| The concerns of individual neighborhoods are
often lost in the big picture generalities of a City's Comprehensive Plan. This Chapter on
"Housing and Neighborhoods" has been added during the first major revision to
the Plan in 2001. This was done to emphasize that neighborhoods are what a City is really
about. Without our individual residences at various stages in our lives, and the myriad of
people who live in them, there is little support for the retail establishments and other
significant components of a vibrant community. Many social issues arise when we begin to look at neighborhoods and housing that are beyond the scope of this chapter. In this context we focus on the identification of neighborhoods and their characteristics. We also look at the type, quantity and quality of housing availability in Harlingen and how it matches with the needs of the population and their income level. This chapter closes with some conclusions and recommendations for specific future actions. Housing Basic shelter is essential for the well being of all humans. The condition and availability of housing are important to the quality of life for community residents. An adequate stock of available housing is needed to suit the requirements of low, moderate and high-income households. Decent housing for low and low-to-moderate income households is of particular concern. A range of affordable housing for all levels supports maintaining employment and economic growth, thus allowing more persons to purchase or rent decent housing. Affordable housing does not mean substandard housing. Emergency shelter and transitional housing are also needed. Housing providers at all levels, both private and public, should address these issues, leaving flexibility to adjust to market demands in the future. Areas that are targets for revitalization, renovation and redeveloment should be addressed proactively to help preserve existing neighborhoods and prevent decay. Housing Stock and Conditions The generalized housing conditions in the City of Harlingen are illustrated in Figure 10-1.(unavailable) These are general categories of overall housing conditions. The ratings represent the average conditions in the neighborhood areas shown. The condition of individual structures varies and may differ from the generalized conditions. This inventory of housing conditions was developed by driving the neighborhood areas and making curbside observations of the visible exterior conditions. Each structure within a neighborhood area was generally rated as "sound or standard", "deteriorating or substandard", or "dilapidated or obsolete". The structures were rated based on definitions identified in an April 1993 publication put out by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs called The Condition of Structures and Land Use Surveys. This publication defines a structure as "sound or standard" when no defects or only minor defects exist that can be corrected during regular maintenance. Minor defects include such items as hairline cracks in the walls, torn screens, cracked window panes, broken gutters and slight wear or damage to various elements. A "deteriorating or substandard" unit would be one exhibiting a need for additional repair that would not normally be provided during regular maintenance. Examples of intermediate defects include holes, open cracks, rotted, loose or missing materials over a small area of the foundation, roof, or wall, broken or missing window frames, loose, broken or rotted stair treads, missing bricks or cracks in the chimney, deep wear on door sills, frames, steps or porches. If several of these defects are present, the structure is classified as deteriorating. "Dilapidated or obsolete" units have one or more critical defects, or a combination of intermediate deficiencies to the extent that requires considerable repair. Critical defects include holes, open cracks, loose, rotted or missing materials over a large area of the foundation, walls, or roof, sagging roof ridges or eaves and out of plumb walls. Housing Characteristics Of the total 23,008 housing units in Harlingen surveyed in the 2000 Census, 19,021, or 82.7 percent, were classified as occupied and 3,987, or 17.3 percent, were vacant. In 1990, the census reported 17,798 housing units and 89.6 percent occupancy. The increase in units is attributed both to new construction and annexation of existing households previously outside city limits. Housing characteristics in Harlingen are summarized in Table 10-1. Housing information currently available from the 2000 Census include occupancy status, vacancy status, and tenure (owner occupied or renter occupied). The 19,021 occupied housing units include 11,619, or 61 percent, that are owner-occupied and 7,402, or 39 percent that are renter-occupied. The 3,987 vacant housing units include just over 51 percent or, 2,037 units that are only available for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Therefore the vacancy rate is artificially inflated and would be expected to be much lower that the 17.3 percent noted above for the majority of the full-time population. Of the 19,021 occupied households in the City of Harlingen in 2000, 14,358 or over 75 percent were family households and 4,663 or 25 percent were non-family households, as shown in Table 10-2. The census defines a family household as one where one or more people who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption live. A non-family householder living alone or with non-relatives only. The average household size is 2.9 persons, and the average family size is 3.4 persons. Demographic characteristics for family households in Harlingen are also provided as Table 10-2. Families are classified by type as either a "married-couple family" or an "other family" according to the presence of a spouse. "Other family" is further broken out according to the sex of the householder. Of the 14,358 family households in Harlingen, 10,576 are married couples, and 3,088 are female householder (no husband present). The remaining 694 family households are not defined by census reports, but may be households with no wife present. More detailed household household characteristics will be available in 2002 when the results of the 2000 Census sample are made public. Detailed household characteristics at the place level will be available between March and May of 2002. The Census Bureau anticipates releasing tract and block group level data between June and September 2002. Other household characteristics anticipated from the 2000 Census in June to September 2002 include automobile availability, telephone service, kitchen facilities and plumbing facilities. The 1990 Census provides a profile of additional household characteristics for the City of Harlingen at that time. Of all households, 11.6 percent did not have an auto, 14.4 percent did not have telephone service, 4.1 percent did not have a hook-up to the public sewer, and 2 percent did not have complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. The majority of the housing stock in the City is in acceptable condition, although there are many dwellings that rate fair or poor in certain areas. The majority of acceptable housing available is primarily for middle income level persons and above. Combine that fact with the high occupancy rates and affordable housing becomes a critical issue in Harlingen (as well as many other cities in the United States). The City government cannot be the sole provider of solutions to a housing crisis, but it can be a facilitator to bring together partners in the housing industry: businesses, lending institutions, home builders, developers, planners, community-based organizations, federal and state agencies, as well as the citizens themselves. Another way government can facilitate affordable housing is to examine subdivision standards. Harlingen has, at times, been criticized by developers for having higher development standards than some other Valley cities. Streets are wider and minimum lot sizes are larger than some communities, and while this may create neater, cleaner looking subdivisions whose lots retain or appreciate their value, it drives up the initial cost of land ownership. Some costs have direct quality of life issues or intangible benefits attached to them that may prevent them from being adequately evaluated through a straight cost-benefit analysis. For example, sidewalks add cost to the initial development, but in residential areas they provide a place for children to ride bicycles and neighbors to walk. Therefore there are indirect benefits to citizens' health and social life, perhaps even crime reduction due to neighbors who know each other and look out for one another. They also provide safer means of pedestrian travel reducing the number of pedestrian/vehicular accident incidents. While these benefits cannot be monetarily considered they do provide added value. Table 10-1 HOUSING OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS
* Tenure refers to whether a unit is owner or renter-occupied. A housing unit (including cooperative or condominium unit) is "owned" if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. All other occupied units are classified as "rented," including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent. Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing Profiles of General
Demographic Characteristics. Table 10-2 PROFILES OF GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics Affordable Housing One of the City's concerns is whether residents are able to locate affordable housing of the appropriate size. This is a major concern for large households that include children or extended families. Overcrowding is a typical problem faced by large families with children. According to the City's 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan and Strategy prepared by the Community Development Department, homeownership opportunities are simply beyond the reach of most low-income households who have a greater tendency to rent. Down payment and closing costs associated with home ownership are out of reach for many in this market. In 1990, there were 9,123 owner occupied households, 10 percent of which were very low income and 9.1 percent low income or 1,742 units. In the 5,964 units in the rental market, 28.7 percent were very low income and 15.5 percent were low income comprising 2,636 units. That makes the total units available to very low or low-income households 4,378. In this same time period, 33.4 percent of Harlingen's households or 5,945 were either very low or low-income households. This indicates a significant gap between income levels and household affordability. Housing affordability is also impacted by availability of land for new construction, supply of housing and the cost of development. According to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a household experiences a cost burden when gross housing costs exceed 30 percent of gross income. The cost of homeownership can affect the level of property maintenance, the ability of the household to pay property taxes and ultimately the household's ability to retain its home. The 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan and Strategy goes into further detail regarding factors that contribute to the unavailability of affordable housing in Harlingen. They also identify affordable housing priority groups to help determine priorities for funding assistance. During the 2000-2005 time period, the following groups have been identified as the City's highest priorities for affordable housing assistance:
Neighborhoods Strengthening neighborhoods can be a key to maintaining and improving acceptable housing. Existing stable neighborhoods must be protected and maintained. New neighborhoods must be properly developed. Declining neighborhoods need to be rehabilitated. The City's role includes maintenance of adequate dedicated public infrastructure such as streets, drainage, street lights, and water/sewer lines. Public services for police and fire protection are important, as well as other community services and programs for youth and seniors. Neighborhood plans can facilitate the City's adequate provision of maintenance for public infrastructure. Condemnation and demolition of derelict property and strict enforcement of zoning and housing codes, as well as zoning consistency with land uses are also key elements in neighborhood stability. What defines a neighborhood? There are nearly as many answers to that question as there are people. As part of the public involvement process of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan, a questionnaire was prepared and distributed to all attendees of the various public hearings held. One question residents were asked was to identify what they considered to be their neighborhood with a small drawing. One of the sections of the questionnaire asked the participant to define their 'neighborhood' as they defined it with a small drawing. (See full questionnaire in Chapter 1 under Public Involvement.) Typical neighborhood 'definers' included major roads, railroad tracks, canals or other water features. People also have many different ideas about the size of a neighborhood. Most tend to keep the boundaries small including only those people they know, at least by sight, or as they drive to and from their homes and within walking distance.
Most neighborhoods do not have a formal 'association'. Those that do have formal associations often develop for one of two reasons. A highly charged property rights issue such as a rezoning or road-widening is one catalyst. A much less formal and often more sustainable type is the association that develops out of a genuine desire to know one's neighbors. As long as there have been neighborhoods, there have been unpopular land use (zoning) proposals and other property rights issues such as the use of eminent domain to acquire property for a road widening. These type of highly charged emotional issues can forge a common bond alliance within the most introvert of neighborhoods. After a particularly brutal public hearing on a recent road-widening project in Harlingen, people walking out could be heard to say, "one good thing that came out of this is that I've gotten to know my neighbors." While this particular group of people was fortunate enough to have their wishes heeded by the local decision-makers resulting in the road remaining smaller, not every effort turns out this way. The important message in all of this is that while the individual citizen has a voice in government, an organized group has many voices working together to frame an issue in a light that is critical to them and their continued way of living. It is a more effective mechanism of public input into government decision-making. Sometimes the organizational network that provided the initial efforts to present the united front, remains intact and becomes a more neighborly or functional network, such as a crimewatch, or the group may become the second type of neighborhood association/social group. Often, the network dissolves unless and until an urgent situation arises again in the future. It doesn't have to be that way. This type of networking infrastructure can be a valuable community resource that should be identified and supported. These associations can guide the City's position on issues of importance to their neighborhood. This is not to say that every issue resident groups organize against should be defeated. Sometimes an area must bear a necessary community improvement such as a road, a landfill, a park or other public necessity for the greater good. However, many times there are choices and comprises that can be made to at least mitigate consequences to a residential core. No elected city official, appointed management or effective Planning Department would intentionally hurt a neighborhood where other choices exist because, ultimately the residents are who we work for. The highly emotional public hearing could be avoided if both sides were able to effectively communicate their positions in a non-threatening environment prior to the issue reaching the all-important, decision-making climax event. Encouraging this non-threatening environment which encourages an equal exchange of information might allow some common ground to emerge and allow more thorough exploration of any possible compromises. At the very least, both sides will have a better understanding of the other sides' point of view. If adequate common ground cannot be reached sometimes opposing sides can agree to respectfully disagree. But, no good ever comes of a public hearing where the citizen participants walk away feeling they have not been listened to or taken seriously. Likewise, it is much less effective to harshly criticize professional staff members for not considering various aspects of a solution rather than questioning what alternatives have been considered and helpfully suggesting any additional choices unique to the neighborhood's point of view. Even this type of exchange takes an open-minded professional staff that is not intimidated by valid suggestions made by the public as well as a public that can have faith in the professional's knowledge of the subject and their concern for the individual neighborhood. After all, "people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care." This chapter attempts to identify those existing neighborhood associations (of any type formal or informal) and to establish points of contact for residents who may find city government intimidating and/or overwhelming. Future action items for this chapter will emphasize support of the existing associations and encouragement of new associations. Areas of possible partnerships between City staff and neighborhood associations should be identified to encourage maximum open government and democracy. An ultimate long-term goal is to empower neighborhoods to shape and implement neighborhood plans for their micro-cities that, in turn, improves the city overall. See Figure 10-2 for staff's interpretation of identifiable City neighborhoods. Housing Goals Goal 10.1 Promote affordable, decent housing.
Neighborhood Goals Goal 10.2 Create and enhance stable neighborhoods.
|
