GVSU 49507 Report 2014

Project 49507 Student Report: A Partnership between Grand Valley State University and the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan Authors: Landon Hughes, Jacob Schacht, and Alexandra Schurkamp

2

Table of Contents

Introduction...........................................................................................3 Business..................................................................................................4 Crime .....................................................................................................7 Education...............................................................................................9 Environment........................................................................................11 Housing ................................................................................................14 Transportation ....................................................................................17 Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception.............18 Appendix I: Bibliography ..................................................................21 Appendix II: Data of Interest ............................................................23 General Data .......................................................................................23 Education Data....................................................................................27 Housing Data.......................................................................................29 Transportation Data...........................................................................36

3

Introduction

The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan (FHCWM) is a private non-profit organization located in Grand Rapids, Michigan whose central goal is to ensure equal housing opportunity under the law. In 2012, this organization joined with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) in an investigation regarding housing practices by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. across the United States. The collaborative investigation found that Wells Fargo had been better maintaining and marketing real estate owned (REO) properties in white areas than in communities that were predominately African-American and Latino. The investigation spanned 19 cities, including the City of Grand Rapids.1

In April 2012, HUD and the NFHA filed suit against Wells Fargo for their discriminatory practices. The suit was settled out of court in June 2013. As a part of the settlement agreement, Wells Fargo would provide funds that would foster homeownership, assist in rebuilding neighborhoods, and promote inclusiveness and diversity within the communities of color that were most heavily impacted by the foreclosure crisis and where their discriminatory practices were taking place. As a stakeholder in the suit, the FHCWM received $1.42 million of the total $27 million settlement to invest into areas of Grand Rapids affected by Wells Fargo’s practices.2

The FHCWM decided to begin by focusing their investment on a 45 square block area in Grand Rapids’ southeast side. This particular area was chosen because it was the neighborhood most affected by the 2008 foreclosure crisis and was heavily impacted by Wells Fargo’s discriminatory practices. The main objective of the FHCWM investment is to enhance existing services and frameworks that support the target area’s “stabilization, revitalization, property rehabilitation, walkability, and sustainability”.3

A key component of the FHCWM’s master investment plan was to “compile community profile data including identifying existing and potential assets, resources, services, programs, gaps, needs and opportunities”.4 To that end, the Center contacted Grand Valley State University to partner with their efforts by conducting research within the targeted area. The research projects that were undertaken included several distinct academic disciplines, including economics, geography and planning, history, public administration, and sociology. This report is a culmination of research findings, best practice models, and other information uncovered by student researchers. The data is sorted and presented in the following topics: Business, Crime, Education, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception. Findings and recommendations are presented along with a discussion regarding each topic.

1 Nancy Haynes, “Fair Housing Center of West Michigan: Program Overview Neighborhood Investment Initiative,” Fair Housing Center of West Michigan 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 2.

4

Business

The 49507-target area is facing very real challenges regarding its economic stability. In 2000, the poverty rate for residents in the community between the ages of 18-64 was at a striking 56 percent.5 In 2010, the neighborhood unemployment rate was reported to be 22.9%, compared to 9.5% nationwide.6 High levels of unemployment and the resulting poverty rate represent a low per capita income in 49507. The average household income in the area is roughly $36,408.7 There is little incentive for businesses to come to the area because low incomes mean that this neighborhood possesses very little consumer buying power. A lack of businesses means a lack of accessible jobs, further exacerbating the issue of unemployment. Since all of these statistics are related in one way or another, it is important to address the economic situation of 49507 as a system, instead of separate independent parts. Non-profits perceive the lack of available jobs in the community as a serious problem for 49507 to overcome.8 Many non-profits wished to partner with businesses regarding programs and outreach initiatives to address this problem and offer more services. Increased business involvement, as well as increased business presence, would help create greater access to employment within this community. Expanding networking opportunities between nonprofits and businesses may help foster more connections and 5 Community Research Institute. Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University. cridata.org 6 Ibid. 7 City-Data . On Board Informatics. city-data.org 8 Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014.

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: Area non-profits perceive unemployment to be a main problem facing 49507

Recommendation 1: Encourage business incubation through entrepreneurship programs, sourced from centers such as LINC Community Revitalization Inc.

Finding 2: Non-profits view businesses in the area as a significant asset in the community

Recommendation 2: Foster networking opportunities between businesses and nonprofits through community events in order to strengthen these networks and reach higher levels of collaboration

Finding 3: For every ¼ mile away from a supermarket a home is, the home value decreases an average of $10,000-$20,000

Recommendation 3: Include a grocery store offering a wide variety in both quality and price of food within zip code 49507

5

may eventually lead to more partnerships. Partnerships can create a stronger business presence and foster accessible employment for community members, helping lower the unemployment rate and grow the per capita income. Partnerships have the potential to raise the total value of 49507. Overall, a heightened business presence is key to decreasing the unemployment rate in this community; business incubation is one way to strengthen that presence. Business incubation is defined as “the dedication of resources, access to partnerships, and allocation of information to individuals who wish to begin” a business.9 Due to the low number of businesses as well as a missing incentive for businesses to develop in 49507, it would be beneficial for this community to partner with several local business incubators that exist in Grand Rapids. Engaging with these incubators or creating similar entities specifically for 49507 could provide the necessary backdrop to attract businesses.10 Among these local incubators are LINC Community Revitalization Inc., The Factory, Uptown Kitchen, SBDC, and Start Garden. Of the organizations listed above, LINC Community Revitalization Inc. is the only business incubator currently located within the 49507 target area. LINC provides a 3-year incubator program for small start-up businesses, making them an excellent platform for communicating with business owners and attract them to 49507. Although business attraction and growth provide an opportunity for decreasing the level of unemployment in the area (as long as community engagements exist within these businesses), it is important to monitor the types of businesses entering the area. Grocery stores in particular have a significant effect on the value of a neighborhood.11 Grocery stores with a wide variety of prices and quality of food offerings are extremely valuable to their surrounding neighborhood – both because of their appeal to a wide variety of consumers and the opportunity for neighborhood employment.12 Within 49507, for every additional ¼ mile a home is away from a grocery store of this type (such as Meijer or D&W), housing value decreases by an average of $10,000-$20,000.13 Specialty stores on both the low or high cost and quality spectrums actually decrease the value of their surrounding neighborhoods.14 Grocery stores with more options create greater appeal to the consumer and present the opportunity for one-stop shopping.15 These stores are often larger, therefore presenting more employment opportunities for residents.16 It is important during business incubation to attract the types of businesses entering the community, as a 9 Rolando Bocanegra, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability ." 2014: 11. 10 Ibid. 11 Greg Galica, et. al. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507." Grand Valley State University. 12 Schuetz R. Meltzer. Bodegas or bagel shops? Neighborhood differences in retail and household services. Economic Development Quarterly. 26(1), 73-94. 2012. 13 Greg Galica, et. al. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507." Grand Valley State University. 14 Ibid. 15 M. Rouwendal Van Duijn. Analysis of household location behavior, local amenities and house prices in a sorting framework. Journal of Property Research, 29(4), 280-297. 2012. 16 Greg Galica, et. al. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014.

6

mix could be adjusted for maximum employment opportunities and community appeal/value appreciation.

7

Crime

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: Violent and sexual crimes lower housing values in areas they occur

Recommendation 1: Create a strong relationship between local police and neighborhood watch programs

Finding 2: After-school programs in Grand Rapids are decreasing the number of youth becoming involved in crime

Recommendation 2: Expand existing programs that empower youth and provide activities alternative to crime

Finding 3: Neighborhood safety is perceived to be higher than reality when a neighborhood is comprised of close-knit residents

Recommendation 3: Hold law enforcement-supported events to encourage community bonding

The crime rate of the 49507 target area is 204.2 crimes per 1,000 people. From May 2013 to May 2014, roughly 50% of the crimes committed in this community were either violent or sexual in nature.17 Violent and sexual crimes most negatively impact the value of a neighborhood.18 The prevalence of these types of crimes in 49507 should be the focus of crime prevention initiatives in this area. As demonstrated by the Neighborhood Watch program of San Gabriel, CA (a city similar in size and demographics to Grand Rapids, MI), fostering a relationship between local police and neighborhood watch programs can aid in reducing the frequency of violent and sexual crime.19 These types of initiatives should be further supported in 49507. The Garfield Park Neighborhood Association is currently partnered with the Grand Rapids Police department orchestrating neighborhood watch programs and implementing a ‘court watch program’ to prevent convicted criminals from re-entering the Garfield Park neighborhood.20 Expanding programs similar to that of Garfield Park carry the potential to reduce violent and sexual crime in the region. Due to the reduction in neighborhood value violent and sexual crimes create; reducing these crimes could increase neighborhood value. Regarding crime, there are two consistent opportunities for reduction: youth engagement and community involvement. Crime within a certain geographical area, in this case zip code 49507, is propelled by the continuous involvement of citizens and the recruitment of youth. To this point, youth engagement then becomes a critical focus for addressing

17 Group, Omega. crimemapping.com. 2008. 18 Leigh Linden, et. al. "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws."American Economic Review 98, 3:1103-27.2008. 19 Ibid. 20 Rolando Bocanegro, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability." Grand Valley State University.

8

crime. To combat the pull of crime on youth, it is imperative to provide alternatives to fill youths’ free time. The City of Grand Rapids has recently experienced a decrease in the rate of youth involved crime as a result of the increase of both after-school program participation and parent involvement.21 Organizations such as Our Community’s Children, the Baxter Community Center, and Oakdale Neighbors empower youth and provide alternative activities to crime.22 It is crucial to involve local law enforcement within these initiatives as police presence in after-school programs help alleviate tension and build citizen trust of police. 23 Police involvement in the Boys and Girls Club Youth Commonwealth has already demonstrated the effectiveness of police/citizen relationships. Continuing to provide and promote this program, as well as developing additional initiatives, should encourage the current trend of reduction of youth involvement crime. Events are one way to engage community members, and are also beneficial in the reduction of not only the presence of crime, but the community’s perception as well. Community events foster relationships amongst community members creating a closer-knit community.24 A community that is considered ‘close knit’ is often perceived to have a lower crime rate, which translates to an appreciation in neighborhood value.25 Police involvement is again crucial, as community events in high-crime areas tend to present an opportunity for crime to occur – further inviting negative attention to an otherwise positive event. Furthermore, community events with positive results encourage future events of a similar variety helping continue neighborhood valuation.

21 MLive Neighborhood Report 22 Chad Atwood, et. al. "Safety Concerns in the 49507 Area Code of Grand Rapids, MI." Grand Valley State University. 2014. 23 Interview with Officer Mike Harris 24 Kayla Coutchie, et. al. "Local Festivities and Events in the 49507 Area Code." Grand Valley State University. 2014. 25 Ibid.

9

Education Findings Recommendations Finding 1: 41.5%26 of residents 25 and over do not have a high school diploma

Recommendation 1: Promote high school completion and college readiness through mentorship programs and connection to role models

Finding 2: 47.2%27 of residents 25 and over have either a high school diploma or GED equivalent

Recommendation 2: Present children and adults to opportunities by providing educational events with local business owners, trades, non-profits, and universities

Finding 3: 4.0%28 of residents age 25 and over have a bachelors degree

Recommendation 3: Promote after school educational programs to further education and prevent crime

A significant statistic regarding education in the 49507-project area is that 41.5% of residents don’t have a high school diploma. The data starkly shows that this neighborhood is struggling academically. Students, teachers, and parents need to be given the tools to help residents thrive academically by addressing some of the problems in and outside of the schools. Assisting struggling students in a variety of ways can help remove challenges confronting their educational efforts. A California non-profit called Students Rising Above provides a college readiness program to low-income students. The program holds off-to-college seminars, grants tuition support, and provides paid summer internships. 29 It is recommended that programs like this are created in 49507 and be tailored toward high school students. Such programs might involve academic tutors, funding for supplies, and a college advisor who can assist with class scheduling and the college application process. Seminars focused on skill-building, resume assistance, and college planning can help alleviate many stresses on current high school students and get students thinking about college.30 Exposing students to positive examples and educational success stories can show students that high school graduation and college is attainable for them. Individuals who have gone to college further legitimate the neighborhood’s school system. They create the expectation among current high school students that they attend college. Perceptions of 26 “Community Profile 2.0,” Community Research Institute, Accessed April 10, 2014, http://weave.cridata.org/communityprofiles/. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Lisa Brown, et. al. “An Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand Rapids, MI Community and Elsewhere,” 2014:10. 30 Ibid.

10

school may become more positive as more success stories are presented and discussed with high school students.31 Another educational recommendation not only focuses on students, but on adults as well. Holding an event that presents opportunities for education, support, and job training to students and adults could greatly benefit this community. EdRev, a successful education fair in a low-income California community, encouraged adults to engage in educational initiatives.32 At EdRev, multiple sessions were targeted towards all age groups with topics ranging from technology, to teaching, to leadership skills. An event like this could include teachers, business owners, university leaders, and students who present on a variety of applicable topics. Attendees could learn about ways to improve their situation through education and access to these opportunities.33 Lastly, reducing costs for educational supplies could take a load off both teachers and students, helping them focus their educational efforts. One effective organization that seeks to reduce costs on students and teachers is called Crayons to Classrooms. Crayons to Classrooms is a non-profit which maintains a “warehouse” of school supplies for students and teachers free of charge.34A school qualifies with at least 70% of its students eligible for the National School Lunch Program. Through this nonprofit, donors are able to sponsor “School Boxes” containing books, pencils, paper, crayons, and markers for students to use. Students are given the educational tools to help them be successful. Furthermore, teachers are no longer responsible for providing resources out of their own salary to create a healthy learning environment for children. Programs like Crayons to Classrooms are successful in preventing costs and allowing teachers and students alike to focus on what is most important – the children’s education.35

31 Ibid, 14. 32 Ibid, 11. 33 Ibid, 16. 34 Ibid. 35 Lisa Brown, et. al. “An Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand Rapids, MI Community and Elsewhere,” 2014:8.

11

Environment

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: For each additional 100 feet closer a home is to a community park, $193.00 is added to the value of the house36

Recommendation 1: Strongly advocate the expansion of green space and/or park land by effectively and creatively using the vacant areas of the neighborhood

Finding 2: Increases in park size adds value to the homes in the surrounding area37

Recommendation 2: Encourage beautification along the lines of street trees, plantings, and yard cleanup

Finding 3: However, park size hits a point where marginal cost per square foot outweighs marginal benefit38

Recommendation 3: Develop opportunities for community gardens, seeking partnerships possibly with experience in GVSU agriculture programs and the Baxter Community Garden initiative

Green spaces add value to a surrounding neighborhood. In 49507, for every 100 feet closer a home is to a park, the home’s value increases by $193.00. Not only do parks increase the value of a home, but they also produce healthier residents by increasing physical activity among residents.39 People tend to feel healthier and less stressed when around a park.40 Parks also produce a cleaner environment, filtering city pollution and storm water, while moderating temperatures in adjoining areas.41 Parks provide meeting space for events and activities and increase social interactions amongst residents. These types of social interactions can be “‘one of the quickest ways to build a sense of community and improve quality of life.”42 Green spaces in the 49507 area are ripe for improvement and expansion. Currently, Dickinson Buffer Park serves the neighborhood at a small .84 acres.43 The Dickinson Elementary Playground is only open to the public during hours school is not in session, limiting resident accessibility. Although Dickinson Buffer Park exists within this neighborhood it borders heavy industry, exposing children to health hazards. Additionally city plans classify different portions of the neighborhood as either not served, severely

36 Paul Isely. Grand Valley State University. 2014. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Kyle Barnhart. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis of Grand Rapids, Michigan,” 4. 42 Ibid. 43 Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, Accessed April 14, 2014, http://www.friendsofgrparks.org/

12

underserved, or underserved regarding parks.44 The streets of Burton, Hall, Division, and Eastern are considered barriers due to their role as main roads accompanied by heavy traffic. The streets enclose the neighborhood making surrounding parks, like Garfield Park, non-ideal locations.45 It should also be noted that Grand Rapids park quality and size follow demographics data related to race.46 Poor park quality and smaller park sizes are directly related to a higher percent of African American residents.47 Additionally, park types generally include mini parks in predominately African American neighborhoods.48 Grand Rapids has very few resources directed towards green space around the city.49 There exists no formal parks department, but currently the City of Grand Rapids is searching for a new parks director. 50 There are few full time parks employees which are only able to do basic maintenance with the little funding spent on parks.51 A recently passed millage and future plans for Madison Square Park are encouraging signs for the future of parks in the neighborhood. However, it should be understood that the city will focus work on rebuilding existing parks to a lost standard for the immediate future.52 Considering a general lack of resources, it is worthwhile to primarily focus environmental improvement efforts outside the city government. Some organizations in this area are advocating for better parks such as the Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. This organization creates park improvement campaigns as well as educational events for the community. As the city and organizations are looking to improve parks in 49507 it is important that these entities engage residents during planning periods. Prior to redeveloping the Marvin Gaye Park in Washington, D.C., planners sought input from the residents about their favorite part of a park and what their ideal park would look like.53 Practices like this are greatly beneficial because a park’s value is created in either how it is used or how it is perceived. It is very important to give residents a say in the process because they are the people who will be ultimately giving the park value. Regarding the lack of resources faced by the city for parks, business funding for park initiatives has been successful elsewhere in the United States. 54 In one example, businesses would fund the development of a neighboring lot into a green space or park. This business would get priority over park reservations, but would leave the park open to 44 City of Grand Rapids. Green Grand Rapids Master Plan. Grand Rapids. <http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services> (assessed April 6, 2014). 45 Ibid, different page. 46 Kyle Barnhart. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis…,” 7-9. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Dana Eardley, et. al. “Green Space Initiative – 49507,” 5. 50 Matt Vande Bunte. “Hired Grand Rapids parks director backs out, says 103,000 pay is too low.” MLive, May 9, 2014. 51 See note 42. 52 Ibid, 6. 53 Ibid, 7. 54 Dana Eardley, et. al. “Green Space Initiative – 49507,” 10.

13

the public at other times.55 Other cities have adopted Pennies for Parks programs where a small tax on residents is spent directly on parks.56 Between the high density of houses and population in 49507, several backyards and vacant lots could serve as community garden locations adding green spaces to the neighborhood. Community gardens would provide access to fresh, healthy produce in 49507 where access is otherwise limited. Therefore, it is recommended that organizations within 49507 that are interested in engaging with community gardening form partnerships with other organizations already working on these initiatives. Two organizations that focus on gardening in 49507 are the Baxter Community Center and Our Kitchen Table. The Baxter Community Center organizes the Baxter Community Garden Initiative. This Initiative began with grant funding to provide fresh, affordable produce and create programming geared towards nutrition education, environmental awareness and community spirit. The center also holds events around different harvest periods. Events involve canning and cooking classes along with the Strawberry Social and Tomato Festival. Through a partnership with Grand Valley State University, the garden is able to enhance its impact on the community.57 Our Kitchen Table provides education around community gardening and also provides an urban foraging program that shows residents what parts of a plant they can and can’t eat within their local parks. Baxter Community Center and Our Kitchen Table serve as experienced resources with members passionate about gardening and willing to share this passion with others in the community. Although parks provide great benefit to a community, when a park becomes too large it can become more of a problem than a benefit – meaning that the marginal cost outweighs the marginal benefit per square foot.58 This mostly occurs when the park becomes too difficult to police, thus becoming a safety concern.59 The park space must also be maintained. If a park goes unattended, the unattractive land does not positively add to the appeal of the neighborhood. Parks follow the Broken Window Theory.60 As a broken window goes unfixed, the window symbolizes a neighborhood that tolerates blight and has little concern. Therefore, when properly kept, a park provides benefits to residents and adds value to a neighborhood.

55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Dana Eardley, et. al. “Green Space Initiative – 49507,” 9. 58 See note 42. 59 See note 42. 60 Dana Eardley, et. al. “Green Space Initiative – 49507,” 5.

14

Housing

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: Rental houses sell at values on average $5,650 less than their non-rental counterparts

Recommendation 1: Partner with existing institutions that focus on low-income housing developments to provide safe rental houses that are built to a standard and do not decrease housing values

Finding 2: Landlords often cannot sustain the input costs of improving rental properties, causing the cost of rent to increase to compensate landlords quickly

Recommendation 2: Re-evaluate current Rental Certification requirements and reduce required financial contribution by landlords through area organizations’ involvement

Finding 3: Non-foreclosed and non-distressed houses on blocks with foreclosure rates above 3% see an average reduction in value of $2,700

Recommendation 3: Provide residents with easily available information about the foreclosure process and how to work with their financial institutions through communication forums

Housing values are tied very closely to the value of a neighborhood or zip code.61 To raise the value of 49507, it is beneficial to address factors decreasing average housing sale prices. Though several variables determine the value of a house in 49507, there is a difference in value between rental homes and owner-occupied homes. Investigating which variables contribute to the difference between rental values and non-rental values (seen in finding 1) makes addressing this gap in sale price easier. Rental houses in 49507 are not maintained to the extent that owner-occupied homes are, due to the lack of incentives.62 The current shortage of available rental housing63 diminishes the incentive for landlords to maintain their rental units. Renters do not possess an incentive to maintain their rental units since they receive no net benefit for incurring the costs associated with maintenance.64 This lack of incentives causes rental housing to be less valuable than owner-occupied housing. This is relevant to 49507, as the rental-to-owner-occupied ratio is 3:2.65 A potential source for eliminating the difference in value between rental homes and owner-occupied homes is by providing rental housing and rental unit maintenance programs funded by organizations.

61Alexandra Schurkamp, et. al. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 62 J. Harding, et. al. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their Housing Than Renters.?” Real Estate Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000. 63 Target Market Report 64 J. Harding, et. al. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their Housing Than Renters.?” Real Estate Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000. 65 United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.

15

LINC Community Revitalization Inc. has begun constructing low-income housing in the 49507 area.66 The expansion of their programs should help diminish some of the value differences between rental and non-rental housing by not placing the economic or statutory maintenance on landlords or renters. 67 LINC’s housing units are organizationally owned, thus organizationally maintained. Healthy Homes is an organization that provides funds and services to address lead paint and other environmental and health contaminants in rental units.68 Homeowners are incentivized by personal health and safety concerns to maintain their homes in this respect. However, landlords do not occupy their own units, and are therefore are less concerned with its contaminant status. Renters, committed only for the short term, are unwilling to financially contribute to improvement of the housing. 69 By funding necessary improvements and ensuring they are completed, Healthy Homes helps alleviate some of the unaddressed safety and environmental concerns dragging down rental housing values. Addressing the lack of incentives in both maintenance and safety standards, organizational partnerships could diminish the price gap between owner-occupied and rental housing in 49507, thus raising overall housing values. The City of Grand Rapids started a Rental Certification program in 2010 attempting to address the lack of incentives by requiring landlords to incur the costs of improvements in their rental units.70 The current Rental Certification system in Grand Rapids is intended to raise the housing values of rental properties; however, there is no statistically significant increase in the sale price of a rental property as a result of the certification program. 71 Home values are increasing as a result of the program due to the improvements, but because landlords cannot cover the costs of improvement, they pass these costs onto renters through increased rates.72 The data shows that rental costs are increasing as a result of the certification requirements, which a neighborhood with a per capita income level such as that of 49507 cannot sustain. Increase in rent can impact neighborhoods in several different ways (i.e. increases in squatting, foreclosure, vacancy, blight, etc.).73 While the program is well founded in the structure of creating uniform requirements for rental housing quality, it could better help raise housing values if the 66 Landon Hugheset. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014. 67 Alexandra Schurkamp, et. al. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014. 68 Landon Hughes, Carolyn Sandvig, Christopher Davenport, and Casey Overway. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014. 69 Alexandra Schurkamp, and Matthew Churay. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 70 Grand Rapids, City of. "Rental Certification." Code Compliance Division. 71 Alexandra Schurkamp, et. al. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014. 72 Ibid. 73 R. M. Rogers, et. al. “Consumer prices: Examining housing rental components”. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 78(3), 1993: 32-46.

16

financial burden was removed from landlords. This Rental Certification program holds significant potential for success if a party other than the landlords and/or renters funded it. Bringing down the overall housing values of a neighborhood, foreclosures and distressed homes have a negative effect. On blocks with a foreclosure rate above 3%, houses see an average decrease in value of $2,700. Zip code 49507, disproportionally affected by the housing crisis of 2008, had a vacancy rate of 20% and a foreclosure rate was 4% in 2013.74 Helping residents find resources about foreclosure is a major key to alleviating the foreclosure burden on a neighborhood. Promoting existing foreclosure relief efforts in Grand Rapids, as well as promoting their use by citizens can aid in disseminating information pertaining to foreclosure. Making information regarding foreclosure relief and the foreclosure process readily available to residents can help prevent foreclosure by educating them on what they can do to mediate their financial situation.75 The Fair Housing Center of the City of Cleveland has a system where a bulletin board is produced and updated with different loan rates across banks and financial rehabilitation service information.76 This method of communication could be utilized by an organization in 49507 to help inform residents. Communication forums such as pamphlets and community speakers can also be explored as channels for information dissemination. Educating citizens about the foreclosure process and financial health holds the possibility to reduce the foreclosure rate, thereby increasing housing and neighborhood values. Addressing variables that pull down housing values in a neighborhood requires a multi-tiered course of action. The lack of incentives for both landlords and renters to maintain properties as well as update safety and environment concerns could be mediated by organizational involvement. The value decline as a result of foreclosures could be mediated through the financial education of citizens.

74 United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce. 75 Rolando Bocanegro, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability." Grand Valley State University. 76 Ibid.

17

Transportation

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: Observed many potholes, bent signs, narrow streets and trash77

Recommendation 1: Conduct a professional evaluation of project area streets to accurately assess condition and greatest need for improvement

Recommendation 2: Monitor downtown expansion after the Silverline finishes for possible gentrification of the 49507 neighborhood

Sidewalks and roads in 49507 need repairs. A group of public administration students who completed a transportation audit of the entire 49507 zip code described the area’s roads as being very narrow and full of potholes.78 Cars parked on both sides of the streets left room for only one car to pass through, several street signs were bent or in bad condition, and trash lined the sidewalks.79 To properly assess the condition and greatest need facing transportation in this area, a professional evaluation of roads and sidewalks is recommended to inform future improvement plans. The City of Grand Rapids’ budget has capacity for street improvement until 2030. The recent May 6th vote to raise income tax will provide roughly 8 million additional dollars for streets. Spending will be prioritized along the findings of an asset map around the city, but it is said 49507 will see work done as well.80 Grand Rapids will be experiencing an improvement in transportation with the BRT Silverline project. The Silverline will have stops at Hall Street, Cottage Grove Street, and Burton Street along Division Avenue.81 The additional route will be more efficient in connecting the surrounding Grand Rapids area with downtown and vice versa, providing greater access to parts of Grand Rapids and to economic opportunities. However, a number of community organizations are cautiously optimistic about the project.82 It is difficult to gather resident opinion, but some fear future gentrification of the 49507 area. The neighborhood is geographically close to the downtown, which some see as an asset, but others see as a concern because of the large developments that are creeping south of downtown along Division Avenue.83 Monitoring the expansion of the Silverline and its effect on the surrounding communities is recommended.

77 Tyler Bryan, et. al. “Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood,” 7-8. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Tyler Bryan, et. al. “Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood,”9. 81 Ibid, 10. 82 Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014:19. 83 Ibid.

18

Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception

When non-profits were asked about the biggest assets they believe existed in the community, six out of the seven organizations answered “the people” as the number one asset. 84 These organizations describe the people as an asset because they hold “community knowledge” that is valuable to shaping the work that non-profits do. The organizations also viewed the residents as an asset because they are a closely-knit diverse community. They value solidarity and diversity because it makes this neighborhood unique to others. Since the 49507 neighborhood is unique, it holds different potential than more homogenous neighborhoods – particularly cultural potential and the ability to hold cultural community events. Although organizations identify residents as a valuable asset, when asked about the problems that this neighborhood is facing, the one theme that appeared in almost every interview was that the community voice was not being represented in organizations because the non-profits are finding it hard to outreach effectively in this community.85 This is quite telling because if the people are considered the most valuable asset in the 84 Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014. 85 Ibid.

Findings Recommendations Finding 1: Non-profit organizations describe residents as the community’s number one asset but cannot find ways to effectively outreach to these individuals and include their voice in organizational decision making

Recommendation 1: Support organizational and community efforts to include resident voices in discussions around development and programming by eliminating barriers and encouraging intentional outreach practices

Finding 2: Organizations identified the following as assets: residents, vibrant business community, entrepreneurial spirit, affordable homes, community gardens, schools, churches, non-profits, diversity, close-knit community, community knowledge, and foundation funding

Recommendation 2: Encourage the construction of an asset map that physically maps assets within this community to provide non-profits, legislators, and community members with information about the potential that exists within this community

Finding 3: Children’s perception of their neighborhood is closely tied to how the homes are displayed physically

Recommendation 3: Continue home renovation and beautification efforts within this community

19

community, but the organizations are finding it hard tapping into this potential, the community is suffering because organizations are not utilizing its best resource. Organizations went on to identify factors to consider when creating outreach initiatives which include: reaching individuals at the right time of day, using an effective method of communication, engaging at locations that are accessible, and providing incentives to residents to participate in feedback.86 Engaging in intentional outreach practices can help reach this community’s biggest asset and better inform the work of non-profits. Although the community voice is very important in community revitalization efforts, the reality is that individuals who live outside of this neighborhood run most of the non-profits working in this community. This does not mean that these individuals don’t have an important role to play. “Outsiders” can play the role of a catalyst, allowing the community to see itself clearly; to act as a connector; to facilitate trust, provide positive motivation for change, and to leverage outside resources. 87 We recommend fostering stronger networks between organizations and residents by supporting organizational and community efforts to include resident voices in discussions around development and programming. By establishing better connections between neighborhood catalysts and the community’s biggest asset, the potential for problem solving in this area is vast. To further provide useful tools to organizations and individuals in this community we also recommend encouraging the construction of an asset map. An asset map is a documentation “of the talents, capabilities, and interests of the residents and organizations within the community.”88 An asset map is created by conducting interviews, surveys, and focus groups within the community, and the resulting information becomes a resource for the community and organizations. Asset maps allow for better networking and communication between organizations and individuals, contributing to the effectiveness of future and existing efforts.89 Lastly, a group of sociology students conducted research with children in the Boys and Girls Club and found that the negative perception of the neighborhood by children was tied to the housing stock, not so much the individuals that lived in the community. 90 By continuing efforts to beautify the homes in this neighborhood, perhaps a better perception of the neighborhood will follow. However, this is not the only factor that contributes to the perception of this neighborhood. Some organizational representatives recognize

86 Ibid. 87 Terry Bergdall. "Reflections on the Catalytic Role of an Outsider." Asset Based Community Development . (accessed April 15, 2014). 88 Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014: 9. 89 J.P. Robinson. "Asset mapping: A Tool for Building Capacity in Communities." Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 95: 52-53. 90 Krzysztof Lower. “Filling the Gaps”. 2014: 8-9.

20

racism as contributing to the many problems that this community is facing.91 By simply fixing the outside of the home, we may not get to the root of the perception problem. In figure 1 below you can see other assets mentioned by non-profit representatives sorted by attributes associated with either residents or organizations.

Figure 1: Perceived Assets

For more information regarding asset-based community development visit www.abcdinstitute.org. 91 Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014: 21.

21

Appendix I: Bibliography Atwood, Chad, Abu Kamara, Alex Trinh, Troy Williams, and Jennifer Saksa. "Safety

Concerns in the 49507 Area Code of Grand Rapids, MI." Grand Valley State University. 2014.

Barnhart, Kyle. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis of Grand Rapids, Michigan.” 2013.

Bergdall, Terry. "Reflections on the Catalytic Role of an Outsider." Asset Based Community Development . (accessed April 15, 2014).

Bocanegra, Rolando , Andrew Otten, Matt Waldon, Ted Woodcock, and Diana Zhang. "Neighborhood Stability ." 2014.

Brown, Lisa, Tobias Hutchens, Madison Murphy, Laura Santos, and Neal Spann. “An Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand Rapids, MI Community and Elsewhere”. 2014.

Bryan, Tyler, Mitchell Corona, Timothy Creighton, Juan Pena, and Mitchell Wensman. “Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood.” 2014.

City-Data . On Board Informatics. city-data.org “Community Profile 2.0,” Community Research Institute, Accessed April 10, 2014,

http://weave.cridata.org/communityprofiles/. Community Research Institute. Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University.

cridata.org Coutchie, Kayla, Fabian Haywood, and Chantall Ash. "Local Festivities and Events in

the 49507 Area Code." Grand Valley State University. Eardley, Dana, Sara Ghannam, Krystal McCain, Jacob Schacht, and Brianne Sochocki.

“Green Space Initiative – 49507.” 2014. Faber, Steve. “Friends of Grand Rapids Parks.” Lecture, Grand Valley State University,

Allendale, MI, 11 Feb. 2014. Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. Accessed April 14, 2014,

http://www.friendsofgrparks.org/ Galica, Greg, and Alex Veen. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507."

Grand Valley State University. 2014. Grand Rapids, City of. Park and Recreation 2010 Master Plan. Grand Rapids: Parks and

Recreation Department. http://grcity.us/public-services/Parks-Recreation-Forestry/Documents/ (accessed March 30, 2014).

Grand Rapids, City of. "Rental Certification." Code Compliance Division. Group, Omega. crimemapping.com. 2008. Harding, J., Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their

Housing Than Renters?” Real Estate Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000. Harris, Officer Mike. Interview. Haynes, Nancy. “Fair Housing Center of West Michigan: Program Overview

Neighborhood Investment Initiative,” Fair Housing Center of West Michigan. 2013.

Hughes, Landon, Carolyn Sandvig, Christopher Davenport, and Casey Overway. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014.

Isely, Paul. Grand Valley State University. 2014.

22

Linden, Leigh, and Jonah E. Rockoff. "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws."American Economic Review 98, 3:1103-27. 2008.

Lower, Krzysztof. “Filling the Gaps”. 2014. Meltzer, R. Schuetz. “Bodegas or Bagel Shops?” Neighborhood differences in retail and

household services. Economic Development Quarterly. 26(1), 73-94. 2012. MLive Neighborhood Report. Robinson, J.P. "Asset mapping: A Tool for Building Capacity in Communities." Journal

of Family and Consumer Sciences 95: 52-53. Rogers, R. M., Henderson, S. W., & Ginsburg, D. H. “Consumer prices: Examining

housing rental components.” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 78(3), 32-46. 1993.

Schurkamp, Alexandra, and Matthew Churay. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014.

Target Market Report Vande Bunte, Matt. “Hired Grand Rapids parks director backs out, says 103,000 pay is

too low.” MLive, May 9, 2014. Van Duijn, M. Rouwendal. “Analysis of household location behavior, local amenities and

house prices in a sorting framework”. Journal of Property Research, 29(4), 280-297. 2012.

United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.

23

Appendix II: Data of Interest General Data

Date Year Category Value

2010 % White 12.10% 2010 % Black or African American 55.00% 2010 % Hispanic or Latino 28.80%

2010 % Population under 5 years old 10.30%

2010 % Population 18 years and over 65.50%

2010 % Population 5 to 17 years old 24.10%






2010 % Population over 64 years old 6.30%

2010 % Population under 18 years old 34.50%


2010

Total nonfamily male householder households with one or more people under 18

years old

7

2010

Total nonfamily female householder households with one or more people under 18

years old

3

2010 Total households occupied by one or more people over 60

years old 440

*sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF1).

24

Date Year Category Value 2000 % Below Poverty22 31.20%

2000 % of Number in

Poverty Under 5 years old22

11.50%

2000 % of Number in

Poverty 5 to 17 years old22

28.70%

2000 % of Number in


56.50%

2000 % of Number in


2.30%

2000 % of Number in Poverty 75 and older22 1.00%

*sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF3 P87.

*sourced from City Data.

25


Snapshot of Population 15 Years and Over in 49507

Never married: 44.2%

Now married: 38.6%

Separated: 2.8%

Widowed: 4.2%

Divorced: 10.3%

Household received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months 4,574

Household did not receive Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months

7,855

Women who had a birth in the past 12 months 692 (270 now married, 422 unmarried)

Women who did not have a birth in the past 12 months

9,842 (3,393 now married, 6,449 unmarried)

26

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2011 This zip code: 33.5% Whole state: 17.5%

Residents with income below 50% of the poverty level in 2011

This zip code: 18.7% Whole state: 9.5%


Per Capita Personal Income, 2012

*sourced from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Per Capita Income as a Percent of the United States


27

2011-2012 % Change

Category Grand Rapids U.S.

Net Earnings 5.6 4.3 Dividends, Interest, & Rent 5.2 5.5

Personal Current Transfer Receipts 2.1 2.2


2011-2012 Compound Annual Growth Rate

Category Grand Rapids U.S.

Net Earnings 2.2 3.6 Dividends, Interest, & Rent 4 4.5

Personal Current Transfer Receipts 6.8 6.3


Education Data

Date Year Category Value

2010 % No High School Diploma 41.50%

2010 % High School Diploma or GED Equivalent Only 47.20%

2010 % Associates as Highest Degree 4.80%

2010 % Bachelors as Highest Degree 4.00%

2010 % Graduate or

Professional as Highest Degree

2.60%

2010 % Civilians Employed 77.10% 2010 % Civilians Unemployed 22.90%

*sourced from ESRI 2010 Estimates.

28

Snapshot of population 25 years and over in 49507

High school or higher: 72.8%

Bachelor's degree or higher: 18.1%

Graduate or professional degree: 6.7%

Unemployed: 17.7%

Mean travel time to work (commute): 19.7 minutes


Private vs. Public School Enrollment

Students in private schools in grades 1 to 8 (elementary and middle school): 893 49507: 16.3%

Michigan: 10.5%

Students in private schools in grades 9 to 12 (high school): 377 49507: 14.5% Michigan: 8.6%

Students in private undergraduate colleges: 450

49507: 22.8% Michigan: 15.5% *sourced from City Data.

29

Housing Data Date Year Category Value

2010 Homeownership Rate 54.8 2010 Homeownership Rate 54.8

2010 Occupied Housing Units 1,748

2010 % Occupied Housing Units 82.20%

2010 Homeownership Rate 54.8 2010 Homeownership Rate 54.8

2010 % Vacant Housing Units 17.80%

2010 % Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.10%

2010 % Renter Occupied Units 37.20%

2010 Average Household Size 232

*sourced from the Community Research Institute.

30


Date Year Column1 Value Average Lowest Highest

2010 Total Housing Units11 80,619 3,638 47 349,170 2013 Total Residential Properties80 51,737 51,737 51,737 51,737

2010 Housing Density (per sq mile)11 1,815.90 621.8 25.1 4,168.00

2010 % Occupied Housing Units11 89.50% 83.00% 3.20% 97.50% 2010 % Vacant Housing Units11 10.50% 17.00% 2.50% 96.80%

2010 % Owner Occupied Housing Units11 50.10% 59.10% 2.80% 92.80%

2010 % Renter Occupied Units11 39.40% 23.90% 0.00% 62.20%

2012 Total Number of Housing Sales80 3,651 3,651 3,651 3,651

2012 Housing Sales Rate per 10080 7.04 7.04 7.04 7.04 2012 Average Sale Price80 111,341.28 111,341.28 111,341.28 111,341.28

2012 Average Closest Park in miles82 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

31

2012 Average Acres of Park Access82 4.28 4.28 4.28 4.28

2013 Number of Blight81 388 388 388 388 2013 Blight Rate per 10081 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 2013 Number of Nuisances81 19 19 19 19 2013 Nuisances per 10081 9,897.00 9,897.00 9,897.00 9,897.00

2012 % Owners Spending Over 30% Income on Housing2 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98

2012 % Renters Spending Over 30% Income on Housing2 55.42% 55.42% 55.42% 55.42%

2013 Average Year Built80 1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933 2012 % Homes Built before 197880 92.12% 92.12% 92.12% 92.12%

2012 Number of Primary Residential Exemptions81 36,437 36,437 36,437 36,437

2012 % Primary Residential Exemption81 70.58% 70.58% 70.58% 70.58%

2011 Number of Foreclosures80 1,012 1,012 1,012 1,012 2011 Foreclosures per 10080 2 2 2 2 2013 Number of Building Permits81 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400

2012 Residential Building Permits per 10081 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

*sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (denoted by 2), U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF1) (denoted by 11), Kent County, Bureau of Equilization (denoted by 80), City of Grand Rapids, Community Development Department, Code Compliance Office (denoted by 81), and Community Research Institute GIS (denoted by 82).

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Number of Units Built

Year Built

Housing Construction

49507

Michigan

32

Year House Built 49507 Michigan 2005 and later 258 522 2000-2004 154 993 1990-1999 607 1803 1980-1989 353 1395 1970-1979 656 2148 1960-1969 622 1713 1950-1959 2659 2199 1940-1949 2730 1145 1939 and earlier 6008 2130


Bedrooms in Owner-Occupied Houses/Apartments

Number of Observations in 49507

0 0 1 50 2 1515 3 4339 4 1246

5 + 320 *sourced from City Data.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 1 2 3 4 5 + Number of Observations

Number of Bedrooms

Bedrooms in Owner-Occupied Units in 49507

33

Bedrooms in Renter-Occupied Houses/Apartments

Number of Observations in 49507

0 30 1 780 2 1714 3 1701 4 533

5 + 201


Houses and condos: 14,047 Renter-occupied apartments: 4,959

Mar. 2012 cost of living index in zip code 49507

87.1 (less than average, U.S. average is 100)

Land area: 5.5 sq. mi. Water area: 0.0 sq. mi.

Average Real estate property taxes paid for housing units in 2011

49507: 1.4% ($1,352) Michigan: 1.8% ($2,181)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 1 2 3 4 5 + Number of Observations

Number of Bedrooms

Bedrooms in Rental-Occupied Units in 49507

34

Median real estate property taxes paid for housing units with mortgages in 2011 $1,412 (1.4%)

Median real estate property taxes paid for housing units with no mortgage in

2011: $1,156 (1.4%) Median gross rent in 2011: $831.

Estimated median house/condo value in 2011

$96,100 49507: $96,100 Michigan: $118,100

Average household size

Median number of rooms in houses and condos

49507: 6.6 Michigan: 6.4

57% of the 49507 residents lived in the same house 5 years ago Out of people who lived in different houses, 74% lived in Kent County Out of people who lived in different counties, 50% lived in Michigan

83% of the 49507 zip code residents lived in the same house 1 year ago Out of people who lived in different houses, 86% moved from this county Out of people who lived in different houses, 10% moved from different county within same state Out of people who lived in different houses, 3% moved from different state.


49507: 3.0 people Michigan: 2.6 people

35

Estimated median house (or condo) value in 2011 for

White Non-Hispanic householders: $113,779

Asian householders: $98,373

Two or more races householders: $87,639

Black or African American householders: $83,219

American Indian or Alaska Native householders: $74,253

Some other race householders: $70,591

Hispanic or Latino householders: $70,338

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander householders: $56,826 *sourced from City Data.

Type of Heating Fuel Percent Usage Utility Gas 94% Electric 4% Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas 1%


36

Transportation Data

Means of transportation to work

• Drove a car alone: 10,599 (75%) • Carpooled: 2,056 (15%) • Bus or trolley bus: 576 (4%) • Taxi: 61 (0%) • Motorcycle: 11 (0%) • Bicycle: 66 (0%) • Walked: 188 (1%) • Other means: 36 (0%) • Worked at home: 580 (4%)

Travel time to work (commute)

• Less than 5 minutes: 510 • 5 to 9 minutes: 1,345 • 10 to 14 minutes: 2,099 • 15 to 19 minutes: 3,275 • 20 to 24 minutes: 2,717 • 25 to 29 minutes: 1,158 • 30 to 34 minutes: 1,141 • 35 to 39 minutes: 217 • 40 to 44 minutes: 207 • 45 to 59 minutes: 419 • 60 to 89 minutes: 309 • 90 or more minutes: 196

GVSU 49507 Report 2014

Documents

Transcript of GVSU 49507 Report 2014