Abuser Home).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Government Context: This reclassification, however, would have required
Samaritan Inns to apply for a special exception from the District Board of Zoning
Adjustments, since such a facility would not be permitted in this particular R-5A
Zone. The uncertainty about the zoning regulations caused the District authorities to
issue a stop work order later in 1993. Samaritan Inns subsequently filed a lawsuit in
Federal District Court. The court then ordered a mediation via a hearing e xam ination.
Status: The Hearing Examiner determined that the initial categorization was
correct, and lifted the stop work order. The operators finally received a Boarding
House Certificate of Occupancy and were able to continue in their efforts to complete
the renovation.
Siting Strategies: This case study is based on Malcolm Rivkin’s findings
contained in the "Review of Zoning and P lanning Issues Affecting Tabitha’s House,"
prepared for the Samaritan Inns. Rivkin examined historical and current zoning
provisions for similar facilities and classification patterns in the D.C. area. He came
to the conclusion that the Boarding House zoning classification was correct and the
appeal by the neighbors unjustified. Based on the experience of the Lazarus House,
where no crime or incidents had been reported in over three years, he concluded that
there was no evidence for increased crime and drug abuse, a conclusion also supported
by the resident’s commitment to sober living. Hence, the renovation efforts will
improve the overall image of the neighborhood.
(Source: Rivkin, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Project HOME, Philadelphia PA.
Community and Facility Context: For more than three years, "Project HOME, ”
a Philadelphia-based non-profit organization, waited to convert the upper floors of its
privately-owned building into permanent housing for former drug addicts. It planned
to provide housing for homeless women and men in the process of overcoming
substance abuse. Project HOME planned to construct 48 small, low rent apartments
with shared bath and kitchen, and in-house social services to help the formerly
homeless to stabilize their lives. According to HOME president Sister Mary Scullion,
the proposed use should not be considered a shelter but in effect an SRO with special
services.
NIMBY: Immediately after the proposed project became public, two
neighborhood civic associations initiated media-based and legal-based efforts to
prevent the creation of the housing, and appealed a lower court decision favoring the
project. The opponents, denying any NIMBY motivation, argued that the
neighborhood had been over-burdened with social services, particularly those for the
homeless.
Government Context: In 1992, while the appeal and a corresponding decision
of the lower court were pending, HOME, supported by the Justice Department, filed
a federal lawsuit referring to federal fair housing regulations. In November, 1993, the
federal court ruled that the requested accommodation was reasonable and ordered the
city to issue a revised zoning permit. Paradoxically, Philadelphia’s Mayor Rendell,
who supported the project prior to the court’s decision, appealed. This forced the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
project HOME to address the U.S. Court of Appeals, which decided on June 10,1994
in favor of HOME. It ruled that "Philadelphia’s failure to make a reasonable
accommodation to its zoning laws was a violation of the federal Fair Housing
Amendment Act."
Status: This time the city’s Mayor decided not to make further appeals and
removed the barriers. Nearly $ 2 million in public and private funding were then
freed for project HOME to start converting the building in the anticipated way.
Siting Strategies: Asked for advice regarding siting, project director Sister
Mary Scullion replied: "There are a lot of people who want to support the right thing.
Give them the information and the chance to make their support known. And don’t
give up!"
(Sources: American Friends Service Committee, 1993 and 1994)
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Meadowbrook Manor, Mar Vista CA.
Community and Facility Context: Meadowbrook Manor is a residential mental
health center located in a residential neighborhood of Mar Vista, a community within
the city of Los Angeles. This locked and gated facility for over 70 predominantly
schizophrenic patients of all ages, had been the subject of repeated complaints from
the neighborhood. Having been granted a conditional use permit for "mildly mental"
patients in 1955, it had several operational conditions imposed over the years, all of
which have been complied with.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Government Context: In May, 1995, Albert Landini, a local zoning
administrator, filed a report in which he recommended to close the facility, concluding
that it represented a "nuisance" for the local neighborhood. Since a subsequent
approval by the local Board of Zoning appeals remained deadlocked, Landini’s
recommendation prevailed. Meadowbrook Manor’s attorney, responded that the
facility will appeal the decision.
NIMBY: Neighbors had long complained about excessive noise (screams and
loud music), traffic congestion caused by delivery trucks, and littering of the area,
blaming the facility for these disturbances. Local residents were also concerned about
facility residents walking through the area, posing a potential threat to the community.
They accused the facility of having secretly changed its clientele from mildly ill
patients to patients with serious mental disorders without asking the city for
permission, or consulting and informing the neighborhood.
Siting Strategies: Barbara O’Conner, executive director of Meadowbrook
Manor, responded that the local residents are exaggerating the situation, and warned
that at least some patients will end up on the street if the facility closes. Her concern
is shared by relatives of facility residents, who generally agree that no other facility
in the broader area offers the same level of care and protection. One father of a
patient feared that all progress made by his son would be lost, if he were forced to
leave the familiar environment. Local mental health advocates interpreted the city’s
decision as discriminatory and accused neighbors of having typical NIMBY attitudes.
In order to appease the neighbors, the facility management had already taken certain
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
steps prior to the decision, such as restricting truck deliveries to certain times, and to
prohibiting noise.
Status: Nevertheless, the City remained firm on its decision, and as Landini
stated, the facility is "still a nuisance, and I can’t envision any other condition that
will make the nuisance go away." The outcome of this controversy is still uncertain.
(Source: Moore, 1995)
Day Care Center, Garden Grove CA.
Community and Facility Context: After a difficult nine-month search, faced
by massive community resistance, the Mental Health Association of Orange County
found a suitable site, and opened a day care center for mentally ill homeless people
in February, 1992. It was the Association’s second day care center in county. Studies
suggest that up to 50 percent of the County’s 15,000 homeless have psychological
problems. Many of them found themselves on the streets after mental health facilities
were closed during the 1970s and 80s. The new day care center was located in a line
of business offices along a main street in a residential neighborhood in Garden Grove,
a city in Orange County. Up to 50 predominantly schizophrenic and manic depressive
homeless people were shuttled there from nearby homeless shelters every day between
8am and 4pm. Besides service counseling, medical care, and psychiatric help, the
center offered approximately 200 homeless individuals with an opportunity each
month to manage their finances, and aids them in finding and keeping jobs.
Govemmem Context (I): Due to complaints from the local neighborhood, the
Garden Grove City Council first decided to issue a conditional use permit for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
center, then refused to grant it, and finally decided to evict the center within three
months. The City Council justified its decision by referring to the complaints from
the neighbors.
NIM BY: Complaints began shortly after the center opened, when a client was
arrested for an attempted break-in, which raised security concerns among neighbors.
Other complaints concerned "dishelved" people walking through the neighborhood,
center clients sleeping in the area, and clients harassing residents. The attempted
break-in, however, was the most serious of 21 incidents reported to the police in 14
months of operation.
Siting Strategies: Center officials responded by installing security cameras
along the street, and by holding two open houses to inform the neighborhood about
the center and its clients. County psychiatrist Dr. Ike Kempler, who visits the center
every week, stated that the residents security concerns are unjustified and that the
clients are no more dangerous than the rest of the population. He also pointed out
that the center "should be a model for other communities because . . . every
community has this problem." Center clients talked about the unjustified
"stereotypical view of mentally ill" and praised the improvement the center had
brought to their lives.
Government Context (II) and Status: Nevertheless, neighbors remained hostile
toward the center and 115 people signed a petition to relocate the facility. Center
representatives called the allegations exaggerated, but explained that the actual quarrel
is not with neighbors but with the city. City officials had initially assured the Mental
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Health Association that no conditional use permit would be required. But in October
1992, responding to community pressure, the local Planning Commission requested
a conditional use permit but then denied to issue one. The Mental Health Association
appealed, but the City Council unanimously denied the appeal, despite its initial
statements in 1992. As a result, the health officials eventually found themselves in
the position of suing the city shortly before eviction was to be ordered, and after
relocation efforts had failed. The Mental Health Association, supported by other local
social service providers, accused the city of discrimination against mentally ill people,
constituting a violation of the Federal Disability Act. The outcome of this lawsuit and
the relocation efforts are to date unknown.
(Sources: Barker, 1993; Maharaj, 1993)
HIV/AIDS
Low Income Housing, West Hollywood CA.
Community and Facility Context: Law-income housing for people with AIDS
was proposed in 1994 by the West Hollywood Community Housing Corp. which had
completed a similar project in West Hollywood two years prior. The apartment
complex, proposed for a site on West Palms Ave. in the City of West Hollywood, was
planned to have 40 units and to cost $ 5.3 million. It was financed by private
investors, below-market loans from city and state housing programs, and $1 m illion
borrowed from the Actor’s Fund. The rent per apartment was planned to be $370 to
$500. It was geared toward the growing low-income population with AIDS, many of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
whom cannot work to pay rent, but are well enough to live on their own. The four
story facility was planned to house up to 51 people.
NIM BY: Residents near the proposed site objected to the development,
claiming it would block views and increase traffic. They also used "caring face"
arguments, saying that the hilly streets would be too difficult for housing tenants to
climb, or as opponent Matt Gabson said: "this is not a good place to put this."
Siting Strategies: City Council and the City’s Planning Commission both
rejected the neighbors’ appeals. They were aware of the housing dilemma for people
with AIDS, particularly in a city with one of the highest AIDS rates in the country.
In April, 1994, the proposal was approved. Issues about the design of the complex,
reflecting some of the neighborhood complaints, were resolved through negotiations
mediated by City Council-member John Heilman and Mayor Sal Guarriello. As a
result, the house will be lowered in height, and measures to prevent traffic congestions
will be taken. The support of well known actresses Lynn Redgrave and Jean
Stapleton, who performed pro bono for the project, proved to be a highly effective
publicity effect.
Status: The construction was eventually approved by the City Council.
Nevertheless, neither mediation nor awareness and publicity campaigns could prevent
certain residents from considering, though not yet launching, legal challenges.
(Source: Ellingwood, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
YOUTH SERVICES
Aunt Martha’ s Youth Services, Will County C L .
Community, Facility, and Government Context: "Aunt Martha’s Youth
Services," a multi-service agency with 370 youth workers, purchased a five-bedroom
house for $200,000 in 1989. The property is located in Will County, 20 miles south
of Chicago. Aunt Martha’s planned to utilize the house as a group home for ten
abused and neglected male adolescents. Will County officials denied a special use
permit required for such a group home.
Siting Strategies: Aunt Martha’s responded by going to federal court, and
started operating the facility as a foster home for abused and neglected adolescent
girls, a function that does not require a special-use permit. In the process, Aunt
Martha’s withdrew the federal law suit. "You’re always going to face opposition
when you set up a service center, particularly when it is residential care," said Gary
Leofanti, executive director of Aunt Martha’s, and "the toughest cases are homes
serving adolescents who are abused and neglected, delinquent, or coming out of
psychiatric care." Leofanti pointed out that Aunt Martha’s is interested in good
relations with its neighbors, serving both the kids and the community.
"Unfortunately," said Leofanti, "there is no way to do that before you move in, and
some people are always going to fear the unknown."
Status: The operators may be back in court soon, since the county has also
objected to the new use of the facility.
(Source: Vanneman, 1995)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
New Life Youth Services, Cincinnati OH.
Community and F acility Context: "New Life Youth Services" (NLYS) operates
16 sites for homeless youth in the larger Cincinnati area. In previous years, NLYS
has converted four small multi-family apartment buildings into transitional living
centers for homeless youth in mixed neighborhoods in Cincinnati. However, none of
the sites has had more than ten units, and the operators normally try to keep the care
units very small with no more than 3-4 kids. The agency attempts to find vacant, or
partially occupied buildings to locate the care units.
Siting Strategies: According to NLYS’s executive director Bob Mecum, a
wide variety of questions surface during the siting process, but so far no real problems
have arisen. Bob Mecum, who has been in the business for 25 years now,
acknowledged that communities have legitimate fears about residential sites, but also
stated that opposition frequently takes illegitimate forms, and rumors are often
accepted as facts. From his experience Mecum draws the following conclusions and
recommendations:
1. Consider the neighborhood and know the local zoning laws and
building codes. Rely on expertise.
2. Run very small congregate care units (3-4 kids) in order to meet the
local definition of a family. In this way you don’t have to apply for
a zoning variance.
3. Persuade your new neighbors by a) showing your commitment to
maintain the standard of the neighborhood, b) participating in the
community, and c) providing evidence of successful past operations.
(Source: Vanneman, 1995)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Youth in N eed, S t. Charles, MO.
Community and Facility Context: Based outside St. Louis in St. Charles, Youth
in Need (YIN), an organization which assists homeless youth, received a grant under
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act to set up transitional residential living centers
for eight homeless youth. Being under time pressure not to lose the grant, YIN had
to quickly find a suitable site, preferably if possible without the requirement of a
zoning variance. The organization eventually found a site and a donor to purchase it.
NIMBY: After the neighborhood had found out about the intended new land
uses, a fierce debate ensued between opponents and supporters of the proposed site.
The community was evenly split along the lines of a pre-existing local political
rivalry. The facility operators did not anticipate and address this development early
enough, and found themselves caught in the middle of the ongoing local rivalry.
Siting Strategies and Status: Fortunately for YIN, the city ruled in favor of
the project and dismissed two appeals by opponents. In order to resolve the
controversies and to normalize neighborhood relations, YIN is now in the process of
establishing a dialogue with the community.
(Source: Vanneman, 1995)
Christian Church Homes, Independence, KY.
Community and Facility Context: "Christian Church Homes" (CCH), a 110
year old non-profit organization based in Danville, Kentucky, intended to set up a
psychiatric residential treatment center for eight young people in the city of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Independence. This Medicaid funded project would be located on an isolated 25 acre
property, for which CCH has a long term lease.
Government Context: The Independence Board of Adjustments, the board
responsible for local siting issues, immediately opposed the proposed land use. It
ruled that the center was an institution, rather than a residence, and therefore needed
a land use permit. This ruling gave the board the ability to block its siting. The
board requested police checks on the clients as part of their considerations.
Siting Strategies and Status: Kentucky state law holds that local zoning laws
cannot discriminate against the emotionally handicapped. Therefore, CCH filed a
lawsuit against the City of Independence. According to CCH vice president Bill
Donovan, it is quite a paradox that CCH operates a similar facility just five miles
away in Walton and encountered no community resistance. "They welcomed us with
open arms," said Donovan. The outcome of the lawsuit is at this point unknown.
(Source: Vanneman, 1995)
N ashua C hildren’ s Association, Nashua N H .
Community and Facility Context, and Status: The "Nashua Children’s
Association" (NCA) sought to establish a home for twelve abused, neglected, and
emotionally handicapped adolescent females. After opposition was mounted by a
wealthy community in Nashua, New Hampshire, a legal battle ensued, lasting for 18
months. The NCA was successful in establishing the facility.
Siting Strategies: Not only did the agency win the 18 month legal battle,
NCA’s lawyer, Kenneth Margolin, sued nine individuals within the community using
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) regulations. This retrospective legal act can
also be interpreted as a "SLAPP." As a result, these individuals agreed to discontinue
their efforts to block the home in return for dropping the suit. Animosities, however,
continue. David Villiotti, executive director of the NCA, acknowledged that this legal
measure undoubtedly produced "hard feelings," but that the tactic was nevertheless
justified. He said "we are working to be a good neighbor, but we are in something
of a defensive posture." (Source: Vameman, 1995)
PUBLIC HOUSING
Moving To Opportunity Program, Baltimore MD.
Community and Facility Context: "Movingto Opportunity" (MTO) is a federal
program designed to give low-income families a fresh start by relocating them from
public housing in problem-stricken inner-city neighborhoods to more promising
suburban locations. MTO was authorized by Congress in 1992, and five metropolitan
areas (Boston, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Baltimore) were selected for
implementation. MTO is an experimental program based on the successful Batreux
Program in Chicago. With the help of Section 8 certificates, 145 low-income minority
families from Baltimore’s public housing projects will have the chance to relocate to
suburban counties. The Citizens Task Force on Metropolitan Housing emphasized the
importance of the program, which they say ensures "public housing families will have
a chance to escape the poverty trap." They also pointed out that providing affordable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
housing is not only the responsibility of the city, since the surrounding counties are
themselves dependent on the vitality of the city and its institutions. Finally, the Task
Force emphasized that the suburban communities will profit from an eager workforce
and property owners will be able to find tenants.
NIMBY: In Baltimore, the proposed move has met with fierce opposition from
residents of the potential host communities. Complaints focused on several issues,
including the unfairness of some people receiving subsidies while others struggle to
get by, the secrecy of the government, and the prospect that local social services
would be overloaded. These concerns were in part due to misconceptions about the
size and scope of the project.
Government Context: Not surprisingly, the issue became highly politicized
during the 1994 federal elections. Although the project had been enacted during, and
supported by, the Bush administration, Republicans campaigned against the program.
Prior to the 1994 campaigns, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski attempted to
persuade her colleagues to cancel further funding for MTO.
x
Status: Despite the continuous local residential and political opposition, HUD
secretary Cisneros has insisted that the MTO program will go forward in Baltimore.
(Source: American Friends Service Committee, 1994)
Public H ousing, Yonkers NY.
Community and Facility Context: In 1980, the Carter administration issued a
desegregation legislation against the intentional segregation of housing and schools.
In 1985, Judge Leonard B. Sand of the Federal District Court in Manhattan found that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
the City of Yonkers, NY, had violated the principles of desegregation by having its
public housing deliberately segregated in the south-west section of the city. In 1986,
he ordered the city to build 200 public housing apartment units in the northern and
western sections of town, areas which are predominantly inhabited by white middle-
class families. The majority of the seven newly constructed complexes comprise up
to 48 two-bedroom apartments.
NIM BY: Residents and city officials were up in arms when the court decision
became public. The predominantly white residents in the prospective locations were
concerned about their property values, increased criminal activity, racial tensions,
more traffic, and white flight. The bluntest form of community opposition was
expressed when the letters "KKK" were sprayed across the main entrance of one
completed facility. However, one of the opponents, Eleanor Bourke of the Whitman
Homeowners Association denied racial motivation for the opposition. She suggested
that the opposition surrounded the "mixing of people of disparate economic classes,"
and that the general attitude was "that if you could afford to buy a house you are
welcome."
Government Context and Siting Strategies: The entire issue also became
highly politicized. The then Mayor, Henry J. Spallone, appealed the federal court’s
decision four times but was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. His actions brought
potentially bankrupting fines against the city. Spallone was succeeded in 1991 by the
more moderate Mayor Terence M. Zaleski, who decided to continue the project and
resisted further legal challenges.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Status: The first buildings were completed in 1991, and the last complex,
fulfilling the 200 unit requirement, was opened in September 1994. A city official
reported "no crime to speak of, no racial tensions, and no significant white flight."
However, property values did fall, but not because of the impact of the small public
housing units, but rather because of overall changes in the local housing market. In
1986, Judge Sands had also ordered the creation of 800 units of privately owned
housing for people who qualify for subsidized housing. However, plans for these
units are still being formulated.
(Sources: Berger, 1993; Foderaro, 1991; McAleer Vizard, 1994)
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Federal Prison, Florence CO.
Community, Facility, and Government Context (I): Florence is an
economically depressed, rural mining town in Fremont County, Colorado. In 1989,
it was selected by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to host a new federal prison. The
comprehensive prison complex will consist of all four types of correctional institutions
(m inim um , medium, high, and administrative maximum security federal prisons).
When finished, the entire facility will house 3,000 inmates and employ about 1,000
people.
Siting Strategies: Community leaders, sensing potential economic benefits,
joined together and founded the "Fremont County Economic Development
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Cooperation." They raised $140,000, $100,00 of which was used to acquire 600 acres
of ranchland near a highway to provide a suitable parcel of land for the prison. The
remaining $40,000 was used to create a loan fund to attract new businesses.
Community, Facility, and Government Context (II): The actual siting and
planning process was "relatively smooth" and accompanied by "few negative
comments," said city planner Mike Markus. The reasons for this were the economic
benefits generated by the new facility. Although federal prisons usually transfer
employees producing no direct employment opportunities for local residents, federal
prisons normally generate an additional 2.87 non-prison jobs for each staff position.
For Florence, this meant up to 2,900 new jobs within the local economy. Since the
opening of the first facility the city’s unemployment rate has significantly dropped
form 9.2 to 5.3 percent. In addition to new jobs, the facility has also introduced 500
new residents (federal prison employees and their families), both factors resulting in
higher local tax revenues (increasing by 34 percent by early 1995. Furthermore, in
response to the rapid and continuing population growth, the city has annexed 800
acres of land next to the prison, and rezoned it for residential and commercial
development, as well as a school.
Status: Given the economic benefits promised by the new prison and the fact
that the initial location of the prison was some distance from potentially opposing
neighbors with security concerns, it is not surprising that this siting process, featuring
a comprehensive siting approach, was successful. By January 1995, two prisons were
already finished and in use. (Source: Nadel, 1995)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Federal Prison, Plymouth MA.
Community and Facility Context: In 1990, Plymouth, a thriving seaside tourist
destination with 47,000 residents, submitted a proposal to the Justice Department to
build a federal prison. The 400-inmate facility was intended to provide a new home
for detainees awaiting trial in the nearby federal courts of Boston and Providence,
Rhode Island. In the absence of any significant opposition, the new facility was
located on a secluded 60-acre parcel outside the city. With the help of private
investors (30 year bonds), Plymouth county actually provided $110.5 million in
funding for site acquisition and development.
NIMBY: According to Peter Froman, the new sheriff of the facility,
community opposition to the prison was relatively limited. The potential economic
benefits of the prison siting may have been one reason for the lack of opposition.
However, it should be noted that the economic benefits of the new prison were only
a secondary concern of the residents of this relatively wealthy city with over 1 million
tourists per year. Those concerns which did emerge centered on issues of facility
design and facility visibility.
Siting Strategies and Status: Facility planners appeased concerned residents
by assuring them that the prison would be visually buffered. Planners also attempted
to avoid opposition by making local residents aware of the side benefits of the new
facility, such as the construction of a new court house, a new police headquarters, and
a new wastewater disposal plant. In addition, planners actively involved local
residents by creating a Citizen’s Advisory Group to formulate plans for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
redevelopment of the old jail in the center of the city which has now closed. The new
jail eventually opened in may 1994. Plans for a second jail are currently under
consideration. (Source: Nadel, 1995)
County Jail, Elizabeth NJ.
Community and F acility Context: In 1989, a new county jail was opened in
downtown Elizabeth, a city in Union County, NJ. The facility, featuring a 14 story,
triangular high rise on an 1.5 acre site, holds up to 450 inmates, and is conveniently
connected to the county’s courthouse via a skybridge. By mid-1995, the facility was
fully occupied. However, due to an unexpected increase in the city’s prison
population, the new facility was not large enough. As a result, the old jail is now
being successively upgraded one floor at a time.
Siting Strategies: Decision-making, p lanning and construction for the new
downtown jail took seven years. Whether or not, and to what extent opposition
occurred during siting process was not indicated in the article this case study was
based on. However, facility architect Robert Lichtman said that "in addition to
meeting zoning codes, we had to sell the high-rise concept to the community," and
"since there were senior citizen housing and apartment buildings nearby, we kept the
community involved in the process." One example of this involvement was to
conduct tours at building dedication, which was, as Lichtman stated, "a very successful
way to gain public support for the project."
(Source: Nadel, 1995)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
7.4. Federal Women’s Facility, Edmonton Canada.
Community, F acility, and Government Context: In April, 1990, the
Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) issued the report "Creating Choices: Report
on the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women." This report was designed to
reform the Canadian prison system’s policies concerning the incarceration of federally
sentenced women. Prior to this time, Canada had only maintained one centralized
federal facility in Kingston, Ontario. The task force called for stronger regionalization
of facilities, together with stronger community participation in a systematic process
of site selection. In November, 1992, Edmonton was chosen from 32 contenders as
the site of Alberta’s federal women’s facility. Edmonton’s mayor, Jan Reimer, stated
in a newspaper interview that the city "has lobbied hard to get it," because of the new
jobs and other economic benefits the facility promised to generate. Edmonton’s
proposal was supported by over 700 groups and individuals. The new facility was
intended to accommodate approximately 40-44 women, but had a maximum capacity
of 58 to accommodate future increases in the female inmate population. The
prospective women inmates were to be of all ages and backgrounds, two thirds with
children, and 80-90 percent having suffered some form of physical and/or sexual
abuse. The majority of the inmates require only minimum security, although 26% of
the women had been sentenced for manslaughter or murder.
Siting Strategies (I): The siting process was divided into two phases. During
phase one (Nov. 1992 - May 1993) a preferred site within Edmonton was chosen from
seven potential sites (all federal properties) by a committee consisting of three federal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
and nine local representatives. The most promising site was an undeveloped property
on the Griesbach Military Base in the northern part of Edmonton. The location was
announced April 2, 1993. However, the local media mistakenly replaced the term
"preferred site" with "chosen site," misinforming local residents and sparking a
massive public outcry.
NIMBY: The public felt that the process lacked any opportunity for public
input and that there would be no further consultation. In the following two weeks the
North Edmonton Taxpayer’s Association organized opposition by collecting 10,000
signatures on a petition to "stop the prison." Their tactics included the spreading of
misinformation which worked to increase public concern about the facility. Major
concerns were centered around the actual location of the facility, and its impact on
local safety, security, and property values.
Siting Strategies (II): Whereas phase one was based on conventional siting
practices (no or hardly any public participation), phase two involved an innovative
approach based on true public consultation. "Tme consultation meant that we were
<
willing to compromise and acted upon suggestions of the community, even when these
changed our direction somewhat," said Jan Fox, warden of the new facility.
According to the Connor evaluation, Fox’s experience, expertise, persistence, patience,
and willingness to compromise were the "single most important factors" in the final
success of the siting procedure. Fox was responsible for planning the siting
techniques and strategies. She also provided strong and continuous leadership
throughout the process; a crucial factor since members of the community could
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
address a "face," not just what they perceived as an overwhelming, uncaring
institution. An integral part of the siting strategy involved responding to negative
perceptions of the facility which had been intensified by media-misinformation and
the ensuing opposition campaign. To do this, Fox, her colleagues, and supporters took
several steps to inform and involve the community in the siting process. Efforts were
made, for example, to spread public information about the facility and its potential
impact in order to alleviate fears and concerns of the local residents. This was
attempted through a series of public information meetings, prompt answering of
telephone-calls, letters, and requests, and the distribution of various pamphlets,
newspaper advertisements, and informational brochures. Warden Fox alone
participated in nearly 100 public forums. Of particular importance were two detailed,
but easy to understand newsletters issued by CSC. The first, published in August
1993, contained general information and was distributed to nearly 80,000 households
in the Edmonton area via an insert in a local newspaper. The second, from December
1993, contained more specific information and was distributed to roughly 5,000
households in those communities directly adjacent to the facility. Both newsletters
explicitly requested and encouraged community participation. Spreading factual
information helped to clarify misinformation regarding security (e.g.,no women ever
escaped, visitors are closely checked), and property values (e.g. ,no empirical evidence
for declining property values). The information campaign also provided residents with
details of the benefits the facility would bring to the community. For example, the
project promised to provide 26 permanent full-time jobs at the facility, and an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
additional 90 jobs during facility construction. In addition, most of the $10 million
construction costs would directly benefit the city and its contractors. Finally, joint
business venture opportunities will benefit both the local economy (low wages) and
the incarcerated women, who will acquire marketable skills which might assist them
on their release. The facility would also benefit the community after completion
through shared recreational use (sports facilities, gym nasiu m s, meeting rooms, chapel),
involvement of interest groups (religious, women, jurisdictional, and other issues), and
involvement of local social service providers.
Active community participation in the process of the site selection is probably
the most important aspect of this case study. Seeing the community "as a part of the
team" was a major objective. This was achieved through the establishment of various
grass-roots committees. A Citizen Advisory Committee was founded to help with the
actual facility design. Other committees included a Program Advisory Committee and
an active proponent group, the Friends of the Facility, who helped during the public
information process. A Site Selection Committee was also founded in response to the
April protests, with the task of reviewing 60 potential sites, including non-federally
owned lands. On October 25,1994, this committee came to its own conclusion that
the Griesbach Military Base was indeed the most suitable site for the new facility.
Status: Since this second site announcement there has been virtually no
opposition articulated. The facility is proposed to open in October, 1995.
(Sources: Connor and Fischer, 1994; Correctional Services of Canada, August 1993;
Correctional Services of Canada, December 1993; Fox, 1994; Gold, 1993; Mildon, 1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Jane Edna Hill Center, Los Angeles CA.
Community and Facility Context: In 1992, Pastor E. V.Hill of the Mt. Zion
Missionary Baptist Church purchased a 25-unit apartment building in the Crenshaw
District of Los Angeles City. For $454,000 he bought the house from an owner who
had consistently violated municipal housing codes. This apartment complex, formerly
known for attracting crack abusers and dealers, was a source of constant neighborhood
complaints. Currently the complex, designed to provide needy young mothers and
their children with temporary housing, is being renovated. Admittance to the "Jane
Edna Hill Center for Women and Infants" is conditional upon contracts, which require
the women to pursue work or education during their 3 months at the facility. The
women will be assisted by on-site social workers, doctors and psychiatrists who will
also take care of the children while the women are trying to solve their specific
individual problems. According to project director and consultant Ozie H unt,".. .this
is not a homeless shelter. We’re helping people who want to help themselves."
NIMBY: Given the prior reputation of the apartment complex as a crack-house
as well as the high percentage of poor single women with children in Crenshaw, no
community opposition to the proposed center was to be expected.
Siting Strategies: Immediately after Pastor Hill acquired the site for the Mt.
Zion Church, he began working with the city to renovate the building. The City
Housing Department supplied $1.2 million to assist with the restoration of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
building’s 1929 architecture. The successful siting of this facility demonstrates the
merit of cooperation between private (church) and public forces (city) in order to
tackle community problems together. Furthermore, combining siting issues with
gentrification-renovation purposes can be a promising way to gain community support,
and also helps service providers to obtain public funds for building purposes.
Status: The center is scheduled for completion in August 1995.
(Source: Aubry, 1994)
Christian Council of Metropolitan Atlanta, Atlanta GA.
Community and Facility Context: In 1989, the "Christian Council of
Metropolitan Atlanta" (CCMA) proposed to expand their 60 person homeless shelter
for women with children in order to serve up to 300 persons. The operators wanted
to accept men as well. However, significant neighbor-hood opposition to these
proposed changes in scale and nature of the facility arose.
Siting Strategies and Status: In order to resolve this siting conflict, both
CCMA and the local neighborhood accepted a mediator. The mediation by the Justice
Center of Atlanta led to a compromise that limits the number of persons to 100 and
accepts men inside the facility only if they are members of the fam ily. This
compromise resulted in expansion by only 40, instead of the anticipated 240, beds.
However, Edith Primm, director of research and development at the Justice Center,
describes the mediation as a "real success," but acknowledges a "great deal of
ignorance about what mediation can accomplish," and that "people are so prone to sue
in our society, so worried about asserting their rights." (Source: Vanneman, 1995)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
PUBLIC SERVICES
Welfare Office, Anaheim, CA.
Community and Facility Comext: In 1993, the Anaheim City Council asked
the county’s Social Service Agency to relocate the current welfare office, in response
to complaints from the neighboring community. Local residents mentioned increased
crime (robberies, burglaries, substance abuse, and arson) and loitering in the
surrounding residential areas and the nearby La Palma park as the main reasons for
their protests. Social Service Director Larry M. Leaman agreed and said further that
the current facility has outlived its usefulness. Whether or not welfare recipients were
the source of increased crime and loitering remains unclear as the allegations were not
fully investigated.
NIM BY (I): Initial opposition to the welfare office began in February, 1993,
when a community group called "Somebody" started to draw attention to the issue.
At a City Council meeting, the group presented a video showing a drug deal in the
area. After this presentation and vocal opposition, Mayor Frank Daly and the Council
agreed to draft a letter to the county’s Social Service office to find an alternative
location. The leader of the opposing group, Keith Olesen was pleased with this
proposal and hoped that the office would be moved within six months. Clients of the
office reacted patiently to the anticipated relocation. "We’ll just go where they move,"
said one client.
Siting Strategies: Orange County’s Social Service director Leaman responded
favorably to the proposal and agreed to find a better location, which, however, will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
cost money and time. In the meantime, he addressed short term measures to concerns
about safety by posting signs, constructing fences, and by increasing security. The
County Supervisor Bill Steiner’s office even obtained an informal public consent
through concessions about the facility and programmatic characteristics.
NIMBY (II): A private developer then successfully launched a campaign to
encourage community rejection of the facility by focussing on client characteristics.
Some arguments deliberately created fear by referring to the welfare office as one for
criminals only. By September 1994, still no new location for the office had been
found. Relocation proved to be more difficult than expected, perhaps due to the
negative image of the existing office conveyed in media coverage of opposition.
Status: Ongoing community opposition and political pressure (1994 campaign)
basically prevented efforts to either convince residents of the acceptability of the
current location, or to gain community acceptance for a new site. A new site will
have to be found in the same general area as most clients live there.
(Source: Lait and Spencer, 1993)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
4.3 Case Study Experience Systematized
The thirty-one case studies have revealed a variety of different siting situations, actors,
oppositional behaviors, and siting strategies. The purpose of this section is to
systematize the dimensions and elements that surfaced in the case studies, which are
pertinent to understanding the locational conflict. To do so, I went through each case
and extracted elements from the corresponding pre-determined key-factors in which
context they were initially discussed. I grouped related elements into different sub
dimensions, and associated them with more general dimensions. In the following
sections, I summarize the most important results concerning dimensions that were
derived from the discussion of key-factors in individual cases. I also provide tables
that preliminarily list the key-factors, dimensions, and elements.
In the next three sections, I discuss dimensions that describe the conditions
of NIMBY and the locational conflict. Within the key-factor facility context, I focus
on dimensions within a facility that may have an impact on the perception of a facility
<
by actors in the community and the government context. The behavior of these
actors, however, is determined by the context they interact within, which is either the
community structure or the government structure and its functions. I list dimensions
and elements that surfaced, make general statements about "tendencies" of either
acceptance or rejection, and refer to existing studies wherever additional information
is needed. Let me discuss the different contexts sequentially.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Facility Context
The facility context is important because it indicates what people object to.
Three dimensions have been suggested: client characteristics, facility characteristics,
and facility operations. The foremost dimension within the facility context that helps
to determine acceptance or rejection is the client type. Attitudes towards specific
types of clients are important indicators of potential controversy. These attitudes are
based on the presumed impact of the clients on the community. This impact can be
assessed by looking at what opponents have objected to. These elements can be
associated with behaviors, health, and security issues. Although the present set of case
studies discusses a variety of client types, the numbers of each type are too small to
make valid statements about which service and client type was most or least likely to
be successfully sited. However, homeless services were least likely to be successfully
sited compared to other services; only one was completely successful. Hence,
opposition tended to be more intense compared to other services. Studies on
hierarchies of acceptance give a clearer idea about attitudes toward particular client
types (Westbrook et al., 1993; Dear et al.,1995c).
A second dimension are the actual "facility characteristics." The again
foremost sub-dimension are the attitudes potential opponents have towards a particular
facility type. Previous studies have indicated that attitudes towards a facility can be
quite different than attitudes towards the clients it serves (Daniel Yankelovich Group,
1990; Takahashi, 1992; Gaber, 1995). The case studies have also shown that facility-
size and facility-design are often mentioned as being important issues in the minds of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
potential opponents. In terms of facility size, the case studies also suggest that most
large facilities (over 50 clients) experienced more difficulties than smaller ones, which
can be explained by the visibility of larger facilities. An exception is the siting of
large correctional facilities, which were generally sited with less controversy. This
can be attributed to the fact that these facilities create economic benefits for
communities, which serves as an incentive for acceptance. Most human service
facilities can not offer such incentives, and the siting of large facilities has often
generated more intensive opposition. The economic impact of a facility is therefore
also a sub-dimension that needs to be considered.
Table 4.2: Facility Context
I. FACILITY CONTEXT
1. Siting Type 3. Facility Characteristics
1.1 New Sites 3.1 Facility Size/Visibility
1.2 Relocations/Closures 3.2 Facility Design/ Aesthetics
1.3 Site Improvements 3.3 Economic Impact
3.4 Attitudes Toward Facility
2. Client Characteristics
2.1 Attitudes Toward Client 4. Facility Operations
2.2 Client Impact 4.1 Agency Leadership
a: Behaviors a: Facility/ Provider’s Reputation
b: Health b: Effectiveness
c: Crime/Security c: Local Contacts/ Networking
4.2 Programmatic Dimensions
a: Financial Capabilities
b: Client Supervision
Explanation:
I. KEY-VARIABLE
/. Dimension
1 .1 Sub-Dimension
a: Element
"Facility operations" are a third dimension that is important. The merits of
having an effective, continuous, and reputable leadership have been demonstrated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
particularly in the case of the Edmonton prison. Programmatic dimensions helped
reducing the impact of a facility and increase a favorable public perception.
Specifically, proper client supervision was a suggested element. The "siting type" is
a new dimension that I have discovered. I differentiate between the siting of new
facilities, relocation attempts of existing facilities, and site-improvements, which
include renovations and enlargements. The case studies indicated that site-
improvement caused comparably less opposition than new sites and relocations.
Relocations, in particular, often caused intense opposition which was often based on
the argument that the area was already saturated with services.
Community Context
The principal question to ask when assessing the community context is, what
does the context of a community imply for NIMBY? I will therefore discuss
specifically those dimensions that appear to be helpful in indicating whether a
community context is more or less favorable to siting. To do so, I discuss two
principle dimensions that help to shed light onto why conflicts occur. These
dimensions are the actual structure of a community, and the actions of different actors
in a community. Within the dimension "community structure, "I differentiate between
four sub-dimensions— actual location, land use, built environment, and characteristics
of a local neighborhood. In terms of actual location, the case studies have indicated
that inner-city locations appeared to be least conflictive, whereas urban areas appeared
to be the most contested locations. A location can be further differentiated by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
predominant land-use of a neighborhood. Here, residential areas tended to be most
conflictive. These indications coincide with existing studies on neighborhood
variations of acceptance (Daniel Yankelovich Group, 1990; Dear and Wilton, 1995b).
Table 4. 3: Community Context
H. COMMUNITY CONTEXT
1. Community Structure
I.1 Actual Location
a: Inner Cities, CBDs
b: Urban
c: Suburban
d: Rural
1.2 Land Use
a: Residential
b: Mixed Residential/ Industrial
c: Industrial
1.3 Built Environment
a: Quality of Neighborhood
b: Home Values
c: Economic and Industrial Activity
1.4 Characteristics of Local
Community
a: Economic
b: Socio-Economic
c: Socio-Demographic
2. NIMB Y-Actors and Concerns
2.1 Actors (supportive or rejecting)
a: Individual Neighbors
b: Neighborhood Associations
c: Local Business People
d: Other Service Providers
e: Experts
2.2 Proximity/ Distance
2.3 NIMBY by Residents
a: Protectionism, Fear
b: Neighborhood Stake
c: Homogeneity
2.4 NIMBY by Local Businesses
a: Profit, Protectionism
c: Consumer Flows
Explanation:
I: KEY-VARIABLE
/. Dimension
LI Sub-Dimension
a: Element
Within the sub-dimension built environment, I discuss three elements that appeared
to be important in the case studies, namely the quality of the neighborhood, home
values, and business and industrial activity. I have derived these categories by
considering that most opponents fear the location of a facility because of its presumed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
impact. Finally, the characteristics of the local neighborhood are evidently an
important dimension that determines oppositional behavior. However, due to the
nature of the data, very little information was available on such community
characteristics. Only in a few cases do we find specifying elements, such as
’predominantly white neighborhood’, or ’rich suburb’, etc. that may help us to
specify community characteristics. Those characteristics that did surface were either
associated with socio-economic or socio-demographic elements. Similarly, the case
studies also revealed little information about the question of proximity which is an
important dimension for determining where opposition is likely to occur, and how this
affects actors in the community context, the next dimension I will discuss.
Knowledge about "actors" is important for understanding the conditions of
siting. Actors display varying degrees of opposition or support. An important
question is who are the supporters and who are the opponents. In the case studies, I
have identified a variety of community actors such as local residents, resident
associations, local business people, other social service providers, experts, and relatives
of clients. I have counted the actors that were mentioned and interpreted their
arguments and actions as either supportive or opposing. Although it is dangerous to
use a simple argument to determine whether or not an actor is a potential supporter
or opponent, we get an idea which position actors are likely to take. The following
figure displays the percentage of actors within either the category opponents or
supporters (Figure 4. 1). The diagram clearly shows that each group can be
potentially opposing or supportive, and have different potentials for NIMBY.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Community actors in the diagram include local residents, businesses, service provers,
and others. Whereas the group ’others’ (consisting of experts, and relatives of clients)
and other social services tend to be significantly more supportive, local business
people and residents appear to be more rejecting. Most significant is the group of
local residents, which contribute to almost half of all opponents, but in turn only offer
little support. In the community context, we can therefore differentiate between two
types of NIMBY— residential NIMBY and business NIMBY.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 4.1: Opponents vs. Supporters
50
40
30
20
10
0
Residents Politicians Administrators Businesses Social Services Judges Others
§§] Support B i Opposition
Both NIMBY types have different motives for why they potentially oppose a facility.
For residential NIMBY we may discern three underlying reasons including
protectionism, stake in the neighborhood, and maintenance of neighborhood
homogeneity. Business NIMBY can be associated with fear of decreasing profits and
consumer flows. These reasons behind NIMBY can be examined by considering what
oppositional arguments were used, as oppositional arguments can be essentially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
interpreted as the oral expression of attitudes. I will revisit reasons for NIMBY later
in the chapter, when I discuss NIMBY arguments and their meaning in more detail.
Government Context
The government plays a crucial role in the locational conflict as I will show
in this section. In essence, the government provides a regulatory frame for siting, and
may act in the interest of both the community and facility. As for the community
context, I differentiate between "actors, "and the "governmentstructure and functions"
which describes the larger structure these actors operate in. In terms of governmental
actors, it is not possible to make a clear-cut differentiation between potentially
supportive or opposing actors. Referring back to figure 4.1, we can see what the case
studies revealed about governmental actors, such as politicians, administrators, and
judges. According to my findings, administrators and judges appear to be rather
supportive. This may be attributed to the fact that administrators often see the
necessity for service delivery, or have to comply with directives for service delivery.
a
They major motivation for administrative NIMBY is compliance, which often leaves
little room for negotiation and flexibility. Furthermore, some case studies have
indicated that compliance can be a double-edged sword. If administrators stay in
compliance with existing exclusionary zoning regulations, this can have a devastating
effect on siting, whereas compliance with supportive regulations may be rather
beneficial. Judges often rule in favor of facilities because more protective legislation
has been enacted in the recent years. However, the relative effects of compliance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
also affects judicial decisions. Politicians, on the other hand, tend to be unsupportive
of siting. Some case studies have clearly indicated that some sort of political
pragmatism is responsible for this. For instance, politicians often side with local
residents when election dates approach and voter approval is sought. In some cases,
politicians even reversed their initial support of a project as voter disapproval became
apparent. Political NIMBY is therefore often lead by opportunism.
Table 4. 4: Government Context
HI. GOVERNMENT CONTEXT
1. Government Structure
and Functions
1.1 Local Administrative
Dimensions
a: Zoning and Land Use Regulations
c: Restrictive Covenants
d: Other Local Regulations
1.2 Political Dimensions
a: Scale Gocal, county, state, federal)
b: Political Representation
c: Local Political Process
d: Local Political Culture
1.3 Judicial Dimensions
a: Scale Gocal, county, state, federal)
b: Legal Controversies
c: Enabling Federal Legislation
d: Protective Federal Legislation
2. Governmental NIMBY-Types
2.1 Actors (supportive or rejecting)
a: Administrators
b: Politicians
c: Legal Professionals
2.2 Administrative and Legal
NIMBY
a: Compliance
b: Enforcement
2.3 Political NIMBY
a: Pragmatism
b: Opportunism
Explanation:
I: KEY-VARIABLE
/. D imension
I. I Sub-Dimension
a: Element
When discussing the second dimension, "government structure and functions,"
we clearly have to distinguish between different government functions at different
scales. In the case studies, three principal types of government functions appeared to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be most relevant for the locational conflict— local political, local administrative, and
federal judicial dimensions. The most important local administrative dimension is
zoning and other land use regulations. They have been the major source of conflict
in seven cases. Thus, zoning-regulations affect every siting situation, and can serve
as both NIMBY and siting strategies. They can be interpreted as the single most
important governmental dimension. Local political culture, the political process, and
political representation are important elements of local political dimensions. The role
of formal politics in the locational conflict, however, is not merely limited to local
politics. State and federal legislation might also play an important role. The
enactment of federal legislation such as the "Fair Housing Amendment Act" (FHAA,
1989), for example, has provided important judicial protection for service dependent
people. Similar federal initiatives that were mentioned in the case studies include the
"StuartB. McKinney Act" (1987), and the "Movingto Opportunity"-program(1992).
Whereas the FAA can be interpreted as a protecting judicial device, the other two
federal initiatives can be seen as enabling legal provisions. Both enabling and
protective laws can also be seen as important siting strategies. However, legal
provisions are also important oppositional tools. Legal controversies erupted in about
one quarter (26%) of all cases.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
NIMBY in the Siting Process
Except for three case studies, all case studies (90%) experienced some form
of opposition to siting. It was my impression that opposition was rather intensive in
almost two thirds of all cases. The previous sections have set the stage to discuss
NIMBY as a process. Two dimensions in the NIMBY process appear to be most
important, first what people say, and second what people actually end up doing. I
therefore first discuss NIMBY-arguments, and then NIMBY-tools. I also indicate how
NIMBY-tools were used over the course of the siting process.
NIMBY-Arguments and Implications for-NIM BY Motives
In the discussion of both community and government actors, I have revealed some
ideas about the reasons behind NIMBY attitudes, a crucial condition for NIMBY-
behavior. Oppositional arguments are an important indicator of what people object
to. In the present set of case studies, I have discovered twelve different arguments
(elements). I have associated them with three principle types of NIMBY-arguments
(sub-dimensions) including impact related-, siting-practice-related-, and "caring-face"-
arguments.
"Impact-related" arguments are the most prevalent type of arguments
comprising almost three-quarters of all arguments used. The most frequent NIMBY-
arguments expresses concerns about increased criminal activity in the neighborhood
as a result of siting, This concern is clearly based on fear. A second impact-related
argument deals with "undesirable pedestrian activity." This argument is based on
concerns about client’s adversely impacting the neighborhood (i.e. .urinating, sleeping,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
panhandling). The argument was often used in case studies on homeless services.
This argument describes the opponent’s concern with the potential decline of the
neighborhood. Related arguments are the saturation of the area with services, and
complaints about facility design and size, or increased noise and traffic. Concerns
about decreasing property values, the most frequently cited argument in previous
studies, were only expressed in three cases. Concerns about declining property values
and decrease in neighborhood quality can also be associated with the protectionist
attitude of neighbors to preserve their neighborhood. A final impact-related argument
has been expressed by local business people, who are basically concerned about the
impact of facility siting on their business activities, profits, and consumer flows.
A second set of NIMBY arguments are "siting-practice related." In five cases,
neighbors complained about being excluded from the siting process, and that decisions
have been made without their consent. These arguments result from the failure of
facilitators to properly address the communities. In other cases, opponents have
challenged zoning ordinances by claiming that existing land-use regulations were
either inconsistent with other regulations, or incorrectly interpreted. A final
dimension, that cannot be associated with the previous types of arguments, are "caring
face"-arguments. In seven cases opponents have argued that the proposed facility
location is unsuitable for clients. It is difficult to determine, however, if these
arguments are actually masking protectionist exclusionary attitudes. What actors say,
however, is often different from their actions. In the following section, I describe
what opponents did to resist an unwanted development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4. 5: NIMBY in the Siting Process
118
IV. NIMBY
1. NIMBY-Arguments
2. NIMBY-Tools
1.1 Impact-Related 2.1 Government Based
a: Crime/ Security a: Restrictive Zoning
b: Undesirable Pedestrian Activity b: Lawsuits
c: Property Values c: Court Appeals
d: Saturation d: Lobbying
e: Business Interests e: Timing (Pre-entry/ Entry)
f: Unpleasing Exterior/ Design
g: Increased Traffic/Noise
2.2 Informative
a: Distributing Information
1.2 Siting Practice-Related
b: Spreading Myths/Rumors
a: Exclusionary Siting Practice c: Use of Media
b: Improper Zoning
d: Timing (Pre-entry)
1.3 "Caring Face" Arguments
2.3 Collaborative
a: Organizing
b: Demonstrations
Explanation: c: Providing Alternatives
I: KEY-VARIABLE
1. Dtoenskn
d: Timing (Pre-Entry/ Entry)
1.1 Sub-Dimem ion
a: Element
2.4 Coercive
a: Violence
Between Collaboration and Coercion: The Use o f NIMBY-Tools
The case studies have revealed a variety of NIMBY-tools that opponents have
employed to stop an unwanted facility from entering their communities. Oppositional
tools tended to be used early in the siting process. Over two-thirds of all tools were
used during the pre-entry phase, usually immediately after a siting intention has been
first expressed in public, but before the construction process (entry-phase) began.
Overall, eleven types (elements) of tools have been discovered. I have categorized
them into four sub-dimensions, including government-based, informative,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
collaborative, and coercive types of NIMBY-tools (see table 4. 5). Except for four
cases, every case has indicated the use of such tools, and in most cases more than one
tool has been used.
Approximately one third of all tools were government-based. As found in
previous studies, the most prevalent tool in this category was the use of restrictive
zoning to block a facility. This practice occurred during both pre-entry and entry
phases. Other government-based NIMBY-tools include lawsuits brought early in the
siting process, and court-appeals during the entry-phase. The lobbying local of
political representatives has also been reported and seems to be a fairly successful
oppositional strategy. In contrast, court-based and administrative tools have been less
successful for opponents, and administrative and judicial decisions more often have
favored service providers.
Informative NIMBY-tools generally refer to the distribution of information
against a facility in a variety of ways, including the use of the local media. Most
informative tools were used during the pre-entry phase, particularly regarding the
category myths and rumors. This practice refers to the opponent’s use of identifiably
incorrect or dubious information, whether intentional or not. This practice had
negative effects on siting, because as soon as rumors were accepted as facts, it became
increasingly difficult to counter them.
Collaborative oppositional tools include public demonstrations and organizing,
such as form ing neighborhood association or other interest groups. Used early on in
the siting process, they are the most frequently used collaborative NIMBY-tools. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
this category I also include the strategy of providing alternatives. Here, opponents,
predominantly in groups, have made partly productive suggestions for alternative sites.
This practice has occurred exclusively in the entry and post-entry phases. The final
category of NIMBY tools are acts of coercion. Although coercion was only reported
once in the case of public housing (spraying the letters KKK on the door of a facility
in the entry-phase), this is a category that needs to be discussed separately, because
it includes actions that are illegitimate and often illegal ways of expressing opposition.
Analysis of the case studies has allowed us to gain a better understanding of
oppositional behavior over time. We have a better idea of what people are opposed
to (conditions), why they are opposed (conditions and arguments), and how and when
they oppose (tools over time) a facility. However, given the emphasis on conflict
situations in most of the case studies, we know little about supportive behavior and
supportive communities. Although I have been able to identify supportive actors in
the siting process, little information was available on how support was expressed and
on what generated that support. This is unsurprising because it is usually the negative,
t
the conflictual, and the sensational that generates interest by the media. Therefore,
the next chapter focusses on supportive communities through a detailed analysis of
two non-conflictual siting experiences. I now shift the discussion to the second key-
factor of siting as a process, namely the siting strategies that service providers have
performed to counter NIMBY.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
Siting Strategies
The case studies have revealed a variety of different siting strategies. In the
preliminary framework I suggested the need to differentiate between government-based
and community-based strategies. In terms of community based strategies, previous
studies have further distinguished between different siting approaches such as
education, persuasion, and involvement/input. However, I think that educating and
persuading a community is part of the same process-providing information.
Therefore, I differentiate between informational strategies which serve to educate and
persuade a community, and cooperative strategies that require community feed-back
and involvement. Whereas information is a uni-directional process, cooperation is bi
directional, requiring at least a dialogue. Besides government-based, informational,
and cooperative strategies, the case studies have helped me to identify a fourth type
of siting strategy, which I call operational strategies. They include internal aspects of
the facility that help to improve the public’s perception of a proposed facility.
Before I introduce the four siting approaches, I first address the issue of
outreach. Previous studies have differentiated between high profile approaches (i.e.,
m axim um outreach, acknowledging the presence of all actors in the siting process) and
low profile approaches (i.e.,little or no community involvement). However, none of
the case studies fit easily into either approach. Typically they are situated somewhere
along the continuum between the two. Only two case studies, the Yakima mission
and the Edmonton prison, could be clearly described as high-profile approaches. Both
cases, however, began using a low profile approach, but turned to a high-profile
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
approach immediately after site announcement. As these cases suggest, a clear-cut
differentiation is therefore not possible.
I will now explain the four strategic dimensions in more detail. I will also
describe at what point in the siting process various strategies were employed. The
following table (table 4.2) summarizes the siting strategies (elements) that were used
in the case studies, and illustrates how I assigned them to specifying dimensions, sub
dimensions, and elements.
Government-Based Strategies: Inevitably Controversial
Two principle types of government-based strategies have surfaced in the case studies,
court-based strategies and administrative-bureaucratic strategies. Nineteen percent of
all siting strategies were government-based. This is comparably smaller than the
percentage of all government-based oppositional tools; 35% of all oppositional tools
were government-based. In terms of administrative-bureaucratic strategies, two service
providers used local zoning regulations to prove their point, and in two cases
facilitators relied entirely on administrative procedures without consulting neighbors.
All these cases were accompanied by massive community opposition.
Court-based strategies were predominantly used during the pre-entry stage.
However, the use of legal strategies by facilitators can be both offensive and
defensive. Four principle types of court-based strategies were used in the national
case studies, featuring enabling and protective legal devices, and offensive and
defensive applications of the law. Defensive applications can include court appeals
in response to legal actions initiated by the opposition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4. 6: Siting Strategies
123
V. SITING STRATEGIES
1. Government Based Strategies
1.1 Court-Based Strategies
a: Defensive (Court Appeal)
b: Offensive (SLAPP)
c: Enabling (S. McKinney Act,etc.)
d: Protective (FAA, ADA, etc.)
1.2 Administrative Strategies
a: Local Zoning Ordinances
1.3 Predominant Use During
a: Pre-entry
b: Entry
2. Operational Strategies
2.1 Facility Management
a: Effective and Reputable Agency
Leadership
b: Alliances with Reputable
Organizations and Coalitions
c: Adaptability
2.2 Facility Appearance and Use
a: Combining Siting with Renovation
b: Favoring Small-Scale Facilities
2.3 Predominant Use During
a: Pre-entry
b: Entry
c: Post-Entry
Explanation:
L KEY-VARIABLE
/. Di wunt i o*
1.1 Sub-Dimension
i: Element
3. Informational Strategies
3.1 Direct Information
a: Information on the Proposed
Program
b: Indication of Previous Experience
c: Honesty About Problematic
Aspects
d: Information Meetings and
Open Houses
e: Establishing a Dialogue
3.2 Indirect Information
a: Supportive Expert Opinion
b: Media Involvement
3.3 Predominant Use During
a: Pre-entry
b: Entry
4. Cooperative Strategies
4.1 Indirect Cooperation
a: Concessions and Compromises
b: Mediation
c: Public Consultation/ Hearing
4.2 Direct Cooperation
a: Informal
b: Active Public Participation
(NACs)
c: Negotiating Facility Design
4.3 Predominant Use During
a: Entry
b: Post-Entry -
An example of an offensive application is a strategic lawsuit against public
participation (SLAPP). SLAPPs were successfully used twice, based on FAA
regulations. Opposition has in both cases been reduced or, to use a more appropriate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
term, silenced. Supportive legal provisions include enabling and protective judicial
devices, which I have already discussed within the government context. Case studies
that used government-based strategies appeared to be less successful in overall
outcome, and generally more controversial than cases that also performed other siting
approaches. Only one of fifteen (7%) case studies using government-based strategies
was sited successfully, meaning that opposition had also been overcome. The
percentage of overall successful case studies is significantly higher for case studies
using other approaches. In my judgement, this is associated with the fact that the use
of legal tools is always "offensive" for one side. The fact that using judicial devices
is also an oppositional tool demonstrates this point.
Operational Strategies: The Benefits o f Proper Operations
Operational siting strategies refer to internal practices of a facility that have a positive
impact on the perception of a facility by the community. Although these steps are not
primarily intended as public relations tools, they have helped to improve the public
perception of a facility. I differentiate between two sub-dimensions within this siting
approach, strategies concerned with facility management, and those dealing with
facility appearance and use. Strategies concerned with facility management include
having an effective and reputable agency leadership, founding alliances with other
reputable organizations and coalitions, or showing adaptability in management related
issues. Having effective management increases credibility and trust in a program, and
has an appeasing effect on potential opponents. Combining siting with renovation
efforts is a strategy associated with the facility appearance and use. This strategy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
shows the provider’s commitment to improve neighborhood quality thereby generating
support. Favoring small scale facilities is an operational way to avoid opposition and
to prevent unnecessary alarm. Operational strategies are used throughout the siting
process, and have been an effective way to gain legitimacy and persuade potential
opponents. In order to make theses operational strategies known, facilitators have to
inform communities about them.
Informational Strategies: Educating and Persuading the Community
Educating and persuading a community requires the provision of proper information
about a facility and its potential impact on a community. Informational strategies can
provide this information either directly or indirectly. Indirect informational strategies
include either the use of supportive expert opinion, or involving the media to inform
a community. The use of the media is particularly important— the fact that most
findings are based on media-accounts proves this. Direct information is provided by
service providers themselves. It can be distributed in a variety of ways, ranging from
the spreading of basic information on the proposed program via brochures and fliers,
information meetings and open houses to initiating a dialogue with the host
community. Communicating previous experiences in other neighborhoods and thereby
pointing out a "good record" is also an information strategy geared toward persuading
a community. Finally, honesty about the more problematic aspects of a facility, such
as unpredictable client behavior, has also been helpful in properly educating a
community and intercepting rumors and myths. Almost two-thirds of informational
strategies have been used during the entry-phase, but hardly any informational
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
strategies have been reported for the post-entry phase. Informational strategies have
to be interpreted as the most fundamental type of siting strategies, as they inevitably
also inform about legal or operational aspect of siting. Moreover, information is also
necessary to invite neighborhood input and cooperation.
Cooperative Strategies: Involving the Community
Cooperative approaches are bi-directional as they require community feed-back and
involvement. They were primarily used in the entry and post-entry phases.
Cooperation requires an ongoing dialogue, and this is only possible when both sides
are informed and legal controversies have been decided. Again, I differentiate
between indirect and direct cooperation. Indirect cooperation is often involuntary and
geared toward appeasing a host community. Making concessions and compromises
is the most basic form of indirect cooperation. Mediation through an independent
party has been a successful way to gain acceptance. Mediation can be informal or
formal. Formal mediation has been reported in the form of public consultations or
hearings, where a formal hearing examiner tries to mediate between the protagonists.
Direct cooperation includes steps by service providers to invite community feed-back
and to seek their collaboration. Direct cooperation can be informal (e.g., informally
meet with neighbors and discuss problems), but also involves more formal forms of
cooperation, which include several forms of "active public participation," such as
neighborhood advisory committees (NAC), facility design-, and site selection
committees. Generally, cooperative strategies have been highly successful in
overcoming opposition. However, in one case the formation of a NAC in the pre
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
entry phase to help locating an appropriate site was unsuccessful. Obviously, the pre
entry phase is not the appropriate time period to invite cooperation, because the degree
of controversy has still been too high to promote cooperation.
Learning from Experience: "Bad” Siting Practices
One benefit of case study analysis is that we are able to learn from successful and
unsuccessful experiences. The present set of case studies has also revealed a variety
of strategic steps by service providers that were counterproductive, increased
opposition, or disrupted the siting process. Such controversial practices did not
necessarily end the siting process, but definitely caused some set-backs to effectively
countering NIMBY. The most important limitation is "ingrained intrasigence," which
describes a condition affecting long-term combatants in a NIMBY process.
Antagonisms between combatants are, after a relatively long time, so deeply
entrenched as to make either side suspicious of any proposal. This form of persistent
community opposition has been documented for 9 cases. Observed during all three
phases in siting, it documents opposition that is primarily caused by shortcomings in
*
the siting process. One striking factor within this category is that in seven cases some
kind of legal activity was involved. Another practices that invited controversy is a
concentration solely on formal administrative/ bureaucratic procedures, which has
caused opponents to feel left out in the siting process. The failure to respond to
rumors, to provide alternatives or back-up variations, and to take account of local
politics (e. g. political preconditions, relations among politicians, advent of election
dates, etc. ) has also lead to controversial siting situations. Most of these bad
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
practices are featuring inadequate responses to oppositional arguments, tools, and
expectations.
NIMBY and Siting Strategies over Time: Mere Reaction?
The following figure shows how siting strategies and NIMBY were used in the
three phases of the siting process. The most often used strategies in the pre-entry
phase were government-based.
Fig. 4.2: NIM BY and Strategies in the Siting Process
Stage
Pre-Entry Entry Post-Entry
Strategies
NIMBY
NIMBY,Opposition
IMBY-Support
Time
While informational strategies were also used in this phase, the majority were used
during the entry period. Cooperative strategies were more prominent during the entry
and post-entry phases, and operational strategies were used throughout the siting
process. NIMBY tools, in turn, were primarily used in the pre-entry phase and then
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
declined throughout the process. However, NIMBY opposition does not decline
gradually, and unexpected events can revitalize opposition quite easily, even during
the post-entry phase, as we have seen in the case of the homeless feeding program.
I have therefore zig-zaged the line that symbolizes the decline of NIMBY, and the
presumed increase of IMBY-support over time. However, the case studies do not
necessarily indicate whether IMBY increased, or opponents simply gave up, or became
indifferent. Whether or not NIMBY had been overcome, or whether there were still
residual reservations was impossible to assess.
When comparing the relationship between NIMBY and siting strategies, we see
that government-based NIMBY tools and government-based siting strategies were both
used during the pre-entry phase, when the locational conflict is most intense, and
where legal and administrative controversies still need to be decided. This is
unsurprising, but what is surprising was the different use of informational strategies
over time by either NIMBY-opponents or service providers. Informational NIMBY-
tools were predominantly used in the pre-entry phase (84%), whereas only 34 percent
of informational siting strategies were used during this phase. This implies that the
use of information as a siting strategy tends to be a reaction to oppositional strategies.
Can siting strategies more appropriately be used to prevent opposition? Some case
studies, such as the Edmonton prison, have shown that opposition prevention through
proper information is possible. However, given that actual oppositional behavior is
very hard to anticipate, service providers often have no other possibility than to react
to opposition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Ch. 5: Siting Homeless Facilities in Los Angeles
In this chapter I analyze the successful siting of two homeless services in Los
Angeles, Genesis I in Downtown Los Angeles, and La Posada in East Los Angeles.
I reconstruct the siting experience of both cases by applying those dimensions
previously identified in chapter 4. This enables me to test and expand the preliminary
results of this research.
The chapter proceeds in the following way. First, I summarize the conditions
for each of the services. I focus on the facility, community, and government context
and what they imply theoretically for NIMBY. Second, I reconstruct the siting
process of the facilities in light of my dimensions. Given that hardly any NIMBY
sentiments were expressed, it is particularly interesting to investigate these presumably
successful siting strategies. After detailing the conditions and processes of both case
studies, I discuss important dimensions that surfaced in each of these cases, but were
insufficiently discussed in the previous chapter. These include the role of facility-
design, supportive communities, and local planning bureaucracy, and in terms of siting
strategies, NIMBY-preventionand post-entry siting strategies. I conclude this chapter
by providing a final, comprehensive list of dimensions in siting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
5.1. Genesis I: Unconventional Ideas for a Complex Problem
Located southwest of downtown Los Angeles, Genesis I has been a highly successful
siting story. Genesis I, also referred to as the "dome village, ” consists of a series of
geodesic domes, which draw attention because of their unconventional design. The
village is based on an innovative service concept to combat chronic homelessness. It
also includes interesting and successful approaches to, and cooperation with, the local
neighborhood. This high-profile case study deals with previously neglected aspects
of siting, such as operational strategies, and successful and comprehensive post-entry
strategies. Moreover, the dome village operators have made a conscious effort to
prevent opposition from arising, a strategy that so far has been remarkably successful.
Information on the Genesis I case study has come primarily from interviews conducted
with Genesis founder and current director Ted Hayes, and program coordinator Ronda
Flanzbaum.
Conditions: Innovation in a Stagnating Environment
In this section I outline the conditions that are presumed to be relevant in
Genesis I’s siting context, and what they imply for NIMBY. This discussion will
prepare to understand the occurrences in the actual siting process, and help to explain
why and how strategic steps toward the community have been taken. Next, I discuss
the different conditions of siting sequentially, starting with the facility context. I
specifically focus on facility characteristics, and facility operations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
An Innovative Concept: The Facility Context
By 1986, homeless activist Ted Hayes had begun to envision dome-like structures as
transitional living facilities for homeless people. The domes are known as
"Omnispheres," and were designed by engineer Craig Chamberlain, after the
prototypical geodesic structures of Buckminster Fuller. The domes are lightweight,
easy to erect, water- and earthquake-proof structures, each costing at that time $6,500.
The shells are constructed from bolted concave panels of non-toxic polyester fibre-
glass and sit on concrete footings. The domes are 20 feet in diameter and 12 feet
high, and can be erected by two people in two hours. Lighting is powered by solar
panels. All domes are accessible for the disabled. The village (see figure 5. 1)
consists of ten residential domes, each accommodating two persons (in separate
rooms), providing shelter for 20 individuals.
Fig. 5.1: Floorplan of Genesis I
Fitness"
^Dome,
Parking
Comm
unity
Force )'t2'
.Office/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition, two domes are reserved for staff-members. Three domes were linked to
form an office/community room/kitchen complex; two others contain shower/toilet/
laundry facilities. Recently a smaller, 14 foot-dome was added which contains health
and fitness equipment. The concrete space between domes is well maintained, and
planters with trees and bushes give the place a more friendly atmosphere. The domes
are very powerful visually. The unusual design concept and the well kept up exterior
of the village does not automatically imply an association with homelessness. The
domes form the physical shell for an equally interesting and innovative service and
program concept. In 1985, Ted Hayes founded " Justiceville Homeless USA" (JHUSA)
as a nonprofit organization. Over the years Ted Hayes has developed the"Exodus
Genesis Incentive Plan" (EGIP) with the goal of establishing a series of self-governing
dome villages to assist chronically homeless people. In this sense, Genesis I is seen
as a pilot project to test the viability of the village, its residents, and the underlying
concept. If Genesis I is successful and can attract additional funding, EGIP plans the
construction of a number of additional specialized villages, providing shelter and
assistance to the elderly homeless, homeless people with HIV/AIDS, or homeless
troubled youth. Besides providing shelter, EGIP also aims to stabilize the resident’s
lives, and to refer them to other social service agencies. The dome village has already
developed an extensive network of referral contacts with medical clinics, outreach
programs, and drug and alcohol counseling. Volunteers, known as "Peace Workers, ”
actively help to maintain the village and its functions. Other supporters donate food
and clothing. Ultimately, Genesis I intends to provide residents with an opportunity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
to return to mainstream society. Along the way it also intends to help residents
develop organizational skills, and regain self-reliance and self-esteem. Residents are
required to complete daily chores, maintain their personal appearances and that of the
property, hold rotational 24-hour security watches, and participate in village
governance. A philosophy of "tribal social democracy" underlies the social
organization of Genesis I, which produces a significant level of resident participation
in all aspects of village governance, outreach, and self-empowerment strategies. It is
an important programmatic objective that residents develop sufficient organizational
skills to take on managerial positions in future dome villages. Office management,
public relations, and supervising/directing staff are envisioned as possible future
occupations for Genesis I "graduates." Other career opportunities for residents are
planned. The Justiceville Occupational Business Services (JOBS), one programmatic
aspect of EGIP, has three operational branches: "ProjectClean Environment, "designed
to clean and maintain the local neighborhood; "Project Trashbusters," contracted to
clean specific areas in other neighborhoods; and "Cottage Industries," an arts and
«
crafts sector, producing jewelry, T-Shirts, stickers, and badges.
Three new programmatic dimensions have surfaced in the discussion of the
facility context. Having an innovative service concept, and including clients as
productive and active messengers are programmatic dimensions that help to defy
existing stereotypes associated with homelessness. Using facility design to attract
attention is a new dimension not previously identified within the "facility
characteristics "-dimension. These dimensions can be interpreted as interest generating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
and may reduce the threat of NIMBY reactions. However, such an innovative service
and design concept might also generate suspicion or uncertainty amongst nearby
neighbors. It also needs to be remembered that Genesis I is a new facility for a
stigmatized client group that is often associated with having a negative impact on its
environment, as oppositional arguments concerning undesirable pedestrian activities
indicate. These potential implications of the facility context have to be kept in mind
before investigating the contexts of community and government outside the facility.
Community Context
When investigating the community context, we need to ask how might the impact of
Genesis I be perceived by the community? To answer this question, I describe the
land use, built environment, characteristics of the local community, and speculate
about local actors and their potential for generating NIMBY-opposition. I have looked
at socio-economic, demographic, and housing data from the 1990 US-census to give
a more systematic account of the built, social, and economic characteristics of Genesis
I’s neighborhood,
The following map (which is based on personal observations) displays the
location of Genesis I, and the principle land uses in the neighborhood. Genesis I is
located west of the Harbor Freeway (110) just south of the 8th Street off-ramp. The
freeway forms the boundary between downtown’s South Park district (east of the
freeway) and the Westlake district. The general area around the dome village can be
described as a downtown transitional zone. Located in proximity to, but still away
from the inner city’s business core, the area is currently characterized by disinvestment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
containing mixed land use in an old, run-down built environment. In direct proximity
to the dome village, there are manufacturing and industrial warehousing activities,
hotels, and residences. Therefore, local businesses and residents may be considered
as potential community opponents.
Map 5.1: Genesis i's Neighborhood and Land Use
H
7TH
rw oop ST 3
m
o
srHpr
OLYMPIC
Predominant Land Use
Genesis I
Residential
M anufacturing'
Industrial W arehousing
Office Buildings
Hotels
Retail Shop Front
Parking Lot/Car Park
Vacant
Medical Clinic
Table 5.1 summarizes important elements for understanding the community context.
In the table I have also indicated which elements can be assessed through census data.
Next, I summarize the most important aspects of buiit environment, local
resident population, and local economy for NIMBY. In terms of built environment,
over half of all buildings in this census tract, as well as in the entire Westlake area
were built before 1939. Most of the three to five stories high buildings are in
disrepair. 14.6 percent of the housing units are vacant, three times the percentage of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13 7
vacant units in the county of Los Angeles. Moreover, 8 6 percent of the housing units
are renter occupied which suggests that residents have a low stake in the
neighborhood. The general area is also characterized by vacant lots, most of which
are currently used as parking lots.
Table 5.1: Dimensions and Elements of Community Characteristics
1 . Characteristics of Built
Environment
b: Socio-Demographic
a: Size and Quality of Buildings
- Ethnic Composition C
- Home Values C
- Age, Gender C
- Age of Buildings C
- ImMigration C
- Tenure C
c: Socio-Cultural
- Vacancies C
- Educational Attainment C
- Cultural Assimilation
- Rent prices C
- Social and Cultural
History
2. Characteristics of the Local
Residents
3. Characteristics of Local Economy
a: Socio-Economic
a: Business Types and Quality
- Household Income C
b: Business Size and Influence
- Occupation C
c: Dependency on Consumers,
- (Un)Employment C
Clients, or Visitors
- Poverty Levels C
- Economic and Political
Clout
C = Census Information Available
The social environment mirrors the built environment; poverty, high
unemployment, limited economic opportunities, powerlessness, and high crime rates
characterize the local community. The typical Genesis I neighbor can be categorized
as a young, marginalized, single, Latino male who recently came to the U.S. and holds
a low-wage manufacturing job. He rents a room in a large apartment complex and
often shares his apartment. Furthermore, the nearest residential neighbors can be
found 1.5 blocks west of the village, therefore not in the immediate vicinity of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
Genesis I. Given the resident’s marginality, powerlessness, and comparably low stake
in the neighborhood, one might have expected little or no residential opposition.
However, in middle of this rather depressed environment there are also a
variety of relatively upscale business activities. The immediate neighbors of the dome
village are a "Holiday Inn" hotel (north of Genesis I, and in walking distance to the
CBD), the United Parcel Service (UPS) headquarters for downtown (south of Genesis
I), and "Ford Graphics," a graphics and print studio, located west of the village.
These business activities can be regarded as extended downtown business functions.
All these businesses depend on customers, one might expect that they would have
opposed the location of a new homeless facility in their immediate neighborhood.
Government Context: NIMBY is Likely
Locating homeless services in this inner city location does not present a zoning
problem. The entire area surrounding the CBD is pre-zoned to permit human service
provision. No special or conditional use permits are required. A bigger problem for
the operators of Genesis I are local building and safety codes. Los Angeles is known
for having stringent building and safety requirements. The actual structure of the
plexi-glass domes, however, had not been officially tested at that time and obtaining
a building and safety permit could have been a significant administrative obstacle for
the establishment of the village. Moreover, it can be speculated, that the rather
conservative city administration is skeptical about a concept to fight homelessness that
is based on the rather unconventional notion of self-empowerment and a concept of
tribal social democracy. Administrative and political opposition therefore was likely.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
The Siting Process I: Approaching the Community Correctly
We already know that hardly any opposition occurred in the siting of Genesis
I. This was the result of a sound understanding of the conditions, and a clever use of
siting strategies to prevent potential NIMBY-opposition. Table 5.2 provides an
overview of the siting strategies Genesis I operators utilized over the course of the
siting process.
Table 5.2: Genesis I: Siting Strategies, NIMBY, and Tasks over Time
PRE-ENTRY ENTRY POST ENTRY
(Spring 93 - Summer 93) (Fall 1993) (Winter 1993 - Now)
TASKS
- Preventive Planning - Construction - Maintaining Community
• Site Selection (secret) - Occupation Relations
- Leadership Endorsement - Building Good Relations - Promotion o f the Concept
STRATEGIES
Operational
- Leadership Endorsement - Recruit Clients from Area - Continuous. Effective
• Having Persuasive Service - Include Clients in Construction Leadership
Concept and Establishment Process - Actively Improving
- Proper Preparation of Siring Neighborhood Quality
Approach - Using Clients as
Messengers
- Ensure Academic Support
Informational
- Proper Introduction with - Providing Continuous - Proving Continuous
Information Targeted at Informarion Information
Agent's Concerns - Festivities for Ground-breaking - Celebrity Support
- Public Demonstrations o f ' and Opening Day - Media Attention
Domes - Media Attention - Hosting International
- Attract Media Attention Dignitaries
Cooperative
- Invite Neighboring Businesses - Supportive Action
■
- none - to Join Advisoty/Piogram
Board
- Providing Services to
Homed and Homeless
Community
- Community Inclusive
OPPOSITION
COMMUNITY
Events (Festivities)
- Reservations by Local - none - - none -
Businesses
• Skepticism by Other Service
Providers
GOVERNMENTAL
- Building and Safety Permits - none - - Insufficient Funding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
It also indicates whether NIMBY occurred, and shows what the major tasks were
during each stage.
Conceptualization, Public Dome Demonstration, and Leadership Endorsement
Ted Hayes and JHUSA established a series of self-governed, unofficial encampments
for homeless people in different parts of downtown Los Angeles. All of them were
subsequently dismantled by official actions. Between 1985 and 1993, Hayes
continuously worked to raise awareness of the homeless problem, but also worked on
the concept of a dome-village. He established contact with Craig Chamberlain, the
designer of the geodesic comes, and borrowed a prototype for display purposes. He
also began outlining the principles of EGIP, and started to organize JOBS and the
trashbusters. By spring 1993, Ted Hayes had completed his "bluebook," which
outlines all theoretical aspects of the current dome village project.
Since 1990, Hayes has also established a working relationship with the
"Atlantic Richfield Corporation" (ARCO). On occasions Hayes and his "trashbusters"
have taken on cleaning jobs for the corporation. ARCO liked JHUSA’s approach to
homelessness and the relationship started to solidify. In fall of 1992, Ted Hayes got
to know David Adams, owner of Morgan Adams Inc., a downtown real estate
development agency. David Adams played an instrumental role in the establishment
of the dome village, both financially and in terms of expertise. In fall of 1992, David
Adams and Ted Hayes displayed one prototype of a dome in West Hollywood to
promote the idea of a dome village for homeless people with HTV/Aids. At this event
David Adams met Craig Chamberlain, and together with Ted Hayes they decided to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
put up a larger display of a dome village in Downtown Los Angeles so that "people
get a better idea of what we were talking about" (Ted Hayes, 2-8-96). Three domes
were erected on the back-lot of the Morgan-Adams company, consisting of one
laundry-dome, one kitchen dome, and a residential dome. The organizers invited
public officials, administrators, business representatives, community leaders,
entertainers, and of course the local media. This demonstration was intended to
demonstrate that "this is not a permanent threat to anybody’s neighborhood" (Ted
Hayes, 2-8-96). He continues:
Most people who suffer under NIMBYism suffer because the government
just walked into their neighborhood and says ’this is what we’re going to
do in your neighborhood,’ they don’t consult with the local residents. We
did. That’s why we put the display up. (Ted Hayes, 2-8-96)
For Ted Hayes NIMBY attitudes have to be expected, and more importantly, are
justified. He also emphasizes the importance of information for actually overcoming
NIMBY:
I support the NIMBY attitude actually. I realized that I would not want
a shelter in a neighborhood I had wQrked to have all my life, given the
nature of homeless shelters in a neighborhood— they’re permanent, they
draw people, things change. I would not want a homeless shelter next to
my business, unless I had certain guarantees that I would say how long that
shelter could be there, I would have to say what it should look like, who
would be coming there. I would have to be informed. (Ted Hayes, 2-8-96)
Introducing the concept via an actual model to attract local leadership and media has
been an effective operational strategy for creating awareness about the project.
Chairman and CEO of ARCO, Lod Cook, was present at the exhibition and invited
Ted Hayes, Craig Chamberlain, and David Adams to talk about the dome village
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
concept and potential sponsorship by the ARCO foundation. He expressed interest in
funding the dome village, but imposed the condition that a consultant should evaluate
the JHUSA concept and the dome-village proposal. After Ted Hayes agreed to some
minor adjustments, ARCO gave green light to the project, and JHUSA received a
$250,000 grant for establishing the village, and for initial operating costs. The
innovative service concept was instrumental in obtaining corporate support.
Site Selection and Adm inistrative Procedures
After securing financial support, Ted Hayes and David Adams started to search for
an appropriate site for the village. They had 4 locations in mind, all west of
Downtown L. A .. There had been negotiations about the first and preferred site but
the property-owners backed out in the last moment. The second location was too
close to a school. The third option was rejected because the property was
undeveloped and did not have sufficient drainage. The fourth, and current location
was a large, vacated parking lot, which was already developed in terms of drainage
and installations. This was an important consideration in terms of keeping
development and construction costs low. David Adams contacted the owners and
negotiated a lease of $2,500 per month. During the negotiations with the property
owners, Ted Hayes began the necessary administrative procedures. The biggest
obstacle was to comply with local building and safety codes. "People said the dome
village could not happen because it would never pass building and safety" (Ted Hayes,
2-8-96). Moreover, Ted Hayes’ political reputation was problematic, because of his
activist background. Ted Hayes called the mayor’s office and talked to deputy-mayor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Bill McCarley, who was interim mayor at that time shortly after the 1993 mayoral
elections. McCarley knew Ted Hayes and liked the dome-village idea. He eventually
waived the building and safety codes. Obtaining these administrative permits was,
according to Ted Hayes, the biggest obstacle in the entire siting process.
Inform ing the Community Promptly and Accurately
After having met all official siting requirements, Genesis I moved quickly toward
ground-breaking. Before starting the construction, however, the JHUSA-team began
to introduce themselves and the service concept to the local neighborhood. Given the
nearby businesses, Ted Hayes anticipated significant community opposition. He and
Ronda Flanzbaum started walking the local neighborhood, personally introducing
themselves to businesses and residents and addressing the issues that concerned the
neighbors in terms of facility impact.
We were polite and explained what we do, we showed them pictures, and
told them one, two, three, information, everything. And they saw that we
were willing to cooperate. (Ted Hayes, 2-13-96)
They talked to representatives of United Parcel Service, Holiday Inn, Ford Graphics,
and nearby Korean TV-studio, and to some residential neighbors within a two block
radius. Opposition from local residents did not occur, which Ted Hayes attributes to
his good reputation in the local Latino community. The neighboring businesses,
Holiday Inn and UPS in particular, were rather skeptical when they were first
contacted. Ronda Flanzbaum interprets their initial reservations as typical NIMBY
attitudes:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
They thought if we have a homeless program here it’ll bring more
homeless, more trash, more violence and crime to the area, just more
homeless activity, and that their businesses and their customers have to
contend with more homelessness on the way to their businesses. (Ronda
Flanzbaum, 2-5-96)
A proper introduction to the community with information targeted at potential
community concerns changed initial reservations into unprecedented support. In
addition to appropriate information, JHUSA invited Holiday Inn and UPS to join the
JHUSA-board: "We asked them to join our board to help the policy-making decisions,
fund raising, just being part of the team" (Ted Hayes, 2-13-96).
Interestingly, besides business opposition, Genesis I also experienced
opposition by some fellow service providers who were generally skeptical about the
project and its programmatic empowerment-approach to homelessness. Others doubted
Ted Hayes potential to maintain the project, or disliked his activism. Over time and
with growing success, however, most of these reservations disappeared and Genesis
now enjoys support from, and cooperation with, many other service providers. Having
introduced themselves to the local community, Genesis I commenced the entry-phase,
the time of construction and establishment. For the ground-breaking day on
September 18, ARCO has sponsored a big party to which dignitaries, local
representatives (including neighboring businesses and residents), and the media were
invited. Given that the property infrastructure was already in place and that the domes
can be erected rapidly, the entry phase only lasted 1.5 months. The facility finally
opened and started to serve its first 16 clients on November 3, 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Siting Process II: Building On Long Term Relations
The most profound strategy applied in the post-entry phase has been the
dissemination of information about the program to local residents and businesses.
However, throughout much of its existence, Genesis I’s financial situation has been
extremely tight, and the village has been permanently on the verge of closing. Given
the financial difficulties, community outreach and strategic tools needed to be
inexpensive. Nevertheless, the village operators were still able to perform an
impressive public relations and neighborhood acceptance campaign.
Operational Strategies: Cheap and Effective
The national case studies have indicated specific operational strategies which apply
facility-internal dimensions to promote the concept. Genesis I has successfully applied
aspects of its innovative program to convince potential opponents of the necessity and
usefulness of the facility, and its positive impact on the surrounding community. The
most basic operational strategy Genesis has performed is to keep the facility clean and
to thereby improve the overall quality of the deprived neighborhood. Ted Hayes
explains:
Sanitation and cleanliness are the front-line of defense to any society and
any civilization. And that then turns into the front line of offense because
when people come at you with a stereotypical mind about the homeless
and then they find something else, they change and guess who’s on the
offense? You are. Now they’re open to hear what you have got to say
and then you go and talk to them. (Ted Hayes, 2-13-96)
Ronda Flanzbaum also puts a particular emphasis on decorating the village, which can
be interpreted as an attempt to improve the facility design and the public perception
the facility generates. Since its inception, Genesis I has made significant progress in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
creating a friendlier, more inviting atmosphere in the village through landscaping such
as planting trees, or creating a little flower garden. To implement these operational
strategies, the village operators have relied heavily on the active participation of the
village residents. Integrating the residents in ongoing projects or special events has
proven to be successful in many ways. It is educational and even therapeutical for the
residents, who can learn to be industrious and productive, while improving their self
esteem and self-reliance. The active integration of residents into all operational and
public relations efforts has also helped to reduce the costs for community outreach
services. The residents clearly serve as messengers and help to fight existing and
persistent stereotypes about homeless people.
I think the people in the community do appreciate that what we’re doing
is a good step toward rehabilitation, and getting people in a position to be
a more comfortable, more helping positive part of society and the
community, and that there’s a place for them to fit in. (Ronda Flanzbaum,
2-5-96)
Cooperation and Community Outreach
In addition to these operational strategies, the village is actively cooperating with the
local community. It has business connections with some neighbors, such as
purchasing goods from local markets, or using the nearby Ford Graphics studio for
photocopying. The "trashbusters," part of JOBS, have been successful in cleaning up
the local neighborhood, and continue to keep the area clean. Each year, the dome
village also participates in "Operation Sparkle," a community clean-up campaign
organized by the Los Angeles Police Department. Having good relations with the
local law enforcement agencies and other local institutions (i.e.,ambulance services,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
fire department) is a very important component of good community relations, as both
Ronda Flanzbaum and Ted Hayes point out. The dome-village also practices a night
time security program (on a rotational basis), which is greatly appreciated by local
workers, who utilize the parking lots surrounding the dome village.
There have also been a series of special events at the dome village, to which
local residents were invited. Every year, the dome-village organizes special
"community health fairs." In cooperation with fellow service providers (Genesis’
referral partners), the dome village welcomes homed and homeless neighbors, who
receive basic medical treatment, physical and dental examinations, and health related
advice. Cooperation with other service providers is a crucial aspect of Genesis I’s
operations. This cooperation also makes these health fairs financially possible.
Directly providing services to the impoverished neighborhood is a very successful way
to gain acceptance. The dome village also invites local neighbors to special events
and parties on major holidays, such as the 4th of July, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and
Christmas. For the 1995 Christmas celebration, more than 300 children from the
community were present. In order to finance such costly events, Genesis I relies on
donations of food and goods from individual or institutional supporters.
Inform ational Strategies: Media, Celebrities, and Publicity
One way Genesis I has successfully created awareness has been through extensive use
of the media. Media coverage has allowed the dome village to generate interest and
support beyond the community level. A variety of public officials and celebrities have
visited Genesis I, which has in turn created media interest. Official visitors included
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Prince Edward of England and a delegation of 25 dignitaries from "The Prince of
Wales Business Leaders Forum," featuring high profile business and government
officials from 11 countries, including the mayors of Budapest, Bratislava, and Krakow.
Many official visitors have also visited to see the project in operation such as a high
government official from Zimbabwe, the president of the Navajo Nation, and a
delegation from Kobe, Japan. The latter investigated the dome-village concept as a
way to deal with the social consequences of Kobe’s devastating 1995 earthquake.
People from all over the world, you know, have been interested in this
project for looking for solutions for problems in their own communities
which may be similar in some ways but different to the problems we have
in Los Angeles. (Ronda Flanzbaum, 2-5-96)
Ironically, the mayor of Los Angeles has never visited the village. On the other hand,
a number of high-profile celebrities have come to the village and demonstrated their
support, including Kirste Alley, Ed Bagley Jr., Casey Kasem, Paula Poundstone,
Maxine Waters, Dean Valentine, president of Disney Television, and many more. The
dome village has also been in movie sets or the location for music videos. Ronda
t
Flanzbaum summarizes the importance of these publicity generating celebrity visits:
You know how people are— the more they see something, the more they
like it, the more they understand it, the more popular things become the
more they are willing to even learn more and more about it. So every
time they see a dome next to somebody, a celebrity, or on TV, whatever,
that helps us to put light onto the program, gain some popular support,
which in turn can lead to some other form of support. (Ronda Flanzbaum,
2-5-96)
Another interest generating activity of Genesis I has been the "Crickets." Founded by
Ted Hayes, and coached by a British volunteer, village residents have successfully
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
played cricket in a metropolitan cricket-league. In summer 1995, the cricket team was
even invited on a trip to England, where Genesis I residents played with semi-
professional teams. Ted Hayes sees the "Crickets" as a business venture that
ultimately supports the dome village and therefore the underlying concept. "It is
becoming a good business venture, as well as good public relations, as well as a
therapy, it’s all of it. But business was the original intent" (Ted Hayes, 2-13-96).
The latest spectacular activity of Genesis was the presentation of the "Golden Dome
Awards" a fundraising awards dinner which honored celebrities who had shown
commitment to help the homeless. FYI, the winners of the first Golden Dome
Awards were Connie Stevens, Lindsay Wagner, Louis Gossett Jr., and Edward J.
Olmos.
The Result: Unprecedented IM BY
Genesis I’s efforts to generate and maintain good community relations paid off soon
after the facility opened in early 1994. In an independent evaluation of Genesis I,
Michael Dear, Kaerensa Craft and I investigated the reception of the dome village by
local neighbors and key informants (Dear, von Mahs, and Craft, 1994). Of 55
respondents in the surrounding neighborhood who knew about the village, two-thirds
recalled their first information about Genesis I and the village’s presence in the
neighborhood as positive. Over three-quarters of the respondents expressed varying
degrees of support for the project, whereas only two people were hostile to the village.
We also talked with five key informants who were representative of local business,
police, and social service provider interests. All five individuals were supportive of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
the village’s objectives. Genesis I was regarded as a positive force in the
neighborhood, especially what the clean-up efforts are concerned. One key informant
stated: "The neighborhood is much cleaner and there is less crime and drug
trafficking." A representative from Holiday Inn stated that the village constituted a
"1 0 0 % improvement of the area," and continued: "it’s the best thing that’s happened
to this side of town in years." These positive reactions clearly show that Genesis I’s
efforts to gain and maintain good community relations have paid off.
Summary
The conditions for siting Genesis I were not very favorable, yet Genesis has
been a very successful siting story. It is a prime example of cleverly selecting and
executing siting strategies in an opposition-preventing, community-inclusive, and
continuous manner. This case study has helped to identify a series of new dimensions
in terms of siting strategies. Specifically, Genesis I has shown how dimensions of the
facility context can be applied as operational siting strategies. Facility operators have
further outlined how to prevent NIMBY and how to successfully maintain good
community relations in the post-entry phase. But Genesis I took siting one step
further. It has created and is continuing to create public interest beyond the
immediate community level. It has attracted the interest of many representatives from
various places. The local, national, and even international media have contributed to
the broad scale awareness of the village and its purpose. Genesis I has used many
ways to inform the media, local power brokers, and the neighbors. Whether having
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
celebrity laden events, organizing community health fares, or participating in activism
and advocacy, Genesis I operators have always effectively utilized these events to
make a public statement. What Genesis I’s siting experience implies more generally
for the siting process will be discussed later in this chapter. Next, I describe the siting
of La Posada for which service providers took an entirely different approach— they
entered the host community quietly.
5.2 La Posada: Serving The Underserved
La Posada (Spanish for ’the hostel’) is a transitional residential group home for 6
undocumented Latino immigrant youth. It is located in a residential Mexican-
American community in East Los Angeles and is operated by a catholic organization
called Jovenes Inc. (Spanish for ’youth’). Whereas Genesis I’s success is based on
a comprehensive (high-profile) siting approach, La Posada is an example for a
successful siting based on a low-profile approach during which no residential NIMBY
occurred. This case study is particularly useful for exploring the dynamics of
supportive communities, but it also highlights the difficulties the operators encountered
with land use and zoning regulations when they attempted to expand and renovate the
current building. Because of these administrative problems, the site improvement
plans had to be terminated. Jovenes now intends to lease a second building as a group
home, but also to utilize more community inclusive siting strategies for this future
project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
My interview partners were Rev. Richard Estrada, founder and director of
Jovenes, and a group of architects and designers called "Architects, Artists and
Designers Opening the Border Edge of Los Angeles" (Adobe L.A.). Specifically, I
talked to Leda Ramos, Ulises Diaz, Gustavo Leclerc, and former Adobe member
Ignacio Fernandez. They were involved in the unsuccessful site improvement effort.
I approached the case study in the same fashion as Genesis I. I first examine the
conditions and what they imply for NIMBY, then detail occurrences during the siting
process.
Conditions: Serving the "Unde(r)served"
For the discussion of conditions, I begin with the facility context and what it
might imply for NIMBY. I start by giving background information on the dimensions
client characteristics, facility operations, and facility characteristics.
An Unsuspicious Back-House fo r a Suspicious Client Group: The Facility Context
La Posada’s clients are young men who recently entered the United States illegally.
They come from the more rural parts of Mexico and other Central American countries.
They used to escape the atrocities of civil wars in Central America, but now an
increasing number are escaping the atrocities of family life, including high divorce
rates, substance abuse in the family, and domestic violence. Soon after arrival in the
U.S.,the young men find themselves on the streets of Los Angles, jobless, broke, and
alone. Often unfam iliar with big-city life, they quickly get caught up in the harsh
realities of L. A. street life, such as drugs, crime, gangs, and prostitution. They have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
to remain in hiding, as a discovery by official agencies (INS, police) means detention
and deportation. Entry into "mainstream-society" is, given their legal status, not a
primary goal. Because of their legal status, undocumented homeless youth are largely
ignored by conventional service providers, and are often in poor health. Moreover,
it can be speculated that this client group has been heavily stereotyped because of their
undocumented status. Being homeless is bad, being homeless and undocumented is
even worse, particularly in the State of California which recently enacted Proposition
187, a racist legislation that basically denies public services to its undocumented
residents.
Reverend Estrada, a Roman Catholic priest of the Claretian Order, has been
working with this service group for some time. In the early 1980s, Rev. Estrada was
working as a Chaplain at Central Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles, where he dealt
specifically with undocumented homeless youth. He started networking with other
service providers and advocates and eventually headed a coalition of several youth
agencies, URYC (Latino Immigrant Refugee Youth Coalition). The coalition
advocated for the founding of an organization to provide a specialized intervention
program for this vulnerable client group. In 1989 Jovenes Inc. was founded and
began operating in September 1991. Jovenes Inc. currently has four major
programmatic goals, outreach, social services, education, and art. Outreach stands for
finding the homeless youth at places where they usually congregate, informing them
about Jovenes’ services, assessing their need, and intervene "before the young men get
into trouble" (Rev. Estrada, 3-8-96). The next task is providing social services, such
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
as food, clothing, temporary shelter (at La Posada), or to refer them to other social
services and job training/job placement agencies. Education stands for Jovenes’
efforts to offer clients "English-survivaT-classes, computer courses, or citizenship
classes for those who want to take their im m igration status a step further. The arts
component includes art-workshops under the guidance of artists, art exhibits, and
cultural field-trips to museums and other cultural events. These programmatic
dimensions show that Jovenes put an emphasis on a comprehensive, and convincing
service concept. Jovenes is primarily funded by federal, state, and county agencies.
The project has always received public funding, which suggests that public
administration often recognizes service demands and acts accordingly, independent
from political rhetoric and populism. Jovenes currently employs a staff of four full
time, and three part-time workers. In addition, Jovenes enjoys support from about
thirty volunteers. From 1985 onwards, even before Jovenes Inc. was founded, Rev.
Estrada and volunteers had begun to operate a group home in East Los Angeles. The
actual building, called "Casa Refugio Posada" (short: La Posada) is a small existing
house in the backyard of a family residence (see Fig. 5.2: Floorplan La Posada). The
property has been family-owned since the 1920s. The back-building is the oldest
complex on the property and has been continuously expanded over the years. It
resembles the predominant building style in the area. It contains a spacious living
room and kitchen, two bedrooms for clients, and one bathroom. In addition, one
room and a second bathroom are reserved for the supervisor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Fig. 5.2: Floor Plan La Posada
Residential Neighbors
Car
Port
H
M a in
House
M
M
Car
Port
R o o m
B e d
room
Residential Neighbors
Operating La Posada costs Jovenes about $80,000 annually. La Posada offers
the residents temporary shelter and advice on personal problems. It is intended to
offer some stability for clients who had previously been on the streets. The residents
stay for a period of about three months. Since inception in 1985, the building has
housed more than 1,200 homeless Latino youth, most of them undocumented. In
terms of day-to-day operation, most residents attend Belmont High School in
Downtown Los Angeles, or work regularly during the day. Through La Posada, the
residents can directly access the services and referrals Jovenes Inc. provides. The
group home only stays open over night and on weekends. Besides spending their free
time in the group, residents are also required to do house-keeping chores. The
residents are supposed to clean up, and to maintain the shelter and the surrounding
yard. They purchase the food and cook for themselves. On a few occasions facility
residents have helped neighbors with cleaning, or smaller renovations. During their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
time at La Posada, the residents are being properly supervised by volunteers. During
my visits (mid-April 1996) five young men lived at La Posada, two worked and three
were going to school. Three residents came from Mexico, one from El Salvador, and
another one from Costa Rica.
What does the facility context imply for NIMBY? On one hand, the good
reputation of the service provider, the small facility size, and the fact that the facility
is visually buffered are important dimensions that suggest a presumably low impact
on the surrounding community and potentially little opposition. On the other hand,
the undocumented status of the residents might generate opposition. Moreover,
residential neighborhoods are comparably more conflictual environs, as previous
studies and my national sample point out. Homeless people, particularly young ones,
are often labelled with persistent stereotypes. Taking the previous arguments together,
one might expect community opposition. In the case of la Posada this was not the
case. The first reason that comes to mind when trying to find an explanation for this
acceptance is the fact that the corresponding community is almost entirely Mexican-
American. Next, I will focus on dynamics of supportive communities and the
dimensions that mattered in the particular context of La Posada.
Accepting Community? The Community Context
La Posada is located in East Los Angeles, an unincorporated part of the metropolitan
area, and within the jurisdiction of LA County. The larger area is bound by the 710
Freeway in the west, and the Freeway 60 in the south. The following map gives an
indication of La Posada’s neighborhood and the land use in the area (Map 5.2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
Community characteristics have been examined with the help of census data, as
previously shown for Genesis I.
The local business activities in the extended neighborhood include retail (shops,
comer stores, specialty shops), service (car repairs, personal services), and light
industrial activities (food, and wood processing). On Chavez Ave., there is also an
elementary school and a community center. North of Floral Dr. is a new, high-tech
business park, which is topologically and visually buffered and fenced. All these
activities are at least 1.5 blocks away from La Posada’s location. Opposition by local
businesses is rather unlikely, particularly considering La Posada’s small size.
Predominant Land Use
La Posada
( H I R ““ >
ISS l Manufacturing/
BBcl Industrial Wbrehousing
I f j j Offlco BuHdnsp
Public BUkiiXp/ Schoda
Retail Shop Front
Po/Wng Lol/ Car Park
□ Vacant
Church
A Modcal Clinic
The im m ediate block surrounding the property is entirely residential with an
undeniable Mexican ambience. Two thirds (66.2%) of the buildings are one story
single detached family homes. Although residents seem to pay significant attention
Map 5.2: La Posada's Neighborhood and Land Use
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
to the appearance of their properties, a visitor immediately recognizes the comparably
low socio-economic status of the residents. Buildings are in disrepair, and much of
the work done on buildings is only provisional. The home values are comparably
lower than those for the county.
The neighborhood consists almost entirely of Mexican-American residents
(93%). The socio-economic status of the residents is relatively low, however
significantly higher than that for the recent immigrant residents in the neighborhood
of Genesis I. Almost forty percent of the households earned less than $20,000 in
1989 and would be considered working poor. Little over half (56%) of the
households reported an income of between $20,000 and $60,000. These household
incomes, however, must be adjusted to the household size, which is significantly larger
than the county as a whole. Half (48%) the households counted more than five
persons, primarily consisting of nuclear and extended families. Almost half (47 %) of
all households have children present, which is 16 percent more than the county
average.
As already mentioned, there has been no residential opposition to La Posada’s
presence since its opening in 1985. The single most important factor for La Posada’s
acceptance seems to be the socio-cultural similarity. Being largely comprised of
people with a similar cultural background, I had assumed that there is an awareness
of the problematic of immigration and cultural assimilation. Thus, the notion of
family and family support would suggest that Hispanic communities are more likely
embrace homeless youth. Is this neighborhood therefore the "ideal community" for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
locating this type of service? Reverend Estrada cautioned me not to overestimate the
expectations on cultural similarity and supportive attitudes:
In East L.A. they are Mexican. The Mexicans there don’t have the same
empathy for Central Americans and for refugees. And because it is an old
Mexican-American neighborhood, many of them homeowners who fear
their property values go down, so they even call Mexicans who come
without papers "wetbacks." So even within their own culture! That’s a
sub-variable, but it’s important. (Rev. Estrada, 3-27-96)
This area is a traditional Mexican-American neighborhood, that has resisted all the
territorial changes that occurred in Los Angeles over the decades. Homeownership
is indeed relatively high (40%) considering the modest household incomes the
residents enjoy. Moreover, 75 percent of the current residents lived in the same house
in 1985. Over fifty percent of the local residents were bom in the state of California
and those who immigrated did so well in the past-only 32 percent entered the U.S.
between 1980 and 1990, compared to 53 percent recent immigrant in L.A. county.
The primarily second and third generation Mexican-American residents are also more
culturally assimilated than more recent immigrants, such as the residents in Genesis
I’s neighborhood. Persistence and high homeownership indicate that the residents
have relatively high stake in the neighborhood, which could trigger opposition, despite
cultural similarity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Government Context
In terms of the government context, I first discuss the local administrative dimensions.
The County of Los Angeles Department of Urban and Regional Planning is
responsible for land use affairs in this unincorporated part of Los Angeles county.
The existing land use regulations state:
The above referenced property has an East Los Angeles community plan
process file LMD (low medium density/residential) 17 dwelling units per
gross acre and is zoned R2, 2 family residents, 1 unit each 2500 square
feet of lot area. This community plan classification permits a limited
variety of residential land uses. (Ignacio Fernandez, 3-6-96)
This land use regulation allows the operation of a group home for six or less clients
as compatible with the local zoning code. No use permits are required, and the use
as a group home poses no administrative barrier. A facility for 6 or more clients,
however, would be incompatible, and would require a conditional, or special use
permit based on a hearing process. An expansion could potentially cause difficulties
and administrative opposition. Political representation is also influenced by the fact
that East L.A. is unincorporated. Gloria Molina has been the representative for this
Latino district on the County Board of Supervisors. Molina has always been
supportive concerning human service related issues. Political opposition was therefore
not a big concern.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Siting Process I: Get In Quietly and Co-exist
In 1984, Rev. Estrada was temporarily assigned at the Dominguez seminary,
25 miles east of Downtown L.A.. The seminary was, except for a few priests, almost
empty. For about half a year, Rev. Estrada would allow some homeless
undocumented youth to use the largely vacated seminary dormitories. Soon after,
however, the elderly clergymen started complaining, which caused Rev. Estrada’s
superiors to disallow the use of the dorms for the young men. Facing eviction, it was
quite a coincidence that Rev. Estrada received a telephone-call from a landlady in East
L.A. who knew him from the time he was a priest in this area. She simply offered
him the use of the back-house on her property for social service purposes. The reason
for her offer is associated with what the Adobe L. A. team calls "the mystical genesis"
of La Posada. The property-owner’s husband was very ill and as last resort his wife
went on a pilgrimage to the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City. She asked the
Virgen de Guadalupe for a miracle that would cure her husband, offering in return to
do something for people in need. She offered the backyard of her East L. A.
property as an "offering" (manda) to build a shelter for homeless undocumented
Latino youth. After the husband’s recovery, she called Father Richard Estrada.
When Rev. Estrada first visited the place, he thought it was impossible to
renovate the building, because it was in a terrible shape. However, considering the
eviction he and his protegees faced in the Dominguez seminary, he decided to give
it a try. With the help of volunteers, it only took three months of pro-bono weekend
work to completely renovate the building. An adjacent neighbor, a carpenter, assisted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
in the renovation process. He still helps out whenever the group home needs a repair.
I asked Rev. Estrada whether he attempted to involve or even to inform the
community? He admitted: "We just did it, it happened, it was not planned, we were
not thinking like that in those days" (Rev. Estrada, 3-21-94). Consequently, many
neighbors are not even aware of a group home for homeless Latino youth in their
barrio. Rev. Estrada estimates the range of awareness of La Posada is a block each
way from the facility. Those neighbors who know about the facility are reportedly
supportive and fortunately residential NIMBY never occurred.
La Posada eventually started serving its first clients in April of 1985. Since
opening, La Posada has peacefully co-existed with the local community. In the post-
entry period operators have only performed minimum outreach, which included
keeping only the immediate neighbors informed through informal contact, and
properly operating the facility. Operational strategies included having an effective and
reputable agency leadership, providing proper client supervision, and keeping the
property and the immediate area clean.
t
Siting Process II: Site Improvement Denied
After nearly six years of operation, and only a few minor renovations, Rev.
Estrada and his staff started exploring options to completely rebuild and expand La
Posada, which had to be considered a site-improvement effort and basically a new
siting process. By 1991, Jovenes was fully functioning and the demand for temporary
shelter was rising. Haydee Sanchez, then program manager, was also looking at ways
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
to fund such an expansion. In terms of architectural and professional assistance,
Jovenes was in contact with three potential business partners.
Growth and Inclusive Planning
One of these partners was Adobe L.A. ,a collaborative, non-hierarchical, and bi-lingual
group for built work and public arts that bridges the divergent cultural landscapes of
Los Angles. Rev. Estrada first met Gustavo Leclerc of Adobe L.A. in late 1992, and
mentioned the expansion plans for the La Posada-project. After a few meetings,
Jovenes Inc. became Adobe’s client. To Adobe the importance of La Posada can be
summarized as follows:
The religious cultural genesis of the "manda/offering"provides a point of
departure to explore the dynamics of extended family structures, popular
belief, culture and vernacular expressions in relation to architectural
practice. In addition it proposes new strategies for rethinking social space,
challenges legal/illegal zoning and building regulations, and expands the
notion of "public/private." (Adobe LA, Document 1: 1)
According to the Adobe-team, there would have been four stages in the process of
realizing the site improvement of La Posada. The first two stages had already been
realized before the site improvement process was terminated.
Phase 1: Design Consultation (finished): During this stage a series of informal
interviews with clients and staff were undertaken, focussing on people’s expectations
and details of the client characteristics (e.g.,reasons for being here). A few days later
workshops were organized in which both the operators and the homeless youth were
able to present their "views" of the future establishment. Potential neighborhood
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
concerns were considered and the planners claimed being "sensitive" about these
issues. Actual neighbors, however, were not actively involved at this point.
Phase 2: Studio Work (finished) : During this stage the architects and designers
of Adobe L.A. went back into their studio to consider the suggestions of the La
Posada-members, and developed the thoughts further through "the production of visual
imagery" (Adobe LA, document 1: 2). The goal was to come up with a realizable
compromise for a plan that may be approved by all, resulting in a first drawing that
was to be submitted for approval to the local building department. This was the last
stage of the project to have been realized. The consequent steps were envisioned but
never put into practice.
Phase 3: Art Intervention: The next step would have been a collaboration with
local artists and experts such as landscape architects, in order to obtain visual and
textual narratives on the use of texture, colors, landscape and other design issues. A
nearby print studio was the first intervention partner envisioned. The result should
have been a first three-dimensional model of the future La Posada, a model that is
based on collaboration with all actors involved.
Phase 4: Fabrication: Following approval from all participants, the actual
construction of the new facility would then have begun. It was envisioned that
residents would actively participate in the construction. Some of the work might have
also been done by local neighbors in the construction business.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
The Application
In early 1992 Rev. Estrada requested official information from the L.A. County
Department of Regional Planning about the bureaucratic options for an expansion.
The director of planning reaffirmed the existing requirements which only allow a
group home for six or less clients. An expansion of the facility for seven or more
clients requires a conditional use-permit or a variance. Whereas a conditional-use
permit only allows a new land use for the time the applicant is present at the location,
a variance would permit the applied use indefinitely. Both re-classification procedures
require a public hearing before the regional planning commission, or a hearing
examiner. The procedure takes between three and nine months, with no guarantee of
approval.
When Adobe L.A. got involved in the process in early 1993, Ignacio
Fernandez started dealing with administrative issues. After a fellow architect told him
that in his case a hearing procedure had cost $5,000, he started exploring alternative
options. Jeff Shaffer from the "L.A. Shelter Partnership" suggested applying for a
classification, as a domestic violence shelter as many of La Posada’s residents are
domestic violence victims. This classification is, as Ignacio Fernandez found out,
more open-ended and presumably in compliance with local zoning requirements.
Prerequisites for the procedure included a yard-modification, which required a site
survey and photographs of the property (regarding space requirements), and an
elevation and plot-plan of the actual building. Furthermore, the requirements also
included a list of signatures from neighbors. The site survey was conducted by an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
independent firm (Hannan & Ass.), and Mr. Fernandez produced the plot p lan
Project manager Haydee Sanchez sought for neighborhood approval and requested
signatures from neighbors. All surrounding neighbors supported the expansion.
During these administrative procedures, the Adobe L.A. team also undertook the first
two phases of the previously described design consultation process, which resulted in
a preliminary plan for the future La Posada, which was a final requirement for the
application.
The Denial
Having fulfilled all the requirements, the application was filed and $150 processing
fees submitted. After a few months of silence, Mr. Fernandez called the County of
Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning to find out what happened, but the
department couldn’t find the application. Finally, in late 1993 a representative from
the site plan review section of the planning department replied:
This proposal can not be approved by the director of review, since a group
home for seven or more children requires a conditional use permit. Also
certain aspects of your program exhibit characteristics of the homeless
shelter and more intense long term occupancy-use that first appears in
zones R3. Further, the proposal is not approvable as a domestic violence
shelter, because your program does not provide services to spousal victims
of domestic violence. These requirements of the zoning ordinance relate
directly to the intent of legislation and the definitions related to domestic
violence sustained in the State of California Welfare and Institution Code,
Section 82-90. (Ignacio Fernandez, 3-6-96)
Moreover, and despite the yard modification efforts, the planning department further
found that certain parking requirements were not fulfilled. The p lanning department
allowed the operators to appeal the decision within 10 days under the submission of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
$289 processing fees. Mr. Fernandez, upset about the denied application, did some
further research on the Welfare and Institution Code (Section 82-90), which defines
domestic violence, its meaning, and its implications for service provision in a rather
general fashion. He read the lengthy section to me and remarked: "To me, this
definition is not very focussed and it kind of justifies pretty much what we were
trying to do" (Ignacio Fernandez, 3-6-96). I agreed, and further asked Ignacio about
why he thinks that the administration has rejected the application, despite
neighborhood approval:
Perhaps knowing that there is sometimes opposition, they don’t want to
open doors and maybe be the one that allowed this, and so everybody can
do it. So I think they try to be conservative about it. It seemed like
nobody wanted to make a decision or really help you with your problems,
you know. The thing is if you know what the problem is, you can work
with it. That didn’t seem the case, everybody was sort of saying, well,
I don’t know, maybe-let’s shove it upstairs. (Ignacio Fernandez, 3-6-96)
This set-back caused Jovenes to reconsider the entire project. The proposal was not
resubmitted and no further administrative steps were taken. Hence, the organization
began to realize that the envisioned renovation was beginning to become increasingly
expensive and the renovation would cost a minimum of $150,000 as Ulises Diaz told
me. Considering that the envisioned expansion still required administrative procedures
with no guarantee of success, Rev. Estrada started getting doubts about whether he
would get the public funding for a renovation. He came to the conclusion that he
wants "to avoid that, a lot of bureaucracy, and I will never get away with it” (Rev.
Estrada, 3-8). Despite neighborhood approval and an innovative site improvement
approach, Jovenes eventually discontinued its site improvement efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
Siting Process ID: Looking for a Future Site
After the failed site-improvement, Jovenes underwent a serious program and
concept re-evaluation. By September 1995, Jovenes has consolidated its program, and
concentrated some of its service offices. Rev. Estrada stated that he wants to keep La
Posada at its current size and only undergo a minor site improvement. Although this
ends Adobe L.A. ’sinvolvement in the process, their work contributed to ideas for how
to undertake a small scale renovation. More specifically, Rev. Estrada liked Adobe’s
philosophy to actively integrate residents into the design and construction process.
Recently, Jovenes applied for a $15,000 grant from the L.A. City Department of
Community Housing and Regional Development to renovate La Posada and to include
current and former residents in the construction process. The renovated La Posada
will retain its function as a temporary residential group home.
In order to cope with the growing service and shelter demand, Rev. Estrada
now intends to lease a second building. He is currently in the site selection process
and has an existing structure in mind. The two-story building is located on Glendale
Boulevard north of downtown. The land use in this neighborhood is mixed, mainly
consisting of small business and some factories. An apartment complex with 30-40
units is next door, inhabited mainly by lower income Latino and Asian residents. The
first floor of the envisioned facility will contain a service office and a little club room,
and up-stairs will be a group home for six clients (permitted land use). Rev. Estrada
is currently looking to get HUD-funds for operating the facility. He has already been
assured support from City Councilman Mike Hernandez. He is also closely working
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
with other service providers to realize this project. In terms of community outreach,
Rev. Estrada acknowledges the importance of proper information and involvement,
and admits that these were secondary considerations when La Posada started its
services in East L.A.. He says: "If I had to do it again? Now I know much better,
have a mission, have a goal, and have a strategy" (Rev. Estrada, 3-21-96). If he gets
the building, the first thing on Rev. Estrada’s agenda would be to properly inform
neighbors and local businesses. Extending services to the community is another
objective; local residents will be allowed to use the club-room downstairs. This club
room will function as a community center where local residents and clients can
interact. Stimulating interaction and fighting prejudice and stigma is a third objective:
When you are providing a service, that means that there is a need. But
what the community needs is to be informed, properly informed not only
about homelessness, but also about economy, all kinds of things. My focus
has changed; the shelter is on the back seat, it is to change public attitudes
and public policies. (Rev. Estrada, 3-27-96)
S u m m a ry
In La Posada’s case, the conditions, .such as the characteristics of the local
community were favorable and indicative of potential support. However, it would be
misleading to interpret cultural similarity alone as a dimension for reducing
opposition. Sub-dimensions such as knowledge about possible antipathies, residential
protectionism, and neighborhood stake have to be considered. Limited visibility and
unsuspicious design were further helpful for La Posada, because it helped to reduce
publicity about the facility. The reputation of Reverend Estrada and his activism was
also an important factor for the acceptance by the immediate local neighborhood.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
Rev. Estrada, facility supervisors, and residents, however, always stayed in touch with
immediate neighbors. In this way neighbors were permanently informed about the
facility, its clients, and its operations. Moreover, through proper supervision, the
impact of the facility (e.g.,noise, crime, vandalism, littering) was kept to a m inim um
These operational and informative strategies helped in gaining and m aintaining
acceptance by the neighbors. Governmental dimensions, such as the local political-
administrative frame, turned out to be an overpowering barrier when Jovenes Inc. and
Adobe L.A. attempted to expand and rebuild the facility. Administrative inflexibility
and the conservation of thresholds prevented an expansion that would otherwise have
been approved by local neighbors. Compliance, non-confrontation, and circumvention
were Jovenes Inc.’s strategic steps to avoid a direct confrontation with the local
planning authorities. Therefore, Jovenes now intends to lease a second building as a
group home. For this siting process, Rev. Estrada intends to apply more community
inclusive siting strategies.
In the following section, I discuss new dimensions that surfaced in the
discussion of both case studies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
5. 3 Lessons From the Two Case Studies
The dimensions identified in chapter 4 have been useful for approaching and
describing these essentially non-conflictual siting experiences of Genesis I and La
Posada. However, the intensive, longitudinal investigations have provided valuable
insights into several dimensions which were not fully discussed in chapter 4.
In this section, I will revisit some of these dimensions. I discuss implications
for both conditions and processes. In terms of conditions, I elaborate on three
dimensions namely facility design, community support, and bureaucratic procedures.
Here I draw from results of both case studies. In terms of processes, I focus
specifically on Genesis I’s innovative use of siting strategies and what this implies for
the siting process more generally. I will rethink the siting process and offer a new
framework to conceptualize the siting process.
Extending the Conditions: Design, Support, and Bureaucracy
Publicity, Visibility, and Design
The two previous case studies illustrated different approaches to the use of publicity;
on one hand maximum publicity in the case of Genesis I, and on the other, minimum
publicity for La Posada. The desirability o f publicity, a new dimension, strongly
depends on the purpose of the service program and the community and government
context into which a facility is proposed. Political processes on the macro-level, for
instance, have had a major impact on the perceptions of undocumented people. In La
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
Posada’s case, the nature of clients could have potentially created negative associations
and persistent stereotypes, as Reverend Estrada points out:
Because they are undocumented, they have the whole baggage of all the
ills of our society of Los Angeles, from gangs, to prostitution, and drugs,
etc.. There’s a real gap. If I put up a shelter here, or in downtown it
would not matter, but if I would put a shelter in a suburban area, that
makes a big difference. (Rev. Estrada, 3-27-96)
Opposition and publicity could have been devastating in the case of La Posada’s
clients: a potentially painful confrontation with the INS, detention, and eventually
deportation. Stigma, and legal status have caused operators to minimize attention in
La Posada’s case and avoid publicity. Although homelessness has been similarly
stereotyped, visibility and publicity were desirable goals for the Genesis operators.
With the help of an innovative service concept and facility design, Genesis I has tried
to promote the empowering, productive dome village concept. Genesis I has used the
novel dome design to attract public interest in order to promote low-cost, low-standard
transitional housing for homeless people. Here, design has played an important role
in displaying the Genesis I concept.
However, several of the national case studies have indicated that facility
operators would typically prefer to minimize publicity and avoid-attention. Reducing
suspicion and often rejection can also be an important role of the design of a facility.
Most importantly, a facility should not overpower its surroundings, and it should not
have an institutional appearance, as Leda Ramos points out: "It is important to
maintain the neighborhood character, the issue is sharing space" (3-12-96). Many
aspects in the design and construction process are controlled by pragmatism,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
particularly given limited financial resources. However, many other aspects can be
designed, changed, or negotiated within financial, administrative, or time constraints.
Creativity is crucial, and the possibilities are numerous. Landscaping, minimiTing roof
areas, adopting neighborhood designs, changing window and door sizes, using various
materials (preferably recycled ones), are all potential design strategies. Further, design
and construction should be "inclusive." One way is to include the clients (where
possible) in the design and construction process which can be cost-reducing,
educational, and even therapeutic. Inviting neighborhood input is also recommended,
but Ulises Diaz warns that too much neighborhood involvement can be "a double-
edged sword that might work against you" (Ulises Diaz, 3-12-67). Design issues are
important because the facility appearance is often a major influence on community
reaction. Facility design can also be negotiated, serving as either an operational siting
strategy (adaptability), or as a cooperative strategy if combined with integrating
neighbors in the design process (design committees, concessions & compromises).
Dealing With Bureaucracy
It is always important to consider the local political-administrative regulations, and
the potential problems they pose. Compliance with existing regulations is one way
to circumvent costly formal procedures (variance), and to avoid community opposition
with formal bureaucratic means (re-zoning). Avoiding confrontation is often the best
way to prevent negative public perceptions of a facility and the clients it serves. In
the case of La Posada avoiding confrontation meant keeping the shelter capacity in
compliance with existing ordinances, meaning six residents and one supervisor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
Favoring small scale facilities, thereby avoiding public alarm and the need for a use
pennit, has already been recommended by Vannemann (1995). The path of least
resistance is an easy road to travel, but precludes substantive changes in the siting
context. In this way exclusionary zoning will continue to prevent equitable service
distribution and prohibit, as Ulises Diaz points out, "a culture to occur." In La
Posada’s case zoning thresholds prevented a service from expanding although the
community (the people who these thresholds are supposed to protect) had no
objections. For Ulises Diaz zoning thresholds are a necessity, but they need to be
established in a different way. Thresholds are established by people who are unaware
of the local context, and enforced without accountability and public approval.
However, if the process was based on public opinion, like in this case through a
hearing, it should not be prohibitive ($5,000). Diaz therefore calls fore more
"democratization in planning" (Ulises Diaz, 3-12-87).
One way to take the democratization in planning a step further without
necessarily directly confronting and challenging the planning apparatus, is in form of
alliances and coalitions with other service providers and advocacy groups beyond
community level. Alliances, a facility-internal programmatic dimension, give service
providers the necessary strength to challenge the planning bureaucracy, and to promote
democratization of land use decisions. Thus an increasing number of service providers
in the Los Angeles area have already started to make a concerted grass-roots effort to
end land use discrimination and exclusionary practices (Colletti et al., 1995). Both
Jovenes and JHUSA are connected in a web of service providers, advocates, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
activists. Networking and forming alliances is also important for gaining the
necessary strength to achieve other goals, such as securing funds, or lobbying the
political process.
Supportive Communities
Socio-cultural similarity does not guarantee community support for a facility, as La
Posada’s case showed. It was perhaps my own stereotypes of Latino communities that
caused me to assume that cultural similarity and altruistic values would be major
indicators of acceptance. To better understand the roots of support/opposition it is
important to consider crucial sub-dimensions, such as pre-existing local struggles, or
personal antipathies between ethnic groups (American citizens of Mexican origin
versus Central American Immigrants). Rev. Estrada admits that in La Posada’s case
"this worked only because of my image, the persona of a priest, a church, it’s a back
house, and it’s low key" (Rev. Estrada, 3-27-96). Social similarity, as opposed to
social distance is an indicative dimension. The more familiar a community is with a
client group or a service type, the less likely is fear of, and a negative attitude toward
siting. But there are also other dimensions that help determine the level of community
support. For instance, support might depend on how homogeneous a community is.
We need to consider ethnic homogeneity, socio-economic homogeneity, and land use
homogeneity. If a community is heterogeneous, it is rather likely to be unorganized
and host of a variety of other social issues and tensions. Siting may then not
necessarily be seen as an immediate concern. Genesis I’s neighborhood is such an
heterogenous community, with mixed land use including prestigious businesses,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
alongside economically deprived community residents. The residents are not
organized and have a low stake in the neighborhood. Neighborhood stake is another
important dimension, because the higher the stake in the neighborhood, the more
likely is the appearance of opposition. Neighborhood stake can be assessed by
looking at socio-economic status, tenure, home-values, homogeneity, and the length
of residence. Neighborhood stake introduces yet another dimension-power to control
space. The more power a community has, the more ability a community has to resist
an unwanted land use. The more economic power, the more likely is protectionism,
because protectionism depends on whether somebody has something to protect in the
first place.
So far, I have discussed five dimensions that may indicate whether a
community is more likely to be supportive or opposing to siting: Social
similarity/distance,homogeneity/heterogeneity,neighborhood stake, protectionism, and
power to control space. Consequently, a supportive community is characterized by
being socially similar, heterogenous in terms of ethnic, and land use patterns, and
t
economically deprived (low neighborhood stake, little power). The problem is,
however, is that these risk-free locations are already overburdened with social services.
Should we therefore deliberately select these risk-free, presumably more supportive
locations? This would contradict attempts by advocates to decentralize human service
provision, and to achieve fair-share service distributions. Furthermore, can we really
say that these communities are indeed more supportive? Being preoccupied with own
problems, residents may also be (i) unaware of, (ii) indifferent to, or (iii) potentially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
even hostile to the proposed siting. The point is that it is possible to conceptualize
theoretically the reasons for opposition or support, but it is never really possible to be
sure about whether and where NIMBY actually occurs, because we can never be sure
what the actual attitudes of people are. Rather, the importance is to properly prepare
the approach to a community, regardless of whether the conditions of siting indicate
potential NIMBY or IMBY reactions. In the following section I will show how such
preparation is possible by summarizing Genesis I’s experience with preventive siting.
Rethinking the Siting Process: From Preparation to Occupation
The two case studies provide a more comprehensive understanding of the siting
process. Siting is a continuous process that is, as previous studies suggested,
characterized by three distinct phases, which can be distinguished by specific
benchmarks. The siting announcement launches the pre-entry phase, the start of the
construction instigates the entry-phase, and the opening day marks the beginning of
the post entry phase. The national case studies have dealt primarily with the pre-entry
and entry periods. The in-depth investigations of Genesis I and La Posada, however,
have allowed further investigation of the period leading up to the pre-entry phase, and
occurrences well after facility opening. In this way we got a more comprehensive,
longitudinal understanding of the siting process from conception of the project through
normal day-to-day operations. The Genesis I experience in particular suggests two
additional phases in the siting process. First, there is a preparatory-phase that
precedes pre-entry, and second, an occupation-phase which follows post-entry.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
The Merits o f Preventive Planning
It seems reasonable to assume that service providers spend considerable time
conceptualizing the facility, its operations, and the basic siting tasks. However, it is
not necessarily given that facilitator consider to plan the siting approach to a
community and the government. Moreover, as the national case studies illustrate,
facilitators reacted to NIMBY, rather than trying to prevent it. Genesis I, in contrast,
has demonstrated that NIMBY prevention is possible. When asked whether his
approach to the community could be called "preventive planning," Ted Hayes
responded:
You have to anticipate opposition. It’s normal that there is opposition and
you gotta think how they may think. When you do come into contact with
the neighbors you answer them all their questions before they even ask
you. And you always begin from the premise of in their interests, not in
your interest. We’re just saying, this dome village in your community is
in your interest. We approached the neighborhood correctly as their
neighborhood. We didn’t just come balling in and do something. We
talked to the people, and we spend some time lobbying the neighborhood
(Ted Hayes, 2-13-96).
The preventive planning practiced by Genesis I included the following steps:
1. To prepare a comprehensive, persuasive, and marketable service
concept;
2. To decide on the approach to the community along the
continuum between low, and high-profile.
3. To research local community and government contexts and
identify local key-figures;
4. To seek leadership-endorsement for financial and political
support;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
5. To visually display the idea and thereby promoting it (e. g.
public dome-demonstration);
6. To investigate potential sites and to find out about administrative
procedures;
7. To immediately contact the local neighborhood with information
on their potential concerns before any siting intentions are
publicly announced;
The final step, to immediately inform the community before any siting intentions
become public, is in my understanding the beginning of the pre-entry phase. In
Genesis’ case, these preparatory strategic steps helped to anticipate potential NIMBY
reactions and to virtually intercept NIMBY. Since then Genesis I has implemented
a variety of strategies to maintain positive relations with the surrounding community.
Community Relations Strategies: Post-Entry and Occupation
Genesis I has demonstrated a series of innovative siting strategies since facility
opening. In conversation Ted Hayes has suggested that "post-entry" may not be the
most appropriate term to conceptualize the current period of Genesis’ existence. In
his view, the actual post-entry phase only takes about two months. I agree with Hayes
that at some point after facility opening we are not dealing with NIMBY as a response
to siting, but rather general neighborhood relations and potential difficulties that may
stimulate opposition. However, it is difficult and perhaps inadvisable to speculate
about the precise length of the post-entry phase, since this will depend largely on the
local conditions. Ted Hayes has therefore suggested to talk about occupation as soon
as residual NIMBY (generated through siting) has disappeared. When the stage of
occupation is reached, we can begin to talk about community-relations strategies,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
rather than siting strategies. Nonetheless, community relations strategies remain a
necessity— NIMBY can easily be arise, even if a facility has operated successfully for
some time (e.g. Miriam’s Kitchen, chapter 4). In essence, community relations
strategies are the continuation of siting strategies.
But how can such community relations strategies be performed? Genesis I has
successfully shown how to create and maintain good community relations during the
post-entry and occupation phases. Village operators combined informational,
operational, and cooperative strategies. Moreover, given JHUSA’s financial
difficulties, the use of siting strategies has had to be cost-effective. Informational
strategies included the dissemination of information to, and contact with the
community. The village has successfully attracted media interest, and used celebrity
support to advertise the concept. Operational strategies encompass continuous,
effective, and reputable agency leadership, and the incorporation of clients in every
aspect of village operations. Clients serve as self-conscious messengers and help to
defy existing stereotypes of homeless people. Finally, Cooperative strategies include
Genesis’ commitment to improve the quality of the local neighborhood (clean-up,
security), to engage the community in ongoing operations (JHUSA-board), and to
actively provide services to local neighbors (health fairs, celebrations). Genesis I has
shown that the use of a comprehensive siting approach can be cost-effective,
community inclusive, and in the interest of facility clients.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
5. 5 Dimensions in the Locational Conflict: A Reassessment
Now that I have identified the siting dimensions, tested and expanded them
accordingly, it is time for a final reassessment. I present a comprehensive diagram
(Figure 5.3) that represents conditions and processes in locational conflicts. This
figure displays a typical siting process from conception of the idea until the phase of
occupation. On the left side, I have also included the conditions which strongly
influence the course of events. Here it is important to notice that the facility context
(#1) is also responsible for the selection and performance of siting strategies. The
community context (#2), in turn, responds to a facility with either NIMBY or IMBY.
The government (#3) provides a regulatory frame for both community and facility, and
may act in the interest of either side by either providing siting strategies, or
oppositional tools. The conditions clearly affect the siting process, but can also be
altered in the process.
Now, let’s focus on the right side of the diagram, where I have displayed the
use of NIMBYUMBY (#4), and the performance of siting strategies (#5) over time.
One innovation, based on the Genesis I experience, is the existence of a preparatory
stage, which precedes the siting announcement. The essential purpose of this task is
to understand conditions and the siting process, to anticipate opposition, and to plan
a strategic approach to the community. Proper preparation has been very successful
for Genesis I, and some other national cases, such as the Yakima Gospel Mission and
the Edmonton Prison.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
Figure 5.3: Condtoons of and Processes in the Locational Conflict
C O N D ITIO N S
Preparatory Pre-Entry Entry Post-Entry (Occupation
3. Government
2. C om m unity
Cont ext
4. N I M B Y
r n d r
I M B Y
Time
NIMBY-opposition typically begins after the site is announced. According to my
findings, it is often most intense during the initial phases of siting. NIMBY
opposition then declines during the siting process, and is ideally overcome when the
occupation stage is reached. However, my findings on supportive communities
suggest that disengagement in the locational conflict does not automatically mean that
NIMBY has disappeared. Perhaps actors in the process become indifferent or simply
give up their attempt to fight a facility. Negative attitudes might still prevail despite
the successful facility siting. Ronda Flanzbaum has therefore cautioned to always be
aware of passive opposition that "may become alive sometime" (Ronda Flanzbaum,
2-5-96). This potential post-siting opposition is also the reason why community
relations strategies need to be continuously performed in the occupation phase. On
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
top of NIMBY, I present the different types of siting strategies that have been
performed over the course of the siting process. Government-based and informational
strategies were primarily performed during the initial stages, operational strategies
throughout the process, and cooperative strategies more toward entry, post-entry, and
occupation. For the period of occupation, community relations strategies may consist
of a mix of cooperative, informational, and operational strategies.
Having provided an explanation of how the key factors and dimensions work
together, I now provide a final comprehensive list of dimension involved in locational
conflicts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
K ey Factors and Dimensions in Siting: A Final List
In this section, I present comprehensive list of KEY-FACTORS (I. ),
dimensions (1.), sub-dimensions (1.1), and elements (a:) that have been discovered and
explained in the course of this research.
I. FACILITY CONTEXT
1. Siting Type
1.1 New Sites
1.2 Relocations
1.3 Site Improvements
2. Client Characteristics
2.1 Demographic Characteristics
a: Ethnicity
b: Similarity to Community
2.2 Client Impact
a: Behaviors
b: Health/ Infection
c: Crime/ Drugs
2.3 Attitudes Toward Client
a: Reputation/ Stereotypes
b: Desirability of Publicity
3. Facility Characteristics
3.1 Facility Size/Visibility
3.2 Facility Design/Aesthetics
a: Signification
b: Negotiation
3.3 Facility Impact on.,
a: Local Economy
b: Social Environment
c: Built Environment
3.4 Attitudes Toward Facility
3.5 Negotiation
4. Facility Operations
4.1 Agency Leadership
a: Facility/ Provider’s Reputation
c: Effectiveness of Management
d: Local Contacts
e: Alliances, Coalitions
4.2 Programmatic Dimensions
a: Financial Capabilities
b: Service Concept
c: Outreach-Potential
d: Client Supervision
e: Client Integration into Process
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
H. COMMUNITY CONTEXT
1. Community Structure
b: Socio-Demographic
1.1 Actual Location
- Ethnic Composition
- Age, Gender
- ImMigration
c: Socio-Cultural
a: Inner Cities, CBDs
b: Urban
c: Suburban
- Educational Attainment
d: Rural
- Cultural Assimilation
1.2 Land Use
- Religion
a: Residential
- Social and Cultural History
b: Mixed Residential/ Industrial
d: Socio-political
c: Industrial
- Local NGOs
1.3 Built Environment
- Voting Behavior/ Political
a: Size and Quality of Buildings
Attitudes
b: Age of Buildings
- Political History
c: Tenure
- Preexisting Struggles/
d: Vacancies
Antipathies
e: Home Values
f: Rent prices
2. NIMBY-Actors and Concerns
g: Economic and Industrial Activity
1.4 Characteristics of the Local
2.1 Actors (supportive or rejecting)
a: Individual Residents
Community
b: Neighborhood Associations
a: Economic
c: Local Business People
- Business Types and Quality
d: Other Service Providers
- Business Size/ Power
e: Experts
- Dependency on Customers
c: Celebrities
a: Socio-Economic
2.2 Residential NIMBY
- Household Income
a: Protectionism, Fear
- Occupation
b: Neighborhood Stake
- UnEmployment
c: Homogeneity/Heterogeneity
- Poverty Levels
- Economic Trends
d: Social Distance/Similarity
e: Power to Control Space
2.3 Local Business NIMBY
a: Profit, Protectionism
b: Consumer Flows
c: Power to Cohtrol Space
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
m . GOVERNMENT CONTEXT
186
1. Government Functions
1.1 Local Administrative Dimensions
a: Zoning and Land Use Regulations
b: Building and Safety Codes
c: Restrictive Covenants
d: Other Local Ordinances, Regulations
1.2 Political Dimensions
a: Scale (local, county, state, federal)
b: Political Representation
c: Local Political Process
d: Local Political Culture
1.3 Judicial Dimensions
a: Scale (local, county, state, federal)
b: Legal Controversies
(law suits, appeals, SLAPPs)
c: Enabling Federal Legislation
(McKinney Homeless Act, etc.)
d: Protective Federal Legislation
(FHAA, ADA, etc.)
2. Governmental NIMBY-Types
2.1 Actors (supportive or Rejecting)
a: Administrators
b: Politicians
c: Judges/ Legal Professionals
2.2 Administrative and Legal NIMBY
a: Compliance
b: Enforcement
c: Limited Flexibility
2.3 Political NIMBY
a: Political Pragmatism
b: Opportunism
IV. NIMBY
1. lim e and Space
1.1 Opposition over Time
a: Pre-Entry
b: Entry
c: Post-Entiy
d: Zeitgeist
1.2 Opposition over Space
a: Proximity
b: Distance
2. Oppositional Arguments
2.1 Impact-Related
a: Increased Crime
b: Undesirable Pedestrian Activity
c: Declining Property Values
d: Saturation of Neighborhood
e: Distracting Business Interests
f: Unpleasing Exterior/ Design
g: Increased Traffic/Noise
2.2 Siting Practice-Related
a: Exclusionary Siting Practice
b: Improper Zoning
2.3 "Caring Face" Arguments
3. Oppositional Tools
3.1 Government Based
a: Restrictive Zoning
b: Lawsuits
c: Court Appeals
d: Lobbying
3.2 Informative
a: Distributing information
b: Spreading Myths/Rumors
c: Use of Media
3.3 Collaborative
a: Organizing
b: Demonstrations
c: Providing Alternatives
3.4 Coercive
a: Violence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
V. SITING STRATEGIES
1. Siting Process
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Preparatory
Pre-Entry
Entry
Post-Entry
Occupation
2. Preparation Strategies
1.1 Preparation of Service Concept
a: Siting Strategies
b: Impact Assessment of Facility
1.2 Pre-site Selection
a: Impact Assessment Community
b: Impact Assessment Government
1.3 Outreach - Assessment
a: Outreach Potential
b: Outreach Desirability/ Publicity
c: Outreach Decision (low-high profile)
1.4 Leadership-Endorsement
a: Persuasion
b: Demonstration of Concept
1.5 Preparation of Information
for First Public Announcement
3. Government Based Strategies
3.1 Court-Based Strategies
a: Defensive (Court Appeal)
b: Offensive (SLAPP)
c: Enabling (Stuart B. McKinney Act)
d: Protective (FHAA, ADA)
3.2 Administrative-Bureaucratic
Strategies
a: Using Local Zoning Ordinances
3.3 Timing/ Predominant Use during
a: Pre-entry
b: Entry
4. Operational Strategies
4.1 Facility Management
a: Effective and Reputable Agency
Leadership
b: Alliances with Reputable
Organizations and Coalitions
c: Adaptability
d: Innovative Service Concept or
Facility Design
4.2 Facility Appearance and Use
a: Combining Siting with
Renovation Efforts
b: Favoring Small-Scale Facilities
4.3 Timing/ Predominant use during
a: Continuously
5. Informational Strategies
5.1 Direct Information
a: Information on the Proposed
Facility and Program
b: Indication of Previous Experience
c: Honesty About Problematic Aspects
d: Information Meetings and
Open Houses
e: Establishing a Dialogue
5.2 Indirect Information
a: Supportive Expert Opinion
b: Celebrity Support
c: Media Involvement
5.3 Timing/ Predominant Use During
a: Pre-Entry
b: Entry
c: Post-Entry '
(Continued on Following Page)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
V. SITING STRATEGIES
(Continued)
6. Cooperative Strategies 7. Community Relations
6.1 Indirect Cooperation Strategies
a: Concessions and Compromises
7.1 Informational
b: Mediation
a: Continuous Information for
c: Public Consultation/ Hearing
Community
6.2 Direct Cooperation
b: Media Involvement
a: Informal
7.2 Cooperative
b: Active Public Participation (NACs)
a: Community Inclusive Events
c: Negotiating Facility Design
b: Extend Service Provision to
d: Supportive Action
Community
6.3 Timing/ Predominant use during
c: Improving Neighborhood Quality
a: Entry
7.3 Operational
b: Post-Entry/ Occupation
a: Integrate Clients in Ongoing
Operations
b: Consistent, Effective, and
Reputable Leadership
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ch. 6 Conclusion
189
In conclusion, I first present a summary of the most important findings. In the second
section, I present an applicable planning agenda for homeless service providers. I
conclude this research by evaluating the utility of my underlying conceptual-analytic
framework, and elaborating on some potential future research tasks.
6.1 Summary of Findings
The purpose of this research was to provide a comprehensive framework for
understanding the relationship between NIMBY-opposition and siting strategies in the
siting process. I attempted to develop a systematic dimensions framework that allows
a comprehensive overview of common dimensions that are characterizing locational
conflicts. To ascertain such dimensions, I used case studies as the primary analytical
method.
In chapter 2 ,1 first examined the literature on the locational conflict in order
to fam iliariz e myself with the various factors in siting, and to gain a better
understanding of how they relate to each other. The review of the literature suggested
that it was important to distinguish between siting strategies and the context of a siting
situation. Previous research on the context of siting proposed that various factors
accompany the locational conflict. These factors were differentiated in terms of
conditions and behaviors. NIMBY-conditions encompassed the nature of NIMBYism,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
the part actors and their attitudes play, the role of land use regulations and other
government functions. Consequently, NIMBY behaviors were expressed through
NIMBY arguments, and implemented through NIMBY tools. The literature also
revealed a variety of normative siting strategies employed by service providers.
However, previous studies revealed little information about how actual NIMBY
behavior relates to the use of siting strategies over the course of a siting process.
Finally, I also investigated literature concerning methodological issues for case study
analyses of locational conflict. Seley (1983) introduced a dimensions methodology
which formed the foundation for my approach to analyzing case study experience.
In chapter 3 ,1 developed a preliminary framework for analyzing case studies,
based on the broader themes proposed in the literature. I suggested that it is important
to distinguish between conditions and processes, which were described through key-
factors that were presumed to interact with each other. Conditions encompass the
facility, community, and government context. Processes include NIMBY opposition,
and siting strategies performed by service providers. The result of the interaction of
*
these processes determines the outcome of a siting situation. This preliminary
framework served as a guide throughout the thesis, and was constantly revised in the
proceeding analytical steps.
In chapter 4 , 1 applied the preliminary framework to a set of national case
studies. The purpose of the national case studies was to ascertain dimensions involved
in the locational conflict. To do so, I first discussed each of the thirty-one cases by
differentiating them into the six previously suggested key-factors. This differentiation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
allowed me to get a sense of how each case evolved, which dimensions were
important in a specific context, and how these dimensions interacted. After presenting
each case in its own context, I analyzed them in relation to each other. More
specifically, I extracted elements from the key factors, and associated them with
broader dimensions. The analysis adds to previous research by systematically
examining siting strategies and oppositional behavior over time.
The analysis resulted in a number of interesting findings. One finding was that
government-based strategies, featuring administrative and court-based approaches,
were primarily used during the initial stages of siting, mainly in response to similar
government based NIMBY-tools. Informational strategies were also primarily used
during the initial phases of siting, however significantly later in that phase than the
equivalent oppositional tool of spreading information. In fact, siting strategies were
primarily used in reaction to community opposition, which has been most intensive
in the initial phases of siting. When siting strategies were used in an effort to prevent
opposition, siting was more successful than when strategies were used merely in
reaction to opposition. A third set of siting strategies performed were cooperative
strategies, which are used to get the community involved in the siting process in order
to obtain their cooperation. A final type of siting strategy that was discussed are
operational strategies. This new type of siting strategy refers to operational aspects
within a facility that can be utilized as strategies to gain acceptance. These and other
factors enabled me to devise an initial list of dimensions to expand the preliminary
framework.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
In chapter 5 ,1 applied the previously identified dimensions to two case studies
on homeless services in Los Angeles. The purpose of this analytical step was to apply
and test the dimensions, and to expand the previous typology. The intensive,
longitudinal assessment of the two case studies also allowed me to give a more
complete account of occurrences during each phase of the siting process, from
conception to its present status. The case studies offered interesting insights into
different aspects of siting and suggested new dimensions.
The first case study, Genesis I, performed a variety of interesting and
successful siting strategies. Moreover, facility operators made a deliberate effort to
prevent NIMBY-opposition. Initial reservations were immediately countered with
appropriate information. Genesis I has also accomplished excellent relations with the
community through the clever use of community relations strategies during the post
entry/occupation phase. Good community relations are an important component of
Genesis I’s operations, and the case also successfully demonstrated how to implement
inexpensive, community-inclusive, and media-interest generating post-entry strategies.
La Posada, the second case study, presented a different approach. Because of
mass-cultural processes that impact the public perception of its undocumented clients,
the approach had to be low-profile. This case study also demonstrated the dynamics
behind supportive communities. Patterns of social and ethnic similarity alone were
not enough to ensure support. Aspects of protectionism and fear could have easily
lead to a negative community response to the facility and its clients. La Posada also
evidenced problems with local planning authorities; they were inflexible and insisted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
on enforcing existing zoning codes, despite approval from the residential neighbors.
The longitudinal investigation of these case studies complemented the list of
dimensions devised in the national set of case studies. For instance, we learned about
the role of design in siting. Genesis I created awareness with its unusual exterior,
whereas La Posada tried to minimize publicity by adapting the predominant
neighborhood style. Facility design can be negotiated, or even be used as operational
siting strategies. Genesis I, in particular, allowed me to provide a more systematic
account of siting processes. This caused me to consider two additional phases in the
siting process. First, there is a preparatory decision-making phase that precedes the
pre-entry phase. Second, there also appears to be a stage of occupation following the
post-entry phase, usually at the beginning of regular community relations.
In conclusion, I aggregated the results from both analyses which resulted in a
final list of dimensions pertinent to understanding the locational conflict. This list and
an explanatory diagram can be found in section 5.5.
6.2 An Agenda for Planning: Normative Implications
One objective of this research was to demonstrate how the theoretical dimensions
framework can be applied by service providers. In general, the dimensions
methodology can be used by service providers to assess the conditions, to anticipate
NIMBY-opposition, and to plan strategically. The dimensions framework functions
as a guide and checklist for finding out which dimensions might be relevant in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
particular situation. They should help service providers approach a siting situation
more systematically in order to be prepared for the advent of NIMBY.
In this section, I will outline tasks to be performed by service providers at
particular stages in the siting process. However, before I develop an agenda for
planning, I first list a few general normative implications that should be kept
considered before the siting process begins. These implications are generally based
on common mistakes that have been reported in the national case studies.
1. It is imperative to always expect NIMBY. NIMBY has occurred in the
most unusual ways, at the most unexpected times, and has often been
carried out in sophisticated ways. It is never really possible to control the
course of real-life events.
2. It is necessary to be courteous and flexible. The lack of courtesy,
inflexibility, and insistence on a "right" to site reportedly lead to "ingrained
intransigence”, meaning that opposition was so deeply entrenched as to
make a reasonable debate almost impossible.
3. Government-based approaches without any community involvement
ought to be avoided. The case study experience has clearly shown that a
mere concentration on administrative bureaucratic procedures has only
succeeded in intensifying the conflict and resulted in oppositional responses
with similar means, such as lawsuits, or court appeals.
4. It is helpful to know that opposition arguments and tools are relatively
consistent. Therefore, it is possible to be relatively sure what the concerns
of potential opponents will be, and to prepare appropriate responses.
Given that many arguments are still based on myths, -the provision of
appropriate information about a facility and its clients appears to be the
most important siting strategy.
5. It is crucial to realize the merits of preventive planning. Preventive
planning might not entirely prevent NIMBY from occurring, but a service
provider is better prepared to deal with NIMBY opposition. As Michael
Dear suggested (1991a), and as my studies point out, the key to siting
successfully is preparedness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
Keeping these general implications in mind, I now present an agenda for planning that
approaches the locational conflict in a temporal fashion by identifying a specific task
for each siting phase. It is important to understanding the rhythm of a siting process.
In order to keep this discussion brief, I only refer to the broader strategic dimensions.
For more detail on siting strategies and other dimensions, see the comprehensive list
of dimensions in the conclusion of chapter 5 (pages 184 - 188).
The first task is opposition prevention during the preparatory phase, including
anticipation of conditions and p lanning for the process. The second task is opposition
reduction if there arises an early, fierce NIMBY opposition after siting has been
publicly announced. Opposition reduction requires a flexible response and the use of
information. In the later stages of siting, providers should attempt to redirect
opposition and work toward cooperation. Finally, continuity is crucial to ensure good
community relations. I will now expand on the tasks in siting in more detail.
Opposition Prevention: Anticipating NIMBYs (Preparatory)
The foremost task in siting is to avoid opposition and confrontation in the first place.
Preventing opposition is only possible when one knows the causes of opposition. It
is therefore important to find out why people, groups, or institutions object to siting.
These preparatory considerations should be attempted proceeding the site
announcement, and accompanying the site selection process. During this phase,
publicity should be avoided, except for preliminary contacts with key local figures.
In the preparatory stage, a planner should first consider the conditions of potential
locations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
First, it is necessary to look at the facility context and how clients, the facility,
and its operations might be perceived by opponents. One such dimension involves the
client type and its public image. Another dimension is the actual facility, its size,
appearance, and design and the association they might generate. The facility size is
an important indicator for the degree of opposition. The larger a facility, the more
likely opposition will occur, because the size increases visibility, and visibility creates
awareness both positive/accepting and negative/rejecting. Similarly, design plays an
important role in the external perception of a facility. Both Genesis I and La Posada
have shown the different roles design can take, from unsuspicious adaptation to the
neighborhood, to using design to magnify the message behind a service concept (i.e.,
domes). Knowing the internal dimensions of a facility is not only important in terms
of how it matters to the community, it also indicates to what degree these dimensions
are negotiable. For example, design and size concessions are a good way to gain
leverage and acceptance, but it is important to consider initially what the financial,
personal, and operational range of negotiation is. Other important facility-internal
dimensions involve operational issues. Facility leadership, management, and program
(e.g.,regarding security issues, noise) are dimensions that can be negotiated, but may
also directly serve as persuasive operational siting strategies.
Knowledge about community context helps to anticipate potential NIMBY.
However, different opponents have different goals. The foremost preparatory task is
therefore to assess where potential opposition could come from. In chapter 4 ,1 have
discussed in more detail the dimensions that matter to actors in the siting process, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
what types of opposition are to be expected. Systematic research indicates what a
service provider can expect from the community, and what type of NIMBY he/she is
up against. Anticipating NIMBY, however, is not an easy task. La Posada showed
that even if most elements suggest community support, certain sub-dimensions could
potentially quickly change the tide. To anticipate residential opposition, one should
consider protectionism, fear, neighborhood stake, social distance, and spatial
proximity. In terms of business opposition, we can assume that there will be concerns
about decreasing business volume and profits, and fear of a facility that might have
an adverse impact on consumer flows. For both residential and business NIMBY,
spatial proximity has a significant impact on NIMBY-behavior— the closer potential
opponents live (or work) to a location, the more likely is opposition.
It is particularly important in the preparatory stage for providers to familiarize
themselves with the government context, particularly in terms of knowing the exact
local planning regulations and options. In terms of administrative NIMBY, we can
assume that technocratic compliance with regulations and strict enforcement are the
s
leading considerations. Anticipating political NIMBY is best done by interpreting
political action through political pragmatism. Political pragmatism suggests that
politicians are primarily busy maintaining legitimacy (voter approval) or fund-raising,
particularly if election dates are near.
The next strategic preparatory step is to find out who the local key figures are
within each possible NIMBY group and to establish initial contact (i.e., to gain
leadership endorsement). It is also important to know about the pre-existing relations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
within a community and previous experiences with locational issues. Asking fellow
service providers in the general area about their experiences with siting is a good start.
After considering the conditions and thereby getting an idea of what to expect
from a local community and the government, it is necessary to decide on the
magnitude of outreach. Prerequisites for determining the degree of outreach are the
consideration of internal limitations (e.g., financial and personal resources), and the
desirability of outreach (e.g.,is publicity intended). If a service provider decides to
keep the siting approach low-profile, he/she should at least prepare a m inimum
outreach plan which informs the adjacent neighbors, as we have seen in the case of
La Posada. The minimum preparatory strategy is to have at least information about
a facility ready before announcing siting. As soon as a site selection decision is
publicly announced, actual opposition could occur. In this case, it is first necessary
to reduce opposition.
Opposition Reduction: Responding to NIMBY (Pre-entry - Entry)
The pre-entry phase is usually characterized by the most fierce, intensive NIMBY-
opposition. People hear about a facility, but they are usually not informed about it.
Information is crucial, and the quality of the information will determine how a facility
is perceived. Information should be CIVIC, which stands for concise, informative,
visual, inclusive, and correct. Every possible attempt should be made to distribute
appropriate information before oppositional arguments can be formulated, oppositional
alliances formed, administrators and politicians become opposed because of fear for
their legitimacy, or the media constructs a potentially devastating horror story. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
may make it possible to virtually intercept NIMBY arguments and their oppositional
implementation.
Opposition Redirection: Toward Cooperation (Entry-Post-Entry)
Cooperation is only possible after both sides are informed and a dialogue between
facility and external actors has been established. Cooperation ideally should start
during the establishment and construction of a facility. Early cooperative strategies
include the willingness to negotiate and to make compromises. A facilitator should
consider the range of negotiation determined in the preparatory stage. During the
entry phase, it may also be possible to invite external actors into the ongoing siting
process (e.g. ,NACs, design committees, etc.). Another promising cooperative strategy
is to extend the radius of service delivery to the neighborhood, as Genesis I did
successfully through clean-up and outreach efforts.
Continuity o f Outreach: Building on Long term Relations
It is necessary to either maintain the good relations that have already been created in
the process, or to continue to build good relations. It is crucial to notice that NIMBY
does not necessarily stop after the facility opened. Some national cases have
illustrated that opposition can continue after opening, or even start after inception.
One particular goal is to establish a continuous dialogue with actors in the siting
process. A dialogue ought to be maintained with all key local representatives, as well
as local businesses, and residential neighbors in the immediate neighborhood.
Continuous cooperation and mutual coexistence are further goals. Once a facility is
operating, it is important to create a long-term positive environment for the clients.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
A positive, non-conflictive environment is a stabilizing factor that is appreciated in
every type of human service provision. Only in a positive environment, can
integration and inclusion happen, and stigma be overcome. The benefits of being a
good neighbor can range from direct active volunteer support to indirect financial or
material support.
Implementation
One way providers can implement the framework is through the use of the internet,
which was also suggested by Ronda Flanzbaum. Put yourself in the position of a
service provider who wants to site and imagine the following practical utilization: You
call up the "Siting Strategy Homepage" on the WWW and receive a user-interface that
resembles figure 5.3. You click on a desired field and receive a list of dimensions and
the corresponding elements become "clickable." You check the elements, receive
information, and determine to what degree they may occur in your situation. In this
way, you can develop a sense of what dimensions might be relevant to your particular
situation. Cross-references may simulate dynamic interactive processes. You can
click on siting approaches and receive a list of strategies. You may activate a specific
strategy and learn more about its function, effect, and possible use. You are free to
chose strategies according to your needs. Moreover, you can also learn about previous
experiences with NIMBY, as well as potential sources of support. Such a technical
application might even make it possible to develop a strategic siting plan based on the
specifications of the applicant.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6.3 Evaluation and Future Research
201
This research has ascertained dimensions in siting, and has been particularly successful
in elucidating the relationship between opposition and siting strategies. The
methodological approach, first developing a flexible, preliminary heuristic device,
second, performing a content analysis to establish the dimensions, and third,
undergoing an in-depth analysis to test and expand the previous results, was a
successful way to develop a dimensions framework.
Analyzing the contents of newspapers was a convenient data source with which
to discover a broad range of dimensions. Newspaper reports were easy to obtain and
analyze. Thus, information was pre-selected in terms of detailing which issues
mattered in the specific siting context at a certain point in time during the siting
process. The data was particularly useful for investigating conflict situations,
revealing the arguments and actions of actors involved, and giving an account of
service provider’s responses to NIMBY. However, my initial concerns about the
accuracy of the data sources were also justified. Most importantly, the reports
focussed primarily on occurrences during the initial phases in siting, and therefore did
not provide information the initial conceptual phases in siting, and the time after
facilities opening. Consequently, we only got a partial perspective on the siting
process. Moreover, the reports provided little information about the conditions of
siting, particularly peculiarities about community characteristics, or local
administrative details. Thus, the presumably important dimension of spatial proximity,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
a leading consideration in previous research, has only been discussed peripherally.
The lack of detail in newspaper reports necessitated an in-depth investigation of case
studies in terms of the entire siting process and the particular conditions surrounding
these cases.
The resulting intensive analysis allowed me to solidify the existence of
dimensions and to expand previous results. It enabled me to undertake a longitudinal
examination of both cases, and to expand the analysis beyond the siting phases
covered in the national case studies. Interviews also permitted me to ask specific
questions on previously neglected dimensions. With the help of census-data analysis,
personal visits, and qualitative, semi-structured interviews it was possible to grasp the
immediate and the extended community context of a siting situation. Therefore, it
was possible to understand the spatial, temporal, economic, political, and social
dimensions that mattered in these siting situations. However, the disadvantage of this
analysis is that it is not representative. To what extent can we see the findings of only
two cases as indicative of dimensions that apply elsewhere? Thus, my biases, as well
as the biases of my respondents are potential sources of error and misinterpretation.
To evaluate the rationale and the utility of the dimensional framework, I have
also asked my respondents at Genesis I, La Posada, and Adobe L.A. about their
opinions of the key-factors and dimensions derived from the national sample. I did
so by presenting a standardized list of dimensions and orally elaborated on their
m eaning and their interactions. My respondents generally confirmed the existence and
relevance of the presented dimensions, but also made valuable suggestions about
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
aspects that had been neglected. I incorporated these suggestions into the discussion
of the cases.
Where do we go from here?
The benefit of the dimensional methodology lies in its applicability. This framework
may serve as a multi-purpose tool in terms of normative, theoretical, and technical
applications. In a normative sense, the framework may serve service providers as a
checklist for the application process, and as a normative guide throughout the siting
process, as I have shown in the previous section. In a theoretical sense, it may further
assist us in formulating more specialized research tasks for understanding locational
conflicts. Finally, in a technical sense, this framework can help us gain more
representative and analytical insights into locational conflicts. It should be possible
to expand the results of this research with empirical analysis. The dimensions offer
parameters for the construction of research instruments, such as standardized surveys
or interview questionnaires. I will now expand on these applications and what they
imply for future research.
My analysis has provided a necessary theoretical framework that outlines a
variety of dimensions that are expected to be relevant for understanding locational
conflicts. However, my research has not provided, and was not intended to provide
an explanation for the exact ways that dimensions interact, and has not allowed
resulted in representative findings. Some of my interpretations are therefore only
speculative and preliminary. Future research can take the dimensions methodology
a step further in terms of validity and accuracy. The dimensions framework can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
therefore serve as a point of departure for technical applications, such as a
standardized survey of service providers about their siting experiences. The
dimensions outlined in this research can be used to justify the rationale for appropriate
survey instruments, that give an account of siting over time and space. Such a survey
could address a variety of issues. It might examine a specific local, regional, or even
national experience with siting. It might also focus on a specific client or facility
type. For example, it would be possible to investigate the siting experiences of
services for homeless substance abusers in a specific metropolitan area, or detail the
community experience with shelters. The possibilities are endless, and dimensions can
be selected for analysis depending on the specific needs of the researcher. Such a
survey, could be conducted using a variety of methods, such as mail, telephone, or
internet surveys.
For more accurate investigations, however, I would not suggest a newspaper
contents analysis, given the difficulties associated with this method. The content
analysis of newspaper reports was a successful tool to help identifying dimensions, but
t
it left many details uncovered. The implications of proximity, for instance, remain
an important future research question for geographers. Standardized surveys
conducted in neighborhoods surrounding contested facilities might provide further
insights into the geographic nature of locational conflicts and how NIMBY is carried
out over space. Again, the dimensions outlined in this research can serve as a point
of departure for such research in terms of both theoretical and technical applications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another interesting area for future research is extending our knowledge of
conditions and how they relate to NIMBY behavior more specifically. My research
has only outlined conditional dimensions, however, it did not permit valid conclusions
on which conditions might lead to NIMBY and which to support. Again, the
dimensions might help to support the study of oppositional behavior over space.
Such research could utilize Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Some of the
dimensions I have investigated offer parameters for spatial analysis and spatial
modeling. For example, it is possible to establish threshold values that may indicate
potentially rejecting communities. Data needed could be extracted from
"Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing Systems" (TIGER)
files, which contain census information. A series of overlay and distance operations
can be applied to find locations that are more likely to result in either support or
opposition.
In sum, this dimensions framework can be used for a variety of future research
tasks and can be successively expanded through future research. The applicability of
this dimensions framework is the presumed benefit of this research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bibliography
1. General Bibliography
206
Abroms, K. and T. Kodera (1979) Acceptance Hierarchy o f Handicaps. Journal o f
Learning Disabilities. 12(1), 15-20.
Anello, R. and T. Shuster (1985) Community Relations Strategies. Community
Relations Strategies: A Handbook for Sponsors of Community-Based Programs for
the Homeless. New York: Community Service Society of New York, 18-33.
Armour, A. M. (1991) The Siting o f Locally Unwanted Land Uses: Towards a
Cooperative Approach. Progress in Planning. 35, 1-74.
Armour, A. M. (1992) The Co-operative Process: Facility Siting the Democratic.
Way Plan C anada. March, 29-34.
Austin, D. (1985) Altitudes Toward Old Age: A Hierarchical Study. The
Gerontologist. 25 (4), 431-434.
Axleroad, S. and G. Toff (1987) Zoning Issues in the Development of Housing for
Homeless People Who Are Mentally 1 1 1 . Washington D.C: George Washington
University, Intergovernmental Health Policy Project.
Bakal, Y. (1973) Closing Correctional Institutions. Lexington: D.C. Health.
Balukas, R. and J.W. Baken (1985) Community Resistance to Development o f
Group Homes fo r People with Mental Retardation. Rehabilitation Literature.
46 (7-8), 194-197.
Baron Poliak, P. (1994) Rethinking Zoning to Accommodate the Elderly in Single
Family Housing. Journal of the A m erican Planning Association. Autumn, 521-531.
Beggs, M. (1993) O.K. In Mv Back Yard: Issues and Rights in Housing for the
Mentally 111. Zellerbach Family Fund: San Francisco.
Bergin, P. (1987) Exclusionary Zoning Laws: Irrationally-Based Barriers to
Normalization o f Mentally Retarded Citizens. Journal of Land-Use and
Environmental Law. 3 (213), 235-268.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
Breyer, P. and D. Malafronte (1982) Promoting Community Involvement in
Deinstitutionalization Planning: The Experience in One Community. Hospital and
C om m unity Psychiatry. 33 (August), 8 .
Budson, R. D. (1988) Siting Community Residences for the Mentally HI:
Backgrounds. Issues, and Strategies. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Burt, M. R. and B.E. Cohen (1989) A m erica’s Homeless: N um bers. Characteristics.
and Program s that Serve Them. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Caspar, J., C. Freeman, and J. Henig (1993) Social Services and Citizen Need: An
A nalysis of the Distribution of Department o f Human Services Facilities in the
District of C olum bia. Washington D.C.:Center for Washington Area Studies,
George Washington University.
Coates, R. B. and A. D. Miller (1973) Neutralization o f Community Resistance to
Group Homes. In Y. Bakal (1973) Closing Correctional Institutions.
Lexington: D.C. Health.
Colletti, J., S. Romero, and G. Bolden (1995) Refraining the Issue of Housing
Discrimination in Pasadena: A Call to Action, unpublished document of the
Coalition to End Land Use Discrimination, April 20.
Cox, K. and R. Johnston (1982) Conflict, Politics and the Urban Scene: A
Conceptual Framework. In Cox, K. and R. Johnston (eds.) (1982) Conflict. Politics
and the Urban Scene. London: Longman.
Cupaiuolo, A. (1987) Establishing Community Residences fo r the Dependent and
Disabled. Adult F oster Care Journal 16 (Summer), 1.
Daniel Yankelovich Group (1990) Public Attitudes Toward People with Chronic
M ental Illness: Executive S um m ary. Princeton: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Davis, M. (1992) Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization o f Urban Space. In M.
Sorkin (ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Nowadays Press.
Davis, S. (1995) T he Architecture of Affordable Housing. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
and London: University of California Press.
Dear, M. (1976) Spatial Externalities and Locational Conflict. In D. B. Massey and
P.W. Batey (eds.) Alternative F ram ew orks for A n alysis. London: Pion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
Dear, M. (1986) Postmodernism and Planning. Environment and Planning: Society
and Space. 4, 367-384.
Dear, M. (1988) The Postmodern Challenge: Reconstructing Human Geography.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 13, 262-274.
Dear, M. (1991a) Gaining C om m unity Acceptance. Princeton: Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation.
Dear, M. (1991b) Taking Los Angeles Seriously: Time and Space in the
Postmodern City. Architecture California. 13 (1), 36-42.
Dear, M. (1994) In the City, Time Becomes Visible: Intentionality and Urbanism in
Los Angeles, 1781-1991. In Scott, A .J.,E. Soja, and R. Weinstein (eds.) (1995)
The Citv: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
Dear, M. and S.M. Taylor. (1982) Not On Our Street: C om m unity Attitudes toward
Mental Health Care. London: Pion.
Dear, M. and G. Laws (1986) Anatomy o f a Decision: Recent Land-use Zoning
Appeals and their Effect on Group Home Location in Ontario. Canadian Journal of
Community Mental Health. 5 (1), 5-17.
Dear, M. and J. Wolch (1987) Landscapes of Despair: From Deinstitutionalization
to Homelessness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dear, M. and B. Gleeson (1989) C om m un ity Attitudes Toward the Homeless. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California, Planning Institute Monograph.
Dear, M. and B. Gleeson (1991) Community Attitudes Toward the Homeless. Urban
Geography. 12 (2), 155-176.
Dear, M., J. von Mahs, and K. Craft (1994) Genesis I Evaluation: Final
Report. Los Angeles: University of Southern California (unpublished document).
Dear, M., L. Takahashi, and R. Wilton (1995a) Accepting and Rejecting
C om m unities. Santa Monica: Campaign for New Community.
Dear, M., L. Takahashi, and R. Wilton (1995b) Factors Influencing C om m unity
Acceptance. Santa Monica: Campaign for New Community.
Dear, M., A. Straw, and R. Wilton (1995c) Seeing People Differently: Changing
Constructs of Disability. Santa Monica: Campaign for New Community.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
Dear, M. and R. Wilton (1995a) Community Relations: A Resource Guide. Santa
Monica: Campaign for New Community.
Dear, M. and R. Wilton (1995b) Building Supportive Communities. Santa Monica:
Campaign for New Community.
Dear, M. and J. von Mahs (1995) Case Studies for Successful and Unsuccessful
Siting Strategies. Santa Monica: Campaign for New Community.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (1989) Implementations o f the
Fair Housing Amendments Act o f 1988: Final Rule. Federal Register. 54 (13),
3232-3317.
Dudley, J. (1988) Discovering the Community Living Arrangements— Neighborhood
Equation. Mental Retardation 26 (1), 25-32.
Enos, G. (1991) SLAPPing Back: Developers are Finding that Nuisance Suits Can
Be A Two-Edged Sword. Journal of the A m erican Planning Association.
57 (6): 16-17.
Eyles J. (ed.) (1988) Research in Human Geography. Oxford and New York: Basil
Blackwell Ltd..
Eyles, J. and D.M. Smith (eds.) (1988) Qualitative Methods in Human Geography.
Totowa: Barnes & Noble Books.
Fattah, E. (1984) Public Opposition to Prison Alternatives and Community
Corrections: A Strategy fo r Action. Canadian Journal of Criminology. 24 (October),
371-384.
Fox, J. (1994) Creating Choices through Community Consultation and
Partnerships. LawNow. August/September, 30-33.
Gaber, S. L. (1995) Fighting over What Goes Where: C itv Planning Directors*
Perspectives on Controversial Facility Siting. Lincoln: University of Nebraska-
Lincoln (unpublished document).
Gaylin, S. and P. Rosenfeld (1978) Establishing Community Services for the
Mentally III: A Summary o f Lessons Learned. Psychiatry Quarterly. 50 (4), 295-
298.
Gerrard, M. (1994) The Victims o f NIMBY. Fordham Urban Law Journal . 21 (3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
Gleeson, B. J. and P. A. Memon (1994) The NIMBY Syndrome and Community
Care Facilities: a Research Agenda fo r Planning. Planning Practice and Research.
9 (2), 105-118.
Gleeson, B. J., H.F.Gooder, and P. A. Memon (1995) C om m unity Care Facilities:
A Guide for Planners and Service Providers. Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago.
Hoch, C. (1995) What Planners Do: Power. Politics, and Persuasion. Chicago and
Washington D.C.:Planner’s Press.
Hogan, R. (1986a) It Can’ t Happen Here: Community Opposition to Group Homes.
Sociological Focus. 19 (4), 361-374.
Hogan, R. (1986b) Gaining Community Support fo r Group Homes. Community
Mental Health Journal 22 (2), 117-126.
Hombs, M.E. (1994) American Homeless: A Reference Handbook. 2nd ed., Santa
Barbara, Denver, and Oxford: ABC Clio Inc..
HomeBase (1989) Neighbors after all: Community Acceptance Strategies for Siting
Housing and Services for Homeless People. San Francisco: HomeBase.
Hurand, F. A. and W. McClure (1994) The Coleville Washington Downtown
Design Plan: A Case of Interactive Small Town Design. Paper presented at the
ACSP Conference, Tempe, AZ.
Jackson, P. (1983) Principles and Problems o f Participant Observation.
Geografiska Annaler. 65B, 39-46.
Kammerman, S.B. and A. J. Kahn (1989) Privatization of the Welfare State.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim, M. and J. Wolch (1989) Creating Effective Human Service Facility Systems
in Urban Areas: A Proposed Location Model. Los Angeles: School of Urban and
Regional Planning, University of Southern California.
Knox, P. (1993) The Restless Urban Landscape. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lake, R. W. (ed.) (1987) Resolving lo ca tio n a l Conflict. New Brunswick: Center
for Urban Policy and Research.
L ake, R . W (1 9 9 2 ) Rethinking NIMBY. Journal o f the A m erican Planning
Association. 5 9 (1 ), 8 7 -9 3 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
Lake, R. W (1994) Negotiating Local Autonomy. Political Geography 13(5), 423-
442.
Lamb, P. A. (1992) Examiner’ s Decision: City No. UAZO CK2)- §10-92. October,
Yakima.
Ley, D. (1988) Interpretative Social Research in the Inner City. In J. Eyles
(ed.)(1988) Research in H um an Geography. Oxford and New York: Basil
Blackwell Ltd..
Ley, D. and M. Samuels (eds.) (1978) Humanistic Geography. London: Croom
Helm.
Ley, D. and C. Mills (1993) Can There Be a Postmodernism o f Resistance in the
Urban Landscape? In P. Knox (1993) The Restless Urban Landscape. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lubin, R., A. Schwartz, W. Zigman and M. Janicki (1982) Community Acceptance
o f Residential Programs fo r Developmentatty Disabled Persons. Applied Research
in Mental Retardation. 3, 191-200.
Manifold, M. and I. Skelton (1994) The NIMBY Syndrome and Non-Profit
Housing in Ontario. Paper presented to the Habitat ’94 Conference, Edmonton,
Canada.
M ann, L.D. (1992) When NIMBYs Are Really About Different People.
Cambridge, MA.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Massey, D. B. and P.W. Batey (eds.) Alternative Frameworks for Analysis.
London: Pion.
Momeni, J. (ed.) (1990) Homelessness in the United States. Vol2: Data and Issues.
New York: Praeger.
Mental Health Law Project (1989a) O vercom ing C om m unity Opposition to the
Establishment of Housing for People with Mental Disabilities. Washington D.C.:
Mental Health Law Project.
Mental Health Law Project (1989b) The Impact of Fair Housing Am endm ents on
T -and-II.se Regulations Affecting People with Disabilities. Washington D.C.:Mental
Health Law Project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
Milstein, B., B. Pepper, and L. Rubinstein (1989) The Fair Housing Amendments
Act o f 1988: What it means fo r people with mental disabilities.
Clearinghouse Review. June, 128-139.
Morris, J. A. (1994) Not In Mv Back Yard. San Diego: Silvercat Publications.
National Coalition for the Homeless (1987) Less Than Zero: Backlash A gainst
Homeless People and the Programs That Serve Them. Washington D.C.: National
Coalition for the Homeless.
National Law Center (1994) No Homeless People Allowed: A Report on Anti
Homeless Laws. Litigation and Alternatives in 49 United States Cities.
December 1994.
Norman, M. E. and R. G. Stem (1989) In Mv Home Town: a Handbook for
Provider Agencies Seeking to Establish Community Based Residences for Persons
with Mental Disabilities. New York: CRISP.
Poster, C. M. (1992) Resolving Siting Conflicts between Human Service Facilities
and Neighborhoods. Working Paper 92-05. Tucson: Drachman Institute for Land
and Regional Development Studies, University of Arizona.
Rivkin, M. D. (1986) Negotiating with Neighborhoods: Managing Development
Through Public/Private Negotiations. Urban Land. 1, 15-19.
Rizzo, A. M., A. M. Zipple, J. Pisciotta, and S. Bycoff (1992) Strategies fo r
Responding to Community Opposition in an Existing Group Home. Psychosocial
Rehabilitation Journal. 15 (3), 84-95.
Ross, S. (1984) How to Involve the Community in Your Program. Journal of
Experiential Education 7 (2), 23-27.
Rowles, G. (1978) Reflections on Experimemal Field Work. In D. Ley and M.
Samuels (eds.) (1978) Humanistic Geography. London: CroomHelm.
Savage, D. G. (1995) Court Says Cities Can’ t Bar Homes fo r Ex-Addicts. Los
Angeles Times. May 16, A1 and A14.
Sayer, A. (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach. 2nd ed., London
and New York: Routledge.
Scott, A. J., E. Soja, and R. Weinstein (eds.) (1995) The Citv: Los Angeles and
Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and
London: University of California Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
Seley, J. (1 9 8 3 ) The Politics of Public Facility P lan n in g. Lexington and Toronto:
Lexington Books.
Sigelman, C. K. (1991) Social Distance from Stigmatized Groups: False Consensus
and False Uniqueness Effects on Responding. Rehabilitation Psychology. 36 (3),
139-151.
Smith, C. (1976) Distance and the Location o f Community Mental Health
Facilities: A Divergent Viewpoint. Economic Geography. 52 (2), 181-191 .
Smith, C. (1981a) Residential Proximity and Community Acceptance o f the
Mentally III. Journal rtf O perational Psychiatry. 12 (1), 2-12.
Smith, C. (1989) Privatization and the Delivery o f Mental Health Services.
Urban Geography. 10 (2), 186-196 .
Soja, E. (1989) Postmodern Geographies. New York and London: Verso.
Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992) Variations on a Theme Park. New York: The Nowadays
Press.
Steinman, L. (1987) The Effect o f Land Use Restrictions on the Establishment o f
Community Residences fo r the Disabled: A National Study. The Urban Lawyer 19
(Winter), 1-37.
Stoddard, R. (1983) Negative Geography: Locating T hings E lsew here. Paper
presented at the National Council for Geographic Education, Jamaica.
Strickney, P . (ed) (1 9 7 7 ) G aining Com m unity Acceptance: A Handbook for
C om m unity R esid en ce P lanners. N ew York: C R ISP .
Sundeen, R. and S. Fiske (1982) Local Resistance to Community-Based Care
Facilities Journal of Offender C ounseling Services and Rehabilitation 6 (4), 29-42.
Susskind, L. (1995) Resolving Disputes the Kinder, Gentler Way. Planning
Practice. 61 (5), 16-23.
Takahashi, L.M. (1992) N ational Attitudes Towards C ontroversial H um an Services.
Los Angeles: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern
California (doctoral dissertation).
Takahashi, L.M. (1994) Minority Attitudes Toward Controversial Facilities:
A cceptance for Homeless Shelters and Group Homes for People with AIDS. Irvine:
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California at Irvine.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
Takahashi, L.M. and M. Dear (1994) The Changing Dynamics o f Community
Opposition: Attitudes and the NIMBY Syndrome, Draft copy in preparation for
J.APA.
Timmer, D.A.,D.S. Eitzen, and K.D.Talley (1994) Paths to Homelessness:
Extreme Poverty and Urban Housing Crisis. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tomain, J.P. (1989) Land Use Mediation fo r Planners. Mediation Quarterly. 7 (2),
163-173.
Tringo, J. (1970) The Hierarchy o f Preference Toward Disability Groups. Journal
of Special Education. 4, 285-306.
Vandagriff, D. (1986) Love Thy Neighbor: Group Homes in Single-Family
Neighborhoods. Journal o f the Missouri Bar. 42 (June), 251-256.
V annem an, A . (1 9 9 5 ) Youth Services and the NIMBY Syndrome: There Is No One
Good Answer, Youth Workers Say, fo r Mastering the Zoning Maze. Youth Today.
January/February, 15-17.
Weber, Donald. (1978) Neighborhood Entry in Group Home Development. Journal
of the Child Welfare League of America 57 (10), 627-642.
Westbrook, M., V. Legge, and M. Pennay (1993) Attitudes Towards Disabilities in
a Multicultural Society. Social Science and Medicine. 36 (5), 615-623.
Wolch, J. (1990) The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in
Transition. New York: The Foundation Center.
Wolch, J. (1987) Planning fo r Homeless and Service-Dependent Populations: A
Fair Share Distribution Approach. Los Angeles Homelessness Project Working
Paper #3. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Wolch, J. and M. Dear (1993) Malign Neglect: Homelessness-in an American City.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wolpert, J. (1975) Service Facility Representation in Urban C om m unities.
Princeton: Achool of Architecture and Urban Planning, Princeton University.
Yeager, B. (1 9 8 3 ) Mental Health - Community Commitment: To Accept or Reject
the Mentally III? Whittier Law Review. 5 (Summer), 4 1 7 -4 3 3 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Case Study Bibliography
215
American Friends Service Committee (eds.) (1993) Long Running NIMBY Battle
Still Running, The NIMBY Report on the Continuing Struggle for Inclusive
Communities. 4.
American Friends Service Committee (eds.) (1994) Project HOME Wins, finally!
Justice Prevails Here, Too, in The NIMBY Report on the Continuing Struggle for
Inclusive Communities. 9.
American Friends Service Committee (eds) (1994) Outcry Stalls Access to Housing
in Baltimore Suburbs, The NIMBY Report on the Continuing Struggle for
Inclusive C om m unities. 10.
Aubry, E. J. (1994) From Crack House to Housing fo r Women. Los Angeles
Times-Citv Times. November 20, 7.
Barker, R. (1993) Mental health Center Gets Eviction Note. LosAngeles Times.
January 7, B2.
Bates, S. (1994) Homeless Group Favored in Army Base Duel. Washington Post.
July 4, B1 and B2.
Baum, G. (1991) Not in Their Back Yard. Los Angeles Times. May 2, El and E4.
Berger, J. (1993) After a Year, Neighbors in Yonkers Live Warily. New York
Times. June 27, 25.
Brown, D. L. and S. Vogel (1995) Taking the Mouths From their Food in NW.
W ashington P o st. May 11, Cl and C6 .
Castaneda, R. (1992) Mayor to Open Ward 3 ’ s First Homeless Shelter. Washington
Post. November 3, B5.
Connor, D. M. and D. J. Fischer (1994) Evaluation o f the Public Consultation
Program fo r the Federal Women’ s Facility, Edmonton, prepared for
C orrectional Services Canada. March 29.
Correctional Services of Canada (ed.) (1993) Edmonton Women’ s Prison: Message
from Jan Fox, Information Brochure, issued August 1993.
Correctional Services of Canada (ed.) (1993) Edmonton Women’ s Prison: A Status
Report from Jan Fox, Information Brochure, issued December 1993.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
Daunt, T. (1994) Council OKs Plan fo r Homeless Center. Los Angeles Times.
November 9, B1,B3.
Daunt, T. and T. Nguyen (1994) Homeless Camp Weighed In L.A. Industrial Area±
Los Angeles Times. October 14, A1 and A28.
Delaney, C. H. (1994) Block Watch: Brings Hope to Pioneer Square Community.
Real Change. November, 15.
Ellingwood, K. (1994) Council Oks Complex For Low-Income AIDS Patients.
L.A. Times: Citv Times. Westside Community News. April 7, 12.
Enos, G. (1991) SLAPPing Back: Developers are Finding that Nuisance Suits Can
Be A Two-Edged Sword. Planning. June, 16.
Flynn, A. (1994) Western Presbyterian Will Serve the Hungry at New Site Today.
Washington Times. April 18, A1 and A6 .
Foderaro, L. W. (1991) Yonkers Public Housing Is Now a Cooler Issue. New York
Times. September 21, B1 and B3.
Fox, J. (1994) Creating Choices through Community Consultation and
Partnerships. LawNow, August/September, 30-33.
Galperin, R. (1990) Getting SLAPPed. Los Angeles Times. April 29, K1 and K15.
Gold, M. (19930 Women’ s Prison to Go to Griesbach: Neighbors’ Reaction Mixed.
Edmonton Civic Affairs. April 3, no page.
Goodstein, L. (1994) Church Allowed to Open Soup Kitchen in Foggy Bottom.
W ashington P o st. April 15, C3.
Goodstein, L. (1994) D. C. Clerics Issue Call to Action Over Zoning. Washington
Post. March 7, B1 and B5.
Grange, L. (1990) Parking Signs May Be Used to Drive Out Car Dwellers. Los
Aneeles Times. April 12, J1 and J6 .
Groina, G. (Executive Assistant of County Supervisor Bill Steiner), interviewed by
Lilia Powell, September 16,1994.
Hager, P. (1991) Tide Turns fo r Targets o f SLAPP Lawsuits. Los Angeles Times.
May 3, A3 and A31.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
Hsu, E. (1991) Arlington Board Chooses Shelter Site. Washington Post. April 28,
B3.
Kain, C. (1994) Board Delivers Blow To Church. The Northwest Current. March
9, land 27.
Kennedy, M. J. and S. Woodward (1994) Beachhead fo r the Homeless. Los
Angles Times. March 16, B1 and B3.
Lait, M. and T. Spencer (1993) Anaheim to Seek Relocation o f Welfare Office.
Los Angeles Times: Orange City Ed.. March 25, B1 and B7.
Lamb, P.A. (1992) Examiner’ s Decision: Citv No. UAZO CUD- #10-92", Yakima
WA, October.
Letters to the Editor (1991) Strangers in Ward 3. Washington Post. April 1, A18.
Los Angeles Times (unanimous) (1995) Silverlake: Homeless Campers Removed
From Site. Los Angeles Times: Citv Times. April 23, 9.
Los Angeles Times (unanimous) (1994) Small-Mindedness Knows No City Limits.
Los Angeles Times. August 21, M4.
Maharaj, D. (1993) Center Unwanted Neighbor to Residents. Los Angeles Times.
April 12, A1 and A25.
Mahoney, B. (1995) Homeless Still skeptical o f Plans fo r Drop-In Center. Los
Angeles Times: Citv Times. January 29, 2 and 4..
McAleer Vizard, M. (1994) Yonkers Completes Its 7th public Housing Project.
New York Times. September 18, 9.
Mildon, M. (1994) A Woman o f Pasion: Jan Fox. LawNow, August/September
1994, 30-33.
Moore, M. (1995) Report Urges Closure o f Mental Health Center. Los Angeles
Times Citv Times. May 28, 3-4.
Nadel, B.A. (1995) Prison Sightings. Planning Practice. June 1995, 14-19.
New York Times (unanimous) (1994) HUD Says It Will End Inquiries Into
Peaceful Protest. New York Times. September 3, 6 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
New York Times (unanimous) (1994) U.S. May Sue Foes o f Plan fo r Homeless.
New York Times. July 31, 13.
Ni, C.-C. (1994) Camp Curbside. Los Angeles Times. October 26, B1 and B8 .
Perry, T. (1994) Spiritual Feud Over Homelessness Divides City. Los Angles
Times. September 26, A3 and A19.
Rivkin, M. D. (1994) Review o f Zoning and Planning Issues Affecting Tabitha’ s
House, prepared for Legal Counsel for Samaritan Inns by Rivkin Associates.
Bethesda MD, September 16.
Savage, D. G. (1995) Court Says Cities Can’ t Bar Homes fo r Ex-Addicts. Los
Angeles Times. May 16, A1 and A14.
Session Stepp, L. (1991) NW Shelter Backed by 15 Clerics. Washington Post. July
24, Bl.
Silver Lake Residents Association Inc. (1994) Letter to Jackie Goldberg, RE:
Overnight Parking/Urban Reststop, unpublished document from October 16.
Spayd, L. and R. Sanchez (1994) History, Charity Clash In D. C. 'sLogan Circle.
W ashington P o st. April 2 6 , Bl and B4.
Vanneman, A. (1995) Youth Services and the NIMBY Syndrome: There Is No One
Good Answer, Youth Workers Say, fo r Mastering the Zoning Maze. Youth Today.
January/February, 16-21.
Washington Post (unanimous) (1991) Arlington’ s Social Service Gap. Washington
Post. April 26, A22. ,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix:
219
1. Local Case Study Interviews
I. GENESIS I.
Interview #: 1
Name of Interviewed: Ronda Flanzbaum
Position: Program Coordinator Organization: JHUSA
Date of Interview: Feb. 5, 1996 Time: 5pm - 8:30pm
Place of Interview: Dome Village, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - Community Relations
- Post-Entry Strategies
- Day-To-Day Operations
- Opposition Prevention
- Design Issues
- Feed Back on Theoretical Framework
Interview #: 2
Name of Interviewed: Ted Hayes (I.)
Position: President/ Founder Organization: JHUSA
Date of Interview: Feb. 08, 1996 Time: 9am - 10pm
Place of Interview: Dome Village, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - History of Organization
- Programmatic, Facility Internal Issues
- Initial Siting Process (Pre-Entry)
- Siting Barriers (administrative)
Interview #: 3
Name of Interviewed: Ted Hayes (II.)
Position: President/ Founder Organization: JHUSA
Date of Interview: Feb. 13,1996 Time: 10am - 11:45am
Place of Interview: Dome Village, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - Recap Interview 2
- Entry-Period
- Opposition Prevention
- Supportive Communities
- Current Status and Future Plans
- Feed Back on Theoretical Framework
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
n. LA POSADA
Interview #: 4
Name of Interviewed: Ulises Diaz, Gustavo Leclerc, and Leda Ramos
Position: Architects, Designer (Mrs. Ramos) Organization: Adobe L.A.
Date of Interview: Feb. 27, 1996 Time: 2pm - 3:45
Place of Interview: Adobe L.A. Studio, Venice
Primary Interview Topics: - Background Adobe L.A.
- Background La Posada
- Site Improvement Effort
Interview #: 5
Name of Interviewed: Ignacio Fernandez
Position: Architect Organization: Independent,
formerly Adobe
Date of Interview: Mar. 6, 1996 Time: 10:30am - 12:15
Place of Interview: Mr. Fernandez’ Residence
Primary Interview Topics: - Local Zoning Regulations
- Administrative Opposition
- Alternative Options and Setbacks
Interview #: 6
Name of Interviewed: Reverend Richard Estrada (I.)
Position: Priest, Director/ Founder Organization: Jovenes Inc.
Date of Interview: Mar. 8, 1996 Time: 11:30am - 1:15pm
Place of Interview: Youth Fair Chance, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - Jovenes Inc./ Personal Background
- Client Characteristics/ Problems
- Initial Siting Process
- Day-To-Day Operations
- Supportive Communities
Interview #: 7
Name of Interviewed: Reverend Richard Estrada (II.)
Position: Priest, Director/ Founder Organization: Jovenes Inc.
Date of Interview: Mar. 21, 1996 Time: 11am - 12:30pm
Place of Interview: Youth Fair Chance, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - Recap Interview 6
- Site Improvement Effort
- Siting Strategies
- Current Status and Future Plans
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
Interview #: 8
Name of Interviewed: Reverend Richard Estrada (ID.)
Position: Priest, Director/ Founder Organization: Jovenes Inc.
Date of Interview: Mar. 27, 1996 Time: 11:10am - 12:30pm
Place of Interview: Youth Fair Chance, Downtown L.A.
Primary Interview Topics: - Recap Interview 7
- Feed Back on Theoretical Framework
Interview #: 9
Name of Interviewed: Ulises Diaz and Leda Ramos
Position: Architect, Designer (Mrs. Ramos) Organization: Adobe L.A.
Date of Interview: Feb. 27,1996 Time: 2pm - 3:45
Place of Interview: Adobe L.A. Studio, Venice
Primary Interview Topics: - Recap Interview 4
- Design Issues
- Supportive Communities
- Planning Issues
- Feed Back on Theoretical Framework
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Diminishing worlds?: the impact of HIV/AIDS on the geography of daily life

PDF

Feeding the inner city: Geographies of food retailing in South Los Angeles

PDF

Anti-gay violence in the city of West Hollywood

PDF

Differences in the development of citizenship: Residents' motivations and capacities for participating in neighborhood associations in Los Angeles

PDF

A decision analysis on powerline siting for a utility company

PDF

Decentralizing of public finance: Centralizing forces in developing countries

PDF

Estimation of origin -destination matrices from link traffic counts and user equilibrium link information

PDF

*Class and place within the Los Angeles African American community, 1940--1990

PDF

Improving perceptions of the Muslim community in Los Angeles

PDF

Diverse cultural attitudes toward marine wildlife

PDF

Homemaking from the heart

PDF

Helmets: The safe choice. A study on the benefits of helmet safety while skiing and/or snowboarding: A public relations program to encourage helmet use

PDF

A study concerning the relevance of using quality measures of education in economic growth models of sub-Saharan African nations

PDF

Images and representations of California in popular music, 1955--1995

PDF

Breaking barriers in classical music: A public relations plan for the Music Academy of the West

PDF

Divisions of labor in policing: Police, communities and sex offender control

PDF

Comparison of flow routing algorithms used in geographic information systems

PDF

Development and secretions of salivary glands using mouse models

PDF

Drag-bike: The story of Steve Gaskey's bicycle dragster with text by the artist

PDF

A model of student performance in principles of macroeconomics

Asset Metadata

Creator von Mahs, Robert Jurgen (author)

Core Title Dimensions of the locational conflict around siting service facilities for the homeless

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Geography

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Geography,OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, public and social welfare,Urban and Regional Planning

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Dear, Michael (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Wolch, Jennifer (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-9494

Unique identifier UC11336712

Identifier 1383549.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-9494 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1383549.pdf

Dmrecord 9494

Document Type Thesis

Rights von Mahs, Robert Jurgen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA