Relocation case study and evaluation of displaced tenants in two mobile home parks

Citation
Relocation case study and evaluation of displaced tenants in two mobile home parks

Material Information

Title:
Relocation case study and evaluation of displaced tenants in two mobile home parks
Creator:
Sugg, Catherine L.
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Florida
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 148 leaves : ill. (some col.) ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Relocation (Housing) -- Florida -- Tampa ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF ( FTS )

Notes

General Note:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 1996. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-131).

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
022477410 ( ALEPH )
35771518 ( OCLC )
F51-00214 ( USFLDC DOI )
f51.214 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information

Format:
Book

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

RELOCATION CASE STIJDY AND EVALUATION OF DISPLACED TENANTS IN TWO MOBILE HOME PARKS by CATHERINE L. SUGG Of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Deparunent of Anthropology University of South Florida May 1 996 Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D.

PAGE 2

Graduate School University of South Florida Tampa, Florida CERTrFICATE OF APPROVAL Master's Thesis This is to certify that the Master's Thesis of Catherine L Sugg Vvith a major in Applied Anthropology has been approved by the E'
PAGE 3

Copyright by Catherine L. Sugg 1996 All rights reserved

PAGE 4

DEDICATION To my husband john with love and gratitude. To my father for laying the foundation. To the working poor who work so hard for so very little.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to all the staff at O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. who befriended me, supported me and freely shared their expertise and knowledge with me. I would like to thank Ms. Nadine Jones of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for her insightful comments when I have presented my work to her and for allowing me to carry out research while working for O.R. Colan Associates, Inc.. I wish also to thank Dr. Alvin Wolfe for his advice and unwavering confidence in me and Dr. Gilbert Kushner who has helped me in my academic career over the years.

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF fiGURES LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCfiON Research Problem TABLE OF CONTENTS Methodology and the Anthropological Approach Organization of the Thesis CI-LAPTER 2. LITERATuRE REVIEW Introduction Research by Anthropologists Research in the United States CHAPTER 3. RFSEARCH iviETHODS Initial Approach Participant Obsener Survey Instrument The In teniew Process Summary CHAPTER 4. THE SETTING A..t"'l"D BACKGROTJNTI Drew Park and the Mobile Home Parks Description of Evan's Park Description of Park Place Demographics Calculating Benefits Relocation Options to Displacees Summary CHAPTERS. Ar.;ALYSES OF RESuLTS Satisfaction With Replacement Dwelling How Do You Like Your New Home? \Vhat Do You Like About It? Park Place Evan's Park What lvlade You Choose This Residence? How Many Other Homes Did You Look At and HO\V Long Did It Take You to Find This One? (Buyers only) y vii ix 1 3 s -I 9 9 10 13 18 18 19 22 23 7-_;) 26 26 r _, 29 33 36 39 --n 42 43 43 -++ 44 45 4{, 47

PAGE 7

Reasons for Renting or Buying 48 Why Did You Choose to Rent Instead of Bu y? (Renters only) 48 Would You Have Bought If You Could Have? (Renters only) 49 Have You Ever Owned a Home in the Past? 50 Do You Believe You Would Have Been Able to Buy a Home at Some Time in Your Ilfe Without the Relocation Benefi ts? (Buyers only) 51 Did You Attend The City of Tampa Housing Meeting? 51 Why Did You Choose to Buy a Home Instead of Rent? (Buyers only) 53 What Have You or What Do You Intend to Spend the Balance of Your money On? 54 Displacee Perceptions of Mobile Home Park 56 How Did You Come to Ilve in the Trailer Park? 56 Park Place 56 Evan's Park 58 How Long Were You There and What Kept You in the Trailer Park? 60 Park Place 60 Evan's Park 61 How Did You Feel About Living in the Trailer Park and Drew Park? 63 Park Place 63 Evan's Park 65 Was There Anything You Ilked About Living in the Trailer Park? 66 What Did You Dislike About Living in the Trailer Park? 68 Park 69 Evan's Park 70 Do You Think You'll Ever Go Back to living in a Similar Place? 73 Has Your Financial Situation Changed Since You Moved? 74 Park Place 7 4 Evan's Park 75 Displacees' Program Evaluation 76 When Did You First Hear About the Relocation Project? 76 How Did You Hear About the Relocation Project? '' Did You Understand How They Worked Out Your Entitlement? 77 Did You Receive What You Hoped For? 78 How Did You Find Project Staff? 79 Were There Other Kinds of Help You Feel You Could Have Used to Make the Relocation Process Easier for You? 80 Consequences of Relocation 8 1 How Many Times Have You Moved in the Last Five Years? 81 How Nfany Bedrooms/Bathrooms Do You Have in this Home? 82 How Much is Your New Rent/Mortgage? 83 How Muc h is Your Electric Bill Going t o Run You Here? 84 If You Are Paying More, How Long D o You Feel You Can Afford the Increase? 84 Is This a Hardship on You? 85 Are You Farther or Closer to Work? 86 ii

PAGE 8

Are The Same People living With You Here as There Were at the Trailer? 88 Displacee Comments 89 Is There Anything Else You Think it is Important for Me to Know About Your Relocation Experience? 89 Constraints on Housing Choices 95 Follow Up of Displacees 98 Conclusion 100 CHAPTER 6. RECONllv1ENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 102 Displacees Recommendations 102 Displacee Recommendation #1 103 Displacee Recommendation #2 104 Displacee Recommendation #3 104 Displacee Recommendation #4 lOS Displacee Recommendation #5 105 Displacee Recommendation #6 105 Displacee Recommendation #7 105 Professional Recommendations 106 Staff Recommendation #1 106 Staff Recommendation #2 108 Staff Recommendation #3 109 Staff Recommendation #4 109 Staff Recommendation #5 110 Staff Recommendation #6 112 Staff Recommendation #7 113 Staff Recommendation #8 114 Staff Recommendation #9 117 Summary of Recommendations 119 Recommendations That Could Be Implemented Immediately 120 May Require Federal Funding and Therefore Legislation for These 120 Will Require Changes in the Law 121 Ethical Concerns 121 Recommendations for Additional Research 122 Applied Anthropology 123 Conclusion 125 REFERENCES CITED 128 APPENDICES 132 APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOME BUYERS 133 APPENDIX 2. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RENTERS 136 APPENDIX 3 CONSENT FOR!\.1 139 APPENDIX 4. LETTER TO ARRANGE INTERVIEW 140 APPENDIX 5 ELIGlBlLITY CATEGORIES 141 iii

PAGE 9

APPENDIX 6. RESPONSE TO "WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT YOUR NEW HOME?" 142 APPENDIX 7. RESPONSE TO "WHAT MADE YOU CHOOSE THIS RESIDENCE?" 143 APPENDIX 8. LIST OF REASONS FOR NOT BUYING 144 APPENDIX 9 LIST OF RESPONSES TO WHAT PEOPLE DISLIKED LMNG IN THE PARK 145 APPENDIX 10. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS (PARK PlACE) 146 APPENDIX 11. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS {EVAN'S PARK) 147 APPENDIX 12. STAFF WHO CONTRIBUTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS 148 iv

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Rents and Utilities in Both Parks 33 Table 2. Income to Rent Ratios and Available Cash Balance 34 Table 3. Population Composition by Age 35 Tabl e 4. Average T enancy of Both Parks 35 Table 5. Average Amount of Relocation Payments by Type 39 Table 6. Have You Ever Owned a Home Before? so Table 7. Respondents Who Felt They Could Buy a Home Without Program at a Future Date 51 Table 8. City of Tampa Meeting Attendance and Influence to Buy 52 Table 9. Reasons for Buying 54 Table 10. Items Rent Supplement Spent on 55 Table llA. What Kept You in the Park? (Park P lace) 60 Table llB. What Kept You in the Park? (Evan's Park) 62 Table 12. Changes in Financial Situation Afte r Relocation 75 Table 13. When Did You Firs t Hear About Relocation? 77 Table 14. Sources Displacees Heard of Relocation 77 Table 15. Did People Understand How Benefits Worked Out 78 Table 16. Response to Amount of Money Family Received 78 Table 17. Disp lacee Assessment of Staff 79 Table 18. Did Displacees Feel Other Kinds of Help Were Needed 80 Table 19. Number of Displacee Moves Over Past Five Years 81 Table 20. Number of Families Who Increased/Decreased Rooms 82 Table 21. Number Who Increased Living Space 83 Tabl e 22. Amount of Increase and Decrease in Housing Expenses and Percentage of Those Paying Increases 83 v

PAGE 11

Table 23. Comparison of Average Utility Costs Before and After Relocation 84 Table 24. Period Residents See They Can Afford Increase in Payments 85 Table 25. Post Relocation Changes in Family Composition 89 Table 26. Housing Choices on Relocation 96 Table 27. Tenant's Whereabouts on Follow Up 99 Table 28. What People like About the New Home 14 2 Table 29. "What Made You Choose This Residence?" 143 Table 30. Reasons For Not Buying 144 Table 31. What Did You Dislike About living i n the Traile r Park? 145 v i

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure lA. Reasons Cited for Liking New Home (Park Place) 44 Figure lB. Reasons Cited for Liking New Home (Evan's Park) 45 Figure 2A. Reasons Cited for Choosing Replacement Housing 46 (Park Place) Figure 2B. Reasons Cited for Choosing Replacement Housing (Evan's Park) 4 7 Figure 3A. Reasons Renters Chose Not to Buy a Home (Park Place) 48 Figure 3B. Reasons Renters Chose Not to Buy a Home (Evan's Park) 49 Figure 4. Renter's Response to Question of Whether They Would Have Bought if They Could Have so Figure SA. Circumstances That Led to Living in Park (Park Place) 58 Figure SB. Circumstances That Led to Living in Park (Evan's Park) 59 Figure 6A. Feelings About Living in the Park and Principle Reasons Cit e d (Park Place) 63 Figur e 6B. Feelings About Living in the Park and Principle Reasons Cited (Evan's Park) 66 Figure 7 A. Reasons Residents Liked Living in Park (Park Place) 67 Figure 7B. Reasons Residents Liked Living in Park (Evan's Park) 68 Figure 8A. Reasons Residents Disliked Living in Park (Park Place) 70 Figure 8B. Reasons Residents Disliked Living in Park (Evan's Park) 72 Figure 9A. Response to Living in Similar Place in Future (Park Place) 73 vii

PAGE 13

Figure 9B. Response to Living in Similar Place in Future (Evan's Park) 74 Figure lOA. Post Relocation Proximity to Work (Park Place) 87 Figure lOB. Post Relocation Proximity to Work (Evan's Park) 88 Figure 11. Flow Chart of Eligibility and Rent or Purchase Choices 141 Figure 12. Post Relocation Patterns (Park Place) 146 Figure 13 Post Relocation Patterns (Evan's Park) 147 viii

PAGE 14

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1. Evan's Park 28 Photograph 2 Park Place 30 Photograph 3. Bathtub Rotted Away From Walls 31 Photograph 4. Park Place Flooded by Summer Rains 64 Photograph 5. Mr. and Mrs. D's Replacement Home 91 Photograph 6. Trailer of Elderly Woman 94 ix

PAGE 15

RELOCATION CASE STIJDY AND EVALUATION OF DISPlACED TENANTS IN 1WO MOBILE HOME PARKS by CATHERINE L. SUGG An Abstract Of a thesis submined in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology University of South Florida May 1996 Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D. X

PAGE 16

As part of a larger project, the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (HCAA) in Tampa, Florida relocated 83 families to make way for future expansion of Tampa International Airport. These families were living in slum conditions in two mobile home parks and were relocated into decent safe and sanitary housing. Families made their own replacement housing choices based on preferences and the types of payments awarded based on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The objectives of this study were to assess the consequences of relocation for these families and to evaluate the program's effectiveness. The study sought to answer two questions. First, as it is administered today under the Act, is the program fulfilling its objectives, and second, could it be made more effective? As an intern under the direction of O.R. Colan Associates, Inc., during the summer of 1995, I carried out research employing ethnographic methods in conjunction with a survey instrument. Fifty six families were interviewed after they moved to their new dwellings in order to discern the impact of relocation. The areas under scrutiny include: Why did displacees make the decisions they did in their replacement housing? How did they arrived at those decisions? How was relocation money spent? What characteristics defined the population of this case study? Were displacees satisfied with the program? What were the psychosocial repercussions of relocation? In what ways could the program be improved? The primary finding "is that the program is fulfilling its function b y placing displacees in decent safe and sanitary housing without causing undue financial hardship. However, there is some concern that displacees may not xi

PAGE 17

be benefited in the long term by the program because many are unable to sustain their lifestyles in their new homes. For this reason, recommendations are phrased proactively in the hope that benefits may be realized in the long term rather than simply the short. The most important recommendations are: provide educational programs, place a sub-office inside the area to be vacated, change the way rent supplements are disbursed, and eliminate subsequent tenant payments. Abstract Approved:-------------------xii Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph. D. Professor Deparunent of Anthropology Date Approved: / /7 Y 6

PAGE 18

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Involuntary displacement in the United States has largely been the result o f urban renewal and highway projects and has generated interest fro m social scientists for nearly forty years. Most research has focused on the effects of displacement on individuals and communities. During the 1960s urban renewal programs cleared entire neighborhoods, most of which were thought to be slums, to make way for new building. These blighted areas were often in prime locations near the business district of a city and rather than replace h omes for those who had lived there. they became expensive and exclusionary areas. Boston's West End, for example, was razed for a luxury apartment complex (Hartman 1964:266). Many of those displaced during this time were not adequately compensated nor were the social and psychological effects considered in destroying communities (Gans 1959; Fried and Gleicher 1961; Fried 1963, 1967; Hartman 1964; Thursz 1 966; Niebanck 1968; H o use 1970). Political activism of the1960s and studies carried out during this period resulted in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, hereafter called the Act. Although most inequities were resolved through the Act, researchers continued t o study the effects of relocation and the impact of the Act itself after it was implemented (Perfater 1972; Schorr 1975; Hartman 1975;

PAGE 19

2 Perfater and Allen 1976, 1978, 198 7; Heller 1982 ; Greenbaum 1985; Rubenstein 1988; Rohe and Mouw 1991). Today there is little in the way o f urban renewal going on and most of the major highway systems in the country have been completed. However, relocation continues to be carried out for smaller projects, such as highways, airport expansion and other public works. This study examines one element of relocation in the Land Acquisition Program presently undertaken by Hillsborough County Aviation Authority ( HCAA) in Tampa, Florida for future expansion of the airport. Unlike most public projects, property is not being acquired through eminent domain so the process could take as long as twenty years to complete. This means relocation can be carried out in a more leisurely manner with less potential for conflict with the community. Nevertheless the same regulations of the Act apply. The specific documents used on this project were Relocation Assistance for Airport P rojects issued b y the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 5 100.3 7 A which derives from the Act. Under the direction of O.R. Col a n Associates I worked as an intern during the summer and part of the fall of 1995 as a relocation specialist and as a researcher carrying out a post-relocation evaluation. O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. provide consulting services in land acquisition and relocation services to the HCAA. O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. is one of the larger finns of this type in the United S tates with offices f r o m the midwest to the east coast. I was very fortunate in that O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. allowed me to select the subject of my research and design the study independently. Initially I chose one mobile home park because it was to be acquired soon after I arrived and because it formed a discrete unit within the larger industrial

PAGE 20

3 park called Drew Park. Unexpectedly, another mobile home park was acquired and provided a larger group with which to work and an interesting set of problems. I decided to include both parks in the study which provided me with about 83 tenant households. Research Problem The study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and the impact on displacee's lives. It also sought to answer two questions. First, is the program, as it is administered today, fulfilling its objectives and second how else could it be made more effective? A brief look at how the program is presently administered will help in understanding the issues while bearing in mind that the objective of the Act is to enable displacees to live in decent safe and sanitary housing without incurring undue costs. The residents of both parks were low income families living in what may be described as slum conditions. Relocation benefits could in many cases provide families with thousands of dollars. Once benefits were calculated, families had to make a series of decisions. Most recipients had to make the choice between getting several thousand dollars, or more, in their hand by renting or buying a home in which case all of their benefit money went toward the downpayment on the house. This meant they would not have any cash in hand. Experienced staff said that most people would not choose to buy, but would take the option of cash in hand. They were mistaken. The study looked at which factors accounted for displacee's choices and the implications of those choices in relation to long term improvement in living conditions. By interviewing relocatees I wanted to identify reasons for

PAGE 21

4 renting or buying so that recommendations could be made to assist families in maximizing benefits in the future. I was also interested in what relocatees actually spent their benefit money on to see if they were being spent as the Act intended. Although benefits are paid in a lump sum, they are intended to cover the cost of the increase in rent over a period of 42 months. I wanted to see if families saved the money to pay rent differences and if not what they spent the money on. Although the study was hampered by time constraints, I wanted to know what happened when the money ran out and if displacees could afford the new rent in the long term. The results of this proved disappointing, for nearly half the tenants in one park failed to stay in the replacement dwelling more than six months. Another area under study was the category of people who are labeled Housing of Last Resort. Benefits in excess of $5,250 place the family in Housing of Last Resort. Nearly 50% of the people in both parks came under this category with the average amount of $8,742 paid to each family. How these families spent their money was of particular interest because of the large sums of money involved. The HCAA tried to encourage long range planning by stipulating that those who fell under the Housing of Last Resort category secure a six month lease. I wanted to see how effective this strategy was although again, follow up assessments have likely been skewed by time constraints. My findings indicate that, in this case study, the program is effective in achieving the objectives of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act to the extent that it places people in decent safe and sanitary housing. However, it is questionable whether the program keeps displacees in their new homes in the

PAGE 22

5 long term. In fact it may be argued that in some cases, the A c t may actually create long term disruptions and potential homelessness for some families. Incomplete follow up on displacees shows that nearly a third had either moved, been evicted or intended moving. Admittedly, these residents were a relatively young and transient group of people; however, one third would seem to be a large proportion of people unable to maintain the standard of living the program offered them. For this reason the study looked at ways to improve delivery of the program both administratively and in terms of providing additional services to achieve higher levels of success. It may be said that displacees did not suffer undue financial hardship as a result of relocation and they moved into much improved housing. Further, they were very pleased with the program, the amount of money they received and their new homes. Despite these successes, the study reconunends modifications and additions to the program. The most significant of these are: providing educational programs, placing a sub-office inside the mobile home park, making changes in the wa y in which rent supplements are disbursed, and eliminating subsequent tenant payments. Methodology and the Anthropological Approach Four basic principles of the anthropological perspective were employed: the ernie, holistic, historic and comparative (Spicer 1976:341). Defined in its simplest terms, ernie takes into account the relocatees' perspectives of their own lives while the holistic approach takes into account contributing factors such as family background and beliefs. The historic

PAGE 23

6 element recognized that the experience of the relocatee is not discrete, but is the result of previous experiences that impact on the present. Finally, the comparative allowed me to determine whether this group of people was entirely unique or if they shared similarities with other groups of relocatees. As an applied anthropologist, I essentially carried out a program evaluation. van Willigen notes that "Evaluation is one of the most important types of policy research done by the applied anthropologist" ( 1993:161). He goes on to explain that ethnography and case studies are the most common means of carrying out evaluations ( 1993:1 6 1 ). My own approach has been to use both ethnography and a survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the relocation program. Erve Chambers explains that although surveys are not generally associated with anthropology, anthropologists frequently employ them in conjunction with ethnography ( 1985:7). Information was collected from several sources. The first was office records of amounts paid, types of payments and some basic demographic data. The second source of information came from informal interviews with professionals in the field and displacees in the course of working as a relocation agent. The third and largest b o d y of data was derived f r o m the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained open ended and closed questions that w ere intended to look at displacees' relocation experience and the consequences of r elocation in practical and social terms. It was also designed to allow as much fl e xibility as possible for displacees to talk about their lives and h o w they had come to be relocatees in the first place. One objective was to get at what determined people's choices in order to arrive at a better understanding of relocatees' needs and motivation, the

PAGE 24

7 purpose here being to tailor recommendations to the population in question. The ernie perspective in this case was not only the attempt to get at displacees view of the relocation experience, but it included actively seeking their contribution to the process of discovering how to make the program more effective. Finally, an important aspect of this study was that I rook the role of participant observer. This presented a number of problems in that I was part of the agency disbursing funds one day and carrying out research the next. My participation was within the agency working with relocatees rather than living in the park with displacees. Organization of the Thesis The thesis begins with the literature review which looks first at anthropology and involuntary displacement followed by research carried out in the United States over the past forty years. Chapter three outlines the methodology employed and describes my role as a participant observer. Chapter three also includes a discussion of the survey instrument, its goals and the reasons for structuring it as I did. Chapter four describes the setting of Drew Park, the two mobile home parks and some of the problems residents experienced. Chapter four will also provide some demographics and an explanation of how benefits are calculated. Chapter five presents a detailed analyses of all the various data collected from several sources such as informal interviews and office records. However, the questionnaire provides most of the data. Much of this is quantitative in nature although it is supported by descriptive and ethnographic material. Finally, I discuss my conclusions and

PAGE 25

8 recommendations that derive from displacee suggestions, professional suggestions and my own analyses.

PAGE 26

9 CHAPTER Z LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In the United States, most of the literature on relocation focuses on the effects of urban renewal efforts during the 1960s. This research has been carried out by economists. geologists, sociologists, social workers, consultants, psychologists, and planners. In this particular arena anthropologists have made limited contributions to relocation studies although they have been responsible for similar work in developing countries. The concern of all studies is with issues of fair and just treatment of displacees. Most inequities have been ameliorated in the United States with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, although this has not always been the case outside the United States. Anthropologist and Senior Advisor of Sociology and Social Policy at the World Bank, Michael Cernea. sees a pressing need for developing countries to formulate clear policies on resettlement (1988: 1993: 1995). To this end additional research is required to which anthropologists can make a major contribution. The anthropologist's approach allows an understanding beyond that of policy and procedures by attempting to incorporate the expressed needs of those directly affected (Guggenheim and Cernea (1993:6-7).

PAGE 27

10 The following discussion foc uses primarily on relocation in the United States, the subject of this work. However, a brief overview of anthropology's contribution to involuntary displacement both inside and outside the U nited States will begin the chapter. Res earch by Anthropologists Within the United States, anthropologists have been involved in relocation studies at least since World War II with the r e location o f Japanese A m e ricans (Spicer, et al. 1969). Anthro p olo gists have also studied the effects of r e location on the Navajo (Topper 1987; Aberle 1993). A land dispute between the two tribes resulted in the relocation o f nearly 10,000 Nav ajos and provides one o f the few case studies of thi s type (Topper 1 9 87:135137) Few anthropologists have been invo lved in relocation studies in t h e United States similar to those that revolve around urban renewal. However, one anthropologist, E. Friedman, did carry out an ethnography of the Crest Stre e t n eighborhood whic h highlighted the community's solidarity in their f ight to keep its neighborhood ( 197 8). Another anthropologist was Susan Greenbaum whose article, "The Preservation of Strawberry Hill touches o n relocation in the context of displacees' attempt to maintain t heir ethnic identity (1985). Outside the United States most relocation studies by anthro pologists are carried out in developing countries under the purview of development anthropology and are r e f erred to as resettlement or involuntary resettlement. Many of the concerns of development anthropologists are with the rights of

PAGE 28

11 indigenous peoples living in the path of development and the consequences o f relocation (Cernea and Guggenheim 1993:2). Typical of development anthropology has been to examine the impact of large projects such as dam building to local people, as i n the case of the Gwembe Tonga of Central Africa (Colson 1971:1) the Arenal Hydraulic Project in Costa Rlca (Partridge 1993) and the Manantali dam in Mali (Horowitz et al.). However, as urban centers grow and decay, more diverse projects will be required that necessarily affect urban populations (Cernea 1993:5). This will mean that more situations will arise that may need to be studied. Developing countries have not always provided for displaced persons, nor considered the necessary infrastructure required for people in their new locations (Cernea and Guggenheim1993:2). Studies serve to highlight the difficulties of displacees and attempt to provide solutions. In looking at involuntary resettlement, anthropologist s are concerned with issues of social change and culture (Guggenheim and Cernea 1993:6-7). Resettlement may disrupt or change not only the cultural processes of subsistence patterns, but those of social relations. Guggenheim and Cernea describe a community in which marriage systems and ritual structures in the communities displaced by the Rengali dam and reservoir in Eastern India frayed and then tore as the resettlers could no longer sustain the web of social obligations, exchanges and ceremonies that were the warp and woof of local culture" (1993:6-7). In addition to looking at how people's lives are changed through involuntary resettlement, anthropologists have a contribution t o make in terms of policy, practice and theory. Based on research by anthropologists and sociologists, the World Bank significantly modified its policy on relocation

PAGE 29

12 by insisting that bank borrowers adhere to certain guidelines (Cernea 1993:21-26}. The policy stipulated borrowers compensate financial losses and enable displacees to improve or at least maintain their living standards after relocation (Cernea 1993:21) The policy also provided for displacees to share in the benefits of the programs that displaced them (Cernea 1993:21). While anthropology has looked primarily at relocation in developing countries many of the same issues arise within populations in the United States. Those most often affected by relocation are frequently low income people with limiting circumstances. They do not have the monetary buffers to simply pick up and leave to start all over again. They too must contend with problems of how they will continue to make a living or adjust to a new environment. The relevancy of anthropology to relocation, whether it occurs in the United States or in India, may be found in the following statement: Still in its infancy, research on resettlement poses a major challenge to people who think that social science matters. Resettlement is social change writ small: questions about power, community, growth, equity, culture and justice are built into any analysis of why people are displaced and how they rebuild their live s (Cernea and Guggenheim 1993:10). Like other social scientists, anthropologists will bring their own unique perspective to the human problem of relocation. Further, anthropologists can also contribute what they have learned of resettlement in other areas of the world, its impact on culture, community participation and insights derived from the e rnie perspective.

PAGE 30

13 Research in the United States Relocation in the United States has generated a fairly large body of literature. A look at publication dates reveals that articles were written either before the Uniform Relocation Act of 1970 and provided the recommendations for the legislation or they were written after 1970 and served as an evaluation of the Act. Research prior to the Act looked at the uncompensated financial and emotional costs to displacees. As a result of this research the Act was enacted in order to provide displacees with decent safe and sanitary housing at an affordable cost and to provide the necessary assistance to make the transition as easy as possible. Following the implemenration of the Act, researchers continued to study the affects of relocation in order to assess the Act's effectiveness. By and large the objectives of the Act were met. Evidence for this lies in the fact that very little was written after 1980. Once the pressing need for legislative reform was met, there was no longer the same urgency or need to reveal the plight of displacees. Typical of the 1960s, prior to the Act, was a study carried out by the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency in conjunction with its role as public urban renewal agency ( 1964:6). After relocating approximately 1,100 people, the agency determined that while the housing needs of these people had been met, their social needs had not been addressed (D.C. RLA 1964:6). The types of social needs that concerned the RLA were: psychological stress of relocation, disruption of social systems and financial hardship (1964:8). In conjunction with local social service agencies the RLA developed a program with seven components that may be broadly categorized to two The

PAGE 31

14 first was to identify social service needs and to refer people to the appropriate agency. The second was educational (1964:19). Educational programs have been recommended from these earliest studies ro the present, yet they have never been legislated and therefore have not been provided. I will discuss this in some detail in my own recommendations in the final chapter. Studies carried out during this period also tended to look at the impact on communities fragmented b y urban renewal and the psychological hardships associated with r elocation (Gans 1959; Fried and Gleiche r 1961: Fried 1963 and 196 7; Heller 1982; Greenbaum 1985:285-287). In the frequently cited article, Grieving for a Lost Home, Marc Fried describes residents' grief several years after relocation from Boston's West End ( 1963). He attributes their feelings to a working class attaclunent to a "specific place" which represenrs a sense of belonging and home (Fried 1963:157). Deprived of familiar places and a community made up of people like themselves these residents feel adrift (Fried 1963:168-169). "Since, most notably in the working class. effective relationships with others are dependenr upon a continuing sense of common group identity, the experience of loss and disruption of these affiliations is intense and frequently irrevocabl e" (Fried 1963:157). Other studies have attempted to measure the consequences of r e location in more practical terms such as the financial consequences to displacees. For example, Hartman found most displacees paid more rent for l ess or equal space ( 1964:269-271 ). Hartman also looked at changes in housing two years after relocation ( 1964). He assessed conditions of replacement housing to determine if families had indeed improved their living situation. His findings indicated that displacees fared poorly two years later. As an early researcher he contributed to changes resulting in the Act.

PAGE 32

15 Post relocation settlement patterns have been looked at and are of interest because of allegations that displacees settled near their old neighborhoods and simply shifted slums to a new location. This may b e attributed, in part, to the fact that urban renewal programs of inner city areas have historically affected large numbers o f blac k families who liv e in these areas. Locating acceptable housing was difficult for these families because of racial co nstraints White families more easily c rossed socio economic lines in their search for a home whereas black families had more limite d choices. In large c iti es such as Boston Baltimore and Milwaukee many black families were not able to move beyond a short radius of their original homes which often meant they were not making significant improvements in their living situation (Hartman 1964; House 1970; Rubenstein 1988). For example, Hartman found that these families paid much more rent afte r relocation for substandard housing than did white famili es ( 1964:274). Neve rthel ess, studies have charted a wide dispersal pattern for the majority of families showing that displacees did not concentrate in one area (Hartman 1964; Thursz 1966). An early researc h e r. Herbert Gans, looked at r e location planning and outlined some of the considerations planners should take into account wh e n planning for urban rene w a l ( 1959). What is interes ting about this study is that Gans approached his work as an anthropologist and moved into the community taking on the role of participant-observer. By li ving in the community, Gans was able co look holistically a t the potential affects o n local r esidents and small businesses as well as the ripple effect to the larger city should the area be razed. He argued that planners were too quick to label Boston's West End as a slum rathe r than a low r ental are a with a viable contributio n to the rest of the city (Ga n s 1959).

PAGE 33

16 A more recent account by William Rohe and Scott Mouw d escribes how a community in North Carolina, called the Crest Street neighborhood, united against plans to destroy their homes for a highway ( 1991). The result was that the expressway was rerouted around their neighborhoods. The authorities decided to leave the community intact and instead renovated homes and improved the infrastructure. An anthropologist, E. Friedman, carried out a study of the neighborhood which "proved crucial in the neighborhood's fight against the expressway." (Rohe and Mouw 1991:60) Friedman revealed the strong bonds of friends and family in a very stable community that would be d estroyed with the intrusion of the expressway (Rohe and Mouw 1991). Some authorities, such as state departments of transportation, have conducted their own research. For example, the Mississippi Department of Transportation compiled a series o f b efore and after pictures of a project in Franklin County ( 1970). Michael Perfater and Gary Allen working for the Virginia Highway Research Council have made significant contributions. Apart from an earlier work which Perfater carried out on his own ( 1972), he has with Gary Allen, completed three studies on various aspects of Virginia displacees (1 9 76;19 7 8;1987). Perfater's early piece found relocatees pleased with the program overall in terms of payments received, the way they were treated by staff and their satisfaction with the new home ( 1972:ix-x). He also found that the social and financial aspects of relocation were not as negative as others had reported (1972:x). The three other works carried out by Perfater and Allen examined tenant mobility after relocation ( 1978) and the effectiveness of the Uniform Relocation Act of 19 70 (197 6; 198 7). Their work is also irnportan t because they

PAGE 34

17 post date the Act and examine essentially the same population over time and from varying perspecrives. The liccrature on resettlement overseas has been carried out primarily by anthropologists and is a far more recent phenomenon compared to relocation in the Uniled States where the discussion extends back forty years. The Act is the product of intensive research on the negative byproducts of relocation such as financial hardship and disrupted social systems. Comparatively little research has been carried out over the past fifte e n years. although communities continue to be relocated. However, research remains important in order to assess the relevance of a set of regulations dating from 1970 o n today's people and communities. The next chapter describes my methodology and how I approached the srudy. Some of the difficulties I encountered as a participant observer vvill be discussed as well as the development of the questionnaire.

PAGE 35

18 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH MFfHODS This chapter looks at how the study was constructed to answer the central questions of the research. Apart from questions designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the relocation program itself, the study examined factors related to how and why people found themselves living in the conditions they were in and why the y stayed. Most of the answers to these questions were generated by a survey that included both closed and open ended questions as well as information acquired while working as a participant observer. Initial Approach Coming in, as I did, prior to the actual relocation of the two mobile home parks, I was able to assess and define my objectives in advance of the relocation process. I was in the fortunate position of having nearly two months in which to interview staff and get a feel for a profession that was entirely new to me. Although I became more immersed in the process working as a relocation agent, my perceptions of the central issues changed little over time. I chose to carry out the study after relocation as opposed to during relocation as a matter of practicality as well as a belief that I would b e more effective by taking this approach. As it turned out, it would have been

PAGE 36

19 impossible to attempt carrying out the research during the weeks of relocation because I was so engaged in my role of relocation agent. Any attempt at conducting my own research during relocation would have rendered me less useful to the agency, could slow others up at their work, and would not allow making recommendations that could be immediately helpful to residents. Further, I believed if I immersed myself in the relocation process without trying to affect changes I would be better able to observe the process and then evaluate it. A pre-relocation study, on the other hand, was not feasible because property owners did not want tenants approached for fear they would move. Participant Observer Throughout the time I spent at O.R. Colan Associates I served two roles. One was as a researcher and the other was as part of the staff working as a r elocation agent. was conscious of this duality, particularly when interviewing families after they relocated. A number of issues might be perceived as sensitive. First, if the displacee was unhappy with staff or the program, they might be reluctant to reveal these feelings to me since they may have viewed me as just another staff member. I explained I was acting in both capacities as a relocation agent and as a student carrying out a study and I wanted to interview them after they were relocated. I also explained I was evaluating the program to see how the y felt about it and how they fared as a dis placee. This seemed to assure a number of peopl e of my impartiality. They also seeme d to appreciate that perhaps there was someone outside the system acting as a monitor to ensure they were created fairly. I encountered this

PAGE 37

20 same response during follow up. Displacees appreciated a call to see how they were d oing. I had warned them l might be contacting them again. When I told people I wanted to interview them to get their opinions and views, everyone was very happy to give me an interview. I had thought I might have to compensate those whom I interviewed with a small gift, but it soon became apparent that this was unnecessary. People overwhelmingly felt they had been more than compensated by the money they had received through relocation and that giving me an interview was the least they could do in return. Another concern my dual roles presented was whether or not people would be honest with me during interviews. Questions concerning their working or financial situation could reveal they had been less than honest when the agency assessed their eligibility. In general, people were candid during the interviews and apparently unconcerned that I would "turn them in" for discrepancies that arose. While I would hope this reflected by abilities to interview, develop rapport and carry off my different roles, I suspect it may have been more a case of guilelessness on their part. When displacees divulged inconsistencies, there was no question that I would report them. Either they realized this or they were unaware of contradicting themselves. One of the more common situations arose when a displacee was not working prior to r elocation. but found a job soon after he or she moved. Although benefi ts were based on income from the previous year. there were some folks who said they had not worked for a long time or could not work. One interes ting case was a family I worked with as a relocation agent. They insisted the husband did not reside with the wife and children and so

PAGE 38

21 should not have his income considered. In the end his income was factored in the calculations and the question became irrelevant. However, throughout the time I worked with them we all kept up the facade that he did not live with the family although every time I called or stopped by he was in the home. During one of my final visits they were very excited about the new home they had bought and he enthusiastically described all the improvements he intended making. Clearly he lived with his wife and children. While dishonesty and deception cannot be condoned, I would suggest that these were adaptive behaviors for people who often saw themselves pitted against the more powerful establishment. Further, it may be argued that a man who has the intelligence to manipulate the system to his family's benefit is providing for them just as is the man who attains a higher education to provide for his. Controversial as this may be, I add ir as a personal observation and suggest my training in anthropology allows this perspective. In regard to participant observation as a method of data collection, it is important to bear in mind that the role of relocation agent is not simply one of processing claims. It is often an ongoing relationship developed over many meerings which provides an opportunity to get to know the displacee. For example, it was not uncommon to have to drive residents around town looking at prospective homes. tvfany people did not have transportation and this is considered to be pan of the relocation agent's job to facilitate relocation and make it as easy as possible for displacees. In the course of two to three hours in a car, sharing the same frustrations in not finding suitable accommodation, people share information about themselves. l'vlany informal interviews were carried out in this manner so that when it came time for the formal interview, I was asking questions I already had the answers to. Nevertheless. we both

PAGE 39

22 went through the motions of following the questionnaire so that I could both validate earlier information and get a consistent body of information. Relocation can be a highly emotional and stressful experience for displacees even when they are eager to relocate as they were in the two parks. The relocation agent's role is to ease the process as much as possible. This may take the form of trying to allay fears about finding a suitable home or assisting a person in negotiating a lease when they have very poor credit. In trying to work out these problems displacees often share their lives and concerns. Survey Instrument The survey/interviews sought information on three overlapping levels. The first was to gain information in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The types of questions used to determine this asked displacees how they spent their relocation money, measured satisfaction with the program and looked at whether or not families enhanced the quality of their living conditions. The operational definition of quality of living conditions was based, in part, on the Act's guide for decent safe and sanitary housing as well as the displacee's perception of improved living conditions. The second level sought to measure the impact of relocation on displacees' lives. Questions were aimed at discerning how displacees felt about their living conditions before and after relocation as well as issues of proximity to work and financial changes. The third level of questioning was an attempt to discover shared characteristics of the group. Identifying these characteristics would allow a

PAGE 40

23 better understanding of the needs and services that may be offered to future displacees. The line of questioning on this level also took the form of asking how residents felt about living in the trailer parks and how and why they came to live there. These questions also provided points of comparison between the old home and the new one, and examined a family's reasons for renting or buying a home. Two questionnaires were developed with minor differences between them. Home buyers were asked how many homes they looked at before they bought and if they thought they would have been able to buy a home some time in their lives without relocation. See questionnaire in appendix 1. Renters were asked what they spent the balance of their rent supplement on. See questionnaire in appendix 2. Questions were set out in what I felt was a natural progression. For example, the first questions was, "how do you like your new home?'' Rathe r than collect demographic sorts of information initially as many surveys do, the first question was natural under the circumstances. The Interview Process The surveys were carried out in face to face interviews using a combination of closed questions and open ended questions. The purpose of combining the two types of questions was to make the interview less formal and, more importantly, to allow flexibility in order to get at an ernie perspective of the issues. Problems with a specific question will be discussed in the context of the results.

PAGE 41

24 I conducted all interviews for the purposes o f consistency in interpretation with each lasting about one hour. At the start of the interview I asked people to sign a consent form giving them the option of having their identity known or not. (Appendix 3) The average period of time before a displacee was interviewed took 40 days from the date of moving into their new home. Once the family had moved to the new home and settled in, I would phone or stop by to set up an appointment. If I was unable to reach them b y either of these means a letter was sent. (Appendix 4) After the interview basic information such as housing costs and award amounts were put on a data base. I also typed a summary of the interview including those comments I considered pertinent to the study. After all interviews had been carried out, I took each question on the questionnaire and developed categories of responses based on descriptors created by the people interviewed. All data were transferred to a large data base for analyses. Of the 83 displacees in both parks, 56 or 64% were interviewed. The best respo nse rate was from Park Place where 26 of the 33 tenants were interviewed. The reasons for not interviewing the seven others in the park were that they did not respond to requests for interviews. Five of the seven had moved on o r had been evicted indicating they were fairly unstable families In Evan's Park 30 of the original 50 tenants were interviewed. Fiv e families were not contacted because they did not qualify fo r a rent supplement based on their length of stay which was less than 90 days. These were mostly single men earning sufficient income so that they also did not quali fy based on income. They were not representative of the typical displacee J.nd so were not included. Of the remaining 15 who were not interviewed t hey either coul d not be contacted or had not claimed their benefits. Finally f o ll ow up to see if

PAGE 42

25 relocatees were still in the new h ome was carried out at about six months. This was done mostly by telephone to the displacee or to the landlord. Summary This chapter charted my approach to the study and the methodology I employed. One of my concerns as a participant observer was that people might not be entirely honest with me in their responses. Participating as a relocatio n agent meant that I represented the authority disbursing m oney and therefore people may have been inclined not to trust me. My experience here and my work for 20 years in social services leads me to believe that most people are not good at deception. Therefore, I believe that when individuals were less than honest I generally knew it. The goals of the questionnaire were to get information in order t o evaluate the program's effectiveness and included asking relocatees their opinions on vartous aspects of the program. Another goal was to look at the impact o f relocation on displacee's li v es and to discover what characteristics they had in common as a group. The following chapter describes the communities that were relocated and their unique characteristics.

PAGE 43

26 CHAPTER 4 THE SFITING AND BACKGROUND This chapter begins with a brief description of Drew Park followed bv a discussion of the two mobile home parks. Because of its many problems, the events leading up to the relocation of Park Place will be described in some detail. This will provide the background to understanding the conditions displacees were living in. Selected demographics for both parks will also be compared to each other in this chapter. And finally, I will explain how benefits are calculated according to federal guidelines and the options they present to displacees. Drew Park and the Mobile Home Parks Drew Park. was a military air field during World War II, but today it is an industrial area interspersed by small wood frame or block. homes and trailer parks. Drew Park. is conve nient to Tampa's major arterial highways and to the airport making it an attractive area for business. The airport forms a boundary o n two sides of the area while two major roads, Dale Mabry and Hillsborough Avenue, serve as the other two boundaries Drew Park. covers an area of about one square mile into which are packed about 300-400 businesses. Most of the businesses are small operations such as car repair or body shops and light industry. Food processing plants pack. seafood, chickens,

PAGE 44

T / tamales, coffee ice cream and canned foods. Many of the residents work in the local industries and live in the area in order to be close to work. Another type of business is the adult entertainment industry which offers adult movies and lingerie modeling. The high concentration of these establishments is due to zoning restrictions in other parts of the city. Drew Park is run down, dirty and ugly, but it has a feel all its own. There are no sidewalks, so driving through the area one sees rusty patched metal warehouses surrounded by old cars with lots of chain link fencing everywhere. (The only decent cars sit in front of the adult entertainment centers.) Few buildings are in good condition. Most are shabby and in need of repair. Inside the fences mangy dogs guard their property as chickens mill a b out the street s. Snakes moved into the mobile home parks as soon a s people vacated. Drew Park i s h ome to businesses, residents and wild life. Few live in Drew Park unless they have to. Apart from a small secti o n with attractive but modes t block hom es, Drew Park offers r e ntal s in a half dozen trailer par ks, small run down frames houses and efficiency apartments that resembl e o l d motels. Enclaves of Asians reside in the park but are almost in v isible. Looking for r entals one day I st umbled into a courtyard full of Asian people. No o n e spoke English and I was clearl y unwelcome. Hispanics who work in the area live in the nicer homes, but they too seem invisibl e The few Afric a n Americans one sees co ming out of the factories do not li ve in the park Description of Evan's Park Trees and other fauna softened the appearance of age and decay of the homes in Evan's Park. The own e r and her daughte r managed the park and

PAGE 45

28 their office formed a focal p oint for the communitv. Residents met and chatted as they came to collect their mail, pay their rent, make a phone call o r wait for their laundry. A maintena nce man was alw ays f ound o n site goi n g about his work and passing on informatio n Photograph 1. Evan's Park (photo taken by author) Inside many of the h o mes were shabby and very dirty. Ceiling panel s and ins ulati o n were falling out of the ceilings and in o n e case rats kept coming in through the h o le s in the wall s After the owner o f the mobil e home park signed the offer to b u y r e location s taff went into the park to interview people and hand out brochures and lette r s of eligibi lit y. Word had traveled quickly that the owner

PAGE 46

29 had finally signed. In 1993 a survey of the area had been conducted and residents knew they were to be relocated. They had been waiting a long time. Not long after work began in Evan's Park, it had to come to a stop temporarily as attention turned to Park Place. The owners of Park Place were willing to accept an offer to buy their property, however, conditions were so appalling that residents had to be relocated on an emergency basis. Description of Park Place Park Place, was in the worst condition and its residents more transient and troubled. The average length of tenancy was 13 months which did little to create a sense of community. The owners of the park were absentee landlords concerned only with collecting rents via an on site manager who was paid a token wage and given free rent. By contrast to Evan's Park, Park Place was devoid of people. When I first arrived at the park with other relocation staff, it seemed to be inhabited only by scrawny barking dogs, some tied with rope to doors and others wandering about. There were no rrees and the two roads serving the homes were made of dirt. The initial visit was to distribute flyers telling residents about a community meeting. The impression I recorded was this. There is an entirely different feel here. The trailers are large, ugly and everything is stark. Few people around. No sense of community. Really awful. Lots of guard dogs giving a sense of danger (Field notes, March 24, 1995).

PAGE 47

30 Photograph 2. Park Place (Photo taken by author) The closing date for Park Place was set for May 2nd, however it never actually took place because a crisis overtook the proceedings. Between the beginning of April, when the owners of Park Place began initiation of negotiations, and May 2nd an already untenable situation further deteriorated. As the prospect of selling the property became imminent the landlords carried out less maintenance than the little they had before. They had never followed through on promises to repair or replace air conditioners necessary in the Florida summers. Nor did they carry out essential repairs to homes. When they knew they were selling the property and divesting themselves of their

PAGE 48

3 1 respo nsibili ty to the Aviation Auth o r ity. a ll preten se of makin g rep a i rs cam e to an end. The on site manager w a s s e l d o m ava il a b l e and t h e park o wne r s refused to speak to tenants with maintenan ce p robl ems. U n awa r e that the clos in g had been set, the tenants came to the end of t h eir p a t ience. They call e d a local television st a tion to dra w a ttention to their p li ght. T h ei r co mpl aints included raw sewage on the grounds, batht ubs and ki tchen s i nks tha t had fa ll e n through the floor, no air conditioning water leaki ng through electrical o utlets leaks in r oofs. leaks i n m ai n p l umbin g lines and r a t i nfestation. Photograph 3. author) Bathtub rotted away from walls (photo take n b y

PAGE 49

32 The closing was canceled. Before the Aviation Authority could purchase the park they required the owners to correct some of the grosser problems. This did not prove entirely feasible and the closing was postponed indefinitely. In the meantime, the Aviation Authority asked that relocation begin in Park Place as a matter of urgency. This was despite the fact that the authority did not own the park. Thus the residents of Park Place were relocated as an emergency under provisions in the regulations. During this time the park deteriorated at an alarming rate. As soon as tenants moved out their homes were broken into, stripped of anything salvageable, such as air conditioners, and then vandalized. In many cases the tenants had not finished removing their personal property before their home was broken into. This meant families had to leave someone behind to guard the home while they moved each load. Remaining tenants became concerned about their personal safety. One notable incident involved two families whose children had disagreed. One family planted an explosive device outside the other family's home. The bomb was sufficient to shake every trailer in the park. Fortunately no one was injured. Although aware of what was happening in the park, staff at O.R. Colan had no jurisdiction and could take no action. Because the Aviation Authori[y did not own the park, staff were unable to intercede in any way. The 0\\-ners had by this time completely divested themselves of any responsibility for the park.

PAGE 50

33 D emographics There were similarities between the m o bile home parks and the people residing in them. Both parks were old and dilapidated with residents w orking locally and struggling to get by. However, there were also s ome mino r differences. Rents were not low. The average rent for Park Place was $100 per week o r $433 per month while Evans' Pa .rk cost tenants on average $77 per week o r $332 per month. Combined with an average monthly electric and gas bill o f $128.00 for Park Place residents and $77 for Evan's Park tenants made it difficult for people to manage on limited inco mes. Table 1. Rents and Utilities in Both Parks. Weekl y Monthly Monthlv Uti lities jv[onthlv Total P ark Place $100 S-M3 $128 $571 Evan's Park 577 S332 577 $409 At least one person was employed in 89% of the households in both parks, however the majority of households had onl y one wage earner. ln these a number of women w ere homemakers while some were wives supporting disabled husbands. Monthly incomes for familie s in both parks were, on average, about $1,190 which meant that those li v ing in Park Place s p ent 48% on rent and utilities whereas thos e in Evan's P ark paid 34% o f their income in rent and utilities This left approximately $143 per week fo r all

PAGE 51

34 other expenses per household in Park Place and $180 for each family in Evan's Park. This is not a lot of money to support two or more people. Table 2. Income to Rent Ratios and Available Cash Balance. Average Rent and % Spent on Rent Income left Income left Income Utilities and Utilities per month per week Park Place $11
PAGE 52

35 Table 3. Population Composition by Age. Ho useholds Adu l ts Children Total Residents Average Adult Age Park Pl. 33 68 33 101 35 Evan's Pk so 75 30 105 37 Combined 83 143 63 206 36 Of the families residing in Evan's Park, three had lived in the park between 15 and 25 years while the average tenancy for the other families was 19 months. About one third of the people in Evan's Park live d there less than one year. This meant that there was a fairly large and stable group in Evan's Park. By comparison, tenants in Park Place were more transient. One third of the residents resided in Lhe park for 2.5 years whereas the other two thirds averaged a stay of 4 months. Table 4. Average Tenancy of Both Parks. 1/3 Population 2 1 3 Populatio n Park Place > 2.5 vears < 5 months Evan's Park < 1 vear > 1 vear Most studies discussed, have tended to portray displacees as members of a stable and tiohtlv knit communitv who have lived in the neighborhood for a ::> very long time. Contrary to these descriptions, Niebanck points o u t that younger displacees may already be highly mobile individuals without close

PAGE 53

36 ties to an established community ( 1968:111). This more accurately defines the Drew Park population. Calculating benefits A description of how benefits are calculated will provide the background for later discussions of how much money people received, what they chose to do with the money, and how and if it changed their lives. This section will also describe parts of the process involved in the relocation. Eligibility, awards and the process are mandated by the 1970 Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. And because this project was carried out by an aviation authority, the Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects, S 100.3 7 A Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration was referred to. Describing how benefits are calculated is complex, therefore referring to the flow chart in appendix 5 will help illustrate how families qualified for benefits. Before going into the details of how benefits are calculated, it is important to briefly explain the concept of comparables. Camps or camping are shorthand terms for a comparable property in the community or the process of working out benefits using a comp. The relocation agent finds rental properties on the marker to work out how much tenants may expect to pay in order to move into comparable housing. Comparability is decided on the number of bedrooms. For example, a family living in a two bedroom home may not be comped to a one bedroom home. Comparability is also based on what is called habirable Jiving space. A family living in a 1300 square foot dwelling would not be offered a home 900 square feet in size. In searching for

PAGE 54

37 comparables it is essential that dwellings are deemed decent safe and sanitary. The tenant is offered three comparable dwellings to look at although they are not under any obligation and may go where they wi s h. Families were differentiated by two categories. The first category had two subgroups. Group one were those who lived in their homes for less than 90 days prior to initiation of negotiations between the property owner and the Aviation Authority. They are referred to as less than 90 day tenants. Gro u p two were those who moved in after initiation of negotiations and are called subsequent tenants. In most cases both groups were only eligible for moving expenses, however, they could be eligible for more than moving expens es based on their income. Everyone is eligible for m ov i n g expenses whatever category they come under. This is based on a schedule of rooms and f u rniture. :Vlost tenants in this study received about $700 for a move. The second category was made up of those who had lived in their homes for more than 90 days prior to the initiation of negotiations. In general, their benefits were based on either income or actual rent paid for the mobile home and they made up the majority of displacees. When using the income approach, 30% of h ousehold income was calculated. This is the maximum a family is expected to spend o n r ent and utilities, according to federal guidelines. A variety of programs guided by federal regulations, such as housing and welfare, use this same formul a {\;ext three comparable rental units were identified in the community that would meet the family's needs. Using the rent of these comparables 30% of the familv's income was subtracted. This difference was multiplied by 42 months. -. For example, if $200 is 30% of a family's income and the cost of a comparable dwelling cost SSOO to rent, then the difference of $300 would be

PAGE 55

38 required by that family to rent a comparable dwelling. Funds are provided to cover this difference for 42 months. Therefore, multiplying $300 by 42 produces a potential benefit of $12,600. This is called the rent supplement. The other method using actual rent works in a similar manner. The amount the family paid in rent and utilities was deducted from the amount they would have to pay for something assessed as comparable housing in the community. Again, this was multiplied by 42 months. Therefore, if a family was paying $560 per month and the comparable cost $660 the difference of $100 was multiplied by 42 making a total rent supplement of $4,200. The idea behind 42 months is that the additional costs incurred from moving into a more expensive residence would be covered for 42 months. This is considered sufficient time for displacees to improve their economic situation so that they may continue living in their new homes into the future. Whether or not displacees are likely to do this will be discussed elsewhere. When benefits exceed $5,250, this places the family in a special category called Housing of Las t Resort. This usually indicates the family either has a very low income or needs to be paying more rent for more appropriate accommodation. For example, a family of seven may be living in a two bedroom home. Out of the 83 families from both parks, 41 came under this category. This is a high proportion of people and reflects both low income and substandard housing conditions. The average payment overall for those in Housing of Last Resort was $8 ,742 while the average payment for those who were not was $3,219. Three people received zero rent supplements although they still had the option to use a ceiling amount of $5,250 as a downpayment on the purchase of a home. The highest amount paid to a single family was $16,090.20. The table provides a

PAGE 56

39 breakdown of the benefits made to the respectiv e parks. The slightly highe r payments to Park Place tenants underscore s the higher rate of people having either l ower incomes or living in inadequate housing. Table 5 Average Amount of Relocation Payments by Type Hous ing of Last Resort Others < $5.250 Park Place $9,520 $3,011 Evan' s Park $8.071 $3,350 Bot h Parks $8.742 $3,219 R elocation Options to Displacees O nce residents knew what they were g etting they could begin making decisions. Ther e were several rules however. First, if the y elected t o purc hase a h o m e then the full amount of their b e n efit had to be applied toward the downpayment and c losing costs. Displacees receiving under $5,250, as a r ent supple m ent, had the additional option o f claiming up to $5,250 onl y if they decided t o purchase. T h e option of buying a home was not dependent upon the amount of the rent supplement. For example, if a resident qualifie d f o r only $1,000 in a rent supple ment they were e ligible to claim up to $5,250 to b e used towards a down payment and closing cos ts. Technically, the amount us e d f o r a d ownpayment i s calculated at the an1ount that is customary f o r an area. So if 20% of the sales price is u sual, then that is what would be paid to the displacee including closing costs. O n this project, hm.vever, almost everyone who decide d to buy was allowe d to use the

PAGE 57

40 full amount they could claim towards the purchase because their credit was so poor they needed large down payments to qualify as buyers. If families decided to rem instead, then they would end up with cash in hand. Generally a check was made out for their first and last months rent and the deposit. The balance was given to the displacee. This also held true for those in Housing of Last Resort (any sum over $5,250). However, in cases of Last Resort Housing, the Aviation Authority stipulated that the first six months rent must be paid up front out of benefits. They could then have the balance in hand. This meant that a family in Housing of Last Resort who received $12,000 might expect to pay about $3,500 for six months rent out of the $12,000 leaving $8,500 to use as they wished. An important note here is that residents had to rent a dwelling costing the amount of the comparable to qualify for the full amount of their benefit. For example, if a family was awarded $7,455 based on a comparable of $695, the combined monthly rent and utilities of the new dwelling had to at least equal this amount. Any amount under $695 was adjusted down. The implication of this meant a family sometimes rented homes they could not afford in order to qualify for the full amount of their eligibility. When the prepaid rent period ended, the family could not afford the rent. The r eal difficulty here was that families did not use the awards to pay the rent differentials, but used it for other items, as we will see. The purpose behind requiring people who were in Housing of Last Resort to pay six months rent up front was to encourage long range planning. It was also intended to ensure that families stay for a period of time in decent safe and sanitary housing. It is questionable how effective this strategy was. Post relocation follow up indicate d a third of residents did not stay in their new

PAGE 58

41 homes. A number of people moved at the end of six months to homes with cheaper rent. The philosophy of the program is based on the premise that people should be compensated for costs incurred due to displacement and they should move into housing that is decent safe and sanitary. What this means to those living in low income housing is that many are able to improve their living conditions through the process of relocation. While making the most of an opportunity of this sort is part of the program philosophy, the Act does not seek to enrich people nor does it provide for assessing the outcomes of relocation. Summary This chapter described the condition of the mobile home parks and some of the problems tenants in Park Place experienced. The residents of both parks were working people under forty years old who had not lived in the area any length of time and therefore had not established important social networks. Most paid high rents and utility bills which exceeded 30% of their income. Residents of Park Place paid almost half of their income on rent and utilities. This explains why so many came under the category of Housing of Last Resort. This chapter also discussed the manner of calculating payments and the concept of Housing of Last Resort which paid some families large sums of money. The next chapter presents the findings derived from the questionnaire and other sources such as informal interviews and a survey of post relocation tenancy rates.

PAGE 59

42 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSES OF RESULTS This chapter discusses the data from the questionnaire as well as relevant material collected from informal interviews. A follow up to see if displacees were still in the replacement dwelling was also carried out approximately six months after the family moved. This is also discussed in this chapter. Much of the data is presented in a quantitative style, however, I have included excerpts from interviews that are more ethnographic in nature. Each question on the survey instrument will be discussed in the order it appears on the questionnaire. See appendices 1 and 2. In most cases, results pertain only to those people who were interviewed rather than the sum total of residents from both parks. For some questions. appendices detail all the response categories identified by respondents and the number and percentage of people who gave a particular response. Most responses do not add up to 100% because people could give more than one answer to a question. Therefore, percentages are based on the number of responses to a given question.

PAGE 60

43 Satisfaction With Replacement Dwelling How Do You like Your New Home? The first three questions addressed relocatee's level of satisfaction with the new home. Question one indicated that 69% in Park Place and 53% in Evan's Park said they loved their new home. The rest were not as enthusiastic and said they only liked it. No one said they disliked their new home except one family who moved themselves before a relocation agent contacted them. One reason families were so happy was that their new homes were a tremendous improvement to where they had come from. One family said of their apartment near the pool: "We love it because we feel like we are on a permanent vacation." If there were children in the household during the interview, I asked the child directly how he or she liked the new home. If the children were not home I asked the parents how their children liked the new home. The effects on children will be discussed in several of the brief descriptions of families Children were positive overall. They loved the swimming pools many now had and most said they had already made new friends. My questions of children can hardly be regarded as comprehensive and it is likely the children took their cues from their parents. Nevertheless, few studies consider children at all.

PAGE 61

44 What Do You Like About It? Park Place Question two looked at which factors accounted for a person liking their new home. The most frequently cited reason in Park Place was that it was "quiet", followed by "space" in the home and the area or neighborhood. By quiet residents were referring to neighbors rather than airplane noise. Later questions reveal neighbors were a source of dissatisfaction particularly in Park Place. Twenty three per cent said they liked their new home because it was clean and they liked the neighbors. Another reason cited less often was that there was no crime. A list of all responses to this question may be found in appendix 6. 35 Quiet 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % Figure lA. Reasons Cited for Liking N e w Home (Park Place)

PAGE 62

45 Evan's Park Those living in Evan's Park had a slightly different response although the same variables were selected. The most important reason for those in Evan's Park was more space. Since their homes were on average smaller than those in Park Place this is not surprising. The average size of a home in Evan's Park was 431 sq uare feet, whereas in Park Place it was 635 square foot making a difference of 203 square feet between the two. Another difference in responses was 17% said that knowing "it's mine" was important. There was not a significant difference in the proportion of people who purchased between each park so it is difficult to explain this response. 45 40 35 30 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 % II II II II . II -. ... II II II II -Figure lB. Reasons Cited for Liking New Home (Evan's Park)

PAGE 63

46 What Made You Choose This Residence? Many of the responses were very similar to those in the previous question, however, the most important reason cited in both parks was that people simply "liked the new place." In Park Place the second most often cited reason was the "area" followed by being "near work or school for children." I was always struck by the high quality of parenting these families demonstrated. Almost all parents were very concerned about good schools for their children and frequently based their decision of where to move on this factor. A number of parents said they were unhappy with the school the children had attended when they were in Drew Park and were much happier now with the school their children were attending. 35 Liked It 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % Figure 2A. Reasons Cited for Choosing Replacement Housing (Park Place)

PAGE 64

47 In Evan's Park "liking it" was also the strongest reason for people in choosing a residence followed by "price" then "the area" and "space." For a complete list of reasons and percentages of those citing their reasons see appendix 7. 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % Figure 2B. Reasons Cited for Choos.ing Replacement Housing (Evan's Park) How Many Other Homes Did You Look At and How Long Did it Take You to Find This One? (Buyers only) Because there was some concern that people wer e buying the first home they looked at, home buyers were asked how many homes they looked at before making a decision and how long they spent looking The data did not indicate that this was a problem. For those who gave a numerical figure, the estimated number of houses looked at was 11 houses. Home buyers also spent approximately 8 weeks looking for a house although there was one person who spent one day and another who looked for one year.

PAGE 65

48 Reasons for Renting or Buying Why Did You Choose to Rent Instead of Buy? (Renters only) In Park Place the most important reason for not buying was that these residents did not want to be tied down. They believed they might leave the area in the near future and wanted the option of moving. Twenty five percent also said they did not want the responsibility of buying and they did not feel their income would allow it in the long term. This is one of the more important questions and will be discussed again later. 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % I a I . . . -I I I I I Figure 3A. Reasons Renters Chose Not to Buy a Home (Park Place) Residents of Evan's Park, on the other hand, gave "the responsibility of buying" as the main reason for not buying. This was followed by 23% who said they did not want to be tied down. All other categories had an equal number of

PAGE 66

49 responses at 8% each. See appendix 8 for the full list of responses. Only one person admitted they rented in order to get the ren t supplement. 35 30 25 4----20 ....,_ __ 15 ....,_ __ 10 ....,_ __ 5 ....,_ __ 0+-% Figure 3B. Reason s R e nters C hose Not to B u y a Home (Evan's Park) Would You Have Boug h t If You Could Have? (Renters only) In conjunction with the previous question, residents were asked if they would have bought if they could h ave In Park Place 64% said no and 36% said yes. Of Evan's Park renters 39% said no and 61% said yes. These are puzzling results as they present similar percentages for the opposite responses. An examination and comparison of the previous question, asking why they rented instead of b u ying, sheds no light on this. One possible explanation is that a larger proportion of people from Park Place had previously owned a home and were more cognizant of the problems associated with owning. Comparing the

PAGE 67

so results of this question to the next suggests there may be a correlation inasmuch as the sets of figures appear to affect each other. 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 % NO Park Place Figure 4. Renter' s Response to Question o f Whether They Would Have Bought if They Could Have Have You Ever Owned a Home in the Past? In Park Place 52% said yes and 48% said no. In Evan's Park 29% said yes and 71% said no. Table 6. Have You Ever Owned a Home Before? YES !'{) Park P lace 52% 48% Evan's Park 29% 71%

PAGE 68

Do You Believe You Would Have Been Able to Buy a Home at Some Time in Your Ufe Without the Relocation Benefits? (Buyers only) 51 It seems fair, in comparing these responses to the last question, to suggest that there is a correlation here also. A larger percentage of those in Park Place said yes they had owned in the past and would have been able to own again even without relocation assistance. From this it is reasonable to suggest that the prior experience of owning predisposes a family to believe they will do so again. Despite this presupposition, only 54% of Park Place purchased compared to 57% in Evan's Park. Table 7. Respondents Who Felt They Could Buy a Home Without Program at a Future Date YES N) Park Place 64% 36% Evan's Park 23% 77% Did You Attend The City of Tampa Housing Meeting? This meeting provided information about the various opportunities to own a home through the City's programs. The purpose of this question was to determine if people would attend other meetings of this type and to see if it influenced people's decisions to buy. Only home buyers were asked if it influenced their decision to buy.

PAGE 69

52 Table 8. City of Tampa Meeting Attendance and Influence to Buy Attend Meeting? Influenced Decision? YES N) YES N) NA Park Place 61% 39% 14% 50% 36% Evan's Park 40% 60% 29% 18% 53% Why there should be a difference in attendance between the two parks is unknown. The difference may be attributable to the fact that relocation staff spent more time providing information on options in Evan's Park than Park Place prior to the meeting. Because there was more available time to work with Evan's Park tenants they may have felt more informed. Circumstances did not permit the same with Park Place and they may have attended hoping to get more general information on the upcoming relocation. Of the 28 families who were interviewed and attended this meeting, 17 bought homes upon relocation. Of these 17 purchasers seven said the meeting positively affected their decision to buy. One reason identified for finding the meeting helpful was that it was informative in terms of buying options. However, not one of the 83 families residing in these two parks took advantage of any housing programs offered by the City. The majority of these families were low income working people who, for the most part, were very interested in owning their own homes. Why then were they unable to take advantage of the programs offered by the City? One reason was that most were not willing to move into the central part of the city because they believed they would have to contend with the same sorts of problems they already had. These were problems of crime, drugs and

PAGE 70

53 deteriorating schools. Resettlement patterns following relocation show that a large proportion of residents moved further away from the city to outlying areas in the far east and west. (See appendices 9 and 10) Another important reason families were unlikely to approach the City was that most had serious credit problems. The handful of people who did look into housing programs complained that they would have to work out their credit problems before they would be eligible. The question of whether displacees were interested or willing to move into public housing seldom came up. In those instances where it did arise, the response was generally negative. Why Did You Choose to Buy a Home Instead of Rent? (Buyers only) Home buyers were also asked why they decided to buy. In Park Place the most important reasons given were that it was an investment and economical in terms of payments whereas r enting was a waste of money. Home buyers from Evan's Park cited "pride of ownership" as the most important reason followed by equal ratings for "invesunent", "economical" and "rent a waste." In general people held the predominant American value that owning one's own home is preferable to renting. Many said they saw owning as an investment that would allow them to eventually own something better or to have something to pass on to their children. Some residents really had no option other than to buy. They were not eligible for a rent supplement and so they either got nothing or they could apply for the $5,250 towards the downpayment on a purchase. In this case

PAGE 71

54 purchasing was the best choice, particularly since affordable mobile homes were plentiful. Table 9. Reasons for Buying Park Place Evan's Park Investment 29% 29% Pride of ownership 7% 35% Rent a waste 21% 29% Economical 14% 29% Relocation opportunity 7% 12% No rent supplement 7% 6% It's better 7% 0 Freedom 7% 0 What Have You or What Do You Intend to Spend the Balance of Your money On? One of the more important questions asked renters what they spent the balance of their rent supplement on and if they had spent it all. The following table indicates that between both parks the items money was most often spent on were cars, furniture, bills, rent and luxury goods.

PAGE 72

55 Table 10. Items Rent Supplement Spent on Park Place Evan's Park Car 67% 39% Furniture 5 0% 23% Bills 42% 69% Savings 33% 23% Phone 25% 8% Rent 25% 23% Lu xury 25% 23% Car viol atio n s 25% 8% C lothin g 8% 15% Vacati o n 8% 15% Health/dental 0 8% Cars, furniture, rent and bills may hardly b e considered non-essential items. In Florida where it is nearly impossible to get around without a car it is not surprising that this was a popular item to spend money on. A car enables people to move away from their work or to seek better employment elsewhere. Answers to the next questio n supports the importance of having a vehicle as most people lived in the parks t o be near work. Car violations were tickets or fmes that needed to be paid before people could get their drivers licenses back. Furniture was also an important item. Although everyone was given the furniture in their rental home prior to relocating, most did not want to take it with them because the furniture in the mobile homes was old and

PAGE 73

56 filthy. Luxury items included televisions, VCRs, and computers. Almost no one had a telephone in the park and they were a popular item to have installed in the new homes. Finally, on the question of the rent supplement and whether it was spent by the time of the interview, 6 7% in Park Place said they had spent all the money while 25% said they had something left. The answer was unknown for one person. In Evan's Park 46% said they had spent all the money, 31% said they hadn't and 23% was unknown. Some people were uncomfortable during this part of the conversation and I did not press them. Displacee Perceptions of Mobile Home Park How Did You Come to Uve in the Trailer Park? Park Place In answer to the question of how they came to live in the parks, most said that it was close to work. Drew Park is an industrial area with abundant work. In Park Place this was followed by a large proportion of people who said they had been living with family or friends and the situation had become unbearable through overcrowding or conflict. An equal number of these people said they were evicted or asked to leave. This figure of 31% attributing overcrowding as a reason for moving, closely parallels the Hillsborough County Needs Assessment which also showed that 30% of the people surveyed had experienced overcrowding as a serious problem ( HCNA 1995:204-205). Nineteen percent said they had been living in a motel or they needed a place quickly. One couple explained they met and moved into a tent in the

PAGE 74

57 forest. They were both working to save money to rent a place. The cheapest accommodation they could find was the trailer. Another fairly large group (15%) said they were f rom out of state and this was what they found when they arrived. One man explained he had a stroke, two heart attacks and cancer. After that their lives fell apart, he s .aid. He went into hospital and his wife and daughter went to live with a woman who threw them out and kept all their possessions. Later when his wife was visiting him in hospital someone broke into their home and took everything. They moved into the park hoping to get their lives together and eventually buy a home when they got on their feet. (This family bought a lovely home with relocation money and were very happy. When I did a follow up six months later I was told they had to sell the home when the wife, who was the only one working, lost her job. They are said to have left the state. ) (Interview 4A:6-21-95). Another woman told me they fell on bad times when she quit work to take care of a family emergency, then her husband's business failed and they lost everything. They were forced to move to Park Place These were the stories of people struggling with bad luck and hard times. As some pointed out, they at least had managed to keep their families off the streets and out of the shelters.

PAGE 75

35 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % Figure SA. Circumstances That Led to Living in Park (Park Place) 58 Evan's Park Overall the people living in Evan's Park did not have the same level of urgency or life crisis that led them to move into the park. For many it was a conscious decision based on practical factors such as proximity to work, available and inexpensive housing or a good relationship with the park owner. Those in Evan's Park also gave "work" as the most important reason for moving to the park. However, 17% cited the need for a place to live quickly or because the rent was cheap. This same proportion of people said they had lived in the park on and off over the years and it was home to them. Finally, 13% had been living elsewhere with friends or family and had to leave because of overcrowding.

PAGE 76

59 Like those in Park Place, many of the people moved into Evan's Park because it was inexpensive and they could move in without paying a lot of up front costs such as deposits for utilities or advance rent. Also a number of people said the owner worked with them so they had a place to live right away. Another reason was that they did not have to go through a credit check to get into the park. This was an important factor for many people and posed a serious problem in looking for a replacement home later on. 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % Near Work Figure SB. Circumstances That Led to Living in Park (Evan's Park) This element of the data further supports the conclusion that those living in Evan's Park were more stable than those in Park Place for they were there because it was close to work and they had lived there in the past. Those in Park Place tended to move to the park because they were having serious difficulties in their lives and needed to find a place to live quickly.

PAGE 77

How Long Were You There and What Kept You in the Trailer Park? Park Place Next displacees were asked how long they had lived in the park and what kept them there. Length of residency was addressed in the section that dealt with methods, so only reasons for staying will be discussed here. Residents in Park Place stayed because they had no money and needed to be close to work. Other reasons included not having a car, inexpensive rent and weekly payments. The category of "other" reasons included having a friend in the park, owning a dog, enjoying being alone, to save money, the convenience, and being robbed. The family who was robbed had spent two years saving up the money to buy a home when another family member robbed them of their life savings. Table llA. What Kept You in the Park? (Park Place) No money 35% Close to work 31% Other 15% No car 12% Inexpensive rent 12% Weekl_ypayments 12% like a number of other people, one woman said the stay was supposed to be temporary, but somehow they never managed to get out. In her case they

PAGE 78

61 had no car and could not go to look for another place. Another family said, "every time we tried to go something went wrong." Though no one ever offered this as a reason, some stayed because they were caught in the web of alcoholism or drugs. Obtaining the day's intoxicant saps energy and the will to deal with what seems to be more peripheral matters. As one couple, who had lived in Park Place a long while said, "it was the last stop, you either went up or went down." They saw a number of people come in, stay a short while, get on their feet and leave. Others never made it. They died, went to prison or succumbed to drugs. Evan's Park Evan's Park residents gave "other" reasons as liking the park, the manager and the area. One woman explained she stayed so long, although she hated it, because it was the only place her adult childre n would know where to find her if the y ever look ed her up. Being close to work, cheap rent, and no money were cited an equa l number of times, followed by not having a car. Finally relocation was cited by 10% as a reason for staying. While m os t people in Park Place were not really aware they would b e relocated in the near future, those livin g in Evan's Park had known for some time and so stayed for that reaso n.

PAGE 79

62 Table llB. What Kept You in the Park? (Evan's Park) Other 33% Close to work 20% Inexpensive rent 20% No money 20% No car 17% Relocation 10% Convenience 10% Weeki y payments 7% The results of this particular question were surprising. The two factors I expected to be the most important were weekly payments and not having a car, however the data did not specifically bear this hypothesis out. Part of the problem may be that these were reasons given for other questions but not this specific question. Therefore important reasons are hidden when examining only one question as a discrete element. This means not having a car may be a very important factor, but does not show up in this particular question. A cross check of who had cars and those who said living near work was a factor did not provide a correlation. I found that those without cars did not even cite being near to work as a factor. Knowing who these people are I am aware that they had to rely on others to get them to their jobs. I can only assume that since they had solved their transportation problem by carpooling, and the like, that it no longer posed a problem of significant importance.

PAGE 80

63 This presents a n intriguing methodological problem, for while I feel certain that issues of transportation and the ability to pay rent weekly were issues that came up repeatedly in informal conversations, the hard data do not support this. How Did You Feel About Living in the Trailer Park and Drew Park? Park Place Only two people living in Park Place said "it was OK" while 27% said they "hated it" and 23% said they "disliked it." The most common complaint was "bad maintenance" followed by "bad neighbors." 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 % Hate It Figure 6A. Feelings About Living in the Park and Principle Reasons Cited (Park Place) Typical of the responses was one woman who said she hated it. She was afraid all the time. "There was constantly a commotion with some neighbor or another and the cops were called in nightly." The maintenance was terrible

PAGE 81

64 and she was afraid to go to the bathroom because the bathtub was falling through the floor and she could see the ground below She worried about rats and snakes corning in through the floor. Others complained that the sewers kept backing up pouring raw sewage all over their yards and a neighbor set her home on fire which scared those living next door. The park was in a low lying area and flooded during heavy rains. f ., w I --------Photograph 4. Park Place Flooded by Summer Rains (photo taken by author) Gunshots were heard regularly said another tenant. Several parents said they wouldn't let their children outside and one father said he grounded his daughter for any reason he could come up with to keep her indoors. He

PAGE 82

65 believed murderers had been arrested in the park as well as numerous dope dealers. Another couple said that although they had spent many happy years in the park, near the end they became increasingly concerned about their safety. A friend of theirs was stabbed 19 times waiting for a bus one morning. According to the couple, as soon as the park owners stopped making minimal repairs the park went to pieces. They did not care about the tenants and only wanted the money, according to this couple. Evan's Park Residents of Evan's Park, on the whole, did not have the same intense dislike of the park that those in Park Place had. Although 17% said they "hated it" and felt afraid and unsafe there, 30% said "it was OK" and 20% said they "liked it." Some said they "loved it." One widow had moved in 2 5 years ago and owned her own home. She had many fond memories of the place when the mobile homes were in good condition and the landscaping was well cared for. She was the most unhappy about relocating and had a great deal of difficulty adjusting to her new home.

PAGE 83

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 % I I . I --. I I I Figure 6B. Feelings About living in the Park and Principle Reasons Cited (Evan's Park) Was There Anything You liked About living in the Trailer Park? 66 This question assumes the person did not like living in the park and so had to be modified when the person interviewed obviously did not have strong negative feelings about living there. Instead they were asked "What did you like about living in the park?" In Park Place the majority of people answered "no," there was nothing they liked about living in the park. Those more positive said convenience to work and neighbors were why they liked living there. Cheap rent was also identified and two families said they liked their trailer. Most people did not elaborate on their answers to this question

PAGE 84

35 30 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 % Figure 7 A. Reasons Residents Liked Living in Park (Park Place) 67 In Evan's Park, where people were in general more happy, 34% said they liked the convenience of work and they liked their neighbors. Other reasons included cheap rent and living alone with the privacy it afforded. Several people said they knew everybody and that was why they liked it so much.

PAGE 85

30 25 20 1 5 1 0 5 0 % 68 . . -Figure 7B. Reasons Residents Liked living in Park (Evan's Park) What Did You Dislike About Living in the Trailer Park? People from both parks said lack of maintenance was the major reason they disliked living there, followed by disliking neighbors. Park Place residents next identified the management whereas Evan's Park residents said the condition of the park and trailers were a source of dissatisfaction. For Park Place residents problems included crime, alcohol, drugs, shootings and fighting. However, these may be included as part of the dissatisfaction with n eighbors. It is interesting to note that unhappiness with neighbors rated as a primary source of dissatisfaction, yet was cited in the previous question as a reason for satisfaction with living in the park. Complaints about neighbor's behavior was so common I often wondered who

PAGE 86

69 these neighbors were. Actually a number of the "culprits" themselves cited neighbors as a problem. Other less frequently mentioned problems were that it was too expensive and dirty, there was no privacy and they felt fearful. See appendix 11 for a complete list of reasons residents disliked living in the park and percentage of responses. Park Place Park Place residents cited "no maintenance" as the biggest problem. The list of grievances was long. Most were discussed earlier and included raw sewage, gaping holes in floors and walls, bathtubs and kitchen sinks that had fallen through the floor, no air conditioning, water leaking through electrical outlets, leaks in roofs leaks in main plumbing lines and rat infestation. One woman said holes in the wall were repaired with contact paper. Others complained of windows screwed shut so that there was no way to ventilate the home when the air conditioning did not work. Even when they managed to get the windows open there were no screens to keep insects out and they were afraid of being broken into and robbed. Some residents tolerated suffocating heat rather than risk prying the windows open. Oddly only three people complained of high rents in the context of the interview. Given the terrible conditions people were living in, an average of $571 per month including utilities seems somewhat excessive. In speaking with people they often did not see the rents as high. When it was pointed out to them how much they were paying monthly, many would deny that they were paying that much. They would counte r with the weekly rate saying it was not high. Somehow $100 per week seems more manageable than $-+33 per month.

PAGE 87

70 Finally, a high proportion of Park Place residents said management was a problem. The owners were not involved in managing the park. Instead, they employed a couple who were highly unpopular with many residents. Complaints included victimization, preferential treatment of favorites and promises that were never carried out for repairs. Two men who were roommates were very angry. They had moved in on the understanding that they would have air conditioning and carpet laid before they moved in. They returned a week later to move in and neither had been done, nor had it been after four months. 40 35 30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % Figure 8A. Reasons Residents Disliked living in Park (Park Place) Evan's Park None of Evan's Park residents cited management as a reaso n for disliking the park. This is likely to be because there was strong onsite management by the owner and a full t ime maintenance man who also

PAGE 88

71 served the role of keeping order. Despite the presence of the maintenance man inadequate maintenance was a major reason for not liking the park. The park was old and dilapidated and the owner was not willing to put adequate resources into repairs that needed to be made. Further, she had known for some time that she would be selling the property. As popular as the manager was, she was essentially interested in covering her costs. To this end she considered deposits non refundable with the purpose of paying some of her maintenance costs. She once commented to me that deposits should be renewed yearly. Neighbors constituted a third of the responses for why people did not like living in the park. A number of people saw their neighbors as "rough" and objected to their drinking and drugging. However, earlier, 2 7% said neighbors were the reason they liked living in the park Thirty three percem cited environment as a problem. Environment included both the park and the mobile homes. Others complained of the smell of sewage, the closeness of trailers to one another, rats in the walls, bugs and bad water while one family said they had to keep treating their children for head lice.

PAGE 89

30 25 20 15 1 0 5 0 % T2 ,;,;.: .. ,. .. ..... I If U I -Figure 8B. Reasons Residents Disliked living in Park (Evan's Park) There were two things that would seem disturbing to the outsider, but not to those living in the parks. The first was in Evan's Park which was next door to the local seafood processing plant. Some days the most delightful smell of fried fish would permeate the park and I would wonder how anyone could keep from eating constantly in response. However, more often, there was the foul smell of rotting fish that could not be escaped, yet no one ever really mentioned it. Or they would shrug their shoulders if I did. The other environmental disturbance for both parks was the sound of airplanes taking off. The noise was so loud it was impossible to continue a conversation when a plane took off. Quite a number of people did mention the problem pointing out that it interfered with their television viewing. However, they did not mention it as a reason for why they disliked living in the park. Park Place residents gave "quiet" as the reason for liking their new

PAGE 90

73 home in an earlier question. Length of residency for Park Place residents may be behind this. They had not lived in the area as long as Evan's Park residents and may not have become as accustomed to the noise as those in Evan's Park. However, when noise was mentioned it generally referred to the noise neighbors made. Do You Think You'll Ever Go Back to Uving in a Similar Place? All responses to this question from those living in Park Place were essentially no. However, another 8% said "Not if I can help it." The no was passionate and adamant in all cases. Figure 9A. Response to living in Similar Place in Future (Park Place) Evan's Park had a comparable number of people saying they would never go back to a similar place and 10% saying they hoped not. What was

PAGE 91

74 different for Evan's Park residents were the 20% of people who said they would consider going back. 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % Figure 9B. Response to living in Similar Place in Future (Evan's Park) Has Your Financial Situation Changed Since You Moved? Park Place Four households in Park Place were not asked this question because they were interviewed with an older version of the questionnaire. Of those who were asked, 55% said yes their financial situation had changed and 45% said no. For those whose situation had changed, 23% said it was for the better and 18% said it was for the worse. Another 18% said changes in their situation were unrelated to the move and included reasons such as being laid off from work or falling ill In Park Place four households said their situation was worse. Of these, two were unrelated to the move and one said it was a temporary situation. The

PAGE 92

75 family who said it was temporary felt their finances were strained because they had used all of their rent supplement towards the purchase of the home. This meant that there was little spare cash to pay deposits and unforeseen costs of a move. One family said that the increased costs of the move were hurting them. However when I compared their costs I found it was costing them $56 less per month in the new home. They had moved further away from the workplace of the woman supporting the family and this may have been a factor. This family did have to sell their home in the end. Table 12. Changes in Financial Situation After Relocation Better Worse Unrelated to Move Park Place 23% 18 % 18% Evan's Park 30% 17% 23% Evan's Park Evan's Park tenants had 53% who said yes their situation had changed and 40% who said no. One did not know if it had and another family (7%) was not asked the question because of an older questionnaire. Of the five families from Evan's Park who said things were worse fmancially since the move, three said the change was unrelated. Another said it was temporary and also attributed the difficulty to start up costs of deposits. The fifth person, an elderly woman on a fixed .income, said it was difficult financially. However, in her case she was pay.ing $60 less than she had before. When I explained this to her she didn't quite believe it although she did have the additional expenses of paying someone to mow her lawn and water bills. On average most relocatees were paid between $500-700 to move. A

PAGE 93

76 portion of this money was intended to pay the costs of having utilities turned on. In a number cases roommates or additional family members moved into the new home and helped pay the new rents or mortgages. This will be looked at again in a later question that asks if the same people were living with the family in the new place as in the old home. Displacees' Program Evaluation The next group of questions relates to how the program was communicated to displacees and how they found the program in general. This group of questions was straight forward and did not elicit emotional responses most of the time. This is also true for the rest of the questions which will be presented with less qualitative material. The exception is the final question which allowed people to discuss whatever they felt had not been covered. Wilen Did You First Hear About the Relocation Project? For those in Park Place, most found out about relocation when they got the letter of eligibilit}' whereas those in Evan's Park heard about it a year or more prior to the arrival of relocation staff. The OVvner of Evan's Park had discussed the possibility with tenants for some time. One person complained it always made her feel insecure.

PAGE 94

77 Table 13. When Did You First Hear About Relocation? Eligibili tv letter Months ago Year+ ago Park Place 35% 15 % 27% Evan's Park 23% 10% 60% How Did You Hear About the Relocation Project? Park Place residents either heard of the program from staff at O.R. Colan Associates or from other residents. Half of those who first learned of the program from O.R. Colan Associates did so in 1993 when the initial surveys were conducted to see who was living there. The majority of those in Evan's Park heard it from the landlady. Table 14. Sources Displacees Heard of Relocation Other residents O.R. Colan Assoc. Park owner Park Place 27% 27% 12% Evan's Park 13% 30% 40% Did You Understand How They Worked Out Your Entitlement? Staff were careful to e..xplain the program and how awards were worked out, however the formula is complex and not always easy to explain. The results indicate that staff were successful most of the time in explaining how they arrived at the figure the family would receive.

PAGE 95

78 Table 15. Did People Understand How Benefits Worked Out Yes No Sort of Park Place 73% 19% 8% Evan's Park 63% 24% 13% Did You Receive What You Hoped For? Overall residents were pleased with what they received with a large proportion getting more than they hoped for. Table 16. Response to Amount of Money Family Received Yes No More than Park Place 52% 12% 36% Evan's Park SO% 20% 30% Some of the comments of those who were not happy will be discussed in the next section entitled recommendations. They are important because they highlight some of the problems with the program. A common complaint was that the family who worked hard and followed the rules often did not get as much as the family who did not have a wage earner and was therefore regarded as manipulative of the system and undeserving. There were rumors that individuals quit their job when they heard of relocation. Many were very pleased with what they received. Often these were the ones who actuall y got very little. One couple said "we got a new start in life

PAGE 96

79 which is more than anyone could hope for." This couple's rent supplement was about $1,500. One man said "to be honest with you I never asked for anything and I didn't expect more than moving costs." And another couple said they thanked God for the money because they couldn't have bought their home without it. How Did You Find the Project Staff? When asking this particular question, I would ask the person not to include me in their assessment. The positive response does not surprise me knowing the effort staff took to be of assistance. It is possible that by providing the adjectives to displacees the responses may be skewed. Table 17. Displacee Assessment of Staff Helpful Pleasant Great ac Unhappy with agent Park Place 73% 58% 12% 8% 4% Evan's Park 57% 63% 10% 17% 3% The woman in Park Place who was dissatisfied with her relocation agent said she never felt informed and always felt that she had to try and catch someone from the staff when she saw them in the park. The family in Evan's Park said they were unhappy because they "got different stories from one day to the next about what forms we needed to sign." There was also a delay in getting the money to the landlord, which they felt

PAGE 97

80 made them look bad. Finding only two households that expressed displeasure indicates staff were successful in working with displacees, overall. Were There Other Kinds of Help You Feel You Could Have Used to Make the Relocation Process Easier for You? The majority of people in both parks could not think of anything more that would have helped them. Those who could reveal areas where the program could be improved or expanded. Suggestions for improvement included providing more information on buying, assistance with credit problems and making some money available prior to the move. Although infonnation and money were both made available it would seem that several families did not receive the support they felt they needed. As far as credit assistance is concerned, this may be feasible as part of a pre-relocation orientation which will be discussed in the next section in more detail. Table 18. Did Displacees Feel Other Kinds of Help Were Needed No Yes No response Park Place 65% 23% 12% Evan's Park 83% 13% 4%

PAGE 98

81 Consequences of Relocation How Many Times Have You Moved in the Last Five Years? The choices for this question ranged from one year to five years with a category for five or more years. Those in Park Place who moved more than five times in five years represented 23% of the park's residents whereas for Evan's Park this percentage was 17%. For the other households in both parks, the mean number of moves was three in the past five years. Other questions have already demonstrated the higher level of stability of Evan's Park residents. While the shared mean of three years does not indicate this, the slight differences in the number of moves is consistent with this finding. The following table presents the percentage of people who answered in eac h c a t egory. Table 19. Number o f Displac e e M oves Over Past Five Years Moves Park Place Evan's Park 1 9% 17% 2 15% 17% 3 35 % 30% 4 9% 17% 5 9% 17 % 5+ 2 3 % 2 % Total 100% 100%

PAGE 99

82 How Many Bedrooms/Bathrooms Do You Have in this Home? The purpose of these two questions was to quantify evidence of improvement in living conditions as a result of moving although this had already been established through what is called the Decent Safe and Sanitary (DSS) inspection. All homes were inspected prior to displacees committing money to the new property. Table 20. Number of Families Who Increased/Decreased Rooms BEDROOMS BATHROOMS Increase 1 Increase 2 Decreased Increased Decreased Park Place 9 2 0 16 2 Evan's Park 18 0 2 15 0 Comparing the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the new home to the old, those in Park Place increased the number of bathrooms more often than bedrooms. This may be because, in general they were already coming from larger mobile homes. Those from Evan's Park, on the other hand, increased their living space in terms of bedrooms in more cases than Park Place. There were however, two families who decreased the number of bedrooms in the new horne. One was an elderly woman whose mobile home was under 300 square feet. The second bedroom was no more than an alcove with a single bed in it. The apartment she rented was approximately 700 square feet giving her an overall increase of 400 square feet of habitable space The second family relocated themselves

PAGE 100

83 before relocation staff made contact. They moved from a three bedroom mobile home to a two bedroom duplex. These two families are important to look at because, in theory, no one should take a replacement home that is not at least as good as the home they came from. This includes number of bedrooms, habitable space and condition of the property. Table 21. Number Who Increased Uving Space Bedrooms Bathrooms Park Place 42% 62% Evan's Park 60% 50% How Much is Your New Rent/Mortgage? Fifty four percent of those who lived in Park Place were paying on average $73.00 per month more than when they lived in the park. The other 46% were paying on average $90.00 per month less. Of those from Evan's Park, 74% paid an average of $96.00 per month more and the other 26% paid on average $4 7.00 less than they had been. Table 22. Amount of Increase and Decrease in Housing Expenses and Percentage of Those Paying Increases More Percentage Less Percentage Park Place $73 54% $90 46% Evan s Park $96 74% $47 26%

PAGE 101

84 How Much is Your Electric Bill Going to Run You Here? The time between moving and the interview was not always sufficient to determine what the new electric bill would be. Seventeen families between both parks did not know what the new amount would be. However, the average new electric bill was about $109.00 per month in Park Place and $103 .00 per month for Evan's Park tenants. Table 23. Comparison of Average Utility Costs Before and After Relocation. Old Monthly Utilities New Monthly U tilities Park Place $128 $109 Evan's Park $103 The decrease for Park Place tenants probably reflects new energy efficient housing whereas the increase for Evan's Park residents is the result of occupying larger dwellings. If You Are Paying More, How Long Do You Feel You Can Afford the Increase? A full 73% in Park Place said they could afford the increase indefinitely. One person said until the money runs out and one said they did not know Data were not available for the others. In Evan's Park 60% said indefinitely while 30% said they did not know. One person said until the money runs out. Again, the data were not available for everyone.

PAGE 102

Table 24. Period Residents See They Can Afford Increase in Payments Indefinitely Money gone Don't know No data Park Place 73% 4% 4% 19% Evan's Park 60% 3% 30% 7% 85 One of the unique features of this project was that HCAA stipulated that anyone with a rent supplement over $5,250 must pay six months rent in advance. Because leases usually run for seven months the advance rent covered this period. As a discretionary policy on the part of HCAA, this has certain benefits. When displacees said they thought they could manage until the money ran out, they were referring to this prepaid rent. The six to seven months allows people to get over the e..,xcitement of having excess cash to spend and a cooling off period to plan for upcoming rent. Whether or not displacees will be able to stay after the prepaid rent period runs out is difficult to discern at this point in time. For many the sLx to seven months has not yet expired. Continued follow up would allow a more effective evaluation to be made. Is This a Hardship on You7 Seventy seven percent in Park Place said increased expenses were not a hardship on them compared to a similar percentage (60%) from Evan's Park. The other tenants said yes it was a hardship on the m.

PAGE 103

86 Of those in Park Place who said this was a hardship on them, one person had not paid any sort of rent for a number of months so would find any cost a hardship. Had he been paying rent previously, he would actually be paying $20 per month less in his new home. Of the four others, one was paying an additional $127 per month and three were paying about $50 more per month. Only one of these four had purchased and may have had other expenses such as water in addition. Twenty three percent of Evan's Park tenants said the increased payments were a hardship on them. The average increase for these particular people was $75 per month. One woman was actually paying less per month, but it is also possible she had other costs she forgot to mention. Four of the sLx who were paying more purchased rather than rented. Are You Farther or Closer to Work? The majority of people moved further away from their place of employment. This is understandable inasmuch as most residents lived near their jobs in Drew Park. In Park Place 58% moved to homes further from work and 15% moved to homes closer to work. The question was not applicable for 23%

PAGE 104

so 40 30 20 10 0 % 87 Figure lOA. Post Relocation Proximity to Work (Park Place) Evan's Park residents had a smaller proportion of tenants moving further away from work with only 37% However, a larger nwnber of people than in Park Place actually moved closer to work.

PAGE 105

30 25 20 1 5 10 5 0 % 88 Figure lOB. Post Relocation Proximity to Work (Evan's Park) Are The Same People living With You Here as There Were at the Trailer? As noted earlier, a number of people took room-mates in or family members to help share costs. In Park Place the composition of 10 households changed. Six of these took a new member and three lost a member. One man's girlfriend moved out and his mother moved in. Most families remained the same. Of the seven households in Evan' s Park that changed the household m embers only one took a new room-mate. Another lost a room mate and the rest had changes with children.

PAGE 106

Table 25. Post Relocation Changes in Family Composition Same Changes Increase Decrease Park Place 62% 38% 6 families 3 families Evan's Park 77% 23% 5 families 2 families Displacee Comments Is There Anything Else You Think it is Important for Me to Know About Your Relocation Experience? 89 Comments took two forms One was to give suggestions on how better the program could be administered and this will be discussed in more detail in the section on recommendations. The other was usually a complimentary opinion of the program and the impact it had on a displacee's life. Some of these comments are presented here as well as several brief sketches on the lives of those for whom the program had a significant effect. "I think everyone did a great job." "It all went smooth." "I just considered the whole thing to be a blessing." "This is the only way buying a home was going to happen for us. "I got the best deal of anyone in Park Place because I bought a house and not a trailer." "We're very happy." "This is the nicest place either of us have ever lived except for my parent's house." When the residents of Park Place called in the local television station :l'vlrs. C. spoke to reporters. She told them about some of the problems people were having and how her own

PAGE 107

ceiling was falling in and she had no air conditioning. She had recently fallen through a hole in her floor and injured herself. The manager of the aparunent complex Mrs. C. selected saw the television report and was shocked. Based on what she saw she allowed Mr. and Mrs. C. to move in before they received their relocation money. The few days they waited for their claim to come through they had no food and had to go to the local church and ask for some. They got the rent supplement of about $2,300 and paid it directly to the landlady for the following six months rent so they could use the time to save money for the next six months rent. Because the rent supplement was under $5,250 they were not obligated to pay advance rent. The $700 moving costs they used to purchase furniture and set up the home. When I went to interview this couple I was amazed. The woman looked like an entirely different person. She was no longer distraught. The apartment was wann, comfortable and very clean and tidy. This was most unlike the trailer she had come from which was filthy. She explained that in the trailer she gave up cleaning because no matter what she did it looked dirty. That was the main thing she liked about her new home, it is clean, convenient and nice. With furniture from the local thrift store she had turned her aparunent into a real home. Mrs. C. said they were very grateful and felt like they lived in a palace (Interviews 16A:7-ll-95). It is interesting that so many of the homes in the parks were extremely dirty and shabby, yet once people moved to their replacement dwellings their homes were immaculate. Not only were the new homes and tidy, but those who purchased new furniture bought beautiful and tasteful items. A mother with six young children said, "I thank God every day that the airport did this for us. lt was like hitting the lottery and a dream come true." Many people expressed surprise that the airport did not "just throw us out." At most they expected moving costs certainly not thousands of dollars. Mr and Mrs. D. love their new home. It is beautiful and furnished very taste fully. They like the fact that it is quiet, there are no airplanes and they have privacy. They moved to another county to be near their daughter and granddaughter. They were visiting them and drove by and fell in love with the house.

PAGE 108

They had looke d at about 20 homes o ver a period o f months They planned on buying b efore they knew of relocation and had saved money to do s o Buy ing would allow them the freedom t o d o what they liked ro their h ome. They had been ready to buy a home a yea r ago whe n they were robbed o f their life's savings. They owned a home in the p a st, bur lost it whe n Mrs D. stopped w orking to take care of a family crisis. Lat e r her husband started a business that failed. They lost everything and moved into the park. Mrs D said she and her husband would have been OK in the park, but it was a bad environment for the kids. Her 9 y e a r old son's attitude got rough a s a result of living there. "He used to be sweet and polite," she said. They were afraid for their children there. Also they were concerned about trailer fires and the wiring and plumbing were bad. Getting repairs done was ver y difficult. Their financial situation is getting better now and they plan t o start a business again (Interview 19A:9-l-95 ) Photog raph 5. Mr. and Mrs. D's R eplacement Home (photo taken by author) 91

PAGE 109

92 Another woman said, "We were pleased with the way we were treated and the money we got." This family moved into a beautiful little house. They explained they had been living in a motel for months before moving in to Park Place. It was intended to be a temporary measure, but they got caught up in the weekly payments and couldn't break loose. This family is living in a lovely little house out in the country. They have made it look very homey. There was no question for them--they knew they needed to buy. This was their only chance since they never seemed to be able to put the money together themselves. They believe that without the program they would be in trailers for a long time. They decided not to rent because they would have spent all the money in six months and have nothing. They love everything about the house but the water. They have the luxury of a washer and dryer and "sometimes it is so quiet it makes your ears buzz." They especially love being away from Tampa. A major concern were schools for their three girls. The children love the new home and neighborhood. When they returned to the trailer park recently to get something, one child cried and refused to get out of the car. They hated Park Place. When they first arrived no one but Mr. T went outside the trailer for two months. They came to live in the park when they were forced to leave a nice rented house in Palma Ceia. The woman they paid rent to was the daughter of the owner. When her siblings found out she was collecting rent on their mother's house they evicted the family to sell the house. They had a month to move but did not find anything because of Ms. T's concern with schools. They left it too late and had to move quickly. This happened at the beginning of November just before the holidays and they did not have deposits. Mr. T found the trailer because it was close to where he worked. They felt responsible for their situation because they did not have a lease. The trailer they rented had water pouring through the roof when it rained. It often filled up the glasses of Ms. T' s coke bottle glass collection and flooded onto the floor. The bath surround was cracked and seemed about to collapse through the floor. Holes in the walls were repaired with contact paper by the management. They felt stigmatiz e d living in the park and won't tell their new neighbors where they have come from. The stigma is people see those in Drew Park as "white trash". Mr. T thinks most of the people there liked it and were responsible for putting themselves there.

PAGE 110

They have difficulty saving and were trapped in the weekly payment situation. Unable to save deposits they stayed beyond the time they wanted to. They looked at 6-12 homes including trailers. They almost gave up the idea of buying because they have poor credit and could not find an acceptable home. They fmally found the one they are in. They feel strongly that their quality of life has improved (Interview 26A;6-23-95). A single father said of relocation. "It was great." "It gave me and the kids an opportunity to get on our feet." Two brothers living in Evan's Park came from Kentucky and lived in the park on and off for five years. They 11ow see themselves as "moving up to better things." In the future they plan to go on to a better apartment then a house. They are very motivated men and one has put his small amount of money in the bank while the other used his to pay bills. Living in Evan's Park made him feel "uncomfortable ... like trash." He was ashamed to bring girlfriends and friends home. They lived there because it was inexpensive and a fairly decent area. He saw it as a stepping stone to someplace better. Although they got very little compared to others it didn't seem to bother him. He is grateful because it "pushed them to excel and made life 100% better'' (Interview 7B:9-13-95). 93 A neglected elderly woman living in a tiny, filthy trailer with no air conditioning moved into a lovely small apartment complex. In the new apartment her door faces onto an open courtyard with well tended landscaping. She is also now very close to the only friend and support she has. This friend is now able to bring food by whereas before this woman ate only ham sandwiches. A cautious recluse she told me she didn't believe it. I never heard about people giving money." She feels lucky and though her home is sparsely furnished, it is clean and there is food in the refrigerator.

PAGE 111

Photograph 6. Trailer of Elderly Woman (photo taken by author) Mrs. S has made all of her homes beautiful and homey She loves the space and the potential for laying her home out differently in the mobile home they purchased. They b ought because they were sick of paying rent and "it is ours, something to show that belongs to us." They lived in a house in Brandon when :Mrs. S got in a car accident and her husband had to give up his job in M iami to help her. They could no longer afford the rent and moved to Park Pla ce. They left Park Place because of the appalling c onditions. They called the television station and the city came out and f10ed and cited the park, but the owner said he would just pay for extensions. They then moved to Evan's Park because Mr. S knew the owner and made a deal to fLx up the cottage in exchange for not paying rent. He put a new roof on, replaced windows and much more. The children caught head lice four times at Evan's Park and got si c k because of open sewers so they left before relocation staff arrived. "We thank God [for the program] because we wouldn' t have got this home without it. They said it is a great thing because i t gave a lot of people an opportunity.

PAGE 112

Their five-year-old son is hyperactive and has a learning disability. His mother says that since the move he is 100% better. The doctors are amazed. The reason, in her view, is the stability of their own home, a good school with friends and they can now afford to buy him things. There is a sense of permanence. The child said, "Mama, no one can come to the door and tell us to move" (Interview 298:9-28 -95). My follow up of this family found they had abandoned their home and moved from the area. I managed to track them down and asked why they left. Mrs. S. explained they needed to move because of her husband's job. Their contract on the mobile home would not allow them to sell within a year of purchasing it without paying penalties. Since they could not afford the penalties and subletting was not permitted in the mobile h ome park they simply left. 95 About $2,800 had been paid as a downpayment which they forfeited. The question is would they have so readily walked away from the investment if they had used their own money? In arguing for post-relocation assistance this family provides a good example. Had they contacted me, I may have been able to negotiate the financier for a resale by explaining that these were federal funds. Constraints on Housing Choices ,!\..11 33 residents of Park Place were tracked in order to chart relocation patterns. The map in appendix 10 presents displacees' m o\ements. Of these, six moved into homes inside tile city limits and 27 moved into the county. From Evan's Park a total of 38 families \\ere tracked. See map of Evan's Park tenants

PAGE 113

96 in appendix 11. Out of these 10 stayed inside the city limits. The remaining 28 families moved outside the city into the county. One reason so many people moved outside the city limits was that they were already living close to the border between county and city. Any move westward would automatically take them outside the city. Further, the decision to move outside the city was a conscious one. Most were not willing to move into the central part of the city where they would encounter crime and other problems typical of large cities. Inevitably when I suggested a family look at a specific neighborhood in the city I was met with a quick refusal. Another very important factor for relocation patterns were the housing choices people made. Many moved into mobile homes in parks which were situated on the outskirts of the city. An almost equal third of Park Place tenants moved into another mobile home, an apartment or a house Evan's Park tenants, on the other hand, had 42% moving into mobile homes. Table 26. Housing Choices on Relocation Mobile home Apartment House Unknown Park Place 30% 36.5% 33.5% 0 Evan's Park 47% 24% 16% 18% Of the 38 families between both parks who purchased, 28 bought a mobile home and 9 bought conventional homes. The reason for the high number of people buying mobile homes is related to their low cost. Relocation benefits were often enough to enable a family to pay most of the cost of

PAGE 114

97 buying a mobile home without having to take out a mortgage or apply for financing. Few, if any, of the tenants in either park qualified for a conventional mortgage because they had poor credit and limited capacity to pay a mortgage. All sought owner financing which was difficult to find. For these reasons they were permitted to use the full amount of their rent supplement or the maximum of $5,250 as a downpayment. Without these large down payments the number of displacees who would have been able to purchase would have dropped dramatically. Problems with credit were responsible for the majority of problems in finding suitable homes for people. For those wishing to buy, mobile homes provided the solution. They were affordable and down payments constituted a substantial proportion of the sales price. The balance was usually financed through consumer loans. Although many displacees cited purchasing as an investment, this is not necessarily true of mobile homes. Mobile homes are not regarded as real estate in Florida unless they are part and parcel of the land they sit on. For this reason, long term mortgages are not generally available. Further, purchasing a mobile home is more like purchasing an automobile in that it tends to depreciate rather than appreciate. All displacees bought a home in a park where they do not own the land it sits on. They have to pay lot rent which averages SlSO per month and are obliged to follow park rules. This means if they fall behind on the lot rent or behave in an unacceptable way, in the management's view, they are vulnerable to eviction. Not many will be able to pay th. e cost of moving their home should this happen. In this case it is likely that some will simply

PAGE 115

98 abandon the property. One family were told they could not sell the mobile home without paying a penalty the first year. They also could not sublet. They abandoned the property. Most of the elderly residents from Evan's Park moved to newer mobile homes in the same area. One of the parks is very nice and geared for those 55 years or older. However, it is a large park and the nearest shops are about 1.5 to 2 miles away. This is a long walk for a young person in the Florida heat and so presents a significant problem for those elderly who moved there. One gentleman complained it was a long walk to the mail boxes within the park itself. He said he would have to buy a three wheeler to collect his mail. Getting to local shops was not the only problem. Buses are less regular outside the city and one woman said she simply did not have the freedom any longer of jumping on the bus and going where she needed to go. As a result the elderly in particular have become prisoners in the parks. Relocation staff did attempt to point these difficulties out to these people. Follow Up of Displacees Unfortunately data are incomplete for this part of the study because the research had to be concluded before the prepaid rent was up in some cases. However, sufficient data have been amassed to provide a good picture of what happened to displacees soon after they relocated. The most important finding is that nearly one third of displacees from both parks were not able to stay in the replacement dwelling beyond six months. Of the 26 households interviewed from Park Place, two households are classed as unkno wn at this time and landlords are having problems with the

PAGE 116

99 tenants. Of the remaining 24 families, 13 continue to live in the replacement dwelling and 11 ( 42%) have moved or will be moving. Three families were evicted, three may be evicted in the near future, four left because they could not afford the rent or mortgage and one left the state. Table 27. Tenant's Whereabouts on Follow Up Park Place Evan's Park Both Parks Combined% Still there 13 27 40 63 Moved 11 7 18 29 Unknown 2 3 5 8 Total 26 37 63 100 In Evan's Park, of the 37 families who could be accounted for 27 were still in the replacement dwelling, seven were gone and three were unknown. Because Evans Park residents were relocated later than those in Park Place, many of them are still in the prepaid rent period. Seven households are still in the prepaid period and nine purchased but have not completed six months in the new home. In other words, 16 of the 27 households could not be fairly counted because they had not been in the replacement dwelling six months. A follow up in two or three months would be likely to produce rates similar to Park Place. It is not accurate to assume that all displacees who moved on returned to conditions similar to that of the mobile home parks. Based on informal conversations with displacees, landlords and their families they more likely went on to dwellings that fell somewhere in between the parks and the

PAGE 117

100 replacement dwelling. More time to carry out investigations would permit a clearer picture. Conclusion Before moving to recommendations, it will be helpful to summarize the enormous amount of data presented in this chapter. Residents generally moved to Drew Park to be close to work as well as to escape overcrowding in the previous home. Tenants of Evan's Park moved into the park more out of choice than urgency. Most tenants found the parks attractive because they did not require deposits and advance rent. People stayed in the parks because it was convenient to work, inexpensive and they had no money to move. The majority were very unhappy in the parks because maintenance was not carried out and they did not care for most of their neighbors. They said they would not move back to a similar situation. Relocatees selected their homes based on factors such as quiet and space. Those who did not purchase were unwilling to be tied down or take on the responsibility of owning, however those who purchased did so because they saw it as an investment. The City of Tampa meeting did not have a significant impact on decisions to buy, nor did anyone avail themselves of the City's programs. This was because most did not want to move into the inner city. However, the meeting was well attended suggesting residents were interested in getting information on opportunities and willing to go out and get it. The majority of displacees spent their rent supplement by the time they were interviewed on items such as cars, bills and luxury goods. The financial impact was minimal for most families. Relocation expenses covered their

PAGE 118

101 needs and displacees felt they could manage payments in the new home although most were paying increases in housing costs. Overall, people were happy with the program, the money they received and the service they were given. Although the post relocation follow up was not complete, it has provided sufficient information to see that a large proportion have moved on after a short time. Some have been evicted while some simply abandoned the property. This is a disturbing picture that should be examined more closely to find ways of improving the number of successful relocations to decent safe and sanitary housing. The following chapter will address some of these problems and make recommendations that may better ensure that displacees may successfully move on to better housing and remain for longer periods of time.

PAGE 119

102 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION An important difference between this case study and others is that I present not only my own recommendations, but also those of relocation staff and displacees. This is in keeping with the anthropological approach which seeks to represent the perspective of those with whom the anthropologist works, her "interlocuters" as it were. See appendix 12 for a li s t of those professionals who provided valuable ideas. The chapter begins with displacees' recommendations, followed by professional recommendations which include my own while working as a relocation specialist. There is an overlap in recommendations on the matter of using the rent supplement more creatively, because both groups felt it was important. Finally I will present a summation of recommendations and conclusions drawn from those presented. Displacees Recommendations Overall the program was well received by displacees. However, some had comments, complaints and recommendations on how to better administer the program. One or two individuals did not feel the they were fairly treated in the way their eligibility was worked out. For example, one man did not think it fair that the overtime he earned should be considered as part of his income. He pointed out that a mortgage broker would not consider overtime

PAGE 120

103 income in assessing his eligibility for a loan, therefore the program should not. Another man who had recently lost his job felt it was unfair to take his average income for the past year instead of taking into account his current unemployment. This sort of complaint was rare and usually people offered more general recommendations. Displacee Recommendation #1 Those who do not work and who qualify for payments, over $5,250, should be required to get medical certifications saying they are unable to work. Those who do not work should not have the option of getting the rent supplement paid directly to them. Instead, all moneys should be paid directly to the landlord for rent. These recommendations reflect the resenunent some felt toward their unemployed neighbors who received benefits. Those who worked and followed the rules felt penalized while those who were unemployed appeared to be rewarded by the system. Relocation staff shared the concern, but were unable to deviate from the regulations. One case which typified the perception of inequity was a family in which the wife worked and the husband claimed to be disabled. Based on the wife's income the family received a large sum of money which they used to rent an aparunent. When I went to interview them they had furnished the apartment beautifully obviously spending their rent supplement on these items. There was always some question about this man who seemed fairly fit and yet not able to work. However, he could not be disqualified simply because his wife was the primary wage earner. Further, he was always at home when we dropped in on him, which was often. Although he maintained he was unable to work when I phoned him several months later he told me he was working. He also said they were moving because the rent was to be increased. He had spent all of the rent supplement and could no longer afford the higher rent (Interview 20A:6-16-95).

PAGE 121

104 Displacee Recommendation #2 Original rent logs and receipts covering the duration of tenancy should be made available to relocation staff. Some displacees in Park Place believed there were certain individuals who did not qualify for the program based on length of residency. A list of tenants and their length of occupancy was required from the park manager, however these lists were not checked against the rent logs held by the management. Displacee Recommendation #3 Property owner should be made accountable for keeping the park in a decent and well maintained condition. The authority should stipulate that property needs to be maintained in order for negotiations to continue. Once the property owner felt confident they were selling, care of the property declined rapidly. This included essential repairs such as broken air conditioners and water leaks. In Park Place residents were more than simply inconvenienced, some were living in dangerous and unhealthy conditions. In the case of Park Place the Aviation Authority did take steps to have the owners ameliorate the problems. However, they were so severe and deterioration of homes so advanced that it was not feasible to remedy them. For this reason the Aviation Authority directed relocation begin immediately on an emergency basis.

PAGE 122

105 Displacee Recommendation # 4 Allow those who wished to purchase to take a portion of the rent supplement and use it for expenses other than the downpayment on the home. This might encourage more people to buy. In some cases a family rented in order to get the lump sum of money. Had they purchased they would not have had any money, except moving costs, to use in setting up the new home. Moving costs are determined by the number of rooms in a home and whether or not the displacee owns the furniture. The majority of residents were given $700. For some people this was not enough to pay for the move and have utilities put on. Further, if the most pressing need is to acquire transportation for work the family will have no other alternative than to rent in order to get the cash in hand. Displacee Recommendation #5 Pay everyone the same lump sum. Posed as a more equitable means of allocating benefits this amount could be about $5,250. Displacee Recommendation #6 More assistance should be offered in resolving credit problems which was a problem for virtually every displacee. Displacee Recommendation #7 More information should be offered on purchasing options such as non qualifying assumables and the whole process in general.

PAGE 123

lOC> Some of the suggestions displacees made may not be entirely practical or feasible such as requiring medical examinations for those who say they can not work. However, many of the suggestions were already a part of what I saw needed to be looked at in more detail and merit consideration. In particular, I support the suggestions of scrutinizing original rent logs, insisting owners maintain rental property prior to closing, providing more information in general and allowing those who purchase more leeway in using the rent supplement for other purposes. The following will outline some of the suggestions made by professional staff, with my own comments as a participating relocation agent. Professional Recommendations Staff Recommendation #1 Review the 30% policy for less than 90 day tenants and subsequent tenants. Tenants occupying the property for less than 90 days prior to initiation of negotiations are not eligible to receive more than moving costs unless they qualify based on income. Subsequent tenants fall under the same guidelines and are those people who move in after initiation of negotiations. To be eligible based on income the rent and utilities of the comparable must exceed 30% of income. The example given earlier explained that if a family were assessed to pay $500 rent, based on the comparable, but $200 represented 30% of their income then $200 would be subtracted from $500 leaving a difference of $300. Three hundred dollars more per month multiplied by 42 gave the

PAGE 124

107 family a rent supplement of $12,600. This would put them into the category called Housing of Last Resort. The implications are that a family could have moved into the community just before or just after initiation of negotiations and find themselves recipients of a large sum of money. Four households in Park Place were less than 90 day tenants and received payments totaling $43,229.76. Needless to say this did not make other residents happy who had lived there for years and been given far lesser amounts. One of the recurring questions in this field is: To what extent is the program social work and what is relocation? Most professionals reject the notion that it is social work though they allow it has elements of social work to it. The original program rationale was that people should not have to incur out of pocket expenses as a result of relocation. The 30% policy goes well beyond this. As one professional pointed out, tenants can obviously afford what they are currently paying so why should we pay the difference on 30% of their income for rent? "In a sense we are giving them a bonus. They didn't have to comply with the rules like everyone else by residing in the park for more than 90 days." My own view is that once a person qualifies based on income in these circumstances the amount of money they receive is so enormous, usually, that it is not equitable compared to other residents. Some assistance is in order, but not the large payments. Instead it would be fairer for less than 90 day tenants to qualify on the difference between their current rent and the cost of the comparable.

PAGE 125

108 In the case of subsequent tenants the next recommendation would eliminate this category altogether. Staff Recommendation #2 Avoid subsequent tenants by paying property owner rent on vacancies. The client, in this case the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority(HCAA), should be advised about the costs of subsequent tenants and encouraged to rent vacancies as they occur. In the long run it could be less expensive for the HCAA to pay rent to the property owner once a property becomes vacant than to allow a new tenant to occupy the property. In Evan's Park $32,050.20 was paid out to four subsequent tenants. Their combined rent per week was $350. This means HCAA could have paid the rent on a vacant property for nearly two years before reaching the same costs paid out to subsequent tenants. No one, most especially the HCAA, wants to deny displacees any money they may be entitled to. However, eliminating super payments for subsequent tenants and less than 90 day tenants would rectify some inequities in payments. Changes in payments for less than 90 tenants would have to be made at the federal level while eliminating subsequent tenants could be accomplished immediately.

PAGE 126

Staff Recommendati o n lt3 Set up informational centers on site o f larg e residenti a l Park Place and Evan's Park were lo c ated wi thin a dty of other. Ideally, on a project with s o many families ot.tun, intensive exposure to the program and informatio n .6hJuld Although the relocation office i s locate d within it Wa nonetheless more than a mile from r esidents. This could (Qr those without transportation. A sub o ffice based in of staffed either five days a wee k o r at speci fi c time would allow w Wp in and a s k questions and get information at tinue w Circumstance s took r eloca ti o n staff to rhe on a daily .. n o t at set times when residents could expect w .. iif residents had a questio n or problem they had ro Il'i1lhlil ii.Ll'il.tf\9) r e location agent o r call the office. Sin{: fW had fun1 . M : cost Z 5 cents eac h time they called. they had to call again. This could fna..1i!tr'W111l$ O!JM on-site nrnformattamu ;;anud Ui'lf1i@rr Mll i.nDniatio n of tOf trhe RUllliQI\JI{t @If ttlhtii !PlMtfu.WllW ttbat ha JPlallnt cc:ilf' a:!llC.,\.,\. at 1flhl.

PAGE 127

110 allowed staff the luxury of time that would make it possible to set up education centers as far as a year in advance of relocation. At minimum centers could be operated during the relocation process. One of the reasons this has not occurred is property owners have objected to tenants being contacted for fear they will move out and property owners will lose money. Two approaches would allay these concerns. The first is ro explain that tenants are more likely to stay once they know they will have to in order to qualify for relocation benefits. The second is to assure property owners that they will receive rent from the authority to avoid subsequent tenants. Placing information centers on site would accomplish several objectives. The first would be to provide consistent and reliable sources of information to residents so that they are in a position to make the best decisions for themselves when the time comes to relocate. Second, immediate access to relocation staff would dispel the many rumors that tend to race through geographically small corrununities. And third, by placing relocation staff inside a corrununity such as a mobile home park, it would allow staff to get to know the residents and their needs. The additional benefit of this is staff would also get to know who was really a long term resident and who had been working. Staff Recommendation #S Provide formal and informal sources of information on such topics as purchasing a horne, working 'With credit problems and managing a budget.

PAGE 128

111 A number of displacees said they would benefit by having more infonnation on the various types of purchasing options and how to go about purchasing. One man attended a workshop offered by the City of Tampa on how to buy a house. Although he did not qualify for any of their programs, he completed the course and was awarded a diploma which he framed and proudly displayed on his wall. In addition to providing information on home purchasing, those who decide to purchase could benefit from infonnation on what owning a home entails in terms of maintenance, taxes and insurance, for example. The majority of Americans accept the notion that buying is preferable to renting, but they may not have had the experience of owning, nor may they be fully aware of what is involved. In this specific case it may have benefited some residents to understand the pros and cons of buying a conventional dwelling rather than a mobile home. A similar type of service could also aid renters. Many have not had the experience of living in the types of apartment complexes they selected. Several displacees were evicted from their apartments because of their behavior. These individuals may have been better off renting a house which would give them more independence in their chosen lifestyles. Apartment complexes often have rules governing behavior and noise level because of the close proximity of units. These rules may not apply to those renting a single family dwelling. Explaining this may have helped some make choices better suited to their needs in the long run. Poor credit was a problem for almost every resident. By talking to residents early on some of the more minor credit problems may have been resolved. With the prospect of applying for loans to buy a home, some

PAGE 129

112 displacees may have been willing to work on their credit prior to relocation. Credit counseling services are offered by the City of Tampa for those who qualify for their programs. Residents could be referred to the City and other organizations who carry out this function. The problem of credit will be discussed again in the section on working creatively with rent supplements. If lump sum payments of rent supplements are continued, as a means of making payments, then some guidance on managing a budget would be useful. In the majority of cases where displacees lost their homes it was because they failed to allocate the rent supplement towards rent over time or to plan for the end of the prepaid rent period. Effort should be made to explain to displacees that whatever they spend on other items will have to be made up later on. The following household is a good example of this. Six months rent was prepaid by the authority. When I visited several months later, the occupants said they were very concerned about whether they could afford the rent once the prepaid period ran out. However, they had not saved any money for future rent. I suggested they consider doing so and since they did not want to use a bank, I suggested they hide the money in a sock. They thought this a novel idea. Unfortunately this household did not stay in the apartment they rented although the rent was only $35 more per month per person. They were unable to understand that they were paying as much as they were in the mobile home park (Interview 2A:7-21-95). Staff Recommendation #6 Provide space for and facilitate on site community workshops and meetings. Informal meetings with staff or other residents would be a preferable means of disseminating information rather than to prepare a lot of information sheets. People can easily be overwhelmed by too much reading

PAGE 130

113 matter or they may not be able to read. The high attendance at the City of Tampa meeting indicates that public participation was welcomed by residents. However, rather than having a large meeting in which displacees are the passive recipients of information, small informal meetings would likely make residents and staff alike feel more comfortable. Staff should facilitate workshops so that residents can share ideas and experiences. After all, nearly half the residents of Park Place and a third of those in Evan's Park had owned homes in the past. Rather than providing unilateral programs that advise and inform, tenants would derive more benefits from being involved in the information process. Independence would be fostered by allowing residents to solve problems together. Staff Recommendation #7 Allow more creative use of rent supplement to increase displacee's long range options. Clearly from the survey data, families are using the rent supplement for items other than rent. In fact those who do use the money for rent are the exception. Many used the money for furniture and luxury items, however a large proportion used the money towards vehicles and paying bills. In Park Place 6 7% spent the balance of their rent supplement on vehicles. In Florida transportation is such a fundamental need that these displacees had no real option other than to rent. Buying does not allow the possibility of acquiring cash in hand. Under the right circumstances, consideration should be given to allowing displacees to apply a portion of their rent supplement toward those

PAGE 131

114 things that would enable them to purchase a home if they so choose. One example would be to allow relocatees to pay off a small bill so that they improve their credit rating and become eligible to apply for a conventional mortgage. Another might be to permit a portion to be used to buy a vehicle so the displacee is not compelled to take the rent supplement for this purpose. These options could allow the displacee to develop a long range plan rather than having to address critical problems in the short term. The application could be reviewed by relocation staff. Staff Recommendation #8 Replace lump sum payments with incremental payments. When the Act first came into effect displacees were paid in installments. However, incremental payments require far more effort and time. A system must be set up to make payments and the dwelling must be inspected regularly to ensure it is decent, safe and sanitary (DSS). If the family move, the new dwelling must also be inspected. Few studies have been carried out to determine if there is a higher success rate with incremental payments. Success, in this case, is measured by how long tenants stay in their replacement dwelling and if they use the rent supplement towards the rent as intended. Gary Allen and Michael Perfater are the exceptions in that they have looked at whether installments would be preferable to lump sum payments (1978; 1987). They found it to be irrelevant how payments were made in relation to tenant mobility (Allen and Perfater 1978:v; 1987:56). Tenants did

PAGE 132

115 not have a higher rate of moves than the general population and a study of 162 displacees showed that 81% stayed in the replacement dwelling two years after relocation (Allen and Perfater 1987:v). These families had all received lump sum payments. Allen and Perfater also found that "the displacee who receives a lump sum replacement housing payment (RHP ) is as likely to use it exclusively for rent as is the displacee who receives the RHP in annual installments." (1978:v). This was not the finding of this study nor that of Rubenstein ( 1988:190). I found displacees view the lump sum as a windfall and 50-70 percent spent it within weeks of getting it. Allen and Perfater go on to say Moreover, the way in which the RHP is used has no significant effect on the mobility of the displacee after relocation ( 197 8:vi). Methodology may explain why Allen and Perfater found displacees spent the money on rent as often as on other items. In their 1978 study 'Tenant Mobility and Adjustment Under the 1970 Uniform Relocation Act," Allen and Perfater were only able to interview 32% of their intended sample by telephone (1987:3). Another 14% responded to mailed questionnaires making a total of about 45% of the sample from which to extrapolate (Allen and Perfater 1987:4). Another 25% of their sample had moved and could not be traced which meant these families were not counted when looking at the percentage of folks who had moved. Finally, the question designed to determine if tenants had spent their money on rent asked: "Did you use the money to pay for increased rent? (Allen and Perfater 1978:A1). Since the questionnaire was clearly an official survey and people knew the money was intended to pay rent, it is a specious assumption to suppose tenants answered

PAGE 133

116 this question truthfully. Further, the only options in answering were yes or no leaving no room for other responses. The findings here are considerably different to Allen and Perfater's. Almost a third of the tenants from each park had moved or were planning on moving by the end of six months. In Park Place 46% have moved or will be. Evan's Park shows a better rate of tenure with 73% still in the replacement dwelling. However, of the 73%, 3S% can not be fairly assessed because they have not been relocated six months. One reason my fmd.ings differ from Allen and Perfater may be related to age differences between the two populations under study. Seventy five percent of Allen and Perfater's respondents were over SO years old (1978:4), whereas few in the Drew Park population were over SO. A younger group of people would be more transient compared to an older population which would be expected to be more stable. It may well be that neither group can provide an accurate picture which makes it all the more imperative that other studies of this nature be carried out to determine if one payment method is more effective than the other. Based on my research alone, the high rates of people moving within six months of relocation and spending their rent supplement on items other than rent indicate installment payments would be preferable to lump sum payments. More research of this type would provide important data for developing a decisive policy. At present the law simply states that a displacee may request incremental payments. Displacees are not generally advised of this and if they were they would probably decline.

PAGE 134

117 Stlli Recorrunendation #9 Follow up services may be appropriate for certain individuals and the elderly in particular. Overall the elderly displacees did not make the transition as easily as younger folks. This same observation has been made by others (Niebanck 1968; Schorr 1975:108). The following is an example of how stressful relocation can be, particularly for the elderly. One gentleman relied upon me for transportation and we found a very well cared for mobile home in a park for those over 55 years of age. It was completely furnished and could be occupied immediately. He was able to buy it outright, which he did. He said he did not want to move in right away because he did not feel well. Over a period of about six weeks he avoided having to move saying he did not feel up to it. I discovered that during that time he had not even gone to look at his new home. By this time his vacate date was long overdue. Although he had a friend who said he would move the gentleman nothing happened and in the end I had to locate movers for him. Moving was an ordeal for the man and I became very concerned about him. During the move he had given all of his beloved birds to the movers and when I went to see him he was very confused. His lot rent had not been paid during this time and I had to negotiate with an unhappy management. I also aied to get his birds returned, but he insisted he could no longer care for them. In this case, the man found a room mate who could assist him. I contacted him soon after he moved in and he was much better. However, had he not found the roommate he would have required considerable assistance. I contacted the appropriate social services, but he declined assistance once he f elt better(Interview 10B:10-4-95). Another case was an elderly lady who also purchased a mobile home. She loved the home, but had two problems. The first was no transportation which made it difficult to get to the stores and doctors appoinunents. The second was that she had never owned a home before and was having to work with a check book for the first time in her life. She would call her r elocation

PAGE 135

118 agent from time to time and ask her to visit and help her balance her checkbook. In the short term this was acceptable because it also enabled the agent to follow up and make sure the woman was managing. However, the situation created a conflict for the agent since these services were not sanctioned and she felt her role should have ended long before. Apart from the elderly there may be some instances where relocation staff could possibly have been of assistance if the displacee had known help was available. One young man called the office the day before he was scheduled to leave town on a bus for the north. A family emergency forced him to leave Florida. Unfortunately he abandoned his mobile home for a fraction of what he had paid for it. This was a person with limited intellect. Had he been advised that post relocation assistance might be available in some circumstances, he may have asked for help. A telephone conversation may have been sufficient to advise him so that he did not suffer as great a financial loss. I am not advocating long term involvement or any level of dependence of displacees on the program. The objective is not to bail displacees out if they are evicted for good cause or to offer additional financial support. However, certain individuals could well benefit from a little extra help perhaps in the form of information after relocation. Therefore, rather than holding to a policy of relinquishing displacees once they move, there should be a policy that would allow agents, at their discretion, to continue some assistance. A notice to displacees to this effect would serve as a reminder. Others have made recommendations for post relocation assistance that are far more inclusive than those outlined here (Schorr 1975 ) One recommendation was for relocation specialists to provide casework rather

PAGE 136

119 than making referrals to other agencies, particularly in the case of the elderly (Niebanck 1968:90). The idea that relocation should incorporate social goals derives from urban renewal programs which were based on responses to crisis in inner city communities in the 1960s and 1970s and the social research carried out at that time (Schorr 1975:97-98). In general, relocation professionals do not perceive themselves in any way as social workers and resist any sugg estion that they are. However they do concede that many of the roles they perform do have an element of social work attached. Relocation pro fessionals are al s o quick to explain that the Uniform Act is not a social s ervice, nor i s i t a program to make people better off materially. The program is a reimbursement program and is designed to ensure that individuals do not incur out of pocket expenses or undue hardship as a resul t of b eing a displacee. Summary of Recommendations The most important recommendations are listed below. The first group could be implemented immediately without changing the A ct. However there is a question of how to finance these additional servic e s W h ile exi s ti n g services in the community could be used it would ultimately b e more viable and practical to allocate funding through the Act f o r these services. The second cluster of recommendations may require some f ederal funding and therefore would need to be legislated for as would the third cluster which could not be implemented without changes in the A c t

PAGE 137

120 Recommendations That Could Be Implemented Immediately Original rent logs and receipts covering the duration of tenancy should be made available to relocation staff. Property owner should be made accountable for maintenance and condition of property. The authority should stipulate that property needs to be maintained in order for negotiations to continue. Eliminate subsequent tenants by paying property owner rent on vacancies. On large residential projects such as a mobile home park, set up informational centers inside the mobile home park itself. Provide on-site information and education as long as possible prior to initiation of negotiations. May Require Federal Funding and Therefore Legislation for These Provide formal sources of information and practical assistance on topics such as purchasing a home, working with credit problems and managing a budget. Provide space for and facilitate on site community workshops and meetings. Follow up services may be appropriate for certain individuals in particular the elderly.

PAGE 138

121 Will Require Changes in the Law Allow those who wish to purchase to take a portion of the rent supplement to use for expenses other than the downpayment on the home. This might encourage more people to buy. Replace lump sum payments with incremental payments. Review the 30% policy for less than 90 day tenants and subsequent tenants. Ethical Concerns Ethical concerns arise in this project to the degree in which relocatees could be influenced in their choices. While some of the recommendations may appear to be geared toward enabling people to buy homes tllis may not always be the best course. The operative word should be "informed" of choices as opposed to "guided" or persuaded." It is not possible to tell people how they must use their entitlement although the purpose of the program is to reimburse housing expenses, not to buy cars or pay for medical expenses. If educational programs are implemented then the ethical question of telling people how to spend their money will certainly come into play. Great care should be taken to ensure that displacees are informed and empowered rather than directed. Recommending that money be paid incrementally raises questions of self determination and dignity. If this is implemented, is it fair to take away lump sums and what relocatee's view as a once in a lifetime opportunity? The counter argument to those who say benefits must be spent for the purposes of improved housing is; is it not reasonable that benefits be viewed as just

PAGE 139

122 compensation for the inconvenience of finding a new home? Somehow housing will always be found, but will the opportunity to get out o f debt or buy luxury goods come again? The displacees discussed here are not entirely representativ e of other groups relocated because they are homogenous in their own way. First they were all tenants and they were young and transient. However, others like them will be displaced and as Rubenstein points out, continued research is important because the day will likely come again when age and decay will force authorities to clear large areas for renewal ( 1988:186). Florida with its transient population will be no exception. Recommendations for Additional Research Recommendations for future research include following up on those who are evicted or abandon their new homes to see why they were forced to leave and where they went. Do displacees go on to homes that are decent safe and sanitary? Was relocation actually a disruption for the family because they moved into a home they could not afford, spent their money and found themselves in a worse situation than before relocation? Whether or not displacees will be able to stay after the prepaid rent period runs out is difficult to discern at this point in time. For many the six to seven months have not yet expired. Continued follow up would allow an effective evaluation to be made. There is also a need to carry out comparative research to see if incremental payments would be more effective in the long run. A t various times incremental payments have been made then discontinued. Because this

PAGE 140

123 study is case specific with displacees coming from similar backgrounds, it is likely that the findings here can not pretend to be representative of displacees in general. However, this case study would be useful as a baseline and used for comparison in the future. Finally, comparative studies of those who have been offered educational or self help programs to those who have not would determine the effectiveness of offering these services. Applied Anthropology I believe I applied an anthropological approach long before I had any notion what the research questions would be or what they would focus on. Most researchers are not in the fortunate position I was in which was to have the time to let the subject guide the research. In seeking to understand the ernie perspective, it is preferable to have as few preconceptions as possible. Knowing only that I could apply anthropology's unique approach to whatever I selected to research, I tried to remain open to problems or questions as they presented themselves. This is not to say that this approach is unfocused, for it did not take long for questions to crystallize. Though I asked staff to identify problems or issues, they could not. However, by listening carefully and observing the daily routines of co-workers and the various situations that came up I was able to pinpoint the pertinent issues I would address within a short amount of time I attempted to apply this same receptivity with displacees. I did this in several ways. First, I allowed displacees to identify the important variables whe n answering questions, rather than providing the choices for the

PAGE 141

124 question. Open ended questions not only permitted displacees to select variables, but they also provided an opportunity for those interviewed to discuss what they perceived as the pertinent issues. These were issues related not only to relocation but to displacees' life experiences which they felt were important. Finally, I invited displacees to comment on how they thought the program could be improved. Working as a participant observer over a period of time allowed me a level of flexibility because I had the luxury of time spent with displacees to develop rapport instead of having to gather all my information in one sitting. Further, information was gathered from personal contacts with displacees rather than telephone interviews or surveys that were mailed out. As a participant observer I could unobtrusively observe while at the same time participating in the process. The end result was that co-workers and displacees responded to situations naturally without concern that I noted their behavior. I was consid ered a part of the process. This also enabled me to look at the displacees both c ollectively and as individuals. Again, this is one of the more significant contributions of the anthropological approach. to present the problems and perspectives of the group one is working with. Applied anthropology within our own culture and systems is therefore an essential tool to understanding how to solve human problems. This is achieved by involving those groups under study in the process. In a culture top heavy with bureaucracy, answers to societal problems have rarely been sought from those experiencing the problems. Howev er, this has been changing as a result of legislation and fashion which encourages policy makers to relinquish top down methods. Hand in hand \'Vith looking to non professionals for the answers, policy makers are further looking to citizens to

PAGE 142

125 solve their own problems. The applied anthropologist is uniquely suited to acting as liaison between policy makers and citizens. The applied anthropologist may do this in a variety of ways which includes ethnography, survey interviews or facilitating community participation in its various forms. The results of this study will have practical applications. Although the people of the two mobile home parks have been relocated, the le ssons learned here may be used in similar relocation projects. More immediately, these lessons may be applied to the larger community of Drew Park, including businesses, who will be relocating over the next several years. Better communication and community participation will help alleviate concerns and dispel rumors. Further, the Federal Highways Department is currently carrying out a national study looking at many of the issues addressed here such as the desireability of lump sum payments as opposed to incremental payments. This research will make a significant contribution inasmuch as it is a comprehensive case study. Conclusion The evaluation sought to measure two aspects of the program. The first was to assess the effecti veness of the program and the second was to measure the impact of relocation on displacee's lives. The extent to which the program was effective was measured by seeing if displacees used their rent supplements for rent as intended. This was not the case. Another measure of success was to compare residents past residence with the new home to see if

PAGE 143

126 displacees moved into decent safe and sanitary housing which is one of the principle objectives of the Act. That this was accomplished is indisputable. And finally a measure of the success of the program was whether relocatees stayed for any length of time in their replacement dwelling. The results of this last measure are disappointing and highlight the importance of finding ways to enable people to continue living in decent housing. Measuring the impact on displacees' lives was demonstrate d largely through qualitative evidence. Those questions that asked how people felt living in the parks and how they felt living in their new homes indicate that many experienced an increased level of self esteem and quality of life. Their stories reveal a group of people who had struggled for a long time. Overcrowding and homelessness were often the catalysts that forced them to live in a situation where they were paying relatively high rents for slum conditions. Lack of transportation and proximity to work were also responsible. Relocation provided the first break many had been given in their lives. The "break" brought an opportunity to purchase their own home or a chance to amass the money required to rent a nice home. Whatever their decisions, virtually all residents, with few exceptions, were eager to move out of the parks and out of the area. Relocation accomplished this for them. A small percentage ( 18%) said they were worse off financially, h oweve r they did not attribute the decline directly to relocation o r they felt it was temporary. The study also sought to answer the question of how the program could be made more effective. A number of suggestions have been offered, the most important of which are providing educational and in for rna tional opportunities, reviewing the 30% rule on subsequent tenants and less than 90 day tenants, permitting more flexibility in using the rent supplement and

PAGE 144

127 finally, making payments incrementally rather than as lump sum payments. These suggestions would address some discrepancies and inequities within the program.

PAGE 145

128 REFERENCES CITED Aberle, David F. 1993 The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute and Navajo Relocation. In Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement. Michael M. Cernea and Scott E. Gugenheim, eds. Pps. 153-200. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Allen, Gary R. and Michael A. Perfater 1978 Tenant Mobility and Adjustment Under the 1970 Uniform Relocation Act. Richmond, VA.: Highway and Transportation Research Council. Cernea, Michael M 1988 Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects. Policy Guidelines in World Bank-Financed Projects, World Bank Technical Paper No. 80, Washington, DC. 1993 Anthropological and Sociological Research for Policy Development on Population Resettlement. In Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement. Pps. 13-38. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press. 1993 The Urban Environment and Population Relocation. World Bank Discussion Papers, The World Bank, Washington, DC. 1995 Understanding and Preventing Impoverishment from Displacement. Reflections on the State of Knowledge. Keynote Opening Address Presented at the International Conference on Development-Induced Displacement. University of Oxford. Cernea, Michael M and Scott E. Guggenheim, eds. 1993 Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chambers, Erve 1985 Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide. Prospect Heights lL: Waveland Press, Inc. Colson, Elizabeth 1971 The Social Consequences of Resettlement: The Impact of the Kariba Resettlement Upon the Gwenbe Tonga. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Fried, Marc 1963 Grieving for a Lost Home. In The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis. Leonard]. Duhl, ed. Pps. 151-171. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

PAGE 146

129 Fried, Marc and Peggy Gleicher 1961 Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in an Urban Slum. journal of the American Institute of Planners. 27(11):305-15. Friedman, E. 1978 Crest Street: A Family /Community Impact Statement. Working Paper. Center for the Family and the State, Institute of Policy Sciences and Public Affairs. Duke University. Gans, Herbert]. 1959 The Human Implications of Current Redevelopment and Relocation Planning. journal of the American Institute of Planners 25( 11):15-25. Greenbaum, Susan 1985 The Preservation of Strawbeny Hill: Continuity and Adaptation in an Urban Ethnic Neighborhood. Ethnic Groups. 6:275-292. Hartman, Chester 1963 The Umitations of Public Housing: Relocation Choices in a Working Class Community. journal of the American Institute of Planers. 29( 11):283-296. 1964 The Housing of Relocated Families. Joun1al of the American Institute of Planners. 30:266-286. 1975 Housing and Social Policy. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice Hall, Inc. Heller, Tamar 1982 The Effects of Involuntary Residential Relocation: A Review. American journal of Community Psychology, 10:471-492. Hillsborough County 1995 Hillsborough County Needs Assessment. Horowitz, I'vlichael M et al. 1993 Resettlement at Manantali, Mali: Shon-Term Success, LongTerm Problems.In Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement. Michael M. Cernea and Scott E. Gugenheim, eds. Pps. 229-250. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, Inc. House, Patricia 1970 Relocation of Families Displaced by Expressway Development: Milwaukee Case Study. Land Economics 46(1):75-78. Mississippi Department o f Transportation 1970 An illustrative summary of Relocation Assistance on Project No. 980015-01-040-10. Franklin County. Niebanck, Paul L. 1968 Relocation in Urban Planning: From Obstacle to Opportunity. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

PAGE 147

130 Partridge, William L. 1993 Arenal Hydroelectric Project. In Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement. Michael M. Cernea and Scott E. Gugenheim, eds. Pps. 351-369. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Perf a ter, Michael and G Allen 1976 Relocation Due to Highway Takings: A Diachronic Analysis of Social and Economic Affects. Richmond, VA.: Highway and Transportation Research Council. 1978 Tenant Mobility and Adjustment Under the 1970 Uniform Relocation Act. Richmond, VA.: Highway and Transportation Research Council. 198 7 An Analysis of Tenant Displacements in Virginia. Richmond, VA.: Highway and Transportation Research Council. Perfater, Michael 1972 The Social and Economic Effects of Relocation Due to Highway Takings. Richmond, VA.: Highway and Transportation Research Council. Rohe, William M and Scott Mouw 1991 The Politics of Relocation: The Moving of the Crest Street Community. journal of the American Planning Association 57(1):57 -68. Rubenstein, ] 1988 Relocation of Families for Public Improvement Projects: Lessons from Baltimore. journal of the American Planning Association 54(2):185-96. Schorr, Philip 1975 Planned Relocation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books Spicer, Edward H. 1976 Beyond Analysis and Explanation? Notes on the Life and Times of the Society for Applied Anthropology. 1(3):13-14). Spicer, Edward H., et al. 1969 Impounded People. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. The District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency 1964 Community Services and Family Relocation. Washington, D. C.:D.C. Redevelopment Land Agency. Thursz, Daniel 1966 Where Are They Now? A Study of the Impact of Relocation on Fonner Residents of Southwest Washington Who Were Served in an HWC Demonstration Project. Washington D.C.:Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital Area.

PAGE 148

Topper, Martin D. 1987 FJUA Relocation: Applying Clinical Anthropology in a Troubled Situation. In Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge into Action. Robert M. Wulff and Shirley]. Fiske, eds. Pps.135-145. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press, Inc. United States 131 1970 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Public Law 91-646;84 Stat 1894. 1994 Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects. 5100.3 7 A Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. van Willigen, John 1993 Applied Anthropology: An Introd.uction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

PAGE 149

132 APPENDICES

PAGE 150

APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOME BUYERS 133 QUESTIONNAIRE HOME BUYERS HLR yes_ no Parcel # -------1) How do you like your new home? Love it It's OK_ 2) What do you like about it? 3) What made you choose this residence? a) inexpensive_ b) available_ c) close to work_ d) liked the area _e) near friends or relatives_ f) other---------------------4) How many other homes did you look and how long did it take you to fmd tltisone? --------------------------------------------------5) Have you ever owned a home in the past? yes __ no 6) Do you believe you would have been able to buy a home at some time in your life without the relocation benefits? yes ___ no_ 7) Why did you choose to buy a home instead of rent? 8) Did you attend the City of Tampa Housing meeting? yes no 9) Did it affect your decision to rent or buy? yes ___ no_ 10) How did you come to live in the trailer park? 11) How long were you there and what kept you in the trailer park? 12) How did you feel about living in the trailer park and Drew Park? 13) Was there anything you liked about living in th. e trailer park? a) area ___ b) living in a trailer __ c) neighbors _d) convenience_ other-------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 151

APPENDIX 1 (Continued) 134 14) What did you dislike about living in the trailer park? a) area_ b) condition of trailers_ c) neighbors_ no maint. other----------------------------15) Do you think you'll ever go back to living in a similar place? a) hope not_ b) no way_ c) maybe_ d) yes_ 16) Has your fmancial situation changed since you moved? y_ n_ 17) When did you first hear about the relocation project? a) when got eligibility letter_ b) just before letter_ c) months before_ d) year + before __ 18) How did you hear about the relocation project? a) other residents __ b) newsletter__ c) newspaper_ d) OR Colan_ other ______________ 19) Did you understand how they worked out your entitlement? yes no sort of_ 20) Did you receive what you hoped for? yes no more than 21) How did you fmd the project staff? a) helpful_ b) pleasant_ c) unhelpful_ d) unpleasant_ 22) Were there other kinds of help you feel you could have used to make the relocation process easier for you? yes no 23) How many times have you moved in th. e last 5 years? a) one_ b) two_ c) three_ d) four_ e) five f) more than five __ 24) How many bedrooms do you have in this home? a) l __ b) 2 __ c) 3 __ d) 4 __ e) 5 __ 25) How many bathrooms do you have here? 1_ 1.5 2 2.5 26) How much is your mortgage payment including taxes? $ _ 27) How much is your electric bill going to run you here? $ __ 28) If you are paying more, how long do you feel you can afford the increase?

PAGE 152

APPENDIX 1 (Continued) 135 29) Is this a hardship on you? yes no_ -------------30) Are you further or closer to work? a) funher b) closer_ c) same_d) NA_ 31) Are the same people living with you here as there were at the trailer? yes_ no_----------------------32) Is there anything else you think it is important for me to know about your relocation experience?

PAGE 153

APPENDIX 2. QUFSTIONNAIRE FOR RENTERS 136 QUFSTIONNAIRE FOR RENTERS HLR yes_ no_ Parcel#-------1) How do you like your new home? Love it __ It's OK_ 2) What do you like about it? 3) What made you choose this residence? a) inexpensive b) available c) dose to work d) liked the area _e) near friends or relatives_ f) other----------------------4) Why did you choose to rent instead of buy? a) bad credit_ b) credit ok 5) Would you have bought if you could have? yes no NA 6) Have you ever owned a home in the past? yes_ no_ 7) Did you attend the City of Tampa Housing meeting? yes no 8) What have you or what do you intend to spend the balance of your money on? a) car_ luxury items_ bills_ other-----------9) How did you come to live in the trailer park? 10) How long were you there and what kept you in the trailer park? 11) How did you feel about living in the trailer park and Drew Park? 12) Was there anything you liked about living in the trailer park? a) area __ b) living in a trailer_ c) neighbors_ d) convenience_ other ___________________________ 13) What did you dislike about living in the trailer park? a) area_ b) condition of trailers __ c) neighbors __ d) no maint. other ___________________________

PAGE 154

APPENDIX 2. (Continued) 14) Do you think you'll ever go back to living in a similar place? a) hope not_ b) no way_ c) maybe_ d) yes_ 15) Has your financial situation changed since you moved? y_ n_ 16) When did you first hear about the relocation project? a) when got eligibility letter_ b) just before letter_ c) months before d) year + before __ 17) How did you hear about the relocation project? a) other residents __ b) newsletter __ c) newspaper_ d) OR Colan_ other ______________ 18) Did you understand how they worked out your entitlement? yes_ no sort of_ 19) Did you receive what you hoped for? yes no more than 20) How did you find the project staff? a) helpful_ b) pleasant __ c) unhelpful_ d) unpleasant_ 21) Were there other kinds of help you felt you could have used to make the relocation process easier for you? 22) How many times have you moved in the last 5 years? a) one_ b) two_ c) three_ d) four_ e) five_ f) more than five __ 23) How many bedrooms do you have in this home? a) 1 __ b) 2 __ c) 3 __ d) 4 __ e) 5 __ 24) How many bathrooms do you have here? 1_ 1.5 2 2.5 25) How much is your rent? $ ____ 26) How much is your electric bill going to run you here? $ __ 27) How long do you feel you can afford to pay the rent increase? 28) Is this a hardship on you? yes_ no ____________ 29) Are you further or closer to work? a) further_ b) closer_ c) same_ d) NA 137

PAGE 155

APPENDIX 2. (Continued) 138 30) Are the same people living with you here as there were at the trailer? yes_ no_ -----------------------31) Is there anything else you would like to add about what we've talked about or about your relocation experience?

PAGE 156

139 APPENDIX 3. CONSENT FORM CONSENT FORM I understand the information I am giving to Catherine Sugg will be used in her research as a student at USF. The information will also be made available to the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority and to O.R. Colan & Associates as part of a document prepared for them. I agree __ I do not agree __ to having my identity known to readers in the final report Catherine Sugg writes. 1 offer my opinions of my own free will and understand that I do not have to answer any questions I do not wish to answer. I am also free to discontinue the interview at any time I wish without explanation. Name ____________________________

PAGE 157

APPENDIX 4. LETfER TO ARRANGE INTERVIEW 140 Dear 4602 West Tampa Bay Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 (813) 876-4106 I am writing to ask you to contact me so that I can come out to visit you in your new home. As you may recall, I am interviewing people who have been relocated for a study I am doing. You can reach me at O .R. Colan during office hours on 876-4106 or you may page me on 2 71-8111 if I am not there. I will be happy to visit you at a time that is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your time. Yours sincerely, Catherine Sugg

PAGE 158

141 APPENDIX 5. EUGIBIUTY CATEGORIES MORE THAN 90 DAYS LESS THAN 90 DAYS/SUBSEQUENT TENAi.'IT 1 AMOUNT OF ACTUAL RENT L 1 1 30% QF INCOME LESSER AMOUNT OF TI!E 1WO USED l THIS AMOUNT SUBTRACTED FROM COl\1PARABLE t.JNDER $5,250 RENT RENT REQUIRED J, PlJRCHASE UPTO $5,250 AVAIL<\BLE I OVER $5,250 HOUSING OF lAST RESORT 1 RBIT 6 MO.NTII FUUAMOUN"T IN ADVANCE TOWARDS CASH BALANCE PURCHASE Figure 11. Flow Chart of Eligibility and Rent or Purchase Choices.

PAGE 159

APPENDIX 6. RFSPONSE TO "WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT YOUR NEW HOME?" 142 Table 28. What People like About the New Home Park Place Evan's Park Number Percentage Number Percentage Quiet 9 35 2 7 Space 7 27 8 27 Clean 6 23 2 7 Area 7 27 5 17 People 6 23 3 10 It's mine 1 4 2 7 No crime 4 15 0 0 Maintenance 1 4 2 7 Everything 2 8 2 7 Other 4 15 1 3

PAGE 160

APPENDIX 7. RESPONSE TO "WHAT MADE YOU CHOOSE THIS RESIDENCE?" 143 Table 29. "What made you choose this residence?" Park Place Evan's Park Number Percentage Number Percentage Area 7 27 4 13 Near friend 4 15 2 7 Liked it 8 31 10 33 Price 4 15 5 17 Available 4 15 2 7 Convenient 4 15 3 10 Credit 3 12 0 0 Work/school 5 19 3 10 Rec ommended 5 19 3 10 Had pool 3 12 0 0 Soace 2 8 4 13 Quiet 1 4 2 7

PAGE 161

APPENDIX 8. UST OF REASONS FOR NOT BUYIN"G Table. 30. Reasons For Not Buying Park Place Number Percentage Credit 1 8% Cost of buying 2 17% Responsibility 3 25% Income 3 25% Tied down 4 33% Transportation 1 8% Wanted money 1 8% Other 1 8% 144 Evan's Park Number Percentage 1 8% 1 8% 5 39% 0 0 3 23% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0

PAGE 162

APPENDIX 9. LIST O F RESPONSES TO WHAT PEOPLE DISLIKED LMNG IN THE 145 PARK Table 31. "What Did You Dislike About living in the Trailer Park?" Number Percentage Numbe r Percenta_ge No maintenance 11 42% 10 33% Neighbors 9 35% 10 33% Management 8 31% 1 3% Crime 4 15 % 0 0% Drugs and alcohol 4 15% 2 7% Shooting/fighting 3 12% 0 0% Too expensive 3 12% 1 3% D irtv 3 12% 0 0% No orivacv 3 12% 0 0% Trailer 3 12% 10 33% Felt fearful 2 8% 1 3% Area 0 0 3 10%

PAGE 163

APPENDIX 10. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS (PARK PLACE) 146 lilt ISIIIII(fll't:ll tl.lf One than one ly FIGURE 12. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS (PARK PLACE)

PAGE 164

APPENDIX 11. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS (EVAN'S PARK) 147 ITIII.'illlltttlt"t::t lt.l i One fami 1 y one fUii ly FIGURE 13. POST RELOCATION PATTERNS (EVAN'S PARK)

PAGE 165

APPENDIX 12. STAFF WHO CONTRIBUTED THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS 148 1) Milton Stark for his ideas and suggestions on the 30% rule for less than 90 day tenants and subsequent tenants. 2) jack Gorman for his ideas and suggestions for on site services. 3) Peter Becker for his suggestion of paying rent for vacancies so that subsequent tenants do not occupy vacant properties. 4) Nadine jones for her insightful comments on the proposal.


printinsert_linkshareget_appmore_horiz

Download Options

close
No images are available for this item.
Cite this item close

APA

Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.

MLA

Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.

CHICAGO

Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.

WIKIPEDIA

Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.