MIDTOWN HOUSING CONDITION ASSESSMENT, NOVEMBER 2016

Transcription

1 MIDTOWN HOUSING CONDITION ASSESSMENT, NOVEMBER 2016 UA Little Rock Center for Public Collaboration Dominic Kyei Michael Craw, Ph.D. June 30, 2017

2 1 INTRODUCTION In September 2016, the University District Development Corporation (UDDC) amended its boundaries to include the area served by the newly-formed Midtown Neighborhood Association, bordered by Charles Bussey Avenue on the north, Asher Avenue on the south, Monroe Street on the west and Cedar and Pine Streets on the east. To better understand the housing needs of the Midtown neighborhood, the UDDC and the Midtown Neighborhood Association requested that the UA Center for Public Collaboration undertake a study of housing conditions and needs in the Midtown neighborhood. This study documents physical conditions of the Midtown neighborhood along four dimensions: 1) Condition of occupied neighborhood structures 2) Condition of unoccupied structures 3) Condition of lawns 4) Condition of vacant lots This report describes conditions of occupied structures and lawns in terms of visible signs of neglect or decay as well as signs of repair, maintenance and reinvestment. It reports these conditions in terms of the frequency of various types of conditions across the neighborhood as a whole and by face block. In addition, it documents the location and condition of abandoned structures and vacant lots in the Midtown neighborhood.

3 2 METHODOLOGY The study area consists of 66 blocks and 328 parcels comprising the Midtown neighborhood (see Figure 1). On selected weekdays in September and October 2016, three graduate students in UA Little Rock s Master of Public Administration program, Dominic Kyei, Bruno Showers and Joseph Chavarria, visited each parcel in the study area and completed a checklist to describe the condition of the parcel s lawn and structures. The checklist, shown in Appendix A, includes the most common signs of home improvement and home and lawn neglect that are visible from the street. After completing the checklists, the assessment team entered the data from each checklist into an Excel spreadsheet. This made it possible to compute the frequency of each type of home and lawn maintenance issue and repair and reinvestment activity for the neighborhood as a whole and for each face block. THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS PART OF THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT The map below shows the map of the Midtown neighborhood as a part of the University District. The deep black line marks the outer boundary of the Midtown neighborhood which also couples as the eastern boundary of the University District with Little Rock. The short black broken lines show the part of Midtown boundary within the University District. The Midtown neighborhood has Charles Bussey Avenue to the north, Asher Avenue to the south, South Monroe Street to the west and South Cedar Street to the east.

4 FIGURE 1: MAP OF THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD 3

5 4 COMMON HOME AND LAWN MAINTENANCE ISSUES First, we analyzed the data to identify the most common types of property neglect in the Midtown neighborhood. Our checklist groups property neglect issues into two broad categories: lawn neglect and structure neglect. Lawn neglect includes instances of deterioration or physical decay pertaining to a property s lawn, sidewalks, driveways, gardens, outbuildings and fencing. This includes such problems as overgrown lawn, trash, junk or abandoned vehicles visible from the street, damaged sidewalks and driveways, graffiti, and damaged fencing. Structure neglect refers to instances of deterioration or physical decay pertaining to the main structure on the property (usually a single family house) and elements attached to it (such as a porch). Structure neglect includes such problems as peeling paint, damaged roof, broken doors and windows, or a damaged porch. Figure 2 reports the number of instances we observed of the five most common forms of lawn neglect in the Midtown neighborhood. The two most common issues relate to lawn maintenance. We observed 163 properties with unkempt shrubbery and trees and 137 with overgrown lawns (50% and 42% of properties in the neighborhood, respectively). We also observed a significant number of properties with problems related to trash and debris: 89 properties (27%) had trash or junk visible from the street and 85 properties (26%) had litter or broken glass. Another common problem was damaged or weatherworn fencing: we observed 49 properties (15%) that had this problem. FIGURE 2: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD TOP FIVE TYPES OF LAWN NEGLECT NUMBER OF INSTANCES UNKEMPT OVERGROWN LAWN TRASH/JUNK LITTER/BROKEN SHRUBBERY/TREES GLASS DAMAGED FENCING

6 5 Figure 3 reports the number of instances we observed of the five most common forms of structure neglect in the Midtown neighborhood. By far the most common problem we observed was peeling paint, which we found for 126 homes (38% of properties). The next most common issues include broken windows (54, or 16%), damaged walls (33, or 10%), broken doors (30, or 9%) and damaged roofs (28, or 9%). FIGURE 3: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD TOP FIVE TYPES OF STRUCTURE NEGLECT NUMBER OF INSTANCES PEELING/EXTERIOR PAINT BARS/ GATES ON DOORS/WINDOWS BROKEN WINDOW(S) DAMAGED EXT WALLS BROKEN DOORS We note from these results that lawn problems, in general, tended to be more common than problems with structures. Moreover, the most common types of lawn problems tend to result from an absence of low cost forms of maintenance (e.g. cutting lawns and regular tree and shrub trimming). The most common structural issue, peeling paint, also tends to have lower costs than some of the other structural problems, such as broken doors and damaged roofs. Hence, it is difficult to attribute these maintenance issues primarily to cost. We recommend further investigation with neighborhood property owners for the reasons behind these maintenance issues. DISTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURE AND LAWN NEGLECT Next, we analyzed the geographic distribution of instances of structure and lawn neglect within the Midtown neighborhood. Since blocks in the Midtown neighborhood differ widely in the number of houses, we calculated an average number of lawn neglect issues by parcel for each block. We do this first by summing the total number of instances of lawn neglect for each block and dividing by the number of parcels on that block. A high average indicates high number of cases recorded of issues per parcel of each block. Figure 4 shows this average number of issues of lawn neglect by block.

7 Monroe Street th Street 2800 Madison Street th Street 2100 Madison Street 2000 Peyton Street th Street st Street rd Street th Street rd Street st Street th Street th Street th Street st Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2700 Washington Street 2500 Adams Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street st Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street 4600 Charles Bussey rd Street th Street 4400 of 27th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street nd Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Monroe Street 4300 of 27th Street st Street 2000 Madison Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street 4500 Adams Street th Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street FIGURE 4: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE LAWN ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK Average number of lawn issues per parcel Figure 4 indicates that blocks within the Midtown neighborhood vary widely in the extent of lawn neglect. For some blocks, no instances of lawn neglect were observed (e.g. the 2600 block of Abigail Street; 2600 block of Adams Street). On other blocks, however, lawn neglect was very common, with up to an average of four lawn issues per parcel (e.g block of Monroe Street; 4700 block of 28 th Street). This suggests that lawn neglect is not a universal or evenly

8 7 distributed problem throughout the neighborhood. At the same time, Figure 4 suggests that for most blocks, lawn neglect poses a problem. For most blocks in the neighborhood, each parcel on average has at least one lawn-related form of neglect. This suggests that, while the magnitude of the problem varies from block to block, lawn neglect is generally a neighborhood-wide problem. In a similar fashion, we calculated the average number of structure neglect issues by parcel for each block. We do this by summing the total number of instances of structure neglect by block and dividing by the number of parcels on that block. Figure 5 shows this average of number of issues of structure neglect by block.

9 th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2700 Adams Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street st Street 2500 Adams Street nd Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street nd Street rd Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street 2000 Madison Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street 2100 Madison Street th Street th Street 2700 Washington Street st Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street st Street 2800 Madison Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Peyton Street 4600 Charles Bussey BLOCK FIGURE 5: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE HOUSE ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK Average number of structure issues per parcel Figure 5 indicates that blocks within the Midtown neighborhood also vary widely in the extent of structure neglect. We observed no instances of structure neglect on some blocks (e.g block

10 9 of Charles Bussey Avenue; 2800 block of Madison Street). On other blocks, structure neglect was very common, with up to an average of 4 instances of structure neglect per parcel (e.g block of 24 th Street). This suggests that structure neglect, like lawn neglect, is not an evenly distributed problem across the Midtown neighborhood. We also observe that overall, fewer blocks had an average of 1 issue of structure neglect per parcel than is the case for lawn neglect. Even so, 27 blocks out of 66 did have an average of 1 or more structure neglect issues per parcel. This suggests that, while structure neglect is not a problem on every block, it does affect a substantial proportion of blocks in the Midtown neighborhood. In addition, we analyzed the frequency of the five most common forms of lawn neglect and structure neglect by block. These results, reported in Appendix B, provide additional insight into the distribution of particular types of problems throughout the Midtown neighborhood. HOME AND LAWN REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT In addition to neglect, our study of the Midtown neighborhood assessed each property in the neighborhood for signs of repair, maintenance and reinvestment. Figure 6 shows the frequency of the most common forms of home and lawn improvements that we observed in the Midtown neighborhood. 7 FIGURE 6: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD MOST COMMON FORMS OF IMPROVEMENT OR REINVESTMENT 6 NUMBER OF INSTANCES NEW PORCH NEW ROOF NEW ALUMINIUM FRESH EXTERIOR SIDING PAINTING IMPROVEMENT NEW ROOM ADDITION NEW FENCING We observe from Figure 6 that instances of home and lawn improvement are far less frequent than instances of neglect. Even so, examples of significant improvements can be found throughout the neighborhood. For example, we found six homes that had new porches added recently, and four houses each with a new roof or new exterior siding. In addition, we found

11 10 instances of fresh painting, new rooms and new fencing in the neighborhood. These instances suggest that some homeowners are willing to make significant reinvestments in their homes. FIGURE 7: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE REINVESTMENT FREQUENCY PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK th Street 2100 Monroe Street th Street st Street th Street nd Street rd Street th Street rd Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street th Street rd Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street st Street 4600 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street nd Street st Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2800 Madison Street 2700 Washington Street 2700 Peyton Street 2700 Monroe Street 2700 Adams Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigails Street 2500 Adams Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Madison Street 2000 Peyton Street 2000 Monroe Street 2000 Madison Street 4600 Charles Bussey AVERAGE FREQUENCY OF HOME AND LAWN IMPROVEMENTS PER PARCEL Figure 7 indicates that improvement activity tends to be concentrated in just a few blocks in the Midtown neighborhood. Out of the 66 blocks captured in our analysis only nine blocks had seen any form of retouching or improvement. The highest average was recorded on the 4800 block of

12 11 24 th Street, with an average of 1.7 improvements per parcel per block. Significant improvements were also observed on the 4700 block of 24 th street and the 2100 block of Monroe Street. Notably, these areas tend to be clustered in the northwest portion of the Midtown neighborhood. DISTRIBUTION OF BLIGHT, ABANDONED HOMES AND VACANT LOTS Finally, we used a mapping program, ArcGIS, to plot the locations of abandoned houses and vacant lots in the Midtown neighborhood. In addition, we color code parcels by the frequency of lawn and structure neglect to illustrate the distribution of neglect across the neighborhood. Figure 8 is a map of count of lawns and house issues with the blight issues illustrated by shades of colors ranging from yellow to dark brown. The severity or the higher the occurrence of blight issues (both house and lawn) the darker the shade.

13 12 FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF LAWN AND STRUCTURE NEGLECT IN MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD Overall, instances of lawn and structure neglect can be found throughout the neighborhood with concentration recorded in few places. The map makes use of a quintile that divides the number of instances of lawn and structure neglect into one of five categories for each parcel: 0 (pink), 1-2 (yellow), 3-4 (light orange),5-6 (dark orange), 7-10 (red) and (dark red). Blocks such as 4300 W 27 th Street, 4300 W 26 th Street, 4300 W 25 th Street and 4300 W 24 th Street recorded the least amount of neglect with 4700 W 30 th Street standing out and recording the highest amount of neglect. Eight out of these parcels recorded the highest number of both house and lawn issues with frequencies ranging from 11 to 15. Nineteen other parcels recorded the second highest number of instances of neglect with frequency ranging from 7-10.

14 13 FIGURE LOCATIONS OF ABANDONED HOUSES IN MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 9 maps the locations of abandoned houses we observed in the Midtown neighborhood. The size of each dot indicates the severity of blight affecting each abandoned lot. The bigger the dot or darker the shade, the more severely blighted is the abandoned structure.

15 14 FIGURE 10: LOCATIONS OF VACANT LOTS IN THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD In our assessment, we recorded three vacant lots: 4721 W 24 th Street, 2220 W Peyton Street and 2004 Madison Street. The locations of these parcels are depicted in Figure 10 by the dots and the severity of blight affecting the lot by size and shade. The bigger the dot or darker the shade the higher the number of cases recorded. Among the three, 2004 Madison Street recorded the highest cases of blight issues followed closely by 4721 W 24 th Street recording 5 and 4 respectively.

16 15 ADDRESSING BLIGHT IN URBAN CENTERS Over the years, cities and suburbs in North America have had to deal with blight issues. This is due to the growth of cities as a result of economic growth. The housing recession and resulting sharp rise in foreclosures deepened concerns about vacancy and blight in many residential neighborhoods. It has also become commonplace in most American cities to pass vacant retail strip centers or dead malls that have been abandoned. However, public and political dialogues are in session to help address the problem of abandoned blighted properties. Political actors and various stakeholders have resorted to anti-blight policies which has chalked remarkable successes over the years although much still remain to be done. Most of these policies ignore or overlook the socio-economic conditions of residents who live in blight as people living in these areas possess little political power to influence decisions or policies. Cost of Blight Blight poses a threat to the well-being of the public by leading to an increase in crime. It is also threat to the well-being of residents as unsanitary conditions may lead to the outbreak of epidemics. This is what is sometimes termed as the broken window theory which believes the effects of urban disorder and vandalism triggers additional crime and anti-social behaviors. Blight leads to loss of revenue by the local government since it causes properties to lose value hence a fall in the amount collected as property tax. Economic research on blighted properties primarily focuses on its effects on property values and how much local governments would have to spend in cleaning up. Researchers estimate municipal government losses in cleaning up these properties vary between $5,000 and $35,000 per parcel. Causes of Blight Blight unlike other social problems is not inherited. However, it is driven by the interplay of public policies, market forces, socio-economic changes and technological advancements. Blighted properties are often the outcome of structural forces, institutional mechanisms, and powerful decisions by individuals and institutions that facilitate, reward, promote or support property neglect and disinvestment (Joseph Schilling & Jimena Pinzón 1999) With changes in land uses, technology, social standards, and the reduction of cost in suburban housing, people s demands change. Decline in municipal investments and a regressive tax system makes these problems worse and further dis-incentivizes property investment. Depreciation happens to be another cause of urban blight. Depreciation in its simplest form is the loss in value of fixed assets overtime and most often lack of proper maintenance. Properties are subjected to wear and tear with exposure to sun, rain and other elements of weather. Most of these wears and tears are unavoidable especially when the property has been around for longer periods of time. This situation is exacerbated when there is lack of maintenance which hastens the depreciation process of the properties. In our assessment, we realized most if not all the elements in the housing conditions are indicators of depreciation that could be corrected or prevented by maintenance. Though actions in correcting blight incidences were captured in our report on improvements, not many cases were recorded.

17 16 Residents Advancement in Age Arkansas has always had the edge when it comes to serenity and the beauty of the greens. The Natural State is a strong contender in best retirement state for older residents who want to be away from the hustle and bustle of big city life. Arkansas records one of the highest population of older residents (above 60 years) in the United States. These senior citizens most often live by themselves and they have not the physical energy to ensure and maintain their homes and surroundings. Most of the elements captured in our lawn issues are labor intensive and these senior residents do not have the means and energy to undertake these activities. This more often than not leads to increase in blight issues mostly the lawn issues. Senior citizens may also not be more likely to reinvest in their properties as compared to younger ones who always respond to trends and changes in taste. Remedies to Blighted Properties and Policy Responses Most of the cities that have had to deal with blight issues resort to anti-blight policies in an effort to eradicate reduce or correct blighted properties. However, these policies differ in their content and application. These policies are enacted and overseen by local governments, communitybased groups, nonprofit organizations, and others with academic institutions playing huge roles with their researches and intellectual resources. These actors end up reconciling their individual interests to fight a common course. Local governments fight against blight through code enforcements programs where government departments use their nuisance abatement powers to inspect, regulate and take administrative and judicial action against code violators who end up paying fines or serving jail terms. This is geared towards enforcing residents to do their best in at least maintaining the physical conditions of properties that are in their care and its surroundings to maintain the social well-being, safety and health of residents. Real Property Information and Data Systems. Many cities have adopted the establishment of regional and city wide data warehouses that collect, store and analyze public and private sector data about the status of real properties from tax and mortgage foreclose data to code enforcement cases and water utility shutoffs. This is to help at least reduce the occurrence of cases of blight in neighborhoods. Demolition of Vacant and Abandoned Properties. Many cities have resorted to tearing down properties that are not in use although this choice has always been dicey and difficult. This is in response to changes in market demand and provisions for current and future populations. Land Banks and Tax Delinquent Properties. A growing number of states have now given cities and counties the authority to create quasi-public land bank that have special powers to acquire, dispose, and redevelop primarily tax delinquent properties. The University District Development Corporation recently made use of the City s Housing & Neighborhoods Land Bank Program this year petitioning for the release and donation of three parcels on which to develop new construction single-family housing.

18 17 Neighborhood Rehabilitation, Redevelopment, and Revitalization. This reflects the goals of the University District Development Corporation. Community-based organizations and community development corporations in cities invest in rehabilitating dilapidated homes and buildings, often to provide affordable housing for low income earners, while managing other neighborhood and community driven revitalization programs like the farmers market and working with residents to establish two new neighborhood associations within University District boundaries over the past three years. Cities like Cleveland have leveraged on its community development corporations to reclaim vacant properties for decades. Community Education and Cleanups. In conjunction with states and local affiliates coordinate and organize regular community cleanups of blighted properties, including public rights of way, alongside embarking on anti-littering and graffiti projects. They could also do same for old citizens who do not have the physical strength to maintain blight-free properties. They also green vacant lots, restore urban waterways, and reclaim older industrial sites with innovative approaches to urban sustainability. A success story of this approach is the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. They have succeeded in cleaning, greening and maintaining over 10,000 vacant lots in Philadelphia.

19 18 REFERENCES Breger, G. E. (1967). The Concept and Causes of Urban Blight. Land Economics, (4). 369 Schilling J., and Pinazon J (1999). The Basics of Blight: Recent Research on its Drivers, Impacts and Interventions. VPRN Research and Policy Brief

20 APPENDIX A 19

21 20 APPENDIX B: AVERAGE NUMBER OF LAWN AND STRUCTURE NEGLECT ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK FIGURE B-1: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE UNKEMPT SHRUBBERY/TREES ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK 2000 Peyton Street th Street 4600 Adams Street th Street nd Street st Street 2800 Madison Street th Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street th Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street th Street rd Street rd Street rd Street st Street rd Street th Street th Street rd Street nd Street th Street st Street 2700 Adams Street 2100 Madison Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street 4600 Charles Bussey th Street th Street 4800 Monroe Street nd Street th Street st Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street 2500 Adams Street 2400 Monroe Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Madison Street AVERAGE FREQUENCY With a frequency of 163 representing appoximately 14% of total issues recorded, unkempt shrubbery/trees issues was the highest recorded in terms of lawns or both house and lawn issues Peyton Street had the highest number of issues with an average of 2 per block. 15 out of the total 66 blocks recorded none of this issue.

22 21 FIGURE B-2: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE OVERGROWN/UNKEMPT LAWN ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK th Street th Street 4800 Monroe Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street 2800 Madison Street th Street 2000 Peyton Street th Street 2700 Washington Street rd Street st Street 2100 Madison Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street st Street 2700 Monroe Street 2100 Peyton Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2700 Adams Street th Street 4600 Charles Bussey st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street rd Street rd Street 4600 Adams Street nd Street st Street 4500 Adams Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street 2500 Adams Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Monroe Street 2000 Madison Street AVERAGE FREQUENCY This is closely followed by another botanical issue being overgrown and unkempt lawn which was recorded 136 times. In normalizing this frequency, we grouped the occurrence by block and divided by the number of parcels per block. In doing so, th Street recorded the highest number of average occurrence of blocks recorded no issue of overgrown and unkempt. lawn. This is graphically represented in figure B-2.

23 22 FIGURE B-3: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE PEELING EXTERIOR PAINT ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK rd Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2700 Adams Street 2500 Adams Street th Street 4800 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street 2000 Madison Street rd Street nd Street rd Street st Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street st Street 2700 Monroe Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street th Street 2100 Madison Street rd Street th Street th Street rd Street st Street th Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street 4600 of 21st Street 2800 Madison Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Peyton Street 4600 Charles Bussey AVERAGE FREQUENCY Figure B-3 represents peeling exterior paint where 126 issues were recorded. The highest average frequency of 2 was recorded by block rd Street. Properties from many other blocks also had this problem and one observation was the fact that blocks and properties that had this problem not normally were buildings that were made of materials that didn t need painting. This was a very common issue. Especially with buildings that could be painted.

24 Monroe Street th Street nd Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street nd Street th Street rd Street th Street rd Street th Street st Street 2800 Madison Street 2100 Monroe Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street nd Street st Street 2700 Adams Street 2700 Washington Street th Street th Street rd Street 2000 Madison Street 4600 Charles Bussey th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street st Street th Street st Street 4600 Adams Street th Street nd Street st Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigails Street 2500 Adams Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Madison Street 2000 Peyton Street 2000 Monroe Street BLOCK FIGURE B-4: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE TRASH ISSUE PER PARCEL BY BLOCK AVERAGE FREQUENCY Figure B-4 represents average trash issues per parcel by block and happens to be the fourth most recorded issue. A total of 89 cases were recorded representing about 17% of the top 5 total lawn issues recorded. The average frequencies happen to be lower than the previous issues with four blocks recording the highest frequency of blocks recorded no issue of trash.

25 24 FIGURE B-5 MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE LITTER ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK 2000 Peyton Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2500 Adams Street 4600 Charles Bussey st Street rd Street st Street st Street th Street th Street 2800 Madison Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Madison Street rd Street th Street th Street rd Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Adams Street 2100 Madison Street 2000 Monroe Street nd Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street nd Street th Street 4600 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigails Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street AVERAGE FREQUENCY The issue with the fifth highest frequency was litter or broken glass in yard/sidewalk.84 cases of this representing 16% of the total of top five lawn issues were recorded in the 43 out of 66 blocks featured in this report with highest average frequency being 2 recorded at 2000 Peyton Street.

26 th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2500 Adams Street nd Street th Street 2000 Madison Street th Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street rd Street nd Street st Street 2700 Adams Street th Street rd Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street rd Street th Street 4500 of 26th Street 2000 Peyton Street 4800 Monroe Street 4600 Charles Bussey st Street st Street 2800 Madison Street 2100 Monroe Street th Street th Street 2100 Madison Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street nd Street th Street 4600 Adams Street th Street 4500 Adams Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street BLOCK FIGURE B-6: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE BROKEN WINDOW ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK AVERAGE FREQUENCY Figure B-6 represents average broken window issues per parcel by block. A total of 54 cases were recorded representing 20% of total number of house issues recorded. Properties categorized into blocks, only 31 out of the total 66 recorded cases of this with five blocks recording the highest average of 1.

27 26 FIGURE B-7: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD DAMAGED FENCING ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK th Street th Street th Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street th Street 2800 Madison Street 2100 Monroe Street 2700 Monroe Street th Street rd Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street 2700 Adams Street rd Street 4600 Charles Bussey th Street rd Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street th Street th Street th Street rd Street 2000 Madison Street st Street st Street 2100 Madison Street th Street th Street rd Street nd Street th Street th Street 2000 Peyton Street 4800 Monroe Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2500 Adams Street st Street th Street th Street th Street st Street nd Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street AVERAGE FREQUENCY Figure B-7 represents average garden issues per parcel by block. It was the 8 th most frequent issue recorded with a frequency 49 times, representing 9% of total lawn issues spread over 33 blocks. 33 blocks had no case of damaged fencing.

28 27 FIGURE B-8: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE DAMAGED EXTERIOR WALL ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK 4000 of 24th Street th Street st Street 2700 Adams Street th Street 2000 Madison Street th Street st Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street rd Street th Street th Street rd Street rd Street th Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2000 Monroe Street 2500 Adams Street th Street th Street st Street rd Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2100 Madison Street th Street 2700 Washington Street st Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street th Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street st Street 2800 Madison Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Peyton Street 4600 Charles Bussey AVERAGE FREQUENCY The ninth most frequent issue recorded was damaged exterior walls which was recorded 32 times representing 12% of total housing issues. There way cases of this in only 24 blocks with averages ranging between 0.1 and blocks had no case of damaged exterior walls.

29 th Street 2000 Madison Street th Street st Street st Street 2700 Adams Street 2100 Madison Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 4500 of 26th Street rd Street nd Street th Street 2700 Washington Street th Street th Street rd Street th Street rd Street th Street th Street 2000 Peyton Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2500 Adams Street 4600 Charles Bussey st Street st Street 2800 Madison Street 2100 Monroe Street rd Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street 2000 Monroe Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street nd Street th Street nd Street th Street 4600 Adams Street th Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street BLOCK FIGURE B-9: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE BROKEN DOOR ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK AVERAGE FREQUENCY A broken door was the ninth most frequent blight issue recorded in our assessment. This was recorded 30 times and depicted in figure 9 above. 25 blocks recorded cases of broken doors averaging from 0.1 and 1. Another 41 recorded no cases of broken doors.

30 29 FIGURE B-10: MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AVERAGE DAMAGED OR DILAPIDATED ROOF ISSUES PER PARCEL BY BLOCK BLOCK th Street 2900 Jefferson Street 2700 Adams Street st Street nd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2000 Madison Street st Street nd Street th Street rd Street 2700 Washington Street th Street rd Street th Street 4300 of 23rd Street rd Street th Street 2000 Monroe Street 2500 Adams Street th Street st Street th Street 4800 Monroe Street th Street nd Street 4500 Adams Street th Street 2700 Monroe Street 2600 Adams Street rd Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street th Street st Street th Street th Street th Street th Street 2100 Madison Street th Street th Street th Street 2700 Peyton Street th Street th Street th Street th Street nd Street 4600 Adams Street 4600 of 21st Street 2800 Madison Street 2600 Abigail Street th Street 2400 Monroe Street 2200 Peyton Street 2100 Peyton Street 2100 Monroe Street 2000 Peyton Street 4600 Charles Bussey AVERAGE FREQUENCY The issue that had the least number of occurrence among the top ten blight issues was damaged or dilapidated roof which was recorded 28 times on 21 blocks. This represented 10% of the total of top 5 housing issues recorded.