During the 1970s – 1990s, researchers demonstrated conclusively that supportive and affordable housing did not lower property values, reduce safety or hurt the community in any way. Researchers have since moved on to other topics, and there has been little new research in the field.
Here is a collection of the most recent findings and some classic studies, along with current resources on human rights and housing.
We Are Neighbours: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Community, Social, Economic, and Attitude Changes (2008)
Alice de Wolff
This study of two Toronto supportive housing buildings for people with mental illness, many of whom were previously homeless, showed that supportive housing does not negatively impact property values nor increase crime. In fact, property values increased and crime decreased during the study period. Supportive housing tenants also contribute positively to their neighbourhoods through modest support for local business and contributions to neighbourhood actions and vibrancy. The report also makes a series of policy recommendations and outlines the challenges and opportunities for supportive housing policy in Toronto.
George Galster, Peter Tatian and Kathryn Pettit
Land Economics, Volume 80, Number 1, pages 35-54
This study examines the impact of 11 small-scale supportive housing facilities on single-family home property values in Denver from 1989 to 1995. It found no evidence that supportive housing sites negatively impact nearby housing prices. House prices within 1,001-2,000 feet of these sites actually increased relative to other houses in the census tract.
Michael Dear and Robert Wilton
This annotated bibliography summarizes 50 studies, the majority of which conclude that human service facilities have little or no negative impact on the value of surrounding properties. Some studies even found that the opening of a facility had a positive effect on property values.
Furman Centre for Real Estate and Urban Policy
This study examined the impacts of approximately 7,500 units of supportive housing in New York City. It found that supportive housing does not negatively impact neighbouring property values. The prices of properties within 500 feet of supportive housing actually increased, relative to the properties in the neighbourhood located further away. The prices of properties 500-1000 feet from supportive housing decline in value when a facility first opens, but prices soon increase steadily, suggesting the market realizes that fears about supportive housing are unwarranted. These results also do not depend on the size of the development, its characteristics, or whether it is located in a higher or lower density neighbourhood.
Examining the Effects of Scattered Site Supportive Housing on the Social and Economic Integration of Men Who Are Formerly Homeless and Primarily Black/African American (2016)
Geraldine L. Palmer
Journal of Black Studies, Volume (June), pages 1-23
Although this article focuses on the impact of scattered site supportive housing on formerly homeless men, primarily Black/African American in affluent White/European American communities, it also examines the neighbourhood impacts of supportive housing. The study not only found that there was little neighbourhood opposition, but that property values increased after supportive housing was developed.
George Galster, Kathryn Pettit, Anna Santiago, and Peter Tatian
Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 24, Number 3, pages 289-315
Through the analysis of 14 supportive housing facilities in Denver, this study found, as a whole, no evidence that supportive housing leads to increased crime rates. For a subset of seven large facilities with 53 or more residents, rates of crime within 500 feet of the sites increased after they opened. The evidence suggests, however, that the residents of these large supportive housing facilities were the victims rather than the perpetrators of these crimes. Most residents living near these supportive housing sites also did not link crime to supportive housing, but rather to poorly managed rental housing, commercial establishments, and gang activity, among other factors.
Human Rights and Planning
Lilith Finkler and Jill L. Grant
Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Volume 20, Issue 1, pages 33-56
This article examines how minimum separation distance bylaws that limit the location and number of group homes for disabled persons were applied in an Ontario town. It also shows how progressive notions of social mix and community integration can be used to legitimate reducing housing for particular populations and enact discriminatory zoning. However, there is little evidence to support the claim that disabled persons living in close proximity represents “ghettoization”; rather, research suggests that it provides a meaningful way for disabled persons to foster community.
This resource outlines how opposition to housing projects based on stereotypes or prejudice towards people who will live in them is against the law; that is, it violates people’s rights to be free from discrimination in housing. It discusses why people do not have the right to choose their neighbours. As well it lists various types of discriminatory opposition to affordable housing. It further outlines how The Planning Act stipulates that municipalities can zone for land use, but not for people. It also includes discussion of best practices in zoning law and several OMB decisions that deemed zoning law discriminatory and exclusionary.
Governing Homelessness Through Land-use: A Sociolegal Study of the Toronto Shelter Zoning By-law (2006)
Prashan Ranasinghe and Mariana Valverde
The Canadian Journal of Sociology, Volume 31, Number 3
This article examines how the City of Toronto attempted to address homelessness in the late-1990s by relying on inclusionary zoning that would create a space for more shelters. It examines the process that led to the passing of the municipal shelter by-law 138-2003 as well as the appeals made to the Ontario Municipal Board and subsequent modifications. The by-law allows the city, as-of-right, to locate homeless shelters anywhere in the city if it complies with zoning provisions regarding height and density, is located on major or minor arterial roads, and is separated from other shelters by a minimum of 250 meters.
Colouring special needs: locating whiteness in NIMBY conflicts (2002)
Robert D. Wilton
Social & Cultural Geography, Volume 3, Issue 3, pages 303-321
This article examines how opponents to human service facilities in San Pedro, CA employed a romanticized construction of a close-knit European immigrant community to veil white privilege and exclude ‘special needs’ housing clients. Special needs’ clients were conflated with non-white residents in line with racist stereotypes of dependency.
Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome (1992)
Planning Association, Volume 58, Issue 3, pages 288-300
Written for planners, advocates and service providers, this paper focuses on understanding and overcoming NIMBY opposition to the siting of human services facilities. It examines the nature of community opposition (arguments and tactics), factors determining community attitudes (client, facility, and host community characteristics) and a guide to alternative strategies for community relations (community-, government- and court- based).
Journal of Urban Affairs, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 97-116
This article examines how a non-profit agency in Albany, New York mobilized federal resources to successfully challenge NIMBYism and local exclusionary zoning policies for a proposed housing development for homeless people. Specifically, the author argues that the agency’s aggressive position on housing discrimination along with their utilization of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s governance over Fair Housing Law enforcement and the administration of Stewart B. McKinny Homeless Assistance funding allowed them to overcome local zoning denials.
Marcia Grimes and Peter Esaiasson
Political Research Quarterly, Volume 67, Issue 4, pages 758-768
Through an examination of the siting of unwanted facilities, including homeless shelters, in two Swedish cities, this paper argues that residents’ political resources affect the siting of facilities. Since public consultations for locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) are required in Sweden, societal inequalities are reproduced through political responsiveness. The authors thus question participatory decision making’s ability to achieve fairness in the distribution of societal benefits.
Overcoming Community Opposition to Homelessness Sheltering Projects under the National Homelessness Initiative (2003)
Through an examination of 14 case studies, this paper seeks to understand and overcome NIMBY opposition to sheltering facilities in Canada. The author argues that NIMBY opposition is often based on fears and prejudice that need to be addressed through awareness raising and by engaging opponents. It outlines various best practices and makes recommendations to service providers, city planners and government officials.