berkeley housing project
TRANSCRIPT
PRESENTED BY INTERNS
BETH GERSTEIN & GIMIN SHONFOR
COUNCILMEMBERSLAURIE CAPITELLI & DARRYL MOORE
Berkeley Housing Survey
Project Goal
To determine if there are significant qualitative
differences experienced by Berkeley residents living in
scattered site affordable housing (inclusionary zoning)
versus non-profit run affordable housing
Non-profit run Affordable Housing
Inclusionary Housing(scattered site)
Are multi-unit buildings where all units are occupied by low-income residents and the buildings are managed by non-profit housing agencies
Located in buildings where private developers are allowed to expand the number of units to be built provided that a set percentage of them are reserved for low-income tenants, effectively mixing the income levels of the buildings’ occupants
The 2 Types of Housing in Question
The Questions
Key Question for the City of Berkeley:In promoting affordable housing, should the City of Berkeley prioritize inclusionary housing or assess in-lieu fees on development to support non-profit run affordable housing?
Key Survey Question:Which works better for theresidents?
Method / Process
Find out what useful information already existsContact local resourcesCreate our surveyDetermine the scope of our surveyContact property managersHand deliver surveys and conduct in-person
interviewsCollect dataAnalyze data
Inclusionary residents:
Non-profit affordable residents:
Data AnalysisHere is where they all agree:
The overwhelming majority of residents are satisfied with their living situation
89%94%
Primary Reasons for Satisfaction
Location
Convenience to amenitiesTransportation Affordable groceriesSchoolsSocial events
% of people who DID NOT SPEAK to their neighbor at all or only 1 time/week:
Inclusionary residents:
Non-profit affordable residents:
24.3%
Here’s where they divergeNeighboring: the depth and content of the relationships and interactions
between people in the same building
62.5%
Non-profit affordable residents:
Here’s where they divergeNeighboring: the depth and content of the relationships and
interactions between people in the same building
% of people who DID NOT EXCHANGE INFORMATION at all or only 1 time/week:
Inclusionary residents:
62.2% 35.5%
Non-profit affordable residents:
Here’s where they divergeNeighboring: the depth and content of the relationships and
interactions between people in the same building
% of people who responded that they DID NOT KNOW their neighbors at all:
Inclusionary residents:
52.9% 14.9%
What this tells us …
No real evidence that the original intent of inclusionary zoning with regards to information sharing, modeling of behavior and values, is really happening.
Not a lot of cross-class communication in these areas
“There seems to be few benefits to low-income residents to living in mixed-income buildings other than the access to clean, decent housing (which is huge often for many public housing residents).”
- Mary Patillo, Harold Washington Professor, Northwestern University, Personal Communications
A Memorable Accountfrom a non-profit run Affordable Housing resident
“Even though the rent is affordable, the building and its occupants do not make it feel like its the projects
in a dangerous neighborhood. I enjoy the mixed-income aspect of this building because I think it
enables people from different backgrounds to have a positive influence on each other. I have helped a neighbor work on her personal essays when she
applied to attend U.C. Berkeley, and she was accepted and is now a student! The mixed-income residences foster a role-model influence that gives
people hope.”
Conclusion
Whereas neighboring issues do not preclude satisfaction with one’s living situation, increased and enhanced relations among neighbors seem to yield more positive community-like feelings.
This happens more within the non-profit run affordable housing complexes.
With respect to resident satisfaction, there is no compelling reason to prioritize inclusionary housing over non-profit run affordable housing.