Editorials

Commentary: Can it work in Flint?

Details

By Gary P. Custer

Tuesday, November 29, -0001

Hits: 415

It is a racially diverse, mixed-income neighborhood with about 5,000 residents about five miles north of downtown Dayton. It was stable in 1989, according to Dayton officials, but the condition and value of the mixture of 70-year-old Spanish colonials and modest prewar duplexes began decreasing and crime began increasing.

According to officials, violent crimes increased 77 percent between 1990 and 1992 while citywide they increased only 21 percent. Between 1991 and 1992 Five Oak's violent crime increased 21 percent while the citywide rate increased only 2 percent.

Housing was deteriorating. The average sale price of a home in the neighborhood increased in 1991 but dropped 11 percent in 1992 while the average sale price in the region increased an average of 5.6 percent a year between 1990 and 1992.

To reverse the trend, in January 1992 the city got the advice of Oscar Newman, an urban planner from Great Neck, N.Y. and the author of the 1972 book, "Defensible Space: Crime Prevention though Urban Design."

His primary recommendation was to limit automobile access to the neighborhood by putting up gates to create cul-de-sacs on neighborhood streets. Metal and brick gates were built to close 35 streets by Nov. 25, 1992 and 25 alleys were closed by Jan. 27, 1993.

According to "Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization Plan" published by Dayton officials, the strategy worked.

The plan used five variables to evaluate the plan's success: traffic, crime, housing conditions, housing value and residents' perceptions about their neighborhood.

Traffic volume in the neighborhood decreased 36 percent and through-traffic decreased 67 percent in 1993. Traffic accidents declined 40 percent and the average speed decreased 18 percent.

In the first 11 months of 1993 compared with the first 11 months of 1992, overall crime dropped 26 percent, with violent crime dropping 50 percent and non-violent crime dropping 24 percent.

Based on the city's five-level rating system, housing conditions improved. There was a 6 percent increase in the best category, a 7 percent drop in the number needing minor repairs, a 45 percent drop in those needing major repairs, a 17 percent drop in those needing rehabilitation and no change in the five houses classified as "dilapidated."

Home owners improved 45 units and landlords improved 70 units in 11 months using a combination of government and private funds. Of the $226,572 spent on improvements, home owners spent $78,783 and landlords spent $56,200 for a total of $134,983 from owners and $91,589 from governments. Other owners improved their properties without government help.

The number of houses sold in the first 10 months of 1993 rose 29 percent and the average sale price increased 15 percent.

The residents' perception of the quality of life in their neighborhood improved in the first 11 months with 67 percent saying that it was a better place in which to live. About 73 percent said there was less traffic, 62 percent said there was less noise, 53 percent said there was less crime, 45 percent said they felt safer, 36 percent said there was more resident involvement and 39 percent said that residents knew more of their neighbors.

The concept apparently worked in one Dayton neighborhood — at least in the short term. Could it work in Flint?

The success of such a program in Flint would depend on which neighborhoods are selected — a very difficult political decision. In cases like this, governments tend to sink resources into neighborhoods so badly deteriorated that the available resources are too small to make a difference, or in neighborhoods with a politically articulate but pliable population.

To succeed, city officials will have to have the foresight and courage to choose neighborhoods where a small investment will reap the greatest benefits over the long run — neighborhoods where the investment will help maintain the quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods if they are improved or harm them if they are allowed to deteriorate.

But even more importantly, officials will have to have the skill to overcome the opposition of special interest groups.

As we found out more than a decade ago when we advocated the same concept for the neighborhood between downtown and the Cultural Center, even if a majority of residents are for such a plan, they can be thwarted by non-residents who benefit economically from heavy transient traffic in a neighborhood, by bureaucrats whose primary concern is a smooth traffic flow rather than neighborhood stability and by people who simply do not want to change their daily route between their home and work.

It will be interesting to see if officials can put aside their short-term political concerns and do something to benefit residents long after the officials have abandoned the city to the next generation of movers and shakers.

GPC

• < Prev
• Next >