MV effect of meth addict group home

[Randolph Kinney]

There Goes the Neighborhood?

Here is the link to the full study and paper published in PDF format:

http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/Leigh_Rockoff_Megans_Law_Apr_2006.pdf

The results of this paper suggest that individuals show a significant distaste for living in close proximity to a convicted criminal.

These results are a significant improvement upon the existing literature because we are able to exploit a quasi-random process that introduces a convicted criminal into a very specific geographic area. We then use both cross-sectional and time series variation in values of homes sales in the specific locations in which an offender chooses to live. This allows us to identify the causal relationship between the risk of crime and changes in property values than previous studies that rely either only on cross sectional variation in risk (Larsen et al., 2003) or those that use panels of crime statistics in aggregate geographic areas.

 

[moh malekpour]

I approach to this situation in two ways:
1- the facility is a business facility and any business facility that has more than one or two clients coming and going has an adverse effect on residential properties.
2- the business is a treatment or a clinical facility and patients are there to quit substance abuse. They are considered patients under treatment and supervision of doctors, psychologists, counselors, and nurses and may be guards. When they are coming there, they are not under influence of drugs and they don't possess any of them so they are safe. They may have some counseling, relaxation, medical and mental therapy and some physical activities. They cannot leave the house and go across the street buy some drugs or beer or even cigarette. Sometimes they are not supposed to drink coffee either. They are tightly controlled and supervised. They are not like next door drug addict who may break in your home unless, they get out of control and escape which in this case, the police right away takes them to jail. If you can find AA facilities or meeting places in the area, they are the most similar to this one and if you look at the local papers for AA meeting or call the alcoholic anonymous centers, you can find their addresses and they are very popular and everywhere.
Many CEO's, doctors, attorneys, high level governments and important people are AA members. You can go to Betty Ford clinic in Palm Spring, CA if you are close by.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Councilwoman works to stop judge’s drug rehab house

Councilwoman works to stop judge’s drug rehab house

By Bill Harless, bharless@nashvillecitypaper.com
August 14, 2006

When Judge Seth Norman secured a Metro grant to buy a $176,000 house in Bordeaux that he plans to use as a group home for participants in his nationally-lauded Drug Court program — which sends convicted drug users to a diversionary, residential program rather than to jail — he thought he was taking a good first step in expanding the rehabilitation program.

But now a small group of Bordeaux residents in northwest Davidson County has organized a petition drive to prevent the facility from opening in their neighborhood, saying the halfway house will lower their property values and create safety problems in the neighborhood.

And the area’s Metro Council member, Brenda Gilmore, intends to urge the Drug Court to look elsewhere, saying a saturation of recovery houses in less-affluent areas of town is unhealthy for the city.

The judge said once the court has finished rehabbing the house, purchased in June by the nonprofit that provides auxiliary support to the courts, five or so residents who have been in the recovery program for at least a year will then move into the building, whose land is zoned single-family.

As for security: “Of course I’m going to drug test them,” Norman said, noting the residents will not be allowed to have guests.

But Gilmore has a different take, one that has been expressed often by residents of lower-income residential neighborhoods in town: Bordeaux already has its fair share of halfway houses and rehabilitation facilities. Halfway houses typically open in low-income neighborhoods because of low real estate prices.

Residents in affluent Nashville districts, Gilmore said, can influence Metro Government to keep halfway houses out of their neighborhoods.

A difficulty, however, is that even if they had the sway to influence Nashville development patterns, they could not limit the number of halfway homes in their neighborhoods, thanks to federal regulations.

Although the Metro zoning code prohibits more than three unrelated people from living in a single residence, the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 overrides this rule, requiring that local governments treat group homes for the physically and mentally disabled as single-family homes.

Amy Bryson, a neighborhood activist in East Nashville who has studied the issue closely, said placing group homes in close proximity foils their purpose of reintroducing their residents back into a life of normalcy.

“What is the benefit for these people the moment they walk out the door and … they’re going to be solicited maybe four or five times by the time they get to the bus stop?” Bryson asked, adding she did not know the particulars of the neighborhood where the Drug Court house will be situated.

Gilmore asked why the Drug Court did not give notice to the residents that the home is going in, to which Norman responded, “I wasn’t aware that I had to give notice to everybody that I had to purchase a piece of property in Nashville.”

 

[JSmith43]

They cannot leave the house and go across the street buy some drugs or beer or even cigarette.

Per the meeting put on by the clinic sponsor, patients will be free to walk around outside. There is no fence. The fence was offered as a possible appeasement, with great reluctance, to the neighbors.

The residents first 10 days or so will be filled with severe withdrawal symptoms if what I have heard about crack, heroine and meth addiction is true.

 

[JSmith43]

Although the Metro zoning code prohibits more than three unrelated people from living in a single residence, the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 overrides this rule, requiring that local governments treat group homes for the physically and mentally disabled as single-family homes.

I'll take all you can find, Randolph!

I assumed "physically and mentally disabled" was the barn door used to give crack and heroine addicts such sweeping access at the law abiding public's expense, to "live where they want."

If only mobile home owners had such great representation! I can see it on the horizon, pro homeless legislation. Owners must supply tents and outdoor lavatories upon request to homeless people seeking to be where they want to be. It's all good

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Per the meeting put on by the clinic sponsor, patients will be free to walk around outside. There is no fence. The fence was offered as a possible appeasement, with great reluctance, to the neighbors.

The residents first 10 days or so will be filled with severe withdrawal symptoms if what I have heard about crack, heroine and meth addiction is true.

Roger, I am convinced that having a PUD and HOA with CC&R is the only way to protect the neighborhood from one of these halfway houses and the criminals they have.

The biggest halfway house I know of is the California prison system; criminals are paroled out addicted and then go into your neighborhood halfway house drug treatment program as if that is going to change behavior. :new_all_coholic:

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Court vs. Family: Homeowners Lose

Court vs. Family: Homeowners Lose


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE7D8143DF936A15755C0A96F948260

By RICHARD F. WELCH; RICHARD F. WELCH LIVES IN HUNTINGTON.BY RICHARD F. WELCH
Published: June 25, 1989

In the recent Baer vs. Brookhaven decision, the Court of Appeals has voided any restriction on the number of unrelated individuals residing in a single house. This means every neighborhood in New York State is now a rooming-house neighborhood, and the premise of local zoning control that has existed throughout American history has been gutted by the court.

The court's ruling amounts to a calculated dismissal of family and community values. Working and middle-class people in this state have generally had to work and save for years before owning their homes. They have paid some of the highest home prices in the nation and their property taxes are the nation's highest. With one contemptous stroke the Court of Appeals has jeopardized middle-class New Yorkers' most important investment.

No home can maintain its value if the surrounding area can be rendered rooming-house territory at the whim of any individual. Consequently, the Court of Appeals has expropriated at least part of the real-estate value of every homeowner's residence.

The above has been excerpted from an opinion published in the NY Times.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The Impact Of Group Homes

[SIZE=+3]THE IMPACT OF GROUP HOMES[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]IN BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND[/SIZE]​

A Study Prepared by:


GREATER BALTIMORE COMMUNITY HOUSING RESOURCE BOARD, INC.
P. O. Box 66180, Baltimore, Maryland 21239, (410)453-9500


December, 1993




ABSTRACT
This is a study of the impact of the placement of group homes for persons with disabilities upon property values in a stratified sample of neighborhoods in Baltimore County. It replicates the methodology of a 1988 Prince George's County study done by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Prince George's County Planning Board. In this study, a group home is defined as an alternative living unit (ALU) supported either by the State of Maryland's Developmental Disabilities Administration or the Baltimore County Bureau of Mental Health.


This study analyzed over 1,000 transactions of residential properties in Baltimore County neighborhoods where there is a group home; this included neighborhoods where a group home opened and later closed. In addition, the study included the use of comparable neighborhoods as a control group. Sales prices of homes were analyzed for a two-year period before and a two-year period after the group home was established in the neighborhood.


It was found that approximately 50% of the neighborhoods' residential property values were impacted positively and 50% negatively by group home placement. Some 3 (42.9%) of the 7 neighborhoods with Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation group homes showed an increase in property value that was higher than the control neighborhoods; 4 (57.1%) of the 7 showed a decrease. Of the 28 neighborhoods with a Developmental Disabilities group home, 13 (46.4%) had property value changes higher than the control neighborhoods; 15 (53.6%) of the neighborhoods with group homes had property value change below that of the control neighborhoods.


These mixed results indicate that group home placement cannot be considered a certain predictor/cause of residential property decline or increase. These conclusions are similar to those of numerous studies that have been done in various communities in the United States and Canada during the past 15 years.


It must be noted that there are many factors that influence neighborhood property values. Important factors may include prevailing neighborhood real estate valuation trends, economic recessionary forces, changes in the location of industrial sites or major transportation highways, deterioration/improvement of public services and facilities, public school closing/opening, nearby positive or negative occurrences, decrease/increase in crime, decrease/increase in vacancies, etc. During this period, several Baltimore County neighborhoods experienced negative property value change. This study also found that group home placement did not affect positively or negatively the direction of that change.

http://www.gbchrb.org/grphomes.htm

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The Question of Property Values

The Question of Property Values

Michael Dear and Robert Wilton

Introduction
Although there are many stated reasons why communities react unfavorably to human service facilities, the fear that a facility's presence will detract from the value of adjacent and nearby properties is perhaps the most commonly reported (Strickney, 1977; Lupin et al., 1982; Anello and Shuster, 1985; Homebase, 1989; Dear, 1991). In many ways, perhaps the strength of this reaction is to be expected. Along with personal safety, a home and the capital invested therein occupy a high priority in many people's day-to-day lives. Perceived threats to this home, the quality of the surrounding environment, and by implication, the value of the property, however erroneous, are therefore potent catalysts for community mobilization against a planned human service facility.

In this annotated bibliography, an attempt is made to identify and briefly summarize a broad spectrum of research dealing with the property value impact of human service facilities. As one component of a resource guide designed to assist with siting, the accumulated materials may help to allay residents' fears and engender acceptance of a facility as simply another thread within the community fabric. The bibliography looks at almost fifty studies, both as primary and secondary sources. The studies focused on a number of different facility-types, including group homes for people with mental disabilities, group homes for people with mentally retardation and developmental disabilities, mental health outpatient facilities, subsidized/affordable housing, and foster homes. In simple terms, an overwhelming majority of the reports indicate that facilities have little or no negative impact upon surrounding property values. Indeed, in several instances, the opening of a facility appeared to exert a positive effect upon its immediate environs.

http://www.bettercommunities.org/index.cfm?method=outreach

 

[JSmith43]

Conclusion

It seems clear from the studies contained within this bibliography that there is an overwhelming volume of evidence supporting the contention that human service facilities do not significantly impact the market values of properties around them. They do not make proximate properties harder to sell, and they do not destabilize the neighborhood by inducing relocation. The studies included here cover the time span 1973 - 1993, and there appears to be very little fluctuation in findings during this period. However, one weakness of the bibliography is that it does not contain studies documenting the property value impact of some of the more contemporary facilities such as group homes for people with AIDS and homeless shelters. Despite an extensive search, no literature was found dealing with the property value impact of these facilities, clearly an important absence given current siting difficulties.

A final point--despite the weight of evidence collected here, the property values "myth" remains a powerful battle cry for communities opposed to the siting of human services facilities. It is clear that more work should be done to provide facility operators and advocates with the tools they need to effectively counter such claims.

This is the conclusion from the last article linked by Randolph in post 49. The red letters point to the possible cook the books motivation. I have yet to find a market study claimed to be performed by an appraiser:Eyecrazy:

I believe this is potentially a gigantic scandal. Clearly human services facilities come in distinctively different flavors, yet they are treated as the same. I am going to snag an original copy of one or more of these alleged key studies and explore the methodology.