Assessing the Gilmer Housing Study

And assessing GICH after two years

The Gilmer Housing Study conducted by the Georgia Conservancy was finalized and made public a little over two weeks ago. Oddly enough, it's received little notice since. 

The study commissioned by Gilmer's Joint Development Authority with participation by the Gilmer Initiative for Community Housing was intended as a planning document providing insight into present and future housing needs for Gilmer and its cities.

The study is packed with stats, charts, and other things expected in such a study. There’s a lot to digest.

However, the document seems anchored in predisposed advocacy of  higher density housing. Local content seems disproportionately fed with input from developers, while overlooking some of the basics expected of a strategic study. I’ll note some of what I consider omissions and errors, and attempt to provide context.

The study says it reviewed current zoning and development regulations. However, in a private email a week prior to the study release, the study’s author expressed no idea as to whether Gilmer County had a code enforcement officer. Seems odd that present housing codes or code enforcement would be overlooked in conduct of a strategic study. “Regulatory analysis” had been promised.

The study states data was assembled from public and private data sources. The Gilmer County Tax Assessors Office, a public government entity, was specifically categorized as a private data source. This too seems odd.

Things go even more askew as the study attempts to tout levels of community involvement in its preparation.

The study attempts to document “community engagement.” In reality, community input was limited and controlled. 

A mostly multiple choice community survey was conducted in Spring of 2023, but full results were withheld for seven months until the study’s completion. Only one formal “townhall” type meeting targeting the general public occurred, and that was in the closing two weeks of the study. Even at the town hall, “public engagement” was mostly limited to answering pre-scripted multiple choice questions.  Where written responses were allowed, scant minutes rushed input of answers. Verbal public comment in that townhall was limited to about seven minutes by the program presenter.

Seven minutes of verbal public comment, when allowed, came only at the tail end of the study. This does not speak well to notions of public engagement.

A separate employer survey was conducted with 34 employers represented covering about 1600 employees, but we're not told which employers participated nor how they were chosen or otherwise came to participate. Disclosure of methodology is typically part of professional studies. Methodology is missing here. 

For years, pro-development and "affordable housing" advocates have lectured that Gilmer’s housing stock is inadequate or out of step. Now that we have this formal study, we read Gilmer housing stock in unremarkably similar to housing in other peer counties.

The Times Courier, our weekly newsaper, took a cue from the recent town hall and editorialized more than half Gilmer’s work force is “priced out of housing.”  Yet the community survey done by the Georgia Conservancy found fewer than 20 percent of respondents felt their housing costs were out of line with what they could afford. That data nugget was, to the best of my knowledge, never mentioned in “community engagement programs” even though Georgia Conservancy had access. It can likely be documented more than half Gilmer’s workforce is not homeless.

The study states government and private “stakeholders” were consulted. In reality, only 12 persons were interviewed, an extremely small sample. We aren’t told how they were chosen, or if the JDA or GICH played part in steering selection. Again, methodologies are important in assessing study validity, and none is provided. Study text however indicates developers had multiple representatives among this tiny sample group:

“Interviewees shared stories of being in crosshairs between residents and local leaders advocating for preserving community character in attempts to bring development projects to life. Developers spoke on how regulations in Gilmer create a much more challenging environment to work in, compared to peer counties. Within this “red tape” are high barriers of zoning - both restrictive baseline regulations, as well as cumbersome processes for variances and acquiring necessary approvals. As a result, development is challenging, time consuming, and high-risk for developers” (page 25)

Study takers apparently made no effort to confirm, clarify or counter these claims. By only providing anecdotal comments from anonymous sources, and without additional inquiry to balance statements, the study reads like advocacy not objectivity.

The study seems to assume households of one or two persons living in three or four bedroom homes indicate some sort of housing mismatch. The study fails to note the unique nature of retirees or persons working from home with bedrooms serving as home office space.  Many retirees prefer homes with space for visiting extended family members. They live in larger homes by choice, not due to lack of smaller units in more densely developed neighborhoods.

In assessing housing stock, the study makes no mention of the number of yet unbuilt but developed or approved and platted single family home sites. As local governments have, by approval, already committed to providing basic public services to future development in these locations,  how will providing such services be delayed or compromised if Gilmer and our cities instead shift priorities to higher density development models?

The study is big on suggesting more housing, leading to more growth, leading to the need for more housing. But those who engineered the study seem unaware that our communities are already stressed in providing public services to serve homes and populations already here.

Even if apartments are concentrated in Ellijay, how many apartment units or complexes can Ellijay absorb without substantially counting on Gilmer for more public safety (primarily fire or medical) mutual aid? How will providing mutual aid to Ellijay impact Gilmer’s ability to respond to East Ellijay or unincorporated areas?  The situation becomes more aggravated as Ellijay opens its doors to non-contiguous annexations apparently with intent towards high density residential development. With prospects of new apartments on the city’s south side, and other development within the city limits, one fire station downtown may soon be insufficient. Consideration of such things should be expected in a housing study claiming to set models for growth and prosperity.

The study also leans on the assumption that Gilmer’s rural character is substantially protected by a combination of natural terrain, public preservation ownership of land, and the use of agricultural zoning. Naïve thinking at best. Look at Fall Branch Falls in North Gilmer. It had the benefit of all three protective factors, yet a developer was allowed to overshadow the natural beauty of the falls on public land with a cluster of seven conspicuous “glamping domes” on adjacent AG zoned property. Adding insult to injury, the “glamp ground” operator now boasts of illuminating the falls at at night. 

"What good is a waterfall that you can’t see at night? Well, the sound is majestic and serene, but that wasn't enough for us. We lit it up," according to the Glamp Blue Ridge website. 

Precedents have been, and are being set.

Nowhere in the study is there any indication preservation, conservation, or environmental entities were consulted. An odd ommission for a study coming from an entity touting conservationist credentials. 

The study must also be considered in the backdrop of the Gilmer Initiative for Community Housing, a local committee established two years ago under a statewide program intended to facilitate community involvement in strategic planning.  

GICH has performed unlike the broad-based community involved program proposed in 2021. Opacity and anonymity have dominated the local GICH process, apparently driven by a pre-determined obsession to make Low Income Housing Tax Credit development GICH’s cornerstone.

 Rather than early emphasis on study or planning, Gilmer’s Initiative seemingly aligned with specific non-profit development entities and proposals. Arguably admirable, but that's not how GICH was pitched at inception.

 Consider how Co-Chair Karleen Ferguson defined GICH and assessed its two year progress at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon last August:

“Our GICH team has worked on several things over the last two years. We have attended three GICH housing conferences, we hold bi-monthly housing meetings the GICH (unintelligible) at CORE. We interview residents. We build with the LIHTC, which is a low income tax credit which is a business model.”

Now consider how the Georgia Initiative for Community Housing (also known as GICH) cohort in Greensboro, Georgia described accomplishments after its first two years:

“Greensboro’s Housing Team has worked to conduct neighborhood clean ups, complete a housing assessment, increase public communication, and intensify code enforcement efforts.  In addition the team has provided leadership and public input on the city’s latest Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award of $500,000 for water line improvements in the Mill Village neighborhood and also facilitated a CHIP grant award for owner occupied housing rehabilitations.”

Of the two, which is closer to the promises made in 2021 to win backing for Gilmer entry into the Georgia program? It may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, but Greensboro seems to score with hands-on engagement.

Even after two years, Gilmer’s GICH rarely shares its committee membership list. Its meetings remain unadvertised with outsider attendance apparently by invitation only.

Can things be done in Gilmer to make things better, provide for a wider range of housing options? Absolutely. Is there a need for lower cost, multi-family housing in appropriate locations in our community? Yes, but strategic planning and transparency go a long way to allow a successful sync.

I’m not accusing GICH or committee members of wrongdoing. I don't doubt those serving do so with good intent. But local GICH leadership certainly knows opaqueness was not part of the initial GICH pitch. Closed doors don’t yield community consensus. Why should the public buy into such a process? 

 The Georgia Initiative for Community Housing describes its program as one of strategic study and planning for local communities. Study, plan, implement. In Gilmer, local GICH seemingly leapfrogged into advocacy for particular developments and developers prior to sharing any notions of study or plan. 

 The Gilmer Initiative for Community Housing held great promise but promise seems, at best, very narrowly pursued. I would urge governing bodies that endorsed its creation to encourage policies of true community involvement, not just manufactured semblances. Open the doors, create transparency. Opaqueness and pre-conceived agenda, in my mind, have sorely damaged perception and product. 

As for the Conservancy’s study? It's a hodgepodge of concepts, stats, factoids, and anecdotes shrouded in anonymity. It makes for wonkish reading, and in places may offer suggestions worth consideration. But with obvious shortcomings, it falls flat in being anything more than an ancillary document. It's certainly not the cornerstone document we were led to expect.