A recent survey conducted by the Affordable Housing Alliance of Central Ohio (AHACO) claims a “supermajority” of residents support more housing in existing neighborhoods. The AHACO, a nonprofit, also stated, “NIMBY [Not In My Backyard] voices may be loud, they do not represent the vast majority of Central Ohioans.”

Even though it was titled, “Overwhelming: Central Ohio’s Housing Survey,” the AHACO says only 1,357 Central Ohio residents took the survey, meaning their so-called “supermajority” is representative of 0.050 percent of the region’s population. The AHACO is financially supported by Huntington Bank, Mortgage Bank Association, The Columbus Foundation, Homeport, National Church Residences, Wynn Developers, among others.

The AHACO says their survey, “Is the most comprehensive research to-date on how residents really feel about policies that create more housing options and lower the cost of owning or renting a home.”

Former mayoral candidate Joe Motil, an outspoken critic of out-of-control high-end development, believes high density housing advocates will use the results as the “gospel.”

“For AHACO to make such a claim that their survey gave ‘overwhelming’ approval of what Columbus City Hall is promoting is flat out irresponsible and self-serving. And of course, our major media reported on this survey as if it were the gospel while not providing any opposing opinions. You can bet that YIMBY’s [Yes In My Backyard, the pro-density folks], the media, city officials, and others will use this survey as the word of God,” he said. “Here in Columbus, history has proven that our development policies have been dictated by the rich and powerful. Primarily the development community. Which was further proven by the recently passed Zone In initiative.”

When every single non-profit housing organization in Franklin County is aligned with the policies of our politicians, that’s a problem, he said.   

“Real citizen input on housing policy is not dictated by biased surveys, dog and pony show public meetings, propaganda filled Zone In galleries, and taxpayer paid biased marketing consultants. I have yet to hear any unique and genuine ideas from any of our local affordable housing non-profits,” said Motil.

Nearly everyone – except for high-end developers and greedy landlords – is calling for more housing that’s truly affordable. But what many are not calling for is the housing that high-end developers are building at a breakneck speed, and which continues to spike the local market rate. These include the hospital-looking soulless density which just opened in German Village and the monstrosities with views of 670 that have tarnished Italian Village.

Density advocates are adamant that building tall apartment and condo buildings in urban areas will eventually lead to more affordable housing for the entire community. What’s so plainly clear is that building more density in Columbus has so far resulted in just the opposite. You only need to look at our urban street corners to see this.

Recently, hundreds of residents from Norwich Township and Worthington voiced concerns over proposed developments which undoubtably will be built at a dizzying speed.

“I wonder how the 250 residents who gathered at the Norwich Township Safety Services Building who opposed a 232-apartment project in Columbus would have responded to this survey?” asked Motil. “Or the 300 residents of Worthington who came out to prevent Lifestyles Communities from developing the 41-acre United Methodist site into 350 apartments and 250 single homes?”

No surprise is how the trumpet horn of local high-end developers, the Columbus Underground (CU) was one of the first to report on the AHACO’s “supermajority” findings. On CU’s own Facebook page, however, some voiced concerns over the survey’s findings and why so few took it.

“A survey that was selectively issued, regarding housing needs in our communities, by an organization that is sponsored by a bunch of banks and developers, hardly feels impartial,” stated one post.

The CU article was also posted on the Facebook page “Franklinton Friends” and the survey received similar condemnation. 

“What is the population of Central Ohio, I read in 2020 it was (over 2.1 million). Is that correct? If so, you are going to say that a survey, that was handed out to those on the mailing list of the group doing the survey (likely buy-ins of that org), is a fair representation of what Central Ohio residents want?” wrote the poster.

“Did anyone receive this survey, either see it on socials, received as an email, or even have someone tell you about it?” stated another poster.

Peculiar was how published with the survey were quotes from several local community leaders, such as Katie McGarvey, executive director of the Legal Aid of Southeast & Central Ohio, who said, “This research should be the death knell of NIMBY.”

Such hostilities from the Legal Aid Society against residents who, at the very least, want their concerns addressed is a head scratcher. Throwing fuel on the fire that a secretive astroturf effort has been ongoing for some time now to drown out those who don’t want more mixed-used density ruining Columbus’s soulful and historical neighborhoods, may actually be true.

Of the 1,357 respondents, 65 percent live in Columbus, while 35 percent live outside city borders, stated the AHOCA. Half of respondents came from households that earned less than $75,000 per year (the median household income in Franklin County is roughly $71,000).

The survey found that 78 percent of respondents “from across the region” support “housing rules that let property owners build ‘Missing Middle’ housing on any residential lot.” Missing Middle homes are duplexes, triplexes and townhomes. “While common in Central Ohio’s historic neighborhoods, they are nearly impossible to build in many communities because of restrictive zoning laws,” stated the survey.

“To be clear, I do favor allowing for the development of doubles, triplexes, and four-unit structures. I do not believe that they should be permitted on every street in Columbus,” said Motil.

The following two policy questions, which don’t offer specifics as far as place, received over 80 percent support from respondents: “Pass housing rules that allow more apartments to be built in areas that are mostly used for offices, stores, or restaurants” and “Pass housing rules that allow more apartments to be built near bus stations or major job centers.”

Carlie J. Boos, director for the AHACO, told the Free Press in an email that for far too long, the country’s housing policies were designed without meaningful input from the people impacted.

“Research shows that when feedback is only gathered through public meetings, that we often lose the voice of renters, parents, young people, and others who make our community strong,” she said.

Boos added the study used a research panel to ensure that it reflected the diversity of our region.

“It was shared via email, social media, and at public events during the collection period. Over 1,300 people responded, more than double the amount needed to produce a sample with 99% confidence,” she said. “The results speak for themselves. When over half of people feel left behind by the current housing market, the mandate for solutions will always be overwhelming.”

Motil says he will gladly accept taxpayer money to conduct an unbiased survey. “For any organization whose goal is to promote their policies, especially when those policies directly align with the elected leadership of a municipality, these types of biased surveys will be unveiled. Give me $15,000 of taxpayer money and I’ll show you a survey with different results,” he said.