Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
14
loss of the local people . . . The ones outside the city; the ones that were there before the city
people started moving outside the city. They’re very much ingrained New England people for
generations and generations. And they don’t accept change. And they’re ultra-conservative for
the most part so…’
Political commandeering of the NIMBY battle over halfway houses is not unique to
Chestnut Lane. In fact, Winerip (1994) describes a very similar situation in the NIMBY battle
against a group home for persons with mental illness in New York State. In that case, the
town’s mayor used the aforementioned Padavan law to imply that a local agency had not
meaningfully engaged with the community in seeking approval for a new group home and
instead gone straight to the state hearing stage of the process. Though not true, the mayor used
this claim to rally support against the proposed group home within the community. At a
particularly contentious public hearing about the proposed group home, community members
cited myriad reasons for their opposition to it, including concerns for their safety, the safety of
their children, property values, school quality and even for the safety of potential residents.
The mayor strongly supported residents’ sentiments, even though in private talks with the
local agency he had not opposed the site; he even expressed support for the notion that group
homes serve better and more humanely persons with mental illness, though he noted that
voters have long memories when it comes to support for such locations (Winerip 1994).
The mayor’s support set the tone for nearly all the council members to voice their
opposition to the proposed group home at that public hearing; the former mayor of the town
implied that more affluent communities had not even been considered in the siting process,
which added fuel to the fire (Winerip 1994). As was the case in Chestnut Lane, politicians in
this small New York town proved eager to capitalize on public sentiment against the proposed
group home.
Discussion
Our research offers some evidence that social dynamics of neighbourhoods often extend
beyond what is visible on the surface. Physically, halfway houses usually appear different
than residential houses in the neighbourhood. Among other differences, they usually have a
sign in the front indicating the name of the facility and also more activity inside and around
the house. But aside from the physical reality, people in the residential area often react with
frustration and hostility to what they perceive as cultural and class identities and differences
(Krase 2012b). Halfway houses, like many other institutional correctional facilities, exude
stigmata that greatly influence the interpretation of space. Thus, residents can often see a
well-kept halfway house and still define the territory as unsafe. Humans make an instant
assessment of neighbourhoods based on what they first see (Krase 2012a).
A principal finding that emerged in our interviews is that both ex-convicts and
political officials emerge as targets of fear and loathing during NIMBY battles. Despite the
futile political manoeuvers to resuscitate the economy, the halfway houses remain on
Chestnut Lane. Residents in the area still display a great deal of unhappiness about the local
political landscape. During the years that followed, residents began to express their concern
that the town council had indeed made a proverbial ‘deal with the devil’. During our
