berkeley housing project

16
PRESENTED BY INTERNS BETH GERSTEIN & GIMIN SHON FOR COUNCILMEMBERS LAURIE CAPITELLI & DARRYL MOORE Berkeley Housing Survey

Upload: gimin-shon

Post on 08-Aug-2015

27 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

PRESENTED BY INTERNS

BETH GERSTEIN & GIMIN SHONFOR

COUNCILMEMBERSLAURIE CAPITELLI & DARRYL MOORE

Berkeley Housing Survey

PLEASE VISIT FOR A COPY OF THE SURVEYAND FOR MORE INFORMATION

BerkeleyHousingSurvey.com

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.

PLEASE VISIT FOR A COPY OF THE SURVEYAND FOR MORE INFORMATION

BerkeleyHousingSurvey.com