The decision by Riverside city council to introduce 347 new apartment units on the former KMART site has become a focal point of community discussion in Mission Grove. This housing project aims to address housing shortages but has stirred considerable controversy among residents.
Controversy and Community Response
Critics of the new housing project argue that the introduction of a large number of apartments may lead to increased traffic congestion, strain local resources, and disrupt the suburban character of Mission Grove. There is also significant concern over potential rises in rent and property taxes as a result of the new development. Additionally, some community members express fears about the change in demographic composition and its impact on local schools and public services.
Voter Sentiment
A poll conducted among voters in Mission Grove reveals unity in community sentiments with 80.1% of voters opposing or strongly opposing the project
The ongoing debate underscores the complex dynamics of urban development and the need for careful consideration of both the benefits and impacts of new housing projects on existing communities.
My biggest concern is traffic. As it is, Alessandro and Trautwein are constantly crowded. How can we add another 500 cars to the road without wider roads? This will just lead to more traffic in an already high traffic area.”
“Traffic will create a bigger problem in the area on top of warehouses being constructed that have yet to fully impact the problem. Instead of apartments a target, other store, satellite campus from a college, restaurant or entertainment district.”
“Overcrowding, more crime, more riff raff hanging around.”
“This building was ZONED for commercial use. To change that zoning will add chaos and headaches to an already crowded Alessandro Blvd.”
Many voters opposing the new project would prefer other businesses or amenities for the community, and see the proliferation of warehouses as adding insult to injury to the anticipated traffic and crime brought by apartments.
“That location should be better for stores. We already have enough traffic on Alessandro. Adding 347 families will only increase the traffic.”
“Crime, drug usage, homeless. I would love to see a Target, Trader Joe’s, TJ-Maxx, Home Goods, Marshalls.”
“I’m concerned the planned housing complex. I’m addition to the new warehouses may increase traffic, contribute to crime, and lower property values in our area. I would love to see a children’s museum, public park, or even retail stores.”
Democrats: About 57% of Democratic voters oppose the new housing development. While a significant number, it indicates a somewhat more mixed sentiment within the party, suggesting that some Democrats might be open to the development under certain conditions, such as the inclusion of affordable housing options, or setting aside homes for historically marginalized people.
Republicans: Opposition among Republican voters is stronger, with 77% expressing disapproval of the project. This group is particularly concerned about the potential changes in community character and infrastructure stress that could result from the influx of new residents.
No Party Preference Voters: Similarly, 73% of voters with no declared party preference oppose the development. This group shares concerns with Republicans about community impacts but might also be swayed by adjustments to the development plan that address specific community needs.
Opponents of Housing Not Broadly Persuadable
When asked if affordable rents ($2000) or priority given to historically marginalized people, few would change their minds, and most voters did not respond favorably.
“I don’t care who lives in my community if they can afford it. But to say, we have to have a certain amount of people that are LGTBQ or people of color doesn’t sit well with me. If they can afford it and they wanna live here let them. But let’s not Set requirements that 10% of the people have to be of color and 10% of the people have Be whatever Category you choose.”
“This is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. And this is pure prejudice against all others not listed.”
“I don’t care about race, gender, identity, etc. I’m more concerned with keeping up the neighborhood status as a good middle class area where I’ve lived for over 30 years. I want to keep the area looking nice and safe. I want to keep living in a safe & secure area as I get closer to retirement. I’m not planning to move!!!”
“Individuals should not be given preference for units based on race, sexual identity etc. That is discrimination and it is wrong. Period.”
“This city is turning into a $h!thole with these woke morons making these decisions. Half of my family just moved to Ohio; these decisions are enticing my family and I to do the same.”
Conclusion
The Stewart Digital Affairs survey conducted in Riverside’s Ward 4 focused on the public response to a proposed apartment development on the former KMART site in Mission Grove. A substantial majority of respondents opposed the project, highlighting concerns primarily about potential increases in traffic and the strain on local infrastructure that could result from the introduction of 347 new housing units. Additionally, fears about rising rents and shifts in the demographic composition were prevalent, with worries that these changes might impact the community’s character and public services negatively.
Partisan differences revealed varying degrees of opposition and underlying concerns, with Republicans and voters with no party preference more uniformly against the project compared to Democrats, who showed somewhat more mixed reactions. Despite the general opposition, there was a small segment of the population open to reconsidering their stance if the apartments were offered at rates affordable to median income earners, suggesting a potential pathway towards greater acceptance.
The debate in Mission Grove exemplifies the challenges urban development projects often face, balancing growth with community preservation. This poll underscores the need for developers and city planners to engage deeply with community members to address concerns and explore solutions that can bring more widespread support for future projects.
Methodology
Conducted by Stewart Digital Affairs between January 2nd and 4th, 2025, this survey utilized a probability-based approach, which means each member of the electorate within Riverside Ward 4 had an equal and known chance of being selected. This method ensures that the sample of 447 voters is statistically representative of the broader voter population, allowing for accurate extrapolation of the results to the entire district. The poll aimed to gather insights on voter sentiment regarding housing and approval of the 347 new apartments.
The poll results here adhere to the best practices and methods for polling set forth by the AAPOR (American Association of Political Opinion Research).
Sampling Method: The sample was drawn using a random sample of voters in the electoral district Riverside Ward 4, designed to reflect a balanced representation across Democratic, Republican, and No Party Preference voters. This technique is fundamental to probability sampling, ensuring that the poll results can reliably represent the diversity of political views within the district.
Survey Administration: The survey was conducted online, with invitations sent via email to the randomly selected voters. Participants answered a mix of objective and free-response questions, enabling the collection of detailed feedback. The participation rate and methodical approach negated the need for any additional weighting of the results.
Margin of Error: The calculated margin of error for the data is ±4.64 percentage points at a 95% confidence level. This figure is indicative of the precision of the poll’s findings, given the sample size and sampling method.
Funding and Conflict of Interest: Funding for the poll was provided by Stewart Digital Affairs. It is important to note that Frank Stewart, the owner, lives in the district. No organizations with vested interests in the survey topic contributed to the poll’s funding or design.
Data Use and Publication: The poll’s findings are intended for both public and private dissemination, aimed at informing a wide audience about community opinions on a sensitive issue. The precise methodology and transparent reporting assure stakeholders of the reliability of the results, which may influence future discussions and policy-making.
List of Questions
Do you support Riverside city council’s decision to build 347 new apartment units on the site of the old KMART?
If you support the decision, why? And if you oppose the new apartments, what concerns you most about the added units – or what would you like to see there instead of apartments?
Do you rent or own your home?
Are you a landlord?
f you are a landlord, do you offer whole-home or short term rental / Air-BNB type rentals?
Would your mind be changed about the new units if you knew a certain percentage would be public housing, or offered at a rate affordable by median income earners (roughly $2000 a month)?
Would you support the project if you knew a certain percentage of the units would be set aside for the historically marginalized? People of color, LGBTQIA+, would get preference for housing?
Do you have any other thoughts about the housing project at KMART or housing policy in Riverside generally? Any thoughts on how public housing would be awarded – based on income, race/gender/identity ?
I am a 30+ year homeowner and oppose the project. The commercial zoning should not be changed. The proposed project would increase traffic and create a parking nightmare. I live on Blackwood Street which is a shortcut for many commuters speeding through our neighborhood. The City doesn’t currently maintain the streets in Mission Grove nor respond to the speeding issues. Build something for the youth in that location along with a Target, Trader Joe’s, or Whole Foods.