Posts by Lynda Laughlin

Historic

Some feel left out in Barney Circle historic debate

by Lynda Laughlin   •   July 7, 2010 2:32 pm

DC's latest historic preservation debate centers around Barney Circle, the southeast corner of Capitol Hill, where preservationists are advocating for a new historic district.

Some residents in the area argue that Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and local ANCs did little to no outreach for public input on the proposed historic district. Due to opposition to the plan and questions from Councilmember Tommy Wells regarding the process, the HPRB postponed a vote at their June 24 meeting.

The proposed Barney Circle Historic District consists of 192 buildings, including 189 contributing structures and three non-contributing structures. The district is bounded by houses fronting on Barney Circle on the south, by those on the north side of Potomac Avenue on the north, by those on the west side of Kentucky Avenue on the west and by the Congressional Cemetery on the east.

Barney Circle consists primarily of front porch rowhouses, also referred to as "daylighter" houses, wide tree lined streets, and two triangular parks. The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has recommended that HPRBapprove the historic district on the grounds that the concentration of front porch rowhomes are rare within the L'Enfant Plan.

Historic district designation can be restrictive for residents because it can impose harsh regulations regarding exterior alternations, tax liabilities, raising rents, and the displacement of low income residents. There are benefits associated with historic districts as well, including increased property values and the preservation of historic buildings both of which can act as a catalyst for economic growth.

Sustainability

Soda tax would boost public health

by Lynda Laughlin   •   May 18, 2010 11:35 am

Proposals to tax soda are looking likely to fail in Pennsylvania and New York. Will one pass in DC?

Mary Cheh's DC Healthy Schools Act proposes a tax of 1 cent per fluid ounce of sugary soft drinks. A 1 cent tax would add about $1.44 to the cost of a 12 pack of soda. Such a tax would generate about $16 million annual and provide the $6 million Cheh needs to implement school programs that promote healthy eating behaviors as well as healthier breakfast and lunch options.

If the bill passes, DC would join at least 30 other states that impose small sales taxes on soft drinks and/or snacks. However, Cheh's proposal is unique in that the tax would fund an educational program to foster healthy eating among DC's youth. It is important to lay the foundation of healthy habits early one because children often develop eating and brand loyalties at a young age.

The DC city council should pass this critical piece of public health legislation. While medical technology has certainly helped increase life expectancy, it is good public health policies that have improved the quality of life for many.

Sustainability

Can you live without disposable plastic?

by Lynda Laughlin   •   May 5, 2010 2:59 pm

What would it be like to live without using any disposable plastic items? Recently, I tried doing just this for one week.

In this age of green awareness, there has been a renewed emphasis on how personal choices impact the environment. Sometimes we need a little encouragement to be better environmental shoppers, which is part of the reason behind the five-cent bag fee in DC.

But it's not just bags. While I am pretty consistent about bringing my own reusable bag when I shop, I still use a lot of plastic for everyday things. I'm a coffee junkie, but my morning coffee comes with a plastic coffee lid. I don't usually carry water with me, instead opting for bottle water from the store.

If I grab a salad for lunch, I usually end up using a plastic container. While a lot of the plastic items I use daily are recyclable, there was really no need for me to be using this much plastic in my daily routine in the first place. Therefore, I decided to go plastic-free for one week.

Government

Make sure you get counted for the 2010 Census

by Lynda Laughlin   •   January 15, 2010 10:45 am

It's not only a new year, it is also a decennial Census year. But more urban areas face dangers of undercounting not just from minority areas but from "transformed housing" like basement apartments.

As part of a constitutional mandate, every ten years the Census Bureau conducts a population count. The initial purpose of the census was to determine the appropriation of state representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the once a decade population count provides critical demographic and housing data that federal and local officials use to determine the distribution of federal money.

To count the population, the Census Bureau mails questionnaires to every residence in the United States beginning in March in preparation for Census Day on April 1st. Households fill out the form, using April 1st as a point of reference, and mail it back in the pre-addressed stamped envelope.

Unlike past Census years, the 2010 Census form contains just 10 short questions, including name, age, date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and housing type. For every Census form that is not mailed back, the Census Bureau sends a field interviewer to follow up with household and to collect the missing information. This is a costly operation and could be avoided if people would just mail back their forms. In 2000, the national mail-back response rate was 67%. The mail-back response rate for the District of Columbia was 60%.

Government

A demographic portrait of the District: 2008

by Lynda Laughlin   •   October 5, 2009 11:50 am

The Census Bureau recently released social and economic data from the 2008American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a nationwide survey conducted yearly by the U.S. Census Bureau. Unlike the Decennial Census, the ACS collects and produces population and housing data every year based on sample estimates.

What does the 2008 ACS tells us about the District of Columbia? Below is a basic social and economic snapshot of the District in 2008.

Total population: 591,833.

Gender and age: Female: 53%; Male: 47%. Median age: 35.

Race/ethnicity: White: 38%; Black: 53%; Hispanic: 9%.

Educational attainment for population 25 and over: Less than high school: 15%; High school: 20%;
Some college/Associate's degree: 18%; Bachelor's degree: 22%; Graduate or professional degree: 27%.

Income and poverty: Median household income: $57,936. Median household income for Whites: $101,171; Median household income for Blacks: $39,182.

Architecture

How the other half worships: Storefront churches at NBM

by Lynda Laughlin   •   September 21, 2009 11:12 am

Typically, when one thinks of a house of worship one thinks of grand sacred spaces with magnificent spires, stained glass windows, and an established decorum that creates a sense of awe. As communities change from rich to poor or from white to black, the buildings and spaces used for worship also change. A phenomenon that photographer Camilo José Vergara has captured and is now on display at the National Building Museum until November 29th.

In the early 1970s, Vergara began taking documenting the built environment of poor, minority urban communities across the United States. He noticed churches were a prevalent feature of the urban landscape and complied a number of photos to document how the poor in American approach religion and the evolution of spaces of worship.

Vergara explains that in his work he has encountered four main types of house of worship in poor communities:

1. Traditional house of worships. These places of worship are architecturally attractive and awe inspiring buildings, but as whites left the city for suburban communities, these traditional houses of worship were adopted by new congregations typically made up of Blacks or Hispanics.

2. Storefront churches. A storefront church is typically housed in buildings that formerly housed stores. They tend to be poor, temporary, and typically have a very small congregation that consists mostly of the minister's family and close friends. Vergara found that storefront churches are ubiquitous in poor urban communities and are perceived as a sign of economic decline.

   Vergara explains that planners and community members dislike seeing former stores turned into churches because they don't have to pay taxes and don't bring vitality to distresses urban streets. However, pastors and their congregations see storefront churches as a way to serve the immediate neighborhood. A pastor of a storefront church in Newark explains, "a storefront church is normally a church that is just beginning. Historically they were places where migrants from the South could gather together and form minifamilies. Storefront means everybody know everybody. It also means struggling."

   The majority of the exhibit at the National Building Museum focuses on storefront churches. Vergara captures the images of storefront churches in Philadelphia, Detroit, Newark, Los Angeles, and New York. Storefront buildings include banks, an appliance warehouse, a furniture store, a fast-food franchise, a movie theater, a car dealership, homes, and garages. The District was not represented in Vegara's work, but storefront churches are abundant in poorer communities across DC.

3. Megachurches. This type of house of worship is less common in urban neighborhoods and tend to draw members who are not from the immediate community. Megachurches often lack steeples or soaring towers. Instead they look like corporate offices and do little to enhance the appearance of the surrounding community.

4. Newly constructed churches built for medium-size congregations. These churches are usually built over a period of time as funds become available. They often lack coordinated building plans and produce architecturally interesting, but not always attractive, buildings.

Vergara's photographs of inner city churches, their members, and their leaders, provides a rare glimpse into role of religion in America, poverty, and the ever changing American city.

The National Building Museum is located at 401 F Street NW at the Judiciary Square Metro. Admission is free. Hours: Mon - Sat 10 am - 5 pm, Sun 11 am - 5 pm.

Development

Community revitalization must start with persisently poor neighborhoods

by Lynda Laughlin   •   August 10, 2009 11:42 am

The economic and social deterioration of urban neighborhoods over the last several decades has been of particular interest to researchers, politicians, and community activists because of the positive and negative effects of neighborhood conditions on individual outcomes. According to a new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the level of poverty in a neighborhood is the strongest determinant of a child's future economic stability. The study found that half of black children born between 1955 and 1970 in families with incomes of $62,000 or higher in today's dollars grew up in high-poverty neighborhoods. By contrast, only 1% of white middle-class children grew up in high-poverty communities.

In the United States, neighborhood poverty rates have fluctuated over time in response to population growth, spatial distribution of the poor, and changing economic conditions. Although neighborhoods exist at many different levels, such as in suburban or rural areas, historically American cities and their corresponding neighborhoods have been characterized as highly segregated along racial and class lines that disadvantage women and poor and minority families by limiting their social and economic opportunities. Urban areas have seen dramatic shifts in neighborhood poverty. The flight of white (and middle class blacks) to suburban areas left the poor behind. Where as the social and economic forces behind gentrification has reversed inner-city decline. However, a subset of neighborhoods across urban areas are persistently poor and have endured unfavorable economic and social conditions for decades, often affecting generations of families.

Persistent neighborhood poverty endangers the well-being children, youth, and families. Families and children who live in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods must contend with high levels of crime, violence, and a deteriorating physical and economic infrastructure.

To illustrate persistent neighborhood poverty in the District, I classified neighborhood as persistently poor if their corresponding census tract had a household poverty rate of at least 20 percent or more in 1990 and 2000. Of all the geographic measures available from the U.S. Census, census tracts are considered a decent representation of a neighborhood.

In 2000, there were 59 census tracts that were identified as poor in 1990 and 2000. Persistently poor neighborhoods are not equally distributed across the District; instead, they are clustered in a select number of areas, such as Columbia Heights, Shaw, Trinidad, Deanwood, Barry Farm and Congress Heights (see map). The area around GWU primarily represents students with limited incomes and is not reflective of the typical poor neighborhood.

Children are more likely than adults to live in poor neighborhoods. In 2000, close to 40,000 District children lived in persistently neighborhoods with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more. Persistently poor neighborhoods in DC are also more likely to be majority Black. Thus, Blacks are both economically and racially segregated.

The District went through a tremendous amount of growth over the last decade and it will be interesting to see if the number and location of persistently poor neighborhoods has changed. New income and poverty data will be available from the American Community Survey in early September, but data at the neighborhood level will not be available until 2010.

Tackling problems associated with persistently poor neighborhoods will require both short term and long term solutions. Children and families living in poor communities need access to high quality and better-coordinated social services to meet immediate needs. Policies to improve the long-term health of persistently poor neighborhoods will require a combination of economic, housing, and social solutions.

A number of steps have been taken on the housing front to improve neighborhood conditions. Geographically fixed public housing tends to segregate the poor. Two main approaches have been taken to de-segregate poor neighborhoods. First, Section 8 provides low-income families with a "voucher" to find rental housing in the private housing market. However, research indicates that voucher users often struggle to found housing in the private market and report problems paying rent and utilities. In a tight rental market like DC's, families using a voucher usually end up in other distressed communities, defeating the purpose of the program. Second, HOPE IV HOPE VI is a program implemented by HUD to replace high-rise public housing buildings with mix-income housing. HOPE IV VI has been criticized for reducing the number of low-income housing units and there is no conclusive evidence that the program has led to measurable neighborhood redevelopment.

Improving neighborhood conditions is vital and can yield positive outcomes for families and children. However, neighborhood conditions will not improve strictly through the use of housing vouchers or mix-income housing, especially in areas with tight housing markets. Schools will have to be improved and viable economic opportunities will need to be created. These are just some of the challenges facing persistently poor neighborhoods.

Government

Homeless shelters reaching a crisis

by Lynda Laughlin   •   July 17, 2009 11:19 am

Homelessness is increasing in cities across America. Social service programs are reporting an increase in requests for food, housing assistance, and shelter space. While the economy in the Washington area is stronger than other regions in the country, the area is not immune from homelessness. Foreclosures, increasing demand for housing and shelter services, and the lack of affordable housing have contributed to the homeless crisis.

The increase in demand has put a strain on local shelters. Year around, there are approximately 1,402 emergency shelter beds for single adults in DC and 128 emergency shelter units for families. According to the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, approximately 16,000 people are homeless in Washington, DC over the course of a year, one of the highest rates in the country. The number of DC homeless families increased by 25 percent in 2008, and more than 200 families remain on the waitlist for emergency shelter.

Why are there so many homeless in DC? As many of us know, living in the DC area can be very expensive. In the District, a worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.55 would have to work almost 135 hours a week in order to afford a 2-bedroom apartment at fair market rent is currently costs $1,288 per month. Also, welfare benefits and food stamps often do not cover the basic needs of families.

Homeless advocates argue that Mayor Fenty has ignored the lack of emergency shelter beds by primarily focusing on the Housing First program. The goal of the Housing First program is to move the homeless immediately from the streets or homeless shelters into their own apartments. Individuals and families are also put into contact with social service programs to provide further stability. While the program has had promising results in other cities, the District has decreased the number of emergency shelter beds as it moves towards the Housing First program, putting many families and individuals at jeopardy until the program is fully ready. The wait for emergency family shelter is approximately 6 months and the closure of Franklin Shelter has further decreased the number of bed for homeless individuals, especially in downtown DC.

The D.C. Right to Housing Campaign (a collation of activists and nonprofits including the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, National Law Center on the Homeless and Poverty, and Bread for the City) is calling on Mayor Fenty and the DC Council to address the homelessness crisis by:

• Increasing homeless assistance funds to ensure no one is without safe and adequate shelter.
  
• Tracking the unmet demand for shelter to determine the adequate number of beds needed as required by the Homeless Services Reform Act.
  
• Improving and monitor shelter conditions.
  
• Maintaining an adequate emergency shelter safety net while moving toward a Housing First approach to ending homelessness.

Fenty is on the right track with the Housing First Program, but families and individuals can't wait. Access to housing is a basic human right. The Mayor and city council are currently hashing out the budget for the next fiscal year, and it important that funding for homeless shelters and affordable housing programs are not cut, for cuts in such crucial problems will only exacerbate th problem. The District is slated to receive approximately $19 million for the Housing First program from the federal economic stimulus plan. However, it will take time to find housing for the program and shelters will be needed in between.

Homelessness is the result of the convergence of several factors including housing market dynamics, housing and welfare policy, economic restructuring of the labor market, and personal difficulties such as mental illness, substance use, and health problems. Homelessness will not go away overnight, but it is time for the District to help end the revolving door of homelessness.

Government

When a "ghetto" is not a "ghetto"

by Lynda Laughlin   •   June 16, 2009 2:00 pm

The term "ghetto" is often an overused and stereotypical term used to describe urban culture and residential communities. Any avid reader of neighborhood blogs in DC has most likely noticed how commenters over use the term "ghetto" to describe communities they see as poor, crime ridden, undesirable, and Black. A recent post about a new mural in Bloomingdale produced a number of comments from readers who used the term "ghetto" to describe the mural and the surrounding neighborhood. The flippant use of the term "ghetto" has severely impoverished contemporary debates about the social and economic conditions of urban communities.

The term "ghetto" has become such a common term in everyday language, it is hard to determine what we really mean when use the term. Even urban scholars are guilty of overusing and under-defining the term "ghetto." Many scholars use the term "ghetto" to describe a geographic area, such as a neighborhood or census tract that is characterized as having a high concentration of households in poverty as well as a high concentration of blacks, or any other racial/ethnic minority group. General public use of the term "ghetto" tends to assume such areas characterized by crime, slackers, Chinese take-out restaurants, store front churches, poverty, and racial/ethnic minorities. Unfortunately, for many individuals, their image of a "ghetto" is less from actual experience but influenced by the popular media. Such characterizations of the "ghetto" communities ignores people who work everyday as nurses, teachers, civil servants or people who maintain lovely gardens, are active in local politics or volunteer. Perhaps, as historian Robin D. G. Kelley suggests, these urban dwellers are not as interesting as "the hard-core ghetto poor" because they are similar to you and me.

Sociologist Mario Small argues that there are four main reasons why the term "ghetto" should be abandoned. First, the term ghetto is often used under the assumption that poor neighborhoods are relatively homogeneous across cities. However, poor urban communities across cities vary in terms of access to resources, transportation, police presence, crime, etc. Assuming that all poor urban communities are the same undermines serious efforts to assess local conditions and social/economic solutions.

Second, Small suggests the term "ghetto" is stereotypical and not typical. The popular media has produced over generalized images of poor neighborhoods that often do not accurately describe the everyday lives of urban Blacks. While Blacks in general are more likely than other racial groups to live in high poverty and same-race neighborhoods, many live in mixed income communities. In the DC region, there are several affluent Black communities, including the neighborhood of Crestwood in NW DC as well as several areas across Prince George's County.

Third, urban communities are influenced by national and local policies, which in turn leads to different outcomes. Federal public housing and urban renewal legislation in the 1940s and beyond have had devastating effects on poor and minority communities because it destroyed more housing than it created. However, local actors such as mayors, city council members, and other local legislators often matter more to the urban poor because the have more control over how federal urban policies are implemented through zoning, taxes, and other general land-use policies. While it may be easier to blame the federal government for the continuing presence of poor communities, it is important to hold local officials accountable for their actions regarding housing policies and access to services.

Lastly, Small argues that the term ghetto needs to be abandoned because many assume that the "ghetto" is maintained through involuntary segregation that is absent of choice, when in reality anti-discrimination housing policies are often not enforced leaving many Blacks and other racial/ethnic groups with a limited or constrained set of choices.

Clearly, we need a more sophisticated approach to how we classify the social and economic conditions of urban neighborhoods; one that does not demoralize a community and its residents. The current use of the term "ghetto" glosses over the real issues facing urban communities and allows individuals to hide behind racist and classist assumptions instead of engaging in productive conversations and actions. More importantly, it is on us to change or abandon the term "ghetto" because the cultural and ideological construction of the term has often shaped public policy. Stereotypes and sweeping generalizations should not be the basis for reform. The problems we face in urban America are complex and should be treated as such.

Sustainability

The growing classroom

by Lynda Laughlin   •   May 21, 2009 10:47 am

The District is home to numerous community gardens and farmer's markets. There is also a growing movement for the "greening" of schoolyards across the District through gardens at school sites. School gardens can serve as learning laboratories to promote the consumption of fresh produce as well as be used for academic instruction in areas of science, math, environmental studies, and health.

The Watkins Living School Yard, at Watkins Elementary School in Capitol Hill, is one of the most established school gardens in the District. The garden has been around for close to 15 years. Barbara Percival, garden coordinator, said the garden started as a small butterfly garden and today the school is surrounded on three sides by over twenty theme gardens.

Starting this year, with the help of FRESHFARMS Markets, Watkins will be planting an "edible schoolyard." An edible schoolyard is basically a vegetable garden, but the idea behind it is that the students will plant, maintain, harvest, cook, eat, donate the food and will learn language arts, math, science, nutrition, etc. at the same time. The goal is both to enhance student learning and to improve eating habits. The teachers use the gardens to supplement their curriculum throughout the year, depending on level of interest and experience, and the season. Teachers will also do activities in the classroom that relate to the gardens. For example, students are given cooking lessons using produce from the garden.

School gardens like the one at Watkins require long-term commitment and effort on part of the school administration and community, but the positive outcomes are well worth the effort. Research indicates that edible gardens increase the consumption of vegetables and help students establish critical social and emotional bonds with other students and teachers. School gardens could also improve academic performance because they promote learning about scientific concepts such as photosynthesis, soil content, etc. For urban areas, a school garden can enhance the physical environment by providing vegetation instead of concert as well as deter vandalism.

Schools face a number of challenges in the implementation of garden programs. Funding, volunteers, and willing teachers are needed for success. School Garden Wizard, a partnership between the United States Botanic Garden and the Chicago Botanic Garden, provides helpful information and tools on how teachers, parents, and community member can start and maintain a school garden.