Affordable housing and crime

I was called out in the comments section of an earlier blog post.

I said in the post that I liked the look of Tannery Court in Moncton.  This apparently dismissed and marginalized the concerns of neighbours of a proposed Tannery Court development in Saint John.

It was not my intent to do this and I will restate my belief that mixed-income/community affordable housing is better than mono-cultural housing in many cases.

I was challenged to do more research on the topic.  I did.  I looked for some information on affordable housing and its relationship to crime – a favorite topic

Here is an excerpt from an article I found (I bolded some text I thought particularly relevant to the discussion of Tannery Court Saint John):

Myths Facts About Affordable & High Density And Housing

“Local governments can also help protect the entire community, including new affordable housing residents themselves, by attending to details at the project level. Most important is effective professional onsite management, with strong tenant-screening and good security systems. Design, too, can play an important role in protecting residents and neighbors of high-density or affordable housing, especially by ensuring visibility. New developments should also contain a mix of unit types to accommodate different kinds of households. When residents have different occupations and family types, someone will probably be home in the development almost all the time.”

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf

Here’s an excerpt from another article (again the sections that I think are most relevant are bolded):

The Ethics of NIMBYism

“...A resident may admit that he or she is opposing a project, but offer a justification that makes that opposition blameless. Many neighbors say that they're "forced" to oppose affordable housing projects because the proposals will adversely affect their own personal interests: reducing property values, increasing crime, and so on. Others assert that they "have to" oppose the project in order to protect the interests of other people, or of the environment, or of their community constituents. Sophisticated NIMBY neighbors may cloak themselves in blatant compassion, claiming that the only reason they oppose the project is because the proposal doesn't meet the underlying needs of its target population. Residents protesting a senior housing project, for example, might argue that the proposal should be rejected because the site is too steep for seniors, or too far from transit, or too expensive.

NIMBY opponents often claim that concepts of justice or fairness justify their project resistance. They may claim that opposition is simply retribution for the project sponsor's lies, arrogant behavior, or failure to show respect. Demands for environmental justice can cloak more selfish and therefore less acceptable motivations. Citizens may also argue that the project sponsor is so untrustworthy that a more cooperative attitude isn't merited...”

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/gcastrategies/article_co_2.html

This is a little example of confirmation bias, in that I liked the first two articles I found (as they agreed with me) and decided to use them as my argument.