Tensions Increase in Mobile Due to Discrimination Allegations and Rezoning Delays in the Senior Housing Project

Located at 3300 Knollwood Drive, in a posh neighborhood of Mobile, is the planned development. With charges of classism, worries about declining property values, and even possible discrimination, what started out as a simple zoning issue has turned into something more emotionally and politically charged.

The Initiative That Caused a Volcano

Supported by GK Land Holdings LLC, the development in question seeks to provide seniors with accessible and reasonably priced accommodation. However, since February, some locals have fiercely opposed the plan, calling it "low-income housing" that could devalue property values in a community where homes range from $325,000 to over $500,000.

During a recent discussion, a local insisted, "This is not about the age of the people." "It concerns the effect on our investment, traffic, and lifestyle."

However, the opposition's detractors contend that the actual issue is not traffic or density, but rather the kind of people this project would draw. 

A Split Council

Citing the need for additional consideration, the Mobile City Council voted 5-2 to postpone the rezoning decision by two weeks. Councilman Josh Woods and Ben Reynolds, who both represent nearby communities, voted against the postponement, indicating that they think the proposal should be rejected outright.

According to Woods, zoning, not the particular development, is the problem. He cautioned, "Once it is rezoned, it is rezoned forever." Reynolds reiterated the sentiment, pointing out that constituent opposition has been strong and consistent for over three months. "After two weeks, I do not notice anything changing," he continued. "Hopefully, by then, we will have enough votes to kill it."

Other council members, including William Carroll and Cory Penn, are pleading with the council to take a more comprehensive view, especially the need for additional affordable housing in Mobile.

Penn underlined that it is the city's duty to provide space for individuals of all economic backgrounds. "We should collaborate to build market-rate, achievable, and reasonably priced homes anywhere in Mobile," he stated.

"Let us be honest here—some folks just do not want people of a specific financial level in their community," Carroll said bluntly.

Lawyers Engage in a Verbal Battle

When lawyers for the council and the developer exchanged acrimonious letters, the argument became even more heated.

GK Land Holdings attorney Casey Pipes charged that several locals were against the project because of "the type, ethnicity, or class of tenant they fear it will bring." Given the city's declared intentions to increase affordable housing through its Community Development Block Grant applications, he contended that rejecting the rezoning proposal might amount to discrimination.

Pipes also argued that a higher-density single-family development, which is permitted by the current zoning, would probably generate more stormwater runoff and traffic than senior townhomes.

Councilman Reynolds did not like his message and brushed it off as "crazy."

Paul Carbo, the council's lawyer, retorted forcefully, referring to Pipes' suggestion that the council might be acting discriminatorily as "an act of desperation." According to Carbo, the council would base its judgment on long-term planning and zoning regulations rather than on the developer's request or personal prejudice.

Carbo noted, "There are no promises that this development will even be subsidized housing." "And it applies to all future developers, not just this one, once the rezoning takes place."

A Greater Struggle Below the Surface

Fundamentally, this is not merely a zoning dispute; rather, it is a microcosm of a far more significant discussion that is taking place in American cities: Where does who get to live?

Is the opposition mostly focused on stormwater and traffic, or is it also about defining boundaries between neighborhoods and who is considered "acceptable" to reside there?

Leaders at Mobile have two weeks to consider that. However, the response could be more revealing and uncomfortable than anyone wants to publicly express.