Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Research MN Values Attitudes

    Uploaded by

    Mohana Ganesan
    26 views49 pages
    housing related

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    housing related

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    26 views49 pages

    Research MN Values Attitudes

    Uploaded by

    Mohana Ganesan
    housing related

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 49
    ne HORNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS Report on Affordable Housing Research Sponsored by The McKnight Foundation Report Prepared by Thomas Horner ‘Himle Homer Inc. July, 2009 CONTENTS Brojert Overview. "The Research Elephan Executive Summary. Key Research Findings. ns and Recommendations Strategy Impl Addendum 1: Reaching out to local government Addendum he tools of an engagement campaign ine Homer I it ig eval tao PROJECT OVERVIEW A shortage of affordable housing is pushing more Minnesotans to the edge of homelessness, according toa report released in June 2009 by the Minnesota Housing Partnership. The standard benchark for determining sfordabilty ~ 30 percent ofa person's income ~ is being exceeded by nearly half of enters ad third of homeowners in Minnesota, the study found, The challenges facing those with incomes below $20,000 annually are even more staggering, with 83 percent of Minnesots renters inthis income group living in housing that is unaferdable. The trend of low-income Minnesotans living ia housing tat s unaffordable by wadtionl measares i accelerating, acooeding othe MIP report. In fac, over the previous nin yeas, Minnesota had the fastest increase of extremely low-income ‘households living in unaffordable housing" Many Minnesotans recognize these challenges and are supportive ofthe concept of affordable housing, particulary for specifi, empathetic beneficiaries. For example, 6 perent of Minnesota homeowners agree {ha their communities would be Better if we bad more homes that working class people and young families can buy." “The general support, though, i tempered by the seincrest of many Minnesotans, including the passion they fel for their communities, More thin 9 ou of 10 say their communities are ideal or clase to their idea ofa place to lve Ince in these favorable attudes isthe peroeption that communities curently provide abroad ‘ange of housing choles Infact, 75 percent of Minnesotans in a statewide survey said their communities ‘offered the “right mix of affordable bousing” versus only 19 percent who believe thir communities need offer more choices” [eis against this backdrop that The McKnight Foundation commissioned research to better understand the ‘values and perceptions that shape public aitudesroward aflordable housing and to identity the sateges and ‘messages that could promote broader publi support for affordable housing. Inpatcalar, the challenge i 0 ‘ove beyond the broadly held sereoypes tht make publi discussions of affordable housing contentious. Desired Outcomes ‘The research sponsored by MeKnight forms the sis for strategic recommendations that are intended 0 do more than jus win pobtial aproval of affordable housing propossls. Affordable housing inittives should be bul sound hres otc They should produce more housing choices in Minnesota communities. Ulimatey, the goal is to crete a rarketplece in which all Minnesotans can find quality housing appropiate to ther eteursiances and + They should result in residents of affordable housing being viewed as equal partners inthe future of @ ‘community. An initative that succeeds in gaining new affordable housing units, but results in public hostility to the resident of those units n't complete succes. Initiatives shouldbe rooted in a process that produces more alferdabe housing and creates an environment in Which residents ofthe affordable Dowsing residents ee ested with respect and dignity. The Minnesota Housing Parmer sty nd proles of housing affordability by cous i at wlpenin np esearch county prox Survey of Mincsta homeowners condocted by Decision Resources Li, Sanary 2009 Other daa ce in is section also we rom this uve Si To te th ipa of language, an prculy the tem “fdable housing” the survey asked the questo wie, substinting right mx of housing choice for“afodable hosing,” The els ofthe question were satay Mentealregaraess ofthe lnguaee ine Herero Wate ein Ree ot aes + They should be driven by processes that are rusted and respecte by curent homeowners, and are perceived by these resident add valu to their communities. Methodology ‘There were fourprimary components fo the esearch conducted to understand and evaluate public attitudes on sfforiblehouag ano crete the rates an mos: 'A statewide randontsamplctlepione survey of Minnesota homeowners. The survey was exclusive. ‘homeownen in order to gain in-depth information on the atitudes and values of those Minnesota residents ‘matt likely 0 be involved in community-based public policy issues, especialy on housing. The survey ‘was adminitered 1 700 randomly selected adult homeowners throughout Minnesota. Profesional Interviewer conducied tho survey by telephone berween Jen. 22 and Fed. 3, 2008. The typical respondent tock 27 mimes o compote the questionnaire. The results ofthe study are projecable o al adult, -homooornen in the state within pis or minis 38 peoen! in 95 out of 100 cabs + total of 90 Minnesota homeowners participate in 10 focus groups throughout the sate (Minneapolis, Si, Paul, Twin Cites suburbs, Hibbing and Rochester) in February 2009, Participants were evenly divided by gender and included a mix of incomes, politcal beliefs and racial and ethnic boekgrounds, Two ofthe facus groups were comprised exclusively of “opinion influencers" ~ people who are well-informed oa public issues and ae high consumers of news media, active in their communities, political participants and have at les some college education. These engaged an informed people tend to exet disproportionate {influence onthe opinions of others. None ofthe 10 focus groups included more than 10 people and all, ‘were segregated by gender (ive groups of women, five groups of men) Each focus group was 90 mites snd all partsipants were pai a stipend. + Minnesota ent news coverage of affordable housing was evaluated, News articles, letters othe eto, eaitorials ard other print coverage between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31,2008, wee included inthe review. The ‘valuation eused on how elocted officials, advocates and residents famed their opinions of ffordable housing ister and projets in public dscustons. + In-depth interviews with thot involvod in housing policies and polities, including elected officials, industry representatives and advocates of affordable housing ‘Other research (tate and national) also was evaluated, including work being done to promote broader and more productive engagement of citizens in public policy issues. A particulrly compelling source of ‘information watthe MAP 150 projet ofthe Citizens League. This esearch is being used by Citizens League to design new processes for citizen engagement. Among the Ley challenges to resolve is that citizens and publi official eflen talk past each eter. Although the following findings are based on very smal samples, the disparity in atitudes between public officals and citizens reat enough to waren rtention: ‘+ _Thiny-ightpercent of citizens say people only get involved if they havea personal interest in the outcome; 7Sporcent of public oficial believe that public involvement is motivated mainly by personal Interest 1+ Twenty-nine percent of izes say thet elected official always or often use information they receive om the publi, 71 percent of public ofTiials say they often/alwaysincosporate public input ino their proposals and decisions. = Citizens believe tht public policy fils because ofthe proces engagement is all talk, no action; solutions already ae determined before public asked to comment; cizens aren't given useful information). Public. “officals believe that public policy fails because of iizens (only opponents, those with narow, special interests show up). Expert believe poli fils because citizens and public officials don't listen to exper mle Homes ine, ii ie ena srt Partners the Project ‘This prooct was designed and completed under the direction of The McKnight Foundation. Program Officer Erie Munchler was the lead staf person for McKnight. Partners in the projec rete following + Himle Homer Ine, a Minnesota publi affairs and public relations frm, was the dayto-éay manager of ‘sctiities,partiipeting inthe design ofthe overall projet and in the design and implementation of each ‘ase of research. Himle Homer also developed the analysis ofthe research, proposed specific conclusions nd recommendations and drafted the ial report. Tom Homer was the projet lead. ‘+ ActioMedia Lid. designed, conducted and interpreted the focus groups. Action Mata isa Minnesota firm helpag advocacy organizations create and implement more effective commnicatons o achieve thir soaks. Dick Brooks and Michael Goldberg were the prinepals onthe affordable housing project. Decision Resources Lid is @ Minnesota research firm with extensive experience n research on public policy nd community-based issues. Decision Resouroes designed, conducted and interpreted the survey. ‘Willama Morris, PD, was the lead consultant. The Report Author “This report was drated by Tom Homer of Wile Homet. While incomporating sales ofthe research created by ActonMedi focus groupe) and Decision Resources Ltd. survey), the Findings sep insights and recommendations were developed by Himle Homer. Atle Haan Rend Rsommdaes "eae ‘THE RESEARCH ELEPHANT Perhaps the greatest vale of this prec isthe breadth and soap ofthe research, Relying onthe Findings of single sie ofthe data is Likely to create a dstoted picture. In fac, the individual components ofthe research fremuch Ske the allegory of the five blind men each describing an elephant by the pat ofthe animale holding. Bach description s wildly misleading ‘The reality that most Minnesotans have very manced and sometimes conflicting views of affordable housing. While there are strong advocates (ebout 10 percent ofthe population, many of them motivated by cial usice) and srong oppodents (16 percent, deiven by a range of issues from anti-government fo racism ‘i ant-immigration sentiments), neal thee-quarters of Minnesotans are mech ore equivocal in their view ‘of affordable housing. Many Minnesotans in this middle ground (ranging from soft supporters to soft ‘opponents can be swayed, especially when affordable housing moves from concep oa spect project from sympstheti beneficiaries (for example, the elderly or lower income professionals ike teacher) tos opult beneficiaries (or eximple, low-income single parents or new Minnesotans). “The findings and recommendations inthis report ae based on comprehensive analysis af the entre body of research conducted fer this projet. While the summaries ofthe individual research corpponents provide ‘content an, im some case, depth, ite the thomes that are consistent throughout the research thet create the ‘oad map recommended in this repor. Hime Homer. oral tes Rew on Recon "hes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ‘The McKnight Foundation commissioned comprehensive research ( statewide survey of homeowners; focus soups; in-depth interviews with elected officials and policy makers; nd, a review of news coverage of affardsle housing in Minnesota print media) to beter understand the values and perceptions that shape public atitudes toward affordable housing. The research was conduced between November 2008 and April 2009 ‘The gol ofthe project was to identity the strategies and messages that could promote broader public support for affordable housing. In particla, the identified challenge was o create recommendations that would move affordable housing discussions beyond the broadly held stereotypes that make publi discussions of affordable housing contentious The research sponsored by MeKnight forms the basis for strategic recommendations that re intended 1 40 ‘more than just win political approval of affordable housing proposals. Affordable hosing inictves should be built around three outcomes: They should produce more housing choices in Minnesota communities. Ultimately, the goal isto create a marketplace in which all Minnesotans can find quality housing appropiate to thei circumstances and = They should res in residents of affordable housing being viewed as equal partners in the future of ¢ community. An initiative that suceedsin gaining new affordable housing units, but esl in public hostility to the residents of those units isn'ta complete sucess. Intatives shoul be rooted in process that produces more affordable housing and creates an environmeat in which residents ofthe affordable housing esdents ae tested with respect and dignity. ‘+ They shouldbe driven by proceses tht are trusted and respected by current homeowner, and are perceived by thse resident fo add value to their communities. ‘The research produced several findings that are important to undestanding public attudes toward afferdable housing and to shape communications aad engagement strategies that canbe effective in gaining approval of more affordable housing projects and in building broader pubic acceptance of affordable housing, the residents of these homes and the public proces tha resulted in affordable housing a an outcome. Summary of Findings “There ae important public ateuds toward affordable housing that are consistent trough the entire body of researc. Ifa stategic pla to change pblic wil is to succed, it has to address the Minnesota values and beliefs inherent in these findings 1 Affordable housing i, at bes, a thir-ter political issue, It has enough volatility to be politically “dangerous bat not enough popular suppor for solutions tobe politically urgent. For political leader, ‘homeowners, most employers and others, the cases course isto do nothing ~ or to respond tothe loudest ‘voices, Which, nthe case of affordsle housing, most often are the opponent 2, The one constant chroughout the research i the strong motivation of current homeowners fo protect their ‘own interests, nciuding the value oftheir homes. 1 Having affordable housing nearby is perceived to reduce the values of existing homes fr severe reasons. Affordable housing is perceived to bring additional vocal problems to @ community, ‘expecially crime; it changes the character of the commenity, increasing density and adding to congestion; ang, it erodes the quality of local schools. + Many homeowners rationalize the desire to protect their home values athe expense of affordable ‘housing onthe bass of personal responsibilty - the idea that current homeowners achieved their ‘housing through hard work, diligence and savings, and others, including low-income and other disadvantaged people, should do the same. Afra ing Roach ant Recent "ea relate selfimteres theme ~ also very intense ~ isthe pasion many Minnesotans have for their ‘communities. An overwhelming number of Minnesotans believe their communities are close 0 ideal ‘and they would recompend thet to fantly members az good places to live. They ee strongly about ‘preserving the character oftheir communities and see affordable housing (and its resident) as threats, Citizen will accept changes to their communities, but ony if they are viewed as being consistent with the essatal character af where they live. One good example from the focus proups~ a resident of ‘St Prlneighborhood wanted more smal local reall while a resident ofa suburban community sees the same retail options as rovblesome place for teenagers to hang out ‘+ Miancsntans support a government roe in affordable housing solutions. However, the strongest ‘motivator for goverment supports slfnterest, Minnesotans want government 1 rehabilitate ind return freclosed homes tothe market and stop new foreclosures out of concer that foreclosures are eroding property values for existing homeowners. Minnesotans suppoc the general concep of [ovement acting to heep Housing affordable, but when asked their opinions en specific actions [Bovement might take, few proposals gain even majority supper and mos receive a very divided respons: 13. When selterest humps up against the reality of today’s housing and economic markets, the result often is deeply conflicting and contradictory posions, Minnesotans understand that housing costs have made it impossible or many Minnesotans to alfrd quality, safe housing. Ye, suppor for affordable housing ‘wanes whe it oves from the general (“oo many people ae priced cut of housing") othe specific (Groped arabe Housing my communi”. ‘Ononehand, Minnesotans support greater diversity in their communities and majorities believe that @ mix of fousing choices strengthens communities (for example, 63 percent agree that "te economic heath of communities would be stronger ifthe housing market had a broader range of housing options including some low-cost housing”). Most Minnesotans recognize the growing nee for more stfordatle housing, especially for young and working-class families and empty-nesters '+ When fied with specific allrdable housing proposals, hough, current homeowners find comton in the satis quo. For example, 68 percent belive that "Any housing choices added tomy community should ft the character ofthe community as it exists today: 4, Affordable lousing discussions often ae defined by the perceptions curent homeowners have ofthe onl whol liven he artbie hosing ‘Generic descriptions of housing foe young, profesional families or empty-nesters looking to sella toc-larg house wile remaining in thei lif-long community have broad appeal. But the positives are canlyatd quickly undermined by secdotes that aTordable housing brings with it more crime, ‘congestion, residents who aren't invested inthe community, students who will rate problems in local ‘schoolsand other negative stereotypes. The eetional value of empathetic beneficiaries is vastly ‘overwhelmed bythe negative portrayals 1 Renters especially apartment enters (versus renters of attached or single-family homes) ~ are an capecialy unwanted population. 5. Consequently, may Minnesotans donot se affordable housing through the same lens as advocates f= Advocaies see a supply issue; there ent enough affordable housing, Most Minnesotans, however believe their communities curently offer good mix of housing. inelading a range of choices for people different sages oftheir lives. While many Minnesotans acept that housing costs impose & ‘barrier b affordable housing fr some peope, they believe there are enough options to meet most needs 1+ Advocates often define affordable hoasing 8 soca justice imperative. Most Minnesotans see it asa ‘personal esponsibility issue in which hard work aod diligent savings re rewarded, To some extent, these atitudes ae shaped by race and clas biases. + Advocates typically focus fist on affordable housing solutions ~ propoing «projet, then determining how fo ain approval. Curent homeowners strongly belive that discussion of affordable housing should begin with consideration of her coe issves, particularly thei strong desire to protect thet ime Homer ne Ati rh a Ra personal and economic security. Until the isues that matter to homeowners are resolved, policy ‘makers are unlikely o provide lesderhip on affordable housing ‘Strategic Directions ‘The research suggests a strategic road map to building public wil for affordable housing snd ultimately to ‘winning public approval for more projets. 1 Tobe successful ~ with success defined not jus in geting projects approved, but in improving the ‘opportunity for resident of fTordable housing tobe accepted nt the community ~ the focus has to shift fom clients to community. Curent homeowners need to firs understand how affordable housing ‘nyproves their communities and enhances their own economic and pesond scunty. Minoesoans have very clear eter for affordable housing projec in ther communities, Fatlureto Acknowledge the vliity of thse erteria and to bepin community conversations with these issues atthe ore opens the dor to opponents who define affordable housing proposals negatively: ‘Protect existing home values. This includes not jus the resale value ofexstng homes but property ‘+ Maintain te current characte of the community Recognize tht the character ste unique persona of each community. ‘New residents must have the same sense of commitment tothe community that curent homeowners have, ‘The strategic challenge int in geting opponents to affordable housing to “stand down.” Opposition i intense and sides, often based on issues of class and rae rather then policy. What i clear from the research, though, i that there i he potential to eoalesce enough public support to counter opponents, even ‘suppor is soft and exsily eroded. ‘Alfordable housing is mos likely to succeed through citizen engagement tat builds tipping pont of suppor by acknowledging and rxponding tothe value of caren resident of a community. Supper hes to come ftom assurances tha! tha affordable housing won't undermine what current homeowners consider ‘importa =" While song opponents may be driven by racism or intense anti-goverament sentiment, the postions of soft supporters end opponents ae defined by personal interes. This interests may get famed round specific projec, their presmed imp Or the peresved residats of the housing. However, ‘much ofthe underying cancer really is about personal economic and physical security and fear that the characte ofthe community wil be changed. A succesful ntative as to adres these values in meaningful and substantive way, + Focusing campaigns to win suppor for affordable housing on people hs two huge challenges: First it ‘opens the daoe to the much stronger emotional appeal (and more wisely hed stereotype) that residents ‘of affordable housing arent ike me; they are people who detract fom a community. Second, it ‘ignore the much stronger point of eppostion ~ affordable housing uncermines the interest of current hhomeowners by eroding housing values, creating scial problems and changing the character of the community. + Supporters won't be engaged and activated onthe bess of messaging lone. I's important o note that the phase “affordable housing” isnot inherently negative. In fac, the term seems to be neutral and ost often is defined very literally. What people object to isnt “affordable housing,” but “government subsidized” houtng, “low-income” housing, “housing projects” in other words, their ebjton art to much govern, onentating poverty orkovsng projets ae priv ‘There is fear that the evonemic and foreloeure crises wll ead to the deterbration of commis. This may bea value that can counter people's tong desire to protect the characer oftheir communities. At the same time, many Minnesotans are wary of public policy tht goes oo fi. They wil suppor policy that recognizes the cuent economic climate, but not policy tat assumes the heusing market and the economy ime Homer re Arlt Hong Recon Bcoeite or 6, Thoresearch suggests that many Minnesotan ae at least ope to Tearing more about broader community asses, including wansporttion, energy efficent homes and economic development + integrating affordable housing into these hreader discussions as some value (or example, strengthening the economic base ofa community by creating affordable housing convenient fo transit pions asa way oatract young families, workers in lower-paid postions and etizees who are Sownsing). 1+ “Toweves, there ae limits Minnesotans put aroand each ofthese issues ~ where the positives end and the negatives begin For example, affordable homes for worker is very diferer positioning than good ibs that allow workers to afford homes, The convenience and lifestyle appeal of & low-cost deighborood resturant doce not always translate into support for housing has affordable othe (ov-ineome workers in such a restaurant 1 Utmately, Minnesotans return tothe impact of new developments on ther own interests, particularly lcs pets and exon secu Recommendations 1. Engagement vs. Advocacy. Create stratepes that are bul on engaging citizens in acommunty around ‘common challenges. Tho strategies shoud shi from advocating fora specific proposal toa broader focus ‘on stengthening the community. 2. Messaging. Messaging should eet tht the driving concer for most Minnesotans is the impact of community investments on MY home ~ is vale, the scurty ofthe neighborhood, andthe quality of life supported bythe community. The subject ofthe messaging should shift fom today’ focus on social juste and afordable housing supply tothe heath and vitality of communities, 3, ‘Auddences. Fosus on the 6 percent of Minnesotans who are soft supporters or sft opponents Don't ‘develop campaigns aimod mainly at getting opponents to “stand dow.” 4, Engaging Leadership, Engaging community leadership in initiatives ~ especially elected officials and employers is key tool fo sicoess. However, both elected leaders and employers ar far more likely to be ative participants in promoting a process (engagement) than they are in solution (specific proposal to bile affordable housing). 5. Inflencer’Spokespeope, Community influencers who understand the vale of ffrdable housing from their own perspective andar invested in «proces to win suppor from other wil ake the most efetve leaders and spokespeople 6. Communications Vehicles. Communications withthe target audiences willbe mos effective when they are integrated into vehicles tht sre part of these audiences’ routine, ere usted and connect to them on 2 pereeal level. Appropriate vehicles include community media forums in faith and smployment venues, nd social medi, 17. Change the Brosder Environment. While the core recommendations largely are intended to focus efforts ‘on tdivival communitics, some atention shoul be paid to the broader communiestions environment ‘ASfodable housing will be dificult to advance if he perception inthe broader media and blogosphere is intensely negative inde Homer fe ik i hac en ct, KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS Affordable housing has broader support than many polle Issues. Homever, Minnesotans are ‘very confleted In thelr opinions of affordable housing and suppor is very vulnerable to ‘opponents attacks ‘The public and decision makers se the need for affordable housing, particulary in today’s economy and with “Minnesot's changing demopraphies. While support is oft and often eroded by the details and terms cf specific proposals, affordable housing has a slid foundation on which to buld public suppor. Minneiota ‘Homeowners canbe dived into five general etegories of support and oppoition on aferdable housing + Advocates (10 percent of Minnesotans) Quit supporters (43 percent) Uncertain, less informed (21 percent) {Quiet opponents (0 perecnt) ‘Vocal opponents (16 percent) ‘A majority of Minnesota homeowners ~ 53 percent are at least potential advocates or quit supports of affordable housing an an addtional 21 percent are uncertain about affordable housing, but could be won over for specific projects under some circumstances. However, with te exception ofthe 10 percent ofthe population who are strong and unequivocel advocates, supper is soft and vlnerabe to being undermied by ‘opponents of affordable housing ‘The breadth ofthe sot support and opposition reflects how conflicted many Minnesotans are about affordable housing. On one hand, many homeowners and policy makers see the need for new approaches to housing 1 hink fora cyto trve and row, change i necessary. Theo mote, “fits nt broke don't ficial isnt what we shouldbe working on anymore. Moses should bacome {he outside tebox thinkers (HJow do we want to progress, bow do Wwe want to gow and ‘what do we want odo? And fou dn’ continually sive forth, we won't ring new people and new businesses, arshing, into ou eommuniy.”~ Suburban Minseapalis, omaviner Ljus thnk that housing makes such a difference in everyone's lives. With a stable home and roof over their heads, kids do beter in schol, ther is less violence, et. can't imagine how challenging it would be for kids without home. And the horible feeling parents have when they cant tke cae of the kids. Housing i crite ‘component for communities inthe future" Elected Minnesota muniipal of iat Atthe same tine ~ and in some cases, from the sae people who suppor the conept of affordable housing ‘oppesiton to affordable housing canbe intense, very personal and highly emotional. “There's need fr low income housing. But | ess I think f..he crime... My concern is do (residents of affordable housing) have to always be low income tobe there? Are ‘these peopl butering themselves but ean" quite afford to go tothe next level... Yeah. mall for helping people, i they're helping themselves too and we can all build 8 ‘community. But not peope that are constantly living off (he community) and dragging it down." Suburban Minneapolis homeowner It seems when you puta lot of poorer people together in one spot, it just is an automatic Kind of like the Cedar Riverside, when twas designed and built twas state ofthe art, and beautiful, And now...” Suburban Minneapolis homeowner Hine Hemer fe re ig hea cnn, “These conte ent easily resolved Throughout the research, many Minnesotans easily move from accepting the need for affordable housing (and even registering some swppot) o articulating their concerns {and opening ths door to opposition) over the impact of affordable housing on their community and their personal wellbxing. One f the ost striking examples occured in a focus group comprised of suburban mes, ‘One homeowner spoke passionately about the need to eeate more affordable housing in his community, particulary for young femilies at the bogining of their career. He ciced the challenges of his own children to {et established in jobs and homes in his discussion. Yet, ltr inthe focs group, when reaction was sought to 4 hypotheielefordable housing project in hs community, he strongly opposed any project that would Be buillear his heme, festing an adverse impact on the value of his prope. 2. Affordable housing taps very personal and strong valu i ‘on the bss of ideology or public policy, affordable housing is evaluated by many Minnesotans ‘oma very personal level particularly the Impact on ther own homes. Many Minnesotans Cvaluate affordable housing from their own eell-ineren,rologating the Interests of people ia ‘ced of affordable housing to secondary (at best) status “Most Minnesotns perceive tei communities tobe ideal or close to ideal places to lve. This is a powerfal ‘value that defins the content in which most Minnesotans make their decisions about specific afardsble housing propos ‘out daaly petred pace toe? "your fey he your eommeray? : 2 _ 2 = ‘What Minaesotns like most sbout their communities are exactly the characteristics that ae undermined by affordable housing andthe residents ofthis housing, inthe views of many Minnesotns. The gap between the perosved vale of Minnesotans? communities and he natives of affordable housing is huge: il Homers Woke ai esa nt ‘Nie people/ good seise of community] 23% | Residents of affordable housing aren't involved in the community they aren't "people ike me.” Serge and peel T% | Affordable housing brings crime and other social problems toa community ‘Open spacefparkstrallvaturl assis | T6% | Affordable housing means higher density, more congestion ‘Good schools 12% | Residents of affordable housing are dapive in schools. Many cat speck English, diverting seree resources from other sudents and slowing down learning fo al ‘Wallmainained nice Bomes TO% | Residents of affordable housing — especialy of mali ‘unit renal housing ~ aren’ committed tothe ‘community and don" take car of thet property. ‘And underlying these sentiments is what might be the strongest concem about affordable housing: the ‘housing itself and the people resiging in affordable housing erodes the valu of MY house: + Many Minnesotans strongly believe that the affordable housing of today are the slums of tomorrow. The ‘homes are ery built and nt well-aintained ‘+ Affordable housing doesnt fit the character ofthe neighborhoods in which it ‘+ Residents ae disruptive and bring with them crime and other social problems. boil. In several ofthe focus groups, Minnesotan were asked their opinions of specific albeit hypothetical) affordable housing propostls for ther communities. The proposed developments were decribed in very positive terms ~well-bul,energy-eiient, affordable fownhomes with acess to transit and marketed toa ange of people, fom low-income to professionals, While many fous group participants liked the concent, especialy ifthe homes hd convenient transit and could accommodate older residents, the concerns of the “influential fous groups are indicative ofthe underlying challenges. This group ~ beter educated and beter informed than peal Minnesotans ~ quickly moved from the positives ofthe project to question about the impact onthe ccmmunity and on their homes: “I gues: I'd kind of like to know where (it was going tobe built, concerned that ft was too ear her, it would bea problem.” “My qustion would be wherever you're building this, i the mass transit sufficeat enough for into hardle what you're trying odo. Are you going to look for, ae you going to build al these hhomes ind then we're gong to ave all these commuters saying ‘I dont have enough buses, ‘the bus Joesn’t take me where I work, this isnt working,” And then put more pressure back on the community for fans o support more mass transit.” “And ifyou're going te have lower housing and younger families ean afford it, can the schools support?” “don’t know how theyre atractng or what they think i atracting these young couples or families so guess Pd want to know tha, what they think...what are they doing to now atract these people vs. why weren't they tractng them before” 1 would just want to know what the impact would be forthe community itsel “And what would make them affordable to this other couple, if someone else couldn't afford ‘them. Are they going o ter them down and build something smaller?” hin the community would want to know the ratio (oF ovmned homes to retals)...You want to know how many renters are coming i.” Comments in pubic forums (es reported by local media) and those made inthe one-on-one interviews and in Ue fxs pons undrseae the ap between what Minncaotans value about their communities andthe personal threat tha they se in affrdable housing “Considering that a home is a person's largest investment. to what gin to its etizens es the Willmar City Counc approve this housing project? None! Those near that area ost defintely would lee substantial value ia their home Just because you have egant ‘doesnt mean is fsally responsible to use it" ~ Willmar resident speaking ina public forum and quoted in the local newspaper “(Por somebody lke myself who...Was taught by my father to take pride in anything ‘we have or own, | would not enjoy having somebody alongside of me who had that ‘mindset (of not being responsible for maisaiing the pope)... 1o just put (aferdable Inousing) up so tit somebody can afford it and not do something to belp that person understand wat home ownership relly means, and what ican do fr them in their own if, in ther own pride of things, I don think its gong to succeed. just, [Minneapolis resident speaking at a focus group “I want to protect my valve of home. wouldn't want a government subsidized condo _going next to my home because T know my property value would decrease and so. I'm ‘ot saying would be bad neighbors but thon my, what's my Future if ant to sell my hhome."~Rochestr resident speaking at a focus group “The development would violate one of six conditional permit standards that says use “conform or is complementary o neighborhood characiersticsof the district in which it is located. He sid the neighbors did not want to deny affordable bousng to anyone He aid the issue was tha the proposed us snot compatible with what is already there.” “newspaper report on a public heaving over afferdsble housing “ifwe purchase property, take cae oft, then sell it fora prof, nt that good? I don't, Uhink i isthe role of goverament to entra market and erode propety values simply Tbeoaus someone has made the decision that having lower-priced housing in a particular aes i good thing” local goverament offical speaking in an interview “1 agre with everybody. One other hing that some people have brought up when they've tried to establish this lower income housing is what's t going doo my home then if nthe genera vicinity.” MODERATOR: Would that be a own thing? “Oh yeah, i's know “You get an appraisal on your home and they un it within so many mils. Kt affects your pve of your home'"— exchange among the moderator and two suburban homeowners in 2 focus group | “(My kids are nan elementary that’s just block and a haf from our house, They are ‘minorities in tome of thei clases, Where I struggle with that is when T po to help ot volunter, and a thd ofthe class cannet speak English, the teacher i repeating. Sometimes they're going back and reworking lessons where my child who got tthe first time is sometimes siting and waiting or bore.” — suburban resident speaking i a fecus roup “There's no way communities willbe more open to rental housing and high density development. Thre ae too meny’inmes lke too much traf, oversee of and, oven it low-income areas.’ be very suprise if there would be more willing and open to that ‘kind of development. ve literally seen neighbors here argu that they live in a $500,000 ‘house and the prorosed $400,000 a house development next to them Would have serious adverse effects on thei neighborhoods.” —Joal goverament official speaking in m ‘One ofthe most common ways in which many Minnesotans rationalize ther oppsiion to subsidized housing is though a perception that their homes were achived through diligence, bard-work and a personel ‘commitment to savings. This “pul-yourvlt-up-by-your-own- bootstraps” sentiment is consent hroughost the research, ‘Asa focus group paticipart sid (echoing comments made in other focus groups), “guess we Bot into home ‘wnershi) inthe od fashioned way. We saved up the 20-30 percent or 40 percent down payment fora hus So we had equity built nto:t. 1 mean, not alot of people ean do that. The only reason Iwas able to doit is “cause Iwas inthe military fr 20 years and you don't buy a house, because you lose too much. But you pt money aside. Now people want to get into the house with nothing down. Another challenge in winning suppor for affordable housing isthe strong perception tet communities already have a good mix oFhousing options. The survey asked Minnesotans to choose one of wo siemens ‘hat beter reflected ther views of housing in their communities. It's important to note that this question was asked twice inthe survey. At the beginning ofthe survey ~ before survey respondents were introduoed tothe topic of housing — respondents were asked if their community ad the right mix of “housing choices” Later inthe survey, the same question was asked, with “affordable housing” being substituted far “housing choices.” The wording charge did not fect the responses to the question in a statistically significant way inde Hore, {Grb raig Roe eons Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion: My commuy he ahi arlene Say commun nade more tories housing a atract new rade, cng oops min #ronge ot ncomen, estos cates Te envsenenh Aramis 3. Thinking that their communities are close o ideal doesn’t preclude Minnesotans from recognizing that economic and demographic forces make change inevitable. [Minnesotans saisfiction with their commanities inciodes a belie hat while the right mix of housing choices ests for todays market, economic and demographic changes will require new appraches to adress hanging demographic and ezopomie circumstances. However, the anges have to engage homeowners and be consistent with their coe values. Nearly two-thirds of Minsestans ~ 4 percent ~ believe tht the kind of housing choices that ae avellable ina neighborhood shouldbe decided by the people already iving in that neighborhood, Hoosing solutions also must be designed in concet withthe key values and criteria crrent residents deem important. Minnesotans belive thre key issues should not be compromised even as their communities change: 1 Pratt exising home values, This includes not just the resale valu of existing homes but property taxes. ‘Maintain de carent character ofthe community. Recognize thatthe characters the unique persona of ‘each community. + Beapartafthe community, New residents maut have the same sease of commitment to the community ‘hat current homeowner have A thenne tht was consistent throughout the esearch is that ental property stands in direct contrast to all hese ‘values. While sae participants inthe research Blamed landlords, much of tbe ecm was directed at reniers hemsehes “1-4 be soncered about the commitment of rental people, that would be more transient ‘and posibly that ead to a weaker community because there's less dedication the ‘community asa whole." ~ focus group prtcpant| ‘he ati-reter sentiment sas prevalent among revearch participants from urban communities ait is among suburban patcpans “There's houses and then there's rental houses and then there's duplexes and then there's apartments, I'm probably like most people..they don't want to be around (apartments) [eau brings In undesirable type people. (When there ate) apatcut buildings, mle Homes fe ke a honcho trully have people that move in and out end they cause trouble, They have people that ‘cme ove, wild partes, fights. That kind of stuff.” focus group participant fom the Camden neighborhood of Minneapolis ‘Sill, many Minnesotans throughout the focus groups and inthe one-on-one interviews expressed the opsion that commits have to be open to new kinds of housing, especialy forthe elderly seeking smaller hoses or tite living and for young families who weren't able o afford housing in the communities where they Were raised or where they now worked. Housing for these groups is broadly supported by Minnesotans: “yun n ot betrt awaeetene ‘Tenge ens ar re 8 ‘wy omy shades ning csces maw ee ‘ara ope bat mg at shu hve cca at Pactra terete ycomce Cr ee ee ee) Polley expats and local oficils believe that housing changes ar onthe horizon, even if some communes are low to come tothe realization: “Inthe past 10 years, communities have thought differently about housing. The next burst [of housing trends] will be very different more condos, townhomes, greater

    You might also like