DIXIE - University of Arkansas at Little...
Transcript of DIXIE - University of Arkansas at Little...
Page | 1
DIXIE ADDITION CDC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
North Little Rock
Arkansas
Master of Public Administration Program
&
Institute of Government
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Griffin Coop Karen Sykes
Caleb Rose Christopher Diaz
Bryan Day Hunter Bacot
May 2015
Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Community Development Plan Part I
Introduction page 7
Considerations for Further Action page 8
Immediate page 8
Intermediate page 9
Long Term page 10
Community Development Plan Part II
Benefits of Community Development Plans page 15
Community Characteristics page 18
Property Assessment page 19
Housing page 19
Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes page 20
Income page 22
Tax-Delinquent Properties page 24
Official Designation page 25
Representation page 25
Community Amenities page 26
Transportation page 26
Transit page 27
Parks page 27
Community Development page 28
Neighborhood Forum page 29
Quality of Life page 30
Community Issues page 31
Improvements and Pressing Concerns page 32
Neighborhood Relations page 32
Sense of Community page 33
Appendices page 35
Appendix A: Project Methodology page 37
Appendix B: Weekday Bus Schedule page 38
Appendix C: Government Officials Representing page 39
Page | 4
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Population
Figure 1. Population of Census Tract 28, 1990-2010 page 18
Property Assessment
Table 1. Number of Properties in Dixie Community by Zoning Classification page 19
Table 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-201019 page 19
Figure 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010 page 20
Figure 3. Percent of Owner & Renter Occupied Homes in Census Tract page 21
Figure 4. Owner-Occupied Residence Rates by Geographic Location page 22
Income
Figure 5. Median Income in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010 page 22
Figure 6. Median Household Income by Geographic Area, 2013 page 23
Figure 7. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line in Census Tract
28, 2000-2010 page 23
Figure 8. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line by Geographic
Area, 2000-2010 page 24
Community
Table 3. Common Community Issues page 32
Table 4. Perspectives of Getting Along and Working Together in the Dixie
Community page 33
Appendices
Table B-1. List of Government Officials Representing the Dixie Addition
Community page 39
Page | 7
INTRODUCTION
In the spring of 2015, leaders from the Dixie Addition, a historically black community located in
North Little Rock, Arkansas, approached the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR)
Institute of Government (IOG) for technical assistance with the creation of a community
development plan to address concerns brought forth by the Dixie Addition CDC.1
To assist the Dixie Community, a team of researchers that included the Master of Public
Administration Capstone students, MPA faculty, and IOG researchers were assigned to the
project. The team researched issues germane to the community, which included their attending
Dixie Addition CDC meetings, conducting a neighborhood forum with members of the
community, meeting with North Little Rock city service departments and local government
representatives to gather information about, and developing partnerships across these entities and
the Dixie Community.2 This report is a summary of the information gathered over this six-month
process and provides the Dixie Community with a roadmap for addressing issues in the
community. The report includes a discussion of the Dixie Community’s community assets, results
from interviews with stakeholders of the community, and voices from the neighborhood forum
with residents about community needs. The research team offers a list of considerations for
further action based on these findings.
1 referred to as ‘Dixie’ or the ‘Dixie Community’ throughout the report 2 Study Methodology is in Appendix A.
Page | 8
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
Upon consideration of the Dixie Addition community attributes, discussions and conversations
with community leaders and elected officials, neighborhood amenities, and input directly from
Dixie citizens, the following considerations are presented to the community as the first steps on
the path towards community revitalization. Each of these recommendations involve partnering
with various community organizations and neighborhood services.
These recommendations are presented in three sections based on capacity to accomplish; these
include: Immediate – these considerations can be pursued immediately with assistance from
various community interests; Intermediate – these considerations need further in-depth study
before being pursued; and, Long Term – this consideration is based on the confluence of actors
internal and external to the Dixie Community and will require significant time and investment to
initiate.
Immediate
Neighborhood Aesthetics – a major element emerging from the project is the need for the Dixie
Community to establish its identity to those outside of the community (as well as enhance it for
members of the community). The Dixie Community must add a “gateway entrance” to mark the
entrance of their community. A gateway sign should be installed in a high visibility area to serve
as an invitation to the community as well as a notice of the community’s sense of pride and
community spirit. A location that can accomplish this is the southeast corner of the neighborhood
where Dixie Street curves west to become Sam Evans Drive; this location would be ideal for
‘announcing’ one’s arrival in the community. There is a parcel of land, which is available through
Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands for $1,500, at that location that could serve as the location
of the community entrance sign. A community entrance marked by a sign would likely yield
benefits of community unification and convey to others the community’s sense of identity.
Research shows that communities with a heightened sense of neighborhood identity have higher
rates of community participation. Thus, by improving neighborhood identity, the community
could improve neighborhood participation.
Transportation – with its location adjacent to Highway 70, the Dixie Community can build on its
existing transportation assets by working with Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) to
expand the current bus route from Sam Evans Drive into at least one of the neighborhood streets
(assuming these streets can accommodate bus traffic). By altering the bus route slightly, CATA
may increase ridership in the area. The Dixie Community must work with CATA to improve and
expand existing routes and to inquire about the possibility of covered bus stops in the
neighborhood, or at least at the recommended location for the community sign (Dixie Road and
Sam Evans Drive).
Page | 9
Neighborhood Services – a representative(s) from the Dixie CDC Board needs to develop stronger
relationships with North Little Rock’s Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS). The DNS
works closely with neighborhoods across the city to provide resources to neighborhoods and share
information about city projects and other community opportunities. The DNS also coordinates the
Neighborhood Associations Leadership Council (which is comprised of one representative from
each North Little Rock neighborhood association), community development corporations, crime
watches, and property owners associations. Being aligned with this critical city service
department can benefit the Dixie Community through resource allocation and through
relationship-building with other neighborhood associations and city officials.
Intermediate
Historical Registration – as a unique community that has persevered racial segregation and
sustained as a long standing predominantly black community, the Dixie Community, because of
its historic significance, can likely qualify as a historic resource with the Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program (AHPP). The AHPP recognizes historic areas of at least 50 years old as
potential candidates worthy of preservation. Upon review of the AHPP criteria for preservation,
the Dixie Community appears to align with the emphases of the Criterion A program in which
there must be “association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.”3 According to the AHPP, benefits of listing in the National Register
bestow tangible considerations for community revitalization and eligibility for specific programs
to fund projects and community improvements.
Community Identification – with an effort to brand the community, the Dixie Community can
work with the City of North Little Rock to change their current street signs to include street signs
with decorative element that depicts the significance of the Dixie Community, such as a
community logo or emblem. The change in street signage can create a neighborhood identity, as
well as possibly increase participation in community events.
Community Garden – Community gardens as a mechanism for community revitalization have
ebbed and flowed in popularity over the decades. Community gardens not only provide fresh,
low-cost produce, health and wellness programs and after-school activities, but also create
economic stimulus by beautifying unsightly vacant lots. Several organizations exist in central
Arkansas to assist communities with establishing community gardens. Partnering with
organizations such as The Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, Arkansas Local Food Network,
Central Arkansas Natural Agrarian Society and the City of North Little Rock, can provide the
Dixie Community with information necessary to establish a community garden.
3 Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. 2015. “National Register of Historic
Places,” http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/Historic-Properties/National-Register/national-register-of-historic-
places
Page | 10
Long Term
Resident Health & Well-Being – As evident through this research and the neighborhood forum, as
well as recognizing the socio-demographics of the Dixie Community, building relationships with
institutions in Central Arkansas can lead to the provision of various services aimed at aiding the
overall health and well-being of Dixie residents. Through its association with the North Little
Rock Neighborhood Services department, the Dixie Community Board can explore possibilities
of establishing connections with various community assets across Central Arkansas. Though these
services may only be provided at the facility location, the Dixie Community can explore the
possibility of using the CATA Link service to transport residents to these sites.
The Dixie Community can explore possible relationships with:
The Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging at the University of Arkansas Medical
Sciences (UAMS) – the Institute on Aging sponsors the Arkansas Aging Initiative, which
seeks “to improve health outcomes of older Arkansans through interdisciplinary clinical
care and innovative educational program” (see http://aging.uams.edu/);
The UALR Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology – the department sponsors a
Speech and Hearing Clinic “to evaluate communication problems experienced by clients
of any age” (http://healthprofessions.uams.edu/programs/audandspeechpathology/clinical-
programs/).
Arkansas Department of Health’s Oral Health program – the Arkansas Department of
Health’s Oral Health division is home to the Collaborative Care Dental Hygiene, which is
an effort that coordinates various dental services for elderly populations (among others).
Flood Abatement - though the major issue in the community, mitigating the flood plain for the
Dixie Community is complex and dependent on synergies of many external stakeholders. Based
on several factors, among which project cost is the most challenging, the Dixie Community
leaders must continue to focus on establishing partnerships with North Little Rock and area civic
leaders and government officials to solidify commitment to abatement if and when funding for
such projects materialize. As these partnerships are established and legitimized conterminously
with funding, then a concerted effort to alleviate the flood issue in the Dixie Community can
move forward. Until this cohesive movement can occur, there are opportunities to support other
efforts locally that can tangentially address flooding issues in the Dixie Community (see next
recommendation).
Commercial Development – a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, which was conducted in
conjunction with the potential site location of a major retailer, suggests that site development
would require a drainage tunnel from the site to the river. Given the Dixie Community’s
proximity to this tract (it lies southeast of the area), the community stands to benefit indirectly by
any development in that area (Dark Hollow) – site development will require flood mitigation that
Page | 11
will likely benefit areas adjacent to the development. A large commercial development in the
Dark Hollow area can likely lead to infrastructure improvements that can ameliorate flooding
issues currently experienced in the Dixie Community. The Dixie Community should consider
supporting development projects proposed for the area based solely on benefits that can
potentially accrue to the community due to requisite drainage improvements to develop that
property.
Page | 15
BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Communities across the United States, whether rural or urban, affluent or poor, homogenous or
multi-cultural seem to hold basic values. For example, residents typically aspire to: live in a safe
area; reside in decent housing; and have hope for their children’s future. However, not all
communities are equal; some communities lack the basic institutions and support infrastructures
necessary for promoting neighborhood progress. In such areas, an approach called community-
based development is proving to be an effective way for communities to revitalize.4 Typically,
community development is characterized by two primary principles:
working with residents in economically and socially stressed environments to
stabilize and revitalize the areas in which they live; and,
using a ground-level strategy where members of the community (i.e., residents,
business owners, clergy, and others) shape the community development plan to fit
their needs.5
Further, by including these individuals in the planning process, the community development plan
will be able to confront the range of issues shaping the community.
Berger and Kasper (1993) make a case for the establishment of a “Community Development
Corporation” (CDC)” that is, a grassroots, nonprofit organization that draws on the significant
involvement of their target constituencies and seek to empower them while rebuilding these
communities.2 The participation of multiple classes representing different disciplines provides a
community development team with a large number of “boots on the ground,” making it possible
to collect impressive amounts of data and develop a highly refined profile of community
conditions.6 There is a benefit in partnering with an interdisciplinary team (such as university
researchers, students, architects, engineers, etc.) as they have the skill and access to multiple data
sources. One example from a community development effort in Memphis, TN, noted several
community-based research projects anchored by a partnership between the community and local
university faculty from various departments. Eventually, a partnership called the South Memphis
Renaissance Coalition (SMRC) was formed. From this partnership, several “best practices” were
noted, among these are ways to:
Create opportunities to establish and build trust among stakeholders. The history of
community-university collaboration has been fraught with many false starts and missteps.
Grassroots residents and leaders representing economically distressed communities are
unlikely to invest significant time and effort cooperating with higher education until the
4 Berger, R.A., & Kasper, G 1993. An overview of the literature on community development corporations. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 4, 2, 241-255 5 Berger, R.A., & Kasper, G. 1993. An overview of the literature on community development corporations. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 4, 2, 241-255 6 Lambert-Pennington, K., Reardon, K.M., & Robinson, K.S. 2011. Revitalizing south Memphis through an
interdisciplinary community-university development partnership. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
Spring 2011, 59-70.
Page | 16
latter can demonstrate their ability to listen and develop research agendas responsive to
community concerns.
Allow sufficient time…to form a well-functioning team. Scholars trained in different
disciplines bring their own theoretical frameworks, conceptual constructs, research
methods, and policy ideas to their community-based research work. Additional time is
required when participating in projects that can develop and share a set of basic core
values, project objectives, research methods, and communications strategies.
Community development is linked to empowerment and to valuing diversity of cultures.7 In
today’s policy environment, which is somewhat driven by grant-making institutions and
policymaking organizations, there is a greater desire to measure community development
outcomes.8 Thus, one benefit to creating and following a community development plan is that the
Community Development Organization can be more accountable to their funder(s). The Work
Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas has published a
“Community Tool Box” providing a wealth of resources with regard to community planning.9
One chapter provides information specific to benefits for advancing a community development
plan; the information touches on topics about:
Gaining a deeper understanding of the community. Each community has its own needs
and assets, as well as its own culture and social structure – a unique web of relationships,
history, strengths, and conflicts that defines it. A community assessment helps to uncover
not only needs and resources, but the underlying culture and social structure that will help
you understand how to address the community's needs and utilize its resources.
Considering of community assets/needs and how to use/address them. That
consideration can (and should) be the first step in their learning how to use their own
resources to solve problems and improve community life.
Prioritizing decisions for program or system improvement. It would obviously be
foolhardy to try to address community issues without fully understanding what they are
and how they arose. By the same token, failing to take advantage of community resources
not only represents taking on a problem without using all the tools at your disposal to
solve it, but misses an opportunity to increase the community's capacity for solving its
7 Kennedy, M. 1996. Transformative community planning: Empowerment through community development.
Prepared for the 1996 Planners Network Conference, “Renewing Hope, Restoring Vision: Progressive Planning in
Our Communities.” 8 Dorius, N. 2011. Measuring community development outcomes: In search of an analytical framework. Economic
Development Quarterly, 25, 267-276. 9 Work Group for Community Health and Development. 2014. Developing a Plan for Assessing Local Needs and
Resources. Community Tool Box, Chapter 3, Section 1. University of Kansas. Retrieved from
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/develop-a-plan/main
Page | 17
own problems and creating its own change. Such efforts will help eliminate unpleasant
surprises down the road. Identifying needs and resources before starting a program or
initiative means that you know from the beginning what you're dealing with, and are less
likely to be blindsided later by something you didn't expect.
Involving community members from the very beginning. This encourages both trust in
the process and community buy-in and support, not only of the assessment, but of
whatever actions are taken as a result of it. Full community participation in planning and
carrying out an assessment also promotes leadership from within the community and gives
voice to those who may feel they have none; this process provides an easy-to-follow road
map for conducting an accurate assessment. Planning ahead will save time and effort in
carrying out the process.
Providing opportunity for community to voice their opinions, hopes, and fears. Their
idea of priorities might be different from those of professionals, but they shouldn't be
ignored.10
The first order of business is to address the community’s priorities to establish trust and show
respect. Building relationships and credibility may be more important at the beginning of a long
association than immediately tackling what seems to be the most pressing need. These
relationships can establish community members' priorities, particularly those with grass-roots
origins, as these may unveil underlying factors unknown to those without intimate community
knowledge and exposure. Once priorities are set, the community can then develop a more sound
and beneficial community development plan.
10 Ibid.
Page | 18
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
In 1946, Dixie, Fort Roots, Park Hill, and Rose City, and other unincorporated areas of North
Little Rock were annexed into the city of North Little Rock; this annexation enabled North Little
Rock’s population to leap from 21,137 (according to the 1940 census) to 39,552 as assessed
during a special census held in 1948. Beginning in the 1890s, Rose City and later Dixie were
home to manufacturers, cotton oil mills, and other similar industries. Today, the remnants of the
once bustling cotton oil mills stand abandoned along Arkansas Highway 70, and although the city
of North Little Rock and Pulaski County have seen small population increases over the years, the
population of the census tract that includes the Dixie Addition has declined steadily for the past
20 years.
Census data from 1970 to the present reveal declining trends in population, housing units and
income in Census Tract 28. Census Tract 28 not only includes Dixie, but also the adjacent
neighborhoods to the south (located between U.S. 70 and the Arkansas River) and to the west
(located between Dixie and Interstate 30).11 Since 1970, the population of this area has fallen 54
percent from 5,132 to 2,356.12 The population of the area has dipped consistently with each
census: falling 30 percent from 1970 to 1990, 19 percent from 1990-2000, and another 19 percent
from 2000-2010. Population trends for the area are in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Population of Census Tract 28, 1990-2010
Source: 1990 and 2000 Data obtained from Metroplan at http://www.metroplan.org/files/53/PulTract90-00.pdf; 2010
Data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=05
11 Metroplan. 2010. Pulaski County Census Tracts: http://metroplan.org/files/53//PulaskiTract2010.pdf 12 Metroplan. 2013. Neighborhood Analyses: Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Area, Volume II, Study
Area 9.
3607
2922
2356
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1990 2000 2010
Page | 19
Property Assessment
The Dixie Community consists of 537 parcels with 505 parcels designated as residential; of these
residential parcels, 245 have a house located on these lots. Twenty-three parcels are owned by
churches; 12 of these church-owned properties are vacant. The community park located at the
western edge of the community consists of five parcels. Four parcels are zoned as commercial
property and two of these commercial properties are vacant.
Table 1. Number of Properties in Dixie Community by Zoning Classification
Existing Structure Vacant Lot
Residential 245 260
Church 11 12
Park 5 --
Commercial 2 2
Total 263 274
Source: Pulaski County Tax Assessor.
Housing
Since 1970, the number of housing units continues to decline in the area. For example, in the past
40 years, the number of housing units decreased 28 percent from 1,581 to 1,146. Occupied units
decreased by 35 percent; yet, the number of vacant units increased by 230 percent during the
same time period.13 While vacant units account for about only 4 percent of all housing units in
1970, these vacant units account for 15 percent of units by 2010. Using Geographic Information
System (GIS) analysis, there is evidence that the Dixie Community has many vacant lots. Table 2
and Figure 2 depict housing trends for the area.
Table 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010
Occupied Units Vacant Units Total Units
2000 1,091 151 1,242
2010 971 175 1,146
% Change -11% +16% -8%
Source: Authors. Pulaski County Tax Assessor. ArcGIS Analysis of Dixie Addition Community
13 U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. www.census.gov
Page | 20
As shown in Figure 2, there are 120 fewer housing units in the area from 2000 to 2010.
Furthermore, the number of occupied housing units declined similarly; there are 96 fewer
occupied housing units in 2010 as compared to 2000. Not surprisingly, vacant housing units
increased by 16 percent over the same ten year period from 2000 to 2010.
Figure 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010
Source: Metroplan. Pulaski County Census Tract Population and Housing,
http://www.metroplan.org/files/53/PulaskiTracts2000-2010.pdf
Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes
Homeownership plays an important role in neighborhoods by providing stability as well as
investment in the communities. In fact, homeownership improves the self-esteem of the owners,
improves neighborhood stability, and increases civic participation.14 These effects are evident in
the Dixie Community where residents have a high rate of homeownership (61% based on a GIS
analysis) and demonstrate passion and commitment to their neighborhood.
14 McCarthy, G.,Van Zandt, S., and Rohe, W. 2000. The Social Benefits and Costs of Home Ownership. Working
Paper No. 01-02. Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.
http://www.housingamerica.org/RIHA/RIHA/Publications/ 48517_RIHAwp01-02.pdf
1242
11461091
971
151 175
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2000 2010
All Housing Units Occupied Units Vacant Units
Page | 21
Figure 3. Percent of Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes in Census Tract 28
Source: Authors. Pulaski County Tax Assessor. ArcGIS Analysis of Dixie Addition Community.
The national average for owner-occupied residences is 65 percent, which is slightly below the
Arkansas average (at 66.7%). The Pulaski County owner-occupied residence rate is further behind
both national and state rates at 60 percent. The owner-occupied residences rate (53.8%) in North
Little Rock is nearly thirteen percentage points below the state average (at 66.7%). Most notable
among these figures is the owner-occupied residences rate in the Dixie Community – it is 61
percent – which is higher than both rates for Pulaski County and the city of North Little Rock.
Though it compares favorably, the percentage of owner-occupied residences in Dixie is only
slightly below national and state averages.
Comparatively, the Dixie Community’s homeownership rate is remarkable. Considering that the
Dixie Community’s median income is far below national and state levels (as discussed herein),
the Dixie Community’s rate of homeownership is more impressive. Despite a median income that
is 4.5 times less than the national average and 3.5 times less than the state average, the Dixie
Community’s homeownership rate is about four percentage points less than the national average
and about six percentage points less than the state average. Owner-occupied residence rates in
Dixie as compared to North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and nation are shown in
Figure 4.
61%
39%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Page | 22
Figure 4. Owner-Occupied Residence Rates by Geographic Location,
Source: United States Census.American Housing Survey (AHS): http://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/ahs/data.html
Income
Over the past four decades, income has also declined in the area (Census Tract 28). In 1970, the
median household income in the tract was $3,294 (the equivalent of $18,500 in 2010 dollars).
From 2000 to 2010, the median household income in the area (census tract) has dropped to
$11,705 from $11,533. Figure 5 displays the decline in income since 2000.
Figure 5. Median Income in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010
Source: Metroplan. 2015. 2010 data: http://metroplan.org/files/53/Pul-TractIncomePoverty00.pdf;
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. 2010 data: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/
productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_S1903&prodType=table
61.0%53.8%
60.4%66.7% 64.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Dixie North Little
Rock
Pulaski County Arkansas United States
Dixie North Little Rock Pulaski County Arkansas United States
$11,705
$11,533
$10,000
$10,500
$11,000
$11,500
$12,000
$12,500
$13,000
$13,500
$14,000
$14,500
$15,000
2000 2010
2000 2010
Page | 23
While the median household income in the Dixie Community was $11,533 in 2010, the median
household income for the nation, state, county and city was much higher. In 2013, the national
median household income was $53,046, it was at $40,768 in the State of Arkansas, $46,013 in
Pulaski County, and $40,170 in the City of North Little Rock (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Median Household Income by Geographic Area, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSG445213/00,05,05119,0550450,
Note: Dixie Median Household income is from 2010.
While income in the Dixie Community declined over the past decade, the percentage of
individuals living below the poverty line increased slightly from 49.6 percent in 2000 to 51
percent in 2010. The percentage of Dixie residents living below the poverty line is shown in
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010
Source: Metroplan. 2015. 2000 Data: http://metroplan.org/files/53/Pul-TractIncomePoverty00.pdf;
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. 2010 Data: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/
productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_S1903&prodType=table
$11,533
$40,170
$46,013
$40,768
$53,046
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Dixie North Little
Rock
Pulaski County Arkansas United States
49.6% 51.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2000 2010
Page | 24
In 2014, on average, the Dixie Community witnessed more than twice as many individuals living
below the poverty line compared to averages for the city, county, state, and nation. For example,
51 percent of the Dixie Community’s population lives below the poverty line, more than doubling
the comparable percentage for North Little Rock (21.0%), Pulaski County (18.6%), Arkansas
(19.7%) and the nation (14.5%). Figure 8 depicts the status of the Dixie Community vis-à-vis
local, state, and national figures.
Figure 8. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line by Geographic Area, 2000-2010
Source: United States Census. 2015. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSG445213/00,05,05119,0550450
Tax-Delinquent Properties
In Arkansas, the state can take possession of property if taxes are not paid for a period of two
years. These tax delinquent properties are sold at public auction in each county. Those delinquent
properties that do not sell at auction are placed on the Post-Auction Sales List for purchase by the
public at a price equivalent to the delinquent taxes owed to the state.15
Since 2008, the Commissioner of State Lands has acquired 29 tax-delinquent properties in the
Dixie community. As of April 2014, five properties in Dixie are on the public auction list and 24
properties in Dixie are on the post-auction sales list; the prices for these tax delinquent properties
range from approximately $300 to $7,000.16 Twenty-two of the 24 properties on the post-auction
sales list are vacant lots.17
15 Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands. 2015. Delinquent Real Estate Taxes
http://www.cosl.org/pdf/Delinquent.pdf 16 Arkansas Commission of State Lands. 2015.Post-Auction Sales List for Pulaski County:
http://www.cosl.org/negpdf/PULASKI.pdf 17 Arkansas Commission of State Lands. 2015. April 2015 Auction List: http://www.cosl.org/saleresults.aspx?
CTY=PULASKI&CT=PULA&SD=4/14/2015%2010:00%20AM&LO=VERIZON%20ARENA%20-
%20MEETING%20ROOM%201A%20&%201B,%20BOX%20OFFICE%20ENTRANCE%20%28STREET%2
0LEVEL%29&CI=NORTH%20LITTLE%20ROCK&CA=false
51.0%
21.9% 18.6% 19.7%14.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Dixie North Little Rock Pulaski County Arkansas United States
Page | 25
Official Designation
The Dixie Community, doing business as the Community Addition Community Development
Corporation, filed its official incorporation documents with the Arkansas Secretary of State on
May 23, 1967. The organization is listed as a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation and is currently in
good standing. The three principals, Shauntel Bolden, Lee Jeffrey, and Earnest Franklin, are listed
on the document, with three others, James Lucas, Freddie Romes and Margie Evans, listed as
directors. The filing number is 100037417 and the listed address is 914 H Street, North Little
Rock. The Dixie Addition Community Development Corporation Board of Directors recently
submitted documents to the Internal Revenue Service to be granted status as a tax-exempt
organization. The IRS has not yet granted that designation (based on a review of the IRS website).
Representation
There are a number of elected government officials representing the Dixie Addition community:
Two U.S. Senators, one U.S. Representative, two members of the Arkansas General Assembly
(one senator and one representative), as well as a member of the Quorum Court and two members
of the North Little Rock City Council. A list of the elected officials representing the Dixie
Addition community, and their contact information, is provided in Appendix C.
Page | 26
COMMUNITY AMENITIES
With its location near the main thoroughfare (Highway 70/E or Broadway Street in North Little
Rock), the Dixie Addition community is not too far removed from any number of amenities
available to urban living. This section highlights the community’s advantageous location, public
transit options for the community, parks and recreation sites in the neighborhood, and
opportunities for community development.
Transportation
The main ingress and egress roadway for the Dixie neighborhood is East Broadway Street (also
known as U.S. Highway 70). This roadway intersects with the two main streets into and out of
Dixie (Dixie Street and North Redwood Street/East Range Line Avenue). East Broadway Street is
a four-lane highway with a center left-turn lane and traffic signalization at busy intersections,
such as Dixie Street and N. Redwood Street intersections. Traffic on East Broadway Street
increased about 8 percent between 2009 and 2013.18 Dixie Street is a two-lane city street leading
into the Dixie neighborhood from the east side. Dixie Street has two railroad crossings consisting
of four sets of railroad tracks. Though problems at these two crossings are rare, these crossings do
not feature safety warning gates or signals, which can pose hazards for vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
Dixie Street connects with Sam Evans Drive, a two-lane city street, to form the southern border of
the Dixie Community. Sam Evans Drive connects with Range Line Avenue, which is a city street
running north and south between the community and North Redwood Street; Redwood Street
connects to East Broadway Street. Range Line Avenue has one railroad crossing and North
Redwood Street has one railroad crossing; again, as noted previously, these crossings have not
safety warning gates or signalization.
The Dixie neighborhood consists of a grid of several two-lane streets; curbs and covered gutters
are located on many streets. Some streets, including Sam Evans Drive and Range Line Avenue,
have sidewalks. Yet, some stretches of these sidewalks are in need of maintenance and repair.
Using funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as well as
other sources, the City of North Little Rock invested significantly in infrastructure improvements
in the Dixie Community. Since 2002, the City of North Little Rock invested well over one-half
million dollars ($645,000) in infrastructure improvements. These investments were directed to
street, drainage, and some sidewalk improvements on 9th Street and 11th Street. These funds are
also being used for the Douglas Walking Trail, which will extend along the western edge of the
Dixie Community. CDBG funds secured the purchase of a new HVAC unit for the Dixie
Community building. North Little Rock allocates CDBG funds across the City’s four wards. In
many cases, these funds are used on particular infrastructure projects (e.g., street improvements in
the Dixie Community) and at times this requires the accrual of sufficient funds to complete
planned projects.19
18 Traffic Counts: Metroplan http://metroplan.org/index.php?fuseaction=p0007.&mod=33 19 Interview with Melissa Ervin, Community Development Director, City of North Little Rock Community
Development Agency (4/16/15); personal correspondence (5/8/15).
Page | 27
Transit
Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is the agency responsible for public transit in the
Dixie Community (as well as throughout the City of North Little Rock). The CATA Route 18
provides bus service to the Dixie Community; this route has bus service along Dixie Street, Sam
Evans Drive, and Range Line Avenue. Route 18 has six designated service locations in the Dixie
Community, including three bus stops with benches and a shelter. Information for accessing a
complete bus schedule for Route 18 is provided in appendix B.20
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, CATA provides LINKS paratransit
service to all disabled persons who live within three-quarters of a mile from a fixed-service bus
route. With the entire Dixie Community located within three-quarters of a mile of CATA Route
18, LINKS paratransit is available to all eligible persons in the Dixie community.21
While transit service and access can be improved in the area, the existing access is an asset for the
community.22 Studies show that access to transit has a significant effect on rates of employment
and, in particular, on minority employment.23 Other studies note that people with access to transit
work more days than those who do not have such access; as well, research suggests those who are
currently served would not be able to continue in their jobs or would suffer financially.24
Parks
Conley Park is located on the west side of the Dixie community and is bordered by Sam Evans
Drive to the south and Douglas Avenue to the west. The park is owned by Entergy Arkansas, a
public electric utility, and is maintained by the City of North Little Rock. The park features an
athletic field, a covered pavilion with picnic tables, a playground, a basketball court, and large
grassy open areas.
As recreational areas in neighborhoods provide positive tangible amenities for communities,
Conley Park is an asset to the Dixie Community. The park provides a place for the neighborhood
to host large, annual events like Dixie Days, as well as dedicated space for exercise and recreation
opportunities. Conley Park is also an important part of the neighborhood because parks improve
community engagement by providing a place where people can assemble and interact in a shared
environment. This park provides the residents of the Dixie Community a place to come together
to build and sustain their heightened sense of community.25
20 CATA. 21 Ibid. 22 Sanchez, T. W. (1999). The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 284-296. 23 Holzer, H. J., Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2003). Public transit and the spatial distribution of minority
employment: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(3), 415-441. 24 Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf 25 How Cities Use Parks for Community Engagement,
https://www.planning.org/cityparks/briefingpapers/communityengagement.htm
Page | 28
Community Development
The most challenging aspect for revitalization efforts in the Dixie Addition community is
fostering community development while wrestling with the barriers of nature. As is well
documented, nearly all of the Dixie Community lies in the flood plain. Further, it is clear that
significant flood mitigation is required to eliminate frequent flooding issues. Available options for
flood mitigation include building tunnels and retention basins, as well as coordinating abatement
efforts with Union Pacific, which owns large tracts of nearby property, and the City of North
Little Rock. While these possibilities provide effective options for addressing flooding, these are
cost prohibitive if the scope of such projects are limited to mitigating only issues in the Dixie
Community. In addition, given decreased intergovernmental funds typically needed for such
projects, funding for such a mitigation project is not available currently, nor have other sources of
funding been identified or secured for these improvements.
The most likely approach to resolving the flooding issue in the community is to broaden the scope
of a mitigation project. One approach to resolving the flooding issue is through private
development of an adjacent commercial property (as noted in the recommendations). The Dark
Hollow property (located near the intersection of I-30 and I-40) requires site improvements that
address the property’s hydrology, which affects all nearby properties (including the Dixie
Community). A 2002 study of the property recommended a series of large tunnels, pipes and open
channels to carry water from the property to the Arkansas River; the recommended project would
result in significant drainage improvements for the area. Based on the benefits accrued from such
a development, the Dixie Community should consider lending its support to any commercial
improvements for that location. Without government funding, or until it is restored, the
development of adjacent property may be the only viable and feasible option for improving
drainage issues throughout the area. As studies show that floodplain issues negatively affect
housing prices, a flood mitigation project would benefit the Dixie Community. Floodplain
improvements in the area can only improve the prospects of advancing housing and property
values in the Dixie Community.26
26 Holway, J. M., & Burby, R. J. (1990). The effects of floodplain development controls on residential land values.
Land Economics, 259-271.
Page | 29
NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM
On April 20, 2015, the Dixie Community held a neighborhood forum in which researchers guided
a community discussion of residents at a regularly scheduled neighborhood association meeting.
The neighborhood forum served to ascertain citizens’ views across a host of items (e.g., about the
community, neighborhood issues, and resident concerns). As an open meeting, the perspectives
offered are from only those residents in attendance, and even then, these perspectives are of only
those who were willing to express their thoughts during or after the meeting.
Though there is much information from which to draw, it is possible to distill from the
neighborhood forum several key observations that summarize the community’s overall
perspectives; these are:
Sense of Community – there is an impressive esprit de corps in the Dixie
Community as residents are quite prideful of their community and all it has to offer
as a neighborhood and location. The Dixie Community must use this asset to
promote it to other community constituents. Organizations and other institutions
are much more interested in working with communities in which cooperation and
collaboration are well-established community characteristics.
Community Relations with the City of North Little Rock and the Union Pacific
Corporation – there are very long-held sentiments about the community’s
relationships with these entities and a sense that both neglect the community’s
needs; the relationship with the railroad, which owns property adjacent to the
community, is particularly acute as the prevailing sentiment is that the rail road
does not act in the best interest of the neighborhood. Union Pacific could improve
their relationship with the Dixie Community by working through its Union Pacific
Foundation to secure a community-based grant for the neighborhood.27 A review
of the grants made in Arkansas reveal that North Little Rock neighboring
communities have never received such funding; this is especially disturbing given
the presence of Union Pacific in the city (as well as being adjacent to the Dixie
Community). With regard to the City of North Little Rock, the most prevalent
sentiment is that it does not maintain a sustained presence in the community (e.g.,
regular and visible police patrols, street cleaning, and road & sidewalk
maintenance).
Though the City of North Little Rock has invested heavily in the community over
the years, residents continue to perceive their community neglected. Improving
relations with the city appears easily accomplished through information sharing
and continuous dialogue. Catalyzing this dialogue with the city can be advanced
should community members adhere to the recommendation to become actively
involved in the city’s Neighborhood Services program, which can lead to
27 Union Pacific Foundation. 2015. Union Pacific Corporation
http://www.up.com/aboutup/community/foundation/index.htm
Page | 30
improving this relationship. The relationship with Union Pacific is a bit more
arduous to address due to the profound lack of interest in the Dixie Community
over the years. Should the community be able to progress through the Union
Pacific Foundation, there may be some thawing of these sentiments. Regardless, it
will take more time and a much more concerted effort on behalf of the community
to ameliorate this relationship.
Flood Plain – the community is located in a flood plain, which introduces a host of
issues for residents and property owners (development, insurance acquisition &
costs, property values, etc.). The residents, though understanding of the cost and
complexity of the issue, are frustrated that various alternative actions are not
discussed; community members perceive those who can catalyze attention to the
problem as being too cautious.
Yet, there were many other nuanced comments and concerns discussed at the neighborhood
forum, as well as celebrations and compliments about the community; all these comments point to
a well-organized and genuine commitment to the overall well-being of the Dixie Community. To
uncover these sentiments, the neighborhood meeting was guided by items of import for the
community to aid in understanding residents’ overall satisfaction with living in the Dixie
Community. These topics are discussed below and include:
Quality of life,
Community issues,
Improvements and pressing concerns,
Neighborhood relations, and
Sense of community.
Quality of Life
Quality of Life, as used here, refers to the community’s well-being and perceived happiness with
aspects of living in the community. As applied in this setting, the quality of life discussion
involved two dimensions: it is discussed relative to residents’ personal happiness in the
community and residents perceptions of their well-being vis-à-vis the overall community. To
begin the neighborhood forum, residents were asked about their thoughts on what makes the
neighborhood good for the people that live there in terms of parks, schools, safety, streets, and
how well they know their neighbors.
The quality of life for residents personally is quite high; they conveyed an intense sense of
neighborhood pride and community spirit. Yet, aside from these personal frames of reference to
quality of life, most residents feel largely neglected by city and civic officials. Residents
expressed their exasperation through complaints about the City of North Little Rock concerning
the lack of street maintenance and street cleaning services, as well as inadequate signals and
emergency signage at the two railroad crossings leading into the community. However, the major
issue that frames their perspective is the lack of attention to the community’s location in a flood
plain area. The designation of being in a flood plain precludes any significant community
Page | 31
improvements being made in the neighborhood. Thus, quality of life in Dixie is dichotomized
according to how invested residents are in their community – perceived to be tremendous pride
and progress – and how invested civic and city leaders are in their community – perceived to be
minimal.
Community Issues
Beyond the issue most pronounced on residents’ minds (flood plain, or flooding & drainage
issues), only a few issues emerged as concerns for the community based on the list of issues
common to communities. The list of common issues in communities, as shown in Table 3,
demonstrates that community issues are not systemic or major problems. To initiate this
discussion, residents were presented with some common items for describing neighborhoods and
asked if these were in any way depicted their community.
Two issues considered “nuisance issues” – noise and animal issues – emerged as the most serious
problems by most residents attending the neighborhood forum; yet, even these issues were
depicted as isolated. For example, with regard to noise, residents noted that on occasion there are
cars in the neighborhood playing their music too loud. The other situation, animal nuisance, did
not involve neighbors in the community, but wild animals – skunks, bobcats, and feral cats – in
the community.
Other items noted offered more in the form of a complaint than an actual community concern. For
example, residents acknowledged that the North Little Rock Police Department patrols the area,
but they want the police patrols to be more frequent, especially during summer months (e.g. when
there is an increase in the number of people who loiter in the park) and during early morning
hours (between 3 and 6 am) when prospects for criminal behavior is more active (e.g., drug sales,
solicitation, etc.).
Those issues identified in Table 3 with an asterisk (*) also need further explication. These issue
items typically did not find residents outraged or upset, but expressing concern about specific
activities related to these issues (which are noted in brackets for each item so noted). Finally, one
other issue item was mentioned by several residents when they were asked about “other issues”;
residents spoke about people who are not from the community being in the area, especially during
the summer and early morning hours. Residents believe these individuals are bringing problems
into the neighborhood from other areas and would like to see action taken to curb the amount of
“transient activity” involving those who are from outside the Dixie Community.
Page | 32
Table 3. Common Community Issues
Check the most appropriate box for each item in the following list Not an
Issue
Somewhat
an Issue
A Major
Issue
a. Noisy Neighbors: loud music, late parties, noisy quarrels
[isolated incidents of loud music from cars]
b. Animal Nuisance (e.g., Dogs Barking Loudly, etc.)
[Feral Cats, Skunks, Bobcat; Animal Control is aware of problem]
c. Poor maintenance of property and lawns
d. Purse Snatching or other street crimes
e. Presence of Drugs and drug users
[activity is present, but not widespread; NLR PD made aware of issue] *
f. Groups of teenagers or adults hanging out and causing trouble
[only during select times of year, e.g., summer curfew violations] *
g. Garbage not properly disposed or trash on the sidewalk or streets
[lack of regular street sweeping] *
h. Landlords don’t care about what happens to the neighborhood
[very few rental properties at this time] *
i. Police not patrolling the area or responding to calls from the area
j. Flooding/drainage issues
k. List Other Concern :
[transient activity – youth from other neighborhoods ‘hanging out’; petty
theft issues]
*
Improvements and Pressing Concerns
The overarching pressing issue of concern to residents is the flood plain issue. Residents of the
community understand the magnitude and complexity of the issue, but would appreciate attention
to the situation when opportunities emerge. Another concern voiced by many of those residents
who attended the neighborhood forum involved the high voltage power lines in the community.
Neighborhood Relations
Neighborhood relations concerns how residents of the community keep, or are kept abreast of and
connected and involved in community initiatives steered by government or commercial entities
with an interest in the community’s well-being. Most present at the meeting noted that
relationships between the Dixie Community and the Union Pacific Corporation (also known as
the Railroad) and the City of North Little Rock were not completely unfavorable. Residents
acknowledged that work needs to be done by both sides to create a cordial atmosphere among
government entities with an interest in the status of the community, as well as those commercial
interests in close proximity to the neighborhood.
Page | 33
Sense of Community
Sense of community involves understanding how community, i.e., not necessarily individual
residents, experiences shape peoples perspective of their standing in or relationship with the
community as a whole. As shown in Table 4, residents were asked to discuss several items in an
effort to understand the ‘sense of community’ in the Dixie Community.
Table 4. Perspectives of Getting Along and Working Together in the Dixie Community Items below discuss how people in this neighborhood
get along with each other or work together; we want to
know how each item is for the Dixie Community
No Some of
the Time Yes
Do people in this neighborhood know each other?
Do people in this neighborhood trust each other?
Do people in this neighborhood feel close to each
other?
Do people have a feeling of community spirit in this
neighborhood?
Do people in this neighborhood watch out for each
other?
Do people in this neighborhood care about its future?
Do people in this neighborhood socialize with each
other?
Do people in this neighborhood have a voice regarding
important community issues?
Do people in this neighborhood work together to make
it a safer place to live?
Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to
properly maintain their lawns and the exteriors to their
houses in good condition?
Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to
respect quiet hours at night?
Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to
respect everyone’s parking spaces and driveways?
Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to
watch over children and the elderly in the
neighborhood to be sure they are safe?
As is easily discerned, there is a tremendous sense of community spirit in the Dixie Community.
Most residents know and socialize with each other through church or other civic activities. It is
common for residents to ‘look out for each other’ and work together to try to improve the
community. Proof of this sense of community is depicted in Table 4, in which all items deemed
viable assets for a community are viewed positively. From the discussion and anecdotal instances
shared during the neighborhood forum, it is easy to determine that residents of Dixie know and
Page | 34
trust each other; as well, residents noted how well people in the community routinely work
together to accomplish their common community objectives. In fact, from residents attending the
meeting, there was a sense of pride in their capacity to depend on each other (their neighbors).
Finally, from this neighborhood forum, it is easy to see that most residents speak with one
community voice and most share the same sentiments about their community. In fact, most
residents at the neighborhood form spoke of Dixie as “our community”.
Page | 37
Appendix A: Project Methodology
Several approaches were used by researchers to acquire data and information for this report; these
include:
Personal interviews with professionals associated with various state and local agencies;
Guided inquiry of attendees at a regularly scheduled neighborhood meetings;
Analysis of secondary data from the U.S. Census Bureau, North Little Rock crime data,
and the UALR Institute of Government.
For the neighborhood meeting (also referred to as the focus group), an IOG researcher conducted
a guided discussion of community members attending the regularly scheduled neighborhood
association meetings at the CDC on Monday, April 20, 2015. This group meeting served to
ascertain global citizen views across a host of questions about the community and issues and
concerns. As an “open participation” meeting, the participants are strictly self-selected (similar to
a convenience survey), i.e., only those willing to participate do so. Results from this community
meeting are best described as ‘impressionistic’ and general, overall descriptions of citizens’
perspectives. In no way should results from the community meeting be construed to be a
randomized effort of statistical integrity; these results cannot be extrapolated to the entire
community. The “instrument” used to guide this community meeting is provided in the discussion
of the meeting results.
Other analysis in this study is derived from secondary quantitative data based on a variety of
sources, including the City of North Little Rock, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other state and
federal agencies (e.g,, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). These data are matched as closely as
possible to correspond to the Dixie Community (as the area of the community is part of a larger
census tract). Much of these data extend back to 2000, unless otherwise noted. Interpretations of
these data are those of the researchers.
Page | 38
Appendix B: Weekday Bus Schedule
CATA Bus Schedules
http://www.cat.org/bus-service/bus-schedules
Route 18 – Service to the Dixie Community
http://www.cat.org/bus-service/bus-schedules/18-mcalmont
Page | 39
Appendix C: Government Officials Representing
Table B-1. List of Government Officials Representing the Dixie Addition Community
Office Phone
United States Senate
Sen. John Boozman (501) 372-7153
Sen. Tom Cotton (501) 223-9081
US House of Representatives
Rep. French Hill (501) 324-5941
Arkansas General Assembly
Sen. Linda Chesterfield (501) 888-1859
Rep. Eddie Armstrong (501) 444-8468
Pulaski County Quorum Court
Rev. Robert Green (501) 400-4477
North Little Rock City Council
Linda Robinson (501) 945-8820
Maurice Taylor (501) 690-6444
Page | 41
©
Spring 2015
INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT | UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK
MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM
2801 South University Avenue | Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099
http://www.ualr.edu/iog/
Limited reproduction permitted by contracting agency:
Dixie Community CDC