Page | 1

DIXIE ADDITION CDC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

North Little Rock

Arkansas

Master of Public Administration Program

&

Institute of Government

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Griffin Coop Karen Sykes

Caleb Rose Christopher Diaz

Bryan Day Hunter Bacot

May 2015

Page | 2

Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Community Development Plan Part I

Introduction page 7

Considerations for Further Action page 8

Immediate page 8

Intermediate page 9

Long Term page 10

Community Development Plan Part II

Benefits of Community Development Plans page 15

Community Characteristics page 18

Property Assessment page 19

Housing page 19

Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes page 20

Income page 22

Tax-Delinquent Properties page 24

Official Designation page 25

Representation page 25

Community Amenities page 26

Transportation page 26

Transit page 27

Parks page 27

Community Development page 28

Neighborhood Forum page 29

Quality of Life page 30

Community Issues page 31

Improvements and Pressing Concerns page 32

Neighborhood Relations page 32

Sense of Community page 33

Appendices page 35

Appendix A: Project Methodology page 37

Appendix B: Weekday Bus Schedule page 38

Appendix C: Government Officials Representing page 39

Page | 4

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Population

Figure 1. Population of Census Tract 28, 1990-2010 page 18

Property Assessment

Table 1. Number of Properties in Dixie Community by Zoning Classification page 19

Table 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-201019 page 19

Figure 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010 page 20

Figure 3. Percent of Owner & Renter Occupied Homes in Census Tract page 21

Figure 4. Owner-Occupied Residence Rates by Geographic Location page 22

Income

Figure 5. Median Income in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010 page 22

Figure 6. Median Household Income by Geographic Area, 2013 page 23

Figure 7. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line in Census Tract

28, 2000-2010 page 23

Figure 8. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line by Geographic

Area, 2000-2010 page 24

Community

Table 3. Common Community Issues page 32

Table 4. Perspectives of Getting Along and Working Together in the Dixie

Community page 33

Appendices

Table B-1. List of Government Officials Representing the Dixie Addition

Community page 39

Page | 5

DIXIE COMMUNITY

Community Development Plan

PART I

Page | 6

Page | 7

INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2015, leaders from the Dixie Addition, a historically black community located in

North Little Rock, Arkansas, approached the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR)

Institute of Government (IOG) for technical assistance with the creation of a community

development plan to address concerns brought forth by the Dixie Addition CDC.1

To assist the Dixie Community, a team of researchers that included the Master of Public

Administration Capstone students, MPA faculty, and IOG researchers were assigned to the

project. The team researched issues germane to the community, which included their attending

Dixie Addition CDC meetings, conducting a neighborhood forum with members of the

community, meeting with North Little Rock city service departments and local government

representatives to gather information about, and developing partnerships across these entities and

the Dixie Community.2 This report is a summary of the information gathered over this six-month

process and provides the Dixie Community with a roadmap for addressing issues in the

community. The report includes a discussion of the Dixie Community’s community assets, results

from interviews with stakeholders of the community, and voices from the neighborhood forum

with residents about community needs. The research team offers a list of considerations for

further action based on these findings.

1 referred to as ‘Dixie’ or the ‘Dixie Community’ throughout the report 2 Study Methodology is in Appendix A.

Page | 8

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION

Upon consideration of the Dixie Addition community attributes, discussions and conversations

with community leaders and elected officials, neighborhood amenities, and input directly from

Dixie citizens, the following considerations are presented to the community as the first steps on

the path towards community revitalization. Each of these recommendations involve partnering

with various community organizations and neighborhood services.

These recommendations are presented in three sections based on capacity to accomplish; these

include: Immediate – these considerations can be pursued immediately with assistance from

various community interests; Intermediate – these considerations need further in-depth study

before being pursued; and, Long Term – this consideration is based on the confluence of actors

internal and external to the Dixie Community and will require significant time and investment to

initiate.

Immediate

Neighborhood Aesthetics – a major element emerging from the project is the need for the Dixie

Community to establish its identity to those outside of the community (as well as enhance it for

members of the community). The Dixie Community must add a “gateway entrance” to mark the

entrance of their community. A gateway sign should be installed in a high visibility area to serve

as an invitation to the community as well as a notice of the community’s sense of pride and

community spirit. A location that can accomplish this is the southeast corner of the neighborhood

where Dixie Street curves west to become Sam Evans Drive; this location would be ideal for

‘announcing’ one’s arrival in the community. There is a parcel of land, which is available through

Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands for $1,500, at that location that could serve as the location

of the community entrance sign. A community entrance marked by a sign would likely yield

benefits of community unification and convey to others the community’s sense of identity.

Research shows that communities with a heightened sense of neighborhood identity have higher

rates of community participation. Thus, by improving neighborhood identity, the community

could improve neighborhood participation.

Transportation – with its location adjacent to Highway 70, the Dixie Community can build on its

existing transportation assets by working with Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) to

expand the current bus route from Sam Evans Drive into at least one of the neighborhood streets

(assuming these streets can accommodate bus traffic). By altering the bus route slightly, CATA

may increase ridership in the area. The Dixie Community must work with CATA to improve and

expand existing routes and to inquire about the possibility of covered bus stops in the

neighborhood, or at least at the recommended location for the community sign (Dixie Road and

Sam Evans Drive).

Page | 9

Neighborhood Services – a representative(s) from the Dixie CDC Board needs to develop stronger

relationships with North Little Rock’s Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS). The DNS

works closely with neighborhoods across the city to provide resources to neighborhoods and share

information about city projects and other community opportunities. The DNS also coordinates the

Neighborhood Associations Leadership Council (which is comprised of one representative from

each North Little Rock neighborhood association), community development corporations, crime

watches, and property owners associations. Being aligned with this critical city service

department can benefit the Dixie Community through resource allocation and through

relationship-building with other neighborhood associations and city officials.

Intermediate

Historical Registration – as a unique community that has persevered racial segregation and

sustained as a long standing predominantly black community, the Dixie Community, because of

its historic significance, can likely qualify as a historic resource with the Arkansas Historic

Preservation Program (AHPP). The AHPP recognizes historic areas of at least 50 years old as

potential candidates worthy of preservation. Upon review of the AHPP criteria for preservation,

the Dixie Community appears to align with the emphases of the Criterion A program in which

there must be “association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad

patterns of our history.”3 According to the AHPP, benefits of listing in the National Register

bestow tangible considerations for community revitalization and eligibility for specific programs

to fund projects and community improvements.

Community Identification – with an effort to brand the community, the Dixie Community can

work with the City of North Little Rock to change their current street signs to include street signs

with decorative element that depicts the significance of the Dixie Community, such as a

community logo or emblem. The change in street signage can create a neighborhood identity, as

well as possibly increase participation in community events.

Community Garden – Community gardens as a mechanism for community revitalization have

ebbed and flowed in popularity over the decades. Community gardens not only provide fresh,

low-cost produce, health and wellness programs and after-school activities, but also create

economic stimulus by beautifying unsightly vacant lots. Several organizations exist in central

Arkansas to assist communities with establishing community gardens. Partnering with

organizations such as The Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, Arkansas Local Food Network,

Central Arkansas Natural Agrarian Society and the City of North Little Rock, can provide the

Dixie Community with information necessary to establish a community garden.

3 Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. 2015. “National Register of Historic

Places,” http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/Historic-Properties/National-Register/national-register-of-historic-

places

Page | 10

Long Term

Resident Health & Well-Being – As evident through this research and the neighborhood forum, as

well as recognizing the socio-demographics of the Dixie Community, building relationships with

institutions in Central Arkansas can lead to the provision of various services aimed at aiding the

overall health and well-being of Dixie residents. Through its association with the North Little

Rock Neighborhood Services department, the Dixie Community Board can explore possibilities

of establishing connections with various community assets across Central Arkansas. Though these

services may only be provided at the facility location, the Dixie Community can explore the

possibility of using the CATA Link service to transport residents to these sites.

The Dixie Community can explore possible relationships with:

The Donald W. Reynolds Institute on Aging at the University of Arkansas Medical

Sciences (UAMS) – the Institute on Aging sponsors the Arkansas Aging Initiative, which

seeks “to improve health outcomes of older Arkansans through interdisciplinary clinical

care and innovative educational program” (see http://aging.uams.edu/);

The UALR Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology – the department sponsors a

Speech and Hearing Clinic “to evaluate communication problems experienced by clients

of any age” (http://healthprofessions.uams.edu/programs/audandspeechpathology/clinical-

programs/).

Arkansas Department of Health’s Oral Health program – the Arkansas Department of

Health’s Oral Health division is home to the Collaborative Care Dental Hygiene, which is

an effort that coordinates various dental services for elderly populations (among others).

Flood Abatement - though the major issue in the community, mitigating the flood plain for the

Dixie Community is complex and dependent on synergies of many external stakeholders. Based

on several factors, among which project cost is the most challenging, the Dixie Community

leaders must continue to focus on establishing partnerships with North Little Rock and area civic

leaders and government officials to solidify commitment to abatement if and when funding for

such projects materialize. As these partnerships are established and legitimized conterminously

with funding, then a concerted effort to alleviate the flood issue in the Dixie Community can

move forward. Until this cohesive movement can occur, there are opportunities to support other

efforts locally that can tangentially address flooding issues in the Dixie Community (see next

recommendation).

Commercial Development – a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, which was conducted in

conjunction with the potential site location of a major retailer, suggests that site development

would require a drainage tunnel from the site to the river. Given the Dixie Community’s

proximity to this tract (it lies southeast of the area), the community stands to benefit indirectly by

any development in that area (Dark Hollow) – site development will require flood mitigation that

Page | 11

will likely benefit areas adjacent to the development. A large commercial development in the

Dark Hollow area can likely lead to infrastructure improvements that can ameliorate flooding

issues currently experienced in the Dixie Community. The Dixie Community should consider

supporting development projects proposed for the area based solely on benefits that can

potentially accrue to the community due to requisite drainage improvements to develop that

property.

Page | 12

Page | 13

Background Research & Justification

DIXIE COMMUNITY

Community Development Plan

PART II

Page | 14

Page | 15

BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Communities across the United States, whether rural or urban, affluent or poor, homogenous or

multi-cultural seem to hold basic values. For example, residents typically aspire to: live in a safe

area; reside in decent housing; and have hope for their children’s future. However, not all

communities are equal; some communities lack the basic institutions and support infrastructures

necessary for promoting neighborhood progress. In such areas, an approach called community-

based development is proving to be an effective way for communities to revitalize.4 Typically,

community development is characterized by two primary principles:

working with residents in economically and socially stressed environments to

stabilize and revitalize the areas in which they live; and,

using a ground-level strategy where members of the community (i.e., residents,

business owners, clergy, and others) shape the community development plan to fit

their needs.5

Further, by including these individuals in the planning process, the community development plan

will be able to confront the range of issues shaping the community.

Berger and Kasper (1993) make a case for the establishment of a “Community Development

Corporation” (CDC)” that is, a grassroots, nonprofit organization that draws on the significant

involvement of their target constituencies and seek to empower them while rebuilding these

communities.2 The participation of multiple classes representing different disciplines provides a

community development team with a large number of “boots on the ground,” making it possible

to collect impressive amounts of data and develop a highly refined profile of community

conditions.6 There is a benefit in partnering with an interdisciplinary team (such as university

researchers, students, architects, engineers, etc.) as they have the skill and access to multiple data

sources. One example from a community development effort in Memphis, TN, noted several

community-based research projects anchored by a partnership between the community and local

university faculty from various departments. Eventually, a partnership called the South Memphis

Renaissance Coalition (SMRC) was formed. From this partnership, several “best practices” were

noted, among these are ways to:

Create opportunities to establish and build trust among stakeholders. The history of

community-university collaboration has been fraught with many false starts and missteps.

Grassroots residents and leaders representing economically distressed communities are

unlikely to invest significant time and effort cooperating with higher education until the

4 Berger, R.A., & Kasper, G 1993. An overview of the literature on community development corporations. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 4, 2, 241-255 5 Berger, R.A., & Kasper, G. 1993. An overview of the literature on community development corporations. Nonprofit

Management & Leadership, 4, 2, 241-255 6 Lambert-Pennington, K., Reardon, K.M., & Robinson, K.S. 2011. Revitalizing south Memphis through an

interdisciplinary community-university development partnership. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,

Spring 2011, 59-70.

Page | 16

latter can demonstrate their ability to listen and develop research agendas responsive to

community concerns.

Allow sufficient time…to form a well-functioning team. Scholars trained in different

disciplines bring their own theoretical frameworks, conceptual constructs, research

methods, and policy ideas to their community-based research work. Additional time is

required when participating in projects that can develop and share a set of basic core

values, project objectives, research methods, and communications strategies.

Community development is linked to empowerment and to valuing diversity of cultures.7 In

today’s policy environment, which is somewhat driven by grant-making institutions and

policymaking organizations, there is a greater desire to measure community development

outcomes.8 Thus, one benefit to creating and following a community development plan is that the

Community Development Organization can be more accountable to their funder(s). The Work

Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas has published a

“Community Tool Box” providing a wealth of resources with regard to community planning.9

One chapter provides information specific to benefits for advancing a community development

plan; the information touches on topics about:

Gaining a deeper understanding of the community. Each community has its own needs

and assets, as well as its own culture and social structure – a unique web of relationships,

history, strengths, and conflicts that defines it. A community assessment helps to uncover

not only needs and resources, but the underlying culture and social structure that will help

you understand how to address the community's needs and utilize its resources.

Considering of community assets/needs and how to use/address them. That

consideration can (and should) be the first step in their learning how to use their own

resources to solve problems and improve community life.

Prioritizing decisions for program or system improvement. It would obviously be

foolhardy to try to address community issues without fully understanding what they are

and how they arose. By the same token, failing to take advantage of community resources

not only represents taking on a problem without using all the tools at your disposal to

solve it, but misses an opportunity to increase the community's capacity for solving its

7 Kennedy, M. 1996. Transformative community planning: Empowerment through community development.

Prepared for the 1996 Planners Network Conference, “Renewing Hope, Restoring Vision: Progressive Planning in

Our Communities.” 8 Dorius, N. 2011. Measuring community development outcomes: In search of an analytical framework. Economic

Development Quarterly, 25, 267-276. 9 Work Group for Community Health and Development. 2014. Developing a Plan for Assessing Local Needs and

Resources. Community Tool Box, Chapter 3, Section 1. University of Kansas. Retrieved from

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/develop-a-plan/main

Page | 17

own problems and creating its own change. Such efforts will help eliminate unpleasant

surprises down the road. Identifying needs and resources before starting a program or

initiative means that you know from the beginning what you're dealing with, and are less

likely to be blindsided later by something you didn't expect.

Involving community members from the very beginning. This encourages both trust in

the process and community buy-in and support, not only of the assessment, but of

whatever actions are taken as a result of it. Full community participation in planning and

carrying out an assessment also promotes leadership from within the community and gives

voice to those who may feel they have none; this process provides an easy-to-follow road

map for conducting an accurate assessment. Planning ahead will save time and effort in

carrying out the process.

Providing opportunity for community to voice their opinions, hopes, and fears. Their

idea of priorities might be different from those of professionals, but they shouldn't be

ignored.10

The first order of business is to address the community’s priorities to establish trust and show

respect. Building relationships and credibility may be more important at the beginning of a long

association than immediately tackling what seems to be the most pressing need. These

relationships can establish community members' priorities, particularly those with grass-roots

origins, as these may unveil underlying factors unknown to those without intimate community

knowledge and exposure. Once priorities are set, the community can then develop a more sound

and beneficial community development plan.

10 Ibid.

Page | 18

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS

In 1946, Dixie, Fort Roots, Park Hill, and Rose City, and other unincorporated areas of North

Little Rock were annexed into the city of North Little Rock; this annexation enabled North Little

Rock’s population to leap from 21,137 (according to the 1940 census) to 39,552 as assessed

during a special census held in 1948. Beginning in the 1890s, Rose City and later Dixie were

home to manufacturers, cotton oil mills, and other similar industries. Today, the remnants of the

once bustling cotton oil mills stand abandoned along Arkansas Highway 70, and although the city

of North Little Rock and Pulaski County have seen small population increases over the years, the

population of the census tract that includes the Dixie Addition has declined steadily for the past

20 years.

Census data from 1970 to the present reveal declining trends in population, housing units and

income in Census Tract 28. Census Tract 28 not only includes Dixie, but also the adjacent

neighborhoods to the south (located between U.S. 70 and the Arkansas River) and to the west

(located between Dixie and Interstate 30).11 Since 1970, the population of this area has fallen 54

percent from 5,132 to 2,356.12 The population of the area has dipped consistently with each

census: falling 30 percent from 1970 to 1990, 19 percent from 1990-2000, and another 19 percent

from 2000-2010. Population trends for the area are in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Population of Census Tract 28, 1990-2010

Source: 1990 and 2000 Data obtained from Metroplan at http://www.metroplan.org/files/53/PulTract90-00.pdf; 2010

Data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=05

11 Metroplan. 2010. Pulaski County Census Tracts: http://metroplan.org/files/53//PulaskiTract2010.pdf 12 Metroplan. 2013. Neighborhood Analyses: Little Rock-North Little Rock Metropolitan Area, Volume II, Study

Area 9.

3607

2922

2356

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1990 2000 2010

Page | 19

Property Assessment

The Dixie Community consists of 537 parcels with 505 parcels designated as residential; of these

residential parcels, 245 have a house located on these lots. Twenty-three parcels are owned by

churches; 12 of these church-owned properties are vacant. The community park located at the

western edge of the community consists of five parcels. Four parcels are zoned as commercial

property and two of these commercial properties are vacant.

Table 1. Number of Properties in Dixie Community by Zoning Classification

Existing Structure Vacant Lot

Residential 245 260

Church 11 12

Park 5 --

Commercial 2 2

Total 263 274

Source: Pulaski County Tax Assessor.

Housing

Since 1970, the number of housing units continues to decline in the area. For example, in the past

40 years, the number of housing units decreased 28 percent from 1,581 to 1,146. Occupied units

decreased by 35 percent; yet, the number of vacant units increased by 230 percent during the

same time period.13 While vacant units account for about only 4 percent of all housing units in

1970, these vacant units account for 15 percent of units by 2010. Using Geographic Information

System (GIS) analysis, there is evidence that the Dixie Community has many vacant lots. Table 2

and Figure 2 depict housing trends for the area.

Table 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010

Occupied Units Vacant Units Total Units

2000 1,091 151 1,242

2010 971 175 1,146

% Change -11% +16% -8%

Source: Authors. Pulaski County Tax Assessor. ArcGIS Analysis of Dixie Addition Community

13 U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. www.census.gov

Page | 20

As shown in Figure 2, there are 120 fewer housing units in the area from 2000 to 2010.

Furthermore, the number of occupied housing units declined similarly; there are 96 fewer

occupied housing units in 2010 as compared to 2000. Not surprisingly, vacant housing units

increased by 16 percent over the same ten year period from 2000 to 2010.

Figure 2. Change in Census Tract 28 Housing Units, 2000-2010

Source: Metroplan. Pulaski County Census Tract Population and Housing,

http://www.metroplan.org/files/53/PulaskiTracts2000-2010.pdf

Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes

Homeownership plays an important role in neighborhoods by providing stability as well as

investment in the communities. In fact, homeownership improves the self-esteem of the owners,

improves neighborhood stability, and increases civic participation.14 These effects are evident in

the Dixie Community where residents have a high rate of homeownership (61% based on a GIS

analysis) and demonstrate passion and commitment to their neighborhood.

14 McCarthy, G.,Van Zandt, S., and Rohe, W. 2000. The Social Benefits and Costs of Home Ownership. Working

Paper No. 01-02. Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.

http://www.housingamerica.org/RIHA/RIHA/Publications/ 48517_RIHAwp01-02.pdf

1242

11461091

971

151 175

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000 2010

All Housing Units Occupied Units Vacant Units

Page | 21

Figure 3. Percent of Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Homes in Census Tract 28

Source: Authors. Pulaski County Tax Assessor. ArcGIS Analysis of Dixie Addition Community.

The national average for owner-occupied residences is 65 percent, which is slightly below the

Arkansas average (at 66.7%). The Pulaski County owner-occupied residence rate is further behind

both national and state rates at 60 percent. The owner-occupied residences rate (53.8%) in North

Little Rock is nearly thirteen percentage points below the state average (at 66.7%). Most notable

among these figures is the owner-occupied residences rate in the Dixie Community – it is 61

percent – which is higher than both rates for Pulaski County and the city of North Little Rock.

Though it compares favorably, the percentage of owner-occupied residences in Dixie is only

slightly below national and state averages.

Comparatively, the Dixie Community’s homeownership rate is remarkable. Considering that the

Dixie Community’s median income is far below national and state levels (as discussed herein),

the Dixie Community’s rate of homeownership is more impressive. Despite a median income that

is 4.5 times less than the national average and 3.5 times less than the state average, the Dixie

Community’s homeownership rate is about four percentage points less than the national average

and about six percentage points less than the state average. Owner-occupied residence rates in

Dixie as compared to North Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and nation are shown in

Figure 4.

61%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

Page | 22

Figure 4. Owner-Occupied Residence Rates by Geographic Location,

Source: United States Census.American Housing Survey (AHS): http://www.census.gov/programs-

surveys/ahs/data.html

Income

Over the past four decades, income has also declined in the area (Census Tract 28). In 1970, the

median household income in the tract was $3,294 (the equivalent of $18,500 in 2010 dollars).

From 2000 to 2010, the median household income in the area (census tract) has dropped to

$11,705 from $11,533. Figure 5 displays the decline in income since 2000.

Figure 5. Median Income in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010

Source: Metroplan. 2015. 2010 data: http://metroplan.org/files/53/Pul-TractIncomePoverty00.pdf;

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. 2010 data: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_S1903&prodType=table

61.0%53.8%

60.4%66.7% 64.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dixie North Little

Rock

Pulaski County Arkansas United States

Dixie North Little Rock Pulaski County Arkansas United States

$11,705

$11,533

$10,000

$10,500

$11,000

$11,500

$12,000

$12,500

$13,000

$13,500

$14,000

$14,500

$15,000

2000 2010

2000 2010

Page | 23

While the median household income in the Dixie Community was $11,533 in 2010, the median

household income for the nation, state, county and city was much higher. In 2013, the national

median household income was $53,046, it was at $40,768 in the State of Arkansas, $46,013 in

Pulaski County, and $40,170 in the City of North Little Rock (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Median Household Income by Geographic Area, 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSG445213/00,05,05119,0550450,

Note: Dixie Median Household income is from 2010.

While income in the Dixie Community declined over the past decade, the percentage of

individuals living below the poverty line increased slightly from 49.6 percent in 2000 to 51

percent in 2010. The percentage of Dixie residents living below the poverty line is shown in

Figure 7.

Figure 7. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line in Census Tract 28, 2000-2010

Source: Metroplan. 2015. 2000 Data: http://metroplan.org/files/53/Pul-TractIncomePoverty00.pdf;

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. 2010 Data: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_5YR_S1903&prodType=table

$11,533

$40,170

$46,013

$40,768

$53,046

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Dixie North Little

Rock

Pulaski County Arkansas United States

49.6% 51.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2000 2010

Page | 24

In 2014, on average, the Dixie Community witnessed more than twice as many individuals living

below the poverty line compared to averages for the city, county, state, and nation. For example,

51 percent of the Dixie Community’s population lives below the poverty line, more than doubling

the comparable percentage for North Little Rock (21.0%), Pulaski County (18.6%), Arkansas

(19.7%) and the nation (14.5%). Figure 8 depicts the status of the Dixie Community vis-à-vis

local, state, and national figures.

Figure 8. Percent of Individuals Living Below the Poverty Line by Geographic Area, 2000-2010

Source: United States Census. 2015. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSG445213/00,05,05119,0550450

Tax-Delinquent Properties

In Arkansas, the state can take possession of property if taxes are not paid for a period of two

years. These tax delinquent properties are sold at public auction in each county. Those delinquent

properties that do not sell at auction are placed on the Post-Auction Sales List for purchase by the

public at a price equivalent to the delinquent taxes owed to the state.15

Since 2008, the Commissioner of State Lands has acquired 29 tax-delinquent properties in the

Dixie community. As of April 2014, five properties in Dixie are on the public auction list and 24

properties in Dixie are on the post-auction sales list; the prices for these tax delinquent properties

range from approximately $300 to $7,000.16 Twenty-two of the 24 properties on the post-auction

sales list are vacant lots.17

15 Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands. 2015. Delinquent Real Estate Taxes

http://www.cosl.org/pdf/Delinquent.pdf 16 Arkansas Commission of State Lands. 2015.Post-Auction Sales List for Pulaski County:

http://www.cosl.org/negpdf/PULASKI.pdf 17 Arkansas Commission of State Lands. 2015. April 2015 Auction List: http://www.cosl.org/saleresults.aspx?

CTY=PULASKI&CT=PULA&SD=4/14/2015%2010:00%20AM&LO=VERIZON%20ARENA%20-

%20MEETING%20ROOM%201A%20&%201B,%20BOX%20OFFICE%20ENTRANCE%20%28STREET%2

0LEVEL%29&CI=NORTH%20LITTLE%20ROCK&CA=false

51.0%

21.9% 18.6% 19.7%14.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Dixie North Little Rock Pulaski County Arkansas United States

Page | 25

Official Designation

The Dixie Community, doing business as the Community Addition Community Development

Corporation, filed its official incorporation documents with the Arkansas Secretary of State on

May 23, 1967. The organization is listed as a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation and is currently in

good standing. The three principals, Shauntel Bolden, Lee Jeffrey, and Earnest Franklin, are listed

on the document, with three others, James Lucas, Freddie Romes and Margie Evans, listed as

directors. The filing number is 100037417 and the listed address is 914 H Street, North Little

Rock. The Dixie Addition Community Development Corporation Board of Directors recently

submitted documents to the Internal Revenue Service to be granted status as a tax-exempt

organization. The IRS has not yet granted that designation (based on a review of the IRS website).

Representation

There are a number of elected government officials representing the Dixie Addition community:

Two U.S. Senators, one U.S. Representative, two members of the Arkansas General Assembly

(one senator and one representative), as well as a member of the Quorum Court and two members

of the North Little Rock City Council. A list of the elected officials representing the Dixie

Addition community, and their contact information, is provided in Appendix C.

Page | 26

COMMUNITY AMENITIES

With its location near the main thoroughfare (Highway 70/E or Broadway Street in North Little

Rock), the Dixie Addition community is not too far removed from any number of amenities

available to urban living. This section highlights the community’s advantageous location, public

transit options for the community, parks and recreation sites in the neighborhood, and

opportunities for community development.

Transportation

The main ingress and egress roadway for the Dixie neighborhood is East Broadway Street (also

known as U.S. Highway 70). This roadway intersects with the two main streets into and out of

Dixie (Dixie Street and North Redwood Street/East Range Line Avenue). East Broadway Street is

a four-lane highway with a center left-turn lane and traffic signalization at busy intersections,

such as Dixie Street and N. Redwood Street intersections. Traffic on East Broadway Street

increased about 8 percent between 2009 and 2013.18 Dixie Street is a two-lane city street leading

into the Dixie neighborhood from the east side. Dixie Street has two railroad crossings consisting

of four sets of railroad tracks. Though problems at these two crossings are rare, these crossings do

not feature safety warning gates or signals, which can pose hazards for vehicular and pedestrian

traffic.

Dixie Street connects with Sam Evans Drive, a two-lane city street, to form the southern border of

the Dixie Community. Sam Evans Drive connects with Range Line Avenue, which is a city street

running north and south between the community and North Redwood Street; Redwood Street

connects to East Broadway Street. Range Line Avenue has one railroad crossing and North

Redwood Street has one railroad crossing; again, as noted previously, these crossings have not

safety warning gates or signalization.

The Dixie neighborhood consists of a grid of several two-lane streets; curbs and covered gutters

are located on many streets. Some streets, including Sam Evans Drive and Range Line Avenue,

have sidewalks. Yet, some stretches of these sidewalks are in need of maintenance and repair.

Using funds from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as well as

other sources, the City of North Little Rock invested significantly in infrastructure improvements

in the Dixie Community. Since 2002, the City of North Little Rock invested well over one-half

million dollars ($645,000) in infrastructure improvements. These investments were directed to

street, drainage, and some sidewalk improvements on 9th Street and 11th Street. These funds are

also being used for the Douglas Walking Trail, which will extend along the western edge of the

Dixie Community. CDBG funds secured the purchase of a new HVAC unit for the Dixie

Community building. North Little Rock allocates CDBG funds across the City’s four wards. In

many cases, these funds are used on particular infrastructure projects (e.g., street improvements in

the Dixie Community) and at times this requires the accrual of sufficient funds to complete

planned projects.19

18 Traffic Counts: Metroplan http://metroplan.org/index.php?fuseaction=p0007.&mod=33 19 Interview with Melissa Ervin, Community Development Director, City of North Little Rock Community

Development Agency (4/16/15); personal correspondence (5/8/15).

Page | 27

Transit

Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is the agency responsible for public transit in the

Dixie Community (as well as throughout the City of North Little Rock). The CATA Route 18

provides bus service to the Dixie Community; this route has bus service along Dixie Street, Sam

Evans Drive, and Range Line Avenue. Route 18 has six designated service locations in the Dixie

Community, including three bus stops with benches and a shelter. Information for accessing a

complete bus schedule for Route 18 is provided in appendix B.20

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, CATA provides LINKS paratransit

service to all disabled persons who live within three-quarters of a mile from a fixed-service bus

route. With the entire Dixie Community located within three-quarters of a mile of CATA Route

18, LINKS paratransit is available to all eligible persons in the Dixie community.21

While transit service and access can be improved in the area, the existing access is an asset for the

community.22 Studies show that access to transit has a significant effect on rates of employment

and, in particular, on minority employment.23 Other studies note that people with access to transit

work more days than those who do not have such access; as well, research suggests those who are

currently served would not be able to continue in their jobs or would suffer financially.24

Parks

Conley Park is located on the west side of the Dixie community and is bordered by Sam Evans

Drive to the south and Douglas Avenue to the west. The park is owned by Entergy Arkansas, a

public electric utility, and is maintained by the City of North Little Rock. The park features an

athletic field, a covered pavilion with picnic tables, a playground, a basketball court, and large

grassy open areas.

As recreational areas in neighborhoods provide positive tangible amenities for communities,

Conley Park is an asset to the Dixie Community. The park provides a place for the neighborhood

to host large, annual events like Dixie Days, as well as dedicated space for exercise and recreation

opportunities. Conley Park is also an important part of the neighborhood because parks improve

community engagement by providing a place where people can assemble and interact in a shared

environment. This park provides the residents of the Dixie Community a place to come together

to build and sustain their heightened sense of community.25

20 CATA. 21 Ibid. 22 Sanchez, T. W. (1999). The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 284-296. 23 Holzer, H. J., Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2003). Public transit and the spatial distribution of minority

employment: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(3), 415-441. 24 Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf 25 How Cities Use Parks for Community Engagement,

https://www.planning.org/cityparks/briefingpapers/communityengagement.htm

Page | 28

Community Development

The most challenging aspect for revitalization efforts in the Dixie Addition community is

fostering community development while wrestling with the barriers of nature. As is well

documented, nearly all of the Dixie Community lies in the flood plain. Further, it is clear that

significant flood mitigation is required to eliminate frequent flooding issues. Available options for

flood mitigation include building tunnels and retention basins, as well as coordinating abatement

efforts with Union Pacific, which owns large tracts of nearby property, and the City of North

Little Rock. While these possibilities provide effective options for addressing flooding, these are

cost prohibitive if the scope of such projects are limited to mitigating only issues in the Dixie

Community. In addition, given decreased intergovernmental funds typically needed for such

projects, funding for such a mitigation project is not available currently, nor have other sources of

funding been identified or secured for these improvements.

The most likely approach to resolving the flooding issue in the community is to broaden the scope

of a mitigation project. One approach to resolving the flooding issue is through private

development of an adjacent commercial property (as noted in the recommendations). The Dark

Hollow property (located near the intersection of I-30 and I-40) requires site improvements that

address the property’s hydrology, which affects all nearby properties (including the Dixie

Community). A 2002 study of the property recommended a series of large tunnels, pipes and open

channels to carry water from the property to the Arkansas River; the recommended project would

result in significant drainage improvements for the area. Based on the benefits accrued from such

a development, the Dixie Community should consider lending its support to any commercial

improvements for that location. Without government funding, or until it is restored, the

development of adjacent property may be the only viable and feasible option for improving

drainage issues throughout the area. As studies show that floodplain issues negatively affect

housing prices, a flood mitigation project would benefit the Dixie Community. Floodplain

improvements in the area can only improve the prospects of advancing housing and property

values in the Dixie Community.26

26 Holway, J. M., & Burby, R. J. (1990). The effects of floodplain development controls on residential land values.

Land Economics, 259-271.

Page | 29

NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM

On April 20, 2015, the Dixie Community held a neighborhood forum in which researchers guided

a community discussion of residents at a regularly scheduled neighborhood association meeting.

The neighborhood forum served to ascertain citizens’ views across a host of items (e.g., about the

community, neighborhood issues, and resident concerns). As an open meeting, the perspectives

offered are from only those residents in attendance, and even then, these perspectives are of only

those who were willing to express their thoughts during or after the meeting.

Though there is much information from which to draw, it is possible to distill from the

neighborhood forum several key observations that summarize the community’s overall

perspectives; these are:

Sense of Community – there is an impressive esprit de corps in the Dixie

Community as residents are quite prideful of their community and all it has to offer

as a neighborhood and location. The Dixie Community must use this asset to

promote it to other community constituents. Organizations and other institutions

are much more interested in working with communities in which cooperation and

collaboration are well-established community characteristics.

Community Relations with the City of North Little Rock and the Union Pacific

Corporation – there are very long-held sentiments about the community’s

relationships with these entities and a sense that both neglect the community’s

needs; the relationship with the railroad, which owns property adjacent to the

community, is particularly acute as the prevailing sentiment is that the rail road

does not act in the best interest of the neighborhood. Union Pacific could improve

their relationship with the Dixie Community by working through its Union Pacific

Foundation to secure a community-based grant for the neighborhood.27 A review

of the grants made in Arkansas reveal that North Little Rock neighboring

communities have never received such funding; this is especially disturbing given

the presence of Union Pacific in the city (as well as being adjacent to the Dixie

Community). With regard to the City of North Little Rock, the most prevalent

sentiment is that it does not maintain a sustained presence in the community (e.g.,

regular and visible police patrols, street cleaning, and road & sidewalk

maintenance).

Though the City of North Little Rock has invested heavily in the community over

the years, residents continue to perceive their community neglected. Improving

relations with the city appears easily accomplished through information sharing

and continuous dialogue. Catalyzing this dialogue with the city can be advanced

should community members adhere to the recommendation to become actively

involved in the city’s Neighborhood Services program, which can lead to

27 Union Pacific Foundation. 2015. Union Pacific Corporation

http://www.up.com/aboutup/community/foundation/index.htm

Page | 30

improving this relationship. The relationship with Union Pacific is a bit more

arduous to address due to the profound lack of interest in the Dixie Community

over the years. Should the community be able to progress through the Union

Pacific Foundation, there may be some thawing of these sentiments. Regardless, it

will take more time and a much more concerted effort on behalf of the community

to ameliorate this relationship.

Flood Plain – the community is located in a flood plain, which introduces a host of

issues for residents and property owners (development, insurance acquisition &

costs, property values, etc.). The residents, though understanding of the cost and

complexity of the issue, are frustrated that various alternative actions are not

discussed; community members perceive those who can catalyze attention to the

problem as being too cautious.

Yet, there were many other nuanced comments and concerns discussed at the neighborhood

forum, as well as celebrations and compliments about the community; all these comments point to

a well-organized and genuine commitment to the overall well-being of the Dixie Community. To

uncover these sentiments, the neighborhood meeting was guided by items of import for the

community to aid in understanding residents’ overall satisfaction with living in the Dixie

Community. These topics are discussed below and include:

Quality of life,

Community issues,

Improvements and pressing concerns,

Neighborhood relations, and

Sense of community.

Quality of Life

Quality of Life, as used here, refers to the community’s well-being and perceived happiness with

aspects of living in the community. As applied in this setting, the quality of life discussion

involved two dimensions: it is discussed relative to residents’ personal happiness in the

community and residents perceptions of their well-being vis-à-vis the overall community. To

begin the neighborhood forum, residents were asked about their thoughts on what makes the

neighborhood good for the people that live there in terms of parks, schools, safety, streets, and

how well they know their neighbors.

The quality of life for residents personally is quite high; they conveyed an intense sense of

neighborhood pride and community spirit. Yet, aside from these personal frames of reference to

quality of life, most residents feel largely neglected by city and civic officials. Residents

expressed their exasperation through complaints about the City of North Little Rock concerning

the lack of street maintenance and street cleaning services, as well as inadequate signals and

emergency signage at the two railroad crossings leading into the community. However, the major

issue that frames their perspective is the lack of attention to the community’s location in a flood

plain area. The designation of being in a flood plain precludes any significant community

Page | 31

improvements being made in the neighborhood. Thus, quality of life in Dixie is dichotomized

according to how invested residents are in their community – perceived to be tremendous pride

and progress – and how invested civic and city leaders are in their community – perceived to be

minimal.

Community Issues

Beyond the issue most pronounced on residents’ minds (flood plain, or flooding & drainage

issues), only a few issues emerged as concerns for the community based on the list of issues

common to communities. The list of common issues in communities, as shown in Table 3,

demonstrates that community issues are not systemic or major problems. To initiate this

discussion, residents were presented with some common items for describing neighborhoods and

asked if these were in any way depicted their community.

Two issues considered “nuisance issues” – noise and animal issues – emerged as the most serious

problems by most residents attending the neighborhood forum; yet, even these issues were

depicted as isolated. For example, with regard to noise, residents noted that on occasion there are

cars in the neighborhood playing their music too loud. The other situation, animal nuisance, did

not involve neighbors in the community, but wild animals – skunks, bobcats, and feral cats – in

the community.

Other items noted offered more in the form of a complaint than an actual community concern. For

example, residents acknowledged that the North Little Rock Police Department patrols the area,

but they want the police patrols to be more frequent, especially during summer months (e.g. when

there is an increase in the number of people who loiter in the park) and during early morning

hours (between 3 and 6 am) when prospects for criminal behavior is more active (e.g., drug sales,

solicitation, etc.).

Those issues identified in Table 3 with an asterisk (*) also need further explication. These issue

items typically did not find residents outraged or upset, but expressing concern about specific

activities related to these issues (which are noted in brackets for each item so noted). Finally, one

other issue item was mentioned by several residents when they were asked about “other issues”;

residents spoke about people who are not from the community being in the area, especially during

the summer and early morning hours. Residents believe these individuals are bringing problems

into the neighborhood from other areas and would like to see action taken to curb the amount of

“transient activity” involving those who are from outside the Dixie Community.

Page | 32

Table 3. Common Community Issues

Check the most appropriate box for each item in the following list Not an

Issue

Somewhat

an Issue

A Major

Issue

a. Noisy Neighbors: loud music, late parties, noisy quarrels

[isolated incidents of loud music from cars]

b. Animal Nuisance (e.g., Dogs Barking Loudly, etc.)

[Feral Cats, Skunks, Bobcat; Animal Control is aware of problem]

c. Poor maintenance of property and lawns

d. Purse Snatching or other street crimes

e. Presence of Drugs and drug users

[activity is present, but not widespread; NLR PD made aware of issue] *

f. Groups of teenagers or adults hanging out and causing trouble

[only during select times of year, e.g., summer curfew violations] *

g. Garbage not properly disposed or trash on the sidewalk or streets

[lack of regular street sweeping] *

h. Landlords don’t care about what happens to the neighborhood

[very few rental properties at this time] *

i. Police not patrolling the area or responding to calls from the area

j. Flooding/drainage issues

k. List Other Concern :

[transient activity – youth from other neighborhoods ‘hanging out’; petty

theft issues]

*

Improvements and Pressing Concerns

The overarching pressing issue of concern to residents is the flood plain issue. Residents of the

community understand the magnitude and complexity of the issue, but would appreciate attention

to the situation when opportunities emerge. Another concern voiced by many of those residents

who attended the neighborhood forum involved the high voltage power lines in the community.

Neighborhood Relations

Neighborhood relations concerns how residents of the community keep, or are kept abreast of and

connected and involved in community initiatives steered by government or commercial entities

with an interest in the community’s well-being. Most present at the meeting noted that

relationships between the Dixie Community and the Union Pacific Corporation (also known as

the Railroad) and the City of North Little Rock were not completely unfavorable. Residents

acknowledged that work needs to be done by both sides to create a cordial atmosphere among

government entities with an interest in the status of the community, as well as those commercial

interests in close proximity to the neighborhood.

Page | 33

Sense of Community

Sense of community involves understanding how community, i.e., not necessarily individual

residents, experiences shape peoples perspective of their standing in or relationship with the

community as a whole. As shown in Table 4, residents were asked to discuss several items in an

effort to understand the ‘sense of community’ in the Dixie Community.

Table 4. Perspectives of Getting Along and Working Together in the Dixie Community Items below discuss how people in this neighborhood

get along with each other or work together; we want to

know how each item is for the Dixie Community

No Some of

the Time Yes

Do people in this neighborhood know each other?

Do people in this neighborhood trust each other?

Do people in this neighborhood feel close to each

other?

Do people have a feeling of community spirit in this

neighborhood?

Do people in this neighborhood watch out for each

other?

Do people in this neighborhood care about its future?

Do people in this neighborhood socialize with each

other?

Do people in this neighborhood have a voice regarding

important community issues?

Do people in this neighborhood work together to make

it a safer place to live?

Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to

properly maintain their lawns and the exteriors to their

houses in good condition?

Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to

respect quiet hours at night?

Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to

respect everyone’s parking spaces and driveways?

Do people in this neighborhood expect each other to

watch over children and the elderly in the

neighborhood to be sure they are safe?

As is easily discerned, there is a tremendous sense of community spirit in the Dixie Community.

Most residents know and socialize with each other through church or other civic activities. It is

common for residents to ‘look out for each other’ and work together to try to improve the

community. Proof of this sense of community is depicted in Table 4, in which all items deemed

viable assets for a community are viewed positively. From the discussion and anecdotal instances

shared during the neighborhood forum, it is easy to determine that residents of Dixie know and

Page | 34

trust each other; as well, residents noted how well people in the community routinely work

together to accomplish their common community objectives. In fact, from residents attending the

meeting, there was a sense of pride in their capacity to depend on each other (their neighbors).

Finally, from this neighborhood forum, it is easy to see that most residents speak with one

community voice and most share the same sentiments about their community. In fact, most

residents at the neighborhood form spoke of Dixie as “our community”.

Page | 35

Appendices

DIXIE COMMUNITY

Community Development Plan

Page | 36

Page | 37

Appendix A: Project Methodology

Several approaches were used by researchers to acquire data and information for this report; these

include:

Personal interviews with professionals associated with various state and local agencies;

Guided inquiry of attendees at a regularly scheduled neighborhood meetings;

Analysis of secondary data from the U.S. Census Bureau, North Little Rock crime data,

and the UALR Institute of Government.

For the neighborhood meeting (also referred to as the focus group), an IOG researcher conducted

a guided discussion of community members attending the regularly scheduled neighborhood

association meetings at the CDC on Monday, April 20, 2015. This group meeting served to

ascertain global citizen views across a host of questions about the community and issues and

concerns. As an “open participation” meeting, the participants are strictly self-selected (similar to

a convenience survey), i.e., only those willing to participate do so. Results from this community

meeting are best described as ‘impressionistic’ and general, overall descriptions of citizens’

perspectives. In no way should results from the community meeting be construed to be a

randomized effort of statistical integrity; these results cannot be extrapolated to the entire

community. The “instrument” used to guide this community meeting is provided in the discussion

of the meeting results.

Other analysis in this study is derived from secondary quantitative data based on a variety of

sources, including the City of North Little Rock, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other state and

federal agencies (e.g,, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). These data are matched as closely as

possible to correspond to the Dixie Community (as the area of the community is part of a larger

census tract). Much of these data extend back to 2000, unless otherwise noted. Interpretations of

these data are those of the researchers.

Page | 38

Appendix B: Weekday Bus Schedule

CATA Bus Schedules

http://www.cat.org/bus-service/bus-schedules

Route 18 – Service to the Dixie Community

http://www.cat.org/bus-service/bus-schedules/18-mcalmont

Page | 39

Appendix C: Government Officials Representing

Table B-1. List of Government Officials Representing the Dixie Addition Community

Office Phone

United States Senate

Sen. John Boozman (501) 372-7153

Sen. Tom Cotton (501) 223-9081

US House of Representatives

Rep. French Hill (501) 324-5941

Arkansas General Assembly

Sen. Linda Chesterfield (501) 888-1859

Rep. Eddie Armstrong (501) 444-8468

Pulaski County Quorum Court

Rev. Robert Green (501) 400-4477

North Little Rock City Council

Linda Robinson (501) 945-8820

Maurice Taylor (501) 690-6444

Page | 40

Page | 41

©

Spring 2015

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT | UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM

2801 South University Avenue | Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099

http://www.ualr.edu/iog/

Limited reproduction permitted by contracting agency:

Dixie Community CDC