Justifying another huge handout to the construction industry via RI Housing's CLEARLY biased survey.

RI Housing and the Office of Housing and Community Development is asking Rhode Islanders about their housing situation throughout the state.  With biased questions that only offer multiple choice answers that ignore free market solutions and most often only offer the option of picking taxpayers' pockets and/or paint local zoning laws to be either racist or discriminatory, it is clear the survey is intended to justify the next iteration of RhodeMapRI.

The unelected state planners and bureaucrats who forced RhodeMapRI on us without a vote in the General Assembly, are at it again assuming we who pay the bills are too busy to pay attention.  But the volunteers of PRARI and the most prominent defender of taxpayers and homeowners, the Gaspee Project, will not be ignored.  This is why we need you to take this survey today.

Although the planners are clearly gearing the survey to one single result, they do although offer an "other" option to their biased answers.  Here is where you can shift the results they are pushing to destroy this survey and the results that they believe will justify their efforts to push middle class Rhode Islanders out of their single family homes and into mixed use, high density housing.  Simply be honest and blunt about their questions and the options they offer as "solutions."

Take the survey today:  Rhode Island Residential Housing Survey

Those conducting this survey ARE NOT ELECTED.

The ONLY way to solve this problem is to remove from office those politicians allowing this to happen.

DONATE TODAY TO PRARI and The Gaspee Project:

Please share this information on email lists and social media.

Scituate, RI: Huge corporate developers imposing their will on a small town's character. 

The Facts:

1. Clearly, huge out-of-state corporate construction companies are looking to supersede the town of Scituate’s local zoning laws through the coercive power of Rhode Island's court system to build a multi-building, 193 unit complex, with 113 units slated to be low-income housing.

2. RhodeMapRI states unequivocally that, "Another important aspect of local regulation that needs to be addressed in Rhode Island deals directly with what can and cannot be built. This issue is certainly not unique to Rhode Island municipalities, but there are far too many local ordinances that do not meet the needs of residents and business owners.  Higher density housing, particularly in suburban and rural areas, should be allowed at different scales in every Rhode Island community." (pg. 148) (Emphasis added)

3.  The Hope Mill housing project is ground zero for the full implementation of RhodeMapRI/RI Rising and the first, necessary step to take local zoning power from the citizens and place it in the hands of the courts and politicians. Due to the obvious absurdity of the project when contrasted with the self-evident desires of the people who live in the town, it is evident that the final implementation of this project will set the precedent for every other town in Rhode Island.

4.  PRARI [Property Rights Alliance of Rhode Island], the statewide collation to keep local zoning a local citizen-based decision believes strongly that the state planners’ strategy is to first force high density housing throughout every census tract of Rhode Island and then follow through with the manipulation of local property tax policies into a mandated statewide property tax regimen that forces local taxpayers to subsidize affordable housing via their own local property taxes.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  The term “neighborhood” will be used by state planners.  It is important to note that this is the state planners’ term for census tract; cite from RhodeMapRI’s “Equity Profile of Rhode Island” pg. 86:  The term “neighborhood” is used at various points throughout the equity profile. While in the introductory portion of the profile this term is meant to be interpreted in the colloquial sense, in relation to any data analysis it refers to census tracts.) (Emphasis added)

According to RhodeMapRI, pg. 168 of the final document with edits, “The State should consider the creation of a permanent commission on property taxation to establish a system of universal, understandable and fair standards for the municipal taxation of property throughout the state."

Presently, all affordable housing units built in Rhode Island do not pay property taxes based upon the needs of the town budget for schools, police, fire, etc.. The Hope Mill developers will, without question, cause taxes in Scituate to spike because local taxpayers are now forced to subsidize these out-of-town developers.  According to PRARI, it has been proposed that this so-called “fair” standard of property taxation will include not just rehabbed rental properties, but also, new construction of rental properties: 

A big-corporate construction company windfall and the true, final goal of the planners. 

This scheme will make Rhode Island property taxation weighted so that single family homeowners will be subsidizing nearly 70% of the developers' property tax costs. And the developers can later flip these properties without paying back local taxpayers for years of subsidization. This in fact happened in East Providence with the Kent Farms affordable housing development where, after years of local subsidizing, the developer flipped the entire 250 unit property to a wealth management company for a huge profit.  

The planners understand that they first must place local zoning decisions in the hands of the courts and politicians through legal precedent (happening now at Hope Mill), next use this to force high density housing everywhere possible, and then finally implement a property tax system that places nearly all the financial burden on single family homes.

5.  According to Rhode Island’s land use policy, Land Use 2025 page 85, “If we are successful, this Plan’s recommendations are followed, 63 percent or more of the State’s landscape would remain as open, undeveloped land in 2025. One of our greatest challenges will be to permanently preserve as much greenspace as possible in both the rural areas and within the built environment.” (Emphasis added)

6.  According to RhodeMapRI, pg. 116; "The economic pressures on landowners, combined with the limited opportunities of traditional zoning, contribute to a haphazard, sprawling pattern of development. Interestingly, when reading many local Comprehensive Plans, this pattern of development is at odds with a town’s goals to protect rural character and quality of life while encouraging appropriate economic development. It also works against elements of the State Guide Plan, including Land Use 2025, and the desire for more concentrated growth center development."  (Emphasis added)

7.  Therefore, it is the view of PRARI that in order to achieved Rhode Island planners’ stated goal in Land Use 2025 of nearly two-thirds of the state being “undeveloped land,” and the stated strategy of the planners to end the “a haphazard, sprawling pattern of development” of single family homes, the events in our state are unfolding as follows:

First:  Take the power of local zoning away from one town in order to set legal precedent throughout the state, which is what is happening right now in Scituate.

Second:  Once the State Guide Plan (RhodeMapRI/RI Rising) is successfully implemented through the courts and local zoning rights are removed, expand the statewide property tax formula to encourage affordable housing construction as much as possible; empowering powerful out of state construction companies to impose their will on Rhode Island towns.

Third:  Finally achieve the land use and housing goals of RhodeMapRI/RI Rising:  Make single family home ownership unaffordable to the middle class through taxation, destroy any and all equity single family homeowners have worked their lives to build, and finally forcing those families into high density housing. 

Scituate is ground zero for the next critical step in the implementation of RhodeMapRI/RI Rising.  If we lose this fight, the legal precedent will be set that towns are not the keepers of their zoning laws, but the politicians and courts.  Once this precedent is set, outside interests will have full reign to shape our small towns in any way they deem most profitable.

The ONLY way to solve this problem is to remove from office those politicians allowing this to happen.  DONATE TODAY TO PRARI and The Gaspee Project:

 

PRARI, the Property Rights Alliance of Rhode Island, is not in any way a legal entity and we are not lawyers. This document is in no way legal advice. This is simply our perception of the events surrounding the Hope Mill Project in Scituate and how that squares with the goals of the state’s “economic development plan” RhodeMapRI.

 

This Wednesday at 5:30PM the RI DEM is conducting a “Farmland Acquisition Rules and Regulations” workshop intended to take a huge step toward bringing under state control the small business farms in Rhode Island and to divert this money to future efforts to advance the RhodeMapRI/Land Use 2025 agenda.  Instead of helping small family farms advance their efforts to grow and prosper, the state wants to destroy their right to live and operate as they have for generations. 

The stated goal of Rhode Island’s Land Use 2025 plan is that “63 percent or more of the State’s landscape would remain as open, undeveloped land in 2025,” and this new initiative is the first big step forward.  Farms are being targeted because those that are left have been regulated into stagnation and represent one of the largest single percentages of the land throughout the state.

This assault on our family farms is insidiously scheduled for a public hearing on the same day the Washington County Fair is to open.  It is evident that this was intentionally done so that those who have prepared for the event all year have to choose between standing up for their rights or participating in the start of their most important event of the year.

Consider the audacity the state of Rhode Island enlists its power in regard to this property grab.  As stated in the document announcing the meeting and their intent to acquire family farms:

“The terms and provisions of these rules and regulations shall be liberally construed to permit the Department to effectuate the purposes of state law, goals and policies.”

In other words, as long as the rules are not specified, the unelected bureaucrats in the RI DEM will grant themselves the power to interpret these new rules and regulations in any way they see fit.

PRARI members are strongly advised to attend this meeting and show their support for the family farms that will be at the meeting and standing up for their rights.  This is the start of the slippery slope intended to destroy the property rights of every Rhode Islander.

Please share this information everywhere and join us on Wednesday.  Details:

235 Promenade Street
Room 300
Providence, Rhode Island 02908 

Cordially,

 

The volunteers of PRARI

Download and see for yourself what the Property Rights Alliance of Rhode Island has known for over a year:  HUD demands affordable housing in every census tract in Rhode Island.

Why does this information about HUD's AFFH new rule interpretation regarding affordable housing matter to you?

Newport, RI meets Rhode Island state standards for affordable housing (i.e. meets the overall 10% goal), BUT Newport does not meet the federal AFFH mandates (e.g. Senator Whitehouse's exclusive Newport neighborhood being census tract 409, is not AFFH compliant).

See here:

 

Read the Data documentation here, straight from HUD's website; the AFFH housing enforcement based upon people's identity and NOT local zoning laws.

The document reads as follows:

 

 

III.                    Levels of Geography and Weights

The Data Tool includes data for all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Users may access data through the Data Tool at various spatial scales, including geo-boundaries of Census tracts, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Core-based Statistical Area (CBSA). As shown in Table 1, most data in the Data Tool are at the Census tract or block-group levels. The selection of a spatial scale to use as the initial basis for each data element is primarily based on the lowest level in which HUD has faith in its accuracy. For example, data elements constructed from the American Community Survey (ACS) data are based on Census tract estimates rather than block-group estimates due to concerns about sampling errors.

Data displayed in the Data Tool map views are at the Census tract level. Data displayed in the report tables are aggregated from smaller geographic units (i.e. either the Census tract or block-group level) to the CDBG[1] and CBSA levels. As shown in Table 1, the AFFH data are from multiple sources in various years. In order to compile them into one mapping tool database, data issued or released at different years need to be adjusted to the same year. The Census tract and block-group boundaries in the Data Tool are based on those released by Census in 2010. The Data Tool incorporates minor changes indicated in the ACS “Geography Release Notes” for 2011 and 2012 on the Census Bureau website,[2] resulting in boundaries and corresponding data adjusted to calendar year 2012. The CDBG boundaries are based on political jurisdiction boundaries for calendar year 2011. The CBSA boundaries are based on OMB 2013 definitions.

The CDBG level reflects the geographic boundaries for grantees that receive direct allocations of CDBG funds from HUD. CDBG jurisdictions are not census-designated areas, which means that CDBG jurisdictional boundaries do not fall consistently along Census tracts or block-groups. A series of technical procedures were necessary to construct a crosswalk between census-designated areas and CDBG jurisdictions. Census geographic identifiers at the summary level 070 (state-county-county subdivision-place/remainder) and summary level 080 (state-county-county subdivision-place/remainder-census tract) were matched to HUD CDGB jurisdiction geographic identifiers.

Weights

At the boundaries of CDBG jurisdictions, some Census tracts fell partially within the jurisdiction and partially outside of the jurisdiction. Data from these tracts were weighted by the share of the population within the CDBG boundary to approximate including only the portion of those tracts within the CDBG jurisdiction in aggregate figures reported at the CDBG level.  In contrast, block groups were simply assigned to the CDBG jurisdiction that contained its centroid (i.e., central point).

IV.                                Race/Ethnicity

Among other protected characteristics, the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race. HUD offers data on both race and ethnicity. Because the Fair Housing Assessment focuses on discrimination, HUD provides data for non-Hispanic whites, considering Hispanics of any race as a separate race/ethnic category that can experience housing discrimination differently than other groups. Similarly, the data provided for the other race groups – Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, and other – also exclude information for people who identify their ethnicity as Hispanic. Other race/ethnicity data are discussed in sections IX and XI.

Data Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010; Decennial Census, 2010; Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 & 1990

Related Tables/Maps: Table 1, 2, 5, 6; Map 1, 2, 5-7, 9-14

 

V.                                 National Origin and Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on national origin. The Data Tool provides data for four indicators of national origin. The first two are the ten most common places of birth of the foreign-born population by jurisdiction and region and the number and percentage of the population that is foreign-born.  The second two indicators are the most common ten languages spoken at home (for the population age 5 years and over) for those who speak English “less than ‘very well,’” and the number and percentage of the population who speak English “less than very well.”

Data on national origin and LEP originate from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey and Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 and 1990. Counts of each place of birth by tract were aggregated to the jurisdiction and regional level separately. Within these geographies, the counts for places of birth were ranked and the ten most populous groups were determined and are presented.

The full most common ten places of birth and LEP languages are displayed in the Tables, while the most common five are displayed in the Maps. HUD limits the number of categories for the maps to enable users to better visualize the most populous groups. National origin and LEP data were missing for Puerto Rico.

Data Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010; Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 & 1990.

Related Tables/Maps: Table 1, 2, 5, 6; Map 3, 4, 8, 9-14

 

VI.                                Disability Status and Type

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination against any person based on disability. The Data Tool provides information on disability type, disability status by age group, and disability status by housing type. The disability type and disability status by age group measures are from the ACS, while the measure of persons with disabilities by housing type is from the PIC/TRACS data (see section IX). The definition of “disability” used by the Census Bureau may not be comparable to reporting requirements under certain HUD programs, which sometimes use different definitions of disability for purposes of determining eligibility.

The disability type categories are: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. These categories are based on a new set of disability questions introduced into the ACS in 2008 and are not comparable to disability type figures in prior years.

Data Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012; Inventory Management System (IMS)/ PIH Information Center (PIC), 2013; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), 2013

Related Tables/Maps: Table 1, 15, 16; Map 15, 16

VII.                   Sex

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination against any person based on sex. The Data Tool provides information on male/female status.

Data Source: Decennial Census, 2010; Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 & 1990

Related Tables/Maps: Table 1, 2

 

VIII.                  Families with Children and Age

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination against any person based on familial status. For purposes of the Fair Housing Act, familial status includes one or more individuals under the age of 18 being domiciled with a parent or other person with legal custody of such individuals.  The Data Tool provides information on families with children. Specifically, familial status is measured as the number and percentage of all families (with two or more related people in the household) that are families with children under age 18. The Data Tool also provides data on age group (under 18, 18-64, and 65+).

Data Source: Decennial Census, 2010; Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 & 1990

Related Tables/Maps: Table 1, 2, 6; Map 9-14

 

IX.                                Households in Assisted Housing

The Data Tool provides data on households within the following housing categories: Public Housing, Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA), other assisted housing multifamily properties, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The “other assisted housing multifamily” properties include properties funded through the Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202), Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811), Rental Housing Assistance (Section 236), Rent Supplement (Rent Supp.), Rental Assistance Payment (RAP), and Below Market Interest Rates (BMIR) programs.

The sources for data on households in these housing types are:

• HCV: census tract-level data extract from the Family Report Form HUD-50058 (PIC)
• Public Housing: development-level data extract from the Family Report Form HUD-50058 (PIC)
• PBRA and other multifamily properties: development-level data extract from HUD-50059 (TRACS)
• LIHTC: National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Database

The Tool reports data by housing category differently depending on the report table. These details are outlined below:

Tables 7, 8, 13, and 17 present data on households in Public Housing, PBRA, other assisted housing multifamily properties, and HCV. Data on developments with fewer than 11 households reported or with fewer than 50 percent of occupied units reported at the CDBG and CBSA aggregations were omitted to ensure confidentiality.

Table 7 presents the total number of units in housing assistance programs and their share of the total number of housing units within CDBG jurisdictions. The denominator used in Table 7 is the total number of housing units in the 2010 census block-group aggregated at the CDBG level.

Table 8 presents data on the race and ethnicity of households in housing assistance programs. The race/ethnicity categories are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander. Information on the race and ethnicity of households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income (AMI) is from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database.

Table 9 reports the following data on households in housing assistance programs within the CDBG jurisdiction: race/ethnicity (percent white, black, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander), percent of households with at least one member with a disability, and percent of households where the head or spouse is age 62 or older. The data in this table are presented separately for properties/households located within and outside of racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (detailed below in section X) within the CDBG jurisdiction.

Table 10 presents data on the composition of households assisted through Public Housing, PBRA, and other assisted housing multifamily properties. Population characteristics – race/ethnicity (white, black, Hispanic, Asian), households with children, and poverty rate – of the census tracts that contain assisted housing are also presented. Although information on households in LIHTC properties is not displayed in Table 10, the data on geographic coordinates for properties were used to identify the list of census tracts presented. Data on properties with fewer than 11 households reported or with fewer than 50 percent of occupied units reported at the development and at the Census tract aggregation were omitted to ensure confidentiality.

Tables 9 and 10 include only developments with spatial information that is precise enough to accurately determine their location within a Census tract, such as a rooftop location or the ZIP+4 centroid associated with the address. Developments with less precise spatial information are omitted because they cannot reliably be located to the correct street block or the correct side of the street block.

In conjunction with Tables 9 and 10, Maps 5 and 6 also include only developments with spatial information that is precise enough to be accurately mapped. Over 96 percent of Public Housing, PBRA, and other assisted housing multifamily properties and 84 percent of LIHTC properties have sufficient geographic information to be included in the tables and maps.

Tables 13 and 17 present data on unit size (households in 0-1 bedroom units, 2 bedroom units, and 3 or more bedroom units), households with children, and households where at least one member has a disability.

Data Source: Inventory Management System (IMS)/PIH Information Center (PIC), 2013; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), 2013; National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Database, 2013; Decennial Census, 2010; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2007-2011

Related Tables/Maps: Table 7-10, 13, 17; Map 5, 6

 

X.                                 R/ECAP

To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic group concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic group concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of “extreme poverty” as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. Census tracts with this extreme poverty that satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration threshold are deemed R/ECAPs. This translates into the following equation:

 

Where i represents census tracts, () is the metropolitan/micropolitan (CBSA) mean tract poverty rate, PovRate is the ith tract poverty rate, () is the non-Hispanic white population in tract i, and Pop is the population in tract i.

While this definition of R/ECAP works well for tracts in CBSAs, places outside of these geographies are unlikely to have racial or ethnic group concentrations as high as 50 percent. In these areas, the racial/ethnic group concentration threshold is set at 20 percent.

Data Source: Decennial census (2010); American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010; Brown Longitudinal Tract Database (LTDB) based on decennial census data, 2000 & 1990

Related Tables/Maps: Table 6, 9; Map 1-16

References:

Wilson, William J. (1980). The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

XI.                                Housing Problems and Disproportionate Housing Need

To assist communities in describing disproportionate housing need in their jurisdiction and region, the Data Tool provides data identifying instances where housing problems or severe housing problems exist. The Tool presents housing problems overall, as well as variations by race/ethnicity, household type and household size. The race/ethnicity categories presented are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Native American, and non-Hispanic other. The household type and size categories presented are family households of less than five people, family households of five or more people, and non-family households of any size.

Information on housing problems is drawn from CHAS, which demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households. The CHAS data are produced via custom tabulations of ACS data by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Data Tool provides data on the number and share of households with one of the following four housing problems:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities
2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities
3. More than one person per room
4. Cost Burden - monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of monthly income

Additionally, the Data Tool provides data on the number and share of households with one or more of the following “severe” housing problems, defined as:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities
2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities
3. More than one person per room
4. Severe Cost Burden - monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceed 50% of monthly income

Grantees should review these data to determine where disproportionate housing need may be found. For example, a sub-group, such as households of a particular racial/ethnic group or household size, may experience housing problems more frequently than the overall population as a whole or than another sub-group.

Data Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2007-2011

Related Tables/Maps: Table 11, 12; Map 7, 8

 

XII.                   Indices

HUD has developed a series of indices to help inform communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as about disparities in access to opportunity. A description of the methodology for each of the following indices may be found below:

1. Dissimilarity Index
2. Low Poverty Index
3. School Proficiency Index
4. Jobs Proximity Index
5. Labor Market Index
6. Low Transportation Cost Index
7. Transit Trips Index
8. Jobs Proximity Index
9. Environmental Health Index

Tables 3 and 4 of the AFFH data tables provide values for the dissimilarity index. Table 14 of the AFFH data tables provides values for all the remaining indices.

To generate Table 14, index values were calculated for each census tract.  These tract values were averaged and then weighted based on the distribution of people of different races and ethnicities within the CDBG jurisdiction or CBSA to generate composite index values for each race and ethnicity.  A similar process was applied to weight the data based on the distribution of people of different races and ethnicities who are living in poverty within the CDBG jurisdiction and CBSA. The population estimates are based on the 2010 Decennial Census at the census tract or block-group level, depending on the geographic level at which the index was originally calculated.

The indices from Table 14 are also used to populate maps generated by the Data Tool, showing the overall index values of census tracts juxtaposed against data on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type.

The following details each of the eight indices used in the Data Tool.

1. A.     Analyzing Segregation
2. 1.      Dissimilarity Index

Summary

The dissimilarity index (or the index of dissimilarity) is a commonly used measure of community-level segregation. The dissimilarity index represents the extent to which the distribution of any two groups (frequently racial or ethnic groups) differs across census tracts or block-groups. It is calculated as:

 

Where i indexes census block-groups or tracts, j is the jth jurisdiction, W is group one and B is group two, and N is the number of block-groups or tracts i in jurisdiction j.

Interpretation

The values of the dissimilarity index range from 0 to 100, with a value of zero representing perfect integration between the racial groups in question, and a value of 100 representing perfect segregation between the racial groups. The following is one way to understand these values:

Measure	Values	Description
Dissimilarity Index	<40	Low Segregation
[range 0-100]	40-54	Moderate Segregation
	>55	High Segregation

 

Data Source: Decennial Census, 2010, 2000, 1990. Block-group level data were used for 2010, and census tracts were used for 2000 and 1990.

Related Tables/Maps: Table 3, 4

References:

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1988. The Dimensions of Residential Segregation. Social Forces, 67(2): 281-315.

 

1. B.     Analyzing Indicators of Access to Opportunity

HUD has developed a two-stage process for analyzing disparities in access to opportunity and has selected five opportunity indicators upon which to focus: poverty, education, employment, transportation, and health.  These indicators were selected because existing research suggests they have a bearing on a range of outcomes.

The first stage involves quantifying the degree to which a neighborhood offers features commonly viewed as important opportunity indicators such as education, employment, and transportation.. In the second stage, HUD compares these opportunity indicators across individuals in particular racial and economic subgroups to characterize disparities in access to opportunities. To focus the analysis, HUD developed methods to quantify a selected number of the important “opportunities” in every neighborhood. Invariably, these opportunity indicators do not capture all that is encompassed in an individual’s or a family’s access to opportunity.   

While these important dimensions are identified by research as important to quality of life, the measures are not without limitations. HUD constrained the scope of HUD-provided items to those that are closely linked to neighborhood geographies and could be measured consistently at small area levels across the country. For example, HUD's measure of school performance only reflects elementary school proficiency. It does not capture academic achievement for higher grades of schooling, which are important to a community's well-being, but may not be as geographically tied to individual neighborhoods as elementary schools. Similarly, the health hazard measure only captures outdoor toxins, missing indoor exposures. The national-availability restriction is a necessity given that all HUD program participants must complete an Assessment of Fair Housing. HUD realizes that there are other opportunity indicators that are relevant, such as housing unit lead and radon levels. However, these lack consistent neighborhood-level data across all program participant geographies. As a consequence, HUD encourages program participants to supplement the data it provides with local data and local knowledge on these other opportunity indicators so that the analysis is as thorough as possible. The five opportunity indicators are operationalized by seven indices, described below.

1. 2.      Low Poverty Index

Summary

The low poverty index captures the intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt, in the form of cash-welfare, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The index is a linear combination of two vectors: the family poverty rate (pv) and the percentage of households receiving public assistance (pa).

 

Where means (, ) and standard errors () are estimated over the national distribution.

The poverty rate and public assistance for neighborhoods are determined at the census tract level.

Interpretation

Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally. The resulting values range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.

 

Data Source: American Community Survey, 2006-2010

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 13

1. 3.      School Proficiency Index

Summary

The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4^th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The school proficiency index is a function of the percent of 4^th grade students proficient in reading (r) and math (m) on state test scores for up to three schools (i=1,2,3) within 1.5 miles of the block-group centroid. S denotes 4^th grade school enrollment:

Elementary schools are linked with block-groups based on a geographic mapping of attendance area zones from School Attendance Boundary Information System (SABINS), where available, or within-district proximity matches of up to the three-closest schools within 1.5 miles. In cases with multiple school matches, an enrollment-weighted score is calculated following the equation above.

Interpretation

Values are percentile ranked and range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the higher the quality of the school system in a neighborhood.

 

Data Source: Great Schools (proficiency data, 2011-12 or more recent); Common Core of Data (school addresses and enrollment, 2011-12); SABINS (attendance boundaries, 2011-12).

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 9

1. 1.      Jobs Proximity Index

Summary

The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a CBSA, with distance to larger employment centers weighted more heavily. Specifically, a gravity model is used, where the accessibility (Ai) of a given residential block-group is a summary description of the distance to all job locations, with the distance from any single job location positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location. More formally, the model has the following specification:

 

Where i indexes residential locations and j indexes job locations within a CBSA, and distance, d, is measured as “as the crow flies” between block-groups i and j. E represents the number of jobs in block-group j and L is the number of workers.

The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) has missing jobs data in all of Puerto Rico and a concentration of missing records in Massachusetts. 

Interpretation

Values are percentile ranked with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.

Data Source:  Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, 2010

Related Template Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 10

1. 2.      Labor Market Index

Summary

The labor market index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract (i). Formally, the labor market index is a linear combination of three standardized vectors: unemployment rate (u), labor-force participation rate (l), and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher (b), using the following formula:

 

Where the means (, , ) and standard errors (, , ) are estimated over the national distribution. Also, the value for unemployment rate is inverted.

Interpretation

Values are percentile ranked nationally and range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.

Data Source: American Community Survey, 2006-2010

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 11

1. 3.      Low Transportation Cost Index

Summary  

This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. CBSA). The estimates come from the Location Affordability Index (LAI). The data used in the AFFH Tool correspond to those for household type 6 (hh_type6_) as noted in the LAI data dictionary. More specifically, among this household type, we model transportation costs as a percent of income for renters (t_rent). Neighborhoods are defined as census tracts. The LAI data do not contain transportation cost information for Puerto Rico.

Interpretation

Values are inverted and percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. Transportation costs may be low for a variety of reasons, including greater access to public transportation and the density of homes, services, and jobs in the neighborhood and surrounding community.

Data Source: Location Affordability Index (LAI) data, 2008-2012

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 12

References:

www.locationaffordability.info

http://lai.locationaffordability.info//lai_data_dictionary.pdf

1. 4.      Transit Trips Index

Summary

This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The estimates come from the Location Affordability Index (LAI). The data used in the AFFH tool correspond to those for household type 6 (hh_type6_) as noted in the LAI data dictionary. More specifically, among this household type, we model annual transit trips for renters (transit_trips_rent). Neighborhoods are defined as census tracts. The LAI has missing transit trip information for Puerto Rico.

 

Interpretation

Values are percentile ranked nationally, with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. The index controls for income such that a higher index value will often reflect better access to public transit.

 

Data Source: Location Affordability Index (LAI) data, 2008-2012

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 12

References:

www.locationaffordability.info

http://lai.locationaffordability.info//lai_data_dictionary.pdf

1. 5.      Environmental Health Index

Summary

The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The index is a linear combination of standardized EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic (c), respiratory (r) and neurological (n) hazards with i indexing census tracts.

 

Where means (, , ) and standard errors (, , ) are estimated over the national distribution.

Interpretation

Values are inverted and then percentile ranked nationally. Values range from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Data Source: National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data, 2005

Related Tables/Maps: Table 14; Map 14

References:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/

 

1. C.     Computing Indices by Protected Class

The Data Tool provides index values documenting the extent to which members of different racial or ethnic groups have access to particular opportunity indicators. The Data Tool provides a weighted average for a given racial or ethnic group. The generic access for racial or ethnic group M to asset dimension R in jurisdiction j is calculated as:

 

Where  indicates Census tracts in jurisdiction j for subgroup M to dimension R. N is the total number of Census tracts in jurisdiction j.

It is useful to provide an example of this in practice (Table 2).  Consider Jurisdiction X with a total of three neighborhoods (A, B, and C). Each neighborhood has an index score representing the prevalence of poverty within that neighborhood (Column (1), with higher values representing lower levels of poverty. To compute the index value for a particular racial or ethnic group, the values are weighted based on the distribution of that racial or ethnic group across the three neighborhoods. For example, 40% of the jurisdiction’s white population lives in neighborhood A, so the index value for neighborhood A represents 40% of the composite index value for the white population in the jurisdiction. The values for neighborhoods B and C are weighted at 40% and 20% respectively, based on the share of white individuals living in those neighborhoods, leading to a final weighted low poverty index for whites in the jurisdiction of 56.

 

 

Table 2. Example of Weighting of Low Poverty Index by Race in a Hypothetical Jurisdiction

	Dimension	White			Black
Neighborhood	Low Poverty Index	white pop	%white of total pop	Index for whites [(1)*(3)]	black pop	%black of total pop	Index for blacks [(1)*(6)]
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
A	80	400	40%	32	100	20%	16
B	50	400	40%	20	150	30%	15
C	20	200	20%	4	250	50%	10
Total		1000	100%	56	500	100%	41

 

This exercise can be repeated for each racial or ethnic group. For example, the low poverty index among blacks in Jurisdiction X is 41. Using these indices, it is possible to identify disparities in access to c opportunity across protected classes.

To account for differences in household income across groups, the Data Tool also provides separate index values for persons with incomes below the Federal poverty line, again breaking out values by racial or ethnic group. This will aid jurisdictions in understanding whether there are meaningful disparities in access to opportunity across protected classes that cannot be explained by differences in poverty status. These index values for racial/ethnic groups and for racial/ethnic groups below the Federal poverty line are available in Table 14.

RhodeMap RI / RI Rising depends upon an important State initiative: Getting you to subsidize your neighbors property taxes, even when your neighbor is financially better off than you!

Read more

Kevin Flynn from the Division of Planning, to make presentation on RhodeMap RI to House Oversight Committee at the State House

Read more

 

PRARI is a citizens group of volunteers concerned that our property rights are being undermined. We believe the ability of municipalities to look out for their communities' best interests must be protected. PRARI was established after the public became aware of the RhodeMap RI plan and worked to thwart its subsequent adoption by unelected officials amidst great controversy.

RMRI is alarming because it is clearly not an "economic development plan." The application for the grant clearly states the funding will be used to develop a “Regional Plan for Sustainable Development”.  The Plan possesses no proven economic metrics and included no economists in its drafting. In fact, RMRI is actually a "social equity plan" or if you like a social experiment.  This social experiment threatens actual economic vitality and undermines the ability of municipalities to govern in ways they see fit for their respective districts and unique economic circumstances.

At the core of RMRI is HUD and its partners, the DOT and the EPA, but HUD policies are the principle drivers. In fact when the General Assembly passed legislation to mandate the creation of an economic development plan in 2013, it included 6 specific plan components.  What they got instead were the "6 living principles" directly from HUD and the Federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a HUD, DOT and EPA consortium.

At issue is HUD's interpretation of the FAIR HOUSING ACT of 1968 which produced the "affirmatively furthering fair housing" policy, or AFFH. Also it must be noted that under the current administration, HUD has become much more aggressive in the enforcement of compliance with AFFH.

In fact, under this administration, HUD's goal is to "deconstruct America's suburbs" in favor of the more densely populated urban model.

In RMRI, the plan points out the necessary behavior modification "challenges," and calls for a "carrot vs. stick" approach in achieving their objectives. The "stick" is a punitive higher tax level verses the "carrot," a substantially lower tax rate for rewarding the "good" behavior.

The City of Woonsocket has actually been forced into a disparate taxation system.  Because Woonsocket was a willing “entitlement community” which liberally accepted HUD funding to build-out affordable rental housing, it was ultimately forced to implement a supplemental property tax in addition to its regular property tax.

Senator Mark Gee of East Greenwich told of a case involving the housing authority superseding the E. Greenwich Town Council to build a multi-family unit on Route 2 without even consulting with the Town Council and in violation of local zoning rules, yet because of HUD funding, they completely ignored the town's authority with impunity.

While many communities in RI have participated in CDBG programs, most do not realize that today's HUD has become much more aggressive at ramping up enforcement of compliance to the AFFH mandate.  HUD’s more recent interpretation of compliance is much different than what HUD recipients have understood in the past.  In fact HUD is actively changing its enforcement criteria and updating their "Fair Housing Assessment" tool. New rules are due in March 2015 (deadline of December 2014 was extended, meanwhile see Fair Housing Assessment tools 2014)

Make no mistake, RMRI and AFFH policies are one in the same and have a direct correlation. RMRI's adoption provides HUD policies the necessary enforcement mechanism that, up until now, did not exist. Rhode Island is the first state to adopt this scheme and therefore open the door to HUD enforcement.  It is noteworthy that compliance to AFFH today will mean local zoning rules will be superseded by HUD’s vision of AFFH.  HUD’s plans for neighborhood integration will require compliance of AFFH be based on low-income rental housing side-by-side with single family neighborhoods throughout the municipality.

The problem:  this will not only deconstruct housing, but also, the property tax base, pushing higher taxes down the tax roll as the higher end neighborhoods are “deconstructed”.  These neighborhoods have traditionally paid the lion’s share of property taxes in every community.

Questions also remain as to whether the state is responsible, or the municipality, is legally liable for ensuring HUD AFFH compliance.  Inquiries on this question were submitted as far back as last September 2014.   The RI Department of Administration has not yet provided an answer.  The consequence of the lack of clarity is exactly what has happened in Westchester County, NY and more recently in the city of Dallas.  (see HUD vs. Westchester case references).

In case you have not caught the article, even PolitiFact has written on the confusion created by the Division of Planning surrounding “the strings attached” to HUD money as it relates to RhodeMap RI and its adoption.

Deconstruction of 200 years of neighborhood evolution throughout Rhode Island without regard to the impact to property values, or property taxes, is irresponsible to the residents of this state. A new replacement state plan, consistent with what the General Assembly asked for, must be developed.

 

These pages are dedicated to a full analysis of the RhodeMap RI plan and the Transfer of Development Rights document that is cited seven times by the Plan. The facts recognized once one understands fully these two documents is the realization that it is the goal of everyone who supports RhodeMap RI to transfer as much ownership of property from individual citizens to the government.

This is evident by the Plan's recommendations:

• To create a statewide agreement to transfer development rights.
• To create a politically run "State Infrastructure Bank" (cited seven times in the RhodeMap RI plan) to buy the development rights of all those who are willing.
• To create a "mandatory rezoning strategy" throughout Rhode Island

Recognizing of course that the development rights to a property is de facto all rights to a property, it is imperative that all Rhode Islanders read, verify, and understand this entire analysis.

***

RHODEMAP RI "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN" REMOVED FROM STATE WEBSITE

LAND USE 2025 PLAN FOR RHODE ISLAND REMOVED FROM STATE WEBSITE

RHODEMAP RI PLANNING ANALYSIS

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF RHODEMAP ACCORDING TO RHODEMAP RI

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF TDR PROGRAMS

RHODEMAP RI OPPORTUNITY MAP

SCITUATE, RI:  GROUND ZERO FOR THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF RHODEMAPRI

RhodeMap RI is a social engineering plan which plays upon the desires of most Rhode Island citizens' for a healthy environment and inclusive society in order to take the right to develop property throughout the Ocean State, destroy the single family home, and force people into communal living.

The analysis performed by the Gaspee Project cites only exact text and messages from the RhodeMap RI plan as well as the Transfer of Development Rights doctrine the RhodeMap plan cites seven times.  The Gaspee Project recognizes that Rhode Island citizens, when informed about the fact surrounding the two plans, Ocean State citizens would be appalled. 

 

 

 

 

 

RhodeMap RI:

1.  Pg. 2:

" This Economic Development Plan was prepared as part of RhodeMap RI, a coordinated, long range planning effort led by the RI Division of Planning. The project was funded under a Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Conclusion:  If HUD is funding the study, it is clear they have goals in mind when it comes to its conclusions.  Obviously, this plan is not a home-grown attempt at economic development.

2.  Pg. 17: 

" The Consortium was the decision-making body of RhodeMap RI."

Conclusion:  Not a single member of the Consortium has a degree in economics, yet they are the decision makers for this "economic plan."  There must be an ulterior motive well beyond a better economy in RI.

3.  Pg. 82 & 115: 

Under "Opportunity Mapping":

Pg. 82; "The opportunity index includes five broad categories: Education, Health and Environment, Economy, Transportation and Mobility, and Housing and Neighborhoods. Each of these broad categories of opportunity, in turn, is comprised of a series of individual indicators which are scored and aggregated by census tract. The resulting score for each individual category, as well as a composite of all categories, can be mapped in a color coded fashion to display a “gradient” of opportunity across census tracts . . . From a statewide perspective, those areas that show the highest access to opportunity are those generally thought of as the more affluent parts of the state. In some cases, these areas of high opportunity cover most or all of an individual municipality."

Coupled with:

Pg. 115; the widespread dominance of single family homes played an enormous role in creating an income and equity gradient across Rhode Island. Lower income populations, predominantly people of color, generally had no affordable housing options outside of the urban core communities, while more affluent households could choose from a wide range of more expensive choices. This pattern of segregation contributes significantly to many of the socioeconomic challenges examined more deeply under Goal 2 of this plan."

Cite:  Goal 2; Foster an inclusive economy that targets opportunity to typically underserved populations.

Conclusion:  RhodeMap RI planners decided that people who have earned enough wealth to purchase a single family home have played a role in segregating minorities in society.  Does the plan cite any proof of this?  No, it only expresses an opinion as if it is fact in order to justify its use of force against citizens who have done nothing wrong.

4.  Pg. 116 & 117

Pg. 116; "The economic pressures on landowners, combined with the limited opportunities of traditional zoning, contribute to a haphazard, sprawling pattern of development.  Interestingly, when reading many local Comprehensive Plans, this pattern of development is at odds with a town’s goals to protect rural character and quality of life while encouraging appropriate economic development. It also works against elements of the State Guide Plan, including Land Use 2025, and the desire for more concentrated growth center development."

Coupled with:

Pg. 117; "Challenges related to public transit and housing in these areas can be addressed, at least in part, by continuing to aggressively pursue a robust growth centers program."

Conclusion:  The RhodeMap RI planners obviously see privacy by way of land ownership as a problem and wish to force people into concentrated living conditions.  They also cite their own futuristic plan for citizen living conditions as being impeded by the "haphazard sprawling" of life in a single family home.

5.  Pg. 120 & 121

120; " Consider exempting Growth Centers from the state’s tax levy cap to remove disincentives for public and private investment."

121; " The statute assumes growth would occur first and then necessitate infrastructure investment, when in fact substantial growth might not be able to take place without first making the public investment in infrastructure to accommodate desired growth.

"The recommendation from this economic development plan is to revisit this issue and add designated Growth Centers to the list of exemptions for the tax levy cap."

Conclusion:  Removing tax caps that protect taxpayers with further expansion of corporatism in our society will not somehow generate economic growth in society.  The obvious fact is that risks should be taken only by those willing to make them, not forced upon every taxpaying family in the state.

6.  Pg. 122

"Adopt mixed-use development zoning which incorporates village-like amenities, services, and housing options for a mixed-age, mixed-income residential population, and includes by-right multi-family or other denser housing models for rural and suburban centers."

Clarification/Definition:  By right development refers to projects that are permitted under their current zoning and do not require any legislative action by the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Zoning Appeals. They are approved administratively and do not require public hearings.

Conclusion:  The drafters of this language believe people have a right to live where they wish regardless of zoning, laws, or any other impediment whether they have earned it or not.

7.  Pg. 124

"The following performance measures will be tracked by the State to measure progress toward achieving Goal 4 of this Economic Development Plan. These performance measures will be tracked over time and presented in an annual “report card” by Statewide Planning.

• Vehicle miles traveled per capita (RI Department of Transportation)
• Percentage of housing within ¼ mile of transit stop (RI Statewide Planning Program)
• Increase in non-single-family housing units (percentage by municipality) (American Community Survey)
• Proportion of household income spent on housing and transportation cost (Housing + Transportation Affordability Index)"

Cite Goal 4:  "Create great places by coordinating economic, housing and transportation investments."

Conclusion:  It is safe to conclude that these report cards will come with consequences for poor grades.  This is the stick to force citizens into these high density, mixed use living conditions.

8.  Pg. 138

" b. Investigate the creation of a state-level Infrastructure Bank or other more innovative models (e.g. Investment Trusts) to fund projects that support critical economic activity."

Conclusion:  A state run bank where our money can be manipulated?  This particular clause must be taken into consideration with regard to the Transfer of Development Rights analysis below.

9.  Pg. 148

Under " Local Regulatory Challenges"

" Another important aspect of local regulation that needs to be addressed in Rhode Island deals directly with what can and cannot be built.  This issue is certainly not unique to Rhode Island municipalities, but there are far too many local ordinances that do not meet the needs of residents and business owners.  Higher density housing, particularly in suburban and rural areas, should be allowed at different scales in every Rhode Island community."

Conclusion:  RhodeMap RI planners feel that business owners needs should take priority over the needs of families and home owners.  High density housing, they conclude, will make this happen.

10.  Pg. 160

" d. Analyze and reform the property tax system

The State should consider the creation of a permanent commission on property taxation to establish a system of universal, understandable and fair standards for the municipal taxation of property throughout the state."

Conclusion:  No more local control over property taxes . . . Less choice, less diversity, less control.

11.  Pg. 163

" This proposal calls for creating a network of neighborhood health stations, where neighborhood residents could receive the majority of their health care services."

Conclusion:  The destruction of private practice and choice in health care decisions for every family in Rhode Island.