Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
15
interviews, most residents seemed inconsolable about the government allowance of halfway
houses in their small town.
One of the questions that have been addressed a few times in NIMBY literature is
whether there are any social policy solutions that will diminish fears and allay the concerns of
residents. Castells (1983) notes that land use is a struggle over collective consumption. At the
neighbourhood level, the quality of businesses and feelings of public safety are products of
how these areas are defined by inhabitants of the city. Theoretically, people share a collective
understanding of what a ‘safe’ and prosperous neighbourhood is supposed to look like, giving
attention to the primary use of land around them. Knowing about the existence of a halfway
house in any given area diminishes positive experiences associated with the consumption of
neighbourhood-level goods and services, thus property values are greatly influenced by
political decisions on land use.
Cowan (2003) suggests community meetings between sponsors of unwanted
residences and community members to facilitate communication. She suggests open discourse
between citizens and government as a remedy to NIMBY syndrome. Kilburn and Costanza
(2011) also suggest transparency and discourse over NIMBY battles, advising that local
government takes steps to inform residents of the economic good that may come of
sponsoring halfway houses in an area. The authors discuss ‘payment in lieu of taxes’
(PILOT), claiming that monies received from the state can work to residents’ advantage. The
authors argue that instead of dealing with blight and abandonment, the city instead could
receive large amounts of PILOT money to beautify and restore the area.
However, it is apparent from the content of our many interviews that the strong
emotional feelings that people have about halfway houses in the neighbourhood may be too
powerful for community meetings, or even state stipends, to overcome. The idea that ‘beggars
can’t be choosers’ adds insult to injury, but the label ‘beggars’ applies here to the residents of
this disenfranchised community. While PILOT revenue has been appreciated by local
government, it is apparent that residents in the area would prefer these formerly vacant houses
to be filled up with ‘productive citizens’ as opposed ex-cons and substance addicts. Having a
taxpayer with a steady job residing in the home is the ideal, and apparently not just any form
of revenue is welcomed by residents in what they perceive as their town. When it comes to
balancing a small city’s budget, it is apparent from our interviews that government stipends
have very little significance on the perceived safety or happiness felt by residents.
Part of the reason that residents continue to be so concerned about the placement of
unwanted facilities, such as halfway houses in their communities, is because the emergence of
such places in residential areas are a constant reminder of both the historic downfall of the
economy, and an ongoing pattern of political disempowerment for the neighbourhood. The
relationship between individual perception and the larger hand of the governmental system is
intrinsically intertwined (Pardo 2012). By allowing the emergence of correctional facilities in
residential areas, government is ignoring the interests of the neighbourhood and allowing the
perceived process of decay to accrue. Residents feel they are being ignored and shun the
legitimacy of government, widening the rift between government and residents.
