Study: ‘Gated’ doesn’t equal ‘safer’

Chief Rodney Monroe had some other interesting things to say, in addition to spilling the beans about the Ritz-Carlton-EpiCentre noise issue.

After giving a short presentation Monday to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, planning commissioner Nina Lipton asked the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief whether he had any data on safety in gated versus nongated communities.

“We looked at that,” Monroe said. The police and planning departments matched up communities as closely as they could, looking at income levels, multi-family, single-family and other factors. In terms of crime rates, Monroe said, “We saw no difference.”

What matters in terms of neighborhood safety, he said, is who’s living there: Are residents looking out for their neighbors? Are they taking responsibility? If it’s a rental community, is there professional management? Are renters being screened for criminal records?

Lipton noted that planners often hear “safety” as a reason to avoid following the city’s connectivity standards. Monroe essentially shot down that rationale for gated communities. Just making a development gated doesn’t make it safer, he said. “Sometimes it creates an opportunity for me to charge you more.”

I asked Planning Director Debra Campbell after the meeting for a copy or a link to the study. She said the department was still looking at the methodology to make sure, as she put it, that they were really looking at “apples to apples” comparisons. She said the topic had been a hot one last winter and spring but with the development market so slow the department hadn’t seen any reason to rush to give the information to the City Council. (If I were on the council I might ask them for it again.)

Indeed, I wrote a column about that very topic on Feb. 28, after City Council twice winked at its adopted policies on connectivity, despite planning staff opposition. That column isn’t available online for a link. (Update: CharlotteObserver.com’s fabulous Dave Enna found it. Here’s link.) But it described a a Feb. 16 rezoning for a gated apartment complex near Arrowood Road. The other was a Nov. 17, 2008, rezoning for 300 apartments on Woodlawn Road that didn’t want the city-desired connecting street. (That development isn’t happening; the Charlotte Housing Authority hopes to put a development there.) Not surprisingly, neighbors near both of those proposed developments didn’t want more traffic on their streets. Neighbors aren’t always right, you know. As I wrote in February, “Facing a double-whammy of developers and neighbors against connectivity, council members’ spines tend to take on a jelly-like consistency.”