Here to Stay
A Policy Blueprint for Anti-Displacement in Fresno
Public Comment Preliminary Findings | April 26, 2022
Is displacement currently taking place in the Transform Fresno Project Area? If so, what is the cause?
If not, what is the probability of future displacement occurring in the Transform Fresno Project Area?
What are the potential factors that would contribute to continued or future displacement? What are potential steps to mitigate further or future displacement? Include policy recommendations, strategies, and other tools that can prevent or mitigate displacement.
Transform Fresno Displacement Avoidance Consultant
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
Define the issue and acknowledge the limitations COVID19, Rapid Renewal, History Shared framework for what we mean when we say "displacement" Direct Displacement vs. Indirect Displacement
Phases of Displacement (Pioneering, Speculation, Settling, Multilateral Gentrification) Archival and historical research
Social Climate Analysis
Community Engagement
Public meetings, canvassing, transformative justice sessions, and stakeholder interviews Our Method
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
The policy, on its own or in combination with another policy, addresses a specific element of harm identified through research and stakeholder perspectives The policy or the implementation plan strives to identify a specific and intentional recipient of issue-specific, direct intervention
The eligibility/qualifying factor does not pose an additional burden or barrier that would contribute to new or additional displacement
The policy and the people who implement the policy intend to create a permanent redress for the impacts of past harmful planning practices
The key elements of a harm-reduction strategy for policies rooted in displacement intervention include:
Policy Design Process
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
Priority focus areas informed by community feedback as well as an industry scan Community Ownership
Accountability and Transparency
Socially Responsible Development Practices
Transportation and Connectivity
Regulations and Protections
Direct Services and Alternatives to Eviction
Dignified Housing and Legacy Considerations
Policies inspired by community policy design labs
Policy Design Process
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
Who is most at-risk?
Based on our Social Climate Analysis and Resident Interviews, we identified eight populations (Risk Focus Areas) who are experiencing the most displacement burden at this time:
Aging Adults
People with Disabilities
Young Adults
Veterans and People Returning Home from Institutionalization Farmworkers and People with Documentation Challenges
Third Generation Black Households
Southeast Asian Residents
Community Advocates
Policy Recommendation Formula
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
How soon can we take action?
We then took the list of policies and assessed the type of logistical, administrative and political steps that would need to be taken in order to implement the recommendations. The policies that were most likely to have feasible near-term implementation ranked higher than the others.
Will the policy fix more than on issue?
An assessment of whether or not the recommendation could meet objectives beyond anti- displacement. An example of added functions would be a policy that is recommended as a displacement avoidance measure but could also potentially improve economic vitality in a community. For this ranking, we ranked policies that could be expressed as direct and intentional acts of atonement higher than the other possible functions of the policies.
Policy Recommendation Formula
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
How much funding potential does the policy have?
The fourth layer of prioritization was an assessment of what it would take to build a strong argument for the policy if we needed to seek funding for its implementation. Recommendations that had strong alignment with existing programs or had known potential funding streams ranked higher than others.
Policy Recommendation Formula
Recap of the Here to Stay Process
A four-part virtual public workshop series
Canvassing
Hardcopy pickup locations
Phone banking
Multiple comment deadline extensions
Mailers
General public comment and letter submissions
Digital and hardcopy survey submissions
Here to Stay Public Comment Period
Public Comment Response
Manual surveys - Approximately 50
Digital surveys - 122 submitted through the Here to Stay portal Community Based Organization letter submissions - Approximately 7 Membership bases and direct service networks impacting nearly 3500 residents
Corporate letter submissions - 2
Representing approximately 200 individuals with private interest in the subject matter
Total Responses
Final Data Analysis
Quantitative Summary of Digital Surveys Only
***An analysis of open-ended comments, letter submissions, and manual surveys will be included in the final report
W h i t e
3 6 . 4 %
H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o
3 4 . 3 %
B l a c k / A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n
9 . 3 %
A s i a n / P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r
7 . 1 %
O t h e r
5 %
I n d i g e n o u s
2 . 9 %
2 o r M o r e
2 . 9 %
N o R e s p o n s e
2 . 1 %
RACE AND ETHNICITY
CITYWIDE
HTS SURVEY
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
GENDER
W o m a n , S h e / H e r
5 0 %
M a n , H e / H i m
3 7 . 1 %
N o R e s p o n s e
8 . 1 %
N o n - B i n a r y , Q u e s t i o n i n g , G e n d e r Q u e e r 2 . 4 %
Transgender Masculine/Man
Transgender Feminine/Woman
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
GENDER - PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SURVEYED RECENTLY DISPLACED (PROPORTIONALITY)
21.7%
Man, He/Him
25.8%
Woman, She/Her
66%
Nonbinary, Questioning,
Gender Queer
100%
Trans Masc
50%
Trans Femme
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
AGE - RECENTLY DISPLACED
25 - 34
39.4%
35 - 44
21.2%
45 - 54
21.2%
18 - 24
9.1%55 - 64
6.1%
Under 18
3%
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECENTLY
DISPLACED SURVEY RESPONDENTS
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded? AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
DISPLACEMENT RISK INDICATORS - PERCENTAGE OF RENTERS
Rent
58%
Own
42%
CITYWIDE
CENSUS DATA
SURVEY RESPONSE
DATA
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
PERCENTAGE OF THOSE SURVEYED WHO'VE RECENTLY BEEN DISPLACED Q U E S T IO N : H a v e y o u m o v e d in t h e p a s t 1 0 y e a r s d u e t o a n e v ic t io n , fo r e c lo s u r e , n a t u r a l d is a s t e r , c o n d o c o n v e r s io n , r e n t in c r e a s e , n e ig h b o r h o o d v io le n c e , o r b e c a u s e y o u r h o m e b e c a m e u n in h a b it a b le fo r o t h e r r e a s o n s ( a ls o k n o w n a s d is p la c e m e n t ) ? 2 6 .6 %
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
Evicted/Foreclosure
35.5%
Economic
29%
Violence/Assault
12.9%
Job Access
9.7%
Habitability
6.5%
School Access
3.2%
Other
3.2%
DISPLACEMENT RISK INDICATORS - DISPLACEMENT CAUSES
Final Data
Analysis
Who responded?
Negative Emotional, Mental Impacts, Stress
38.2%
Economic pressure/Rent burden
28.6%
General Negative Impacts
14.3%
Negative Environmental Impacts
9.5%
Social Isolation
4.7%
Commute/Access to Education
4.7%
PARENT RESPONSES:
HOW HAS DISPLACEMENT AFFECTED YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE IN GENERAL? Final Data
Analysis
What was selected
0 25 50 75 100
Homeowner/Renter Assist. Pgm.
Fair Chance Housing
HTS Land Trust
Rent Stabilization, etc.
Eviction Right to Counsel
Deposit Program
Increase Local Hire/Wage
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE SURVEYED
Final Data
Analysis
What was selected
0 10 20 3
Homeowner/Renter Assistance
Deposit Program
Rent Stabilization, etc.
Fair Chance Housing
Eviction Right to Counsel
HTS Land Trust
Public Health Impact Reports
Moratorium on Encampment Sweeps
Affordability Index
EJ and Climate Resiliency Planning
Dept. Anti-Displ./Homelessness
POLICIES SELECTED BY MORE THAN 50% OF THOSE WHO'VE BEEN DISPLACED Final Data
Analysis
What was selected
POLICY PACKAGES PREFERRED BY THOSE SURVEYED
Sustainable Capacity
43.3%
Reduce Harm/Immediate Relief
35.4%
Dignified Civic Engagement/Housing
21.3%
Final Data
Analysis
What was selected
POLICIES THAT MORE THAN 1 PERSON SURVEYED DISAGREED WITH
1.6%
Cargo/Freight Tax
2.4%
Moratorium on
Encampment
Sweeps
4%
Rent Control
4%
General
Disagreement/All
Final Data
Analysis
What was selected
THANK YOU