Galveston After Ike: Moving Together Towards A Full Recovery

Published by The Kir wan Institute for the Study of R ace and Ethnicity Three years after the destruction of Hurricane Ike, the supply of affordable housing in Galveston remains one of the many challenges to full recovery in the region. The following was developed to help aid in community dialogue and planning efforts directed at addressing this challenge.Galveston After Ike Moving Together Towards A Full Recovery December 2011 Jason Reece Senior Researcher Christy Rogers Senior Researcher Matthew Martin Research Associate Sarah Lawson Graduate Research Intern Jonathan Lee Graduate Research Intern Avrita Singh Graduate Research Volunteer

OverviewIntroductionBackgroundThe Strain on Affordable Housing: Lessons from Post-Hurricane CommunitiesIndicators of Neighborhood OpportunityMaps and AnalysisConclusion

Galveston After Ike: Moving Together Towards A Full Recovery December 2011 Jason Reece, Christy Rogers, Matthew Martin, Sarah Lawson, Jonathan Lee, Avrita Singh Introduction The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity at The Ohio State University is an applied research institute working nationally and internationally to identify solutions which expand opportunity for our most marginalized communities, in order to support a healthy, economically vibrant and just society. Affordable, sustainable and supportive housing is an important gateway to opportunity and for this reason the Institute has worked on issues related to housing development, affordability, fair housing and community development since its inception. These efforts in dozens of communities over the past seven years have culminated in the “community of opportunity” model of housing and community development. Our model, which has been utilized in communities throughout the US, seeks to understand pathways and barriers to opportunities in each community, and to utilize a robust portfolio of policy tools to expand housing choice in high opportunity communities, to revitalize and bring opportunity to distressed areas, and to empower communities through transformative civic engagement. After receiving numerous requests to apply some of our analytical tools to the affordable housing redevelopment issues in the aftermath of the hurricane for the Galveston area, the Institute responded with this report as part of our public service commitment to communities hard hit by natural disasters in the Gulf, as we have done in New Orleans, Alabama and Mississippi. Our mapping analysis of opportunity in the Galveston area does not represent the interests of any particular group involved in housing redevelopment in the region. We hope our work provides a framework to build consensus and identify solutions to producing an equitable, healthy and economically vibrant Gulf Coast community. Background On September 13, 2008, Hurricane Ike, one of the most destructive natural disasters to hit the United States, made landfall on the southeastern Texas coast, causing severe floods and damage. Galveston County, located partly on mainland Texas and partly on an island in the Gulf of Mexico, fell right in the center of Ike’s path of destruction. As a category 2 hurricane, Ike flooded 75% of Galveston Island and parts of the county mainland. The greatest level of damage occurred where the majority of low‐income individuals resided. Ike flooded and damaged two thirds of the Island’s housing projects and increased the city’s homeless population from 6,000 to 12,000.1 As the GHA June 2011 “Rebuilding Plan for Public Housing” states: 1 Source: Galveston Housing Authority 1

Table 1. Cost‐Burdened Households by Tenure Compounding these losses is the fact that in the time (30% or more of household 2000income was spent on housing) 2005‐2009 leading up to Hurricane Ike, the share of Galveston County residents who were cost‐burdened (spending Renters 37.5% 45.2% 30% or more of household income on housing) increased Owners 19.2% 25.5% for both renters and home owners (Figure 1). 2 The All Residents 25.9% 31.8% largest rates of cost burdened households were found on primarily on the Island (Map 1). The impact of Hurricane Ike therefore exacerbated the already mounting challenge of housing affordability on Galveston Island and the rest of the county. Figure 2: Proportion of Cost Burdened Households (paying more than 30% of their income for housing) by Block Group from the 2005‐2009 American Community Survey 2 Table 1 sources: U.S. Census 2000, American Community Survey (ACS) 2005‐2009 2

The Strain on Gulf Coast Affordable Housing & Lessons from Katrina Gulf Coast redevelopment has a particular set of challenges. These unique circumstances must be taken into account before designing any policy solutions for the community. In particular, a number of barriers to affordable housing have created impediments to housing access not found in other regions of the United States. The “base” of pre‐hurricane affordable housing units is relatively small compared to other regions in the US, and post‐hurricane displacement of low‐income families and families of color has been documented across the region. It is imperative to take this into consideration when designing affordable housing and fair housing solutions for the region. Gulf coast communities affected by Hurricane Katrina continue to experience challenges and search for solutions to replacing affordable housing. Affordable housing, especially affordable rental housing, tends to recover slower than the rest of the housing market. For example, homeowners, landlords, and renters in areas affected by Katrina flooding often held inadequate insurance before Katrina, and could not cover the loss and repair.3 Following Katrina, access to affordable housing has become more limited, due to a rise in rental rates and resident restrictions. Insurance premiums are costly as the perception of risk is ever‐present.4 In Mississippi, rental rates raised 30%‐50% in the year following Katrina because a great amount of rental housing was lost.5 In addition, Mississippi’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds given to rental units were disseminated slower than those given to homeowners, indicating a prioritization of homeowners over renters.6 Furthermore, as of March 2009, programs to “rebuild long‐term workforce housing, public housing, and small rentals” had used only 50% of their funds while all the initial homeowner aid had been completely dispensed.7 In the City of Galveston, clear disparities in population losses can also be seen in population figures from before and after Hurricane Ike (Figure 3). The city of Galveston lost 16.5% of its population between 2000 and 2010. Population loss for the White population during this time was 11.4%. Population loss for the African American community during this time was three times this rate, with the African American population declining by 36.7% in the City of Galveston between 2000 and 2010. 3 “Rebuilding Affordable Housing on the Gulf Coast: Lessons Learned in Mississippi from Hurricane Katrina.” RANDGulf States Policy Institute. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9409/index1.html. 2008. 4 Ibid. 5 Jopling, John. “Two Years After the Storm: The State of Katrina Housing Recovery on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.” Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 77. March 20, 2008, pg. 876 6 “GAO Report Highlights Gap Between Homeowner, Rental Units Assisted with 2005 Disaster Funds.” National Low Income Housing Coalition, Vol. 15, No. 7. http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=6782. February 19, 2010. 7 “MS Advocates Release Report to Counter State’s Rosy Recovery Picture.” National Low Income Housing Coalition, Vol. 14, No. 35. http://www.nlihc.org/detail/article.cfm?article_id=6411. September 11, 2009. 3

Popul lation Chhange by Race 2 2000 and d 2010 for t the City of Galve eston Latino, 1.3% African Americ can, ‐36.7% White, ‐11.4% % Total P Population, ‐16.5% ‐40.0 0% ‐35.0% ‐30.0% ‐25.0 0% ‐20.0% ‐15.0% ‐10.0% ‐5.0% 0.0% 5.0% Figure 3: Po opulation Chang ge by Race for th he City of Galves ston, Source: Ce Census 2010 ensus 2000 and COpportun nity Mapping The ratio onale for creeating a map of opportu p unity is simp ple: access t quality af to ffordable hou using, education employment, transportation, health and environ n, h nmental amenities is esseential for goo life od outcomes particularly for children. We all intuitively k s, know the im mportance o accessing good of opportunities – enroll ling in colleg investing in homeown ge, nership, findin a high‐quality primary care ng y doctor. A Accessing opp portunity to im mprove our li ives and our children’s livees motivates us to move a across town, acr ross the country, or acro the world for better j oss d jobs, a quality education, and safety from violence. The ability to learn, dream, invest, an nd teach is deependent upo on the strength and vibran ncy of our opportunities. For most of us, , we look firs st and foremo ost to our neighborhoods for opportun nities. And we kn now that thes se neighborhood opportunities are not t equal. Fifty years of social science confirm m this intuitio on, showing t that racially isolated and eeconomicallyy poor neighborh hoods restric employme options f young people, contribute to poo health, ex ct ent for or xpose children tto extremely high rates of crime and vio olence, and hhouse some o of the least‐pe erforming schhools. Kids who do not see ne eighbors leav ving for work,, who are unc challenged in school, who are afraid to go to their loca park, and who can’t f al find healthy food in the communit 8 are expos eir ty sed to cumulative disadvant tages that ca be hard to overcome.9 There is a reason that the old rea estate ada is an . a t al age 8 Recently,, people in Seattle found that t property valu ues, more than n income or education levels, , were the bestt predictor oof obesity rates s, most likely d due to the neigghborhood presence or absen nce of grocery stores in safe walking dis stance with aff fordable, healt thy food.8 9 Children can be harmed d by racial dispparities even be efore birth. Black and Hispannic women are e more than twwice as likely to receive late or no prenatal care as White women.9 (Prenat tal care prevennts low birth weight that may y lead to mental d sion problems, and neuromuscular disorder 9) Racial hea disabilities, vis rs. alth disparities s seem to be growing, even as mortality rates overall have decreas sed. In 1950, a a Black child was 1.6 times mmore likely to di ie before his or her first birthday than a W White child; in 2002, they were 2.4 times as s likely.9 4

“location, location, location.” Good opportunities (and bad ones) often come bundled together. Location – this bundle of opportunities we can access—is important for everyone, but especially for our children. The Kirwan Institute’s “Opportunity Mapping” initiatives analyze and communicate the cumulative structural disinvestment and segregation of people of color into declining and distressed neighborhoods. These maps are a powerful tool to help guide coalition building, service delivery and investment around issues faced by marginalized and isolated communities. Opportunity mapping can delineate the needs, capacity and opportunities of marginalized communities, giving local partners and advocates a point of departure as well as a communications tool. Mapping can provide a valuable lens for identifying strategic points of investment, which is critical given the great needs (and limited resources) of marginalized communities. The importance of mapping assets and need is critical to spurring new thinking. As Rhonda Tsoi‐A‐Fatt, a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in low‐income youth observes: Communities of high youth distress are not monolithic. To effectively create long‐term change, communities will need to invest time and resources into defining the dimensions of the problem, which will illuminate both the nature and scope of issues affecting young people…Mapping the assets in community (human, material, financial and natural) enables new partnerships to emerge, and brings new life and possibility to planning and implementation.10 Opportunity mapping can provide valuable information to address social justice and community development. The following are some of the issues which can be illuminated by opportunity mapping: • What are the best strategies to create opportunity and provide neighborhood safety or stability in an opportunity poor community? Are policies depressing opportunity in an opportunity poor community? What neighborhoods are at risk of becoming low opportunity communities? • What policies can help connect marginalized people with opportunities in the region? Where is affordable housing needed in opportunity rich communities within the region? • Which neighborhoods are significantly impacting the quality of life and development of children in the region? What children are most at risk? • What are the neighborhood conditions for neighborhoods impacted by foreclosure? Where should asset building activities be targeted? Where are predatory or discriminatory credit instruments limiting the economic potential for communities? This mapping, research and community engagement and community advocacy model has several broad goals and advocacy outcomes. These goals could include: • To raise significant attention and awareness to the structural and community barriers impacting marginalized communities, to identify policy solutions to remedy barriers to opportunity for 10 Rhonda Tsoi‐A‐Fatt, “A Collective Responsibility, A Collective Work: Supporting the Path to Positive Life Outcomes for Youth in Economically Distressed Communities” (May 2008) CLASP Policy Report. 5

marginalized communities. To provide a entry point for starting consensus building or collaborative discussions among stakeholders. • To provide a local resource to identify areas of greatest need in communities and assess “gaps” where need is not being met by on‐going advocacy efforts, local initiatives, investments or policy initiatives. • To provide data, analysis and strategies to help build local organizational capacity in understanding challenges, needs and strategies for marginalized neighborhoods. To provide a collaborative framework to collectively organize the strategic planning of multiple stakeholders in communities. Opportunity maps can best be used to consider recovery planning and investment that will help the county build a better future for all residents. Indicators of Neighborhood Opportunity Data were collected for block groups in Galveston County in three categories: education quality, economic health, and neighborhood stability. Six variables were collected to analyze educational opportunities: student poverty rate, math proficiency test scores, reading proficiency test scores, average years of experience of teachers, student‐teacher ratio, and adult educational attainment level. Three indicators were collected to assess economic health: unemployment rate, number of jobs within 5 miles of each block group and the mean commute time to work for residents. Four indicators served as a comprehensive reflection of neighborhood stability and health: vacancy rates, foreclosure rates, poverty rates, and proximity to number toxic waste release sites. The summation of these three sub‐indices is combined to create the final comprehensive opportunity index for each block group, which is an index representing all of the indicators discussed above. This index is then sorted into quintiles with the following labels, from highest to lowest: Very High Opportunity, High Opportunity, Moderate Opportunity, Low Opportunity, and Very Low Opportunity. For example, areas identified as Very High Opportunity represent the top 1/5 of the block groups (based on their comprehensive opportunity index score); conversely, areas identified as Very Low Opportunity represent the bottom 1/5 of the block groups (based on their comprehensive opportunity index score). Our analysis focused on residentially developed areas and excluded areas (census blocks) of very low population density. Maps and Analysis The following presents an overview of the final opportunity maps and analysis related to the Galveston area maps. We do caution that these maps present only a starting point for understanding the dynamics of opportunity in the region. Gulf Coast redevelopment carries with it many challenges that cannot be captured through these maps alone. The complexity of Gulf Coast redevelopment issues require civic engagement, input from a range of stakeholders, and careful implementation of fair housing policies. The examination of opportunity maps is a jumping‐off point that can drive engagement toward equitable solutions, but is not a substitute for broad‐based community discussion. Additionally, site based analysis related to locations for potential public housing will be an important supplement to this neighborhood‐based opportunity analysis. Site‐based conditions, such as immediate proximity to a polluting land use or isolation from the transportation system, for example, would be critical considerations to take into account when siting affordable housing. 6

Maps 1 and 2 show the final opportunity scores for Galveston County and the Island. The opportunity maps show that areas of high opportunity are concentrated mainly in two areas: on Galveston Island and the portion of the county closest to Houston. Lower opportunity areas were clustered in the southern portion of the County near Texas City and La Marque. On the Island, high opportunity block groups were primarily located south of Broadway, centered around 53rd Street and on the Western side of the Island. The Island contained relatively few low opportunity areas (compared to the County). When looking at population within the various opportunity areas, very clear racial disparities can be seen throughout the County (Figure 4). Nearly 55% of the County’s African American population in 2010 lived in low or very low opportunity areas (these areas represent 2/5’s of all block groups analyzed). Comparatively, only 24% of Whites, 15% of Asian and 34% of Hispanic residents lived in these low opportunity areas in the 2010 Census. We also mapped the distribution of subsidized housing (utilizing HUD’s 2008 picture of subsidized housing) (Maps 3 and 4). Although this data is not ideal for identifying current distributions of subsidized housing, it is the best universal data set which was available to us for this analysis. Based on our analysis of the 2008 data, we found that the majority of public housing sites (66%) throughout Galveston County were located in low or very low opportunity areas (Figure 5). If possible, this analysis should be updated with more current and accurate data to understand the current landscape of affordable housing. 100% 90% 24.25% 80% 44.05% 43.00% 49.66% 55.84% 70% 21.38% 72.10% 60% 50% 21.57% 21.08% 40% 20.54% 20.39% 30% 54.38% 20% 12.47% 34.38% 35.92% 29.80% 10% 23.77% 15.42% 0% Total White African American Hispanic Asian American Indian/ Alaska Native Very Low & Low Moderate High & Very High Figure 4: Distribution of racial population (% of total population by race) within the various neighborhood opportunity areas. 7

100% 10.53% 90% 18.84% 80% 23.68% 70% 23.99% 60% 50% 40% 30% 65.79% 57.17% 20% 10% 0% % of sites % of Units Very Low & Low Moderate High & Very High Figure 5: Distribution of HUD Subsidized Housing Sites and Subsidized Housing Units (from the 2008 Picture of Subsidized Housing Data) within the various opportunity areas. Location in a high or low opportunity block group does not tell the entire story in regards to neighborhood conditions. A housing site could be located in a low opportunity area but immediately adjacent to high opportunity areas, thus suggesting that the subsidized housing site does have some access to areas of opportunity. This proximity is very important in areas of smaller geography, such as an island. To understand the proximity to areas of opportunity for HUD subsidized housing sites, we analyzed their proximity to high opportunity areas. As seen in Maps 5 and 6, public housing units were in closer proximity to high opportunity census tracts on Galveston Island than in many parts of the mainland. The majority of subsidized housing sites were located within less than a ½ mile from high opportunity portions of the region. This proximity provides an opportunity to rebuild public housing in a way that assures continued access to these higher opportunity areas, and potentially anchor broader community revitalization initiatives. Moving Forward – Recommendations for Equitable Rebuilding Based on this analysis, the following recommendations flow from the findings of the opportunity analysis presented in this report: • Replace affordable housing options on the Island that were destroyed by Hurricane Ike: cost‐ burdened households were increasing throughout the County prior to Ike and the largest rates of cost burden households were found on the Island. The need for improving the inventory of affordable housing was only exacerbated by the destruction that resulted from the hurricane. Experience from other areas impacted by hurricane damage illustrate that affordable housing reconstruction faces many obstacles and affirmative efforts to replace the pre‐existing supply of affordable units must be a priority. • Rebuild in places that are in or near high‐opportunity areas: because opportunity is a critical element of success, affordable housing options should be replaced in proximity to opportunity so that residents have a chance to thrive. As the opportunity maps show, many of Galveston 8

Island’s block groups are higher opportunity areas which could be considered for additional public housing or affordable housing development. • Target redevelopment investments to places near anchor institutions like hospitals and universities: since these institutions are sources of valuable services, jobs, and community development resources, investments near these go further and create more opportunity. • Ensure affordable housing is rebuilt in places with strong transportation infrastructure and options: in order to create a holistic environment of opportunity, investments in affordable housing opportunities should be made in areas where there are also affordable and accessible transportation alternatives. Leveraging redevelopment investments near anchor institutions like hospitals and universities is another way to build continued access to opportunity. This means providing affordable housing options in and near areas of high opportunity, as well as ensuring that transportation options exist which will help facilitate access to opportunity. As the community redevelops and improves its portfolio of affordable housing, providing access to these areas will be important. • Engage and involve public housing residents in the redevelopment process: because no effort to restore and improve housing opportunities throughout the County will be effective or complete without the participation of the residents themselves. Kirwan Comments Regarding the Proposed (October 2011) Master Development Work (plans submitted by McCormack Baron Salazar) In addition to the opportunity analysis, we also reviewed the recent Master Plan for the Island. When reviewing public housing plans, it is important to ask: how many units are being proposed? How many of those units can support families with children? Are these units in locations conducive to reaching high opportunity supports, services, and social networks? We note the following concerns with the October proposed plan, in comparison with the June 21, 2011 GHA Rebuilding Plan for Public Housing: • The October development plan does not seem to comply with the settlement agreement that requires one‐for‐one unit replacement. The October plan replaces only slightly more than half of the public housing units lost. Like other hurricane stricken communities, Galveston has a great need to replace its affordable housing stock, and a one to one replacement is needed to assure sufficient affordable units remain on the island. • Although there are numerous high opportunity areas on the Island, the proposed locations are not in the higher opportunity areas on the Island (Map 7), which tend to be in the south and west section of downtown. In relation to our opportunity maps, some of the proposed locations are in low‐density, low opportunity areas surrounded by industrial uses. When siting public housing, we need to ask: Can families walk or take public transportation safely to good grocery stores, schools and jobs from their new homes? Efforts should be made to integrate these units with high opportunity areas on the Island. • It is not clear that fair housing requirements have been met, including those for accessible units. 9

• Sufficient units with three and four bedrooms must be provided for families with children who need them. The opportunity framework and the maps and analysis in this report represent a valuable toolbox of policy development instruments. However, they cannot suffice for the kind of “ground‐truthing” that must come from genuine community engagement, whereby the realities of residents can be clearly understood in the context of the opportunity landscape. We hope this initial analysis can contribute to a meaningful process of decision making that is inclusive of all Galveston residents, but this process must be grounded in robust engagement for those residents who currently reside or have resided in public housing. The impact wrought by Hurricane Ike has been felt by all, and continues to shape life outcomes in the region. 10

Map 1: Comprehensive OpportunityGalveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 Harris ¯ Friendswood League City Dickinson 146 ¬ « 45 § ¦ ¨ Te x a s C i t y Galveston La Marque 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Legend Brazoria Comprehensive Opportunity Index Very Low Low Moderate High Very High River and Lake Parks Low Population Density Gulf of Mexico

Map 2: Comprehensive Opportunity(Island Area)Galveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 Swan Lake Galveston County Harris Chambers Sta te Hw y8 146 ¬ « 7 Gu wolf lf Sea 168 ¬ « I4 45 5 § ¦ ¨ Ferry Ex University Of Texas Medical Co it 168 ¬ « St Marys Hospital 5 er Wat Ex n lica it Rosenburg School 5 Pe Brazoria er 25th 29th Wat Ex side San Jacinto School bor Central High School it I4 Austin School Har 4 i 5 Ramp Tik Gulf of Mexico Kitwin High School 0 1.252.5 5 7.5 10 Miles ial Grace Church r ust 51st 45 § ¦ ¨ Ind y ort dwa Central Church P Broa Ex Broadway it 1 c Alamo School Crockett School 53rd all aw 61 Moody State School G a l v e s t o n Travis School Se st Lovenburg School Legend 61s Landmarks t " " 53rd Scholes Field ity Comprehensive lC t ra Hope en C Opportunity Index 05 30 Very Low M F- Low Sweetwater Lake Moderate High Very High ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Fm 30 05 Ra mp River and Lake Parks Miles Low Population Density

Map 3: Comprehensive Opportunity & Public HousingGalveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 Harris ¯ Friendswood League City # # # # # Dickinson 146 ¬ « Inset 45 § ¦ ¨ ## Te x a s C i t y Galveston # # # # # La Marque # # # ## 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Inset Legend Public Housing(2008) Brazoria # State # # Comprehensive Hw Opportunity Index y 146 25th # Very Low Low Te x a s C i t y Moderate Ram # Palmer Palmer Palmer Fm 1764 p High Loop 197 # Galveston Very High State Hwy 146 # Texas State Hwy 348 Gulf of Mexico Lake River and 5th # Parks 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Low Population Density

Map 4: Comprehensive Opportunity(Island Area) & Public Housing Galveston County,TX# Sources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 ¯ Legend # Public Housing(2008) Comprehensive ¬168 « Opportunity Index Very Low # # Low # ## # 45 # # § ¦ ¨ # # # # ## # Moderate # # # High # Very High Galveston River and Lake Scholes Field Parks Low Population Density Galveston County Harris Chambers # ## # # # ## 146 ¬ « Galveston # # # # # # §45 ¦ ¨ ## # ## 168 ## ## ¬ « ## ### ## #### ### Brazoria # # # Gulf of Mexico # 0 0.5 1 2 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles Miles

Map 5: Public Housing Proximity to High OpportunityGalveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 ¯ Harris Friendswood League City Dickinson 146 ¬ « 45 § ¦ ¨ Te x a s C i t y Galveston La Marque Legend Public Housing(2008) Comprehensive Miles to High Opportunity Opportunity Index 0.00 - 0.25 Very Low Brazoria 0.26 - 0.50 Low 0.51 - 1.00 Moderate 1.01 - 2.00 High 2.01 - 4.53 Very High Public Housing 1-Mile Proximity River and Lake Gulf of Mexico Parks 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Low Population Density

Map 6: Public Housing Proximity to High Opportunity (Island)Galveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 Swan Lake Galveston County Chambers ¯ Harris St ate Hw y8 146 wolf 7 ¬ « Sea 168 ¬ « I4 Ferry 45 § ¦ ¨ 5 ater rW Wate 2nd ersity er 168 Wat n Ex Univ ¬ « lica it 5 Pe er 29th Wat Brazoria rsid e I4 rsid e Harbo i 5 Harbo Tik y dwa 25th l 10 stria Broa y 87 51st 0 1.252.5 5 7.5 du Gulf of Mexico 45 § ¦ ¨ w InMiles eH Po rt Stat Ex it 1 c 53rd Ramp Broad all w ay aw Se 61 Galveston st 61s t 53rd Scholes Field ity lC t ra Hope C en Legend Public Housing(2008) Comprehensive Sweetwater Lake Miles to High Opportunity Opportunity Index 05 30 M F- 0.00 - 0.25 Very Low 05 0.26 - 0.50 Low 30 M F- 0.51 - 1.00 Moderate 05 30 1.01 - 2.00 High Fm 2.01 - 4.53 Very High Public Housing 1-Mile Proximity River and Lake 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Parks Low Population Density

Map 7: Comprehensive Opportunity & Projected Public HousingGalveston County,TXSources: American Community Survey 2005-2009,2010 ESRI Business Analyst 2010, Environmental Protection Agency 2009,USPS Vancancy 2010, HUD,Texas Education Agency 2009-2010 Swan Lake ¯ Sta te Hw y8 7 Gu wolf lf Sea 168 ¬ « I4 5 Ferry University Of Texas Medical Co St Marys Hospital Ex it 5 er _ ^ Wat n Ex lica it 5 Pe er 29th Wat side I4 bor _ ^ Har i 5 Ramp Tik y dwa 25th r ial Broa ust 7 51st 45 § ¦ ¨ nd eH wy 8 rt I Stat _ ^ Po Ex Broadway it 1 c Crockett School 53rd all Legend 61 Moody State School Galveston aw Se st _ ^ Projected Public Housing(2011) 61s t Landmarks 53rd Scholes Field " ity " lC t ra Comprehensive Hope n Ce Opportunity Index Very Low Sweetwater Lake Low 05 30 F- M Moderate 05 High 30 M F- Very High 05 Gulf of Mexico 30 River and Lake Fm Parks 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Low Population Density

The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity The Ohio State University 433 Mendenhall Laborator y 125 South O val Mall Columbus, Ohio 43210 ph: 614.688.5429 fx: 614.688.5592 web: w w w.k ir waninstitute.org

Galveston After Ike: Moving Together Towards A Full Recovery

by Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity on Jan 03, 2012

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Galveston After Ike: Moving Together Towards A Full Recovery — Document Transcript