Marina Vista and Alder Grove Resident Needs Assessment Survey

Transcription

Neighborhood Needs Assessment:
Upper Land Park Neighborhood, Sacramento CA
David C. Barker, Director
Cristina Larsen, Research Analyst
Arturo Baiocchi, Research Analyst
Michael Small, Research Analyst
With:
Barbara Kerschner, Graduate Research Analyst
Justin Martin, Graduate Research Analyst
Alton Williams, Graduate Research Analyst
James Madsen, Undergraduate Research Intern
Institute for Social Research | California State University, Sacramento
6000 J Street | Sacramento, CA 95819-6101 | (916) 278-5737
0
Upper Land Park Neighborhood Needs Assessment
November 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As with any complex and multifaceted research effort, this study’s success is due to the
combined efforts of several individuals across organizations. The ISR research team would like to
thank all of those who made data collection and interpretation possible: the Sacramento
Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Mercy Housing California, EJP Consulting Group, LLC, and
the City of Sacramento Community Development. Finally, we thank the residents of Upper Land
Park-Broadway area for their participation.
ii
November 2014
Founded in 1989, the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at Sacramento State University conducts
public opinion surveys, performs program/policy evaluations, and provides a comprehensive list
of data analytic services (both quantitative and qualitative) for government agencies, nonprofits, and the academic community. A multidisciplinary social science organization, the ISR has
extensive experience in designing research projects, data collection, data analysis, consulting,
and data management. Our projects have enhanced decision-making, improved the use of
resources, ensured program fidelity, and advanced the overall quality of programs/policies
designed to address various social problems.
The Institute for Social Research
California State University-Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6101
916-278-5737
www.csus.edu/isr
https://www.facebook.com/InstituteForSocialResearch
https://twitter.com/SocResearchCSUS
iii
November 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is working with local partners to
revitalize the Marina Vista and Alder Grove public housing communities, located within the
Upper Land Park/Broadway neighborhoods of Sacramento. SHRA contracted with Sacramento
State University’s Institute for Social Research (ISR) to conduct a survey of residents in the Upper
Land Park/Broadway neighborhoods (who do not live in Marina Vista or Alder Grove), to ensure
that their voices are included in the revitalization process.
The survey explored how residents perceive (1) the strengths and weaknesses of their
neighborhood, (2) the prevalence and magnitude of particular problems, (3) traffic-related
issues, (4) neighborhood needs, and (5) planning priorities (in addition to capturing the
demographic characteristics of these residents).
Key findings from the survey suggest:

Respondents to the survey are predominantly female, middle-aged and Caucasian. The
sample consists of residents who tend to be highly educated, employed full time, and
who have relatively high-levels of income.
o
o
o

Only half of the respondents have heard about efforts to revitalize the surrounding public
housing communities, though many (70%) expressed a desire to be more involved in the
process (particularly through community meetings).
o
o

Most respondents tend to be homeowners, with a mix of new and established
residents in the community.
Families in the sample tend to be small, with only one or two children in the
household.
The majority of respondents are not ULP business owners.
Approximately two-thirds want more information (mainly through email).
Of residents that belong to neighborhood associations, most participate in the
Upper Land Park Neighbors Association and the Land Park Community
Association.
Respondents were unanimous in their positive evaluation of the ULP community and the
current amenities available that make it a “good place to live.”
o
o
o
o
The majority of respondents say they value the mature trees, historic architecture,
location, and their neighbors.
In contrast, many respondents are concerned with the increasing traffic and
crime in their neighborhood, as well as with the public housing features of their
neighborhood.
Burglary and thefts are regarded as the most frequently occurring neighborhood
problem.
When it comes to perceived traffic-related problems, residents are most likely to
cite speeding vehicles.
iv
November 2014

Lack of adult recreation programs tops the list of most needed neighborhood resources,
with restaurants being the most needed type of business or commerce in ULP.

Respondents were unanimous in expressing walkability as the most important priority in
future planning.
v
November 2014
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ iv
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1
METHODS & DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................. 2
RESPONDENT PROFILE .................................................................................................................................. 3
Demographics ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Socioeconomic Status.................................................................................................................................. 5
Interest in Neighborhood Participation ................................................................................................... 11
IN RESIDENTS’ OWN WORDS… .................................................................................................................. 15
What Residents Like Best ............................................................................................................................ 15
Living in a Prime Location: Proximity, Trees, and Architecture ....................................................... 15
Sense of Community and Good Neighbors ...................................................................................... 16
What Residents Like Least .......................................................................................................................... 16
The Growing Traffic ................................................................................................................................. 17
Increasing Crime ..................................................................................................................................... 17
The Challenges of Living near Low-Income Housing ....................................................................... 18
EVALUATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITIES ........................................................................................ 20
FREQUENCY OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS ........................................................................................ 22
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS ................................................................................ 23
NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE NEEDS ........................................................................................................ 27
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS NEEDS .......................................................................................................... 28
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PRIORITIES ................................................................................................. 29
CONCLUSIONS AND CAVEATS ................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix A ULP Online Neighborhood Needs Assessment Survey ................................................... 33
Appendix B Survey Responses ................................................................................................................ 39
Appendix C Open-Ended Responses .................................................................................................... 43
Appendix D: Map of Upper Land Park …………………………………………………………....51
vi
November 2014
INTRODUCTION
The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) is a federal program coordinated through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which seeks to transform troubled and
distressed neighborhoods into flourishing, mixed-income communities. With funding and support
from HUD and CNI, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is partnering
with other local organizations to revitalize the public housing communities of Marina Vista and
Alder Grove in Sacramento. The centerpiece of this revitalization effort is to rehabilitate existing
buildings in Marina Vista and Alder Grove, but also to make broader investments in these
communities to address the various needs of their residents. The goal is to develop and maintain
diverse communities that support upward mobility for all residents.
Marina Vista and Alder Grove communities are located within a broader set of neighborhoods
collectively referred to as the Upper Land Park and Broadway area (hereafter referred to as
ULP). As shown by the below figure, the ULP area is bounded by the Sacramento River and
Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, U.S. Highway 50 on the north, Riverside Boulevard on the east, and
4th Avenue on the south. SHRA contracted with Sacramento State University’s Institute for Social
Research (ISR) to conduct a Needs
Assessment survey of ULP residents who do
not live in either Marina Vista or Alder
Grove in order to capture their thoughts as
they pertain both to the neighborhood
and to the public housing revitalization
effort.
This report summarizes findings from this
survey, in the hopes of providing SHRA and
its local partners actionable intelligence as
they move forward with their
neighborhood revitalization efforts.
Generally, the survey explores how ULP
residents think about:
1. Neighborhood Qualities
2. The Prevalence of General
Neighborhood Problems
3. The Prevalence of Traffic-specific
Problems
4. Neighborhood Needs - Resources
5. Neighborhood Needs – Businesses
6. Neighborhood Planning Priorities
1
November 2014
METHODS & DATA COLLECTION
ISR researchers partnered with SHRA and other stakeholders to develop the Upper Land Park
Neighborhood Needs Assessment tool. This survey questionnaire was designed to capture
residents’ thoughts and attitudes with regard to various aspects of their neighborhood, including
its strengths and weaknesses, the key challenges ULP faces, and current needs (i.e., what ULP
lacks). ISR researchers pilot-tested a draft of the survey, made revisions, and settled on a
questionnaire with 32 closed-end questions and two (2) open-ended question prompts (see
Appendix A for a complete description of the finalized instrument).
The detailed process went as follows. First, in summer of 2014, ISR mailed postcards to 554 ULP
residents. The postcard introduced residents to the purpose of the study, and invited them to
participate via a website link – which would direct interested residents to the survey online (using
Qualtrics software). The postcard also explained that the survey would be voluntary and
confidential, and that respondents had alternative options for completing the survey either by
mail, fax, or telephone.
Next, during a 5-week period between August 14th and September 19th of 2014, ISR staff
monitored incoming data and responded to telephone and email inquiries about the survey. By
the end of the data-collection period:

A total 146 residents had responded to the survey (96% online and 4% by paper) -approximately 90 of whom completed most questions of the survey.1
o

This corresponds to a response rate of approximately 26 percent, and a
completion rate of 18 percent, for the survey.
Approximately 20 residents had contacted ISR by phone or email regarding questions
and/or concerns about the survey.
o
10 residents requested a paper-version of the survey mailed to their residence, 6
of which were completed and returned back to ISR.
o
Approximately 10 residents expressed concern about the online accessibility of
the survey and/or had questions about the purpose and intent of the Needs
Assessment. 2
It should be noted that few respondents completed every single question of the survey. A number of
respondents simply answered the open-ended questions that we review later, while others only filled out
half of the survey.
1
Some ULP residents expressed concerns regarding the survey process and its online accessibility. The first
question of the survey explicitly asks respondents whether they live and/or work in the ULP area (and exited
participants from the study if they answered “No”). A few respondents felt that this question unfairly
“kicked out” residents who live near the ULP area but not within the specific targeted neighborhoods. One
resident indicated that she would instruct individuals taking the survey to respond with a “Yes,” regardless
of their residence. Consequently it is possible that some surveys may have been completed by some
individuals living/working outside intended, sampling frame.
2
2
November 2014
RESPONDENT PROFILE
In this section we describe the general makeup of ULP residents who chose to respond to the
survey, by reviewing the key demographic, economic, and civic engagement attributes of the
final sample.
Specifically, we first summarize the demographic characteristics of respondents, with specific
regard to gender (Q21), age (Q30), and self-identified race/ethnicity (Q31).
Next, we review how residents describe their socioeconomic status in terms of their level of
education attainment (Q29), employment situation (Q28), household income (Q32), and home
ownership (Q23). In this subsection we also consider the average household size reported by
respondents (Q27), the typical duration of time that a resident has reportedly lived in ULP, and
the number of residents who own a business in ULP (Q24).3
Lastly, in this section we assess the level of civic engagement exhibited by residents, particularly
as it pertains to their participation in neighborhood associations (Q11), but also with respect to
their awareness of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative (Q8a). We summarize whether residents
want more information about the initiative (Q8b), how they want this information to be
communicated to them (Q9), and the specific ways that they would like to participate in the
revitalization process (Q10).
Demographics
As we illustrate in the following figures, respondents to the survey are predominantly female,
middle-aged, and Caucasian/White. While the figures depict a low level of racial and
socioeconomic diversity in these communities, this is generally consistent with what is known of
the demographic composition of most ULP neighborhoods outside of Marina Vista and Alder
Grove (2010 US Census).
Gender
Figure 1 depicts the breakdown of how respondents report their gender in the survey (Q21).
Though a high proportion of respondents chose to skip this and other demographic questions
(approximately 22%-30% of respondents skipped these questions), the distribution of responses to
Question 21 suggests to that women were more likely to respond to the survey than men (63% to
37%).
The survey also inquired about the characteristics of these businesses, including whether residents
own/rent the property on which their business is located (Q25) and the number of employees they
supervise (Q26).
3
3
November 2014
Age
As for age, the sample skews a bit older than the general population; indeed, half of the sample
is older than 50 years of age. As the below Figure 2 shows, the most common age bracket that
respondents report (in question 30) is between 35 to 44 years old (29%), followed by 55 to 64
years old (27%) and 65 and older (18%). Only 11% of respondents report being younger than 35
years old.
4
November 2014
Race
When asked how they describe their race/ethnicity (Q31), a clear majority of respondents (77%)
self-identify as Caucasian or White. As Figure 3 illustrates, small percentages of respondents
identify as Hispanic/Latino (11%), East Asian4 (6%) or African American/Black (5%). Only one
respondent identifies herself as Native American/Alaskan Native (2%). Notably, no respondent
identifies him/herself as South Asian (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi) or as a Pacific Islander.
It should be noted that while a large percentage of respondents identify as Caucasian/White
(77%), the racial composition of the sample appears generally representative of most
neighborhoods in ULP. Indeed, US census-tract data on specific neighborhoods in ULP
(excluding the communities of Marian Vista and Alder Grove) suggest that Caucasians/Whites
can represent 55% to 70% of residents. This is substantially higher than the 47% of Sacramento
residents estimated to be Caucasian/White (excluding Hispanics), according the US Census for
2013.
Socioeconomic Status
When reporting their socioeconomic status, most residents describe facing a favorable set of
circumstances regarding their level of education, household income and homeownership.
Overall, respondents are on average highly educated, employed full time, and reportedly earn
high levels of income. A very high percentage of respondents (93%) say they own their homes.
Education
Of the 65 respondents who chose to report the highest degree that they have completed (Q29),
a combined 85% have earned at least a Bachelor’s degree or higher. By comparison,
according to US Census estimates, only 28% of Sacramento residents have attained this level of
4
East Asian includes Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Hmong
5
November 2014
education. As Figure 4 highlights, over half of respondents (54%) have earned a college degree
alone, and a third (31%) have earned a Master’s degree or higher. No respondents report
having less than a high school degree or GED.
Employment Status
Figure 5 shows that of the 71 respondents who report their current employment status (Q28),
roughly two-thirds (63%) are employed full time. The second most common status that
respondents report is that they are retired (23%). A very small percentage of respondents
describe being part-time employed (7%) or unemployed (1%).
6
November 2014
Income
Figure 6 shows the breakdown of household income as reported by the 52 respondents who
were willing to provide this information in question 29 (approximately 50% of respondents skipped
this question). The distribution of responses suggests that the median household income among
respondents is over $100,000 per year, effectively twice the median household income in
Sacramento ($55,080 according to the most recent estimate by the US Census). Indeed, only
12%-18% of ULP residents live in households under the Sacramento median income (compared
to 50% of households in the city).
7
November 2014
Home Ownership
Consistent with the high level of household income reported by ULP residents, the overwhelming
majority (94%) own their own homes (Q30). As Figure 7 shows, only 6% of respondents report they
are currently renting.
Length of Residence
When asked how long they have lived in the neighborhood (Q31), over half of residents (a
combined 53%) say they have resided in ULP for over 10 years. More specifically, and as Figure 8
shows, a combined 23% of respondents have lived in ULP between 10 to 20 years, while 30% say
they have lived in their neighborhood for more than 2 decades. Nonetheless, a substantial
number of respondents have only recently moved into their neighborhoods; nearly a quarter of
residents (23%) have lived in ULP less than 2 years.
8
November 2014
Household Composition
When asked about the number of individuals living in their households (Q31) a large percentage
of respondents (a combined 94%) describe small households of 1 to 3 residents. Most
respondents (41%) describe living in two-adult households, most with no children (approximately
75% of these two-adult households report no children, which is consistent with the older age of
most residents). The next most common household composition consists of single-adults living by
themselves (28%). Approximately a quarter of residents (24%) report 1-2 children in the home.
Most parents (88%) report living in a two-adult household with one child.
9
November 2014
Business Ownership in ULP
As Figure 10 shows, very few respondents (5, or 7%) report that they own a business in ULP (Q34).
In follow-up questions, most of these respondents report that they own the property upon which
their business is located (4 out of 5 reports this in Q35), and that their business is a sole
proprietorship (3 out of the 5 report this in Q36).
10
November 2014
Interest in Neighborhood Participation
As the next series of figures highlight, respondents indicate substantial interest in learning more
about the Choice Neighborhood Initiative and its potential impact on their neighborhood.
Though many residents have heard little and do not know much about the revitalization efforts in
their area, most are interested in becoming more involved in the process (such as participating
in community meetings and task forces). Currently, few residents report participating in
community/neighborhood associations, but many express an interest in becoming involved in
the near future.
Awareness of Choice Neighborhood Initiative (CNI)
Only half of respondents (52%) report that they have heard of the ULP Choice Neighborhood
Initiative—CNI (Q8). Further analysis of responses suggests that residents not involved in
neighborhood associations are the least likely to be aware of CNI (30% to 54%), along with those
who are retired (40% to 60%). However, as Figure 12 shows, the majority of residents (70%) would
like to receive information/learn more about the initiative (Q8b).
11
November 2014
Communication Preference
When asked how they would prefer to receive information and updates about CNI (Q9)
residents most commonly say that they are interested in emails (47%) and mailings (23%). A
sizeable number of residents (approximately 20%) say they prefer learning about CNI through
their neighborhood association.
12
November 2014
Interest in Participating
When asked about their interest in becoming more involved with the ULP CNI process (Q10), 59
out of 71 respondents (or 83%) say that they want to be involved in some way with the project.
More specifically, and as Figure 14 highlights, the majority of respondents indicate interest in
participating in future community meetings (70%). Half of respondents say they would like to
participate in a task force related to the initiative (48%), and slightly fewer respondents are
interested in community efforts to keep neighbors informed about the project (41%). Again, 83%
of all respondents say they are interested in at least one of these activities (depicted below as
“Any Involvement”).
13
November 2014
Association Membership
When asked about their membership in specific neighborhood associations (Q11), only half of
respondents (39 out of 71) say they are currently involved in any one association. Figure 15
shows the breakdown of membership by particular associations, with Upper Land Park Neighbors
having the most members (37%). Approximately 7% of respondents say they are involved in
more than one association.
In sum, the above figures suggest that many UPL residents are of high socioeconomic status—
most have attained advanced degrees, own their own home and report household incomes
well above the median income for the city of Sacramento (above $100,000 per year). The
sample is predominately Caucasian/White and older than 50 years of age, which is consistent
with US Census tract-data for many of the ULP neighborhoods outside the public housing
communities of Marina Vista and Alder Grove. Nonetheless, the sample seems to over-represent
women relative to men (65% to 35%), suggesting that women were more responsive to the
survey.
Having reviewed the general profile of respondents, we next turn to how residents think about
their neighborhoods, the problems their communities face, and the efforts to revitalize particular
areas of ULP. First, we report how ULP residents talk and think about these issues in their own
words.
14
November 2014
IN RESIDENTS’ OWN WORDS…
The Needs Assessment survey included two open-ended questions that allowed respondents to
elaborate, in their own words, how they perceive the strengths and challenges of their
community. The open-ended questions were:
1. What do you like the best about living or working in Upper Land Park? (Q4)
2. What do you like the least about living or working in Upper Land Park? (Q5)
A large percentage of respondents chose to answer these questions—providing a number of
both positive and negative perspectives on ULP as well as efforts to revitalize the surrounding
public housing community. Below, we first review the common ways/themes of how residents
talked about the positive aspects of their neighborhood, followed by how residents talked about
its challenges (see Appendix C for a comprehensive list of open-ended responses).
What Residents Like Best
Collectively, the responses reveal some clear and common themes about how residents
perceive the assets of the ULP area. These include:
“Living in a Prime Location: Proximity, Trees, and Architecture”
“Sense of Community and Good Neighbors”
Living in a Prime Location: Proximity, Trees, and Architecture
According to most residents, Upper Land Park is an established neighborhood that gives the feel
of low-density single-family homes with urban amenities. A big draw of living in this area for
residents is the close proximity to the epicenter of Sacramento, which includes accessibility of
major freeways, the State Capitol, the business district, and “nightlife” (including but not limited
to restaurants, shopping, and local coffee shops). “Trees” was probably the most commonly
mentioned word in the responses, with residents expressing fondness for large, mature, shady
trees and tree-lined streets. Respondents also cherish the unique, older homes and historical
architectural characteristics of ULP. The above sentiments are supported by the following
responses:
What I like the best about ULP…
…proximity to downtown, character of homes, street trees
…older neighborhood feel with trees, historic buildings
…central location to shopping historical homes and beautiful trees
…close to everything, with a somewhat, good quality of life.
…proximity to farmers market, proximity to work, bike access to river park trail
…neighborly feel, uniqueness of surrounding i.e. Craftsman houses and variety of large
trees
…convenience to downtown, the Tower corner, Taylor's market, good interesting
neighbors, close to work (Sac State), vintage homes, mature trees
…established, stable, leafy winding streets with older architecture and proximity to
downtown restaurants, nightlife
15
November 2014
…the tree lined streets and the friendly neighbors as well as the unique houses
…the beauty of the trees, the older homes, and the diversity.
…quiet neighborhood, tree lined streets, and its proximity to Land Park
…good neighbors who watch out for each other and the quiet tree lined streets
…beautiful trees, conveniently located to downtown, the parks, beautiful homes and
mature neighborhoods
…the diversity of architecture of the older, well-maintained homes, the mature trees that
shade our homes and streets
Sense of Community and Good Neighbors
In addition to location, greenery, and architecture, residents frequently mentioned their
neighbors and the people in their community as being one of the things they like best about
living in ULP. According to many residents, there is a strong “sense of community” among the
neighbors “who care about the neighborhood,” are courteous (and quite), and that “watch out
for each other.” The positive feelings towards others in the community -- especially neighbors -- is
apparent in the following quotes:
What I like the best about ULP…
… being in a neighborhood that supports each other.
…the nice neighbors, the trees, the sense of community
…good Neighbors who watch out for each other and the quiet tree lined streets
…friendly neighborhood that has many walkable attractions such as schools, parks,
grocery stores, coffee shops, and restaurants. It exudes every characteristic that
embodies a true community.
… sense of community and knowing my neighbors
..sense of neighborhood, proximity to downtown, midtown, freeways
…my neighbors. The people are awesome…
…nice and mellow, close to downtown, quiet, nice neighbors
…quiet, good neighbors, trees
…good neighbors, small feel with restaurants within walking/bike riding distance.
…nice and friendly neighbors on my street
…love the people in the neighborhood.
These quotes are only a sampling; many others include “good” and “great” neighbors in
response to this question. Clearly the location, greenery, and architecture are important, but
one could argue just as significant is the community itself. It should also be noted that residents
also mention the high-quality schools with some frequency -- though somewhat less so than the
two themes that we have presented above.
What Residents Like Least
While ULP residents, on the whole, feel very positively about living in ULP, we also saw some
commonalities with respect to their perceptions of the less desirable aspects of living there. Three
major themes emerged regarding what is least liked about living and/or working in ULP:
“The Growing Traffic”
16
November 2014
“The Increasing Crime”
“The Challenges of Living near Low-income Housing”
While these three themes are related, it is of value to drill down into each to learn more about
the specifics of these themes.
The Growing Traffic
Residents frequently mention traffic—and/or problems related to traffic, such as noise— as one
of the growing problems in ULP. Some residents feel that excessive traffic translates into
speeding, loud noise, “dangers crossing the street” and other problems that decrease the
quality of life in the neighborhood. Other respondents talk about traffic both in terms of
“vehicles driving through” the neighborhood but also with respect to the “growing foot traffic”
associated with people walking from other communities to get to nearby stores. The concern
that growing traffic (either by foot or by care) is creating problems is highlighted in many of the
below responses:
What I like the least about ULP…
…the constant speeding, noise and trash deposited by others as they travel down Vallejo
Way.
…how busy with traffic our street is (Vallejo Way), how fast cars drive down our street,
and our proximity to the projects
…high foot traffic from people heading to Muir Market, litter being thrown on front lawn
(beer bottles & wrappers), speeding cars, loud music coming from the speeding cars
…the narrow streets and the high volume of traffic
…the traffic that speeds down Vallejo as well as cuts through my street going between
Riverside and the Marina Vista housing development.
…litter from foot traffic, vandalism, fast/ dangerous drivers
…noisy car traffic during peak hours and occasional vandalism
..crime; increased speed and amount of traffic
…traffic through my street, people speeding by to get to public housing
…the amount of traffic and speed of the vehicles driving through our neighborhoods.
…crime, traffic noise, speeding
Increasing Crime
According to many residents petty crime is increasing in their neighborhood. Incidents of
burglary, theft, and break-ins are perceived by some as now common occurrences in the
community, which contributes to their decreasing sense of safety. Some residents directly
associate the “increases in crime” with the proximity to the public housing communities of Alder
Grove and Marina Vista. While very few respondents mention being personal victims of any
crime themselves, the perspective that crime is increasing can be heard in many of the
following comments:
17
November 2014
…crime is also a major concern. The neighborhood has seen many break-in and
robberies, and they seem to be increasing. This also raises concern for general
neighborhood safety. We are aware of regular gunshots and shooting victims in the
neighborhood, particularly in the affordable housing area.
…increase in crime in the area.
…crime, 40% of city's public housing in our small area
…the impact tenants from the Marina Vista and Alder Grove housing projects have on
public safety in the neighborhood. Virtually all crime in my neighborhood is committed
by people from these projects.
…opportunistic petty crime, littering; I have to be sure that things are not in plain sight
and things are locked up in order to avoid petty theft.
…crime from residents in New Helvetia.
…crime in the neighboring SHRA Marina Vista and Alder Grove public housing
…perceived and real threats of crime/safety
…police helicopters and police activity due to crimes in the Seavey circle areas. …the
number of home break-ins has been increasing. I don't feel as safe here as I once did.
…crime, crime and crime.
The Challenges of Living near Low-Income Housing
Many respondents feel that both traffic and crime problems are largely byproducts of the public
housing communities in the area. Whether accurate or not, a number of comments frame
public housing communities as being the “main source” of the area’s problems. The frustration
of “living so close” to a high concentration of public housing tenants seems to stem, in part, from
the perception that individuals from these communities are often dangerous and “shady
characters” that hurt the otherwise safe feel of the neighborhood. These and other broad
generalizations about the individuals from public housing communities (often referred to as
“projects”) are expressed in a number of resident comments describing their fears and concerns
about ULP.
…having the projects as close as they are to my residence.
… the foot traffic the projects bring, does not feel safe
…the projects that is located west of Muir Way
…housing projects, housing projects!!!!! the negative impact on ULP is seriously
downplayed. The tenants have no respect for us, our property or our neighborhood!!!!
To add injury to insult SHRA wants to triple the number of residents!!! if that happens ULP
will be ruined.
…loud, reckless car traffic coming from housing projects at all hours of the night.
…sketchy foot traffic coming from housing projects. Shady characters loitering around
and leaving trash in my yard.
…The effects that tenants from the Marina Vista and Alder Grove housing projects have
on public safety in the neighborhood. Virtually all crime in my neighborhood is
committed by people from these projects.
…our proximity to the projects
…the amount of projects traffic on Vallejo Way
18
November 2014
…the criminal population of the housing projects shown on the map who prey on those
of us who work for a living
Having reviewed how some residents generally perceive the problems but also the positive
potential of the ULP area, we next compare more specifically how residents formally evaluate
these different issues using standardized scales. In the following sections we summarize survey
responses that measure how residents think and feel about the six dimensions of living in the ULPBroadway area neighborhood. These include:
1) General neighborhood qualities (Q6)
2) Neighborhood problems (Q12)
3) Transportation and traffic-specific problems (Q14)
4) Neighborhood resources (Q13)
5) Neighborhood business needs (Q20)
6) Perspectives on future planning considerations (Q19)
19
November 2014
EVALUATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITIES
Question 6 asked respondents how they evaluate specific qualities of their neighborhood (such
as ULP being a bike friendly and walkable community). Specifically, residents were prompted
with statements about their neighborhood (as for example: ULP is bike friendly) and asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with the conveyed sentiment on a five-point scale (where 1 =
Strongly Agree, and, 5 = Strongly Disagree). To simplify the presentation of results, the below
figure combines Strongly Agree and Agree responses into one category, and similarly combines
Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses into another category.5
Figure 16 shows that the nearly all respondents agree (if not strongly agree) with the sentiment
that their neighborhood “is a good place to live.” Similarly, the majority of respondents consider
ULP to be bicycle friendly (97%), walkable (96%), and ethnically diverse (96%). Many residents
also feel that ULP has much to offer in term of high quality parks (88%), schools (83%), and in
particular historical buildings (92%). Interestingly, while many respondents expressed concerns
about increasing crime in their open-ended responses comments about their community, as
The Neutral (3) response category is omitted from the graph to increase ease of interpretation; however
Appendix B contains a comprehensive table of the frequencies of the entire sample’s responses for every
response category.
5
20
November 2014
discussed in the last section, most residents nonetheless evaluate ULP as generally a “safe place
to work and live” (83%).
In contrast, residents feel less positive about their access to commercial and retail resources in
ULP. As Figure 21 highlights, respondents do not consider ULP as bustling with commercial
activity (31%), of having adequate restaurants (55%) or much shopping (65%).
21
November 2014
FREQUENCY OF NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS
Question 12 asked respondents about the prevalence of problems in their neighborhood.
Specifically, respondents were asked how they perceive the frequency of certain problems in
the community, using a four-point scale where 1 = Very Frequently and 4 = Never. Similar to the
last section, Figure 22, simplifies the presentation of these results by combining the Very
Frequently-Frequently categories, as well as the Never -Not Very Frequently categories.6
Figure 17 shows that residents perceive with some frequency, burglary (55%), lack of bike and
walking safety (50%), traffic congestion (49%), and drug dealing to be neighborhood problems
(45%). However, most do not consider graffiti (33%), and personal safety (19%), to be frequent or
common problems where they live.
The figure above omits “Don’t Know” responses, though respondents were presented with this option. Appendix
B contains a comprehensive table of sample responses for every response category.
6
22
November 2014
TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS
The survey asked respondents a variety of questions related to transportation and traffic-related
issues in their community (Q14 through Q18). Below we first discuss the frequency that residents
report using public modes of transportation and their general perception of these services. We
then review how residents perceive traffic-related problems in their community more specifically.
Public Transportation
Bus
Figure 18 shows responses to Question 15 (How often do you ride the bus. As indicated, very few
respondents report riding the public bus system “often” (less than 2%) or even “sometimes”
(11%). A third of respondents say they “rarely” use the bus (31%) and most indicate that they
“never” do (56%).
Among the few resident who ride on the public bus system, most report a number of challenges
with this mode of transportation (Q16). As Figure 19 on the next page shows, most bus riders feel
that the wait is too long for buses during the week (94%) as well as during the weekend (93%),
that key waiting spots /bus stops offer insufficient shelter from the elements (83%), and that buses
stop running too early (83%). More generally, residents feel that bus routes don’t address their
transportation needs in terms of where they need/want to go (83%). From a more positive
perspective, residents who use the bus feel it is a safe mode of transportation (94%) and that the
bus schedule starts early enough in the morning for their needs (85%).
23
November 2014
Light Rail
Similar to their infrequent use of public buses, residents rarely if ever ride the light rail system
(Q17). Indeed, as Figure 20 highlights, residents are less likely to ride the light rail than they are to
ride the bus (95% “rarely” or “never” use the light rail, while at least 12% of residents use the bus
with some frequency).
24
November 2014
Figure 21 highlights that residents are generally dissatisfied with the light rail system, even more so
than they are with the bus system (Q18). Most respondents feel that the light rail does not go
where they need to go (93%), that the stops are too far away (76%), and that system stops
running too early in the evening (69%). Notably, and in contrast to how most residents feel
about the bus, a number of residents consider the light rail to be generally unsafe (71%).
In sum, residents that were surveyed are infrequent users of public transportation, and rarely if
ever ride the bus or the light rail system. Of those that ride, most appear generally dissatisfied
with the routes, stop locations, shelter options, and run times. And particularly for the light rail
system, there is a perception that it is unsafe to use.
Having discussed how residents perceive and use public transportation, we next turn to how
they think about and assess traffic-related problems in their community more specifically.
Traffic-Specific Problems
Question 14 asked respondents to focus in more detail on traffic and related transportation
issues. Specifically, the question asked respondents to indicate how often they observe, or
experience themselves, particular traffic problems. Similar to previous sections, the below figure
simplifies the presentation of results by combining similar sets of responses (such as combining
Often and Sometimes responses into one category). As with other questions, Appendix B
contains a comprehensive listing of frequencies for each response category.
Recall that in the open-ended responses we discussed earlier, traffic was one of the most -- if not
the most -- frequently cited issue as something limiting ULP’s desirability. The responses to specific
25
November 2014
survey questions reaffirm those concerns (Q14). Specifically, as Figure 22 illustrates, sizable
percentages of respondents perceive speeding, “cutting through,” and running lights as
occurring regularly.
26
November 2014
NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE NEEDS
Question 13 asked respondents to identify particular neighborhood resources that are currently
lacking in ULP, or put differently, are being insufficiently supported. Respondents used a threepoint scale to indicate whether the current level of support for a particular issue/resource
constitutes a Significant Problem, Slight Problem or Not a Problem. Similar to previous sections,
the below figure simplifies the presentation of results by combining similar sets of responses (in this
case, combining Significant Problem and Slight Problem responses into one category). As with
other questions, Appendix B contains a comprehensive listing of frequencies for each response
category.
Figure 23 displays the findings on what ULP residents feel is currently lacking and being
insufficiently supported in their neighborhood. Some respondents express as problematic, for
instance, the lack of adult recreational programs in the community(66%), insufficient support for
personal safety (64%), and a lack of nearby medical facilities (60%). In contrast, residents do not
feel there are problems with sidewalks and landscaping(21%), insufficient support for parks and a
lack of open spaces (21%-29%). Interestingly, the majority of residents surveyed (97%) do not feel
there is need for more public housing in the community.
27
November 2014
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS NEEDS
Question 20 asked respondents to identify what they feel is most lacking in their neighborhood in
terms of particular business or commerce needs. Specifically, respondents used a three-point
scale to indicate whether a particular type of business was Very Needed, Somewhat Needed or
Not Needed. Respondents could also say that a current business is Currently Available or Not
Important in the community, or that they were unsure about the question (Don’t Know). To
simplify the presentation of responses, researchers combined the Somewhat Needed and Very
Needed answers into one category, and combined the Currently Available, Not Needed, and
Not Important responses into another category. Again, Appendix B contains a comprehensive
table of sample responses using the original response categories.
As Figure 24 shows, most residents feel that more restaurants and grocery stores are needed in
their community (between 68% to 78% residents report these businesses as). The majority of
residents (59%) also feel that a child-care center is needed in ULP.
In contrast, residents largely feel that banks, gas stations, and large retails stores are not needed
in their neighborhood (less than 25% of residents feel that these are business needs in their
community).
The next section contains ULP resident responses to questions about what issues should be
considered in the planning process for the future of the ULP area.
28
November 2014
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PRIORITIES
Question 19 asked respondents to indicate what they feel should be prioritized when planning
for the future of the ULP/Broadway area. Respondents used the following scale: 1 = Very
Important, 2 = Moderately Important, 3 = Slightly Important, 4 = Not Important, and 5 = Don’t
Know. Based on the rationale discussed in the previous section, researchers combined the Very
Important and Moderately Important categories, and the Slightly Important, and Not Important
categories. Again we omitted the Don’t Know responses for ease of presentation. Appendix B
contains a comprehensive table of sample responses for every response category.
Figure 25 suggests several considerations residents deem important when planning for the future.
As highlighted, there is significant consensus among residents on the importance of considering
walkability, bicycle friendliness, parks, and high-quality schools when planning for the future
(between 97%-99% of resident agree that these are important items to consider). Similarly, most
residents (over 90%) want new developments to match the scale and architectural-historical
29
November 2014
style of the current neighborhood (87%-94%), while still supporting the open spaces of the
community (94%). In contrast, residents agree less on whether future plans should include new
street connections and transit routes to Miller Park (53%), Broadway (50%) or Downtown more
generally (43%). This is consistent with perceptions expressed by many residents on the openended responses that ULP are already has “too much cross through traffic.” Residents are also
less certain that new developments provide more affordable housing options to own (52%) or
rent (38%).
30
November 2014
CONCLUSIONS AND CAVEATS
In summary, the ULP resident survey sample contained more females than males, Caucasians
than non-Caucasian, and was mostly middle aged, highly educated, employed full-time, and
high income. These respondents also tend to be home owners, have few children in the
household, and be both new and established residents. Very few own a business in the ULP
neighborhood and very few ride the bus or light rail.
Approximately half of the sample had heard about the Choice Neighborhood Initiative, and
approximately two-thirds want more information about the Initiative, preferably via electronic
mail. Many expressed a desire to be involved in the Initiative and planning process and their
preferred mode is through participation in community meetings. Currently, the associations with
the most members from this sample are the ULP Neighborhood Association and the Land Park
Community Association respectively.
Respondents were unanimous in their agreement that ULP is a good place to live and the data
indicate that greenery (e.g. mature trees), historic architecture, location (e.g. proximity to
downtown), and great neighbors are important factors contributing to their satisfaction with
living in ULP.
However, respondents largely agree that there is too much traffic and dislike the associated
issues such as compromised safety due to speeding. In addition, petty crime is a concern with
burglary and theft being a major drawback. Finally, the data suggest that there is some
sentiment against the existing public housing communities, and that respondents associate the
problems of traffic and crime with the public housing.
Finally, a key finding that emerged is that respondents consider walkability and bicycle
friendliness as very important priorities in future planning, and would also like to see more adult
recreation programs and restaurants in the area.
As with any research study, there are certain limitations that should be kept in mind when
interpreting findings. Self-reported surveys such as the one we conducted do not enable
researchers to ask respondents to clarify their responses to questions.. Relatedly, the researcher
cannot probe for additional information based on survey responses.
Self-report methodology is also limited in its ability to gather extensive, narrative data which can
be a source of rich, detailed information. However, in-person interviewing and focus groups are
resource intensive. A typical compromise is the inclusion of some open-ended questions, as was
the case with the present study. It is reassuring that we saw convergent evidence for the findings
in this study with the responses from open-ended questions largely supported the quantitative
analysis of closed-ended questions.
Two key advantages of the self-report methodology are affordability for the researchers and
convenience for the respondents. Electronic survey administration is fast, affordable, and
streamlines data collection with automated response data downloads. In terms of convenience,
respondents are able to start and stop the survey at their convenience which, along with a userfriendly (e.g., short and clear) survey, does much towards encouraging survey completion and
submission.
31
November 2014
As with any data collection method, social desirability bias is always a concern, particularly for
more sensitive or personal questions. This bias refers to systematic error in which research
participants respond to questions so as to present themselves in a favorable light, regardless of
their true thoughts and opinions. This survey generally did not ask about personal or sensitive
matters; however, we did see that some respondents chose not to answer certain demographic
questions (e.g., age, income, education). However, we believe we did what was possible to
minimize that problem by assuring respondents that their responses were confidential and that
they will remain anonymous.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that this study was based on a non-probability sample.
Accordingly, respondents cannot be considered representative of the larger population.
However, in the present study, we were able to contact the entire population of the
ULP/Broadway area and invite one member from each household to participate. Therefore all
households at least had an opportunity to participate. Moreover, non-probability sampling is
common in applied research and generally does not present a significant concern in terms of
collecting useful information.
32
November 2014
Appendix A ULP Online Neighborhood Needs Assessment Survey
Dear ULP/Broadway resident, as you may have heard, the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) recently awarded the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) a
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) grant. Over the next 18 months, SHRA will use this funding
to plan improvements in the Marina Vista and Alder Grove public housing developments, and also to
enhance the surrounding neighborhoods (such as your own). Your participation is voluntary, and the
information you provide is strictly confidential. It would be very helpful if you could try to answer each
question in the survey, but you may choose to skip any questions if they make you feel uncomfortable. By
answering the questions, you are giving consent for SHRA staff to use your input as part of the
neighborhood revitalization planning process. Again, your identity will not be revealed and your specific
answers will not be revealed to anyone. If you have any questions about the survey, please
contact: Michael Small (isr-09@csus.edu) Institute for Social Research Sacramento State University.
7. Do you live and/or work in the ULP area? ULP is the area bounded by US 50 on the north,
Riverside Boulevard on the east, the Sacramento River on the west, and 4th Avenue on the
south.
a) Yes
b) No
If No Is Selected, Then Skip to End of Survey
8. Are you over 18 years of age?
a) Yes
b) No
If No Is Selected, Then Skip to End of Survey
9. Are you able to make decisions for your household?
a) Yes
b) No
10. What do you like best about living or working in ULP? (Please be specific.)
11. What do you like least about living or working in ULP? (Again, please be specific.)
12. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree (Strongly Agree-1, Agree-2,
Neutral-3, Disagree-4, and Strongly Disagree-5) with each of the following statements:
My Neighborhood:
a) Is a good place to live
b) Is an affordable place to live
c) Is ethnically diverse
d) Is bicycle friendly
e) Has good access to transit
f) Has adequate shopping
g) Has adequate restaurants
h) Bustles with commercial activity
i) Has high quality schools
j) Has parks with a variety of amenities
k) Has historic buildings and places
l) Is a safe place to live or work
m) Other (Please specify)
13. Have you ever heard of the ULP/Broadway Choice Neighborhood Initiative?
33
November 2014
a) Yes
b) No
14. Would you like to receive information about the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative?
a) Yes
b) No
15. How would you like to receive information about the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative?
a) Email (please enter email address)
b) Text
c) Twitter
d) Facebook
e) Through my neighborhood association
f) Through my business association
g) US Post mail
16. Would you like to be involved in the following events or activities?
a) Community meetings
b) Task force meetings
c) Keeping my neighbors informed
d) Other (Please specify)
17. Are you a member of any of the following associations?
a) Greater Broadway Partnership
b) Land Park Community Association
c) Southside Park Neighborhood Association
d) ULP Neighbors
e) Other (Please Specify)
18. Please indicate how frequently (Very frequently-1, Frequently-2, Not Very Frequently-3, Never4, Don’t Know-5) each of the following problems occur in ULP:
a) Pedestrian/Bicycle safety is jeopardized
b) Drug dealing
c) Personal safety is jeopardized
d) Burglary/theft
e) Graffiti
f) Traffic congestion
g) Other (Please specify)
19. Please indicate how significant (Significant problem-1, Slight Problem-2, Not a Problem Here3, Don’t Know-4) each of the following problems are in ULP:
a) Lack of personal safety
b) Lack of jobs
c) Lack of medical facilities
d) Lack of youth programs
e) Lack of adult recreation programs
f) Lack of quality schools
g) Lack of parks and open spaces
h) Lack of sidewalks and landscaping
i) Lack of public housing
j) Other (Please specify)
20. Please indicate how common (Often-1, Sometimes-2, Rarely-3, Never-4, Don’t Know-5) each
of these traffic, transportation, and parking issues are in ULP:
34
November 2014
a) Traffic speeding
b) Running stop signs/signals
c) High traffic volume
d) Traffic cutting through neighborhood
e) Lack of child and pedestrian safety
f) Lack of bicycle safety
g) Lack of pet safety
h) Reckless drivers
i) Traffic collisions
j) Visibility concerns
k) Lack of on-street parking
l) Lack of street connections in the neighborhood
m) Insufficient public transportation
21. How often do you ride the bus?
a) Never
b) Rarely
c) Sometimes
d) Often
If Often Is Selected, Then Skip to how often do you ride the Light Rail...
22. When it comes to riding the bus, to what extent do you agree or disagree (Strongly Agree-1,
Agree-2, Neutral-3, Disagree-4, Strongly Disagree-5) with each of the following statements?
a) I wait too long between buses during the week
b) I wait too long between buses on the weekend
c) The bus doesn’t start early enough
d) The bus stops running too early
e) The bus doesn’t go where I need to go
f) There is no bus shelter while I wait
g) Bus stops are too far away
h) The bus is unsafe
i) Other (Please Specify)
23. How often do you ride the Light Rail (LR)?
a) Never
b) Rarely
c) Sometimes
d) Often
If Often Is Selected, Then Skip to End of Block
24. When it comes to riding the light rail, to what extent do you agree or disagree (Strongly
Agree-1, Agree-2, Neutral-3, Disagree-4, Strongly Disagree-5) with each of the following
statements?
a) I wait too long between LR trains during the week
b) I wait too long between LR trains on the weekend
c) The LR doesn’t start early enough
d) The LR stops running too early
e) The LR doesn’t go where I need to go
f) There is no shelter where I wait
35
November 2014
g) The LR stops are too far away
h) The LR is unsafe
i) Other (Please Specify)
25. When planning for the future of the ULP/Broadway area, please indicate how important it is
(Very Important-1, Moderately Important-2, Slightly Important-3, Not Important-4, Don’t Know-5)
for plans to include each of the following features and amenities:
a) Affordable housing for sale
b) Affordable housing for rent
c) Market rate housing for sale
d) Market rate housing for rent
e) Mixed use development (ground floor retail and residential upper floors)
f) Historic architecture
g) Scale and architecture to the neighborhood
h) Walk-ability
i) Bicycle friendliness
j) Access to transit
k) Access to shopping
l) Restaurants
m) Access to jobs
n) Access to health care
o) High quality schools
p) Parks with a variety of amenities
q) New street connections to Broadway
r) New street connections to Miller Park
s) New street connections to downtown
t) Open space
26. Please indicate to what extent each of the following are needed in ULP (Currently Available1, Very Needed-2, Somewhat Needed-3, Not Needed-4, Not Important-5, Don’t Know-6):
a) Full-service grocery store
b) Restaurants
c) Laundromat/dry cleaner
d) Pharmacy
e) Bank
f) Large retail store
g) Gas station
h) Child care center
27. What is your gender?
a) Male
b) Female
c) Other
d) Decline to answer
28. How long have you lived/worked or owned a business in ULP? (Round to nearest year)
a) Less than one year
b) 1-2 years
c) 3-5 years
d) 6-10 years
e) 11-15 years
36
November 2014
f) 16-20 years
g) More than 20 years
h) Decline to answer
29. Do you currently rent or own your place of residence?
a) Own/buying
b) Rent/lease
c) Decline to answer
30. Do you own a business in ULP?
a) Yes
b) No
If No Is Selected, Then Skip to End of Block
31. Do you own or rent the property on which your business is located?
a) Own/buying
b) Rent/lease
c) Decline to Answer
32. How many people are employed in your business? Including yourself (type in quantity)
33. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? (Type in a number)
a) Adults (18 or over)
b) Children (under 18)
c) Decline to answer
34. What is your current employment status? (Check all that apply):
a) Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week)
b) Employed part-time (less than 30 hours per week)
c) Manage household and children full-time
d) Full time student
e) Part time student
f) Retired
g) Disabled
h) Unemployed
i) Unemployed, looking for work
j) Decline to answer
35. Which of the following best describes your highest completed level of formal education?
a) Less than High School degree
b) High School graduate or GED
c) Vocational/Certificate/license
d) Some college (no degree)
e) Associate's degree
f) Bachelor's degree
g) Master's degree or higher
h) Decline to Answer
36. In what year were you born?
37. What is your Race/ethnicity? (Check all that apply)
a) Caucasian/white
b) African-American/black
c) Hispanic/Latino/Latina
d) Native American/Alaskan Native
37
November 2014
e) South Asian (e.g. Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi)
f) East Asian (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Hmong)
g) Pacific Islander
h) Other-Specify)
i) Decline to answer
38. What is your annual household income, before taxes? (Choose the best option from the
selection below)
a) Under $ 10,000
b) $10,000 to $19,999
c) $20,000 to $29,999
d) $30,000 to $39,999
e) $40,000 to $49,999
f) $50,000 to $59,999
g) $60,000 to $69,999
h) $70,000 to $79,999
i) $80,000 to $89,999
j) $90,000 to $99,999
k) $100,000 and over
l) Decline to answer
38
Appendix B Survey Responses
Table 1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
My neighborhood is…
Strongly Agree
Agree
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Neutral
Frequency
Disagree
Percent
Frequency
Strongly
Disagree
Total
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Is a good place to live
47
50%
44
47%
3
3%
0
0%
0
0%
94
100%
Is an affordable place to live
12
13%
33
35%
36
38%
12
13%
1
1%
94
100%
Is ethnically diverse
31
33%
43
46%
17
18%
2
2%
1
1%
94
100%
Is walkable
26
28%
53
56%
12
13%
3
3%
0
0%
94
100%
Is bicycle friendly
25
27%
49
52%
18
19%
2
2%
0
0%
94
100%
Has good access to transit
17
18%
39
41%
22
23%
14
15%
2
2%
94
100%
Has adequate shopping
5
5%
33
35%
26
27%
27
28%
4
4%
95
100%
Has adequate restaurants
9
10%
39
41%
20
21%
23
24%
3
3%
94
100%
Bustles with commercial activity
1
1%
17
19%
33
36%
33
36%
7
8%
91
100%
Has high quality schools
28
30%
22
24%
32
35%
9
10%
1
1%
92
100%
Has parks with a variety of amenities
32
34%
41
44%
10
11%
6
6%
4
4%
93
100%
Has historic buildings and places
21
22%
45
48%
22
23%
6
6%
0
0%
94
100%
Is a safe place to live or work
16
17%
46
49%
19
20%
11
12%
2
2%
94
100%
Table 2. Frequency of General Problems
Please indicate how frequently each of the following problems occur in ULP.
Very Frequent
Frequent
Not Very
Frequent
Never
Don’t Know
Total
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Pedestrian/Bicycle safety jeopardized
6
8%
26
36%
31
43%
1
1%
8
11%
72
100%
Drug dealing
5
7%
14
20%
20
28%
3
4%
29
41%
71
100%
Personal safety jeopardized
1
1%
11
15%
41
57%
11
15%
8
11%
72
100%
Burglary/theft
10
14%
26
36%
29
40%
1
1%
6
8%
72
100%
Graffiti
6
8%
15
21%
38
54%
5
7%
7
10%
71
100%
Traffic Congestion
16
23%
19
27%
29
41%
7
10%
0
0%
71
100%
39
November 2014
Table 3. Significance of General
Problems
Please indicate how significant each of the following problems are in ULP.
Lack of …
Significant Problem
Slight Problem
Not a Problem
Don’t Know
Total
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Personal safety
9
13%
33
49%
24
35%
2
3%
68
100%
Jobs
6
8%
11
15%
20
28%
34
48%
71
100%
Medical facilities
13
18%
19
27%
21
30%
18
25%
71
100%
Youth programs
9
13%
13
18%
16
23%
33
46%
71
100%
Adult rec programs
9
13%
20
28%
15
21%
27
38%
71
100%
Quality schools
7
10%
16
23%
39
55%
9
13%
71
100%
Parks & open spaces
5
7%
15
21%
49
70%
1
1%
70
100%
Sidewalks & landscaping
3
4%
11
16%
53
77%
2
3%
69
100%
Public housing
0
0%
2
3%
61
86%
8
11%
71
100%
Table 4. Frequency of Traffic Problems
Please indicate how common each of these traffic, transportation, and parking issues are in ULP.
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Don’t Know
Total
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Lack of on-street parking
5
7%
13
18%
35
49%
16
23%
2
3%
71
100%
Lack of street connections in neighborhood
7
10%
11
15%
22
31%
22
31%
9
13%
71
100%
Traffic collisions
9
13%
36
51%
18
25%
0
0%
8
11%
71
100%
Insufficient public transportation
9
13%
16
23%
25
35%
12
17%
9
13%
71
100%
Visibility concerns
12
17%
26
37%
22
31%
4
6%
7
10%
71
100%
Lack of pet safety
13
19%
21
30%
20
29%
2
3%
14
20%
70
100%
Lack of bicycle safety
16
22%
33
46%
18
25%
1
1%
4
6%
72
100%
Lack of child and pedestrian safety
20
28%
30
42%
16
22%
2
3%
4
6%
72
100%
Reckless drivers
23
32%
38
54%
7
10%
0
0%
3
4%
71
100%
High traffic volume
24
33%
30
42%
11
15%
6
8%
1
1%
72
100%
Running stop signs/signals
32
44%
29
40%
6
8%
0
0%
5
7%
72
100%
Traffic cutting through neighborhood
38
53%
23
32%
5
7%
1
1%
5
7%
72
100%
Traffic speeding
44
63%
22
31%
4
6%
0
0%
0
0%
70
100%
40
November 2014
Table 5. Needs
Please indicate to what extent each of the following are needed in ULP.
Currently Available
Frequency
Percent
Very Needed
Frequency
Percent
Full-service grocery
store
7
10%
31
45%
Restaurants
9
13%
20
29%
Child care center
2
5%
11
Pharmacy
16
23%
Bank
18
Laundromat/Dry cleaner
Frequency
16
Somewhat
Needed
Not Needed
Percent
Percent
Frequenc
y
Frequency
Not Important
Percen
t
Don't Know
Frequenc
y
Percent
Frequency
Total
Percent
23%
11
16%
4
6%
0
0%
69
100%
34
49%
5
7%
1
1%
0
0%
69
100%
28%
12
31%
10
26%
4
10%
26
67%
39
100%
10
14%
14
20%
25
36%
4
6%
0
0%
69
100%
27%
7
10%
10
15%
28
42%
4
6%
0
0%
67
100%
14
22%
6
9%
14
22%
25
38%
6
9%
2
3%
65
100%
Gas station
22
32%
5
7%
6
9%
33
49%
2
3%
0
0%
68
100%
Large retail store
16
24%
2
3%
4
6%
36
55%
8
12%
1
2%
66
100%
41
November 2014
Table 6. Planning
When planning for the future of ULP/Broadway area, please indicate how important it is for the plans to include each of the following features
and amenities.
Very Important
Moderately
Slightly Important
Not Important
Don’t Know
Important
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Affordable housing for sale
18
27%
16
24%
Affordable housing for rent
14
21%
11
16%
33
48%
24
35%
24
35%
22
Market rate housing for
sale
Market rate housing for
rent
Mixed use development
Frequency
Total
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
6
9%
26
39%
1
1%
67
100%
12
18%
29
43%
1
1%
67
100%
8
12%
3
4%
1
1%
69
100%
32%
13
19%
9
13%
1
1%
69
100%
19
29%
14
21%
11
17%
18
27%
4
6%
66
100%
Historic architecture
41
60%
17
25%
7
10%
2
3%
1
1%
68
100%
Scale and architecture to
the neighborhood
56
82%
6
9%
3
4%
1
1%
2
3%
68
100%
Walkability
59
87%
9
13%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
68
100%
Bicycle friendliness
54
81%
12
18%
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
67
100%
Access to transit
43
65%
12
18%
6
9%
5
8%
0
0%
66
100%
Access to shopping
33
49%
19
28%
11
16%
3
4%
1
1%
67
100%
Restaurants
31
46%
23
34%
10
15%
3
4%
1
1%
68
100%
Access to jobs
28
41%
16
24%
12
18%
7
10%
5
7%
68
100%
Access to healthcare
26
38%
16
24%
15
22%
7
10%
4
6%
68
100%
High quality schools
50
74%
14
21%
1
1%
1
1%
2
3%
68
100%
Parks with a variety of
amenities
45
66%
21
31%
2
3%
0
0%
0
0%
68
100%
New street connections to
Broadway
20
29%
13
19%
13
19%
20
29%
2
3%
68
100%
Miller Park
17
25%
17
25%
11
16%
19
28%
4
6%
68
100%
Downtown
14
21%
14
21%
19
28%
18
26%
3
4%
68
100%
Open space
43
64%
20
30%
2
3%
2
3%
0
0%
67
100%
42
Appendix C Open-Ended Responses
What do you like best about living or working in ULP? (Please be specific.)





























I like the proximity to downtown, W-X Farmer's Market, easy freeway access
Proximity to shopping, dining, and recreation, neighborly feel, uniqueness of surrounding
i.e. Craftsman houses and variety of large trees
Living near downtown and Landpark. Also the schools are good.
Close to work, mature trees, houses are a good size.
Proximity to downtown/midtown
Convenience to downtown, the Tower corner, Taylor's market, good interesting
neighbors, close to work (Sac State), vintage homes, mature trees.
Location
Close proximity to freeways and downtown
I like the good schools, the proximity to William Land Park, the character/history of each
home.
In the area that I live, everything is fairly close to me and the commute from one place
to another is really great. Along with the schools nearby they are super convenient and
are walking distance from where I live.
How peaceful and neighborly it is here.
Open spaces, proximity to downtown, shopping, restaurants, farmers market, and
freeway. Strong sense of community.
Established, stable, leafy winding streets with older architecture and proximity to
downtown restaurants, nightlife.
I love being in a neighborhood that supports each other.
Unique vintage homes, neighbor interaction, location
I enjoy the tree-lined streets and the friendly neighbors as well as the unique houses.
Strong community, location to downtown
Mix of housing styles, proximity to downtown, mature landscaping, sense of community
and knowing my neighbors,
I live just outside the area mentioned. I enjoy the beauty of the trees, the older homes,
and the diversity.
Close & convenient to downtown Sacramento
Location to work
It's fairly quiet for the most part; the sense of community is great.
Quiet neighborhood, tree lined streets, and its proximity to Land Park
Good neighbors who watch out for each other and the quiet tree lined streets
The beautiful trees, conveniently located to downtown, the parks, beautiful homes and
mature neighborhoods.
The school district, neighbors, close to downtown, parks and historic homes/stable home
values.
Sense of neighborhood, proximity to downtown, midtown, freeways
Older homes, quiet, tree-lined neighborhoods, proximity to the park.
Nearby to Downtown and the Land Park area.
43
























November 2014
The neighborhood is very peaceful. It is a walking neighborhood and on a daily basis a
number of people walk past our house with their dogs. The neighbors are friendly. The
architecture is interesting.
Old established neighborhood with its tree lined streets and fully operating 1940's street
lamps. It is a peaceful neighborhood populated mainly by an older generation of
original homeowners, many families have been here for generations and that to me is
important.
I like my neighbors. The people are awesome. I also, appreciate the access to the
freeway and downtown.
Nice and mellow, close to downtown, quiet, nice neighbors
The people; mature trees and green spaces; older, non-cookie cutter homes; population
density; walkable, safe, dog-friendly neighborhood; easy access to Land Park and small
businesses.
The diversity of architecture of the older, well-maintained homes. The mature trees that
shade our homes and streets.
I really like being close to the downtown/midtown area.
Being in a nice, walkable neighborhood with good schools.
Quiet, good neighbors, trees.
Good schools, good neighbors, small feel with restaurants within walking/bike riding
distance.
Great schools,
Quiet safe urban community close to restaurants and bars, nice neighbors
Location: convenience to downtown/midtown (work, eateries, entertainment)
Convenience of location to freeway entrances and downtown.
Being close to downtown amenities
A friendly neighborhood that has many walkable attractions such as schools, parks,
grocery stores, coffee shops, and restaurants. It exudes every characteristic that
embodies a true community. I also like the diverse population that resides in my
community.
Quiet well managed neighborhood with responsible neighbors
Pleasant, diverse neighborhood, quiet, close to Midtown, Sunday farmers market, Tower
Theater, good restaurants, and Sac Co-op, and lots of trees.
The nice neighbors, the trees, the sense of community.
Living nearby a diverse group of people, which includes Marina Vista and Alder Grove.
Quiet on the weekends, close to downtown, near Land Park for recreation
No house is the same. We are close to Vic's, Riverside Club Tower Cafe, and Target. Our
neighborhood is quite and safe.
Quite, safe, real estate quality investment
For the Swanston Palms area of Upper Land Park where I live, I value established
neighborhoods where neighbors know each other. The kids on my street run from house
to house playing. The close proximity to one of the top elementary school in the district is
another incredible aspect of living in my area of Upper Land Park. My family sacrifices
living space and a second bathroom to live in our neighborhood. I can walk my dogs
without worry of stray dogs like in my old neighborhood of Robla Park in North
Sacramento. I like the current population density and local business feel of Broadway.
Riverside and Vallejo can't handle any more traffic.
44


































November 2014
Close to Midtown (i.e. restaurants, bars, shopping), Close to freeways, Friendly neighbors
in close proximity, large shade trees, and older houses with character.
Quiet, safe, I know my neighbors, close to downtown
It is Land Park and as such, close to everything, with, somewhat, a good quality of life.
People take care of their homes.
Close to downtown, great dining close by, Vic's, Crocker/Riverside Elementary, nice and
friendly neighbors on my street
The neighborhood is quiet, has low traffic, relatively affordable, a walk-able community,
low density single family home layout, and has great connectivity by bicycle or vehicle
to surrounding areas.
Proximity to downtown amenities
Next to Land Park, close in to downtown, immediate neighbors
Living: Great old houses on old-tree lined quiet shady streets near downtown/work with a
great cultural mix of great hard working neighbors.
Being part of a nice, generally kept-up community.
It is an attractive, quiet, peaceful neighborhood with a lot of trees and good neighbors.
Proximity to commercial business district
This is not a real response; it is a test
Low traffic. Safe streets. Close to downtown midtown. Easy to get to freeways.
Nice neighborhood with big trees, great neighbors, close access to
downtown/midtown/freeways, diversity of community, not the suburbs
Safe, quiet, friendly
I like the neighborhood itself. It’s close to the Capitol where I used to work and to Taylor's
and surrounding neighborhood businesses. I feel safe and comfortable in this part of
Sacramento.
Old neighborhood atmosphere, the trees, different looking houses,
I like the close proximity to downtown and ease of freeway access. Also love the people
in the neighborhood.
Great neighborhood, neighbors. Well-maintained yards. I am on Robertson adjacent to
Upper Land Park, and I believe before you redefined Upper Land Park, I was part of it.
Schools
The walk ability and safety and beauty of the neighborhood. The lower housing density
Close to downtown/midtown but still quiet. Affordable but well-kept houses.
Being close to services and amenities, beautify of neighborhood
The neighbors; diversity of income, age, lifestyle; trees, accessibility to central city; history;
charm
Proximity to downtown, character of homes, street trees
Location, tranquility (somewhat)
Proximity to farmers market, proximity to work, bike access to river park trail
Character of neighborhood
This is not a valid response
Peace and quiet. Close to downtown areas and freeways.
Good personable neighbors.
Quiet residential neighborhood, low traffic and good sense of community.
Older neighborhood feel with trees, historic buildings
45









November 2014
Great neighborhood and neighbors; close to downtown; close to freeways; the park and
zoo
Quiet, peaceful and close to downtown
Central location to shopping historical homes and beautiful trees
The safe and clean neighborhoods
Close to downtown and freeway
The residential feel of the neighborhood as well as the low traffic volumes.
It is quiet and peaceful. The neighbors
Small neighborhood community,
Close to everything
What do you like least about living or working in ULP? (Again, please be specific.)






















I dislike that there isn't a four-way stop at San Luis Court and Vallejo Way.
High Concentration of subsidized public housing.
Crime in the neighboring SHRA Marina Vista and Alder Grove public housing. Speeding
and traffic on Vallejo Way
Not as walkable as Midtown.
Few amenities (quality markets/restaurants)
Lack of supermarkets close in, traffic on Riverside at rush hour, petty crime (car break ins
and stolen items from front porch, lawn, etc.), low density housing.
Limited transportation
The housing projects
I do not like how busy with traffic our street is (Vallejo Way), how fast cars drive down our
street, and our proximity to the projects
The crime issues that occurs in Seavey circle and other area surrounding.
The amount of projects traffic on Vallejo Way.
Litter from foot traffic, vandalism, and fast/ dangerous drivers.
Perceived and real threats of crime/safety. Disproportionate number of low income
housing in a single area. Riverside Blvd. business and buildings appear run-down and
provide useful services for local neighborhood.
I dislike that the crime has gone up in recent years. I hate the solicitors, especially
solicitors that are not with an organization wanting a hand out. I dislike that the city is
building more "free/low income" housing.
Crime, traffic
I do not enjoy the crime, cars broken into, as well as houses and back yards and my mail
being stolen.
Petty crime, break-ins, attempted break-ins, etc.
I have to get on the freeway to shop for so many things.
The 2 project areas that need upgrading to modern standards.
Bums, burglaries
There are always police helicopters and police activity due to crimes in the Seavey circle
areas. The number of home break-ins has been increasing. I don't feel as safe here as I
once did.
Noisy car traffic during peak hours and occasional vandalism
46























November 2014
The criminal population of the housing projects shown on the map who prey on those of
us who work for a living
The Muir way market, the foot traffic the projects bring, does not feel safe.
Vagrants, somewhat blighted along Broadway would do well to revitalize the stretch
from riverside Blvd. to Alhambra
Survey looks to be redrawn, excluding other areas that were part of ULP? Least liked:
regular instances of burglaries and break-ins.
I live close to the freeway and I do not like the noise from traffic.
Taggers, gunshots, loud pedestrians arguing. I think that we need to curb the occupation
of young men in the low-income housing. Men should not be allowed to live there, boys
over 18 should be given opportunities to go to college or get a job or find other housing.
The freeway noise.
The paranoia spread by sites such as nextdoor.com people that speed through our
narrow streets, running stop signs and making the streets unsafe. Of lately (last few years)
an increase in vehicles parked on the street due I suppose to increase in population.
Traffic through my street, people speeding by to get to public housing
Crime, crime and crime
Crime; increased speed and amount of traffic.
The amount of traffic and speed of the vehicles driving through our neighborhoods. The
skunks. The noise of weekly fireworks from Raley field - feels like a weekly bombing raid.
The undesirable individuals that live in the two developments in question. Not everyone is
bad but I have witnessed drug deals, a neighbor was held up at gunpoint in her front
yard, and I've had my home broken into. Outside of the drug deals that I have witnessed
on 5th Ave. at Seavey Cir. I realize the other incidents may have been committed by
individuals from outside of these two developments but it is quite a coincidence.
Homeless people wandering around, helicopters with lights in our backyard, the many
911 incidents in the apartments on both sides of us.
Access to public transportation isn't great.
Too much police activity. Many 911 calls in the apartments.
There was a shooting last week, and helicopters a few days later. The apartments house
some vulnerable people who participate in illegal activity including street fights,
shootings, unsafe speeding, really bad parenting, and drug dealing.
Crime, traffic noise, speeding
Lots of apartment buildings, lack of community space
Opportunistic petty crime. Littering. I have to be sure that things are not in plain sight
and things are locked up in order to avoid petty theft.
Traffic issues
The narrow streets and the high volume of traffic. My family and I currently live on Vallejo
way and there are many motorists that use Vallejo Way as a main thoroughfare to
access either Broadway, Riverside, or Freeport Avenue. Even the maintenance vehicles
for SCUSD use Vallejo Way to exit and return to the shop each day. Also some of the
motorist speed down the straight stretch of Vallejo Way and blow by the stop signs. This is
very unnerving for all residents of the area, but also for those of us that have small
children.
Attempts to change neighborhood dynamics because of value of this land with its
proximity to downtown
47













November 2014
Police helicopters circling at night, freeway noise and dirt, people driving too fast on
most all of the streets, heavy traffic on Broadway, Broadway shops/stores are
unattractive, and Broadway and W/X freeway cut us off from Midtown and Downtown.
Excessive traffic on Vallejo Way
Too much traffic on my street (Vallejo Way) and on Riverside Boulevard.
Crime, weekday traffic, I-5 noise
Too much traffic on Vallejo Way and Riverside Blvd. when downtown worker are going
home.
Potential decrease in real estate value
I hate the traffic that speeds down Vallejo as well as cuts through my street going
between Riverside and the Marina Vista housing development. The trash that is dropped
daily is frustrating. Trees and street reflectors on Vallejo are frequently damaged due to
reckless drivers. The residents living on Vallejo should not have to tolerate their tiny,
although public, street be used unsafely as a thorough fare from the Marina Vista
Development to Riverside to Broadway. The Marina Vista residents deserve direct access
to Broadway via 3rd St. they also deserve a neighborhood supermarket. From my front
window, I daily watch families with toddlers and infants in strollers making the 2 mile
round trip to the tiny Muir Market in all weather conditions. Although the market tries to
supply fresh food and produce they simply cannot provide what the community needs.
The upper land park area can't support high-density housing. We need to rebuild the
existing housing developments at the current housing density and give the residents
more resources. Direct access to Broadway and a name brand super market. The city
should expand low-income housing to numerous areas of Sacramento to provide
residents to live closer to their job. Changing to high density housing restrict options for
low income residents "forcing" them to live in a limited number of areas thus limiting their
job opportunities unless possessing reliable transportation. High-density housing will ruin
Upper Land Park for the current Marina Vista and Alder Grove residents as well as the
homeowners in the area. Please factor in the potential loss property tax revenue as
current homeowners leave to areas with less density.
High foot traffic from people heading to Muir Market, Litter being thrown on front lawn
(beer bottles & wrappers), Speeding cars, loud music coming from the speeding cars,
proximity to high density low income housing, Rundown look and curb appeal of low
income housing and Furniture being dumped on street corners.
Freeway noise, those who use neighborhood to get around traffic congestion
I dislike the constant speeding, noise and trash deposited by others as they travel down
Vallejo Way.
I do not like the projects that is located west of Muir Way, Sacramento, CA
HOUSING PROJECTS, HOUSING PROJECTS, HOUSING PROJECTS!!!!! THE NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON ULP IS SERIOUSLY DOWNPLAYED. THE TENANTS HAVE NO RESPECT FOR US OUR
PROPERTY OR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD!!!! TO ADD INJURY TO INSULT SHRA WANTS TO TRIPLE
THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS!!! IF THAT HAPPENS ULP WILL BE RUINED.
While the traffic is relatively low one many streets in ULP, there are many streets including
Muir, McClatchy, Fremont and Vallejo which have significant traffic and speeding
problems, putting pedestrians, children, bicycles and pets at risk. Speed bumps don't
work as vehicle operators still drive 45 MPH over speed bumps. Crime is also a major
concern. The neighborhood has seen many break-in and robberies, and they seem to be
48





















November 2014
increasing. This also raises concern for general neighborhood safety. We are aware of
regular gunshots and shooting victims in the neighborhood, particularly in the affordable
housing area. There are many areas of the neighborhood which are riddled with trash
and waste simply because certain residents don't care and litter. Many area of the
neighborhood I'm not comfortable with walking or biking at night. Many streets in the
neighborhood, such at 5th and Muir, are not very safe for bicycling do to the traffic and
lack of proper bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. Schools are also a huge concern as the
schools saturated with low-income families do not perform well, and the children and
teachers suffer, which leads to more poverty. Finally this area of ULP is essentially a food
desert and family who shop in the neighborhood or exposed to un-health food, which
also doesn't help the poverty problem.
Level of disturbance emanating from the public housing project and the resulting unfair
effects to quality of life on the public housing residents.
Next to low income housing, freeway noise
The 751 public housing units in this little area are one of the largest concentrations on the
West Coast, creating risks for the neighborhood and schools. In 1990, our police reported
this was the most dangerous area in Sacramento. The neighbors, police, SHRA and others
worked to make improvements but putting this much public housing in one little area of
Sacramento is -according to past SHRA president Betty Turner - “a failed social
experiment in our great nation." Such needed public housing should be integrated
throughout Sacramento, not crammed in one little neighborhood like ours. If at least 40%
of the 751 units are not dispersed elsewhere in Sacramento, all this planning and work of
"needed change" will be like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic at great social and
financial costs to Sacramento and our neighborhood. My family plans on moving if this
public housing mess created by the City is not done right this time.
Having the projects (low income housing) as close as they are to my residence.
There has been an increase in crime in the area.
Lack of public transit or grocery store
Traffic. Close to nice low income Lowe crime neighborhood that may change FOR NO
REASON
Property crime, noise from freeway, lack of restaurants we can walk to
People soliciting door to door, loud cars and loud music from them
Can't think of much.
The freeway
Nothing specific to the neighborhood.
Crime from residents in New Helvitia.
Activity around the low income housing down the street
The low income housing and the crime and the trash
Foot and vehicle traffic through the neighborhood to Muir Way market.
Not as cohesive as I would like.
Trash/dumping on some streets; drivers cutting through neighborhood at a.m./p.m. rush
hours; lack of services within walking distance (e.g. full service market)
Appearance of Broadway, lack of quality retail, unsavory characters coming through
neighborhood and on Broadway
Speed of traffic, volume of traffic
Garbage on the street, property crime/theft
49













November 2014
Lack of centralized community hub with restaurants, market, and public space.
Loud, reckless car traffic coming from housing projects at all hours of the night. Sketchy
foot traffic coming from housing projects. Shady characters loitering around and leaving
trash in my yard.
High volume of traffic and speed.
Traffic on Highway 50 at rush hour.
Traffic, crime, 40% of City's public housing in our small area
Traffic
Increasing crime in the area
A little noisy with traffic
The impact tenants from the Marina Vista and Alder Grove housing projects have on
public safety in the neighborhood. Virtually all crime in my neighborhood is committed
by people from these projects. This is not an assumption. It is a FACT
Project people leaving trash in the yards
What the neighbors envision for Land Park is not always heard or listened to.
Sometimes speeding cars on Vallejo way and also Riverside
Noise from the freeway
 Pocket of poverty and dilapidated buildings
50
November 2014
Appendix D Map of Upper Land Park (ULP)
51

Marina Vista and Alder Grove Resident Needs Assessment Survey

Transcription

Similar documents

Laudato Si workbook for KIDS

Best for Fixer Uppers: Old Highland, Minneapolis, Minnesota • An

September MV Newsletter 2014

Nov - Bates-Hendricks Neighborhood

Steady Stewards - Celebrate City Living

west main street action plan - West Main Street Charlottesville

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

11.2 - Hosanna Community

Rate Fairness Board Tyrone Jue, Communications Director

Read more - Neighborhood Associates Corporation