Pinkowski Law responds to NIMBY article

As fair housing attorneys, we hear far too many complaints from neighbors about why certain groups of people shouldn’t be allowed to live where the rest of us live. “Not in my backyard” has gotten to be a rally cry that we find more than tiresome. Not ones to stay silent about topics we feel strongly about, we had to comment on a recent media article criticizing the City of Denver’s attempt to introduce a more forward-thinking zoning policy for group living.

The article, "Backlash grows over Denver's Group Living proposal allowing 10 unrelated adults to live in one house," focuses on the complaints of single-family homeowners to group living arrangements in their neighborhoods. This is unfortunate, given that the City is trying to find a way to use its space in a manner that serves the needs of more people in the community. While we don’t agree with everything about this zoning change, we do think it’s a laudable attempt to address the City’s housing crisis.

In our work with group home owners and operators across the country, we hear complaints like those raised in the article all of the time, regardless of the place or the population living in the group home. It goes something like this: “traffic! … parking! … scary people! … noise! … property values! … scary people!”

The fact of the matter is that we - as a society in the United States - need to take a hard look at this concept of single-family residential zoning that we hold sacrosanct. We need to think about whether it really serves us individually, as spiritual beings. Does it really serve our children and families? Does it serve all of our community?

To help answer these questions, we conveyed the following perspective in response to the “Backlash” article:

As people age, some develop disabilities that make it difficult for them to continue to live independently. There was a time when the elderly had few options but to stay at home and be cared for by family, or to go to the dreaded “nursing home.” Over the past several decades, an intermediate level of care arose that enables elderly people with disabilities to get assistance with daily tasks without having to be in a skilled nursing institution. This type of care is called “assisted living” and can be provided in both small and large settings.

Residential assisted living homes provide care in a group home setting in a single-family home. This enables the elderly disabled to continue to live in residential environments that are enjoyed by people without disabilities. These group homes look and function like any other single-family home. The residents interact as any other family - they take meals together that have been prepared in the home’s family kitchen, they socialize in the home’s common areas, and they engage in activities and provide social support as family members do.

Residential assisted living homes are contrasted with senior care facilities, which provide care to the elderly on a larger scale in an apartment or institutional-style environment. Residential assisted living homes are also contrasted with skilled nursing facilities (typically known as “nursing homes”) that have elderly residents whose age or infirmity requires professionally supervised nursing care.

 Seniors living in small assisted living homes have better health outcomes. They have better cognitive and functional status, are more likely to engage in social activities, and have higher emotional well-being than their counterparts in traditional institutional style assisted living. Notably, according to the Centers from Disease Control, residents in large facilities are two times more likely to fall than residents in small (4 – 25 bed) facilities. This is an important consideration because falls are the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal injuries for older Americans.

Fair housing laws attempt to overcome the discrimination that keeps people apart. Sadly, in the past 100 years, America went from being one of the most age-integrated societies in the world to arguably the polar opposite. Research from demographer Richelle Winkler in 2013 indicates that age segregation is often as ingrained as racial segregation. This research further supports the contention that such segregation means that, in most areas of this country, the young and old hardly interact. And yet, the young gain as much therapeutic value interacting with the elderly as the elderly do interacting with the young.

Communities housing both older and younger people are benefitted in a variety of ways. The elder residents retain the benefit of living in residential areas where they are accustomed and have less of a financial burden - elements of livelihood that have positive impacts on the community. In turn, younger children grow socially and emotionally as they become comfortable around people with the disabilities of old age. Furthermore, the youth gain mentors of individuals who have experienced much of what the world has to offer. The community enjoys greater stability, and sees a reduction in demand for community services.

One primary reason for age segregation in our society is exclusionary zoning practices. By prohibiting or severely limiting group homes in residential neighborhoods, governments basically tell people that once they become old and infirm, they can no longer live with the rest of us, but instead have to go to the commercial area of the city and into institutional care.

Denver’s zoning code currently contains restrictions that make it difficult to establish a small assisted living home within the city. The proposed changes, however, are a step in the right direction. I have been impressed with the level of outreach the City has done to involve a wide range of stakeholders. There will always be people like those as cited in the September 8th article who claim they weren’t consulted. But in truth, the involvement opportunities have been there.

It is not unusual for more progressive zoning approaches like the one proposed by Denver, to be attacked and thwarted by single-family homeowners. The complaints are the same no matter the location and are based on generalized and non-specific fears like traffic, parking, and property values.  

Attacks from neighbors are even directed at projects for elderly residents. One would think that neighbors would not object to having quiet, elderly people living next door to them – but, sadly, they do. This is despite the fact that time and time again, elderly residents are proven to be low impact residents. They do not drive or have their own cars, they are quiet, and most likely go to bed long before the rest of the neighborhood. And the residential assisted living homes they live in are often the nicest homes on the block.

My point is that if single-family homeowners say the same thing no matter the location and no matter the population, one wonders if the expressed complaints really are just unexpressed and unacknowledged fear of the unknown, fear of change, or fear of people who may be different than themselves.

We know that there is a housing crisis in our cities. We know there is a problem with affordability, availability, and outright homelessness. The City of Denver is trying to find an innovative solution to these problems. I may not agree with every part of the new group home proposal. But it’s at least a step in the direction of a solution. It’s time for our sanctified idea of single-family home living to change.