from blight to light

99 Pages·2013·4.73 MB·English

FROM BLIGHT TO LIGHT

ASSESSING BLIGHT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS
FINAL REPORT
07/12/2013
Praveen Maghelal, Ph.D.
Simon A. Andrew, Ph.D.
Sudha Arlikatti, Ph.D.
Hee Soun Jang, Ph.D.

Department of Public Administration
University of North Texas

0
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

PART I: EVOLVING CONCEPTS AND MEASURES OF BLIGHT 7

1. Evolving Concepts of Blight 8
2. Blight Indicators Used by Eight US Cities 12

PART 2: BLIGHT INDEX CREATION AND THE PATTERNS OF BLIGHT IN THE CITY
OF DALLAS 19

1. Creating a Composite Blight Index for the City of Dallas 20
2. Pattern of Blight Conditions for Each Physical Indicator 29

PART 3: ESTIMATED COST OF BLIGHT TO DALLAS 39

1. Delinquent Property Tax 40
2. Non-tax Lien 42
3. Demolition Costs 46
4. Code Enforcement Costs 53
5. Police Services Costs 56
6. Private Costs from Depressed Property Values 60

PART 4: PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND NONPROFIT APPROACHES TO
ELIMINATE BLIGHT 62
1. Effective Public, Private and Non-Profit Approaches to Eliminate Blight 63
2. Implications and Conclusions 73

REFERENCES 77

APPENDIX A 82

APPENDIX B 83

1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map Identifying Boundaries for the City of Dallas Study Area 20

Figure 2: Physical Blight Index 23

Figure 3: Socio-Economic Blight Index 25

Figure 4: Difference of Index 27

Figure 5: Composite Blight Index 28

Figure 6a: Number of Abandoned Properties 31

Figure 6b: Abandoned Properties as Indicators of Blight 31

Figure 7a: Number of Vacant Residential Properties 32

Figure 7b: Vacant Residential Properties as Indicator of Blight 32

Figure 7b: Vacant Commercial Properties as Indicator of Blight 33

Figure 7b: Vacant Commercial Properties as Indicator of Blight 33

Figure 8a: Number of Mortgage Foreclosed Properties 34

Figure 8b: Mortgage Foreclosed Properties as Indicator of Blight 34

Figure 9a: Number of Tax Foreclosed Properties 35

Figure 9b: Tax Foreclosed Properties as Indicator of Blight 35

Figure 10a: Number of Tax Delinquent Residential Properties 36

Figure 10b: Tax Delinquent Residential Properties as Indicator of Blight 36

Figure 10c: Number of Tax Delinquent Commercial Properties 37

Figure 10d: Tax Delinquent Commercial Properties as Indicator of Blight 37

Figure 11a: Number of Demolished Properties 38

Figure 11b: Demolished Properties as Indicator of Blight 38

Figure 12a: Patterns of Civil Code Violations 55

2
Figure 12b: Patterns of Criminal Code Violations 55

Figure 13: Spatial Pattern of Violent Crimes in 2011 58

3
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Blight Indicators Used by Eight U.S. Cities 18
Table 2: Aging Commercial and Residential Stock in Dallas 21
Table 3: List of Indicators Selected for Composite Blight Index for Dallas 26
Table 4: Number of Census Tracts in the Three Blight Categories 27
Table 5: Delinquent Property Taxes Owed to the City 42

Table 6: Delinquent Property Taxes for Selected Residential Addresses 42

Table 7: Delinquent Property Taxes, Vacant Residential and non-tax Liens 42
by Blight Categories

Table 8: Non-Tax lien payments 43

Table 9: Total Number of Properties with Three Types of 43
Outstanding Non-Tax Liens (taking only principal amount)

Table 10: Number of Properties with Three Types Non-tax Liens Aggregated 43
(paid and outstanding payments on principal)

Table 11: Properties with Multiple Liens 44

Table 12: Properties with Multiple Year Liens (2010-2012) 44

Table 13: Logistic Regressions: Property with Non-Tax Lien and Multiple Violations 45

Table 14: Itemized Cost for Demolition Services 47

Table 15: Maximum Demolition Costs (Estimated) Based on CDU Rating,
for Composite Blight Index Categories 48

Table 16: Demolition Costs (Estimated) based on the CDU Rating,
for Commercial Properties 49

Table 17: Maximum Demolition Costs (Estimated) based on CDU rating,
for Composite Blight Index Categories 49

Table 18: Demolition Steps for a Straight Demolition (SCENARIO 1-3) 50-52
Table 19: Summary of Code Compliance Services and Operating Budget 53
4
Table 20: Total Number of Civil and Criminal Code Citations Reported in 2011 53
Table 21: Total Number of Citations in Blight Categories 53
Table 22: Projected Cost of Code Enforcement in Blight Categories 54
Table 23: Top Ten Civil Code Citation (2007-2011) 54
Table 24: Top Ten Criminal Code Citation (2007-2011) 55
Table 25: Summary of Police Services and Operating Budget for FY 2011-2012 56
Table 26: Total Number of Crimes Reported for 2011 in Dallas 57
Table 27: Total Number of Crimes in Blight Categories 57
Table 28: Total Cost of Crime Reduction in Blight Categories 57
Table 29: Statistics for Dallas Police Department's Community Engagement Units 59

Table 30: Literature Review of Effect of Blighted Properties on home value 61

Table 31: Assessed Median Property Value (Census Tract Level) 61

Table 32: Blighted Properties Reported in the Dallas Morning News
Column (Dec.2007 - July 2012) "10 Drops in the Bucket" 72

5
Executive Summary
In an effort to better meet its neighborhood revitalization goals, Dallas Area Habitat for
Humanity (DAHFH) sought to determine the impact of blight on neighborhoods in the City of
Dallas. This report was prepared by four faculty members from the Department of Public
Administration at the University of North Texas to aid this effort. The intended purpose of this
report is thus twofold. First, it will allow DAHFH to use the findings to inform its advocacy for
Dallas’s forgotten neighborhoods and better present its neighborhood revitalization goals to
private donors and other funders. Second, the estimated economic cost of blight to the City of
Dallas will hopefully spark public discourse to help target interventions that are aimed at
recouping delinquent property taxes and unpaid liens. These findings offer alternatives to stem
the astronomical costs that the City bears to demolish vacant and unsightly structures. The report
is divided into four sections as detailed briefly.

Part 1 – Evolving Concepts and Measures of Blight
This section of the report synthesizes major scholarly articles related to conceptualizing and
defining blight and its movement from objective measurements such as the structural aspects of
condemned housing, to a more process driven subjective assessment of overall neighborhood
quality. Different approaches used in other U.S. states and specifically eight large U.S. cities are
referenced to identify and describe blight indicators popularly used, and blight reduction
strategies adopted.

Part 2 – Blight Index Creation and Patterns of Blight in the City of Dallas
This section of the report presents a brief background of the City of Dallas and explains the
rationale for selecting seven physical and seven socio-economic indicators to create a Composite
Blight Index with three blight categories: Low, Moderate, and Blighted. This is followed by the
patterns of blight stemming from property abandonment, vacancy, tax foreclosures, mortgage
foreclosures, tax delinquency and demolition, evidenced in Dallas. This section uses GIS
mapping technology to relate counts and indicate the scope of the problem within the three blight
categories.

Part 3 – Potential Cost of Blight to Dallas
This section of the report identifies the public and private costs associated with neighborhood
blight. This section focuses primarily on the cost of blight to the City of Dallas from unpaid
liens, delinquent property taxes, code enforcement efforts and demolition costs, and
demonstrates the devaluation of residential parcels in the moderate and blighted areas. The cost
of police and fire services, although not directly calculated due to data constraints, are hinted at
using annual budget reports to demonstrate the costs related to providing these services in
blighted neighborhoods.

Part 4 - Public, Private and Nonprofit Approaches to Blight
This section of the report identifies successful public, private and nonprofit responses to
eliminate blight in other US cities and then focuses attention on efforts underway in the City of
Dallas. The commentary includes blight reduction strategies by the Dallas Land Bank and small
and large nonprofits. The report concludes with a section on implications and recommendations
for both public and private action that can help address blight in Dallas.
6
PART 1

EVOLVING CONCEPTS AND MEASURES OF BLIGHT

7
Evolving Concepts of Blight

1. Introduction

Numerous studies have described “urban blight” as a multidimensional concept and agree that
collectively these dimensions have an adverse effect on surrounding neighborhoods. Wilson and
Kelling's (1982) notion of a “broken window syndrome” suggests that urban blight can be
captured through the severity of untended properties and abandoned structures, reflecting the
breakdown of physical, social, and economic conditions of a neighborhood. These conditions
also signal lax code enforcement and control mechanisms that ensure proper maintenance by
property owners. Blight has been defined in terms of support or lack of resource allocation (i.e.,
the willingness of local residents and public institutes to safeguard the general welfare of others),
as well as a reflection of police power that a city commands to coerce property owners to repair
and invest in the upkeep of physical structures through special building codes and municipal
zoning codes (Gordon 2003).

1.1. Progressive Era: 1930-1940’s

While much has been written about the structural problems facing urban communities, the
conceptual understanding of blight has evolved over the last century. During the progressive era,
Achinstein (1935) argued that identifying what is blight is a matter of degree, i.e., a blighted area
differs only in “degree” from an area that is not blighted. His study used quantitative measures
such as median rent and the distribution of rental properties to assess urban conditions. The
assumption was that “… in a given city, where the lowest rents are paid, there the poorest
housing exists. Unsanitary facilities, age, and dilapidated condition of the buildings are all
reflected in rents.” (Achinstein 1935, p.38)

During this period, the concept of blight was often defined in terms of poor structural housing
conditions in a community, rather than emphasizing the characteristics of individual properties.
It was also described as requiring legal authority to safeguard against properties that were
“wretched in character” and a “social liability” to the community (Gordon 2003), and an
“economic liability” to the city. At the same time, the definition of blight had legal
consequences for private home owners, which was reflected in the new urban crisis of the 1930s.
Housing studies at this time were based on the physical appearance of homes with the
assumption that during strapped economic times residents lacked the incentive to reinvest or
spend on the upkeep of their homes leading to general neighborhood deterioration.

The term “urban blight” referred to conditions of substandard housing, where urban ills could be
tackled by providing families with decent homes. What is interesting is that public assistance
was mostly based on improving residential properties rather than the ability of a household to
purchase or maintain their homes. The doctrine of eminent domain was used to acquire and
revitalize condemned neighborhoods. The federal government also played an active role by
instituting the National Housing Act of 1937 aimed at resolving the structural problems by
providing loans and grants in aid to local governments. The statute provided funds for the
8
production of homes for low income households. By the late 1940s, local governments (housing
authorities) could use federal funds to purchase and clear slum neighborhoods and sell them to
private developers. Research efforts during this period continued to focus on identifying social
and economic factors and linking these to poverty reduction programs in blighted communities.
The effort was to find means to fix these problems and implement land-use regulations to spark
better use, rather than just improving existing structures (Gordon 2003).

1.2. 1950-1960’s

While the 1950-60s continued to focus on structural conditions, newer studies also began
examining the effects of blight leading to loss of productivity, capacity to render services or
decline in demand for services, and depreciation of property values related to land-use conflicts.
Breger (1967) examined the elements of blight as “the domain of depreciation delimited by non-
acceptance of real property” and studied functional depreciation marked by existing use versus
negative spillover effects and social depreciation. This shift in focus was largely concerned with
the loss of neighborhood quality characterized as loss of prestige, an atmosphere related to
despair, lack of aesthetics, and crime (Kelling and Wilson 1996) and disease, rather than what
the property was used for. Thus blight was subjectively determined.

Legal and statutory definitions of urban blight appeared in federal and state funded proposals
associated with redevelopment and revitalization programs such as the Community Development
Block Grant program in the early 1970s as well as the Tax Increment Finance laws in the 1970s
and 1980s (Gordon 2003). The definitions of blight were a subject of intense controversy during
the period of urban renewal, especially for its use in eradicating or demolishing low income
neighborhoods in the name of redevelopment and revitalization. An emphasis on commercial
development, and zoning of areas as “Central Business District” to jumpstart high-end housing
development and economic growth, rather than working on social programs for community
health were the thrust at this time.

1.3. 1970’s to 1980’s

In the 1970’s, blighted areas were defined as those with a high incidence of urban poverty,
slums, and ghettos located in inner cities with old, substandard overcrowded housing, high crime
rates, high concentration and proportion of blacks and other minority households. Urban blight
was thus linked to social and economic degradation or downgrading as a result of intra-urban
migration (Hartshorn 1971). The conceptualized understanding of blight tended to focus on the
processes or forces that led to substandard housing rather than their structural conditions.

Hartshorn (1971) modeled the behavioral processes of residents to attribute for the abysmal
conditions of residential structures in declining neighborhoods He believed that the “filtering
down process,” where former residents moved out of a neighborhood, created a vacuum for
newcomers who were usually poorer and unable to keep up with the maintenance of the property.
This in turn resulted in the decline of the neighborhood as a higher number of renters and
absentee owners were present. During this period, urban blight was regarded as a “pervasive
process” that operated independently of the urban structure. By the mid 1970s, blight was
9