The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-05-15 May 15 2015 PB Work Session Agenda-AddendumGREGORY ALAN HEAFNER, PA ATTORNEY AT LAW 1510 TWISTED OAK DRIVE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 Phone (919) 967-3800 Fax (919) 336-4165 May 12, 2015 Mr. Ben Andrea New Hanover County Planning & Inspections Dept. 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 VIA EMAIL ONLY TO: bandrea@nhcgov.com RE: 110 Lansdowne Road, Wilmington, NC 28409 / Text Amendment Request Dear Mr. Andrea: Thank you for our conversation last week regarding Oxford House’s request for a text amendment and the upcoming Planning Board workshop on same. Pursuant to our conversation please find enclosed the following: 1. Survey of Group Home Ordinance in Major NC Cities; 2. Counteracting “Not in My Backyard”: The Positive Effects of Greater Occupancy within Mutual-help Recovery Homes; 3. The Relationship Between Neighborhood Criminal Behavior and Oxford Houses; 4. The Impact of Group Homes on Residential Property Values in Baltimore County, Maryland; 5. Supportive Housing (List of studies regarding group homes and property values), and; 6. Review of Realtor Land Use Memorandum All of the above are largely self-explanatory. I look forward to discussing same at the workshop this Friday. I understand the workshop begins at 9:00 a.m. this Friday, May 15, 2015. I assume it will be held in the same location as the last Planning Board hearing, if not please let me know otherwise. Sincerely, Greg Heafner cc: J. Paul Molloy , Keith Gibson Group Home Ordinances In Major NC Cities SUMMARY CITY MAXIMUIM ALLOWED NUMBER OF RESIDENTS Winston Salem 12 (Definition from ordinance below) Wilmington 12 (Definition from ordinance below) Raleigh 12 (Definition from ordinance below) Cary 10 Asheville 8 (Reasonable Accommodation Granted to Oxford House to allow 8+) (Accommodation granted by request without legal action) Charlotte 10 (Reasonable Accommodation Granted to Oxford House to allow 8 in single family districts) (Accommodation granted from Board of Adjustment decision) (Definition from ordinance below) Garner 6 (Reasonable Accommodation Granted to Oxford House to allow 8) (Accommodation granted through HUD ruling and Fed Ct Lawsuit) Greensboro 6 (Reasonable Accommodation Granted to Oxford House to allow 8) (Accommodation granted through HUD ruling and Fed Ct Lawsuit) All of above cities also have a spacing requirement of either a quarter or half mile between group homes. All of above cities allow group homes as a matter of right as a permitted use in single family residential districts, not a conditional use. Winston Salem (8 or more) Habilitation Facility A. Any facility in which one to eight (8) handicapped persons receive habilitation services, rehabilitation services or engage in recreational activities, regardless of whether these services and activities are therapeutic or educational in nature. These facilities are licensed by the State of North Carolina and do not provide room and board. This definition does not include the principal uses Schools, Elementary or Schools, Secondary. These facilities are intended to serve handicapped persons as defined in State law, in accordance with rights provided by applicable laws. Habilitation Facility B. Any facility in which nine (9) to twelve (12) handicapped persons receive habilitation services, rehabilitation services or engage in recreational activities, regardless of whether these services and activities are therapeutic or educational in nature. These facilities are licensed by the State of North Carolina and do not provide room and board. This definition does not include the principal uses Schools, Elementary or Schools, Secondary. These facilities are intended to serve handicapped persons as defined in State law, in accordance with rights provided by applicable laws. Habilitation Facility C. Any facility in which thirteen (13) or more handicapped persons receive habilitation services, rehabilitation services or engage in recreational activities, regardless of whether these services and activities are therapeutic or educational in nature. These facilities are licensed by the State of North Carolina and do not provide room and board. This definition does not include the principal uses Schools, Elementary or Schools, Secondary. These facilities are intended to serve handicapped persons as defined in State law, in accordance with rights provided by applicable laws. Handicapped Person. A person with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's life activities; a record of having such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. This definition does not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. This definition includes Willie M. children, but does not include persons who are dangerous to others. Dangerous to others means that with the recent past, the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another or the person has acted in such a manner as to create a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated. Wilmington (Up to 12 persons) Group home supportive, large: A dwelling unit in which up to twelve (12) special needs persons as defined in this section reside except that if a resident supervisor is provided, then the number of special needs persons permitted to reside therein is reduced by the number of resident supervisors residing therein. Group home supportive, medium: A dwelling unit in which up to eight (8) special needs persons as defined in this section reside except that if a resident supervisor is provided, then the number of special needs persons permitted to reside therein is reduced by the number of resident supervisors residing therein. Group home supportive, small: A dwelling unit in which up to three (3) special needs persons as defined in this section reside with a family. Special needs persons: Battered individuals, abused children, foster children, pregnant women and their children, runaway children, temporarily or permanently disabled mentally, emotionally or physically, individuals recovering from drug or alcohol abuse, and all other persons who possess a disability which is protected by either the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC 12101, the Fair Housing Act as amended, 42 USC 3601 et seq. or G.S. Ch. 168, Art. 3, as they may be amended, but does not include any persons who currently use illegal drugs, persons who have been convicted of the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs or persons with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the health, safety or property of others. Raleigh Supportive housing residence. A dwelling unit in which more than four (4) unrelated persons may reside who are battered individuals, abused children, pregnant women and their children, runaway children, temporarily or permanently disabled mentally, emotionally or physically, individuals recovering from drug or alcohol abuse, and all other persons who possess a disability which is protected by the provisions of either the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 USC 12101 or G.S. Article 3, Chapter 168, as they may be amended, along with family members and support and supervisory personnel. Charlotte Group home. A group home as used throughout this ordinance, means a "family care home" as defined in Chapter 168, Article 3, of the General Statutes. A group home means a home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care and habilitation service in a family environment for not more than six resident handicapped persons. A handicapped person means a person with a temporary or permanent physical, emotional, or mental disability, including, but not limited to mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, hearing and sight impairments, emotional disturbances and orthopedic impairments but not including mentally ill persons who are dangerous to others as defined in G.S. § 122C-3(11)b. In addition, a group home shall also mean a residential use, even if it does not conform to the language above, that provides a residential environment for no more than six residents which may require various services, living assistance, or supervision but does not include any facility that provides medical services requiring or comparable to on-site, nursing, physician, or medical care for the occupants which is only permitted in a dependent living facility or health. All group homes must comply with all applicable Federal, State, local licensing requirements and health regulations. The limit of 6 residents applies to group homes located in single family districts. Group homes located in any other district may house up to 10 residents. Counteracting ‘Not in My Backyard’: The Positive Effects of Greater Occupancy within Mutual-help Recovery Homes Leonard A. Jason, David R. Groh, Megan Durocher, Josefina Alvarez, Darrin M. Aase, and Joseph R. Ferrari DePaul University Abstract Group homes sometimes face significant neighborhood opposition, and municipalities frequently use maximum occupancy laws to close down these homes. This study examined how the number of residents in Oxford House recovery homes impacted residents’ outcomes. Larger homes (i.e., 8 or more residents) may reduce the cost per person and offer more opportunities to exchange positive social support, thus, it was predicted that larger Oxford Houses would exhibit improved outcomes compared to smaller homes. Regression analyses using data from 643 residents from 154 U.S. Oxford Houses indicated that larger House size predicted less criminal and aggressive behavior; additionally, length of abstinence was a partial mediator in these relationships. These findings have been used in court cases to argue against closing down larger Oxford Houses. 125 words Keywords Oxford Houses; group homes; ‘Not in My Backyard’; substance abuse recovery Group Homes and ‘NIMBY’ Since the 1960’s, many institutional settings have been replaced with community-based programs for persons with mental illnesses, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse disorders (Michelson & Tepperman, 2003). An example of a community-based, mutual-aid recovery home for individuals dealing with substance abuse problems is Oxford House (OH; Jason, Ferrari, Davis, & Olson, 2006a). Oxford House has grown since 1975 to over 1,200 homes across the U.S., 30 in Canada, and eight in Australia. All homes are single-sex (i.e., men or women-only), and some women Houses allow residents’ minor children. Individuals are typically referred to Oxford Houses by treatment facilities or through word of mouth, and new residents are admitted based on an 80% House vote. Regarding the operation and maintenance of Oxford Houses, no professional staff is involved, enabling residents to create their own rules for communal governance (Oxford House, 2002). Residents are held accountable to abstain from substance use or disruptive behavior; find and maintain a job; complete chores; and pay for rent, food, and utilities. Failure to comply with these rules along with any disruptive/criminal behavior or substance use is grounds for expulsion, and all rules are enforced by the house residents; as long as rules are followed, residents are allowed to stay indefinitely. In addition, residents are required to hold house positions (e.g., president or treasurer) elected for six-month intervals by 80% majority vote. A randomized study found that at two-year follow up, the Oxford House participants had lower substance use (31% vs. 65%, respectively), higher monthly income ($989 vs. $440), and lower Address correspondence to the first author Leonard A. Jason at the Center for Community Research, 990 W. Fullerton Ave. Suite 3100, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA, 60614. Phone: 773-325-2018. Fax: 773-325-4923. ljason@depaul.edu. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. Published in final edited form as: J Community Psychol. 2008 September 1; 36(7): 947–958. doi:10.1002/jcop.20259. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript incarceration rates (3% vs. 9%) compared to usual-aftercare participants (Jason, Olson, Ferrari, & Lo Sasso, 2006b). There are numerous theoretical reasons why group homes such as Oxford Houses should be located in residential areas (Seymour, no date). For example, group homes in residential communities may allow for community integration, an active ingredient in the treatment of substance abuse and many other disorders. Group homes might also serve to educate the community about stigmatized populations (e.g., people with substance abuse problems, developmental disabilities, or mental illnesses). Finally, group homes can be a deterrent to crime because residents are generally required to maintain positive behaviors (e.g., sobriety) and are often vigilant. The Oxford House national organization dictates that new Houses be established in safe, low crime, economically stable neighborhoods with minimal opportunities for relapse (Oxford House, 2002). Regardless of geographic location, Oxford Houses are typically situated in low-drug, low-crime communities in which residents have access to resources and amenities that enable autonomy and substance-free lifestyles (Ferrari, Jason, Blake, Davis, & Olson; 2006a; Ferrari, Groh, Jason, & Olson, 2007). Nonetheless, group homes in residential areas sometimes face significant opposition (Zippay, 1997), with neighbors’ concerns relating to property values, traffic, noise, inappropriate behavior (Cook, 1997), and safety (Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001; Solomon & Davis, 1984). This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the ‘Not in My Backyard’ syndrome (NIMBY; e.g., Dear, 1992; Kim, 2000; Low, 1993). Oxford Houses are certainly not immune to NIMBY; for instance, a North Carolina Oxford House was protested and vandalized by neighbors before it opened. In addition to neighborhood opposition, municipalities employ several techniques to legally regulate, restrict, or even close down group homes (Gathe, 1997). To start out with, cities sometimes decline to provide the required license to prevent the opening of a recovery home. Other regulatory tactics involve density limitations, which may include the Fair Housing Act and Landlord-Tenant Laws (e.g., group homes cannot remove substance-using or disruptive residents without a court order), prohibiting more than one recovery home within a certain radius, and maximum occupancy rules, the focus of the current investigation (i.e., too many unrelated people living in the same dwelling). Despite the resistance faced by these homes, group homes actually have very little impact on their surrounding neighborhoods and generally blend into the community (Cook, 1997). Community members frequently expect to have more problems with group homes than really occur (Cook; McConkey et al., 1993), and residential facilities do not tend to negatively affect public safety (Center for Community Corrections, 2002). In fact, contrary to popular fears, literature reviews suggest that these settings may actually increase property values in their neighborhoods (Aamodt & Chiglinksy, 1989; Center for Community Corrections). Similar patterns have been demonstrated for Oxford House recovery homes. Local communities reported Oxford House residents blended well into the neighborhood and made good neighbors (Jason, Roberts, & Olson, 2005). The majority of Oxford House neighbors interviewed had either gained resources, friendships, or a greater sense of security following contact with the Oxford House residents. Furthermore, no evidence of property devaluation was found for neighborhoods containing Oxford Houses; community members who knew of the Oxford House actually saw an increase in property value over an average of 3 years. Several studies investigated factors that influence the reception of group homes in residential areas. The Center for Community Corrections (2002) interviewed community members and found that neighbor acceptance of community justice facilities and halfway homes was enhanced by an engaged public, a well-run program with access to substance Jason et al.Page 2 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript abuse treatment and job development, community input and continuing involvement, discernible contributions to the community, and a careful assessment of the community prior to entry. Additionally, the more a facility resembles the neighborhood in which it resides and the more autonomous the facility residents, the more likely residents will integrate into the community (Makas, 1993). Further, research indicates that closer proximity (Gale, Ng, & Rosenblood, 1988) and increased contact (Butterfield, 1983) between community members and group home residents has a positive effect on the reception of the homes. Jason and colleagues (2005) revealed that residents who lived adjacent to an Oxford House, as opposed to a block away, had significantly more positive attitudes towards the need to provide a supportive community environment for those in recovery, allow substance abusers in a residential community, and the willingness to have a self-run home on their block. In attempt to reduce the amount and level of concern related to Oxford Houses and other group homes, educational efforts might be developed such as documenting the effects of group homes on property values, having facility residents maintain friendly rapport with neighbors, and residents becoming more familiar with their surroundings in order to address neighbors’ fears (Cook, 1997). For example, staff at a residential facility implemented educational measures to inform the neighborhood about the opening of the home (Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001). Significant interactions were found between neighbors visiting these facilities and decreases in dissatisfaction. Finally, it has been suggested that researchers should focus on developing ways that the public can become more familiar with halfway houses and other group homes (Center for Community Corrections, 2002). Group Home Size In order to implement educational efforts, this research study focused on one NIMBY threat to group homes: house size. While very little research exists on this topic, one study (Segal & Darwin, 1996) found that within sheltered care facilities for individuals with mental illness, although home size did not relate to levels of management, larger homes were less restrictive in their rules and procedures. Larger homes also spent more on program activities for their residents, and their residents were more involved in facility-based activities. It is possible that these greater occupancy facilities were able to provide more of an opportunity for residents to develop a sense of community. However, this type of sheltered care facility is fairly different from Oxford House recovery homes. It is suggested that a sufficient number of residents in each home might be a necessary component in the effectiveness of Oxford House through the mechanism of social support. Individuals recovering from addictions should be surrounded by a community in which they feel they belong and are able to obtain sobriety goals (Jason & Kobayashi, 1995). Oxford House residents rated “fellowship with similar peers” the most important aspect of living in an Oxford House (Jason, Ferrari, Dvorchak, Groessl, & Malloy, 1997). The Oxford House experience also provides residents with abstinent-specific social support networks consisting of other residents in recovery (Flynn, Alvarez, Jason, Olson, Ferrari, & Davis, 2006). Individuals who spent more time in an Oxford House had a greater sense of community with others in recovery, less support for substance use (Davis & Jason, 2005), and more support for abstinence (Majer, Jason, Ferrari, Venable, & Olson, 2002). Oxford Houses with more residents might have greater opportunities for members to provide and receive these vital social resources. It is believed that larger Houses will promote recovery through their ability to promote larger (Zywiak, Longabaugh, & Wirtz, 2002), more supportive social networks (MacDonald, 1987) that include sober others in recovery (Hawkins & Fraser, 1987; Zywiak et al.), constructs linked to sober living. In addition to increased levels of social support, there are other hypothesized benefits to larger Oxford Houses. For instance, rent may be lower in larger homes because residents can Jason et al.Page 3 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript split the costs. Additionally, having more residents allows members to learn from each other and increases opportunities for diversity. In this study, we examined the effects of House size on criminal and aggressive behaviors among Oxford House residents, two areas of significant concern to communities containing group homes (Cook; Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001; Solomon & Davis, 1984). Oxford House has been found to promote positive outcomes regarding both criminal activity (Jason et al., 2006b; Jason, Davis, Ferrari, & Anderson, 2007a; Jason, Olson, Ferrari, Majer, Alvarez, & Stout, 2007b) and self-regulation (Jason et al., 2007b), which relates to aggression. Therefore, it was hypothesized in the present study that residents of larger Houses (with 8 or more members) would exhibit fewer criminal and aggressive behaviors as measured by the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Quick Screen than residents of smaller Houses. Method Procedure Data included in the present study were from the baseline data collection (completed between December 2001 and April 2002) of a community evaluation of residents living in one of 213 U.S. Oxford Houses (see Jason et al., 2007a for details). Participants from this Institutional Review Board-approved study were recruited and surveyed using two strategies. The majority of participants (n = 797) were recruited through an announcement published in the monthly Oxford House newsletter that provided contact information for the study. We then contacted Oxford Houses via letters to House Presidents, conducted follow- up phone calls to the Houses, and where possible, members of the research team arranged to visit Houses. Of the 189 Oxford Houses that were approached, 169 (89.4%) had at least one individual who agreed to participate in the study, and the average number of individuals per House choosing to participate in the study was 4.7. For the second method, 100 individuals were randomly selected to fill out the baseline questionnaires at an annual Oxford House Convention attended by 300. Analyses revealed no difference in demographic or outcome variables between the two recruitment groups. In each case, the nature, purpose, and goals of the study were explained to the potential participants. As part of the consent process, staff members explained that participation was entirely voluntary and that withdrawal from the study was possible at any time. Fifteen dollar payments were made to participants following the survey. These data were gathered by research staff who primarily administered questionnaires in person to the participants. Some data were collected by telephone, which was often the case for those who had left Oxford House. No significant differences were found based on data collection method. In addition, an environmental survey (assessing House size) was mailed to the House Presidents of all 213 Oxford Houses. No identifiable information about any House resident was requested, and confidentially was maintained for all data. Most often the survey was completed by the House President (60.2%) or another House officer (31.6%), such as the Secretary or Treasurer. The survey then was returned by mail, and a small package of coffee was subsequently sent to the House for participation. Pilot testing indicated that it would take less than 20 minutes to complete and mail the survey, which were collected over a four month period. Participants For this investigation, we only included participants from the 154 Houses for which we had data on House size, representing 72.3% of Houses in the larger study. On average, Houses had about 7 total members (M = 7.1, SD = 2.0, Median = 7), and Houses in this study ranged in size from 3–18 residents. Regarding geographic region within the U.S., 27.7% of Houses Jason et al.Page 4 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript were located in the West, 18.4% were in the Midwest and Texas, 28.3% were in the Northeast, and 25.7% were in the Southeast. This present baseline sample consisted of 643 Oxford House residents, including 227 females (35.3%) and 416 males (64.7%). The sample was ethnically diverse, with 62.5% European American, 29.2% African American, 3.9% Hispanic/Latino, and 4.4% others. At baseline, the average age of the sample was 38.3 (SD = 9.2), and the average education level was 12.7 years (SD = 2.0). Regarding marital status, 50.4% were single or never married, 45.4% were divorced/widowed/separated, and 4.2% were married. With respect to employment, 67.4% reported being employed full-time, 14.2% part-time, 13.3% unemployed, and 5.1% retired or disabled, and the average monthly income of the sample was $965 (SD = 840). The average participant had stayed in an Oxford House for 1.0 years (SD = 1.4). The mean length of sobriety was 1.7 years (SD = 2.4) for alcohol and 1.9 years (SD = 3.2) for illicit drugs. Regarding recent substance use, participants on average consumed alcohol on 2.3 days (SD = 9.1) and drugs on 5.1 days (SD = 18.3) in the past 90 days. Concerning legal status, 30% of participants were currently on probation, and 14% claimed that their entry into OH was prompted by the law. Regarding lifetime data, the average participant was charged with a crime 9.9 times (SD = 14.0) and were incarcerated a total of 15.9 months (SD= 36.8). Measures Baseline demographic information (e.g., gender, race, substance disorder typology) was obtained from items on the 5th Edition of the Addiction Severity Index-lite (ASI; McLellan et al., 1992). The ASI assesses common problems related to substance abuse: medical status, drug use, alcohol use, illegal activity, family relations, and psychiatric condition. The ASI has been used in a number of alcohol and drug use studies over the past 15 years and has been shown to have excellent predictive and concurrent validity (McLellan et al.). The Form-90 (Miller & Del Boca, 1994) was administered to obtain a continuous record of alcohol and drug consumption and intensity within a 90-day time span. This measure gathers information related to employment, health care utilization, incarceration, and alcohol and other drug use over a 90-day retrospective (which provides a reliable time frame for abstinence assessment; Miller & Del Boca). The number of residents per Oxford House was determined using a brief version of a reliable environmental audit developed and utilized by Ferrari and colleagues (Ferrari et al., 2006a; Ferrari, Jason, Davis, Olson, & Alvarez, 2004; Ferrari, Jason, Sasser, Davis, & Olson, 2006b) for use with group recovery settings. This survey requested responses to forced choice and frequency items in a number of domains, including information about the House setting such as the percentage of residents in recovery from alcohol, drugs, and poly- substances, along with the number of inhabitants within a House. Other sections of this audit gathered information on the interior and immediate exterior House characteristics, amenities found within a 2-block radius of the House, and characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. The Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Quick Screen (GAIN-QS; Dennis & Titus, 2000) is a self-report, clinical screening tool examining whether or not a psychological or substance abuse symptom has occurred in the past 12 months similar to the DMV-IV Axis I criteria. While the GAIN-QS is not a diagnostic tool, it has been utilized within clinical screening contexts to identify problem areas and psychological symptoms that warrant further explanation. For the purposes of this study, 2 indices from the GAIN-QS were used as the outcome variables measuring aggressive and criminal behaviors: Conduct Disorder/ Jason et al.Page 5 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript Aggression Index (6 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .78, Mean Score = 1.34) and General Crime Index (4 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .69; Mean Score = .29). Results House Size and GAIN-QS Subscores The average House size in this study was about 7 members (M = 7.1, median = 7), and because a pending court case attempted to make it illegal for Oxford Houses to house 8 or more residents, we decided to compare 7 or fewer members in a House (i.e., smaller Houses) with 8 or more residents of an Oxford House (i.e., larger Houses). Regression analyses1 determined that this dichotomized House size variable significantly predicted the GAIN-QS subscales of Conduct Disorder/Aggression, β = −.10, t(632) = −2.52, p = .01, and General Crime Index, β = −.10, t(634) = −2.44, p = .02. House size accounted for 0.8% of the variance in General Crime Index scores and 1.9% of the variance in Conduct Disorder/ Aggression scores. Larger Houses had fewer problems related to conduct disorder/ aggression, and criminal activity. Smaller Houses had a General Crime Index mean score of 0.34 and a Conduct Disorder/Aggression Index mean score of 1.43, whereas the respective scores for larger Houses were 0.21 and 1.16 (lower scores indicate fewer problem symptoms in each area). House Size and Demographic Analyses Next, one-way ANOVA and chi-square analyses were run to determine whether large and small Houses (7 or less vs. 8 or more) differed on demographic variables. Results indicated that the groups only differed on one key demographic variable: larger House residents had been abstinent from drugs and alcohol longer than individual from smaller Houses, F(1,637) = 4.42, p = .04. Residents in smaller Houses had 298.1 (SD = 458.6) cumulative days of abstinence on average, compared to 379.5 (SD = 476.5) days for residents of larger Houses. This indicates that individual living in larger Houses maintained abstinence for about 81 days longer. Since larger Houses had significantly longer lengths of cumulative abstinence, we ran correlations to determine if this variable also related to the GAIN-QS subscale scores. Among participants for whom we have House size data, cumulative days sober did significantly and negatively correlate with the GAIN-QS subscales of Conduct Disorder/ Aggression, r(633) = −.26, p = .000, and General Crime Index, r(631) = −.30, p = .000. Mediational Analyses We next examined whether the variables in the House size and GAIN-QS subscore regression analyses were only significant because individuals in larger Houses had been sober for longer periods of time. In order to evaluate this possibility, we utilized Baron & Kenny’s (1986) framework for testing of mediation. In Baron & Kenny’s model, the influence of variable A (the initial variable) on variable B (the outcome) may be explained by a third variable known as variable C (the process variable). Complete mediation occurs when variable A no longer affects B after C has been controlled. Partial mediation occurs when the path from variables A to B (the total effect) is diminished in total size but still different from zero after the mediating variable is controlled. The mediational model is a causal one; therefore, the mediator is presumed to bring about the outcome and not vice versa. 1Although participants were nested within Oxford Houses, we decided not to focus on Hierarchical Linear Modeling results because we wanted to test for mediation, which can be done using regression but not HLM. However, we did run HLM analyses and found that House size (as a level 2 group variable) significantly predicted individually-assessed level 1 General Crime Index scores (t[144] = −2.18, p = .03) but not level 1 Conduct Disorder/Aggression scores (t[144] = −1.17, p = .25). Jason et al.Page 6 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript We used Baron & Kenney’s (1986) framework to determine whether cumulative days sober mediated the relationship between House size and Conduct Disorder/Aggression (A = House size [7 or less vs. 8 or more], B = cumulative days sober, and C = Conduct Disorder/ Aggression). As demonstrated earlier with linear regression analyses, House size significantly predicted Conduct Disorder/Aggression. House size also significantly predicted cumulative days sober (A→B; β = .08, t[637] = 2.10, p = .04; r2 = .007), and cumulative days sober predicted Conduct Disorder/Aggression (B→C; β = −.30, t[630] = −7.86, p = . 000; r2 = .089). Finally, when both House size and cumulative days sober were put in the model predicting Conduct Disorder/Aggression (A and B→C), House size maintained significance, but less than earlier (House size: β = −.08, t[628] = −2.11, p = .04; cumulative days sober: β = −.29, t[628] = −7.69, p = .000; r2 = .096). Therefore, House size is related to Conduct Disorder/Aggression, and cumulative abstinence is a partial mediator in this association. These two variables (i.e., House size and cumulative abstinence) explained almost 10% of the variance in Conduct Disorder/Aggression scores. We again employed Baron & Kenney’s (1986) framework to determine whether cumulative days sober mediated the relation between House size and General Crime Index (A = House size [7 or less vs. 8 or more], B = cumulative days sober, and C = General Crime Index). As reported earlier, House Size was a significant predictor of General Crime Index, and House Size significantly predicted cumulative days sober. Regarding new analyses, cumulative days sober predicted General Crime Index (B→C; β = −.26, t[631] = −6.77, p = .000; r2 = . 068). Finally, with both House size and cumulative days sober as predictors of General Crime Index (A and B→C), House size retained significance but less so than before (House Size: β = −.08, t[630] = −2.04, p = .04; cumulative days sober: β = −.25, t[630] = −6.60, p = .000; r2 = .074). Thus, House size is related to General Crime Index scores, and cumulative sobriety is a partial mediator in this relationship. These two variables (i.e., House size and cumulative abstinence) explained more than 7% of the variance in General Crime Index scores. Discussion The objective of the present investigation was to examine how the number of residents in an Oxford House impacted outcomes related to aggression and crime among residents. Regression analyses supported our hypotheses that larger House size (i.e., 8 or more residents) would predict less criminal and aggressive behavior. However, an unexpected result was that length of abstinence was a significant mediator in these relationships. House size lost a fair amount of significance when the mediator of cumulative days sober was entered into the models predicting GAIN subscale scores, and the addition of cumulative sobriety to the models greatly increased the amount of variance explained. Cumulative sobriety partially explained the relationships between House size and General Crime Index and House size and Conduct Disorder/Aggression. Thus, greater House size leads to greater cumulative abstinence, which in turn leads to less criminal activity and aggression; however, House size does have some independent impact of its own on these outcomes. It is clear that having more residents in a House is beneficial to residents’ recovery from alcohol and drug abuse. These findings have important policy implications regarding the future of recovery homes. It is argued that local governments allow Oxford Houses immunity from maximum occupancy regulations due to the great need in many communities for these settings. It is very difficult for individuals lacking stable living environments to maintain a sober lifestyle following residential treatment (Milby, Schumacher, Wallace, Feedman, & Vuchinich, 1996). As the cost of housing continues to rise, many individuals leaving inpatient facilities are unable to find affordable housing. Without Oxford House or other recovery home options, former Jason et al.Page 7 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript addicts frequently have no choice but to return to their old negative environments and fall back into their pre-treatment habits, which frequently include antisocial activities such as substance use and criminal activity. Regardless of how successful a client has been in treatment, this progress can be reversed through residence in an environment that promotes crime and drug use (Polcin, Galloway, Taylor & Benowitz-Fredericks, 2004). As demonstrated in this study, a sufficient number of House residents is a factor in the ability of Oxford House to promote these outcomes that benefit local communities. Furthermore, it is suggested that maximum occupancy regulations that apply to recovery homes are often based on false beliefs and fears. Neighbors often oppose recovery homes because they fear increased crime and violence (Cook, 1997; Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001; Solomon & Davis, 1984; Zippay, 1997), and in order to appease these residents, cities frequently use maximum occupancy laws to close the group homes (Gathe, 1997). This pattern is quite ironic given that the Houses being closed (i.e., larger homes) should actually give neighbors less reason for concern. It seems obvious that laws based on these misconceptions should be eliminated. Overall, Oxford Houses have positive (not negative) effects on local communities (Jason et al., 2005), and residents of larger Houses appear to be highly desirable community members (i.e., who engage in less criminal and aggressive behaviors). This investigation provides one more step in the movement to improve the reception of Oxford Houses and other group homes in local communities. While second-order change alters the systems that cause the problems (Dalton, Elias, & Wanderman, 2001), ‘Not in My Backyard’ typically serves to inhibit this type of change. Changing the attitudes of mental health professionals, community members, and policy makers may break down the barriers to second-order change (Olson et al., 2002). Educational efforts along with successes in the court room may promote a more positive social climate and set legal precedents. Finally, researchers have argued that social scientists should explore ways that the public can become more familiar with residential facilities (Center for Community Corrections, 2002). We hope that these efforts and the efforts of other researchers, individuals in recovery, treatment providers, lawyers, and political activists are successful in reducing the opposition to group homes in residential areas. Concerning limitations, our findings might not apply to other group homes or residential facilities, which can vary greatly in focus, procedures, setting, and size. For instance, a “large” Oxford House setting (i.e., greater than 7 members) might be very small in comparison to other residential settings, which may accommodate several dozen residents. It is actually possible in these cases that somewhat smaller settings are more effective. In addition, we were typically not able to collect data from all members within a House; thus, some Houses have more representation than others in this sample. Future studies in this area should acquire information from all members of a House if possible. Furthermore, data analyzed in this study were self-report; therefore, it may have been useful to obtain House size estimates using data from other sources such as Oxford House Inc., the national body that oversees Oxford Houses. Also, alcohol and drug use had little variability within this sample because all participants were recruited from Oxford Houses instead of treatment or detoxification centers (suggesting a later stage in recovery), and because residents caught using can be evicted. Perhaps future research assessing occupancy levels of recovery homes should consider a sample with more variability with regards to substance use. A final limitation is our use of regression analyses as opposed to Hierarchical Linear Modeling due to the tested nature of the data; however, we wanted to test the mediational model, which can be done using regression but not HLM. Nonetheless, future researchers assessing group home size may want to seriously consider the use of HLM. Jason et al.Page 8 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript In order to improve the reception of Oxford Houses in local communities and counteract the NIMBY syndrome, the Oxford House Research Team has provided expert testimony in court cases, sent information to legislators, disseminated research findings with policy implications, collaborated with community partners and state-level agencies, and worked with the media to change the image of recovery homes (see Jason, Davis, Ferrari, & Bishop, 2001). In particular, the DePaul University research team has been involved in several court cases over past several years on the behalf of Oxford Houses. Most recently, municipalities located in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina have attempted to close down Oxford Houses or similar recovery homes due to too many unrelated individuals living in one dwelling. Findings from the present study were used in these court cases, and at the present time, the Oxford House organization has won every court case. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the financial support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant number DA13231). References Aamodt MG, Chiglinksy M. A meta-analytic review of the effects of residential homes on neighborhood property values and crime rates. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 1989; 5:20–24. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51:1173–1182. [PubMed: 3806354] Beattie MC, Longabaugh R, Elliott G, Stout RL, Fava J, Noel NE. Effect of the social environment on alcohol involvement and subjective well-being prior to alcoholism treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1993; 54:283–296. [PubMed: 8387616] Butterfield DI. Neighbors’ perception of outdoor spaces surrounding group Houses for the developmentally disabled adult. Environmental Design Research Association. 1983; 14:91–104. Center for Community Corrections, in Partnership with Doble Research Associates, Inc. Public outreach and halfway houses research and intergovernmental solutions final report: Summary of Findings. 2002 August. Cook JR. Neighbors’ perceptions of group homes. Community Mental Health Journal. 1997; 33:287– 299. [PubMed: 9250426] Dalton, J.; Elias, M.; Wanderman, A. Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth; 2001. Davis MI, Jason LA. Sex differences in social support and self-efficacy within a recovery community. America Journal of Community Psychology. 2005; 36:259–274. Dear M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association. 1992; 58:288–300. Dennis, ML.; Titus, JC. Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Quick Screen (GAIN-QS). Bloomington, IL: Lighthouse Publications; 2000. Ferrari JR, Jason LA, Davis MI, Olson BD, Alvarez J. Similarities and differences in governance among residents in drug and/or alcohol misuse: Self vs. staff rules and regulation. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations. 2004; 25:179–192. Ferrari JR, Jason LA, Blake R, Davis MI, Olson BD. “This is my neighborhood:” Comparing United States and Australian neighborhoods. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. 2006a; 31:41–50. [PubMed: 16595385] Ferrari JR, Jason LA, Sasser KC, Davis MI, Olson BD. Creating a home to promote recovery: The physical environment of Oxford House. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. 2006b; 31:27–40. [PubMed: 16595384] Jason et al.Page 9 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript Ferrari, JR.; Groh, DR.; Jason, LA.; Olson, BD. The neighborhood environments of mutual-help recovery houses: Comparisons by perceived socio-economic status. 2007. Manuscript submitted for publication Flynn AM, Alvarez J, Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, Davis MI. African American Oxford Houses residents: Sources of abstinent social networks. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. 2006; 31:111–119. [PubMed: 16595391] Gale C, Ng CF, Rosenblood L. Neighborhood attitudes toward group homes for persons with mental handicaps. Mental Retardation and Learning Disability Bulletin. 1988; 16:7–26. Gathe, TH. Group homes: Local control and regulation versus federal and state fair housing laws. Manuscript prepared for the Washington State Bar Association Land Use Conference; May 1997; 1997. Havassy BE, Hall SM, Wasserman DA. Social Support and relapse: Commonalities among alcoholics, opiate users and cigarette smokers. Addictive Behaviors. 1991; 16:235–246. [PubMed: 1663695] Hawkins JD, Fraser MW. The social networks of drug abusers before and after treatment. The International Journal of the Addictions. 1987; 22:343–355. [PubMed: 3583482] Jason LA, Davis MI, Ferrari JR, Anderson E. The need for substance abuse after-care: A longitudinal analysis of Oxford House. Addictive Behaviors. 2007a; 32:803–818. [PubMed: 16843612] Jason LA, Davis MI, Ferrari JR, Bishop PD. Oxford House: A review of research and implications for substance abuse recovery and community research. Journal of Drug Education. 2001; 31:1–27. [PubMed: 11338963] Jason, LA.; Ferrari, JR.; Davis, MI.; Olson, BD. Creating communities for addiction recovery: The Oxford House model. Binghamton, NY: Haworth; 2006a. Jason LA, Ferrari JR, Dvorchak PA, Groessl EJ, Molloy PJ. The characteristics of Alcoholics in self- help residential treatment settings: A multi-site study of Oxford House. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 1997; 15:53–63. Jason LA, Kobayashi RB. Community building: Our next frontier. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 1995; 15:195–208. Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, Lo Sasso T. Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health. 2006b; 91:1727–1729. Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, Majer JM, Alvarez J, Stout J. An examination of main and interactive effects of substance abuse recovery housing on multiple indicators of adjustment. Addiction. 2007b; 102:1114–1121. [PubMed: 17567399] Jason LA, Roberts K, Olson BD. Neighborhoods and attitudes toward recovery around self-run recovery homes. Journal of Community Psychology. 2005; 33:529–535. Kim DS. Another look at the NIMBY phenomenon. Health and Social Work. 2000; 25:146–148. [PubMed: 10845149] Low J. Goodbye NIMBY? Not in my backyard; Group and halfway home tolerance. Chatelaine. 1993; 66:89. MacDonald JG. Predictors of treatment outcome for alcoholic women. International Journal of the Addictions. 1987; 22:235–248. [PubMed: 3583476] Majer JM, Jason LA, Ferrari JR, Venable LB, Olson BD. Social support and self-efficacy for abstinence: Is peer identification an issue? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002; 23:209– 215. [PubMed: 12392807] McConkey R, Walsh PN, Conneally S. Neighbours’ reactions to community services: Contrasts before and after services open in their locality. Mental Handicap Research. 1993; 6:131–141. McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, et al. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1992; 9:199–213. [PubMed: 1334156] Michelson W, Tepperman L. Focus on home: What time-use data can tell about caregiving to adults. Journal of Social Issues. 2003; 59:591–610. Milby JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, Feedman MJ, Vuchinich RE. To House or Not to House: The effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. American Journal of Public Health. 1996; 95:1259–1265. [PubMed: 15983278] Jason et al.Page 10 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript Miller WR, Del Boca FK. Measurement of drinking behavior using the Form 90 family of instruments. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement. 1994; 12:112–118. [PubMed: 7722987] Olson BD, Jason LA, d’Arlach L, Ferrari JR, Alvarez J, Davis MI, et al. Oxford House, second-order thinking and the diffusion of systems-based innovations. The Community Psychologist. 2002; 35:21–22. Oxford House, Inc. Oxford House Manual. Silver Springs; MD: 2002. Polcin DL, Galloway GP, Taylor K, Benowitz-Fredericks. Why we need to study sober living houses. Counselor: The Magazine for Addiction Professionals. 2004; 5:36–45. Segal SP, Sawyer D. Sheltered care facility size and the social integration of mentally ill adults. Adult Residential Care. 1996; 10:75–87. Seymour, J. Unpublished document. Monroe Community College; Rochester, NY: no date. Group homes: A must for the next millennium. Solomon P, Davis JM. Community attitudes toward residential facilities for psychiatric patients. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 1984; 8:38–41. Zippay A. Trends in siting strategies. Community Mental Health Journal. 1997; 33:301–309. [PubMed: 9250427] Zywiak WH, Longabaugh R, Wirtz PW. Decomposing the relationships between pretreatment social network characteristics and alcohol treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002; 63:114–121. [PubMed: 11925053] Jason et al.Page 11 J Community Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 November 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript THE IMPACT OF GROUP HOMES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND 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. ***** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Methodology III. Findings of the Study Appendices: Statistics on Group Homes in the Study Relevant Findings from Other Studies Bibliographies of Other Studies Examined in CRISP's "There Goes the Neighborhood" ***** I. INTRODUCTION With the national shift from institutional care to community settings in group homes for persons with disabilities, there is concern among citizens that group homes will affect negatively their neighborhoods. Concern about the impact of group home placement upon property values causes some citizens to oppose group homes in general. The purpose of this study is to identify the possible impacts of residential property values in those Baltimore County neighborhoods that have a group home. Initially, the methodology of the study is described. This is followed by a discussion of the findings of the study. The Appendices then contain statistics on group homes in the study, relevant findings from other studies, and bibliographies of other studies examined in the Community Residences Information Services Program's "There Goes the Neighborhood". II. METHODOLOGY A. DEFINITION OF "GROUP HOME" The State of Maryland defines a "group home" as a residence in which four or more adults are living. An alternative living unit (ALU) is defined by the State as a residence where three or less adults are in residence. In this study, group homes are defined as alternative living units (ALUs) administered either by the State of Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration or the Baltimore County Bureau of Mental Health. There were a total of 8 Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation group homes and 45 Developmental Disabilities group homes in this study. B. DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study examines possible impact upon residential property values in three ways: (1) Sales prices of homes were analyzed for a two-year period before and a two-year period after the group home placement in the neighborhood. (2) Sale information from those neighborhoods that do not have an group home were used as a control for the studied neighborhoods. This was done by comparing the prices in the entire Zip Code with those in neighborhoods where group homes were placed. (3) Sale prices were compared to County-wide averages during the periods. The date of occupancy of the group home was used as the causal event instead of the date of sale because it is possible that neighborhood residents may not have become aware of a home's use for persons with disabilities until after it is occupied. Sales indicators included: o Number of sales before and after occupancy of the group home. o Mean sales price before and after occupancy. If available, the sales data was taken from residential property sales within a one-half mile radius around the group home. This radius was utilized under the assumption that areas beyond this distance could not be affected. If comparable residential sales data for a one-half radius was not available, data from the entire Zip Code was utilized. In order to examine the effect of group home placement on neighborhood property values for a two- year period, only group homes established in or before 1992 in predominantly residential neighborhoods were considered in this study - which began in 1992. C. SOURCES OF DATA Four sources of data were used. First, the Greater Baltimore Board of Realtors' Central Maryland Multiple Listing Service (CMMLS) provided residential property sales data for the past 18 months. CMMLS is a reliable national database that is used by Realtors to locate residential listings and recent sales for comparisons when determining a list price for residential sales. CMMLS data is available for a variety of distances, including a one-half mile radius of a residential property. The second source of sales data was the Lusk Sales Directories for 1983 through 1991. The Lusk Sales Directories are a highly reliable source of sales data, and are the most commonly utilized source by real estate professionals in the Baltimore metropolitan area. The Lusk sales data was used to analyze the mean sales prices two years before and two years after the group home establishment. The earliest occupancy date of the group homes was 1985. Therefore, sales data begins in 1983. Because Lusk data is only available for entire Zip Codes, the effect of group homes that were established over 18 months ago (or having a post-test control time period including times over 18 months ago) is tested for the entire Zip Code rather than the one-half mile radius. The other sources of data solely were utilized to compare changes in the relevant neighborhoods and control areas to Baltimore County as a whole. The third source of data was the Maryland Association of Realtors' Maryland Real Estate Facts and Forecasts between 1982 and 1989. Finally, the data also was compared to the Baltimore Regional Council of Governments' "Residential Property Sales in Maryland" reports. Analysis included data from this source for 1989 through 1991. Because of the incompleteness of some of the data and the mixed availability of one-half mile radius data because of the time factor, exact data was not available for some of the individual neighborhood studies. In the absence of access to the best data source, the most appropriate data source was utilized to construct the best analysis for comparison. While one-half mile radius data is better for assessing neighborhood impact, Zip Code data is comparable. III. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY A. FINDINGS It was found that approximately 50% of the neighborhoods' residential property values were impacted positively and 50% were impacted 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 values that was higher than that of the control neighborhoods. On the other hand, 4 (57.1%) of the 7 showed a decrease in property values. Of the 28 neighborhoods with a Developmental Disabilities group home, 13 (46.4%) had property value change rates that were above those of the control neighborhoods. A total of 15 (53.6%) of the neighborhoods with group homes had property value change rates that were below those of the control neighborhoods. This mixed result indicates that group home placement cannot be considered a certain predictor or cause of residential property decline or improvement. This conclusion is similar to those of the various other studies that have been done in the United States and Canada in the past 15 years. B. DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT ISSUES 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, the location of industrial sites or major transportation highways, public school closing/opening, nearby positive or negative occurrences, felt increases/decreases in crime, increases/decreases in vacancies, etc. By solely considering the total property value change, this study simplifies a complex reality. However, the use of control neighborhoods acts to improve the validity of this study's approach. During this period, several Baltimore County neighborhoods - including some included in this study - experienced negative property value changes. This was partially due to the persistent economic recession that occurred during this time. During a period of such negative housing value change, the houses that are sold would probably be sold for less than their true market value in a normal (i.e., not economically distressed) market. Therefore, it would be expected that group home placement in such neighborhoods would indicate a lower property value direction. This study also found that group home placement did not affect this change in either a positive or a negative direction. In conclusion, this study has found that group home placement cannot be said to have caused residential property value decline in Baltimore County. While some individual neighborhoods may have witnessed a decline in value, some experienced a positive value growth. Baltimore County's experience with group homes has been the same as many other communities across the country, in which hard data indicates no direct linkage between group home placement and property value. It is hoped that this objective study has helped ease the fears of neighborhood residents that group homes are linked to neighborhood decline. STATISTICS ON GROUP HOMES IN THE STUDY GROUP A: MENTAL HEALTH RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 1. ALU in Catonsville 21228 Established - July, 1990 Pre-Test - July 1988 - June 1990 169 $87,554 Post-Test - July 1990 - June 1992 1 74,900 Change: -14.4% Control Area Pre-Test - 1990 median: $117,600. Post-Test - June 1992 154 121,000 Change: +2.9% 2. ALU in Baltimore 21236 Established - Nov., 1988 Pre-Test - Nov. 1986 - Oct. 1988 0 - Post-Test - Nov. 1988 - Oct. 1990 0 - Change: NA Control Area Pre-Test - Oct. 1988 1162 96,267 Post-Test - Oct. 1990 72 115,685 Change: +20.2% 3. ALU in Dundalk 21222 Established - Feb., 1991 Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Pre-Test - Feb. 1989 - Jan. 1991 15 70,546 Post-Test - Feb. 1991 - Jan. 1993 1224 71,531 Change: +1.4% Control Area Pre-Test - Jan. 1991 26 69,200 Post-Test - Jan. 1993 42 73,000 Change: +5.5% 4. ALU in Dundalk 21222 Established - May, 1992 Pre-Test - May 1990 - Apr. 1992 6 76,650 Post-Test - May 1992 - May 1993 11 64,663 Change: -15.6% Control Area Pre-Test - Apr. 1992 38 73,500 Post-Test - Oct. 1993 29 76,000 Change: +3.4% 5. ALU in Reisterstown 21136 Established - Apr., 1991 Pre-Test - Apr. 1989 - Mar. 1991 1024 115,009 Post-Test - Apr. 1991 - Mar. 1993 345 140,750 Change: +22.4% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area Mar. 1991 34 108,000 Mar. 1993 39 117,500 Change +8.8% 6. Catonsville 21228 Dec., 1991 Dec. 1989 - Nov. 1991 1704 119,054 Dec. 1991 - May 1993 116 149,356 Change +25.5% Control Area Nov. 1991 35 130,000 Oct. 1993 35 115,450 Change -11.2% 7. Rossville 21236 July, 1991 July 1989 - June 1991 1574 115,726 July 1991 - May 1993 42 99,277 Change -14.2% Control Area June 1991 69 115,100 June 1993 31 100,000 Change -13.1% 8. Fullerton 21236 Dec., 1992 Dec. 1990 - Nov. 1992 34 99,966 Dec. 1992 - May 1993 7 97,400 Change -2.6% Control Area Nov. 1992 67 118,500 Oct. 1993 30 105,000 Change -11.4% GROUP B: DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ADMINISTRATION Date of Average Address and 2-Year Periods Establishment Sales Price 1. Woodlawn 21207 Nov., 1988 Nov. 1986 - Oct. 1988 0 0 Nov. 1988 - Oct. 1990 1776 $97,980 Change NA Control Area Oct. 1988 1449 122,518 Oct. 1990 68 83,800 Change -31.6% 2. Woodlawn 21207 Nov., 1988 Nov. 1986 - Oct. 1988 0 0 Nov. 1988 - Oct. 1990 1776 97,980 Change NA Control Area Oct. 1988 1449 122,518 Oct. 1990 68 83,800 Change -31.6% 3. North Catonsville 21228 Mar., 1990 Mar. 1988 - Feb. 1990 967 95,706 Mar. 1990 - Feb. 1992 1570 128,888 Change +34.7% Control Area 1990 median: $117,600. Feb. 1992 48 125,000 Change +6.3% 4. North Woodlawn 21208 Dec., 1988 Dec. 1986 - Nov. 1988 0 0 Dec. 1988 - Nov. 1990 634 140,518 Change NA Control Area Nov. 1988 690 131,190 Dec. 1990 29 112,900 Change -13.9% 5. Sparks 21152 Jan., 1991 Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Jan. 1989 - Dec. 1990 449 153,056 Jan. 1991 - May 1993 7 446,414 Change +191.7% Control Area Jan. 1991 5 143,000 Dec. 1992 8 160,900 Change +12.5% 6. Baltimore 21209 Dec., 1989 Dec. 1987 - Nov. 1989 265 151,031 Dec. 1989 - Nov. 1991 553 158,678 Change +5.1% Control Area 1990 median: $164,772. Nov. 1991 17 140,000 Change -15.0% 7. Baltimore 21209 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 0 0 Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 36 156,591 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $164,772. Sept. 1992 11 174,047 Change +5.6% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 8. Owings Mills 21117 Oct., 1988 Oct. 1986 - Sep. 1988 0 0 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 1287 176,593 Change NA Control Area 1990-1991 change: 0%. 1990 median: $123,450. Change NA 9. East Reisterstown 21136 June, 1989 June 1987 - May 1989 184 115,927 June 1989 - May 1991 1115 88,669 Change -23.5% Control Area 1990 median: $116,390. Apr. 1991 34 108,000 Change -7.2% 10. North Catonsville 21228 Aug., 1989 Aug. 1987 - July 1989 416 117,342 Aug. 1989 - July 1991 (Oct. 1991) 1601 137,405 Change +17.1% Control Area June 1990 416 117,342 Oct. 1991 73 128,000 Change +9.1% 11. Cockeysville 21093 Aug., 1989 Aug. 1987 - July 1989 354 187,340 Aug. 1989 - July 1991 1299 193,513 Change +3.3% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area 1990 median: $163,350. 1990-1991 change: +1%. Oct. 1991 47 175,000 Change +7.1% 12. Reisterstown 21136 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 992 115,682 Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 173 123,327 Change +6.6% Control Area Sep. 1990 23 107,990 Sep. 1992 31 125,000 Change +15.8% 13. Baynesville 21234 Nov., 1990 Nov. 1988 - Oct. 1990 1709 99,197 Nov. 1990 - Oct. 1992 84 86,566 Change -12.7% Control Area Nov. 1990 7 64,500 Oct. 1992 69 109,665 Change +70.0% 14. West Randallstown 21133 Nov., 1990 Nov. 1988 - Oct. 1990 771 $107,020 Nov. 1990 - Oct. 1992 78 109,028 Change +1.9% Control Area Dec. 1990 40 $117,900 Oct. 1992 32 107,300 Change -9.0% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 15. Randallstown 21133 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 764 107,910 Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 129 111,141 Change +3.0% Control Area Sep. 1990 34 112,000 Sep. 1992 32 107,000 Change -4.5% 16. Fullerton 21236 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 1546 114,813 Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 3 94,800 Change -17.4% Control Area Sep. 1990 23 107,990 Sep. 1992 49 106,940 Change -1.0% 17. Pikesville 21208 May, 1990 May 1988 - Apr. 1990 671 106,965 May 1990 - Apr. 1992 839 154,109 Change +44.1% Control Area 1990 median: $109,513. Apr. 1992 18 112,100 Change +2.4% 18. Fullerton 21234 Feb., 1992 Feb. 1990 - Jan. 1992 1535 95,565 Feb. 1992 - May 1993 206 96,979 Change +1.5% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area Jan. 1992 52 97,000 May 1993 56 100,875 Change +4.0% 19. Owings Mills 21117 Nov., 1989 Nov. 1987 - Oct. 1989 526 170,491 Nov. 1989 - Oct. 1991 482 168,589 Change -1.1% Control Area 1990 median: $123,450. Oct. 1991 66 130,203 Change +5.5% 20. North Woodlawn 21208 Dec., 1990 Dec. 1988 - Nov. 1990 1034 140,518 Dec. 1990 - Nov. 1992 227 105,138 Change -25.2% Control Area Nov. 1990 29 112,900 Nov. 1992 28 134,015 Change +18.7% 21. West Randallstown 21133 June, 1990 June 1988 - May 1990 586 107,443 June 1990 - May 1992 901 115,701 Change +7.7% Control Area 1990 median: $106,080. May 1992 36 114,900 Change +8.4% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 22. Fullerton 21236 July, 1991 July 1989 - June 1991 1574 115,726 July 1991 - May 1993 91 83,193 Change -28.1% Control Area Jan. 1991 46 115,100 Dec. 1992 67 109,500 Change -4.9% 23. Rodgers Forge 21212 Feb., 1985 Feb. 1983 - Jan. 1985 0 0 Feb. 1985 - Jan. 1987 0 0 Change NA Control Area Jan. 1985 244 105,042 Jan. 1987 272 122,106 Change +16.2% 24. West Randallstown 21133 Mar., 1991 Mar. 1989 - Feb. 1991 844 109,921 Mar. 1991 - Feb. 1993 132 107,544 Change -2.2% Control Area Feb. 1991 32 99,000 Dec. 1992 35 119,000 Change +20.2% 25. Glenmont 21239 Aug., 1990 Aug. 1988 - July 1990 514 57,979 Aug. 1990 - July 1992 511 63,597 Change +9.7% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area 1990 median: $109,760 June 1992 46 68,000 Change -35.3% 26. North Woodlawn 21207 June, 1990 June 1988 - May 1990 1360 98,947 June 1990 - May 1992 2900 102,820 Change +3.9% Control Area 1990 median: $89,890. May 1992 66 90,185 Change +0.4% 27. North Catonsville 21207 June, 1991 June 1989 - May 1991 1868 98,492 June 1991 - May 1993 158 116,937 Change +18.7% Control Area May 1991 52 90,000 May 1993 28 86,500 Change -3.9% 28. Rosedale 21206 July, 1986 July 1984 - June 1986 0 0 July 1986 - June 1988 0 0 Change NA Control Area June 1986 242 73,874 June 1988 243 66,449 Change -10.1% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 29. Rosedale 21206 Mar., 1990 Mar. 1988 - Feb. 1990 685 64,631 Mar. 1990 - Feb. 1992 1016 65,647 Change +1.6% Control Area 1990 median: $78,960. Feb. 1992 5 74,000 Change -6.3% 30. Parkton 21053 Jan., 1991 Jan. 1989 - Dec. 1990 69 167,949 Jan. 1991 - Dec. 1992 15 176,428 Change +5.4% Control Area Dec. 1990 0 0 Dec. 1992 0 0 Change NA 31. Woodlawn 21207 Mar., 1990 Mar. 1988 - Feb. 1990 1110 96,977 Mar. 1990 - Feb. 1992 1601 107,960 Change +11.3% Control Area 1990 median: $89,890. Feb. 1992 31 90,900 Change +1.1% 32. Rosedale 21206 June, 1990 June 1988 - May 1990 824 64,325 June 1990 - May 1992 960 66,077 Change +2.7% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area May 1990 8 87,400 May 1992 11 94,500 Change +8.1% 33. Cub Hill 21234 July, 1989 July 1987 - June 1989 430 98,793 July 1989 - June 1991 1628 89,027 Change -9.9% Control Area 1990 median: $94,570. Oct. 1991 65 94,750 Change +0.2% 34. Baltimore 21204 July, 1988 July 1986 - June 1988 0 0 July 1988 - June 1990 767 223,737 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $165,750. 1991 median: $162,500. 1990-1991 change: -2%. 35. Eudowood 21234 July, 1988 July 1986 - June 1988 0 0 July 1988 - June 1990 1380 98,690 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $94,570. 1991 median: $96,500. 1990-1991 change: +2%. Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price 36. North Randallstown 21133 July, 1988 July 1986 - June 1988 0 0 July 1988 - June 1990 628 107,582 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $106,080. 1991 median: $110,500. 1990-1991 change: +4%. 37. North of Perry Hall 21236 Apr., 1989 Apr. 1987 - Mar. 1989 1259 115,818 Apr. 1989 - Mar. 1991 1661 116,699 Change +0.8% Control Area 1990 median: $107,573. July 1991 69 115,100 Change +7.0% 38. Bird River 21162 Dec., 1990 Dec. 1988 - Nov. 1990 0 0 Dec. 1990 - Nov. 1992 14 114,126 Change NA Control Area Nov. 1990 1 90,000 Nov. 1992 20 102,000 Change +13.3% 39. Carney 21234 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 1693 99,204 Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 65 83,216 Change -16.1% Average Address and 2-Year Periods Sales Price Control Area Sep. 1990 73 95,490 Sep. 1992 58 109,500 Change +14.7% 40. Rossville 21237 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 430 NA Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 68 91,642 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $98,975. Sep. 1992 19 87,000 Change -12.1% 41. Rosedale 21237 Oct., 1990 Oct. 1988 - Sep. 1990 430 NA Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 61 104,274 Change NA Control Area 1990 median: $92,500. Oct. 1990 - Sep. 1992 19 87,000 Change -5.9% 42. Rossville 21221 July, 1989 July 1987 - June 1989 159 87,848 July 1989 - June 1991 982 84,066 Change -4.3% Control Area NA ***** RELEVANT FINDINGS FROM OTHER STUDIES A. INTRODUCTION All of the objective studies that have been conducted in the United States and Canada in the past 15 years concerning the effect of group home placement show no negative effects on property values, neighborhood safety, or quality of life. This section summarizes the studies that are the most relevant to this examination. B. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT STUDIES 1. Review of 58 National Studies "There Goes the Neighborhood..." - published by the Community Residences Information Services Program (CRISP) in 1990 - is a summary of the 58 studies that have been done of the effects of group homes and treatment facilities on the neighborhoods in which they are placed. A total of 25 studies consider the impact upon residential property values. Some 22 of these studies deal with facilities for the mentally retarded and developmentally disabled, 5 with the mentally ill, and 9 with facilities serving both groups. There are 9 studies that are concerned with formerly institutionalized or service- dependent populations in general. No studies were found to indicate a negative impact of group home placement upon any aspect of neighborhood life. The studies found that group home placement had not lowered property values or increased turnover, had not increased crime, and had not changed the neighborhood's character. The group homes had not deteriorated or become conspicuous institutional landmarks. The studies did find that all communities had come to accept group homes, and that group home residents have benefitted from the access to a wider community life (Community Residences Information Services Program, "There Goes the Neighborhood...", White Plains, New York: CRISP, 1990, p. 92). The studies that evaluated the effect of group home placement on residential property values are listed in the next section of the Appendix, Bibliography of Other Studies Examined in CRISP's "There Goes the Neighborhood..." 2. Group Homes and Property Values: A Second Look Authors Christopher and Christine M. Mitchell analyzed sales price as a percentage of list price, as well as the number of days the property was market-listed before and after the group home was occupied. Some 3 of the 5 homes showed no significant difference in both measures; 2 had measures post- occupancy that were more positive than the before measures. 3. Illinois State Crime Study This State-wide study - Daniel Lauber, Impacts on the Surrounding Neighborhood of Group Homes for Persons with Developmental Disabilities, Evanston, Illinois: Planning Communications, 1986 - found that the crime rate for persons with developmental disabilities who live in group homes is substantially lower that for the general population. ***** BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OTHER STUDIES EXAMINED IN CRISP'S "THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD..." Baron, Richard C. Community Opposition to the Mentally Ill and the Strategies that Respond. Philadelphia: Horizon House Institute for Research and Development, 1978. Boeckh, John, Michael Dear, and S. Martin Taylor, "Property Values and Mental Health Facilities in Metropolitan Toronto," Canadian Geographer 24 ((1980):270. Breslow, Stuart. The Effect of Sitting Group Homes on the Surrounding Environs. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1976. Caulkins, Zack, John Noak, and Bobby J. Wilkerson. The Impact of Residential Care Facilities in Decatur: A Study of Residential Care Facilities Located Within the City of Decatur. Decatur, Illinois: Macon County Community Mental Health Board, 1976. City of Lansing Planning Department. The Influence of Halfway Houses and Foster Care Facilities Upon Property Values. Lansing, Michigan: City of Lansing, 1976. Coleman, Allison R. The Effect of Group Homes on Residential Property Values in Stamford, Connecticut. Stamford, Connecticut: St. Luke's Community Services, 1989. Community Residences Information Services Program. There Goes the Neighborhood. White Plains, New York: CRISP, 1990. Dear, Michael, "Impact of Mental Health Facilities on Property Values," Community Mental Health Journal 13 (1977):150. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Effects of Subsidized and Affordable Housing on Property Values: A Survey of Research. Sacramento: State of California, 1988. Developmental Disabilities Program. An Analysis of Minnesota Property Values of Community Intermediate Care Facilities for Mentally Retarded. Policy Analysis Series; Issues related to Welsch v. Noot/ No. 11. St. Paul, Minnesota: DDP, 1982. Dolan, Lawrence W., and Julian Wolpert. Long Term Neighborhood Property Impacts of Group Homes for Mentally Retarded People. Princeton, New Jersey: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 1982. Farber, Stephen, "Market Segmentation and the Effects of Group Homes for the Handicapped on Residential Property Values," Urban Studies (1986):519-525. Gale, Dennis E. Group Homes for Persons with Mental Retardation in the District of Columbia: Effects on Single-Family House Sales and Sales Prices. Washington, D. C.: Center for Washington Area Studies, George Washington University, 1987. Gardner, Patty, George Pfaff, and Suzanne Irwin. Community Acceptance of Group Homes in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Developmentally Disabled, 1982. General Accounting Office. An Analysis of Zoning and Other Problems Affecting the Establishment of Group Homes for the Mentally Disabled. Gaithersburg, Maryland: U. S. General Accounting Office, 1983. Glubiak, Peter G. Local Zoning and Residential Care Facilities: Conflicts and Solutions. Louisville, Kentucky: University of Louisville, 1983. Goodale, Tom, and Sherry Wickware, "Group Homes and Property Values in Residential Areas," Plan Canada 19 (June, 1979):154. Human Services Research Institute. Becoming a Neighbor: An Examination of the Placement of People with Mental Retardation in Connecticut Communities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HSRI, 1988. Iglhaut, Daniel M. The Impact of Group Homes on Residential Property Values. Largo, Maryland: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Prince George's County Planning Board, 1988. Jaffe, Martin, and Thomas P. Smith. Sitting Group Homes for Developmentally Disabled Persons. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1986. Kanter, Arlene S., "Recent Zoning Cases Uphold Establishment of Group Homes for the Mentally Disabled," Clearinghouse Review 18 (October, 1984):515. Knowles, Eric S., and Ronald K. Baba. The Social Impact of Group Homes: A Study of Small Residential Service Programs in First Residential Areas. Green Bay, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1973. Lauber, Daniel. Impacts of Group Homes on the Surrounding Neighborhood: An Evaluation of Research. Evanston, Illinois: Planning/Communications, 1981. __________. Impacts of the Surrounding Neighborhood of Group Homes for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Evanston, Illinois: Planning/Communications, 1986. League of Women Voters. Yes -- But in My Neighborhood? Siting Community-Based Residential Facilities in Seattle. Seattle, Washington: LWV, 1984. Lindauer, Martin S., Pauline Tung, and Frank O'Donnell. The Effect of Community Residences for the Mentally Retarded on Real Estate Values in the Neighborhoods in Which They are Located. Brockport, New York: State University of New York, 1980. Linowes, Lisa, "The Effect of Group Care Facilities on Property Values." Chicago: American Planning Association, 1983. Louisiana Center for the Public Interest. Impact of Group Homes on Property Values and the Surrounding Neighborhoods. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Center for the Public Interest, 1981. Muhlin, George L., and A. E. Dreyfuss. Community Reactions to Neighborhood Based Residential Mental Health Facilities in Westchester County. Scarsdale, New York: Social Area Research, 1984. Pace University Nichaelian Institute for Sub/Urban Governance. Group Homes for Mentally Disabled People: Impact on Property Values in Westchester County, New York. White Plains, New York: CRISP, 1988. Piasecki, Joseph R. Community Response to Residential Services for the Psycho-Socially Disabled: Preliminary Results of a National Survey. Philadelphia: Horizon House Institute for Research and Development, 1975. Research Group, The. The Impact of Community Residences on Property Values in the Westfield, Massachusetts, Area. Northampton, Massachusetts: The Research Group, 1985. Ryan, Carey S., and Ann Coyne, "Effects of Group Homes on Neighborhood Property Values," Mental Retardation 23 (October, 1985):241. Scott, Nancy J., and Robert A. Scott, "The Impact of Housing Markets on Deinstitutionalization," Administration in Mental Health 7 (Spring, 1980):210. Suffolk Community Council. The Impact of Community Residences Upon Neighborhood Property Values. Smithtown, New York: Suffolk Community Council, 1984. Wagner, Christopher A., and Christine M. Mitchell. Group Homes and Property Values: A Second Look. Columbus, Ohio: Metropolitan Human Services Commission, 1980. Wagner, Christopher A., and Christine M. Mitchell. The Non-Effect of Group Homes on Neighboring Residential Property Values in Franklin County. Columbus, Ohio: Metropolitan Human Services Commission, 1979. Wiener, Dirk, Ronald J. Anderson, and John Nietupski, "Impact of Community-Based Residential Facilities for Mentally Retarded Adults on Surrounding Property Values Using Realtor Analysis Methods," Education and Training of ther Mentally Retarded 17 (December, 1982):278. Wolch, Jennifer, and Stuart A. Gabriel. Spillover Effects of Human Services Facilities in a Racially Segmented Housing Market. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1983. Wolpert, Julian. Group Homes for the Mentally Retarded: An Investigation of Neighborhood Property Impacts. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1978. Gregory Alan Heafner, PA Attorney at Law 1510 Twisted Oak Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Phone (919) 967-3800 Fax (919) 336-4165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 2015 TO: New Hanover County Planning Board FROM: Greg Heafner SUBJECT: Realtor Land Use Memorandum dated May 6, 2015 Mr. Andreas forwarded the Realtor Land Use Memorandum dated May 6, 2015, which the Wilmington Regional Association of Realtor’s submitted to the Planning Board at the Board’s request, regarding Oxford House’s pending request for a text amendment to the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. The first nine and a half pages of the Memorandum are an overview of the Federal Fair Housing Act, and not specific to Oxford House’s text amendment. However, the remaining portion of the Memorandum comments on Oxford House’s text amendment, and as such I address that portion of the Memorandum below. Beginning on page ten of the Memorandum, under the heading “Problem”, the Memorandum critiques the proposed text amendment as not going far enough because it is not broad enough to provide for a way to accommodate uses that do not meet the text amendment’s definition of a group home. To the extent the Realtor’s group is advocating for what it calls a “comprehensive approach for the County to process requests for a reasonable accommodation under the FHAA in general”, Oxford House endorses same. However, a comprehensive overhaul of the County’s zoning ordinance is not the aim of Oxford House’s proposed text amendment. Beginning on page eleven under the second “Problem” heading, the Memorandum states that the text amendment’s specificity could lead to other persons or groups requesting an accommodation they do not meet the definition of a group home contained in the text amendment. This is in part a re-statement of the first “Problem” – that the text amendment is not broad enough to encompass everyone. The Memorandum is correct in that if a group is not covered by the text amendment then it could request an accommodation – which is the nature of the applicable federal fair housing law. Again, Oxford House is not seeking to overhaul the County’s ordinance and address all possible scenarios or needs. This second “Problem” heading goes on to contend that the number of residents and spacing distance between group homes as contained in the text amendment are arbitrary. Apparently no one from the Realtor organization attended the Planning Board’s April 2, 2015 hearing in this matter, nor read the materials cited in my December 23, 2014 letter to the zoning staff (the same letter the memorandum quotes on page two as having reviewed). The number of eight residents is anything but arbitrary. A full explanation of why eight residents is beyond the scope of this letter. However, the number it is specifically supported by the Oxford House Model. The Oxford House Model is described in: 1. My December 23, 2014 letter; 2. The Oxford House Manual described at the April 2, 2014 Planning Board hearing; 3. The materials on the Oxford House website cited in my December 23, 2014 letter; 4. Explained in the multiple court opinions referred in December 23, 2014 letter, and in the material on the Oxford House website, and; 5. Is the number of residents for a group home in many jurisdictions including several North Carolinas municipalities. As to the spacing distance, again it is evident that the Realtor’s Association did not research the subject. A half mile spacing requirement is generally the greatest distance allowed under most federal appellate court decisions on the issue of spacing of group homes. A survey of most municipalities with spacing provisions shows most are either a quarter or half mile. Again, the spacing set forth in the proposed text amendment is anything but arbitrary. The last “Concern” in the report that follows the second “Problem” is the “Concern” that others could seek an accommodation from whatever number is eventually put in the ordinance. Again this is correct - it is the nature of the federal law. The proposed text amendment does not seek to address every possible scenario, nor could any ordinance do so. Next the Memorandum poses what it calls “Option 1” on page twelve. This option would call for taking each group home request on an individual basis. This is cumbersome and will lead to appeals and litigation, and more importantly will not work with the Oxford House model. Taking each group home on an individual basis means a group home is not a permitted use as a matter of right, meaning that any proposed home would have to obtain approval before it is established. This would not work with the Oxford House model where all properties are leased on the residential leasing market. No landlord will hold a property for an undetermined length of time before entering into a lease while the prospective tenant goes through an approval process to see if it can occupy the property. Next the Memorandum poses what it calls “Option 2”, also beginning on page twelve. This “Option” is also uninformed as to the nature of an Oxford House and group homes in general. The memorandum goes on to erroneously cite the City of Asheville’s treatment of the issue and Oxford House, and fails to mention that Oxford House has been granted a reasonable accommodation by Asheville. Regarding the memorandums’ comments on Seattle and Belleview, again the Memorandum’s comments on these cities’ ordinances is misplaced and an insufficient description of these ordinances and how they are applied.