Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

60
A Report on the Pine Street Community’s Role in the History of Cambridge, How the neighborhood thinks about itself, And its importance to the success of this Eastern Shore city. A Neighborhood in Transition

description

This report was conducted in order to assess the needs of the Pine Street District in Cambridge, MD. The findings were used to form the work plan and justification for one of Maryland\'s first "Maple Street" programs.

Transcript of Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

Page 1: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

A Report on the Pine Street Community’s Role in the History of Cambridge,

How the neighborhood thinks about itself, And its importance to the success of this

Eastern Shore city.

A Neighborhood in Transition

Page 2: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

2

Page 3: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4 Foreword by Mayor Stanley 5 Preface 7 Historical and Cultural Resources 9 Historical Structures and Sites 17 The 19th Century 19 Survey Results Executive Summary 21 Profile of Respondents 25 Housing 31 Public Services Public Safety 33 Public Works 35 Other Services 39 Community Services 41 Civic Involvement 47 The Local Market 49 Understanding History 57 Taking Action 59 Conclusions 60

This report has been financed in part with State Funds from the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority and the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area. Additional support was provided by the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223, and Cambridge Main Street.

Page 4: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

4

Acknowledgements

This report has been financed in part with State Funds from the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority and the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area. Additional support was provided by the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223, and Cambridge Main Street. Narrative by Bill Thompson Contemporary Photos by Lee Weldon Survey Analysis by John Seward Layout contributed by WildCard Graphics, Cambridge. Thanks to: The Mayor and Commissioners of Cambridge The Heart of Chesapeake Heritage Area Board Waugh United Methodist Church Bethel AME Church Mount Olive Baptist Church Dorchester Elks Lodge 223 The Pine Street Committee and the Empowerment Center Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge Concerned Brothers United Cambridge Main Street The Maple Street Project The Cambridge Department of Public Works The Cambridge Planning and Zoning Department The Cambridge Police Department Special Thanks to the many volunteers who interviewed the many participants in our survey.

Page 5: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

5

Foreword

Mayor Victoria Jackson-Stanley

Over four months in 2008, dozens of volun-teers have interviewed over one hundred of residents of the Pine Street community, in-cluding residents of Pine Street, High Street (from Gay to Washington Streets) and all the neighborhoods in between.

The goal was to take the pulse of the community, and gain a deeper understanding of what the residents there feel are their most press-ing needs. The city will work with them to develop a plan and locate the necessary resources to meet those needs. The neighborhoods along and around Pine Street have a very rich history, a testament to the strength of Cambridge’s African American community. Historically, Pine Street was a cultural center of our community, and it remains an iconic place both on a local and national level. How-ever, decades of neglect and disinvestment have left the area as a mere shadow of its former self, even as other neighborhoods of Cambridge have redefined themselves and prospered. It is my hope that this important survey will signal a new beginning for the Pine Street area. This document will be the foundation for numerous grant requests, business plans, and public policy decisions that will help restore the fabric, the economic base, and the dignity of this crucial part of our city.

Page 6: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

6

Page 7: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

7

Preface

In 2006, the Neighborhood Group for a Better Cam-bridge was formed in the wake of a meeting of civic leaders and stakeholders hoping to spark the revi-talization of the city’s Pine Street community. This community is an historical treasure of the first order here in Dorchester County, something this document will set out in some detail. In early 2007, the Neighborhood Group won a mini-grant from the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heri-tage Area to initiate a community discussion aimed at building consensus and establishing priorities for the community. Key support for that project came from the Dorchester Elks Lodge #223 and Cam-bridge Main Street’s Maple Street committee. We are also grateful as well for a wealth of input and advice from civic leaders and, especially, residents of this historic community. This document summarizes the results of that mini-grant project, which encompassed three main parts: • Develop a preliminary inventory of the Pine Street

community’s historical and cultural assets. • Develop a database of the physical conditions (housing stock, sidewalks, etc.) and ownership status of a key section of the community, the “Maple Street” project area. • Develop a community-needs survey and begin administering it to residents and civic leaders to get a sense for their feelings about and priorities for the future of the community. Last but not least: Several hundred hours of volunteer effort went into this project. We hope that this document serves to help set the stage to move this historic and vital community for-ward in ways that make sure that generous community service turns out to be time well spent.

Bill Jarmon Neighborhood Group for a

Better Cambridge

Page 8: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

8

Page 9: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

9

Historical and Cultural Resources

For more than half of the 20th century, the city of Cambridge supported two bustling downtowns, two hearts beating in the same body, pumping the life-blood of commerce and culture through two distinct communities. One downtown was and remains today centered along Race Street, a traditional “Main Street” business corri-dor once so busy with foot and motor traffic that, more than any other place on the Eastern Shore, it resembled the commercial districts found in bigger cit-ies such as Baltimore and Philadelphia. The other downtown, a mix of shops, churches, and houses defined by Pine Street, was only a block away and ran parallel to Race Street. It was just as vibrant as Race Street and, in many cases, livelier. Race Street was predominantly white. Pine Street was a longstanding African-American community, with its first black residents moving to that part of Cambridge in the early 1800s. And while even today it is not un-usual in cities large and small, North and South, to have areas demarcated by race and ethnicity, Cam-bridge’s black downtown was shaped by outside forces

in the early 20th Century when Jim Crow laws, enacted locally and by the state, mandated segregation in many public facilities. The Pine Street community is a rich historical resource when it comes to several key themes in the story of African-American life in the 20th century.

Dancing at the Pine Street Elks Lodge, Circa 1950

Page 10: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

10

Entrepreneurship: Through the early 1960s, Pine Street as a neighborhood and business center not only endured the rule of Jim Crow, it thrived in many re-spects. Partly because Cambridge was an industrial town with modest-paying but dependable jobs and partly because the close-knit African-American com-munity valued hard work, education, and entrepreneu-rial pursuits, the Pine Street area was a hub of activity that rivaled many downtowns—black and white—around the Delmarva Peninsula. African-American culture: Pine Street’s successes went well beyond everyday commerce. Because the community embraced music, Pine Street became a favorite stopover on the “chitlin’ circuit” for many of the country’s best-known African-American musicians spanning the ages of jazz, big band, blues, and soul. Civil Rights: During the turbulent 1960s, Pine Street thrust Cambridge before a worldwide audience when it emerged as one of the most important battlegrounds in the civil rights movement. Gloria Richardson, the daughter of a Cambridge pharmacist, was but one of the home-grown leaders who helped define the move-ment’s goals, first for integration of public accommo-dations and later for equal treatment in housing, em-ployment, education, and health care. Still, despite the important roles Pine Street played locally in black culture and nationally in the struggle for equal rights, its history re-mains too little known and too often mis-understood, even by many of the citizens who today call Cambridge their home. For Dorchester County African-Americans over the age of 50, the expression “up Pine Street” conjures memories of shopping and socializing along the city blocks from Wash-ington to High streets. Later generations would call it going “up top” or “up the groove,” but it always meant the same thing—Pine Street was where the action was. “There were grocery stores, confectionary stores, restaurants, beauty salons, barber shops, pool halls, funeral homes, a drug store, an opera house, night clubs, antique shops, cleaners,” wrote Pine Street native David “Nicky” Henry, who has compiled and published two important volumes in the Up Pine Street series about the com-munity. “Tailors, seamstresses, boarding houses, shoe

Page 11: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

11

repair shops, and a vault-making business.” This workday bustle with its entrepreneurial energy wasn’t the only factor making Pine Street a key center of African-American life and culture on the Eastern Shore. Churches, too, played a central role on Pine Street—and had since they were first established in the community during slavery times, in the mid-1800s. This community was a center of the arts as well, espe-cially African-American music. For much of the 20th century, nightlife was centered on the 600 block, home to clubs and fraternal organi-zations that booked Billy Eckstein, Count Basie, Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, and many other legendary performers. As rock and roll grew popular, black head-liner acts featuring Lloyd Price, Fats Domino, Little Richard, and James Brown added Pine Street to their itineraries. Pine Street not only welcomed black musicians into its fold, it contributed several of its own talents. Edward “Buster” Snead joined swing era jazz saxophonist and bandleader Jimmie Lunceford on tours across the United States. Cambridge singer Corinthian “Kripp” Johnson joined the Del-Vikings and helped the doo-wop group stay on the charts with songs like “Come Go with Me” in the 1950s. Mindful that the club entertainment was intended for adult patrons, black parents in Cambridge declared

the 600 block off limits to their children, who socialized at their own “teen canteens.” After they turned 18, black teens were allowed to go “up Pine Street.” The Pine Street downtown and its nearby residential neighborhoods, so full of en-ergy that it was nicknamed “little New York,” fell upon hard times in the 1950s with the decline of local industry. Many Cambridge blacks were dependent upon Phillips Pack-ing Company, one of the big-gest tomato canning outfits in the country, for jobs and, in some cases, housing. When the company was sold in

Swing Dancing in the 1940’s

Page 12: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

12

1957, the economic ill effects contributed directly to the decline of Pine Street and ultimately fed the devel-opment of “The Cambridge Movement,” a nationally significant chapter in the in the civil rights struggle. It was here in the Pine Street community, and in dem-onstrations on neighboring Race Street, that commu-nity activists sought to expand the goals for the civil rights movement from the public accommodations and voting rights that dominated in the Deep South into the areas of housing, jobs, and economic justice. Under the charismatic and controversial leadership of Richardson, the Cambridge Movement brought the at-tention of the White House and the national media to the Eastern Shore. In 1963, the National Guard was ordered to restore order to the streets of Cambridge. The Movement was instrumental in winning a commit-ment to build more public housing in Cambridge, but tensions in the community remained high as the dec-ade wore on. On the night of July 24, 1967, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee chairman H. Rap Brown ap-peared in Cambridge at the invitation of local black leaders. He climbed atop a car that night and for an hour exhorted blacks to be more aggressive in their struggle for equality. Several hours later, a fire broke out in the poorly kept Pine Street Elementary School, but firefighters were kept away from the blaze by city officials who feared for their safety after Brown’s speech. The fire eventually spread across two square blocks, reducing much of Pine Street’s famous down-town to ashes. The cause of the fire has never been firmly estab-lished. This single event, however, in many ways came to define Cambridge and its Pine Street commu-nity in the national media. Sparked in part by a recently published history of The Cambridge Movement, Civil War on Race Street, there seems to be growing interest in exploring the whole arc of the civil rights story in Cam-bridge. In the years after the 1967 fire, a measure of social pro-gress eventually came to Cambridge, but the price Gloria Richardson confronts National Guardsmen on Pine Street, 1963

Page 13: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

13

was heavy. Many black business owners who suffered property loss had no insurance and were unable to se-cure bank loans to rebuild. Even before the conflagra-tion of July 1967, black parents routinely encouraged their children to study hard, go off to college, and seek prosperity away from Cambridge and the Eastern Shore. As the mini diaspora continued, blacks who re-mained in Cambridge took advantage of their gains, with some carrying their business over to the Race Street area of downtown. Four decades after the fire, the Pine Street community remains an important center for African-American life and culture in Cambridge. It’s home to influential reli-gious institutions, such as Bethel AME, Waugh United Methodist, and Mount Olive Baptist churches; it’s home to vibrant fraternal organizations, most notably the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223; and it’s home to civic groups such as the Pine Street Committee, the Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge, and Brothers United, all of whom are working to revitalize this historic community. In addition, the nonprofit Cambridge Main Street recently won a small grant to embark on revitalization efforts in the community through a new state initiative called Maple Street.

Pine Street may no longer be the downtown it once was, but it is no less important. His-torically and culturally, it is a unique part of the fabric of Cambridge and holds an essen-tial and promising role in the city’s future.

Page 14: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

14

Page 15: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

15

While the city of Cambridge marks its official founding date as 1684—only 76 years after the first European explorers stepped ashore on what would become Dor-chester County—the new town destined for high ground overlooking Cambridge Creek and the Chop-tank River was slow in taking shape. By 1706, surveyors had laid out lots for a courthouse, a market place, a church, and 100 smaller parcels of land on the western side of Cambridge Creek along two main boulevards designated as High Street and Wood Street, later renamed Race Street. By 1799, a plat showed that Cambridge accommodated its grow-ing population by spreading west and south, adding, among others, Church, Spring, Gay, Muir, Cedar, Lo-cust, and School streets. The new Pine Street, angling off High Street and running parallel to Race Street, represented the city’s south-westernmost boundary. And by 1853, High Street and Pine streets had been connected to Washington Street, which served as the

base of the triangle-shaped neighborhood that eventually would become part of an election district many Cambridge citizens still refer to as the “old Second Ward.” Local historians have determined that free blacks, probably drawn toward the county’s center of commerce and industry, arrived in the Pine Street area—out of sight of the more prestigious white-occupied waterfront manors—in the early 1800s. In the decade immediately after the Civil War, the neighborhood was filled with dozens of resi-dences, businesses, and, most notably, places of worship. Waugh United Methodist Church, one of the oldest black churches in the country, was named for an Eastern Shore clergyman who served as a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. A church has stood at its site on High Street since 1826. Not far away on Pine Street stands the Be-thel African-American Methodist Episcopal Church, first built as a wood structure in 1870 and replaced by a brick building in 1879. Recently the double doors of the Be-

The 19th Century

1918 Sanborn Map

Page 16: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

16

thel Church were meticulously hand-painted with a faux wood grain. Both churches would play important roles as meeting places and sanctuaries for civil-rights activists during the turbulent 1960s. Jenifer Institute, Cambridge’s first school for African-American children, was built circa 1860 next to Waugh Church. Cambridge Grammar School, attended by blacks from grades one to eight, was erected in 1884 on Cross Street and School House Lane. For black students in grades nine through eleven, Cambridge Colored High School was opened on Pine Street around 1920. Stanley Institute, the oldest one-room community-owned schoolhouse in Dorchester County, was moved from Church Creek to its current location on Bayly and Church Creek roads in 1867. Black Cambridge youths studied inside the yellow-painted wood structure, a familiar landmark on the way to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and Taylors Island, as late as 1966.

Bethel AME Church

Page 17: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

17

The Pine-Washington-High streets community was a vibrant center of black enterprise and culture from the 1920s into the 1960s. Most of the buildings—houses, barber shops, grocery stores, funeral homes, night-clubs, and music halls—were black-owned and long-time residents recall how neighbors looked after one another and viewed their part of Cambridge with pride. The July 1967 fire claimed a number of Pine Street’s most prominent buildings, including the Pine Street Elementary School, Greene’s Savoy and Motel, the Zion Baptist Church, the Elks Home, Jim Nichols’ Club Jazz Central, the Midway Barber Shop, Jim White’s De-mocratic Club, C&C Café, and Lockwood’s Cleaners. In the decades following the fire, even more struc-tures, mostly single-family homes, have been razed because of their dilapidated state, leaving numerous vacant lots throughout the neighborhoods. Citing un-safe conditions, Cambridge officials have marked a number of buildings for future demolition. While Cambridge’s African-American population achieved significant progress as a result of its localized

civil-rights movement, the sad irony is that the “old Sec-ond Ward” never fully recov-ered from the physical, eco-nomic, and emotional devas-tation. The once-active busi-ness core of the neighbor-hood never returned. Build-ings are in need of fix-ups beyond mere cosmetics. Lit-ter is often left by curbs and in empty lots. Sidewalks are in poor condition. And, ac-cording to an inventory of property records, nearly 70 percent of the living quarters are occupied by renters. A number of longtime residen-tial homeowners, notably on Pine and High streets, are resolute in maintaining their properties, although this population is graying and of-ten limited by fixed incomes.

Historical Structures and Sites

Corner of Pine and Muir Streets

Page 18: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

18

Yet even in its current state of neglect, the architec-tural importance of many structures shines through. It takes little imagination to visualize that with proper resources, civic commitment, and innovative private investment that much of the charm and spirit of this once bustling community could be recaptured. Some of the best-kept properties are to be found in the 400 and 500 blocks of Pine Street, the first sec-tions to be built out as the city expanded in the early 20th Century. No fewer than a dozen structures—wood frame, detached single-family houses and duplexes—date between 1900 and 1919. It is interesting to note that here and farther down the street, few houses were built from the same plans. The modern-day con-cept of cookie-cutter development was not practiced when these houses were built. As part of this mini-grant project, Neighbors for a Bet-ter Cambridge developed a comprehensive inventory of physical conditions of several key blocks of this community that encompass the “Maple Street project area.” In June of 2008, through a grant application submitted by Cambridge Main Street, Cambridge be-came one of four municipalities in Maryland to win small grants to pilot a proposed new program of resi-dential revitalization near historic downtowns. This in-ventory will provide key baseline data and photo-graphs to gauge the success of that and other initia-tives that aim to revitalize the Pine Street community. This inventory covers a number of interesting struc-tures. An example of an early boarding house probably intended for seasonal workers or vacationers can be found at 511 Pine Street. Currently a multi-family structure, the building was erected in 1920. Still visi-ble in the concrete walk leading to the front door is the inscription “E.J.F. Lodg-ing.” Nearby, 518 Pine Street is a fine example of a typical two-and-a-half story Cam-bridge residence with an open front porch, a concrete driveway, and several rear additions. The structure, built in 1920, has been well maintained over the years. Presently unoccupied and in need of some care, 518 Pine Street is nonethe-less an eye-catching building because many of its original components—wood siding and a trademark Gothic-style win-dow at attic level—remain intact.

518 Pine Street

Page 19: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

19

The lively business and cultural center during the Pine Street community’s heyday, the 600 block suffered the greatest loss in the fire of 1967. Nothing remains of the Pine Street Elementary School. A post-fire amphitheater built by the city in an attempt to turn the property into a park is partly ob-scured by a newer structure, the Pine Street Empowerment Center operated by the Pine Street Committee, and a police substation. Across the street from the Empowerment Center is the re-cently shuttered Club Platinum, a single-story brick building with narrow windows that, under different names, was a Pine Street nexus of entertainment and social events. Next to the nightclub is the Dorchester Elks Lodge 233, still an important gathering place and a proposed site for a wayside marker commemorating the community’s extraordinary mu-sical heritage. Around the corner on Cedar Street stood the Chat ‘n’ Chew restaurant, a longtime neighborhood eatery where even Na-tional Guardsmen enjoyed home-cooked breakfasts during their deployments in the 1960s. This building, too, was re-cently demolished. The Bethel A.M.E. Church at 623 Pine Street is by far the most dominant structure in the neighborhood. Remodeled in 1903, today’s brick building features two towers, the larger being three stories high. Bethel continues to serve the spiri-tual needs of its congregation, although many members no longer reside in this part of town. Residential lots on both sides of the Pine and High street corridors are notable for being narrow and deep. As the two streets veer apart before connecting to Washington Street, the lots become deeper. Many are dense with bushes and shaded in summer by large trees. A giant weeping willow growing in a vacant lot on the lower end of Pine Street, for example, could easily be 100 years old.

For those with knowledge of Cambridge’s history as the one-time canning capital of the Delmarva Peninsula, a few strips of houses here and there are reminders that the tomato was king and the empire belonged to the Phillips Packing Com-pany. Commonly referred to as “company houses,” groups of three and four nearly identical residences can be found in this part of Cambridge, most notably on Phillips Packing Company housing along Washington Street

Page 20: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

20

busy Washington Street. The structures are long and narrow with small front porches and resemble the so-called shotgun shacks of the deeper South. The buildings were erected to provide housing for cannery workers, who paid rent to the same company that employed them. Today, some of the houses are owner-occupied while others are rentals. The Waugh Church cemetery on High Street is the final rest-ing place for some of the best know and oldest African-American families in Cambridge. Although it appears that among the numerous headstones there are plenty of “vacancies” on the grounds, locals say the cemetery is full because many families could not afford to mark the graves of their loved ones. On the corner of High and Muir streets, a short distance from the juncture of High and Pine, is a grass-covered lot beside a vacant wood-framed store with a rusty sign reading “Carter’s Cash Market” still attached to the front. Gloria Richardson (later Dandridge) lived with her family in the 1960s in a handsome but modest house that stood upon the empty lot until it was torn down. For neither neighborhood resident nor student of American history, there is nothing at this site to indicate its connection to one of the country’s most notable civil-rights leaders. Clearly, the Pine Street community is rich in historical and cultural resources. While many people view this as a com-munity with significant needs, it is important to recognize that this is also a community with significant assets. A key asset is this wealth of history, dating from the time of Thomas Jefferson and continuing right up through the civil rights movement and into the 21st century. Even a brief re-view of the stories the Pine Street community has to tell shows it to be a place of local, regional, and national signifi-cance. It is also important to view these historical assets in a coun-tywide and region-wide perspective. Both the federal and state governments are developing plans to spend millions of dollars developing African-American heritage tourism desti-nations near Cambridge devoted to Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. As a result of these efforts—and the work of county tourism officials—Dorchester County is likely to gain popularity as a destination for tourists and groups interested in the African-American story. This trend presents Cambridge with an im-portant opportunity to commemorate and celebrate the his-tory of its Pine Street community in ways that help bring these visitors into the downtown area and the core of the community.

Page 21: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

21

Survey Results

Executive Summary for Preliminary Results From June to September 2008, Neighborhood Group for a Better Cam-bridge and the Cambridge Maple Street Committee conducted a 54 question survey to 71 heads of households within the study area, see Figure 1. The surveys were conducted in a variety of ways, including; door-to-door, through friends and associates, and a free barbeque at the neighborhood’s ELKS club. The results come close to reflecting 2000 census data, but those differences may be a result of the slight changes in the neighborhood demographics over the past 8 years. The following are some key observation from the survey results: Profile of the respondents The majority of respondents worked full-time inside Cambridge. Residents responded that they enjoyed their neighborhood because of being near family, friends, and good neighbors. About half of the respondents have lived in the neighborhood for less than 10 years. A little over half of the respondents thought that the condition of the community had gotten worse over the past five years. Housing Most respondents were satisfied with their present housing conditions, but did not think that the overall neighborhood housing conditions were very good. There was a strong call for improvements, and most had not had any major improvements done to their current residence. Public Services Respondents were relatively satisfied with the quality of schools. Concerning parks and open space, most respondents did not visit them very often. Most of those that did were below sixty-fives years old. Improvements suggested in the ‘neighborhood’ parks were eld-erly and handicap access, cleaning them up, and general facility im-provements. The majority thought policing was good, but many respondents thought they needed better ‘community’ policing. Also, more than half

Page 22: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

22

indicated that they felt safe in the community. But, many re-spondents stated that there was a need to address crime and drug activity. The overall cleanliness of the community was of concern. Com-ments concerning solutions included; trash cans, cleaning up the litter/trash, and in general a need for more pride in the neighborhood. The majority of respondents thought there should be improve-ments in streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and overall drainage. Most commented on the lack of drainage and that they streets and sidewalks needed immediate repair. Respondents indicated that they liked the quality of the bus sys-tem for Cambridge. Most negative responses were concerning the wait time. Most users were under sixty-five years old. Library usage among the respondents was quite low, but the ser-vice was seen as quality. Other Community Services Job training services are inadequate, difficult to use, and there a few jobs locally to train for. Churches were overwhelmingly seen as a positive force in the neighborhood. Fraternal and Community Groups were seen as an overwhelm-ingly positive presence in the neighborhood. Daycare services were indicated as being good, but unaffordable to some low-income. Respondent’s opinions concerning drug and alcohol programs was evenly split. But overall, there were more comments noting that the programs were there for people to use, with some ques-tioning their effectiveness. Senior citizen services were seen as good. More services, better transportation to and from, and proximity of events were re-spondent’s concerns.

Page 23: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

23

Civic Involvement Most respondents had not attended a City or County Council meeting in the past year. Yet, most indicated that they would attend one in the future. Neighborhood Communications

Almost all of the respondents indicated that they would like to receive a newsletter through the mail about events in the neighborhood. Location of Retail and Services Used

Most of these services used in the neighborhood are down-town, with all but one being in Cambridge. The following is where the largest portion of respondents attained there ser-vices.

The most frequented stores/restaurants/services were Cen-ter Market, followed by Webster’s, Doris Mae’s, Chicken Man, and the Elks. Respondents indicated that they would most like to see new clothing/shoe and grocery/food stores. Few respondents indicated that an adult in the household was attending school or taking other classes. There was a concern about what exactly they would be training for, since there are limited job opportunities in Cambridge.

Location Comments

Downtown Medical/Dental, Prescription/Medication, Childcare Services, Laundry, Hair Salon (36%)

Route 50 Groceries, Restaurants

Cambridge Auto Repair, Hair Salon (38%)

Dorchester

Other County

Clothing

Page 24: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

24

History Respondents were very familiar with the history of the neighborhood, and were most interested in the civil rights movement, slavery/underground, and historic churches.

Taking Action Asked what they would do to make the neighborhood a better place, respondent’s comments were diverse, such as: volun-teering, helping to bring in more business/jobs, cleaning up the neighborhood, abide by the law, and provide youth activi-ties. Survey Purpose In early 2007, the Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge won a mini-grant from the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area to initiate a community discussion aimed at building consensus and establishing priorities for the community. This survey was one of three parts of a document that was to summarize the results of that mini-grant project. This survey is intended to get a sense of resi-dents’, property owners’, and community leaders’ feelings about the neighborhood to help develop priorities for its future.

Survey Methods From June to September 2008, Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge and the Cambridge Maple Street Committee conducted a 54 question survey to 71 heads of households within the study area, see Figure 1. According to the 2000 Census, there were 219 households in the study area, giving us 32% response rate. The surveys were conducted in a variety of ways, including; door-to-door, through friends and associates, and a free barbeque at the neighborhood’s ELKS club. The results did not sufficiently match those of the 2000 Census, but those differences may be a result of gradual changes in the neighborhood demographics over the past 8 years. Any survey has to be concerned with “non-responsive bias”. Non-responsive bias refers to a situation in which people who responded to the survey have opinions that are systematically different from the opinions of those who were unable or reluctant to be inter-viewed. We are concerned about this bias, and as a result we will be continuing to collect data from neighborhood residents, with the addition of two groups not represented in these preliminary results---landlords and governmental leaders. We feel these decision mak-ers are key to understanding the community as a whole, and help-ing to guide beneficial public policy. In addition to numeric responses, additional written comments compiled from the survey will be presented. As appropriate, se-lected quotes will be used in some sections of this report to illus-trate these comments. The original survey instrument is available for review at www.cambridgemainstreet.com.

Page 25: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

25

Age Respondents were asked to provide their age. The larg-est group of respondents was ages 50 to 59, or 39%. The ages indicated do not completely reflect that of the 2000 Census and may be a product of changes that have occurred over the past 8 years, and perhaps the effects of a ‘non-responsive bias’.

Profile of Respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

ent o

f sur

vey

popu

latio

n

22 to

24

25 to

29

30 to

34

35 to

39

40 to

44

45 to

49

50 to

54

55 to

59

60 to

61

62 to

64

65 to

66

67 to

6970

-74

75 to

79

Years

Age of Respondents(N=48)

Survey

2000 Census

Level of education Respondents were asked to provide their level of education. Of the 55 that responded to this question, 45.5% indicated that they had completed high school, 45.5% some post high school education. Only 9% had less than a high school education.

1 2 2

25

7 73

7

10

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20

Years of Education

Highest Level of Education(N=55)

Employment Status Respondents were asked to provide their employ-ment status. 42% were employed full-time, 8% part-time, 8% both full-time and part-time, and 20% were relying on tem-porary employment.

27

5 7 5 7

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Full-time Part-time Disabled Full-timew/Second

Job

Retired Temporarily

Type of Employment

Employment Status(N=64)

Page 26: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

26

Location of Employment Respondents were asked to give the location of their employment. Of the 42 that responded to the question, 24% work in the neighborhood, 36% within Cambridge, 19% in an-other County, 9% and 12% outside Cambridge but in the County.

10

15

8

4 5

02468

10121416

# of

Res

pond

ents

In thisNeighborhood

Elsewhere incity

Another County DowntownCambridge

Outside City inCounty

Location of Employment(N=42)

Types of Employment Respondents were asked to describe the type of job they, or others held in the household. Re-sponses in relation to work location are indicated in Table 1.

Location of Work Job Description

In this neighborhood Certified nurse, assistant/ secretary, Die-tary aide/private health care, Forklift driver, Security, Law Firm, Nursing, Pas-toral, Manage pool room, Minister, Sales-man, Cashier, Teacher, Teacher’s aide

Elsewhere in Cambridge Cook, Correctional Officer, Group home coun-selor, Community coordinator, Housekeeping/Turn down services, Laborer, Manufacturing, Security officer, Business owner, Daycare teacher, Substitute middle-school teacher, waitress, Retail stocker

Another County Manager, Graphics, Cleaning and Bakery

Downtown Cambridge Hairstylist

Outside Cambridge in County Retired, Management, Cook, Babysitter, Clothes, Factory

Table 1: Location of Work and Job Description

Page 27: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

27

Number in Household Respondents were asked how many Adults, children under 18, and senior citizens were in their household. The 2000 census data indicates that the sur-vey area had an average of 2.16 per-sons per household. The survey results indicate an average of 1.72 persons per household. The average household size indicated by the survey respondents does not completely reflect that of the 2000 Census and may be a product of changes that have occurred over the past 8 years, and perhaps the effects of a ‘non-responsive bias’.

1.792

1.371.72

2.16

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Ave

rage

# o

f Peo

ple

Per

Hou

seho

ld

Adults Children Senior TotalAverage

2000Census

Average Adults, Children, and Seniors Per Household

Years Living in the Neighborhood Respondents were asked to give the time that they had resided in the neighbor-hood. The results indicate that they have spent an av-erage of 24.4 years there. But, 46% of the people sur-veyed have been there for 10 years or less, and 35% have been in the commu-nity longer than 30 years.

19

11

31 2

7

1

86

8

02468

101214161820

# of

Res

pond

ents

1 to 5

6 to 1

0

11 to

19

16 to

20

21 to

25

25 to

30

31 to

35

36 to

45

46 to

55 56 +

Years

Years Living in Neighborhood(N=66)

600 Block of High Street

Page 28: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

28

3 3

65

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# of

Res

pond

ents

Affordable Convenient Family Other

Reason for moving to current neighborhood for those living there less than five years

(N=17)

Moved Here Last Five Years Respondents that had moved to the neighborhood in the past five years were asked the reason for their move. Of the 17 that responded to the question, 35% selected fam-ily was as the most important reason. Comments about family included: “Mother wanted to move back home” “Because family needs to stay together” “Close to mother” “Born here” “Been here to watch my child grow to witness no change for youth” Responses to convenient, affordable, and other included: “This house is affordable for my income” “Needed more space, change of scenery” “Convenience of walking distance” “More quiet” “Section 8 guidelines” “Always been here”

Better or Worse Respondents were asked if the neighborhood had gotten better or worse over the past five years. 36

of the 67 respondents, or 56%; indicated that the condi-tion of their neighborhood had gotten worse. With only 7 indicating it had improved, and 24 responding the same. Of these written comments, 53% cited crime or drugs as a culprit to the worsening condition of the area. Those responding that the neighborhood had gotten worse noted the following:

6

36

24

105

10152025

303540

# of

Res

pond

ents

Better Worse Same Don't Know

Better or Worse Than Five Years Ago(N=67)

“Violent crime” “Last 5 years over 15 shootings and 5 stabbings" “Gunshots” “Noises late at night” “Drugs” “Decline in activities” “Trash” “No activities for youth” “No respect” “Young drifting away with no role models” “one way streets” “fights” “dilapidated houses” “ dirty” “poverty” “ too many renters”

Page 29: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

29

Strengths and Weaknesses When asked what the strengths of the neighborhood were, respondents were di-verse in their answers. Of the respondents, 41% noted that it was people (family, friends, and neighbors), 10% black community/culture/history, and 12% churches. Written comments included:

ELKS, communication, churches/ministers, schools, camaraderie of low-income persons, friendly neighbors, elderly, diversity, unity for most, Em-powerment Center, quietness (not too noisy), people, black community/culture/history, close to downtown, money, personal roots.

As for the question of the neighborhood’s biggest weaknesses, out of the 60

that responded to the question, 32% expressed crime/drugs, while only 10% jobs, and 6% housing/property up-

keep. Written comments included: Drugs/crime, loss of local history, “progress”, jobs, housing/property upkeep, trash, young have no respect, lack of com-rade/communication, lack of retail busi-nesses, our future, and “run-down look”.

Pine Street Empowerment Center

Important aspects of neighborhood life When asked to rate certain aspects of the neighborhood, out of the nine ‘aspects’ provided, the three most important in the neighborhood were; friendly neighbors, close to family, and safety/crime. Over-all, business/job opportunities and taxes were the lowest valued, with history, small town feel and qual-ity schools in the middle.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

Leve

l of

Impo

rtan

ce

Small Tow nFeel

Safety/Crime History ofCommunity

Cost ofHousing

FriendlyNeighbors

QualitySchools

Business/JobOpportunities

Close toFamily

Low Taxes

Most Important Aspects of Neighborhood Life(N=40)

Respondents were then asked to provide any ‘aspects’ of the neighborhood that were left out of the question, comments included: “Beauty of our neighborhood”, Cleaning the street, Neighbors who care, Community activity for youth, “Double wide homes bring down the property value-but to me it seems that it would make it better- look at the neighborhood now” “Entertainment, Youth-friendly, Retail, Entertainment/Recreation, Job Training, Jobs, “Nothing for kids to do”, “Just some places to go for activities”, Police patrolling streets, Recreation, Up to date community events, Youth activities.

Page 30: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

30

Page 31: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

31

Housing

Housing Situation When asked how satisfied they were with their present housing situation, 69 respondents indi-cated that they were overwhelmingly satisfied. 74% were satisfied or very satisfied, and 26% were not satisfied or very dissatisfied. Comments from those that were satisfied included: “Because I live in a good community” “Because you only can get what you put in” “Affordable” “Family owned house” “Love my neighbors” For those that viewed the housing situation as unsatisfactory, comments included: “Because of run down condition/landlords” “Can’t make improvements” “Charge a lot of money for rent for small rooms & no help fixing it” “Family house” “Had to move” “Mother and I live together in 1 bedroom” “Not enough space”

12

39

13

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40#

of R

espo

nden

ts

Very Satisf ies Satisf ied Not Satisfied VeryDissatisf ied

Satifaction With Present Housing Situation

Home Improve-ments When asked whether they or the owner had made any im-provements to the property, 43% stated yes and 57% no. For those that stated im-provements had occurred, the fol-lowing were indi-cated as sources of funding; landlord, private, out-of-pocket, non-profit/government, and loan/reverse mortgage. 57% stated that they used their own funds.

29

38

05

10152025303540

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No

Major Home Improvements Over the Past Five Years(N=67)

New Windows and Siding on Cross Street

Page 32: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

32

Overall Housing Conditions Respondents were asked how they would rate the housing conditions in their neighborhood as a whole. Out of the 66 that responded, 74% indicated that they housing was in fair or poor condition. Only 3% responded that it was excellent and 23% good.

2

15

2722

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Overall Housing Conditions in the Neighborhood(N=66)

Distressed Housing

Historic Workmen’s Housing on Washington Street

Page 33: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

33

Public Services Public Safety

Respondents were asked to rate the services provided to the community, those included: fire protection, garbage removal, streets/sidewalks, curbs/gutters/drainage, animal control, bus/trolley/other transportation, parks, cleanliness of the community, policing, lighting, roads/traffic, library, schools, and perceived safety. Fire 70% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from those that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Two area houses burned to the ground” “Need insurance” “Not checking fire detectors” “Closeness of homes” “Smoke detectors don’t work” “Smoke detectors/nobody offering insurance”

12

35

14

4 20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Fire Protection Services(N=67)

Police 54% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 32% that

thought the service was fair or poor included: “More patrols” “Harass people for wrong reasons, don’t resolve issues” “Police need to patrol more in area where drug traffic flows” “Should be out patrolling on foot” “Never where they should be” “Slow, depends on the officer, some good/some bad”

8

29

16

610

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Police Services(N=69)

Animal control 61% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 36% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “A lot of pit bulls running loose” “Cats everywhere” “People not taking care of dogs” “They don’t care about cats” “Always subject to see stray cats & dogs” “Lots of stray animals, no response from hu-mane society”

11

31

1015

20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Animal Control Services(N=69)

Page 34: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

34

Perceived Personal Safety 60% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 40% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Any day something could happen” “Drugs & fighting” “Drug dealers running through your yard from street to street, getting high in empty houses” “Have church meetings to attend every week, I have to stay focused on going and coming back home” “Too careful of surrounding, not trusting” “Violence”

5

34

19

7

0

10

20

30

40

# of

R

espo

nden

ts

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Perceived Safety(N=65)

Roads and Traffic 61% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 35% that thought the service was fair or poor included:

“Traffic, short-cut side road” “Speeding” “Sunday parking church activities” “Need speed bumps, young people drive through like they are on Route 50” “Not enough space” “The roads are in need of repair” “This is a very busy street at times & they speed” “Bumpy, needs pavement” “Kids cannot play because of space around the house to close to the street” “Streets dirty”

2

38

149

305

10152025303540

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Roads/Traffic(N=66)

Page 35: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

35

19

40

71

05

1015202530

3540

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Quality of Garbage Removal Services(N=67)

Trash Removal 88% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from those that thought the ser-vice was fair or poor included: “Can’t do better” “Don’t always get everything” “Drop more than they pick up” “Improvements needed” “Sometimes trash is not picked up when scheduled”

Public Services Public Works

Illegal Dumping 67% indicated that illegal dumping was not a problem in the neighborhood. Comments from the 32% that thought this issue was a problem say that trash accumulates in the Waugh Cemetery and basic littering.

Comments included: “610 Douglas Street is the dumping place” “Cemetery” “People dumping trash on street” “People dumping trash as they walk” “They would resolve this by lower the price on taking trash to the dump”

22

46

10

10

20

30

40

50

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No No Opinion

Illegal Dumping a Problem(N=69)

Curbs, Gutters, and Drainage 52% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 48% that thought that the service was fair or poor included: “Charles, Park Lane” “Could be better” “Drain pipe at corner street can’t handle the water when there is a heavy rain” “Whenever a heavy rain falls the end of Elm Street floods” “Some people throw trash all over the place”

3

32

21

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Quality of Curbs/Gutters/Drainage(N=67)

Page 36: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

36

Quality of Street and Sidewalks 46% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 52% that thought the service was fair or poor focused mainly on the disrepair of streets and sidewalks, and absence of sidewalks in some areas. Comments included: “Grass in sidewalks” “Broken sidewalks, trash” “Sweeper needs to come more often” “The street needs to be replaced and blacktopped. The speed limit & children at play sign is needed.” “Some streets need sidewalks” “Potholes, weeds, water meter not seated properly”

6

24

20

14

20

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Streets and Sidewalks(N=66)

Lighting 73% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 25% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Some streets have brighter lights than others” “More” “Side streets and shortcuts are poorly lit” “Some areas are dark” “More lighting in the neighborhood, mainly Cornish park-Wells Street area”

7

42

13

41

05

1015202530354045

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Lighting(N=67)

Cleanliness of Community 41% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 57% that thought the service was fair or poor mostly reflected the need to clean up litter. Comments included: “Lot of litter” “Need some neighborhood pride in the community” “New neighbors, renters, drugs” “Bad conditions” “Houses, lack of green”

2

2624

15

20

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Cleanliness of Community(N=69)

Page 37: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

37

Parks 42% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 42% that thought the service was fair or poor included:

“Cornish park needs repairs” “Don’t clean it, drug activity” “Need more handicapped access” “Not enough” “Nothing open or in good condition” “There is not a decent park in this area for young kids, have to go across town” “Trash, people don’t care” “It would be nice to have a place for peo-ple to go, zoo’s & parks, etc.” “Blacks playgrounds are dirty”

3

24

8

19

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Parks and Other Pubic Open Spaces(N=65)

05

10152025303540

# of

Res

pond

ents

22 to

24

30 to

34

40 to

44

50 to 5

4

60 to 6

1

65 to 6

670

-74

80 to

84

Age (Years)

Attending Parks and Age of Respondent(N=49)

We also asked respondents how often they frequented Cam-bridge’s Parks. 80% used the parks 5 or less times a month. 80% of the visits are made up of those less than 61 years of age. Those under the age of 44 represent 58% of the park vis-its.

20 19

3 3 31

02468

101214161820

# of

Res

pond

ents

None

1 to 5

6 to 1

0

11 to

15

16 to

20

21 to

25+

Monthly Visits

Monthly Visits to Parks in Cambridge(N=49)

Cornish Park

Page 38: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

38

The survey also asked what specific parks that the respondents attend. Those used most frequently were Great Marsh, Nursery, Cornish, and Sailwinds.

11

6

13

7

1 2 1

6

02468

1012

# of

R

espo

nden

ts

Great M

arsh

Cornis

h Par

k

Dougla

s

Long

Wha

rf

Nurser

y

South

Pond

Substa

tion o

n Pine

Canne

ry W

ay

Sailwind

s

Cambridge Parks Attended(N=38)

Page 39: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

39

Bus, trolley, or Other Transportation 62% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 20% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “2 city routes that should be 1 route” “Never on time” “Not in the area of travel” “Race Street stop” “There are long waits at times for transportation” “Do not know the schedule” “Dependent on public transportation, more buses needed”

The survey also asked how many times per month the individual uses public transportation. On average, this service was used 12.5 times per month, with a total of 128 trips

9

34

11

3

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Bus/Trolley/Other Transporation Services(N=69)

Monthly Usage of Buses/Trolly

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Monthly Usage

# of

Res

pond

ents

Public Services Other Services

Schools 59% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 21% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Children in Control” “Curriculum isn’t based on the reality of the working world” “Discipline needed more in school” “Do not teach, complete failure, graduate kids with no hesitation” “Need more modern curriculum” “Need more hands on” “Overcrowded Classrooms” “Middle school is crowded, needs another mid-dle school” “The school isn’t giving suspensions fair” “Not enough caring teachers”

7

32

11

3

13

05

101520253035

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Schools(N=66)

Page 40: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

40

Library 76% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 9% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “More books-better selection” “Need more reading materials” The survey also asked how many times per month the respondent used the library. 62% used the library 1 to 5 times per month. Only 1 person used it more than 16 times per month.

17

33

51

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Library Services(N=66)

14

33

2 30 1

0

5

1015

2025

3035

# of

Res

pond

ents

0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25

Monthly Visits

Monthly Visits to Library(N=53)

Page 41: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

41

Community Services

We asked respondents to describe their opinion of the quality of commu-nity services, those included; Job training services, senior citizen, drug and alcohol programs, day care, youth activities and programs, churches, and fraternal/community groups.

Job Training Services 22% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Com-ments from the 62% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Any training we try to get we always have to be unem-ployed, and then I don’t have the money to support my need and wants” “Barely any” “Need more especially for young people” “No job training” “Not many jobs to train for” “There are no relatable programs that last” “there is not enough industry and the opportunities are not communicated” We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Respon-dents did not indicate any specific programs, but did state the following: “Because they help around here” “Offers the opportunity for someone to attend college, make choices towards a career” “Workforce investments”

3

12 13

30

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Job Training Services(N=69)

Page 42: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

42

Senior Services 59% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 17% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Although there are some programs, more should be offered for our senior citizens” “Communication/Free bus services” “Could be better, more quality housing for seniors” “Entertainment during the day not close to neighborhood” “Grandparents at [local facilities] did not receive proper care” “Meals on wheels service needs to improve” “Not enough places” We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Respon-

dents answered: “Bradford House” “Bus system” “Dorchester Community Services, treated everyone fairly, polite, helpful” “Delmarva Community Center” “Pleasant Day” “Mac Center Adult Day Care” “Church services” “I see programs to give seniors some-thing to do and give aide” “Food program”

8

31

83

16

05

101520253035

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Senior Services(N=66)

8

31

83

16

05

101520253035

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Senior Services(N=66)

Day Care Services 76% of those that had an opinion indicated that the available services are good or excellent. Comments from the 24% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Classes are too big, too expensive” “More affordable for working parents” “Most parents can’t afford to use day care services because of low pay and the cost per child” “Need more affordable daycares” “Not many choices, no night hours” We also asked respondents that an-swered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason for that answer. Re-spondents answered: “Crossroads” “Kids under 12 and headstart” “Pitterpat and Tender Loving Care” “PJs Playplace” “Washington Street Tiny tots”

7

22

8

1

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Day Care Services(N=65)

Page 43: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

43

Drug and Alcohol Programs 45% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 48% that indi-cated that service was fair or poor included : “30 days back on streets” “Low success rate” “More smoking focus, more drug education & aware-ness, more complete detox” “Need more” “People only have interven-tions when involved in court” “They do not rehab, just threaten to punish” “They don’t care as I see on TV and don’t here” “You can see drug dealers sell in daylight” We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Re-spondents answered: “Corner of Race and Washington” “DART through health department, meeting on Cedar Street” “Narcotics Anonymous” “Pace Street, Courthouse”

6

14 1410

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Drug and Alcohol Programs(N=65)

Youth Activities and Programs 22% of those that had an opinion indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Com-ments from the 78% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Church summer programs are all we have” “Does not include every type of neighborhood child” “Don’t have any services” “Need improvements, more things for kids to do, boys and girl club” “Need more activities, youth do not have any place to go” “No places for youth to burn energy” “Not enough activity, and not affordable” “We’ve tried to start one, kids walk the street” “Young people have no where to go, nothing to do”

1

1113

29

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Youth Activities(N=66)

Page 44: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

44

Youth Activities and Programs (cont’d) We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Respondents answered: “Crossroads” “Kids under 12 and headstart” “Pitterpat, Tender Loving Care” “There should be more money” “Washington Street Tiny Tots”

Fraternal and Community Groups 81% of those that had an opinion indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Com-ments from the 19% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “get more involved in community & more activities” “Lack of communications/knowledge” “No participation” “No questions being asked” “Not involved” “There is no support of the children or community from these organizations that are visible” We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Respon-dents answered: “Available to community” “All work well” “ELKs and American Legion” “Help people”

“Good if you are a member” “Group offers a positive im-age for our community” “I work in the kitchen some-times and see the good being done” “They are good people, I feel like they care” Other important community organizations: Eastern Star, Concerned Brothers United, YEE, Concerned Citizen Com-mittee, Empowerment Cen-ter, and the Masonic Lodge.

11

24

6

2

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Fraternal or Other Community Groups(N=64)

Summer Program at Housing Authority of Cambridge

Page 45: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

45

Churches 90% of those that had an opinion indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 10% that thought the service was fair or poor included: “Don’t get involved in community enough” “Membership is selective, groups are secretive, no real community presence” “Need to communicate & work together” “No outside involvement or unity” “Too many” We also asked respondents why they answered excellent or good, comments included:

“A lot of churches” “Because you get the word” “Church is always good” “Community reach out food banks” “Good vibes” “Help people” “It’s a rich tradition” “Zion helps in the community” “They don’t always ask for money” “There are many good churches for people to attend”

2730

51

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion

Quality of Churches(N=67)

Bethel AME Church

Page 46: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

46

Page 47: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

47

Civic Involvement

Attending City or County meetings Respondents were asked how many City or County Council meetings they have attended over the past year. 64% indicated that they had not been to a meeting. The written comments included: “Curious” “Need to start” “They are not productive, too much arguing” Respondents were also asked whether they plan on attending and future City or County Council meetings. 59% stated that they plan on attending a meeting, 22% stated no, and 19% indicated maybe. Written comments from the respondents include:

“To see what is going on” “Have to stay informed” “I will have to learn about the organization” “Maybe to give input-citizen” “Maybe when the need arises” “So I can voice my Opinion” “Support new mayor”

35

13 11

05

101520253035

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No Maybe

Plan on Attending City or County Meetings in the Future(N=59)

05

10152025303540

# of

Res

pond

ents

0 1 2 3 4 5 10 12 15 16 20 25

# Meetings Attended

City or County Meetings Attended(N=61)

Page 48: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

48

Neighborhood Communications Newsletter Respondents were asked if they would like to receive a newslet-ter about issues and events in the neighborhood. 89% indi-cated that they would like to receive a newsletter, 7% stated no, and 4% selected maybe.

Asked as to what method of de-livery would be best, 76% indi-cated mail, 12% email, and 12% church.

51

4 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No Maybe

Would Like to Receive Newsletter(N=57)

51

4 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No Maybe

Would Like to Receive Newsletter(N=57)

Page 49: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

49

The Local Market

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Grocery Stores Used(N=66)

Location of Retail and Services Used For these next set of question respondents were asked to identify where they shop for particular items and services. There choices were; downtown Cam-bridge, on Route 50, elsewhere in Cambridge, elsewhere in Dorchester County, or in another County altogether.

Groceries 69% indicated that they bought groceries on Route 50, 16% elsewhere in Cam-bridge, 7% downtown, 6% in other Counties, 0% in Dor-chester County.

Page 50: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

50

Table 2: Reasons for Grocery Store Location

Location Comments

Down-town Center Market, Jimmy Simmon’s, Convenience, Choice

Route 50 WalMart, Food Lion, More Products, Super Fresh, No where else to go, “Diversity in products and price, service is good”

Elsewhere Cam-bridge

Good prices, “Some items are cheaper and more to choose from”

Other County

“Andrews Air force base”, “Sister does shopping and lives in Talbot County”, “Different food chains”, Nothing here, “Their prices are cheaper”

Respondents were also asked why they go to that location for the service.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Medical/Dental Services Used(N=65)

Table 3: Reasons for Dental/Medical Service Location Location Comments

Down-town

“Fasett Maggee” “Insurance, good service, good referrals” “Closer”

Route 50 “Choptank Community” “Only place to go” Cam-bridge “Affordable” “Convenience” “Local Doctor” “Veterans”

Dorches-ter “Convenience” “Familiar” “Family Dentist”

Other County

“Cheaper” “Been going for years” “Convenience” “Knowledge of doctor’s price” “Pricing and better care” “Talbot County” “The doctor care and dental is better somewhere else than Dorchester County” “Mother been with them for over 20 years”

Medical and Dental 32% indicated that they the ser-vices that they used were located in downtown Cambridge, 26% elsewhere Cambridge, 26% an-other County, 11% Dorchester County, and only 5% on Route 50.

Respondents were also asked why they go to that location for the service.

Page 51: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

51

63% indicated that they the services that they used were located in down-town Cambridge, 22% on Route 50, 9% Elsewhere Cambridge, 3% Dorchester County, and 3% another County.

Prescriptions and Medications

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Prescription/Medication Services Used(N=64)

Hubbard’s Pharmacy, Race Street

Respondents were also asked why they go to that location for the service.

Table 4: Reasons for Prescription/Medication Location

Location Comments

Down-town

Convenience, “Always have Hubbard’s” “Craig’s drug store-walking distance”

Route 50 Affordable, “Mother wanted to use same store” Rite Aid WallMart Cam-bridge “Get medication cheaper” VA

Dorches-ter “Used to going there”

Page 52: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

52

Childcare 54% indicated that they the ser-vices that they used were located in downtown Cambridge, 36% elsewhere Cam-bridge, 9% on Route 50, and nothing in Dor-chester or another County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re/C

ambr

idge

Else

whe

re/D

orch

este

r Cou

nty

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Childcare Services Used(N=11)

Table 5: Reasons for Childcare Location

Location Comments

Down-town Choptank Community, Fassett Maggee, Live Downtown

Route 50 Roslyn Avenue

Laundry and/or Dry Cleaning 46% indicated that they the ser-vices that they used were located in downtown Cambridge, 32% elsewhere Cam-bridge, 16% on Route 50, 6% in another County, and none for Dor-chester County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location for Laundry Services Used(N=50)

Table 7: Reasons for Laundry/Dry Cleaning Location

Location Comments

Down-town

“Convenience” “Because the washers are very good and the dryer is very hot-Muir Street-has AC”

Cam-bridge “affordable” “Bradford House” “Elm Street”

Dorches-ter “Good Service”

Other County “Easton” “Dry Cleaning is much cheaper”

Page 53: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

53

Clothing 21% indicated that they the services that they used were located in downtown Cam-bridge, 16% on Route 50, 6% in another County, 5% elsewhere Cambridge, and none for Dorchester County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter A

noth

er C

ount

y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

# of

Res

pond

ents

Shopping Location for Clothing(N=66)

Table 6: Reasons for Clothing Shopping Location

Location Comments

Down-town

“Cheap” “convenient” “Lutheran Mission- Salvation Army” “Sports Society” “

Route 50 “Fashion Bug only place to go” “Only thing in town-WalMart” “Sometimes Cambridge doesn’t have what I like, I like malls and nice stores” “

Other County

“Cheaper” “Black people don’t have anywhere to shop” “Big and Tall” “Because there is not much here for my son” “Baltimore-Sales” “No stores in Cambridge” “Easton” “Selection, price, fashion” “Variety” “There are no clothing stores that are reasonable in Dorchester that meets my budget”

Auto Repair 31% indicated that the services that they used were located in another County, 29% elsewhere Cambridge, 26% Route 50, 21% downtown, and only 2% Dorchester County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Auto Repair Services Used(N=35)

Table 8: Reasons for Auto Repair Location

Location Comments

Route 50 “Dan’s Auto Repairs” “Hubcaps” “Only place to go” Cam-bridge “Price” “Good service” “Convenience” “Cedar Street”

Other County

“Get better service for my car” “Easton-warranty” “Anywhere” “Salisbury Pohanka car services” “Speed of service, price, work guarantee” “The cost is reasonable” “No shop for her car here” “Longtime history with service”

Page 54: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

54

Restaurants 34% indicated that the services that they used were located in on Route 50, 24% an-other County, 23% downtown, 16% else-where Cambridge, and 16% Dorchester County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Resturants Used(N=61)

Table 9: Reasons for Restaurant Location

Location Comments

Downtown “JP’s Restaurant” “All over” “Doris Mae’s” “Depends on the meal choice”

Route 50 “Variety” “Chinese, Kay’s, Popeye” “Denny’s” “Fast Food” “Good food-Cambridge doesn’t have too many restaurants” “I like McDonalds” “Price”

Cambridge “None in the area” “Better restaurants and service”

Dorchester “Good food”

Other County

“Baltimore” “I eat a lot, spread around” “no good dine-in res-taurants” “Red Lobster Salisbury” “Services, selection” “Too many fast food restaurants”

Banking 41% indicated that the services that they used were located in the downtown, 32% on Route 50, 18% else-where Cambridge, 7% another County, and 2% Dorchester County.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

5

10

15

20

25

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Banking Services Used(N=56)

Table 10: Reasons for Bank Services Location

Location Comments

Downtown “National Bank” “SunTrust”

Route 50 “Hebron Bank” “Like their service and its nearby” “Good service” “Convenience” “Talbot”

Cambridge “To store my money for my son’s college” “Bank of Eastern Star” “Local and convenient” “Have been using this bank for years”

Dorchester “Close to my job”

Else

whe

re—

Cam

brid

ge

Page 55: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

55

Haircuts and Styling 38% indicated that the services they use were located in elsewhere Cambridge, 36% downtown, 17% an-other County, and 5% Dorchester County, and 3% on Route 50.

Dow

ntow

n

Rou

te 5

0

Else

whe

re -

Cam

brid

ge

Else

whe

re -

Dor

ches

ter

Ano

ther

Cou

nty

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

# of

Res

pond

ents

Location of Hair Salon/Barber Used(N=42)

Table 11: Reasons for Hair Salon/Barber Location

Location Comments

Downtown “Hanging buddy-52 years” “Friend best barber in Cambridge” “Convenient” “Bertha”

Route 50 “Beauty outlet” “

Cambridge “Convenience” “Free” “Home” “Pine Street” “To get the haircut that pleases me” “Good barber” “Free” “

Dorchester “Hurlock” Other

County “Philly” “Easton” “Follow my hairdresser” “Baltimore” “Service”

Neighborhood Commercial Wants and Needs Stores/Restaurants/Services Frequented the Most Respondents were asked which specific stores, restaurants, and services within walking distance of their neighborhood they frequent the most. The most common was Center Market, followed by Webster’s, Doris Mae’s, Chicken Man, and the Elks. Others include: Salvation Army, Foxwell’s, Zip Mart, Creek Deli, Craig Drug, Jackson Creek Market, JDs Restaurant, Jimmy Simmon’s, PJs on Washington and High, Bev-erage Barn, Sports society, “None because I do not have any around my neighborhood”. New stores, services, and restaurants desired in neighborhood Respondents were asked to prioritize what types of new stores, services, or restaurants they would like to see open up in walking distance of this neighborhood. They indicated that clothing/shoes and grocery/food stores were most important. Others include: TGI Fridays-Applebees-Ruby Tuesdays, Sears, Sam’s Club, restaurants, mini market, soulfood, lawn and garden, home improvement store, Walgreen’s, gym for kids, Dollar General, barber shop, music, movie theater, electronics, Red Lobster, “Lee Jones” cafeteria style, recreation for children, 5-10 stores, another store like Sport’s Society.

Page 56: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

56

8

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# of

Res

pond

ents

Yes No

Household Adults Attaining Education(N=61)

Education Attaining Education Asked whether any adult in the household were attending school or taking classes in a job skills program, a college, or a GED program, 13% responded that they was, 87% indicated there was not. For those that stated yes, few responded precisely what school(s) or programs (s) they were attending, those included: Chesapeake College and a nursing pro-gram.

Page 57: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

57

Understanding the History

Familiar of History Asked how familiar the re-spondents are with the his-tory of this neighborhood; 48% responded they were Very, 32% Somewhat, 11% Not Very, and 9% not at all.

32

21

7 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Res

pond

ents

Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All

Familiarity With Neighborhood History(N=66)

Interest in History Respondents were asked to rate a list of historical aspects for their neighbor-hood that included: Slavery times and the Underground Railroad, Historic churches, Entrepreneurship and small businesses in the 1900s, Jazz and blues music on Pine Street, and the Civil rights movement. The most interest was in

the civil rights movement, slav-ery/underground railroad, and his-toric churches. Business in the 1900’s showed some interest, and the least being music of Pine Street.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Ave

rage

Lev

el o

f Im

porta

nce

Slavery/U

nderg

round

Historic

Churche

s

Busines

s in 19

00s

Music of P

ine Stre

et

Civil R

ights Move

ment

Interest in Historic Aspects of the Neighborhood(N=47)

Pine and Cedar Streets, circa 1936

Page 58: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

58

Historic Sites and buildings that should be preserved Respondents were asked if there were specific buildings or sites in the neighborhood that should be preserved or celebrated because they are historically important. These are their suggestions: • Bethel AME • 724 Pine Street • Jackson Store • Streeters • Mt.Olive Baptist • Chat&Chew • Drugstore • Cornish Park • Ed St Claire's store • Elks Lodge #223 • Gloria Richardson home • Harriet Tubman's site • Historic Churches • Store on corner High & Muir • Corner Pine & cedar • Waugh Cemetery.

Pine and Cedar Streets, 2008

Page 59: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

59

Taking Action

What will you do? Residents were asked this open-ended question, what will you do to make your neighbor-hood a better place to live? Because of the great diversity in answers, the 58 comments were not fully categorized. Some respondents provided more than one answer. Others did not directly answer the question, but instead gave comments in regards to what should be done. Below is a table of a significant portion of the comments.

Table X: What will I do? And What should be done?

Abide the law and help when I can After school, summer programs

Anything I can do Activities for young people

Be the example Recreational center

Hold my self accountable Better Parks, Stores, and Housing

Take pride in my property and surround-ings

Community get-togethers

Clean it up Better neighbors

Report Crime Get crime off the street

Spread the word of Jesus Christ Get out of the way so someone can do the job they need to do

Contribute knowledge and time Get rid of the riffraff

Get involved in community action and government to make improvements

Sidewalks and lighting

Give more time Whole new Cambridge

Whatever it takes Remove all the men hanging out on the corning that had the shooting

Volunteering my time to mentor kids Provide activities for youth

Joining organization affecting real change More and new jobs

Showing love Cheaper housing

More involvement myself More places for the hoodlums to go

Help the ones who can’t help self Support Community Centers

Focus on moving forward and those who want to

Speed limit sign and better lighting

Continue to do neighborhood watch & keep my neighborhood free of trash

Recreational facilities

Cleanliness/upgrade community

Help bring more business/jobs Improve sidewalks and lighting

Help cut down on crime Foot patrol from the police department

I don’t know, continue to be a good citi-zen for one, until I move

Try to get along with the neighbors, keep clean, watch out for people who don’t live on the block

Help people get to know each other Volunteer, baby-sit, and mentor

Talk to the younger people Help out best I can, volunteer

Page 60: Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

60

Conclusions

There are numerous instances in the American experience where progress enjoyed by one group of people comes at the expense of some other group. In many cases, the cause of “Urban Renewal” has led to the displacement of the very resi-dents who created the fabric of the community in the first place. Gradually, planners have learned the value of looking directly to these people, rather than past them, in an effort to develop a successful program for renewal. In the case of Pine Street in Cambridge, there is an unprecedented opportunity to work with the community to cultivate the ideas, energy and assets that already exist among the people who live, or have their roots in the neighborhood. This document strives to represent the voice of those people, and to reflect the im-portance and accomplishments of the people who lived and worked in this commu-nity before them. The coalition that assembled this intends to continue to adminis-ter this survey to ensure that there are no ideas or concerns that are overlooked. Clearly our results thus far tell us that there is much work to be done. But we also see a spark of enthusiasm among the neighbors along Pine Street, and a willing-ness to become involved in planning and executing the various programs that have the potential to reinvigorate the community, and restore it to a fuller measure of livelihood and dignity. The shared goal of this city’s leaders and its citizens is to help rebuild the economic vitality of the Pine Street community. The survey data in this report show that there is a desire among the residents to see the neighborhood improve through better housing conditions, more job opportunities, and improved efforts to reduce crime and provide better services for families in need. These are the goals that must be central to any project that is proposed for this historic place.