GVSU 49507 Report 2014

Project 49507 Student Report:
A Partnership between Grand Valley State University
and the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
Authors: Landon Hughes, Jacob Schacht, and Alexandra Schurkamp

2
Table of Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................3
Business..................................................................................................4
Crime .....................................................................................................7
Education...............................................................................................9
Environment........................................................................................11
Housing................................................................................................14
Transportation....................................................................................17
Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception.............18
Appendix I: Bibliography ..................................................................21
Appendix II: Data of Interest ............................................................23
General Data .......................................................................................23
Education Data....................................................................................27
Housing Data.......................................................................................29
Transportation Data...........................................................................36

3
Introduction
The Fair Housing Center of West Michigan (FHCWM) is a private non-profit
organization located in Grand Rapids, Michigan whose central goal is to ensure equal
housing opportunity under the law. In 2012, this organization joined with the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Fair Housing Alliance
(NFHA) in an investigation regarding housing practices by Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
across the United States. The collaborative investigation found that Wells Fargo had been
better maintaining and marketing real estate owned (REO) properties in white areas than
in communities that were predominately African-American and Latino. The investigation
spanned 19 cities, including the City of Grand Rapids.1
In April 2012, HUD and the NFHA filed suit against Wells Fargo for their discriminatory
practices. The suit was settled out of court in June 2013. As a part of the settlement
agreement, Wells Fargo would provide funds that would foster homeownership, assist in
rebuilding neighborhoods, and promote inclusiveness and diversity within the
communities of color that were most heavily impacted by the foreclosure crisis and
where their discriminatory practices were taking place. As a stakeholder in the suit, the
FHCWM received $1.42 million of the total $27 million settlement to invest into areas of
Grand Rapids affected by Wells Fargo’s practices.2
The FHCWM decided to begin by focusing their investment on a 45 square block area in
Grand Rapids’ southeast side. This particular area was chosen because it was the
neighborhood most affected by the 2008 foreclosure crisis and was heavily impacted by
Wells Fargo’s discriminatory practices. The main objective of the FHCWM investment is
to enhance existing services and frameworks that support the target area’s “stabilization,
revitalization, property rehabilitation, walkability, and sustainability”.3
A key component of the FHCWM’s master investment plan was to “compile community
profile data including identifying existing and potential assets, resources, services,
programs, gaps, needs and opportunities”.4
To that end, the Center contacted Grand
Valley State University to partner with their efforts by conducting research within the
targeted area. The research projects that were undertaken included several distinct
academic disciplines, including economics, geography and planning, history, public
administration, and sociology. This report is a culmination of research findings, best
practice models, and other information uncovered by student researchers. The data is
sorted and presented in the following topics: Business, Crime, Education, Environment,
Housing, Transportation, Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception.
Findings and recommendations are presented along with a discussion regarding each
topic.

1
Nancy Haynes, “Fair Housing Center of West Michigan: Program Overview Neighborhood
Investment Initiative,” Fair Housing Center of West Michigan
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid. 2.

4
Business

The 49507-target area is facing very real challenges regarding its economic stability. In
2000, the poverty rate for residents in the community between the ages of 18-64 was at a
striking 56 percent.5
In 2010, the neighborhood unemployment rate was reported to be
22.9%, compared to 9.5% nationwide.6
High levels of unemployment and the resulting
poverty rate represent a low per capita income in 49507. The average household income
in the area is roughly $36,408.7
There is little incentive for businesses to come to the area
because low incomes mean that this neighborhood possesses very little consumer buying
power. A lack of businesses means a lack of accessible jobs, further exacerbating the
issue of unemployment. Since all of these statistics are related in one way or another, it is
important to address the economic situation of 49507 as a system, instead of separate
independent parts.
Non-profits perceive the lack of available jobs in the community as a serious problem for
49507 to overcome.8
Many non-profits wished to partner with businesses regarding
programs and outreach initiatives to address this problem and offer more services.
Increased business involvement, as well as increased business presence, would help
create greater access to employment within this community. Expanding networking
opportunities between nonprofits and businesses may help foster more connections and

5
Community Research Institute. Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University. cridata.org
6
Ibid.
7
City-Data . On Board Informatics. city-data.org
8
Landon Hughes, et. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of
Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014.
Findings Recommendations
Finding 1:
Area non-profits perceive
unemployment to be a main problem
facing 49507
Recommendation 1:
Encourage business incubation through
entrepreneurship programs, sourced
from centers such as LINC Community
Revitalization Inc.
Finding 2:
Non-profits view businesses in the
area as a significant asset in the
community
Recommendation 2:
Foster networking opportunities between
businesses and nonprofits through
community events in order to strengthen
these networks and reach higher levels
of collaboration
Finding 3:
For every ¼ mile away from a
supermarket a home is, the home
value decreases an average of
$10,000-$20,000
Recommendation 3:
Include a grocery store offering a wide
variety in both quality and price of food
within zip code 49507

5
may eventually lead to more partnerships. Partnerships can create a stronger business
presence and foster accessible employment for community members, helping lower the
unemployment rate and grow the per capita income. Partnerships have the potential to
raise the total value of 49507.
Overall, a heightened business presence is key to decreasing the unemployment rate in
this community; business incubation is one way to strengthen that presence. Business
incubation is defined as “the dedication of resources, access to partnerships, and
allocation of information to individuals who wish to begin” a business.9
Due to the low
number of businesses as well as a missing incentive for businesses to develop in 49507, it
would be beneficial for this community to partner with several local business incubators
that exist in Grand Rapids. Engaging with these incubators or creating similar entities
specifically for 49507 could provide the necessary backdrop to attract businesses.10
Among these local incubators are LINC Community Revitalization Inc., The Factory,
Uptown Kitchen, SBDC, and Start Garden. Of the organizations listed above, LINC
Community Revitalization Inc. is the only business incubator currently located within the
49507 target area. LINC provides a 3-year incubator program for small start-up
businesses, making them an excellent platform for communicating with business owners
and attract them to 49507.
Although business attraction and growth provide an opportunity for decreasing the level
of unemployment in the area (as long as community engagements exist within these
businesses), it is important to monitor the types of businesses entering the area. Grocery
stores in particular have a significant effect on the value of a neighborhood.11
Grocery
stores with a wide variety of prices and quality of food offerings are extremely valuable
to their surrounding neighborhood – both because of their appeal to a wide variety of
consumers and the opportunity for neighborhood employment.12
Within 49507, for every
additional ¼ mile a home is away from a grocery store of this type (such as Meijer or
D&W), housing value decreases by an average of $10,000-$20,000.13
Specialty stores on
both the low or high cost and quality spectrums actually decrease the value of their
surrounding neighborhoods.14
Grocery stores with more options create greater appeal to
the consumer and present the opportunity for one-stop shopping.15
These stores are often
larger, therefore presenting more employment opportunities for residents.16
It is important
during business incubation to attract the types of businesses entering the community, as a

9
Rolando Bocanegra, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability ." 2014: 11.
10
Ibid.
11
Greg Galica, et. al. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507." Grand Valley State
University.
12
Schuetz R. Meltzer. Bodegas or bagel shops? Neighborhood differences in retail and household
services. Economic Development Quarterly. 26(1), 73-94. 2012.
13
University.
14
Ibid.
15
M. Rouwendal Van Duijn. Analysis of household location behavior, local amenities and house
prices in a sorting framework. Journal of Property Research, 29(4), 280-297. 2012.
16
University. 2014.

6
mix could be adjusted for maximum employment opportunities and community
appeal/value appreciation.

7
Crime
Finding 1:
Violent and sexual crimes lower housing
values in areas they occur
Recommendation 1:
Create a strong relationship between
local police and neighborhood watch
programs
Finding 2:
After-school programs in Grand Rapids are
decreasing the number of youth becoming
involved in crime
Recommendation 2:
Expand existing programs that empower
youth and provide activities alternative to
crime
Finding 3:
Neighborhood safety is perceived to be
higher than reality when a neighborhood is
comprised of close-knit residents
Recommendation 3:
Hold law enforcement-supported events to
encourage community bonding
The crime rate of the 49507 target area is 204.2 crimes per 1,000 people. From May 2013
to May 2014, roughly 50% of the crimes committed in this community were either
violent or sexual in nature.17
Violent and sexual crimes most negatively impact the value
of a neighborhood.18
The prevalence of these types of crimes in 49507 should be the
focus of crime prevention initiatives in this area. As demonstrated by the Neighborhood
Watch program of San Gabriel, CA (a city similar in size and demographics to Grand
Rapids, MI), fostering a relationship between local police and neighborhood watch
programs can aid in reducing the frequency of violent and sexual crime.19
These types of
initiatives should be further supported in 49507.
The Garfield Park Neighborhood Association is currently partnered with the Grand
Rapids Police department orchestrating neighborhood watch programs and implementing
a ‘court watch program’ to prevent convicted criminals from re-entering the Garfield
Park neighborhood.20
Expanding programs similar to that of Garfield Park carry the
potential to reduce violent and sexual crime in the region. Due to the reduction in
neighborhood value violent and sexual crimes create; reducing these crimes could
increase neighborhood value.
Regarding crime, there are two consistent opportunities for reduction: youth engagement
and community involvement. Crime within a certain geographical area, in this case zip
code 49507, is propelled by the continuous involvement of citizens and the recruitment of
youth. To this point, youth engagement then becomes a critical focus for addressing

17
Group, Omega. crimemapping.com. 2008.
18
Leigh Linden, et. al. "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s
Laws."American Economic Review 98, 3:1103-27.2008.
19
Ibid.
20
Rolando Bocanegro, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability." Grand Valley State University.

8
crime. To combat the pull of crime on youth, it is imperative to provide alternatives to fill
youths’ free time. The City of Grand Rapids has recently experienced a decrease in the
rate of youth involved crime as a result of the increase of both after-school program
participation and parent involvement.21
Organizations such as Our Community’s Children,
the Baxter Community Center, and Oakdale Neighbors empower youth and provide
alternative activities to crime.22
It is crucial to involve local law enforcement within these
initiatives as police presence in after-school programs help alleviate tension and build
citizen trust of police. 23
Police involvement in the Boys and Girls Club Youth
Commonwealth has already demonstrated the effectiveness of police/citizen relationships.
Continuing to provide and promote this program, as well as developing additional
initiatives, should encourage the current trend of reduction of youth involvement crime.
Events are one way to engage community members, and are also beneficial in the
reduction of not only the presence of crime, but the community’s perception as well.
Community events foster relationships amongst community members creating a closer-
knit community.24
A community that is considered ‘close knit’ is often perceived to have
a lower crime rate, which translates to an appreciation in neighborhood value.25
Police
involvement is again crucial, as community events in high-crime areas tend to present an
opportunity for crime to occur – further inviting negative attention to an otherwise
positive event. Furthermore, community events with positive results encourage future
events of a similar variety helping continue neighborhood valuation.

21
MLive Neighborhood Report
22
Chad Atwood, et. al. "Safety Concerns in the 49507 Area Code of Grand Rapids, MI." Grand
Valley State University. 2014.
23
Interview with Officer Mike Harris
24
Kayla Coutchie, et. al. "Local Festivities and Events in the 49507 Area Code." Grand Valley
State University. 2014.
25
Ibid.

9
Education
Finding 1:
41.5%26
of residents 25 and over do not
have a high school diploma
Recommendation 1:
Promote high school completion and
college readiness through mentorship
programs and connection to role models
Finding 2:
47.2%27
of residents 25 and over have
either a high school diploma or GED
equivalent
Recommendation 2:
Present children and adults to opportunities
by providing educational events with local
business owners, trades, non-profits, and
universities
Finding 3:
4.0%28
of residents age 25 and over have a
bachelors degree
Recommendation 3:
Promote after school educational programs
to further education and prevent crime
A significant statistic regarding education in the 49507-project area is that 41.5% of
residents don’t have a high school diploma. The data starkly shows that this
neighborhood is struggling academically. Students, teachers, and parents need to be given
the tools to help residents thrive academically by addressing some of the problems in and
outside of the schools.
Assisting struggling students in a variety of ways can help remove challenges confronting
their educational efforts. A California non-profit called Students Rising Above provides a
college readiness program to low-income students. The program holds off-to-college
seminars, grants tuition support, and provides paid summer internships. 29
It is
recommended that programs like this are created in 49507 and be tailored toward high
school students. Such programs might involve academic tutors, funding for supplies, and
a college advisor who can assist with class scheduling and the college application process.
Seminars focused on skill-building, resume assistance, and college planning can help
alleviate many stresses on current high school students and get students thinking about
college.30
Exposing students to positive examples and educational success stories can show students
that high school graduation and college is attainable for them. Individuals who have gone
to college further legitimate the neighborhood’s school system. They create the
expectation among current high school students that they attend college. Perceptions of

26
“Community Profile 2.0,” Community Research Institute, Accessed April 10, 2014,
http://weave.cridata.org/communityprofiles/.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Lisa Brown, et. al. “An Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand
Rapids, MI Community and Elsewhere,” 2014:10.
30
Ibid.

10
school may become more positive as more success stories are presented and discussed
with high school students.31
Another educational recommendation not only focuses on students, but on adults as well.
Holding an event that presents opportunities for education, support, and job training to
students and adults could greatly benefit this community. EdRev, a successful education
fair in a low-income California community, encouraged adults to engage in educational
initiatives.32
At EdRev, multiple sessions were targeted towards all age groups with
topics ranging from technology, to teaching, to leadership skills. An event like this could
include teachers, business owners, university leaders, and students who present on a
variety of applicable topics. Attendees could learn about ways to improve their situation
through education and access to these opportunities.33
Lastly, reducing costs for educational supplies could take a load off both teachers and
students, helping them focus their educational efforts. One effective organization that
seeks to reduce costs on students and teachers is called Crayons to Classrooms. Crayons
to Classrooms is a non-profit which maintains a “warehouse” of school supplies for
students and teachers free of charge.34
A school qualifies with at least 70% of its students
eligible for the National School Lunch Program. Through this nonprofit, donors are able
to sponsor “School Boxes” containing books, pencils, paper, crayons, and markers for
students to use. Students are given the educational tools to help them be successful.
Furthermore, teachers are no longer responsible for providing resources out of their own
salary to create a healthy learning environment for children. Programs like Crayons to
Classrooms are successful in preventing costs and allowing teachers and students alike to
focus on what is most important – the children’s education.35

31
Ibid, 14.
32
Ibid, 11.
33
Ibid, 16.
34
Ibid.

35
Lisa Brown, et. al. “An Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand
Rapids, MI Community and Elsewhere,” 2014:8.

11
Environment
Finding 1:
For each additional 100 feet closer a home
is to a community park, $193.00 is added
to the value of the house36
Recommendation 1:
Strongly advocate the expansion of green
space and/or park land by effectively and
creatively using the vacant areas of the
neighborhood
Finding 2:
Increases in park size adds value to the
homes in the surrounding area37
Recommendation 2:
Encourage beautification along the lines of
street trees, plantings, and yard cleanup
Finding 3:
However, park size hits a point where
marginal cost per square foot outweighs
marginal benefit38
Recommendation 3:
Develop opportunities for community
gardens, seeking partnerships possibly with
experience in GVSU agriculture programs
and the Baxter Community Garden
initiative
Green spaces add value to a surrounding neighborhood. In 49507, for every 100 feet
closer a home is to a park, the home’s value increases by $193.00. Not only do parks
increase the value of a home, but they also produce healthier residents by increasing
physical activity among residents.39
People tend to feel healthier and less stressed when
around a park.40
Parks also produce a cleaner environment, filtering city pollution and
storm water, while moderating temperatures in adjoining areas.41
Parks provide meeting
space for events and activities and increase social interactions amongst residents. These
types of social interactions can be “‘one of the quickest ways to build a sense of
community and improve quality of life.”42
Green spaces in the 49507 area are ripe for improvement and expansion. Currently,
Dickinson Buffer Park serves the neighborhood at a small .84 acres.43
The Dickinson
Elementary Playground is only open to the public during hours school is not in session,
limiting resident accessibility. Although Dickinson Buffer Park exists within this
neighborhood it borders heavy industry, exposing children to health hazards. Additionally
city plans classify different portions of the neighborhood as either not served, severely

36
Paul Isely. Grand Valley State University. 2014.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Kyle Barnhart. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis of Grand Rapids, Michigan,” 4.
42
Ibid.
43
Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, Accessed April 14, 2014,
http://www.friendsofgrparks.org/

12
underserved, or underserved regarding parks.44
The streets of Burton, Hall, Division, and
Eastern are considered barriers due to their role as main roads accompanied by heavy
traffic. The streets enclose the neighborhood making surrounding parks, like Garfield
Park, non-ideal locations.45
It should also be noted that Grand Rapids park quality and
size follow demographics data related to race.46
Poor park quality and smaller park sizes
are directly related to a higher percent of African American residents.47
Additionally,
park types generally include mini parks in predominately African American
neighborhoods.48
Grand Rapids has very few resources directed towards green space around the city.49
There exists no formal parks department, but currently the City of Grand Rapids is
searching for a new parks director. 50
There are few full time parks employees which are
only able to do basic maintenance with the little funding spent on parks.51
A recently
passed millage and future plans for Madison Square Park are encouraging signs for the
future of parks in the neighborhood. However, it should be understood that the city will
focus work on rebuilding existing parks to a lost standard for the immediate future.52
Considering a general lack of resources, it is worthwhile to primarily focus
environmental improvement efforts outside the city government. Some organizations in
this area are advocating for better parks such as the Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. This
organization creates park improvement campaigns as well as educational events for the
community.
As the city and organizations are looking to improve parks in 49507 it is important that
these entities engage residents during planning periods. Prior to redeveloping the Marvin
Gaye Park in Washington, D.C., planners sought input from the residents about their
favorite part of a park and what their ideal park would look like.53
Practices like this are
greatly beneficial because a park’s value is created in either how it is used or how it is
perceived. It is very important to give residents a say in the process because they are the
people who will be ultimately giving the park value.
Regarding the lack of resources faced by the city for parks, business funding for park
initiatives has been successful elsewhere in the United States.54
In one example,
businesses would fund the development of a neighboring lot into a green space or park.
This business would get priority over park reservations, but would leave the park open to

44
City of Grand Rapids. Green Grand Rapids Master Plan. Grand Rapids.
<http://grcity.us/design-and-development-services> (assessed April 6, 2014).
45
Ibid, different page.
46
Kyle Barnhart. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis…,” 7-9.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Dana Eardley, et. al. “Green Space Initiative – 49507,” 5.
50
Matt Vande Bunte. “Hired Grand Rapids parks director backs out, says 103,000 pay is too low.”
MLive, May 9, 2014.
51
See note 42.
52
Ibid, 6.
53
Ibid, 7.

54

13
the public at other times.55
Other cities have adopted Pennies for Parks programs where a
small tax on residents is spent directly on parks.56
Between the high density of houses and population in 49507, several backyards and
vacant lots could serve as community garden locations adding green spaces to the
neighborhood. Community gardens would provide access to fresh, healthy produce in
49507 where access is otherwise limited. Therefore, it is recommended that organizations
within 49507 that are interested in engaging with community gardening form
partnerships with other organizations already working on these initiatives.
Two organizations that focus on gardening in 49507 are the Baxter Community Center
and Our Kitchen Table. The Baxter Community Center organizes the Baxter Community
Garden Initiative. This Initiative began with grant funding to provide fresh, affordable
produce and create programming geared towards nutrition education, environmental
awareness and community spirit. The center also holds events around different harvest
periods. Events involve canning and cooking classes along with the Strawberry Social
and Tomato Festival. Through a partnership with Grand Valley State University, the
garden is able to enhance its impact on the community.57
Our Kitchen Table provides
education around community gardening and also provides an urban foraging program that
shows residents what parts of a plant they can and can’t eat within their local parks.
Baxter Community Center and Our Kitchen Table serve as experienced resources with
members passionate about gardening and willing to share this passion with others in the
community.
Although parks provide great benefit to a community, when a park becomes too large it
can become more of a problem than a benefit – meaning that the marginal cost outweighs
the marginal benefit per square foot.58
This mostly occurs when the park becomes too
difficult to police, thus becoming a safety concern.59
The park space must also be
maintained. If a park goes unattended, the unattractive land does not positively add to the
appeal of the neighborhood. Parks follow the Broken Window Theory.60
As a broken
window goes unfixed, the window symbolizes a neighborhood that tolerates blight and
has little concern. Therefore, when properly kept, a park provides benefits to residents
and adds value to a neighborhood.

55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
58
See note 42.
59
See note 42.

60

14
Housing
Finding 1:
Rental houses sell at values on average
$5,650 less than their non-rental
counterparts
Recommendation 1:
Partner with existing institutions that focus
on low-income housing developments to
provide safe rental houses that are built to a
standard and do not decrease housing
values
Finding 2:
Landlords often cannot sustain the input
costs of improving rental properties,
causing the cost of rent to increase to
compensate landlords quickly
Recommendation 2:
Re-evaluate current Rental Certification
requirements and reduce required financial
contribution by landlords through area
organizations’ involvement
Finding 3:
Non-foreclosed and non-distressed houses
on blocks with foreclosure rates above 3%
see an average reduction in value of $2,700
Recommendation 3:
Provide residents with easily available
information about the foreclosure process
and how to work with their financial
institutions through communication forums
Housing values are tied very closely to the value of a neighborhood or zip code.61
To
raise the value of 49507, it is beneficial to address factors decreasing average housing
sale prices. Though several variables determine the value of a house in 49507, there is a
difference in value between rental homes and owner-occupied homes. Investigating
which variables contribute to the difference between rental values and non-rental values
(seen in finding 1) makes addressing this gap in sale price easier. Rental houses in 49507
are not maintained to the extent that owner-occupied homes are, due to the lack of
incentives.62
The current shortage of available rental housing63
diminishes the incentive
for landlords to maintain their rental units. Renters do not possess an incentive to
maintain their rental units since they receive no net benefit for incurring the costs
associated with maintenance.64
This lack of incentives causes rental housing to be less
valuable than owner-occupied housing. This is relevant to 49507, as the rental-to-owner-
occupied ratio is 3:2.65
A potential source for eliminating the difference in value between
rental homes and owner-occupied homes is by providing rental housing and rental unit
maintenance programs funded by organizations.

61
Alexandra Schurkamp, et. al. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental Certification Program in
Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University.
62
J. Harding, et. al. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their Housing Than Renters.?” Real Estate
Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000.
63
Target Market Report
64
J. Harding, et. al. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their Housing Than Renters.?” Real Estate
Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000.
65
United States Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.

15
LINC Community Revitalization Inc. has begun constructing low-income housing in the
49507 area.66
The expansion of their programs should help diminish some of the value
differences between rental and non-rental housing by not placing the economic or
statutory maintenance on landlords or renters. 67
LINC’s housing units are
organizationally owned, thus organizationally maintained.
Healthy Homes is an organization that provides funds and services to address lead paint
and other environmental and health contaminants in rental units.68
Homeowners are
incentivized by personal health and safety concerns to maintain their homes in this
respect. However, landlords do not occupy their own units, and are therefore are less
concerned with its contaminant status. Renters, committed only for the short term, are
unwilling to financially contribute to improvement of the housing. 69
By funding
necessary improvements and ensuring they are completed, Healthy Homes helps alleviate
some of the unaddressed safety and environmental concerns dragging down rental
housing values. Addressing the lack of incentives in both maintenance and safety
standards, organizational partnerships could diminish the price gap between owner-
occupied and rental housing in 49507, thus raising overall housing values.
The City of Grand Rapids started a Rental Certification program in 2010 attempting to
address the lack of incentives by requiring landlords to incur the costs of improvements
in their rental units.70
The current Rental Certification system in Grand Rapids is intended
to raise the housing values of rental properties; however, there is no statistically
significant increase in the sale price of a rental property as a result of the certification
program. 71
Home values are increasing as a result of the program due to the
improvements, but because landlords cannot cover the costs of improvement, they pass
these costs onto renters through increased rates.72
The data shows that rental costs are
increasing as a result of the certification requirements, which a neighborhood with a per
capita income level such as that of 49507 cannot sustain. Increase in rent can impact
neighborhoods in several different ways (i.e. increases in squatting, foreclosure, vacancy,
blight, etc.).73
While the program is well founded in the structure of creating uniform
requirements for rental housing quality, it could better help raise housing values if the

66
Landon Hugheset. al. "Project 49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of

67
Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014.
68
Landon Hughes, Carolyn Sandvig, Christopher Davenport, and Casey Overway. "Project
49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views of Assets.”
2014.

69
Alexandra Schurkamp, and Matthew Churay. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental
Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University.
70
Grand Rapids, City of. "Rental Certification." Code Compliance Division.
71
Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State University. 2014.
72
Ibid.

73
R. M. Rogers, et. al. “Consumer prices: Examining housing rental components”. Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 78(3), 1993: 32-46.

16
financial burden was removed from landlords. This Rental Certification program holds
significant potential for success if a party other than the landlords and/or renters funded it.
Bringing down the overall housing values of a neighborhood, foreclosures and distressed
homes have a negative effect. On blocks with a foreclosure rate above 3%, houses see an
average decrease in value of $2,700. Zip code 49507, disproportionally affected by the
housing crisis of 2008, had a vacancy rate of 20% and a foreclosure rate was 4% in
2013.74
Helping residents find resources about foreclosure is a major key to alleviating
the foreclosure burden on a neighborhood. Promoting existing foreclosure relief efforts in
Grand Rapids, as well as promoting their use by citizens can aid in disseminating
information pertaining to foreclosure. Making information regarding foreclosure relief
and the foreclosure process readily available to residents can help prevent foreclosure by
educating them on what they can do to mediate their financial situation.75
The Fair
Housing Center of the City of Cleveland has a system where a bulletin board is produced
and updated with different loan rates across banks and financial rehabilitation service
information.76
This method of communication could be utilized by an organization in
49507 to help inform residents. Communication forums such as pamphlets and
community speakers can also be explored as channels for information dissemination.
Educating citizens about the foreclosure process and financial health holds the possibility
to reduce the foreclosure rate, thereby increasing housing and neighborhood values.
Addressing variables that pull down housing values in a neighborhood requires a multi-
tiered course of action. The lack of incentives for both landlords and renters to maintain
properties as well as update safety and environment concerns could be mediated by
organizational involvement. The value decline as a result of foreclosures could be
mediated through the financial education of citizens.

74
75
Rolando Bocanegro, et. al. "Neighborhood Stability." Grand Valley State University.
76
Ibid.

17
Transportation
Finding 1:
Observed many potholes, bent signs,
narrow streets and trash77
Recommendation 1:
Conduct a professional evaluation of project
area streets to accurately assess condition
and greatest need for improvement
Recommendation 2:
Monitor downtown expansion after the
Silverline finishes for possible
gentrification of the 49507 neighborhood
Sidewalks and roads in 49507 need repairs. A group of public administration students
who completed a transportation audit of the entire 49507 zip code described the area’s
roads as being very narrow and full of potholes.78
Cars parked on both sides of the streets
left room for only one car to pass through, several street signs were bent or in bad
condition, and trash lined the sidewalks.79
To properly assess the condition and greatest
need facing transportation in this area, a professional evaluation of roads and sidewalks is
recommended to inform future improvement plans.
The City of Grand Rapids’ budget has capacity for street improvement until 2030. The
recent May 6th
vote to raise income tax will provide roughly 8 million additional dollars
for streets. Spending will be prioritized along the findings of an asset map around the
city, but it is said 49507 will see work done as well.80
Grand Rapids will be experiencing an improvement in transportation with the BRT
Silverline project. The Silverline will have stops at Hall Street, Cottage Grove Street,
and Burton Street along Division Avenue.81
The additional route will be more efficient
in connecting the surrounding Grand Rapids area with downtown and vice versa,
providing greater access to parts of Grand Rapids and to economic opportunities.
However, a number of community organizations are cautiously optimistic about the
project.82
It is difficult to gather resident opinion, but some fear future gentrification of
the 49507 area. The neighborhood is geographically close to the downtown, which some
see as an asset, but others see as a concern because of the large developments that are
creeping south of downtown along Division Avenue.83
Monitoring the expansion of the
Silverline and its effect on the surrounding communities is recommended.

77
Tyler Bryan, et. al. “Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood,” 7-8.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Tyler Bryan, et. al. “Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood,”9.
81
Ibid, 10.
82
Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014:19.
83
Ibid.

18
Non-Profit Outreach, Community Assets, and Perception
When non-profits were asked about the biggest assets they believe existed in the
community, six out of the seven organizations answered “the people” as the number one
asset. 84
These organizations describe the people as an asset because they hold
“community knowledge” that is valuable to shaping the work that non-profits do. The
organizations also viewed the residents as an asset because they are a closely-knit diverse
community. They value solidarity and diversity because it makes this neighborhood
unique to others. Since the 49507 neighborhood is unique, it holds different potential than
more homogenous neighborhoods – particularly cultural potential and the ability to hold
cultural community events.
Although organizations identify residents as a valuable asset, when asked about the
problems that this neighborhood is facing, the one theme that appeared in almost every
interview was that the community voice was not being represented in organizations
because the non-profits are finding it hard to outreach effectively in this community.85
This is quite telling because if the people are considered the most valuable asset in the

84
85
Ibid.

Finding 1:
Non-profit organizations describe
residents as the community’s number one
asset but cannot find ways to effectively
outreach to these individuals and include
their voice in organizational decision
making
Recommendation 1:
Support organizational and community
efforts to include resident voices in
discussions around development and
programming by eliminating barriers and
encouraging intentional outreach practices
Finding 2:
Organizations identified the following as
assets: residents, vibrant business
community, entrepreneurial spirit,
affordable homes, community gardens,
schools, churches, non-profits, diversity,
close-knit community, community
knowledge, and foundation funding
Recommendation 2:
Encourage the construction of an asset
map that physically maps assets within
this community to provide non-profits,
legislators, and community members with
information about the potential that exists
within this community
Finding 3:
Children’s perception of their
neighborhood is closely tied to how the
homes are displayed physically
Recommendation 3:
Continue home renovation and
beautification efforts within this
community

19
community, but the organizations are finding it hard tapping into this potential, the
community is suffering because organizations are not utilizing its best resource.
Organizations went on to identify factors to consider when creating outreach initiatives
which include: reaching individuals at the right time of day, using an effective method of
communication, engaging at locations that are accessible, and providing incentives to
residents to participate in feedback.86
Engaging in intentional outreach practices can help
reach this community’s biggest asset and better inform the work of non-profits.
Although the community voice is very important in community revitalization efforts, the
reality is that individuals who live outside of this neighborhood run most of the non-
profits working in this community. This does not mean that these individuals don’t have
an important role to play. “Outsiders” can play the role of a catalyst, allowing the
community to see itself clearly; to act as a connector; to facilitate trust, provide positive
motivation for change, and to leverage outside resources. 87
We recommend fostering
stronger networks between organizations and residents by supporting organizational and
community efforts to include resident voices in discussions around development and
programming. By establishing better connections between neighborhood catalysts and the
community’s biggest asset, the potential for problem solving in this area is vast.
To further provide useful tools to organizations and individuals in this community we
also recommend encouraging the construction of an asset map. An asset map is a
documentation “of the talents, capabilities, and interests of the residents and
organizations within the community.”88
An asset map is created by conducting interviews,
surveys, and focus groups within the community, and the resulting information becomes
a resource for the community and organizations. Asset maps allow for better networking
and communication between organizations and individuals, contributing to the
effectiveness of future and existing efforts.89
Lastly, a group of sociology students conducted research with children in the Boys and
Girls Club and found that the negative perception of the neighborhood by children was
tied to the housing stock, not so much the individuals that lived in the community. 90
By
continuing efforts to beautify the homes in this neighborhood, perhaps a better perception
of the neighborhood will follow. However, this is not the only factor that contributes to
the perception of this neighborhood. Some organizational representatives recognize

86
Ibid.
87
Terry Bergdall. "Reflections on the Catalytic Role of an Outsider." Asset Based Community
Development . (accessed April 15, 2014).
88
Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014: 9.
89
J.P. Robinson. "Asset mapping: A Tool for Building Capacity in Communities." Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences 95: 52-53.
90
Krzysztof Lower. “Filling the Gaps”. 2014: 8-9.

20
racism as contributing to the many problems that this community is facing.91
By simply
fixing the outside of the home, we may not get to the root of the perception problem.
In figure 1 below you can see other assets mentioned by non-profit representatives sorted
by attributes associated with either residents or organizations.
Figure 1: Perceived Assets
For more information regarding asset-based community development visit
www.abcdinstitute.org.

91
Organizations’ Views of Assets.” 2014: 21.

21
Appendix I: Bibliography
Atwood, Chad, Abu Kamara, Alex Trinh, Troy Williams, and Jennifer Saksa. "Safety
Concerns in the 49507 Area Code of Grand Rapids, MI." Grand Valley State
University. 2014.
Barnhart, Kyle. “A Comprehensive Park Equity Analysis of Grand Rapids, Michigan.”
2013.
Bergdall, Terry. "Reflections on the Catalytic Role of an Outsider." Asset Based
Community Development . (accessed April 15, 2014).
Bocanegra, Rolando , Andrew Otten, Matt Waldon, Ted Woodcock, and Diana Zhang.
"Neighborhood Stability ." 2014.
Brown, Lisa, Tobias Hutchens, Madison Murphy, Laura Santos, and Neal Spann. “An
Overview of the Educational Institutions within the 49507 Grand Rapids, MI
Community and Elsewhere”. 2014.
Bryan, Tyler, Mitchell Corona, Timothy Creighton, Juan Pena, and Mitchell Wensman.
“Transportation: In 49507 Neighborhood.” 2014.
City-Data . On Board Informatics. city-data.org
“Community Profile 2.0,” Community Research Institute, Accessed April 10, 2014,
http://weave.cridata.org/communityprofiles/.
Community Research Institute. Johnson Center at Grand Valley State University.
cridata.org
Coutchie, Kayla, Fabian Haywood, and Chantall Ash. "Local Festivities and Events in
the 49507 Area Code." Grand Valley State University.
Eardley, Dana, Sara Ghannam, Krystal McCain, Jacob Schacht, and Brianne Sochocki.
“Green Space Initiative – 49507.” 2014.
Faber, Steve. “Friends of Grand Rapids Parks.” Lecture, Grand Valley State University,
Allendale, MI, 11 Feb. 2014.
Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. Accessed April 14, 2014,
http://www.friendsofgrparks.org/
Galica, Greg, and Alex Veen. "Effect of Quality Food on Housing Prices in 49507."
Grand Valley State University. 2014.
Grand Rapids, City of. Park and Recreation 2010 Master Plan. Grand Rapids: Parks and
Recreation Department. http://grcity.us/public-services/Parks-Recreation-
Forestry/Documents/ (accessed March 30, 2014).
Grand Rapids, City of. "Rental Certification." Code Compliance Division.
Group, Omega. crimemapping.com. 2008.
Harding, J., Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F. “Do Owners Take Better Care of Their
Housing Than Renters?” Real Estate Economics, 28(4), 663-681. 2000.
Harris, Officer Mike. Interview.
Haynes, Nancy. “Fair Housing Center of West Michigan: Program Overview
Neighborhood Investment Initiative,” Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.
2013.
Hughes, Landon, Carolyn Sandvig, Christopher Davenport, and Casey Overway. "Project
49507! Neighborhood Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis of Organizations’ Views
of Assets.” 2014.
Isely, Paul. Grand Valley State University. 2014.

22
Linden, Leigh, and Jonah E. Rockoff. "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on
Property Values from Megan’s Laws."American Economic Review 98, 3:1103-27.
2008.
Lower, Krzysztof. “Filling the Gaps”. 2014.
Meltzer, R. Schuetz. “Bodegas or Bagel Shops?” Neighborhood differences in retail and
household services. Economic Development Quarterly. 26(1), 73-94. 2012.
MLive Neighborhood Report.
Robinson, J.P. "Asset mapping: A Tool for Building Capacity in Communities." Journal
of Family and Consumer Sciences 95: 52-53.
Rogers, R. M., Henderson, S. W., & Ginsburg, D. H. “Consumer prices: Examining
housing rental components.” Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review,
78(3), 32-46. 1993.
Schurkamp, Alexandra, and Matthew Churay. "Impact on Housing Sale Price of Rental
Certification Program in Grand Rapids, MI 49507." Grand Valley State
University. 2014.
Target Market Report
Vande Bunte, Matt. “Hired Grand Rapids parks director backs out, says 103,000 pay is
too low.” MLive, May 9, 2014.
Van Duijn, M. Rouwendal. “Analysis of household location behavior, local amenities and
house prices in a sorting framework”. Journal of Property Research, 29(4), 280-
297. 2012.

23
Appendix II: Data of Interest
General Data

Date Year Category Value
2010 % White 12.10%
2010 % Black or African American 55.00%
2010 % Hispanic or Latino 28.80%
2010
% Population under 5 years
old
10.30%
2010
% Population 18 years and
over
65.50%
2010 % Population 5 to 17 years old 24.10%
2010
% Population 18 to 19 years
old
5.80%
2010
old
9.10%
2010
old
13.60%
2010
old
11.70%
2010
old
19.00%
2010
% Population over 64 years
old
6.30%
2010
% Population under 18 years
old
34.50%
2010 % Population 8 to 16 years old 15.70%
2010
Total nonfamily male
householder households with
one or more people under 18
years old
7
2010
Total nonfamily female
householder households with
one or more people under 18
years old
3
2010
Total households occupied by
one or more people over 60
years old
440
*sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF1).

24
2000 % Below Poverty22
31.20%
2000
% of Number in
Poverty Under 5 years
old22
11.50%
2000
% of Number in
Poverty 5 to 17 years
old22
28.70%
2000
% of Number in
old22
56.50%
2000
% of Number in
old22
2.30%
2000
% of Number in
Poverty 75 and older22 1.00%
*sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF3 P87.
*sourced from City Data.

25
Snapshot of Population 15 Years and Over in 49507
Never married: 44.2%
Now married: 38.6%
Separated: 2.8%
Widowed: 4.2%
Divorced: 10.3%
Household received Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months
4,574
Household did not receive Food Stamps/SNAP in the past 12 months
7,855
Women who had a birth in the past 12 months
692 (270 now married, 422 unmarried)
Women who did not have a birth in the past 12 months
9,842 (3,393 now married, 6,449 unmarried)

26
Residents with income below the poverty level in 2011
This zip code:33.5%
Whole state: 17.5%
Residents with income below 50% of the poverty level in 2011
This zip code:18.7%
Whole state: 9.5%
Per Capita Personal Income, 2012
*sourced from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Per Capita Income as a Percent of the United States

27
2011-2012 % Change
Category
Grand
Rapids U.S.
Net Earnings 5.6 4.3
Dividends, Interest, & Rent 5.2 5.5
Personal Current Transfer Receipts 2.1 2.2
2011-2012 Compound Annual Growth Rate
Category
Grand
Rapids U.S.
Net Earnings 2.2 3.6
Dividends, Interest, & Rent 4 4.5
Personal Current Transfer Receipts 6.8 6.3
Education Data

2010
% No High School
Diploma
41.50%
2010
% High School Diploma
or GED Equivalent Only
47.20%
2010
% Associates as Highest
Degree
4.80%
2010
% Bachelors as Highest
Degree
4.00%
2010
% Graduate or
Professional as Highest
Degree
2.60%
2010 % Civilians Employed 77.10%
2010 % Civilians Unemployed 22.90%

*sourced
from
ESRI
2010
Estimates.

28
Snapshot of population 25 years and over in 49507
High school or higher: 72.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher: 18.1%
Graduate or professional degree: 6.7%
Unemployed: 17.7%
Mean travel time to work (commute): 19.7 minutes

Private vs. Public School Enrollment
Students in private schools in grades 1 to 8 (elementary and middle school): 893
49507: 16.3%
Michigan: 10.5%
Students in private schools in grades 9 to 12 (high school): 377
49507: 14.5%
Michigan: 8.6%
Students in private undergraduate colleges: 450
49507: 22.8%
Michigan: 15.5%

29
Housing Data
Date
Year Category Value
2010 Homeownership Rate 54.8
2010
Occupied Housing
Units
1,748
2010
% Occupied Housing
Units
82.20%
2010
% Vacant Housing
Units
17.80%
2010
% Owner Occupied
Housing Units
45.10%
2010
% Renter Occupied
Units
37.20%
2010
Average Household
Size
232
*sourced from the Community Research Institute.

30
Date
Year Column1 Value Average Lowest Highest
2010 Total Housing Units11
80,619 3,638 47 349,170
2013 Total Residential Properties80
51,737 51,737 51,737 51,737
2010
Housing Density (per sq
mile)11
1,815.90 621.8 25.1 4,168.00
2010 % Occupied Housing Units11
89.50% 83.00% 3.20% 97.50%
2010 % Vacant Housing Units11
10.50% 17.00% 2.50% 96.80%
2010
% Owner Occupied Housing
Units11
50.10% 59.10% 2.80% 92.80%
2010 % Renter Occupied Units11
39.40% 23.90% 0.00% 62.20%
2012
Total Number of Housing
Sales80
3,651 3,651 3,651 3,651
2012 Housing Sales Rate per 10080
7.04 7.04 7.04 7.04
2012 Average Sale Price80
111,341.28 111,341.28 111,341.28 111,341.28
2012
Average Closest Park in
miles82
0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

31
2012
Average Acres of Park
Access82
4.28 4.28 4.28 4.28
2013 Number of Blight81
388 388 388 388
2013 Blight Rate per 10081
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
2013 Number of Nuisances81
19 19 19 19
2013 Nuisances per 10081
9,897.00 9,897.00 9,897.00 9,897.00
2012
% Owners Spending Over
30% Income on Housing2
21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98
2012
% Renters Spending Over
30% Income on Housing2
55.42% 55.42% 55.42% 55.42%
2013 Average Year Built80
1,933 1,933 1,933 1,933
2012 % Homes Built before 197880
92.12% 92.12% 92.12% 92.12%
2012
Number of Primary
Residential Exemptions81
36,437 36,437 36,437 36,437
2012
% Primary Residential
Exemption81
70.58% 70.58% 70.58% 70.58%
2011 Number of Foreclosures80
1,012 1,012 1,012 1,012
2011 Foreclosures per 10080
2 2 2 2
2013 Number of Building Permits81
1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400
2012
Residential Building Permits
per 10081
2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65
*sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (denoted by 2), U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1
(SF1) (denoted by 11), Kent County, Bureau of Equilization (denoted by 80), City of Grand Rapids, Community Development
Department, Code Compliance Office (denoted by 81), and Community Research Institute GIS (denoted by 82).
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Number
of
Units
Built

Year
Built

Housing
Construction

49507

Michigan

32
Year House Built 49507 Michigan
2005 and later 258 522
2000-2004 154 993
1990-1999 607 1803
1980-1989 353 1395
1970-1979 656 2148
1960-1969 622 1713
1950-1959 2659 2199
1940-1949 2730 1145
1939 and earlier 6008 2130
Bedrooms in Owner-Occupied
Houses/Apartments
Number of Observations in
49507
0 0
1 50
2 1515
3 4339
4 1246
5 + 320
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0
1
2
3
4
5
+

Number
of
Observations

Number
of
Bedrooms

Bedrooms
in
Owner-Occupied

Units
in
49507

33
Bedrooms in Renter-Occupied
Houses/Apartments
Number of Observations in
49507
0 30
1 780
2 1714
3 1701
4 533
5 + 201
Houses and condos: 14,047
Renter-occupied apartments: 4,959
Mar. 2012 cost of living index in zip code 49507
87.1
(less than average, U.S. average is 100)
Land area: 5.5 sq. mi.
Water area: 0.0 sq. mi.
Average Real estate property taxes paid for housing units in 2011
49507: 1.4% ($1,352)
Michigan: 1.8% ($2,181)
0

500

1000

1500

2000

0
1
2
3
4
5
+

Number
of
Observations

Number
of
Bedrooms

Bedrooms
in
Rental-Occupied

Units
in
49507

34
Median real estate property taxes paid for housing units with mortgages in 2011
$1,412 (1.4%)
Median real estate property taxes paid for housing units with no mortgage in
2011: $1,156 (1.4%)
Median gross rent in 2011: $831.
Estimated median house/condo value in 2011
$96,100
49507: $96,100
Michigan: $118,100
Average household size
Median number of rooms in houses and condos
49507: 6.6
Michigan: 6.4
57% of the 49507 residents lived in the same house 5 years ago
Out of people who lived in different houses, 74% lived in Kent County
Out of people who lived in different counties, 50% lived in Michigan
83% of the 49507 zip code residents lived in the same house 1 year ago
Out of people who lived in different houses, 86% moved from this county
Out of people who lived in different houses, 10% moved from different county within
same state
Out of people who lived in different houses, 3% moved from different state.
49507: 3.0 people
Michigan: 2.6 people

35
Estimated median house (or condo) value in 2011 for
White Non-Hispanic householders: $113,779
Asian householders: $98,373
Two or more races householders: $87,639
Black or African American householders: $83,219
American Indian or Alaska Native householders: $74,253
Some other race householders: $70,591
Hispanic or Latino householders: $70,338
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander householders: $56,826
Type of Heating Fuel Percent Usage
Utility Gas 94%
Electric 4%
Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas 1%

36
Transportation
Data

Means of transportation to work
• Drove a car alone: 10,599 (75%)
• Carpooled: 2,056 (15%)
• Bus or trolley bus: 576 (4%)
• Taxi: 61 (0%)
• Motorcycle: 11 (0%)
• Bicycle: 66 (0%)
• Walked: 188 (1%)
• Other means: 36 (0%)
• Worked at home: 580 (4%)
Travel time to work (commute)
• Less than 5 minutes: 510
• 5 to 9 minutes: 1,345
• 10 to 14 minutes: 2,099
• 15 to 19 minutes: 3,275
• 20 to 24 minutes: 2,717
• 25 to 29 minutes: 1,158
• 30 to 34 minutes: 1,141
• 35 to 39 minutes: 217
• 40 to 44 minutes: 207
• 45 to 59 minutes: 419
• 60 to 89 minutes: 309
• 90 or more minutes: 196

GVSU 49507 Report 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to GVSU 49507 Report 2014

Similar to GVSU 49507 Report 2014 (20)

GVSU 49507 Report 2014