"Distribution and Property Value Impacts Displayed by Adult Foster Care" by Mary Beth Moss
  •  
  •  
 

Abstract

The establishment of Adult Foster Care Facilities (AFC's) in residential areas is seen by many people as a Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU).' Adult Foster Care is needed throughout the nation yet these structural uses often meet with community opposition. In addition to concerns about personal safety, a frequent basis for community opposition to location of a group home in a middle class neighborhood is the fear that property values will plummet, either due to deterioration of the neighborhood or the reluctance of buyers to purchase a dwelling near the facility.2 Such community opposition may be the most evident deterent to homes needing a site, but it is not the most effective. Most municipalities have a more substantial obstacle contained in their zoning ordinance, as cities typically (and improperly) treat group homes as hospitals for the insane or feeble-minded. 3 Often Adult Foster Care facilities fall under the category of "conditional use" or "special use" and are subject to approval of a local zoning board. For example, "on July 30, 1980, the Ohio Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to location of group homes in family neighborhoods. In a trilogy of decisions the court in each case upheld the power of local governments to zoneout group homes."4 People residing in the homes were not seen as family because of their transient nature and the fact that they as a group did not come together to share the comforts offered by a home. In reality, particularly for the mentally retarded and those persons with multiple handicaps, Adult Foster Care facilities do represent a permanent setting or foster a sense of family that grows over time. Exclusionary provisions may be keeping AFC's out of the very residential districts in which they function best. 5

Included in

Geography Commons

Share

COinS