Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

A Report on the Pine Street Community’s
Role in the History of Cambridge,
How the neighborhood thinks about itself,
And its importance to the success of this
Eastern Shore city.
A Neighborhood
in Transition

3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 4
Foreword by Mayor Stanley 5
Preface 7
Historical and Cultural Resources 9
Historical Structures and Sites 17
The 19th Century 19
Survey Results
Executive Summary 21
Profile of Respondents 25
Housing 31
Public Services
Public Safety 33
Public Works 35
Other Services 39
Community Services 41
Civic Involvement 47
The Local Market 49
Understanding History 57
Taking Action 59
Conclusions 60
This report has been financed in part with State Funds from the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority and the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area.
Additional support was provided by the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223, and Cambridge Main Street.

4
Acknowledgements
This report has been financed in part with State Funds from the Maryland
Heritage Areas Authority and the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage
Area.
Additional support was provided by the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223, and
Cambridge Main Street.
Narrative by Bill Thompson
Contemporary Photos by Lee Weldon
Survey Analysis by John Seward
Layout contributed by WildCard Graphics, Cambridge.
Thanks to:
The Mayor and Commissioners of Cambridge
The Heart of Chesapeake Heritage Area Board
Waugh United Methodist Church
Bethel AME Church
Mount Olive Baptist Church
Dorchester Elks Lodge 223
The Pine Street Committee and the Empowerment Center
Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge
Concerned Brothers United
Cambridge Main Street
The Maple Street Project
The Cambridge Department of Public Works
The Cambridge Planning and Zoning Department
The Cambridge Police Department
Special Thanks to the many volunteers who interviewed the many
participants in our survey.

5
Foreword
Mayor Victoria Jackson-Stanley
Over four months in 2008, dozens of volun-
teers have interviewed over one hundred of
residents of the Pine Street community, in-
cluding residents of Pine Street, High Street
(from Gay to Washington Streets) and all the
neighborhoods in between.
The goal was to take the pulse of the community, and gain a deeper
understanding of what the residents there feel are their most press-
ing needs. The city will work with them to develop a plan and locate
the necessary resources to meet those needs.
The neighborhoods along and around Pine Street have a very rich
history, a testament to the strength of Cambridge’s African American
community.
Historically, Pine Street was a cultural center of our community, and
it remains an iconic place both on a local and national level. How-
ever, decades of neglect and disinvestment have left the area as a
mere shadow of its former self, even as other neighborhoods of
Cambridge have redefined themselves and prospered.
It is my hope that this important survey will signal a new beginning
for the Pine Street area. This document will be the foundation for
numerous grant requests, business plans, and public policy decisions
that will help restore the fabric, the economic base, and the dignity
of this crucial part of our city.

7
Preface
In 2006, the Neighborhood Group for a Better Cam-
bridge was formed in the wake of a meeting of civic
leaders and stakeholders hoping to spark the revi-
talization of the city’s Pine Street community. This
community is an historical treasure of the first order
here in Dorchester County, something this document
will set out in some detail.
In early 2007, the Neighborhood Group won a mini-
grant from the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heri-
tage Area to initiate a community discussion aimed
at building consensus and establishing priorities for
the community. Key support for that project came
from the Dorchester Elks Lodge #223 and Cam-
bridge Main Street’s Maple Street committee. We are
also grateful as well for a wealth of input and advice
from civic leaders and, especially, residents of this
historic community.
This document summarizes the results of that mini-
grant project, which encompassed three main parts:
• Develop a preliminary inventory of the Pine Street
community’s historical and cultural
assets.
• Develop a database of the physical
conditions (housing stock, sidewalks,
etc.) and ownership status of a key
section of the community, the “Maple
Street” project area.
• Develop a community-needs survey
and begin administering it to residents
and civic leaders to get a sense for
their feelings about and priorities for
the future of the community.
Last but not least: Several hundred
hours of volunteer effort went into this
project. We hope that this document
serves to help set the stage to move
this historic and vital community for-
ward in ways that make sure that
generous community service turns out
to be time well spent.
Bill Jarmon
Neighborhood Group for a
Better Cambridge

9
Historical and Cultural
Resources
For more than half of the 20th century, the city of
Cambridge supported two bustling downtowns, two
hearts beating in the same body, pumping the life-
blood of commerce and culture through two distinct
communities.
One downtown was and remains today centered along
Race Street, a traditional “Main Street” business corri-
dor once so busy with foot and motor traffic that,
more than any other place on the Eastern Shore, it
resembled the commercial districts found in bigger cit-
ies such as Baltimore and Philadelphia.
The other downtown, a mix of shops, churches, and
houses defined by Pine Street, was only a block away
and ran parallel to Race Street. It was just as vibrant
as Race Street and, in many cases, livelier.
Race Street was predominantly white. Pine Street was
a longstanding African-American community, with its
first black residents moving to that part of Cambridge
in the early 1800s. And while even today it is not un-
usual in cities large and small, North and South, to
have areas demarcated by race and ethnicity, Cam-
bridge’s black downtown was shaped by outside forces
in the early 20th
Century when Jim
Crow laws, enacted locally and by
the state, mandated segregation
in many public facilities.
The Pine Street community is a
rich historical resource when it
comes to several key themes in
the story of African-American life
in the 20th
century.
Dancing at the Pine Street Elks Lodge,
Circa 1950

10
Entrepreneurship: Through the early 1960s, Pine
Street as a neighborhood and business center not only
endured the rule of Jim Crow, it thrived in many re-
spects. Partly because Cambridge was an industrial
town with modest-paying but dependable jobs and
partly because the close-knit African-American com-
munity valued hard work, education, and entrepreneu-
rial pursuits, the Pine Street area was a hub of activity
that rivaled many downtowns—black and white—
around the Delmarva Peninsula.
African-American culture: Pine Street’s successes
went well beyond everyday commerce. Because the
community embraced music, Pine Street became a
favorite stopover on the “chitlin’ circuit” for many of
the country’s best-known African-American musicians
spanning the ages of jazz, big band, blues, and soul.
Civil Rights: During the turbulent 1960s, Pine Street
thrust Cambridge before a worldwide audience when it
emerged as one of the most important battlegrounds
in the civil rights movement. Gloria Richardson, the
daughter of a Cambridge pharmacist, was but one of
the home-grown leaders who helped define the move-
ment’s goals, first for integration of public accommo-
dations and later for equal treatment in housing, em-
ployment, education, and health care.
Still, despite the important roles Pine Street played
locally in black culture and nationally in the
struggle for equal rights, its history re-
mains too little known and too often mis-
understood, even by many of the citizens
who today call Cambridge their home.
For Dorchester County African-Americans
over the age of 50, the expression “up Pine
Street” conjures memories of shopping and
socializing along the city blocks from Wash-
ington to High streets. Later generations
would call it going “up top” or “up the
groove,” but it always meant the same
thing—Pine Street was where the action
was.
“There were grocery stores, confectionary
stores, restaurants, beauty salons, barber
shops, pool halls, funeral homes, a drug
store, an opera house, night clubs, antique shops,
cleaners,” wrote Pine Street native David “Nicky”
Henry, who has compiled and published two important
volumes in the Up Pine Street series about the com-
munity. “Tailors, seamstresses, boarding houses, shoe

11
repair shops, and a vault-making business.”
This workday bustle with its entrepreneurial energy
wasn’t the only factor making Pine Street a key center
of African-American life and culture on the Eastern
Shore. Churches, too, played a central role on Pine
Street—and had since they were first established in
the community during slavery times, in the mid-
1800s.
This community was a center of the arts as well, espe-
cially African-American music.
For much of the 20th
century, nightlife was centered
on the 600 block, home to clubs and fraternal organi-
zations that booked Billy Eckstein, Count Basie, Ray
Charles, Ella Fitzgerald, and many other legendary
performers. As rock and roll grew popular, black head-
liner acts featuring Lloyd Price, Fats Domino, Little
Richard, and James Brown added Pine Street to their
itineraries.
Pine Street not only welcomed black musicians into its
fold, it contributed several of its own talents. Edward
“Buster” Snead joined swing era jazz saxophonist and
bandleader Jimmie Lunceford on tours across the
United States. Cambridge singer Corinthian “Kripp”
Johnson joined the Del-Vikings and helped the doo-
wop group stay on the charts with songs like “Come
Go with Me” in the 1950s.
Mindful that the club entertainment was intended for
adult patrons, black parents in Cambridge declared
the 600 block off limits to
their children, who socialized
at their own “teen canteens.”
After they turned 18, black
teens were allowed to go “up
Pine Street.”
The Pine Street downtown
and its nearby residential
neighborhoods, so full of en-
ergy that it was nicknamed
“little New York,” fell upon
hard times in the 1950s with
the decline of local industry.
Many Cambridge blacks were
dependent upon Phillips Pack-
ing Company, one of the big-
gest tomato canning outfits in
the country, for jobs and, in
some cases, housing. When
the company was sold in
Swing Dancing in the 1940’s

12
1957, the economic ill effects contributed directly to
the decline of Pine Street and ultimately fed the devel-
opment of “The Cambridge Movement,” a nationally
significant chapter in the in the civil rights struggle.
It was here in the Pine Street community, and in dem-
onstrations on neighboring Race Street, that commu-
nity activists sought to expand the goals for the civil
rights movement from the public accommodations and
voting rights that dominated in the Deep South into
the areas of housing, jobs, and economic justice.
Under the charismatic and controversial leadership of
Richardson, the Cambridge Movement brought the at-
tention of the White House and the national media to
the Eastern Shore. In 1963, the National Guard was
ordered to restore order to the streets of Cambridge.
The Movement was instrumental in winning a commit-
ment to build more public housing in Cambridge, but
tensions in the community remained high as the dec-
ade wore on.
On the night of July 24, 1967, the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee chairman H. Rap Brown ap-
peared in Cambridge at the invitation of local black
leaders. He climbed atop a car that night and for an
hour exhorted blacks to be more aggressive in their
struggle for equality. Several hours later, a fire broke
out in the poorly kept Pine Street Elementary School,
but firefighters were kept away from the blaze by city
officials who feared for their safety after Brown’s
speech. The fire eventually spread across two square
blocks, reducing much of Pine Street’s famous down-
town to ashes.
The cause of the fire has
never been firmly estab-
lished. This single event,
however, in many ways
came to define Cambridge
and its Pine Street commu-
nity in the national media.
Sparked in part by a recently
published history of The
Cambridge Movement, Civil
War on Race Street, there
seems to be growing interest
in exploring the whole arc of
the civil rights story in Cam-
bridge.
In the years after the 1967
fire, a measure of social pro-
gress eventually came to
Cambridge, but the price
Gloria Richardson confronts National Guardsmen on Pine Street, 1963

13
was heavy. Many black business owners who suffered
property loss had no insurance and were unable to se-
cure bank loans to rebuild. Even before the conflagra-
tion of July 1967, black parents routinely encouraged
their children to study hard, go off to college, and
seek prosperity away from Cambridge and the Eastern
Shore. As the mini diaspora continued, blacks who re-
mained in Cambridge took advantage of their gains,
with some carrying their business over to the Race
Street area of downtown.
Four decades after the fire, the Pine Street community
remains an important center for African-American life
and culture in Cambridge. It’s home to influential reli-
gious institutions, such as Bethel AME, Waugh United
Methodist, and Mount Olive Baptist churches; it’s
home to vibrant fraternal organizations, most notably
the Dorchester Elks Lodge 223; and it’s home to civic
groups such as the Pine Street Committee, the
Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge, and
Brothers United, all of whom are working to revitalize
this historic community. In addition, the nonprofit
Cambridge Main Street recently won a small grant to
embark on revitalization efforts in the community
through a new state initiative called Maple Street.
Pine Street may no longer be the downtown
it once was, but it is no less important. His-
torically and culturally, it is a unique part of
the fabric of Cambridge and holds an essen-
tial and promising role in the city’s future.

15
While the city of Cambridge marks its official founding
date as 1684—only 76 years after the first European
explorers stepped ashore on what would become Dor-
chester County—the new town destined for high
ground overlooking Cambridge Creek and the Chop-
tank River was slow in taking shape.
By 1706, surveyors had laid out lots for a courthouse,
a market place, a church, and 100 smaller parcels of
land on the western side of Cambridge Creek along
two main boulevards designated as High Street and
Wood Street, later renamed Race Street. By 1799, a
plat showed that Cambridge accommodated its grow-
ing population by spreading west and south, adding,
among others, Church, Spring, Gay, Muir, Cedar, Lo-
cust, and School streets. The new Pine Street, angling
off High Street and running parallel to Race Street,
represented the city’s south-westernmost boundary.
And by 1853, High Street and Pine streets had been
connected to Washington Street, which served as the
base of the triangle-shaped neighborhood
that eventually would become part of an
election district many Cambridge citizens
still refer to as the “old Second Ward.”
Local historians have determined that free
blacks, probably drawn toward the county’s
center of commerce and industry, arrived in
the Pine Street area—out of sight of the
more prestigious white-occupied waterfront
manors—in the early 1800s. In the decade
immediately after the Civil War, the
neighborhood was filled with dozens of resi-
dences, businesses, and, most notably,
places of worship. Waugh United Methodist
Church, one of the oldest black churches in
the country, was named for an Eastern
Shore clergyman who served as a bishop of
the Methodist Episcopal Church. A church
has stood at its site on High Street since
1826.
Not far away on Pine Street stands the Be-
thel African-American Methodist Episcopal
Church, first built as a wood structure in
1870 and replaced by a brick building in
1879. Recently the double doors of the Be-
The 19th Century
1918 Sanborn Map

16
thel Church were meticulously hand-painted with a
faux wood grain. Both churches would play important
roles as meeting places and sanctuaries for civil-rights
activists during the turbulent 1960s.
Jenifer Institute, Cambridge’s first school for African-
American children, was built circa 1860 next to Waugh
Church. Cambridge Grammar School, attended by
blacks from grades one to eight, was erected in 1884
on Cross Street and School House Lane.
For black students in grades nine through eleven,
Cambridge Colored High School was opened on Pine
Street around 1920. Stanley Institute, the oldest one-
room community-owned schoolhouse in Dorchester
County, was moved from Church Creek to its current
location on Bayly and Church Creek roads in 1867.
Black Cambridge youths studied inside the yellow-
painted wood structure, a familiar landmark on the
way to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and Taylors
Island, as late as 1966.
Bethel AME Church

17
The Pine-Washington-High streets community was a
vibrant center of black enterprise and culture from the
1920s into the 1960s. Most of the buildings—houses,
barber shops, grocery stores, funeral homes, night-
clubs, and music halls—were black-owned and long-
time residents recall how neighbors looked after one
another and viewed their part of Cambridge with
pride.
The July 1967 fire claimed a number of Pine Street’s
most prominent buildings, including the Pine Street
Elementary School, Greene’s Savoy and Motel, the
Zion Baptist Church, the Elks Home, Jim Nichols’ Club
Jazz Central, the Midway Barber Shop, Jim White’s De-
mocratic Club, C&C Café, and Lockwood’s Cleaners.
In the decades following the fire, even more struc-
tures, mostly single-family homes, have been razed
because of their dilapidated state, leaving numerous
vacant lots throughout the neighborhoods. Citing un-
safe conditions, Cambridge officials have marked a
number of buildings for future demolition.
While Cambridge’s African-American population
achieved significant progress as a result of its localized
civil-rights movement, the
sad irony is that the “old Sec-
ond Ward” never fully recov-
ered from the physical, eco-
nomic, and emotional devas-
tation. The once-active busi-
ness core of the neighbor-
hood never returned. Build-
ings are in need of fix-ups
beyond mere cosmetics. Lit-
ter is often left by curbs and
in empty lots. Sidewalks are
in poor condition. And, ac-
cording to an inventory of
property records, nearly 70
percent of the living quarters
are occupied by renters. A
number of longtime residen-
tial homeowners, notably on
Pine and High streets, are
resolute in maintaining their
properties, although this
population is graying and of-
ten limited by fixed incomes.
Historical Structures and Sites
Corner of Pine and Muir Streets

18
Yet even in its current state of neglect, the architec-
tural importance of many structures shines through. It
takes little imagination to visualize that with proper
resources, civic commitment, and innovative private
investment that much of the charm and spirit of this
once bustling community could be recaptured.
Some of the best-kept properties are to be found in
the 400 and 500 blocks of Pine Street, the first sec-
tions to be built out as the city expanded in the early
20th
Century. No fewer than a dozen structures—wood
frame, detached single-family houses and duplexes—
date between 1900 and 1919. It is interesting to note
that here and farther down the street, few houses
were built from the same plans. The modern-day con-
cept of cookie-cutter development was not practiced
when these houses were built.
As part of this mini-grant project, Neighbors for a Bet-
ter Cambridge developed a comprehensive inventory
of physical conditions of several key blocks of this
community that encompass the “Maple Street project
area.” In June of 2008, through a grant application
submitted by Cambridge Main Street, Cambridge be-
came one of four municipalities in Maryland to win
small grants to pilot a proposed new program of resi-
dential revitalization near historic downtowns. This in-
ventory will provide key baseline data and photo-
graphs to gauge the success of that and other initia-
tives that aim to revitalize the Pine Street community.
This inventory covers a number of interesting struc-
tures. An example of an early boarding house probably
intended for seasonal workers or vacationers can be
found at 511 Pine Street. Currently a multi-family
structure, the building was erected in 1920. Still visi-
ble in the concrete walk leading to the
front door is the inscription “E.J.F. Lodg-
ing.”
Nearby, 518 Pine Street is a fine example
of a typical two-and-a-half story Cam-
bridge residence with an open front
porch, a concrete driveway, and several
rear additions. The structure, built in
1920, has been well maintained over the
years.
Presently unoccupied and in need of
some care, 518 Pine Street is nonethe-
less an eye-catching building because
many of its original components—wood
siding and a trademark Gothic-style win-
dow at attic level—remain intact.
518 Pine Street

19
The lively business and cultural center during the Pine Street
community’s heyday, the 600 block suffered the greatest
loss in the fire of 1967. Nothing remains of the Pine Street
Elementary School. A post-fire amphitheater built by the city
in an attempt to turn the property into a park is partly ob-
scured by a newer structure, the Pine Street Empowerment
Center operated by the Pine Street Committee, and a police
substation.
Across the street from the Empowerment Center is the re-
cently shuttered Club Platinum, a single-story brick building
with narrow windows that, under different names, was a
Pine Street nexus of entertainment and social events. Next
to the nightclub is the Dorchester Elks Lodge 233, still an
important gathering place and a proposed site for a wayside
marker commemorating the community’s extraordinary mu-
sical heritage.
Around the corner on Cedar Street stood the Chat ‘n’ Chew
restaurant, a longtime neighborhood eatery where even Na-
tional Guardsmen enjoyed home-cooked breakfasts during
their deployments in the 1960s. This building, too, was re-
cently demolished.
The Bethel A.M.E. Church at 623 Pine Street is by far the
most dominant structure in the neighborhood. Remodeled in
1903, today’s brick building features two towers, the larger
being three stories high. Bethel continues to serve the spiri-
tual needs of its congregation, although many members no
longer reside in this part of town.
Residential lots on both sides of the Pine and High street
corridors are notable for being narrow and deep. As the two
streets veer apart before connecting to Washington Street,
the lots become deeper. Many are dense with bushes and
shaded in summer by large trees. A giant weeping willow
growing in a vacant lot on the lower end of Pine Street, for
example, could easily be 100 years old.
For those with knowledge of
Cambridge’s history as the
one-time canning capital of
the Delmarva Peninsula, a
few strips of houses here
and there are reminders
that the tomato was king
and the empire belonged to
the Phillips Packing Com-
pany. Commonly referred to
as “company houses,”
groups of three and four
nearly identical residences
can be found in this part of
Cambridge, most notably onPhillips Packing Company housing along Washington Street

20
busy Washington Street. The structures are long and narrow
with small front porches and resemble the so-called shotgun
shacks of the deeper South. The buildings were erected to
provide housing for cannery workers, who paid rent to the
same company that employed them. Today, some of the
houses are owner-occupied while others are rentals.
The Waugh Church cemetery on High Street is the final rest-
ing place for some of the best know and oldest African-
American families in Cambridge. Although it appears that
among the numerous headstones there are plenty of
“vacancies” on the grounds, locals say the cemetery is full
because many families could not afford to mark the graves
of their loved ones.
On the corner of High and Muir streets, a short distance from
the juncture of High and Pine, is a grass-covered lot beside a
vacant wood-framed store with a rusty sign reading “Carter’s
Cash Market” still attached to the front. Gloria Richardson
(later Dandridge) lived with her family in the 1960s in a
handsome but modest house that stood upon the empty lot
until it was torn down. For neither neighborhood resident nor
student of American history, there is nothing at this site to
indicate its connection to one of the country’s most notable
civil-rights leaders.
Clearly, the Pine Street community is rich in historical and
cultural resources. While many people view this as a com-
munity with significant needs, it is important to recognize
that this is also a community with significant assets.
A key asset is this wealth of history, dating from the time of
Thomas Jefferson and continuing right up through the civil
rights movement and into the 21st
century. Even a brief re-
view of the stories the Pine Street community has to tell
shows it to be a place of local, regional, and national signifi-
cance.
It is also important to view these historical assets in a coun-
tywide and region-wide perspective. Both the federal and
state governments are developing plans to spend millions of
dollars developing African-American heritage tourism desti-
nations near Cambridge devoted to Harriet Tubman and the
Underground Railroad.
As a result of these efforts—and the work of county tourism
officials—Dorchester County is likely to gain popularity as a
destination for tourists and groups interested in the African-
American story. This trend presents Cambridge with an im-
portant opportunity to commemorate and celebrate the his-
tory of its Pine Street community in ways that help bring
these visitors into the downtown area and the core of the
community.

21
Survey Results
Executive Summary for Preliminary Results
From June to September 2008, Neighborhood Group for a Better Cam-
bridge and the Cambridge Maple Street Committee conducted a 54
question survey to 71 heads of households within the study area, see
Figure 1. The surveys were conducted in a variety of ways, including;
door-to-door, through friends and associates, and a free barbeque at
the neighborhood’s ELKS club. The results come close to reflecting
2000 census data, but those differences may be a result of the slight
changes in the neighborhood demographics over the past 8 years.
The following are some key observation from the survey results:
Profile of the respondents
The majority of respondents worked full-time inside Cambridge.
Residents responded that they enjoyed their neighborhood because of
being near family, friends, and good neighbors.
About half of the respondents have lived in the neighborhood for less
than 10 years.
A little over half of the respondents thought that the condition of the
community had gotten worse over the past five years.
Housing
Most respondents were satisfied with their present housing conditions,
but did not think that the overall neighborhood housing conditions
were very good. There was a strong call for improvements, and most
had not had any major improvements done to their current residence.
Public Services
Respondents were relatively satisfied with the quality of schools.
Concerning parks and open space, most respondents did not visit
them very often. Most of those that did were below sixty-fives years
old. Improvements suggested in the ‘neighborhood’ parks were eld-
erly and handicap access, cleaning them up, and general facility im-
provements.
The majority thought policing was good, but many respondents
thought they needed better ‘community’ policing. Also, more than half

22
indicated that they felt safe in the community. But, many re-
spondents stated that there was a need to address crime and
drug activity.
The overall cleanliness of the community was of concern. Com-
ments concerning solutions included; trash cans, cleaning up the
litter/trash, and in general a need for more pride in the
neighborhood.
The majority of respondents thought there should be improve-
ments in streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and overall drainage.
Most commented on the lack of drainage and that they streets
and sidewalks needed immediate repair.
Respondents indicated that they liked the quality of the bus sys-
tem for Cambridge. Most negative responses were concerning
the wait time. Most users were under sixty-five years old.
Library usage among the respondents was quite low, but the ser-
vice was seen as quality.
Other Community Services
Job training services are inadequate, difficult to use, and there a
few jobs locally to train for.
Churches were overwhelmingly seen as a positive force in the
neighborhood.
Fraternal and Community Groups were seen as an overwhelm-
ingly positive presence in the neighborhood.
Daycare services were indicated as being good, but unaffordable
to some low-income.
Respondent’s opinions concerning drug and alcohol programs
was evenly split. But overall, there were more comments noting
that the programs were there for people to use, with some ques-
tioning their effectiveness.
Senior citizen services were seen as good. More services, better
transportation to and from, and proximity of events were re-
spondent’s concerns.

23
Civic Involvement
Most respondents had not attended a City or County Council
meeting in the past year. Yet, most indicated that they
would attend one in the future.
Neighborhood Communications
Almost all of the respondents indicated that they would like
to receive a newsletter through the mail about events in the
neighborhood.
Location of Retail and Services Used
Most of these services used in the neighborhood are down-
town, with all but one being in Cambridge. The following is
where the largest portion of respondents attained there ser-
vices.
The most frequented stores/restaurants/services were Cen-
ter Market, followed by Webster’s, Doris Mae’s, Chicken Man,
and the Elks. Respondents indicated that they would most
like to see new clothing/shoe and grocery/food stores.
Few respondents indicated that an adult in the household
was attending school or taking other classes. There was a
concern about what exactly they would be training for, since
there are limited job opportunities in Cambridge.
Location Comments
Downtown
Medical/Dental, Prescription/Medication,
Childcare Services, Laundry, Hair Salon
(36%)
Route 50 Groceries, Restaurants
Cambridge Auto Repair, Hair Salon (38%)
Dorchester
Other
County
Clothing

24
History
Respondents were very familiar with the history of the
neighborhood, and were most interested in the civil rights
movement, slavery/underground, and historic churches.
Taking Action
Asked what they would do to make the neighborhood a better
place, respondent’s comments were diverse, such as: volun-
teering, helping to bring in more business/jobs, cleaning up
the neighborhood, abide by the law, and provide youth activi-
ties.
Survey Purpose
In early 2007, the Neighborhood Group for a Better Cambridge won
a mini-grant from the Heart of Chesapeake Country Heritage Area
to initiate a community discussion aimed at building consensus and
establishing priorities for the community. This survey was one of
three parts of a document that was to summarize the results of that
mini-grant project. This survey is intended to get a sense of resi-
dents’, property owners’, and community leaders’ feelings about the
neighborhood to help develop priorities for its future.
Survey Methods
From June to September 2008, Neighborhood Group for a Better
Cambridge and the Cambridge Maple Street Committee conducted a
54 question survey to 71 heads of households within the study
area, see Figure 1. According to the 2000 Census, there were 219
households in the study area, giving us 32% response rate. The
surveys were conducted in a variety of ways, including; door-to-
door, through friends and associates, and a free barbeque at the
neighborhood’s ELKS club. The results did not sufficiently match
those of the 2000 Census, but those differences may be a result of
gradual changes in the neighborhood demographics over the past 8
years.
Any survey has to be concerned with “non-responsive bias”. Non-
responsive bias refers to a situation in which people who responded
to the survey have opinions that are systematically different from
the opinions of those who were unable or reluctant to be inter-
viewed. We are concerned about this bias, and as a result we will
be continuing to collect data from neighborhood residents, with the
addition of two groups not represented in these preliminary results-
--landlords and governmental leaders. We feel these decision mak-
ers are key to understanding the community as a whole, and help-
ing to guide beneficial public policy.
In addition to numeric responses, additional written comments
compiled from the survey will be presented. As appropriate, se-
lected quotes will be used in some sections of this report to illus-
trate these comments.
The original survey instrument is available for review at
www.cambridgemainstreet.com.

25
Age
Respondents were asked to
provide their age. The larg-
est group of respondents
was ages 50 to 59, or 39%.
The ages indicated do not
completely reflect that of
the 2000 Census and may
be a product of changes
that have occurred over the
past 8 years, and perhaps
the effects of a ‘non-
responsive bias’.
Profile of Respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percentofsurvey
population
22
to
2425
to
2930
to
3435
to
3940
to
4445
to
4950
to
5455
to
5960
to
6162
to
6465
to
6667
to
69
70-7475
to
79
Years
Age of Respondents
(N=48)
Survey
2000 Census
Level of education
Respondents were
asked to provide their
level of education. Of
the 55 that responded
to this question, 45.5%
indicated that they had
completed high school,
45.5% some post high
school education. Only
9% had less than a
high school education.
1 2 2
25
7 7
3
7
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20
Years of Education
Highest Level of Education
(N=55)
Employment Status
Respondents were asked
to provide their employ-
ment status. 42% were
employed full-time, 8%
part-time, 8% both full-
time and part-time, and
20% were relying on tem-
porary employment.
27
5
7
5
7
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Full-time Part-time Disabled Full-time
w/Second
Job
Retired Temporarily
Type of Employment
Employment Status
(N=64)

26
Location of Employment
Respondents were asked
to give the location of their
employment. Of the 42
that responded to the
question, 24% work in the
neighborhood, 36% within
Cambridge, 19% in an-
other County, 9% and
12% outside Cambridge
but in the County.
10
15
8
4
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
#ofRespondents
In this
Neighborhood
Elsewhere in
city
Another County Downtown
Cambridge
Outside City in
County
Location of Employment
(N=42)
Types of Employment
Respondents were asked to describe the type of job they, or others held in the household. Re-
sponses in relation to work location are indicated in Table 1.
Location of Work Job Description
In this neighborhood Certified nurse, assistant/ secretary, Die-
tary aide/private health care, Forklift
driver, Security, Law Firm, Nursing, Pas-
toral, Manage pool room, Minister, Sales-
man, Cashier, Teacher, Teacher’s aide
Elsewhere in Cambridge Cook, Correctional Officer, Group home coun-
selor, Community coordinator, Housekeeping/
Turn down services, Laborer, Manufacturing,
Security officer, Business owner, Daycare
teacher, Substitute middle-school teacher,
waitress, Retail stocker
Another County Manager, Graphics, Cleaning and Bakery
Downtown Cambridge Hairstylist
Outside Cambridge in County Retired, Management, Cook, Babysitter,
Clothes, Factory
Table 1: Location of Work and Job Description

27
Number in Household
Respondents were asked how many
Adults, children under 18, and senior
citizens were in their household. The
2000 census data indicates that the sur-
vey area had an average of 2.16 per-
sons per household. The survey results
indicate an average of 1.72 persons per
household. The average household size
indicated by the survey respondents
does not completely reflect that of the
2000 Census and may be a product of
changes that have occurred over the
past 8 years, and perhaps the effects of
a ‘non-responsive bias’.
1.79
2
1.37
1.72
2.16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Average#ofPeople
PerHousehold
Adults Children Senior Total
Average
2000
Census
Average Adults, Children, and Seniors
Per Household
Years Living in the
Neighborhood
Respondents were asked to
give the time that they had
resided in the neighbor-
hood. The results indicate
that they have spent an av-
erage of 24.4 years there.
But, 46% of the people sur-
veyed have been there for
10 years or less, and 35%
have been in the commu-
nity longer than 30 years.
19
11
3
1
2
7
1
8
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
#ofRespondents
1
to
5
6
to
10
11
to
19
16
to
20
21
to
25
25
to
30
31
to
35
36
to
45
46
to
55
56
+
Years
Years Living in Neighborhood
(N=66)
600 Block of High Street

28
3 3
6
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
#ofRespondents
Affordable Convenient Family Other
Reason for moving to current neighborhood for
those living there less than five years
(N=17)
Moved Here Last Five Years
Respondents that had moved to the neighborhood in the
past five years were asked the reason for their move. Of
the 17 that responded to the question, 35% selected fam-
ily was as the most important reason. Comments about
family included:
“Mother wanted to move back
home”
“Because family needs to stay
together”
“Close to mother”
“Born here”
“Been here to watch my child
grow to witness no change for
youth”
Responses to convenient, affordable, and other included:
“This house is affordable for my income”
“Needed more space, change of scenery”
“Convenience of walking distance”
“More quiet”
“Section 8 guidelines”
“Always been here”
Better or Worse
Respondents were asked if the neighborhood had gotten better or worse over the past five years. 36
of the 67 respondents, or 56%; indicated that the condi-
tion of their neighborhood had gotten worse. With only
7 indicating it had improved, and 24 responding the
same.
Of these written comments, 53% cited crime or drugs as
a culprit to the worsening condition of the area. Those
responding that the neighborhood had gotten worse
noted the following:
6
36
24
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Better Worse Same Don't Know
Better or Worse Than Five Years Ago
(N=67)
“Violent crime”
“Last 5 years over 15 shootings and 5 stabbings"
“Gunshots”
“Noises late at night”
“Drugs”
“Decline in activities”
“Trash”
“No activities for youth”
“No respect”
“Young drifting away with no role models” “one way
streets” “fights” “dilapidated houses” “ dirty”
“poverty” “ too many renters”

29
Strengths and Weaknesses
When asked what the strengths of the neighborhood were, respondents were di-
verse in their answers. Of the respondents, 41% noted that it was people (family,
friends, and neighbors), 10% black community/culture/history, and 12%
churches.
Written comments included:
ELKS, communication, churches/ministers, schools, camaraderie of low-
income persons, friendly neighbors, elderly, diversity, unity for most, Em-
powerment Center, quietness (not too noisy), people, black community/
culture/history, close to downtown, money, personal roots.
As for the question of the neighborhood’s biggest weaknesses, out of the 60
that responded to the question, 32% expressed crime/drugs,
while only 10% jobs, and 6% housing/property up-
keep. Written comments included:
Drugs/crime, loss of local history,
“progress”, jobs, housing/property upkeep,
trash, young have no respect, lack of com-
rade/communication, lack of retail busi-
nesses, our future, and “run-down look”.
Pine Street Empowerment Center
Important aspects of neighborhood life
When asked to rate certain aspects of the neighborhood, out of the nine ‘aspects’ provided, the three
most important in the neighborhood were; friendly neighbors, close to family, and safety/crime. Over-
all, business/job opportunities and taxes were the lowest valued, with history, small town feel and qual-
ity schools in the middle.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Levelof
Importance
Small Tow n
Feel
Safety/Crime History of
Community
Cost of
Housing
Friendly
Neighbors
Quality
Schools
Business/Job
Opportunities
Close to
Family
Low Taxes
Most Important Aspects of Neighborhood Life
(N=40)
Respondents were then asked to provide any ‘aspects’ of the neighborhood that were left out of the
question, comments included:
“Beauty of our neighborhood”, Cleaning the street, Neighbors who care, Community activity for
youth, “Double wide homes bring down the property value-but to me it seems that it would make it
better- look at the neighborhood now” “Entertainment, Youth-friendly, Retail, Entertainment/
Recreation, Job Training, Jobs, “Nothing for kids to do”, “Just some places to go for activities”, Police
patrolling streets, Recreation, Up to date community events, Youth activities.

31
Housing
Housing Situation
When asked how satisfied they were with their present housing situation, 69 respondents indi-
cated that they were overwhelmingly satisfied. 74% were satisfied or very satisfied, and 26%
were not satisfied or very dissatisfied.
Comments from those that were satisfied included:
“Because I live in a good community”
“Because you only can get what you put in”
“Affordable”
“Family owned house”
“Love my neighbors”
For those that viewed the housing situation as
unsatisfactory, comments included:
“Because of run down condition/landlords”
“Can’t make improvements”
“Charge a lot of money for rent for small
rooms & no help fixing it”
“Family house”
“Had to move”
“Mother and I live together in 1 bedroom”
“Not enough space”
12
39
13
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Very Satisfies Satisfied Not Satisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Satifaction With Present Housing Situation
Home Improve-
ments
When asked
whether they or
the owner had
made any im-
provements to the
property, 43%
stated yes and
57% no. For those
that stated im-
provements had
occurred, the fol-
lowing were indi-
cated as sources of funding; landlord, private, out-of-pocket, non-profit/
government, and loan/reverse mortgage. 57% stated that they used
their own funds.
29
38
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Yes No
Major Home Improvements Over the Past Five Years
(N=67)
New Windows and Siding on
Cross Street

32
Overall Housing Conditions
Respondents were asked how they
would rate the housing conditions in
their neighborhood as a whole. Out of
the 66 that responded, 74% indicated
that they housing was in fair or poor
condition. Only 3% responded that it
was excellent and 23% good.
2
15
27
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Overall Housing Conditions in the Neighborhood
(N=66)
Distressed Housing
Historic Workmen’s Housing on Washington Street

33
Public Services
Public Safety
Respondents were asked to rate the services provided to the community, those included: fire
protection, garbage removal, streets/sidewalks, curbs/gutters/drainage, animal control, bus/
trolley/other transportation, parks, cleanliness of the community, policing, lighting, roads/
traffic, library, schools, and perceived safety.
Fire
70% indicated that the service was
Good or Excellent. Comments from
those that thought the service was fair
or poor included:
“Two area houses burned to
the ground”
“Need insurance”
“Not checking fire detectors”
“Closeness of homes”
“Smoke detectors don’t work”
“Smoke detectors/nobody
offering insurance”
12
35
14
4
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion
Quality of Fire Protection Services
(N=67)
Police
54% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 32% that
thought the service was fair or poor
included:
“More patrols”
“Harass people for wrong reasons,
don’t resolve issues”
“Police need to patrol more in area
where drug traffic flows”
“Should be out patrolling on foot”
“Never where they should be”
“Slow, depends on the officer, some
good/some bad”
8
29
16
6
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Quality of Police Services
(N=69)
Animal control
61% indicated that the service was Good or
Excellent. Comments from the 36% that
thought the service was fair or poor included:
“A lot of pit bulls running loose”
“Cats everywhere”
“People not taking care of dogs”
“They don’t care about cats”
“Always subject to see stray cats & dogs”
“Lots of stray animals, no response from hu-
mane society”
11
31
10
15
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Animal Control Services
(N=69)

34
Perceived Personal Safety
60% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 40% that thought
the service was fair or poor included:
“Any day something could happen”
“Drugs & fighting”
“Drug dealers running through your yard
from street to street, getting high in
empty houses”
“Have church meetings to attend every
week, I have to
stay focused on going and coming back
home”
“Too careful of surrounding, not trusting”
“Violence”
5
34
19
7
0
10
20
30
40
#of
Respondents
Perceived Safety
(N=65)
Roads and Traffic
“Traffic, short-cut side road”
“Speeding”
“Sunday parking church activities”
“Need speed bumps, young people drive
through like they are on Route 50”
“Not enough space”
“The roads are in need of repair”
“This is a very busy street at times &
they speed”
“Bumpy, needs pavement”
“Kids cannot play because of space
around the house to close to the street”
“Streets dirty”
2
38
14
9
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Quality of Roads/Traffic
(N=66)

35
19
40
7
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Quality of Garbage Removal Services
(N=67)
Trash Removal
Good or Excellent. Comments
from those that thought the ser-
vice was fair or poor included:
“Can’t do better”
“Don’t always get everything”
“Drop more than they pick up”
“Improvements needed”
“Sometimes trash is not picked
up when scheduled”
Public Services
Public Works
Illegal Dumping
67% indicated that illegal dumping was not a problem in the neighborhood. Comments from
the 32% that thought this issue was a problem say that trash accumulates in the Waugh
Cemetery and basic littering.
Comments included:
“610 Douglas Street is the
dumping place”
“Cemetery”
“People dumping trash on street”
“People dumping trash as they walk”
“They would resolve this by lower the
price on taking trash to the dump”
22
46
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
#ofRespondents
Yes No No Opinion
Illegal Dumping a Problem
(N=69)
Curbs, Gutters, and Drainage
52% indicated that the service was Good
or Excellent. Comments from the 48%
that thought that the service was fair or
poor included:
“Charles, Park Lane”
“Could be better”
“Drain pipe at corner street can’t handle
the water when there is a heavy rain”
“Whenever a heavy rain falls the end of
Elm Street floods”
“Some people throw trash all over the
place”
3
32
21
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Curbs/Gutters/Drainage
(N=67)

36
Quality of Street and Sidewalks
that thought the service was fair or poor
focused mainly on the disrepair of streets
and sidewalks, and absence of sidewalks
in some areas. Comments included:
“Grass in sidewalks”
“Broken sidewalks, trash”
“Sweeper needs to come more often”
“The street needs to be replaced and
blacktopped. The speed limit & children
at play sign is needed.”
“Some streets need sidewalks”
“Potholes, weeds, water meter not seated properly”
6
24
20
14
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Quality of Streets and Sidewalks
(N=66)
Lighting
included:
“Some streets have brighter lights than
others”
“More”
“Side streets and shortcuts are poorly lit”
“Some areas are dark”
“More lighting in the neighborhood, mainly
Cornish park-Wells Street area”
7
42
13
4
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
#ofRespondents
Quality of Lighting
(N=67)
Cleanliness of Community
Good or Excellent. Comments from the
57% that thought the service was fair or
poor mostly reflected the need to clean
up litter. Comments included:
“Lot of litter”
“Need some neighborhood pride in the
community”
“New neighbors, renters, drugs”
“Bad conditions”
“Houses, lack of green”
2
26
24
15
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Cleanliness of Community
(N=69)

37
Parks
“Cornish park needs repairs”
“Don’t clean it, drug activity”
“Need more handicapped access”
“Not enough”
“Nothing open or in good condition”
“There is not a decent park in this area
for young kids, have
to go across town”
“Trash, people don’t care”
“It would be nice to have a place for peo-
ple to go, zoo’s & parks, etc.”
“Blacks playgrounds are dirty”
3
24
8
19
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Quality of Parks and Other Pubic Open Spaces
(N=65)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents22
to
24
30
to
34
40
to
44
50
to
54
60
to
61
65
to
66
70-74
80
to
84
Age (Years)
Attending Parks and Age of Respondent
(N=49)
We also asked respondents how
often they frequented Cam-
bridge’s Parks. 80% used the
parks 5 or less times a month.
80% of the visits are made up
of those less than 61 years of
age. Those under the age of 44
represent 58% of the park vis-
its.
20 19
3 3 3
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
#ofRespondents
N
one
1
to
5
6
to
10
11
to
15
16
to
20
21
to
25+
Monthly Visits
Monthly Visits to Parks in Cambridge
(N=49)
Cornish Park

38
The survey also asked what specific parks that the respondents attend. Those used
most frequently were Great Marsh, Nursery, Cornish, and Sailwinds.
11
6
1
3
7
1
2
1
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
#of
Respondents
G
reatM
arsh
C
ornish
Park
D
ouglas
Long
W
harf
N
ursery
South
Pond
Substation
on
P
ine
C
annery
W
ay
Sailw
inds
Cambridge Parks Attended
(N=38)

39
Bus, trolley, or Other Transportation
“2 city routes that should be 1 route”
“Never on time”
“Not in the area of travel”
“Race Street stop”
“There are long waits at times for
transportation”
“Do not know the schedule”
“Dependent on public transportation,
more buses needed”
The survey also asked how many
times per month the individual uses
public transportation. On average,
this service was used 12.5 times per
month, with a total of 128 trips
9
34
11
3
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Bus/Trolley/Other Transporation Services
(N=69)
Monthly Usage of Buses/Trolly
0
1
2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Monthly Usage
#ofRespondents
Public Services
Other Services
Schools
“Children in Control”
“Curriculum isn’t based on the reality of the working world”
“Discipline needed more in school”
“Do not teach, complete failure, graduate kids
with no hesitation”
“Need more modern curriculum”
“Need more hands on”
“Overcrowded Classrooms”
“Middle school is crowded, needs another mid-
dle school”
“The school isn’t giving suspensions fair”
“Not enough caring teachers”
7
32
11
3
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Schools
(N=66)

40
Library
Good or Excellent. Comments from
the 9% that thought the service was
fair or poor included:
“More books-better selection”
“Need more reading materials”
The survey also asked how many
times per month the respondent used
the library. 62% used the library 1
to 5 times per month. Only 1 person
used it more than 16 times per
month.
17
33
5
1
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Library Services
(N=66)
14
33
2 3
0 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25
Monthly Visits
Monthly Visits to Library
(N=53)

41
Community Services
We asked respondents to describe their opinion of the quality of commu-
nity services, those included; Job training services, senior citizen, drug and
alcohol programs, day care, youth activities and programs, churches, and
fraternal/community groups.
Job Training Services
22% indicated that the service
was Good or Excellent. Com-
ments from the 62% that
thought the service was fair or
poor included:
“Any training we try to get we
always have to be unem-
ployed, and then I don’t have
the money to support my need
and wants”
“Barely any”
“Need more especially for
young people”
“No job training”
“Not many jobs to train for”
“There are no relatable programs that last”
“there is not enough industry and the opportunities are not communicated”
We also asked respondents that answered excellent or good, which specific programs that
household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Respon-
dents did not indicate any specific programs, but did state the following:
“Because they help around here”
“Offers the opportunity for someone to attend college, make choices towards a
career”
“Workforce investments”
3
12 13
30
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Quality of Job Training Services
(N=69)

42
Senior Services
included:
“Although there are some programs, more
should be offered for our senior citizens”
“Communication/Free bus services”
“Could be better, more quality housing for
seniors”
“Entertainment during the day not close
to neighborhood”
“Grandparents at [local facilities] did not receive proper care”
“Meals on wheels service needs to improve”
“Not enough places”
dents answered:
“Bradford House”
“Bus system”
“Dorchester Community Services,
treated everyone fairly, polite, helpful”
“Delmarva Community Center”
“Pleasant Day”
“Mac Center Adult Day Care”
“Church services”
“I see programs to give seniors some-
thing to do and give aide”
“Food program”
8
31
8
3
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Senior Services
(N=66)
8
31
8
3
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Quality of Senior Services
(N=66)
Day Care Services
76% of those that had an opinion indicated that the available services are good or excellent.
Comments from the 24% that thought the service was fair or poor included:
“Classes are too big, too expensive”
“More affordable for working parents”
“Most parents can’t afford to use day care services because of low pay and the cost per child”
“Need more affordable daycares”
“Not many choices, no night hours”
We also asked respondents that an-
swered excellent or good, which specific
programs that household members have
used or the reason for that answer. Re-
spondents answered:
“Crossroads”
“Kids under 12 and headstart”
“Pitterpat and Tender Loving Care”
“PJs Playplace”
“Washington Street Tiny tots”
7
22
8
1
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Quality of Day Care Services
(N=65)

43
Drug and Alcohol Programs
45% indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Comments from the 48% that indi-
cated that service was fair or poor included :
“30 days back on streets”
“Low success rate”
“More smoking focus, more
drug education & aware-
ness, more complete detox”
“Need more”
“People only have interven-
tions when involved in
court”
“They do not rehab, just
threaten to punish”
“They don’t care as I see on
TV and don’t here”
“You can see drug dealers
sell in daylight”
household members have used or the reason why they answered excellent or good. Re-
spondents answered:
“Corner of Race and Washington”
“DART through health department, meeting on Cedar Street”
“Narcotics Anonymous”
“Pace Street, Courthouse”
6
14 14
10
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Quality of Drug and Alcohol Programs
(N=65)
Youth Activities and Programs
22% of those that had an opinion indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Com-
ments from the 78% that thought the service was fair or poor included:
“Church summer programs
are all we have”
“Does not include every
type of neighborhood child”
“Don’t have any services”
“Need improvements, more
things for kids to do, boys
and girl club”
“Need more activities,
youth do not have any
place to go”
“No places for youth to burn
energy”
“Not enough activity, and
not affordable”
“We’ve tried to start one, kids walk the street”
“Young people have no where to go, nothing to do”
1
11
13
29
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Quality of Youth Activities
(N=66)

44
Youth Activities and Programs
(cont’d)
We also asked respondents that answered
excellent or good, which specific programs
that household members have used or the
reason why they answered excellent or
good. Respondents answered:
“Crossroads”
“Kids under 12 and headstart”
“Pitterpat, Tender Loving Care”
“There should be more money”
“Washington Street Tiny Tots”
Fraternal and Community Groups
81% of those that had an opinion indicated that the service was Good or Excellent. Com-
ments from the 19% that thought the service was fair or poor included:
“get more involved in community & more activities”
“Lack of communications/knowledge”
“No participation”
“No questions being asked”
“Not involved”
“There is no support of the children or community from these organizations that are
visible”
dents answered:
“Available to community”
“All work well”
“ELKs and American Legion”
“Help people”
“Good if you are a member”
“Group offers a positive im-
age for our community”
“I work in the kitchen some-
times and see the good being
done”
“They are good people, I feel
like they care”
Other important community
organizations: Eastern Star,
Concerned Brothers United,
YEE, Concerned Citizen Com-
mittee, Empowerment Cen-
ter, and the Masonic Lodge.
11
24
6
2
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Quality of Fraternal or Other Community Groups
(N=64)
Summer Program at Housing Authority of Cambridge

45
Churches
90% of those that had an opinion indicated that
the service was Good or Excellent. Comments
from the 10% that thought the service was fair
or poor included:
“Don’t get involved in community enough”
“Membership is selective, groups are secretive, no real community presence”
“Need to communicate & work together”
“No outside involvement or unity”
“Too many”
We also asked respondents why they answered excellent or good, comments included:
“A lot of churches”
“Because you get the word”
“Church is always good”
“Community reach out food
banks”
“Good vibes”
“Help people”
“It’s a rich tradition”
“Zion helps in the community”
“They don’t always ask for
money”
“There are many good
churches for people to attend”
27
30
5
1
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Quality of Churches
(N=67)
Bethel AME Church

47
Civic Involvement
Attending City or County meetings
Respondents were asked how many City or County Council meetings they
have attended over the past year. 64% indicated that they had not been to
a meeting. The written comments included:
“Curious”
“Need to start”
“They are not
productive, too
much arguing”
Respondents were also asked whether they plan on attending and future City
or County Council meetings. 59% stated that they plan on attending a
meeting, 22% stated no, and 19% indicated maybe.
Written comments from the respondents include:
“To see what is going on”
“Have to stay informed”
“I will have to learn about
the organization”
“Maybe to give input-citizen”
“Maybe when the need
arises”
“So I can voice my Opinion”
“Support new mayor”
35
13
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents
Yes No Maybe
Plan on Attending City or County Meetings in the Future
(N=59)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 12 15 16 20 25
# Meetings Attended
City or County Meetings Attended
(N=61)

48
Neighborhood Communications
Newsletter
Respondents were asked if they
would like to receive a newslet-
ter about issues and events in
the neighborhood. 89% indi-
cated that they would like to
receive a newsletter, 7% stated
no, and 4% selected maybe.
Asked as to what method of de-
livery would be best, 76% indi-
cated mail, 12% email, and
12% church.
51
4 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
#ofRespondents
Yes No Maybe
Would Like to Receive Newsletter
(N=57)
51
4 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
#ofRespondents
Yes No Maybe
Would Like to Receive Newsletter
(N=57)

49
The Local Market
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
Elsewhere-Dorchester
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
#ofRespondents
Location of Grocery Stores Used
(N=66)
Location of Retail and Services Used
For these next set of question respondents were asked to identify where they
shop for particular items and services. There choices were; downtown Cam-
bridge, on Route 50, elsewhere in Cambridge, elsewhere in Dorchester
County, or in another County altogether.
Groceries
69% indicated that they
bought groceries on Route
50, 16% elsewhere in Cam-
bridge, 7% downtown, 6% in
other Counties, 0% in Dor-
chester County.

50
Table 2: Reasons for Grocery Store Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
Center Market, Jimmy Simmon’s, Convenience, Choice
Route 50
WalMart, Food Lion, More Products, Super Fresh, No where else to
go, “Diversity in products and price, service is good”
Elsewhere
Cam-
bridge
Good prices, “Some items are cheaper and more to choose from”
Other
County
“Andrews Air force base”, “Sister does shopping and lives in Talbot
County”, “Different food chains”, Nothing here, “Their prices are
cheaper”
Respondents were also asked why they go to that location for the service.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Location of Medical/Dental Services Used
(N=65)
Table 3: Reasons for Dental/Medical Service Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
“Fasett Maggee”
“Insurance, good service, good referrals”
“Closer”
Route 50 “Choptank Community” “Only place to go”
Cam-
bridge
“Affordable” “Convenience” “Local Doctor” “Veterans”
Dorches-
ter
“Convenience” “Familiar” “Family Dentist”
Other
County
“Cheaper” “Been going for years” “Convenience” “Knowledge of
doctor’s price” “Pricing and better care” “Talbot County” “The
doctor care and dental is better somewhere else than Dorchester
County” “Mother been with them for over 20 years”
Medical and Dental
32% indicated that they the ser-
vices that they used were located
in downtown Cambridge, 26%
elsewhere Cambridge, 26% an-
other County, 11% Dorchester
County, and only 5% on Route
50.
Respondents were also asked why
they go to that location for the
service.

51
63% indicated that
they the services
that they used were
located in down-
town Cambridge,
22% on Route 50,
9% Elsewhere
Cambridge, 3%
Dorchester County,
and 3% another
County.
Prescriptions and Medications
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Location of Prescription/Medication Services Used
(N=64)
Hubbard’s Pharmacy, Race Street
Respondents were also asked why they go to that location for the service.
Table 4: Reasons for Prescription/Medication Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
Convenience, “Always have Hubbard’s” “Craig’s drug store-walking
distance”
Route 50 Affordable, “Mother wanted to use same store” Rite Aid WallMart
Cam-
bridge
“Get medication cheaper” VA
Dorches-
ter
“Used to going there”

52
Childcare
54% indicated
that they the ser-
vices that they
used were located
in downtown
Cambridge, 36%
elsewhere Cam-
bridge, 9% on
Route 50, and
nothing in Dor-
chester or another
County.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere/Cambridge
Elsewhere/DorchesterCounty
AnotherCounty
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
#ofRespondents
Location of Childcare Services Used
(N=11)
Table 5: Reasons for Childcare Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
Choptank Community, Fassett Maggee, Live Downtown
Route 50 Roslyn Avenue
Laundry and/or Dry Cleaning
46% indicated
that they the ser-
vices that they
used were located
in downtown
Cambridge, 32%
elsewhere Cam-
bridge, 16% on
Route 50, 6% in
another County,
and none for Dor-
chester County.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Location for Laundry Services Used
(N=50)
Table 7: Reasons for Laundry/Dry Cleaning Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
“Convenience” “Because the washers are very good and the
dryer is very hot-Muir Street-has AC”
Cam-
bridge
“affordable” “Bradford House” “Elm Street”
Dorches-
ter
“Good Service”
Other
County
“Easton” “Dry Cleaning is much cheaper”

53
Clothing
21% indicated that they the
services that they used were
located in downtown Cam-
bridge, 16% on Route 50,
6% in another County, 5%
elsewhere Cambridge, and
none for Dorchester County.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
#ofRespondents
Shopping Location for Clothing
(N=66)
Table 6: Reasons for Clothing Shopping Location
Location Comments
Down-
town
“Cheap” “convenient” “Lutheran Mission- Salvation Army”
“Sports Society” “
Route 50
“Fashion Bug only place to go” “Only thing in town-WalMart”
“Sometimes Cambridge doesn’t have what I like, I like malls
and nice stores” “
Other
County
“Cheaper” “Black people don’t have anywhere to shop” “Big
and Tall” “Because there is not much here for my son”
“Baltimore-Sales” “No stores in Cambridge” “Easton”
“Selection, price, fashion” “Variety” “There are no clothing
stores that are reasonable in Dorchester that meets my
budget”
Auto Repair
31% indicated that the
services that they used
were located in another
County, 29% elsewhere
Cambridge, 26% Route
50, 21% downtown, and
only 2% Dorchester
County.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
#ofRespondents
Location of Auto Repair Services Used
(N=35)
Table 8: Reasons for Auto Repair Location
Location Comments
Route 50 “Dan’s Auto Repairs” “Hubcaps” “Only place to go”
Cam-
bridge
“Price” “Good service” “Convenience” “Cedar Street”
Other
County
“Get better service for my car” “Easton-warranty” “Anywhere”
“Salisbury Pohanka car services” “Speed of service, price, work
guarantee” “The cost is reasonable” “No shop for her car here”
“Longtime history with service”

54
Restaurants
services that they
used were located in
on Route 50, 24% an-
other County, 23%
downtown, 16% else-
where Cambridge, and
16% Dorchester
County.
Downtown
Route50
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
#ofRespondents
Location of Resturants Used
(N=61)
Table 9: Reasons for Restaurant Location
Location Comments
Downtown
“JP’s Restaurant” “All over” “Doris Mae’s” “Depends on the meal
choice”
Route 50
“Variety” “Chinese, Kay’s, Popeye” “Denny’s” “Fast Food” “Good
food-Cambridge doesn’t have too many restaurants” “I like
McDonalds” “Price”
Cambridge “None in the area” “Better restaurants and service”
Dorchester “Good food”
Other
County
“Baltimore” “I eat a lot, spread around” “no good dine-in res-
taurants” “Red Lobster Salisbury” “Services, selection” “Too
many fast food restaurants”
Banking
services that they used
were located in the
downtown, 32% on
Route 50, 18% else-
where Cambridge, 7%
another County, and 2%
Dorchester County.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
5
10
15
20
25
#ofRespondents
Location of Banking Services Used
(N=56)
Table 10: Reasons for Bank Services Location
Location Comments
Downtown “National Bank” “SunTrust”
Route 50
“Hebron Bank” “Like their service and its nearby” “Good service”
“Convenience” “Talbot”
Cambridge
“To store my money for my son’s college” “Bank of Eastern Star”
“Local and convenient” “Have been using this bank for years”
Dorchester “Close to my job”
Elsewhere—Cambridge

55
Haircuts and Styling
services they use were
located in elsewhere
Cambridge, 36%
downtown, 17% an-
other County, and 5%
Dorchester County,
and 3% on Route 50.
Downtown
Route50
Elsewhere-Cambridge
AnotherCounty
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
#ofRespondents
Location of Hair Salon/Barber Used
(N=42)
Table 11: Reasons for Hair Salon/Barber Location
Location Comments
Downtown
“Hanging buddy-52 years” “Friend best barber in Cambridge”
“Convenient” “Bertha”
Route 50 “Beauty outlet” “
Cambridge
“Convenience” “Free” “Home” “Pine Street” “To get the haircut
that pleases me” “Good barber” “Free” “
Dorchester “Hurlock”
Other
County
“Philly” “Easton” “Follow my hairdresser” “Baltimore” “Service”
Neighborhood Commercial Wants and
Needs
Stores/Restaurants/Services Frequented the Most
Respondents were asked which specific stores, restaurants, and services
within walking distance of their neighborhood they frequent the most. The
most common was Center Market, followed by Webster’s, Doris Mae’s,
Chicken Man, and the Elks. Others include:
Salvation Army, Foxwell’s, Zip Mart, Creek Deli, Craig Drug, Jackson Creek
Market, JDs Restaurant, Jimmy Simmon’s, PJs on Washington and High, Bev-
erage Barn, Sports society, “None because I do not have any around my
neighborhood”.
New stores, services, and restaurants desired in neighborhood
Respondents were asked to prioritize what types of new stores, services, or
restaurants they would like to see open up in walking distance of this
neighborhood. They indicated that clothing/shoes and grocery/food stores
were most important. Others include:
TGI Fridays-Applebees-Ruby Tuesdays, Sears, Sam’s Club, restaurants, mini
market, soulfood, lawn and garden, home improvement store, Walgreen’s,
gym for kids, Dollar General, barber shop, music, movie theater, electronics,
Red Lobster, “Lee Jones” cafeteria style, recreation for children, 5-10 stores,
another store like Sport’s Society.

56
8
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
#ofRespondents
Yes No
Household Adults Attaining Education
(N=61)
Education
Attaining Education
Asked whether any adult in the household were attending school or taking
classes in a job skills program, a college, or a GED program, 13% responded that
they was, 87% indicated there was not.
For those that stated yes, few responded precisely what school(s) or programs
(s) they were attending, those included: Chesapeake College and a nursing pro-
gram.

57
Understanding the History
Familiar of History
Asked how familiar the re-
spondents are with the his-
tory of this neighborhood;
48% responded they were
Very, 32% Somewhat,
11% Not Very, and 9% not
at all.
32
21
7 6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
#ofRespondents Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All
Familiarity With Neighborhood History
(N=66)
Interest in History
Respondents were asked to rate a list of historical aspects for their neighbor-
hood that included: Slavery times and the Underground Railroad, Historic
churches, Entrepreneurship and small businesses in the 1900s, Jazz and blues
music on Pine Street, and the Civil rights movement. The most interest was in
the civil rights
movement, slav-
ery/underground
railroad, and his-
toric churches.
Business in the
1900’s showed
some interest, and
the least being
music of Pine
Street.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
AverageLevelof
ImportanceSlavery/U
nderground
H
istoric
C
hurches
B
usiness
in
1900s
M
usic
ofPine
Street
C
ivilRights
M
ovem
ent
Interest in Historic Aspects of the Neighborhood
(N=47)
Pine and Cedar
Streets, circa
1936

58
Historic Sites and buildings that should be preserved
Respondents were asked if there were specific buildings or sites in the
neighborhood that should be preserved or celebrated because they
are historically important. These are their suggestions:
• Bethel AME
• 724 Pine Street
• Jackson Store
• Streeters
• Mt.Olive Baptist
• Chat&Chew
• Drugstore
• Cornish Park
• Ed St Claire's store
• Elks Lodge #223
• Gloria Richardson home
• Harriet Tubman's site
• Historic Churches
• Store on corner High & Muir
• Corner Pine & cedar
• Waugh Cemetery.
Pine and Cedar Streets, 2008

59
Taking Action
What will you do?
Residents were asked this open-ended question, what will you do to make your neighbor-
hood a better place to live? Because of the great diversity in answers, the 58 comments
were not fully categorized. Some respondents provided more than one answer. Others
did not directly answer the question, but instead gave comments in regards to what
should be done. Below is a table of a significant portion of the comments.
Table X: What will I do? And What should be done?
Abide the law and help when I can After school, summer programs
Anything I can do Activities for young people
Be the example Recreational center
Hold my self accountable Better Parks, Stores, and Housing
Take pride in my property and surround-
ings
Community get-togethers
Clean it up Better neighbors
Report Crime Get crime off the street
Spread the word of Jesus Christ Get out of the way so someone can do the
job they need to do
Contribute knowledge and time Get rid of the riffraff
Get involved in community action and
government to make improvements
Sidewalks and lighting
Give more time Whole new Cambridge
Whatever it takes Remove all the men hanging out on the
corning that had the shooting
Volunteering my time to mentor kids Provide activities for youth
Joining organization affecting real change More and new jobs
Showing love Cheaper housing
More involvement myself More places for the hoodlums to go
Help the ones who can’t help self Support Community Centers
Focus on moving forward and those who
want to
Speed limit sign and better lighting
Continue to do neighborhood watch &
keep my neighborhood free of trash
Recreational facilities
Cleanliness/upgrade community
Help bring more business/jobs Improve sidewalks and lighting
Help cut down on crime Foot patrol from the police department
I don’t know, continue to be a good citi-
zen for one, until I move
Try to get along with the neighbors, keep
clean, watch out for people who don’t live
on the block
Help people get to know each other Volunteer, baby-sit, and mentor
Talk to the younger people Help out best I can, volunteer

60
Conclusions
There are numerous instances in the American experience where progress enjoyed
by one group of people comes at the expense of some other group. In many
cases, the cause of “Urban Renewal” has led to the displacement of the very resi-
dents who created the fabric of the community in the first place.
Gradually, planners have learned the value of looking directly to these people,
rather than past them, in an effort to develop a successful program for renewal.
In the case of Pine Street in Cambridge, there is an unprecedented opportunity to
work with the community to cultivate the ideas, energy and assets that already
exist among the people who live, or have their roots in the neighborhood.
This document strives to represent the voice of those people, and to reflect the im-
portance and accomplishments of the people who lived and worked in this commu-
nity before them. The coalition that assembled this intends to continue to adminis-
ter this survey to ensure that there are no ideas or concerns that are overlooked.
Clearly our results thus far tell us that there is much work to be done. But we also
see a spark of enthusiasm among the neighbors along Pine Street, and a willing-
ness to become involved in planning and executing the various programs that have
the potential to reinvigorate the community, and restore it to a fuller measure of
livelihood and dignity.
The shared goal of this city’s leaders and its citizens is to help rebuild the economic
vitality of the Pine Street community. The survey data in this report show that
there is a desire among the residents to see the neighborhood improve through
better housing conditions, more job opportunities, and improved efforts to reduce
crime and provide better services for families in need.
These are the goals that must be central to any project that is proposed for this
historic place.

Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot(20)

Similar to Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report

Similar to Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report(20)

More from hoonio

More from hoonio(16)

Pine Street \'Maple Street\' Survey Report