Good Neighbour Agreements - Are you a bad neighbour without one?

Good Neighbour Agreements build bridges within and between neighbours and neighbourhood organizations - Photo: The Forth Road Bridge (Scotland),
Creative Commons License, Eugene Obrien

By Larry Leach, 

Larry is Executive Director of Calgary’s 12 Community Safety Initiative – a non-profit crime prevention collaborative. He was awarded the Queens Diamond and Platinum Jubilee medals for his contributions to community-building. He is a member of the SafeGrowth Network.  

Are you thinking of starting a Good Neighbour Agreement? Have you heard that such agreements are uncomfortable and daunting? If so, there are some important things to consider, the most important being: Who do you want deciding your neighbourhood narrative?

I have been pondering the question of Good Neighbour Agreements (GNA) for a few months after a nonprofit housing leader said they didn’t like GNAs because they assume you are a bad neighbour. After pondering that idea, I decided to dig into this topic, especially why organizations and neighbourhoods should walk into these discussions with a more open mind.

WHY BOTHER WITH GNAs?

Having been on the executive of a Community Association for 10 years, I was hyper-aware of what my colleagues were facing in their neighbourhoods. Headlines like “community fights back” were the norm when I began in the association. Often these issues became a political hot potato turning into the “NIMBY” mantra (Not In My Backyard). With this narrative, almost every question or concern, legitimate or otherwise, is shot down as NIMBY. 

GNA's take time and patience to negotiate. There are some decent templates.

While NIMBY concerns do have some merit (some residents just don’t want things in their neighbourhood), there are legitimate concerns that don’t get addressed if you continually call them NIMBY. Last week’s blog on crime displacement discussed one issue with NIMBY.

In 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic lockdown, my community experienced this issue firsthand. A nonprofit organization received funding to house some vulnerable people on 4 floors of a hotel in our neighbourhood. Our community Facebook page started seeing residents posting concerns – both legitimate and otherwise. Our community association executive reached out to our municipal councilor and a provincial politician. Neither one of these officials had any idea who to contact. 

GNAs can also be fun - or can create opportunities for pro-social engagement

FALSE NARRATIVES 

Meanwhile, stories surfaced on our Facebook page such as one claim from a cop describing 200 people housed at the hotel, that the hotel allowed visitors and drug use, and that visitors left hotel amenities all over the neighbourhood. Stories on Facebook gave the impression our community was under siege.

While the community association board was empathetic and supportive, they had little accurate information to combat this misinformation. After a couple months, the association was finally able to get accurate information (some of which was private). The association learned there were only 60 residents in the property and no visitors were allowed. Unfortunately, because it took months to clarify this information, residents were left to believe false FaceBook assertions. This is the first lesson of GNAs - if you don’t communicate your narrative, others will decide what it is.

While GNAs are typically about social interactions, they can also include new ideas for neighbourhood places and activities

Why do community nonprofits not want to engage with residents? Perhaps they want to avoid NIMBY? Dealing with NIMBYers is a concern, but there are some legitimate questions that remain unaddressed when you let NIMBY keep you away from such dialogue. It is important to hear from everyone, weigh through all the concerns, and then obtain accurate information before issues can be dealt with in a calm productive manner. 

THE VALUE OF THE GNA

This is the value of a good neighbour agreement. There are a number of official templates for constructing GNAs, but here are some practical tips.

A GNA can be negotiated by one or two leaders from the community and one or two from the agency. You don’t need a large public meeting to get things rolling. Here are some key elements to a good agreement:

1. Spell out the activities of each of the groups. Describe “this is what we do”. Sometimes people assume an agency does something that they don’t do. Spell out the activities and the mission of the Community Association. Some agencies don’t always understand how they are structured. Both assumptions can lead to confusion and conflict. The GNA is a living document that adapts with the changes in scope of each participant.
2. Communication. Describe how and when are we going to communicate and to whom? Will Agency A will come to Community B’s meetings, once a month, quarterly or twice per year. How is written communication done? Via e-mail, between Executive Director and President? Is there a social media strategy as well? Perhaps a yearly Barbeque? Build the structure around the relationship.
3. Who to call? Who do residents or agency users call with concerns? Dig deeper into the types of concerns as to which people to call. If it’s an illegal activity, the Police are likely to be the call. If it’s a minor dispute or nuisance, it may involve bylaw (or ordinance) officials (unkept property or noise). Call the agency to discuss before calling bylaw officials. Being a good neighbour is a 2-way street. If the relationship strengthens, more trust can be developed.
4. Spell out what happens with an unresolved dispute? Is it mediated? How long does it take? Who does the mediation? 

 

There are many advantages to well-established GNAs - better dispute resolution, controlling your own narrative, and social harmony 

IS IT WORTH IT? 

You might still be saying that this sounds like a document for two groups that don’t trust one another? It is actually an invitation and opportunity for an agency to put forward clear information about their activities and take the power away from NIMBYers and those who will decide how you operate without looking at the facts. 

The GNA helps put the rumours aside and offers some talking points based on facts – and that can be extremely helpful to support the work of neighbourhood associations. This is the starting point for a good neighbourly relationship.

There is another advantage to a GNA – consider what happens when people change positions. Putting some terms of reference in writing for all current and future decision-makers can make for smoother transitions. It can show the willingness of different groups to engage each other in a respectful manner for many years to come. That alone is a powerful incentive for GBAs. They are the key to great relationships with those who live and work in neighbourhoods. As we assert in SafeGrowth, all residents deserve to live in a safe and vibrant place.  

David slew Goliath - Money doesn't always rule in city development

Arvada is an historic, independent city in the western suburbs
of Denver - photo Creative Commons

by Gregory Saville

Amazon is a global, corporate superstar. Arvada is a suburban city 15 miles from downtown Denver, with 120,000 people spread in dozens of residential neighborhoods. The annual Arvada budget is $250 million compared to Amazon’s $1.6 trillion. It's David and Goliath. 

So you might wonder how Arvada could resist when Amazon showed up with a plan to build a 112,000 square foot distribution center - a delivery hub - onto a 36-acre undeveloped site. Amazon came with an offer of 2,000 jobs, tax revenues, and a green buffer to shield nearby housing. 

Yesterday Arvada council rejected the proposal. 

Triggered by a local citizen anti-development campaign, and a petition of 10,000 residents who opposed the plan, City Council voted 5-2 to reject the Amazon proposal. Why? And what does this have to do with neighborhood crime?

WHY?

Did the residents oppose Amazon’s taxation history (e.g.: media stories that they don’t pay enough)? Nope, that was not a main point of contention. Were there complaints about Amazon’s global environmental record? Nope. In fact, Amazon co-founded the Climate Pledge and Global Optimism program aiming for net-zero carbon in the next 20 years, ordered 100,000 electric delivery vehicles, and spent $100 million into the Right Now Climate fund to focus on solutions to climate warming. Wow! That should impress even the naysayers. 

Not so in Arvada.

Local news coverage of the controversial Arvada vote

One environmental group complained that the development would destroy a nearby active wildlife habitat. But it was traffic congestion that carried the day, namely, complaints about hundreds of delivery vehicles and a 1,000 vehicle parking lot.

In a car-dependent suburb, where walking takes second place to driving, vehicle congestion is the thing.  It obviously was on the minds of the 5 councillors who voted it down. I’m sure 10,000 opposing petition signatures caught their attention.

HOW IS THIS CRIME RELATED?

The vote, of course, might have gone the other way. Amazon made a strong case and everyone loves to get stuff delivered promptly by Amazon – especially during this pandemic. Add to that two thousand jobs - not an insignificant number! 

But traffic jams and growing congestion is a powerful motivator in the face of a weak bus system and a new, but grossly underutilized, commuter rail line to downtown Denver. In American suburbs, cars rule!

Site rendering of the Amazon proposal from the Project Indiana website

The takeaway? When it comes to changing future cities for the better, it is crucial that we understand the politics, dynamics, and economics of land acquisition and usage. All the slick 3-D renderings, public statements, comprehensive plans, zoning regulations, and design guidelines, (such as CPTED design guidelines), do not matter one iota if resident expectations are unfulfilled.  

Nor does it matter to complain about racism, gentrification, or the “flat white urbanism” planning bias if new developments flail and falter at the altar of public expectations. (Not that any of those things were part of this story).

A REALISTIC WAY FORWARD

If we want to bring forth a new form of neighborhood safety planning (and in SafeGrowth, we do), we need to dive deeply into the mindset of local residents. We need to avoid NIMBY name-calling and figure how to work alongside residents from the get-go. 

In SafeGrowth we use co-planning workshops, Livability Academies, and other types of intense neighborhood engagement. This must happen long before development proposals are written up in some distant office. 

I’m unsure if a more exciting and beneficial outcome might have emerged from a more collaborative planning process. I suspect the answer is yes. This week in Arvada, the answer was no! David slew Goliath.

The unbearable loneliness of entitlement

Bucolic suburbs, natural beauty, neighborly strife?

Lately, I’ve been obsessed with NIMBYism. It’s horrid (NIMBYism that is, not being obsessed by it). Not that it’s a recent phenomenon. It’s just that lately I’ve smelled some particularly nasty odors of it in my own community.

New Urbanism guru Andreas Duany has said: "People are intelligent in the abstract. They just get stupid when they talk about their own back yards."

NIMBYism rears its ugliness in both urban and rural places. Consider my blog a few weeks ago about civic entitlement in Toronto. Or Wendy Sarkissian’s about her rural community in Australia.

Somehow, though, NIMBYism has particular stench in suburban places. It fouls the air of civility among neighbors who should know better.

There is a great story about this by Seth Bauer of the Huffington Post you must read called American Suburbia vs the Planet.

Says Bauer:

We build homes with giant foyers because we have no public squares. We need media rooms because it's not easy or pleasant to drive to a multiplex theater, cross a parking lot through an ocean of cars, and pay a fortune for popcorn. We build bars in our basements because there are no neighborhood pubs. We have giant refrigerators and ever-growing storage needs because shopping is both far away and unpleasant (hello, Costco). The result? We heat and air-condition unused rooms in oversized unpleasant houses. And because our home bars and foyers are empty and our media experiences private, we're lonely, to boot.

Yes, that's it exactly.

Check out Bauer’s article in Huffington Post.

NIMBYism, slum dwellers and fear of the "other"

Noted Australian social planner, Wendy Sarkissian submitted a guest blog last year regarding fear of the "other". Here is another entry from Wendy she kindly lent from her own blog at Kitchen Table Sustainability (you'll find her blog at Community Sustainability Handbook under the Toolkit section on the right of this page)


Trouble in Paradise

Tomorrow evening my neighbours are meeting to decide whether or not to try to ban dual occupancy (commonly called accessory dwelling units) in this eco-village of 43 dwellings on 22 hectares [54 acres]. The whole process has me mightily confused.

Imagine the contradictions. Here we are living on half an acre in a Permaculture community committed to self-sufficiency and sustainability principles.

We live in a low-income community (Nimbin, population 350) with a desperate shortage of housing, especially for lower income residents. And most of us do not grow much food – if any – on our properties. I think every lot has at least one car. We’re highly automobile-dependent and we’re certainly not secure in terms of food production.

A permaculture community

But we’re trying. The Jarlanbah community, designed by formidable Permaculture designer, Robyn Francis, who lives down the road at the Djanbung Gardens Permaculture Education Centre was established in 1993 and the first residents moved in in 1994.

Now many of us are ageing and looking for opportunities to age in place and to have the possibility of a caregiver living on our house block. Or to have an income stream from renting a small dwelling on our land.

Recently, the Jarlanbah Review Sub-committee rejected a proposal by one of our neighbours for a dual occupancy arrangement on his block. In North America, this is generally called an “accessory dwelling unit”.

This case, which is likely to go to a formal mediation session, has caused a huge amount of discussion in our community. Some of us, citing global sustainability principles, Peak Oil, automobile dependence and the needs of an ageing, rural population, want to be able to have two dwellings on a lot. We can’t see how this would differ – in planning terms — from, say, a house with four or more bedrooms for a large family or shared household. We don’t see that the impacts on our road infrastructure would be that dramatic.

Not everyone would want to have another dwelling on their lot (perhaps half might – eventually) and those who did could pay extra to reflect the wear and tear that another vehicle might cause (assuming that vehicles would not be shared).

"It'll turn Jarlanbah into a slum"

But not all residents feel this way. Others are afraid that having a few more dwellings will open the floodgates. “It’ll turn Jarlanbah into a slum and a ghetto,” remarked one of the long-term residents, while another claimed that she did not move to Nimbin “to live in cluster housing.” “This is not inner city Redfern,” [a high crime community in Sydney] claimed another.

As a Jarlanbah resident who has spent a whole career (since 1967) working in housing and planning, I am curious to understand what this really means.

Where would these road-wrecking new slum-dwellers come from? How could a ghetto emerge as a result of density increase?

Nevertheless, this small village community is about to embark on an open, democratic, community discussion on this matter.

Oshawa and Whitby Part 2 - the Jekyll and Hyde story

Downtown Oshawa at Night

Oshawa and Whitby are by no means the only twin cities with Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Examples abound. The question is why?

Though the same police agency patrols both cities, they seem to have very different downtown crime profiles. Policing, though important, does not determine safety or crime. Same thing with population size - both cities have similar populations (though not demographics). Perhaps economics or jobs tells the story? After all, Whitby is just east of a burgeoning Metro Toronto and surely draws more commuters. Oshawa hosts a large GM plant and a blue collar workforce. Yet a countervailing example is found on Toronto's western boundary where a city of similar size, Oakville, also hosts a large automotive plant, yet looks nothing like Oshawa.

The deck of causation cards

Criminologists play with such theories like they are shuffling a deck of causation cards. Police tactics here, economics there. Urbanization here, population density there.

As Jane Jacobs told us, you don't really get a clear picture until you get out of theory-land and get onto the street for a closer look. That's where you begin to see how planning and development decisions make a big difference.

Look at social assistance facilities, or more importantly the density of those facilities in the downtown of both places. You'll see a difference right away. Ask a few land use questions and you'll see the picture come more into focus: What is the population diversity in each downtown? Can people of different incomes live comfortably downtown? What services are available for residents, for example can you buy milk? Where is the bakery? Is there a Laundromat? Are there coffee-shops, bookstores?

Here is what I saw: Little population diversity, no middle income residences, pawn shops and check cashing stores, vacant storefronts, no convenience stores or shops for locals, and a number of social assistance facilities. Guess which downtown I am describing?

Don't misunderstand - social assistance facilities like drug and alcohol rehab, welfare assistance, and halfway houses serve a vital role. Some locate downtown due to access to public transit. Others cluster downtown due to NIBMYism from ostrich suburbs.

Bad decisions = bad results

Whatever the case, bad decisions trigger bad results, like decisions in land use, planning and development. These decisions (and these decision-makers) bear the greatest culpability for the Hyde’s or praise for the Jekyll’s. Next time you see a Jekyll and Hyde story in your city, ask who makes these decisions:

* Decisions to help (or not) floundering downtown business.
* Decisions to build mixed use zoning with residential above storefront commercial.
* Decisions to give tax breaks and renovation stimulus funds to places that build community not tear it down.
* Decisions to help turn vacant buildings into artist’s lofts and historic properties into landmarks.
* Decisions to hold absentee landlords and slumlords accountable for their properties.

No doubt government programs, quality policing (or lack thereof) and big-E economics play a role. But don't look for Big Gov or Big Corps to turn communities around. We've done that far too long and look where it got us. The spark for positive change rests elsewhere.