INSIDE EAST RIVERSIDE

Asheville
North Carolina

SECTION I.  EAST RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY PROFILE

THE TOTAL COMMUNITY

Population Characteristics

People, families, households

About 4,000 people, some 7% of the population of the City of Asheville, live in almost 1,300 households in the East Riverside Urban Renewal Area.  Most of these households are made up of husband and wife families, but many contain a single adult, living alone or with children (about 1 in every 5), or three or more adults (about 1 household in 4).  Despite the latter fact, the people of the East Riverside report virtually no doubling up of families.  Apparently, they regard the family unit in the extended sense to consist of grown brothers and sisters, parents, and adult children.

Racial and age composition

While there are a few white families in this neighbor­hood, the population is preponderantly (98%) Negro, and this part of town houses more than half of the Negro families in the City of Asheville.  Adults make up more than half of the population of East Riverside. The child population approximates the national average for urban nonwhite families.  The proportion of elderly people, however, is quite high.¹

_____________________
¹ People over 60 make up 16% of the population of East Riverside.  The 1960 Census reports elderly non-whites at 6% of the nonwhite population in the nation and 9% of the corresponding group in the City of Asheville.

TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Continued

TABLES

FOREWORD

As its title page states, this report is a self-survey of Asheville's East Riverside Urban Renewal Area, carried out by the people of this neighborhood, with the assistance of my associates and me.  Some explanation is in order of how this unusual study came about and of who did what in making it possible.

Early in 1966 the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville asked us to undertake a "diagnostic survey" to find out as much as possible, within a concentrated period of time, about the people of East Riverside, with the aim of "minimizing hardships for persons facing dis­placement from the area or otherwise affected by urban renewal activities, and of providing the information which will assist and make possible an orderly relocation pro­gram from the renewal area."

The renewal plan for East Riverside calls for a combina­tion of clearance and conservation action in roughly equal amounts.  About half of the people will be displaced.  The others will remain in the revitalized neighborhood, which they will share with people who move in to the new housing, public and private, to be built.  It is hoped that many of those displaced will return to the renewed area.

East Riverside today is a deteriorating residential district, comprising some 400 acres south and east of the center of the City of Asheville.  About 7% of Asheville's total population, 13% of its low income families, and half of the city's Negro families make their homes in this predominantly nonwhite community.

Faced with the task of collecting reliable and useful information from this very large group of people, we decided early that the soundest approach would be to en­list their cooperation as fully as possible.  We hoped: (1) to explain the purposes of the study to as many people as we could reach; (2) to ask their advice and assistance in deciding what questions to ask (and what questions were pointless to ask) in a formal questionnaire, and how best to word the questions decided upon; and (3) to turn the big job of house-to-house interviewing over to a selected but representative neighborhood group.  This approach, suggested by my associate, Dorothy Kiester

In addition to providing a substantial body of useful information this method produced various important fringe benefits.  The people of East Riverside, especially the neighborhood interviewers, have a fuller understanding of the renewal program and a belief that they have had a say in relation to it.  Interviewers have a first hand awareness of their neighbors' problems, a new sense of community that makes them want to help solve these problems and the feeling of being able to help.  During the inter­view period, many actions were taken to remedy long-existing minor annoyances.  For example, interviewers came upon a small, out-of-the-way, unmarked back street without mail service.  On investigation, it was learned that street signs are prerequisite for mail service. Steps were taken to have a street sign installed, and the people on this street now have mail delivery for the first time.  A more obvious benefit is income to the neighborhood from the study conducted in it.  Neighbor­hood interviewers pocketed almost a fifth of the funds expended for the survey.  If they are richer in no other way, 45 neighborhood people have had direct financial benefit from this project.  Beyond this, the Asheville community has developed an important resource in the neighborhood interviewers that it will be well advised to draw upon as renewal progresses.

While advantages far outweigh disadvantages, this approach has had its disadvantages.  In contrast with inexperienced neighborhood interviewers, the skilled, experienced interviewer may have difficulty in establishing rapport with neighborhood respondents.  But he is more likely to be able to handle a longer and more complex interviewing schedule and thus cover considerably more ground than we were able to take on.  Our interview schedule had to be brief and simple  Several major areas were deliberately omitted, not only because neighborhood people warned that reliable answers would not be forthcoming, but also because of this limitation  Future study is needed in such neglected areas as educational attainment crime and juvenile delinquency and the specific problems and needs of teenagers and young people.

Field work in Asheville began in March and extended for a three-month period through the month of June.  On March 29, 1966, Morris Johnson and Dwight Patterson, Community Action

My associate, Ann Johnson, in addition to her work on the interview schedule, carried the chief responsibility for supervising the work of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Patterson and for training the neighborhood interviewers.  Mrs. Johnson has also worked extensively in the analysis of the data presented in this report.

In addition to the people of East Riverside, a number of other individuals made important contributions to this study  Richard McMahon (psychologist and Assistant Director of the Institute of Government) advised with the interview schedule;  Mrs. Margaret Coman, Director of the Buncombe County Welfare Department, provided data on welfare assistance in East Riverside; and Mrs. C. G. Pickard, Executive Director of the Buncombe County Planning Council provided much helpful advice and assistance while the study was in progress.

Considerable assistance was furnished by the staff of the Redevelopment Commission, in particular, its Execu­tive Director, James W. Greer, Assistant Director, Burnitt Bealle, and Administrative Assistant, Kent Washburn.  Of invaluable help, on a day-to-day basis were Vito LePore, William Roland, and Norma Grayson of the Commission's Rehabilitation Center staff.

Finally to the people of East Riverside who worked with us from the first days of the study and produced the wealth of information basic to this report.  Besides the many individuals who advised and assisted in developing the questionnaire, the 1,200 people who took the time to answer the questions, and the team of interviewers, extensive help was provided by the chairmen of the Citizen Participation League, formed in June, 1965 on the advice of the Redevelopment Commission's Rehabilitation staff.  CPL chairmen met with the study team, time and time again, to advise on strategy.  Beyond this, they arranged for meetings, and were the major resource in developing the outstanding

These interviewers were representative of the East River­side community in terms of geography, income, age, and skill.  They ranged in age between 17 and 62.  High school seniors made up the largest single group.  There were about an equal number of school teachers and house­wives; a sprinkling of domestic and factory workers; several beauticians, an insurance agent, registered nurse, and librarian; and nine of the neighborhood's unemployed. Forty-five of the 46 people who participated in paid training sessions late in May, actually went out into the field.  Of these, about 37 stayed with the team through most of the four-week June survey period.

The highly satisfactory performance of this survey team is indicated by the facts set forth below.

Interviewing in East Riverside was not done on a sampling basis.  An effort was made to reach every household in the neighborhood.  The interviewers were generally very well received.  Of almost 1,300 households, some 1,230 were actually contacted.  In all, 1,210 interviews were secured, the refusal rate amounting to about 2 per cent.

February 8, 1967

Ruth L. Mace Chapel Hill

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE: FINDINGS

The study reported on here represents one effort on the part of a single public agency, the Redevelopment Commis­sion of the City of Asheville, to meet this responsibility and to reach out for this challenge.  This was a fact-finding effort, an attempt to see a renewal neighborhood from the inside, to catalog the attitudes and aspirations of its people as well as their problems as they view them. The reader should bear in mind that this is not an objec­tive enumeration of hard facts assembled by disinterested observers.  Rather, it is, as its title indicates, a report from "inside East Riverside" of what the people of this neighborhood are willing to tell us of themselves through their intermediaries, the neighborhood interviewers.

Obviously, this study is only one of a series of studies and actions that have been and will need to be undertaken, if the Asheville community is to do the best possible job of renewing East Riverside.  It goes without saying that fact-finding is fruitless without follow-through.

The body of this report is presented in two parts.  Part One summarizes the findings of the study.  Part Two contains recommendations to the Asheville community in light of the findings.

Part One is made up of three sections:  (I) a profile of the East Riverside Community and its special need groups— the elderly, the poorest (those earning $1,200 or less), and the white minority; (II) a discussion of the relocation households; and (III) a graphic presentation of the dis­tribution of selected findings within East Riverside's sub-neighborhoods.

Part Two is made up of two sections:  (I) recommendations to all public and private agencies in the Asheville community; and (II) recommendations specific to renewal programming. 

An attempt has been made to avoid extensive bibliographical footnoting.  Major sources of comparative data for the state, region, and nation, in addition to the 1960 Censuses of Population and Housing, include the following:  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Negroes in the United States: Their Economic and Social Situation. Bulleting No. 154. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966; U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, Our Nonwhite Population and Its Housing... Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963; and U.S. Welfare Department, Social Development, Key to the Great Society. Publication No. 15. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

A self-survey of the needs, attitudes, and aspirations of the people of Asheville’s East Riverside Urban Renewal Area 

Conducted by the people of the neighborhood with the assistance of Ruth L. Mace and associates. 

Sponsored by the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Asheville.  Financed in part by a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Income and Employment

Income ranges

Most, but by no means all, of the people of East Riverside are poor.  However, the concentration of families living in poverty² is relatively high. Almost two-thirds of the households reporting income in the survey, take in less than $3,000 a year.³  On the other hand, as many as 10% of the households earn more than $6,000 a year.  At the other end of the range, 166 households (15%) barely subsist on less than $1,200 a year.

Income sources

More than three-fourths of the households in East Riverside are supported by income from wages.  Unemployment is relatively high, at 16% the ratio is almost twice the national average for nonwhite families and four times the rate for the white population.

People with limited and low or no skills make up almost three-fourths of the East Riverside labor force.  More of the female labor force is unskilled (44%) than the male (14%).  Slightly more than a fourth of the labor force works in professional or highly skilled jobs. Overall the percentage is higher for men than for women (31% vs. 23%), but there are relatively more professional women (many in teaching) than men.

Among impoverished households, about one in five is receiving some form of welfare assistance, a proportion that approximates state and national averages. Among the various forms of assistance provided to East Riverside households, the proportions of aid furnished (1) to families with dependent children (AFDC), while approximating state averages, is low

^{_____________________________________
2} In this study, families earning $3,000 a year or less are said to be "impoverished" or "living in poverty."
³ Among nonwhite families in the South, 52% earn less than $3,000 a year.

Women in the work force

As in other predominantly nonwhite communities, women are the financial mainstay of many families and there is apparently greater reliance in East Riverside on 

________________________
⁴ Reported welfare assistance was only a fraction of that which is actually being supplied to the community.  The local figures cited here for comparison with state and national averages are for Spring 1966 and were supplied to us by the Buncombe County Welfare Department.

Comparison of Public Assistance to Households Earning Less than $3000, U.S., N.C. and East Riverside

^a. for nonwhite households, U.S. and N.C., December 1961, East Riverside current.

N.B. Percentages are approximations based on readily available statistics:  1960 Census, population and income figures, U.S. and N.C.; current population and income figures from this survey for East Riverside; statistics on recipients, U.S. and N.C. as of December 1964, from Statistical Supplement, 1965 Edition, Welfare in Review. East Riverside recipient figures, as of Spring 1966 furnished by Buncombe County Welfare Department.

Job satisfaction

Nine out of ten of the people of East Riverside are satisfied with their jobs.  Where there was any dissatisfaction indicated women were more liable to be dissatisfied than men and there was more dissatisfaction with pay than with either hours or working conditions.  Considering that two-thirds of the families earn less than $3,000 and almost three-fourths of the labor force works at low level jobs, it is interesting to observe the relatively low rate of indicated dissatisfaction with pay (23% overall, 25% among women) and kind of work (10% overall, 12% among women).

Efforts at job improvement

In line with the generally high level of job satisfaction, there appears to be little effort at job improvement.  Eight out of ten people responding to this question said they had never tried to get a better job.  (A better job, to most of those who tried for one, women as well as men, was a factory job.)  Among those who did try, 10% felt that discrimination worked against them.⁶

^{________________________
5} The nonwhite work force was distributed as follows in the nation in 1965—42%, female; 58%, male. Corresponding figures from this survey for East Riverside are—53%, female; 47%, male.
⁶ Cf. reactions of high school seniors (Appendix C). Many are concerned about limited after school and summer job opportunities for teenagers, and feel that the best available jobs go to the white youngsters, leaving only the menial and undesirable for them.

Women use the employment office somewhat more than men (20% of the women go there for jobs vs. 18% of the men).  Why don't people use this service more? About two-thirds feel "there is no job there for me" and that there is (therefore?) "too much red tape involved" (20%); 13% didn't know about this office.

Patterns of Daily Life

Adult and family activities

East Riverside is a sociable community.  Clubs and church groups abound, and many local people (40% of those who want additional leisure time activities in the neighborhood) see even more need for organized club activities.  Insofar as time will allow, family togetherness appears characteristic of the neighborhood-almost three-fourths of the families share daily activity of one kind or another.  Where this is absent, the most frequent explanation is lack of time.  Dearth of common interests is relatively infrequent.

Family travel away from home is fairly common (more than two-thirds of the families travel away from Asheville) with long distance trips five times as frequent as those within a fifty mile radius—a fact worth noting with the Blue Ridge Parkway and related superior federal park facilities at Asheville's door step.

Child care

As noted above, the proportion of East Riverside women who work is extremely high.  More than three-fourths work, two-thirds of all women holding down full-time

Nursery or kindergarten attendance by pre-school youngsters is very rare, only reported by one in ten households with small children.  Although only 29 East Riverside families sent their youngsters to nursery or kindergarten, 189 indicated a preference for child care in this type of setting.  A larger number, however, prefer that their children be cared for in a home—their own, or someone else's—the presently prevailing arrangement.

There is slight (but disturbing) evidence of neglect of small children.  Sixteen of 309 people reporting on the care of children under three said that the children take care of themselves.

Among the 344 households with school-age children, a mother, relative, or friend is at home when the child returns from school in eight of ten cases.  However, children come home to 44 households where no adult awaits them.

Of approximately 400 households reporting, about 7% cite children below 16 years not living in homes with their parents.  In most of these cases (60%), respondents said children would be with parents if adequate day care were available.

Only a fourth of the people who might have responded actually responded to the question of satisfaction with child care.  This low response rate may indicate more dissatisfaction (or uneasiness) than is revealed by those who did answer this question.  Most (85%) were completely satisfied with the care given to their children, but 13 mothers reported concern with child care arrangements.  Of 371 households reporting, about a third pay for day care services.

____________________
⁷ Employment nationally for nonwhite women averages 46% of this population 14 years and over.

Considering how hard and how long most East Riverside people work to earn a living, the leisure time of adults appears highly organized in the many clubs and church groups in the neighborhood,.  By contrast, the out-of-school time of the neighborhood's children appears only slightly structured.  Evidence of general neighborhood concern with this problem, particularly as it relates to teen-agers, is provided in virtually total agreement with the need for a place where teenagers can go for after school and weekend recreation.⁸

Community play space is short in East Riverside, a neighborhood deficiency that renewal proposes to remedy. Nevertheless, there are a number of parks and play spaces in and near the neighborhood in addition to school playgrounds.  Despite this, respondents report (to their evident concern) three-fourths of the children play in the streets, a circumstance suggesting program as well as facilities deficiencies.

Of the children who use playgrounds, a majority are from relatively high income families, who live in structures not scheduled for acquisition by the Redevelopment Commission.  This suggests that proximity to a playground is an important consideration in whether children will play in them, and that more affluent families more frequently insist that their youngsters play in playgrounds rather than the street.

Most of the after school time of East Riverside children, then, is spent in playing in the street.  In the compe­tition for remaining time, school work seems to fare rather badly, trailing both TV watching and work (either in the home or to earn money).  According to his parents, only one East Riverside child in ten devotes much after school time to homework.

During the summer, free time activities of the school-age children resemble after school activities described above, except that playground use increases somewhat„ A fortunate few youngsters (about 14%) get to go to camp.  And a small number (7%) attend summer school.

^{________________________________________
8} Cf. reactions of high school seniors (Appendix C.)  Two-thirds of these youngsters, writing independently, voiced a desire for a teen center.

Housing and transportation

Despite low income and relatively high unemployment, home (58%) and automobile (48%) ownership rates are high in East Riverside and, counter to national and regional averages, more people own homes in this community than cars.⁹

Even though almost half of East Riverside’s families own cars in operating condition, a majority (3/4) use the public bus system.  Almost a third (381) report transportation a problem, most people complaining that buses run too infrequently or that schedules and destinations do not match needs.

Shopping and credit buying

Among those buying major non-food items on credit, loss through credit buying is reported as negligible (6% of respondents).  Among 76 respondents citing loss, furniture and appliances accounted for about half of the goods repossessed for failure to pay.  Thirteen families lost out on cars and eight in home buying.

Most people (85%) shop at supermarkets and even more (87%) would prefer to because they feel that merchandise is cheaper and that there is greater choice.  More than a third pay taxi fares to get themselves and grocery bundles home from the supermarkets.

Health and Health Care 

General well-being and medical care

Family illness is a major concern of a significant
_______________________
⁹ Comparative figures for the nonwhite South are as follows—homeownership, 37%; automobile ownership, 39%.

Prenatal care

Reports on prenatal care are somewhat less encouraging with about 10% of the respondents (59 women) stating they had "not had a chance" to see a doctor before the birth of a child mainly because they did not think pre­natal care necessary.¹¹  While most women went to private physicians for prenatal care, about a third visited clinics.

Dental care

With more than half (56%) of the families reporting they had not a chance to see a dentist recently, and about 10% that they had never been to a dentist, the dental care situation appears alarming.  Of those who had seen a dentist recently, two-thirds had a tooth pulled and only one-fourth went for a check-up.  Preventive dental care appears to be reaching less than one in five families in East Riverside.¹²  Relatively few people reported on why they had never been to a dentist.  Among those who did (246), three-fourths felt it unnecessary.

^{______________________________
10}Among nonwhite persons earning under $4,000 nationally, 54% had seen a physician within a one-year period (July 1963-June 1964), approximately 35% in a hospital or clinic.
¹¹ This reflects lifetime rather than recent experience of women reporting.
¹²Dental check-ups are included in regularly scheduled examinations of school children conducted periodically in the schools by the Buncombe County Health Department, Responses here suggest that many parents may be unaware of this service.

Some 460 specific ailments were reported for the total East Riverside community—on the average 4 ailments for each 10 households.  The most frequent complaint, "just sickly" was cited in 196 instances.  "Heart trouble" (123 reports) was the most common defined complaint. Disablement, involving paralysis or crippling, was reported for 61 people; and 53 were reported as blind.¹³  Deafness (13 cases) and mental retardation (13 cases) show up as relatively insignificant.

The elderly constitute a relatively high proportion of those for whom ailments were reported.  Where old people make up only 16% of East Riverside's population, 27% of reported ailments afflict the elderly.  Overall, 10% of the ailments are among children.  However, retardation as reported appears to be chiefly a problem of children.  Eight retarded children constitute two-thirds of the retardation cited.

Attitudes Towards Neighborhood

Most East Riverside people have lived where they are for a long time.  Eight of ten have been in the neighborhood for more than five years, and two out of three families have been in their present home more than five years.

Satisfaction with East Riverside

Although a majority of the structures in the area have been classed as blighted and community facilities are obviously deficient, two out of three who live here like the neighborhood "fine," and only one in ten dislikes it.

^{______________________________________
13} The Welfare Department is providing financial assistance to 46 disabled and 22 blind persons in East Riverside.

Among those who complain of the neighborhood, most find fault with bad streets and the generally run down condition of things.  The absence of sidewalks or sidewalk defects and poor lighting also trouble many people.  Poor lighting is one reason given by the 800 people who feel that it is not safe to be out after dark in East Riverside, but two-thirds of those who are uneasy are concerned with inadequate police protection. 

Willingness to move accompanies neighborhood loyalty

Despite a generally high level of satisfaction with the neighborhood, almost half of the respondents (44%) said that they would move away from it if they had the chance.¹⁴

Nevertheless, there is widespread interest in improvement of the East Riverside neighborhood.  Nine out of tem people said they would attend meetings to discuss ways to improve it.  Only eight of almost 1,200 people felt that such meetings would not be worthwhile.

Neighborhood preferences

Specific location choices:  Given the choice, 488 people (44% of the respondents) said they would move away from East Riverside.  Of these, by far the largest proportion (46%) wanted to move to suburban locations.  Shiloh was the most favored specific area (27%), with West Asheville (4%) and Kenilworth   (2%) also mentioned.  Farther out suburbs—the county and neighboring rural communities (Black Mountain, Arden)—made up 9% of the responses, while 4% (tongue in cheek, perhaps) wanted to move to the exclusive upper income suburbs of Biltmore Forest and Grove Park.

^{____________________________________
14} According to interviewers, many respondents found it hard to understand that they were being offered a choice in this question.  A typical response was, "If we have to move, we'll move."   

About a fourth of all wanting to leave the neighborhood had no specific alternative in mind.  One family in 25 (about 20 all told) wanted to leave Asheville entirely.

Elements of choice—House vs. neighborhood:  "What would you look for in a new neighborhood?"  we asked East Riverside people, and most said, "a nice house,” Given a nice house, "nice people" was the next most important qualification in a "clean neighborhood" close to stores. Playgrounds and police protection weighed more heavily than schools.¹⁵

As noted above, in choosing a new neighborhood, people think first of "house" then of neighbors (people) and lastly of neighborhood.  In leaving East Riverside, respondents feel they would miss people most, their house next and the neighborhood last.  Among moving problems anticipated if renewal forced a move, "finding another house in this neighborhood" rated relatively low, particularly as compared with "finding a place I like," house again showing up as the top concern among respondents.

With relocation of a large minority group in prospect and increasing national emphasis on offering re-housing choices to people displaced by renewal action, it is clearly desirable to try to assess the integration attitudes of renewal area residents among others.

An analysis of responses to several questions where integration or racial discrimination was relevant suggests that this issue is relatively unimportant to the people of the East Riverside community.  Among 4500 specific expressions or elements of choice in a new neighborhood, integration showed up at only 404% (200 mentions).

Specific neighborhood choices provide another kind of insight into the desires of East Riverside people for living in neighborhoods of various racial compositions. Among all respondents specifying a desire to move out of

^{___________________________
15} Suggesting several additional felt lacks in East Riverside. 

Attitudes Toward Housing

Ownership vs. rental

As noted earlier, the 58% home ownership rate in East Riverside is relatively high compared with averages for nonwhite households in the South.  Furthermore, this is well above the Asheville area average for nonwhites (49%) Preference for home ownership runs considerably higher— more than eight out of ten respondents prefer owning to renting.

Extent of dissatisfaction with housing

There is considerable dissatisfaction with housing condi­tions in East Riverside.  Fewer than half of the people are "very" satisfied; almost a fourth are dissatisfied.

Among deficiencies noted, the need for general repair was cited most frequently, then plumbing and toilet facilities, paint and heat.  Relatively few (5%) com­plained of excessive rent.

Most people were sufficiently dissatisfied to be willing to take some action (costing money) to improve matters.  Three of four home owners said they would like to make repairs if good credit terms were available, and more than half of the renters indicated a willingness to pay additional rent for improved accommodations.  Among renters unwilling to pay more for improved accommodations, a minority said they couldn't afford it, the majority that it was "not worth it."

More people were willing to spend money for home improvement than to put time and effort into it.  However, almost half of the property owners were interested in

Housing preferences

Faced with the necessity of having to choose a new home, two-thirds of the people in East Riverside would prefer a small, new subdivision house.  A far-removed second choice (16%) was row-house-type garden apartments.¹⁶  Relatively few people voted for the well-maintained, large, old house offered as one option, and fewest favored an apartment in a spanking new 8-story apartment building.¹⁷

Many East Riverside families now qualify for public housing and even more will qualify (with priority status) as they face displacement during the renewal process, but relatively few are interested in public housing as they know it.¹⁸  Only about one family in ten has made any effort to secure public housing accommodations.  Among 1000 families who have never applied, most (8 of 10) explain they don’t like what is offered for one reason or another – a handful objecting to rules or “bad name;” a few others objecting to neighbors or location; but most simply stating that they “don’t like” public housing.  About 100 East Riverside families had lived in public housing at one time.  Asked why they left, about two-thirds replied they did not like the place or their neighbors.

^{_____________________________
16} The photograph shown was of a rendering of a new public housing development in Washington, N.C.
¹⁷ A handsome new public housing apartment building.
¹⁸ Among housing choices, a public housing development ranked second.  Respondents were not informed that the photograph shown them was of this type of development.  The Washington, N.C. project shown is a new one that does not resemble public housing currently available in Asheville.

Attitudes towards Renewal

Renewal information in the community

Redevelopment Commission efforts to keep neighborhood people informed appear to be paying off well.  More than eight out of  ten people have heard something of  the program, four in ten have heard "a  lot."  Word appears to be getting through somewhat better to the more affluent members of the community who occupy houses not to be acquired.

Information sources

Among information sources the Redevelopment Commission's neighborhood newsletter seems to be reaching the largest number of people.  Friends are only slightly less important as informants.  Direct  information from the staff of the Redevelopment Commission is next in importance followed by news reports from the Asheville Citizen. Radio and TV rank below the  newspaper as an information source, but appear to be more effective in reaching lower income households in properties to be acquired than in reaching the total population.

Extent of program understanding

Among respondents, seven out of ten appear to have a relatively good understanding of renewal's goals for East Riverside, or, at  the minimum, a  favorable or hopeful attitude that renewal will make a better neighborhood.  One in ten reacted negatively (18 people feel that nothing will be accomplished; 87 that the program will simply put people out of their homes).  Uncertainty (don't know) or confusion (change to commercial or industrial use) was evidenced by 20% of the respondents.

SPECIAL NEED GROUP:
THE ELDERLY

The elderly bulk large in almost every residential renewal area.  As a group they have the least to gain from renewal and are hardest hit by it.  Because of these facts, this study gave special attention to the elderly in the East Riverside community.

Characteristics of the Elderly Population

There are at least 610 elderly people in East Riverside,¹ and four of every ten households in the community (451) contain an elderly person or elderly people.  People over sixty make up at least 16% of the total population and 26% of the adult population.  As noted earlier,² this is a very high concentration.

About a third are widows or widowers living with their children.  More than 100 live alone, and the remaining approximately 300 people live with spouses in independent households or as one of several elderly people living to­gether on their own or with other adult-headed families.  There are about fifteen households in East Riverside where three elderly people share a home.

Among the few white families that live in East Riverside, there are relatively fewer elderly people than there are in the Negro households.

^{____________________________________
1} Interviewers report many respondents reluctant to concede to being elderly, and that frequently they did not do so even though this was obviously the case.  This total, therefore, probably understates the actual situation somewhat.
² See Footnote 1, page 5.

Income and Employment

Income ranges and sources

Households containing elderly people are generally poorer than the other households in the community.  However, the percentage of East Riverside's older people in the labor force (37%) is quite high by comparison with both national and state averages.³  This is obviously an industrious group of people.  Most of those who want to work are working, as evidenced by the fact that only 14% of those not working would like to.

Among the elderly who live alone, for whom we have first hand information,⁴ 53% live on income from wages.  About half of these work full time and the other half part time. By their own account,⁵10% of the elderly who live alone are receiving welfare assistance.  This is more than double the average reported for the total community.

As in the total community, a fourth of the elderly living alone are professional or skilled people.  Women bulk even larger in the elderly employed work force, however, comprising almost three-fourths of it.

Job satisfaction and efforts at job improvement

The employed elderly are virtually completely satisfied with the kind of work they do and with working conditions, and almost totally satisfied with pay (43 out of 47 people).

^{_____________________________
3} Cf. 1965 national average, 13% of elderly nonwhites in the labor force, and 1960 North Carolina average, 27% of elderly nonwhites in labor force.
⁴ Much of the remaining analysis of the elderly in this section is based on the responses of the elderly living alone (120 respondents) who answered all questions for themselves.  The text specifies where findings are for the larger rather than the smaller group.
⁵ See Footnote 4, page 7.  The Department of Public Welfare reports that there are 78 recipients of Old Age Assistance in East Riverside.

The elderly employed generally rely on the same job finding sources as the rest of the people in East Riverside--primarily leads from friends, However, they use the State Employment Office somewhat less than others.

Patterns of Daily Life

For the most part, the elderly of East Riverside are an active, independent, and uncomplaining group.  As noted above, a high proportion are at work and even more would like to be.  Two-thirds of all elderly actively participate in the life of the community as members of an organized group (nine out of ten of their organizational affiliations are with a church).⁶  The elderly who live alone recorded somewhat less interest in increased club activities than did other adults in the community (31% vs. 40%).

Among all elderly in the community, about a hundred (one in six) are not able to leave their homes.  More than half of these people (56) are taken care of at home by relatives; eight are taken to the home of friends for care.⁷  It is reported that about a third (34) of the homebound elderly are without regular care.  A public health nurse cares for one of the remaining two people and the other is assisted by a paid helper.

Disability appears even more common among the elderly who live alone—one in five is unable to go out.  More than half of these people have no one coming in to care for them.  In the remaining cases, assistance comes most frequently from a relative coming in to the home.  The one public health nurse reported for the elderly community is serving an old person who lives alone.

^{_______________________________________
6} Among the elderly who live alone, church membership is somewhat less prevalent as an organizational affiliation, accounting for only 70% of all affiliations. 
⁷ Three-fourths of friends and relatives caring for old people are paid for this service.

Among the elderly who live alone, home ownership rates exceed the high prevailing community average.  While preference for home ownership is even higher than the prevailing situation, home ownership aspirations of the elderly are below average for the community.

Getting about shows up as a problem for about 20% of all old people in the community, and a somewhat greater problem for the elderly who live alone.

In East Riverside as elsewhere, transportation creates more difficulties for elderly people than it does for others.  Incomes are lower so the expense becomes burdensome.  It is harder to get to and on and off buses. And physical difficulties may preclude driving even for those who have cars.  That elderly in East Riverside have all of these problems and more is illustrated by findings for this group.  Automobile ownership is very low among the elderly.  Buses are used somewhat less. Fewer of the elderly take trips away from home than do the people in the East Riverside community.  The trips that elderly people take are more likely to be close to home.

Most of those who have difficulty getting to places want to get to church (52 people) or to some place where recreation is available (26 people).  Others have trouble getting together with friends or club groups, as well as getting to shops.

Shopping and credit buying

Three-fourths of the elderly shop supermarkets and even more prefer to shop at supermarkets.  Both of these high proportions are slightly below neighborhood averages.  Relatively more taxi use is reported by the elderly to get themselves and their bundles home.

At 6%, reported credit buying loss among the elderly is the same as that for the community as a whole.

More than four in ten of East Riverside's total elderly (264 people) population want some help from the community— someone to come in and visit (162 people), someone to help keep house (41 people), someone to take them out. Despite the numerous organizations already in the community, many oldsters (140) feel the need for a special place to meet with other old people.

Health and Health Care

General well being and medical care

The elderly report little more illness than do other East Riversiders.  Most of them have seen a doctor within a year; however, the percentage reporting never having seen a doctor slightly exceeds the community average.  They are much more likely to see private doctors than others in the community.  Medical care reported is mainly for check-ups.

Dental care

Among the elderly, dental care is even more infrequent than it is in the community, and even more visits to dentists are for extractions.  Ten percent of East Riverside's adults have never seen a dentist, but 16% of the elderly who live alone have never seen a dentist.  Nine out of ten of these people feel this unnecessary; the tenth cannot afford it.

Specific ailments

Among the 600-plus elderly in East Riverside, specific ailments were reported for about one in five (125 people). More than half of these (56%) were seriously disadvantaged, with complaints such as partial or total disablement (23), blindness (18), and heart ailments (29).

Attitudes towards Neighborhood

As frequently in old center city neighborhoods, the elderly in East Riverside have lived in their houses and in the neighborhood longer than most other people. Among the elderly who live alone, nine out of ten have been in the neighborhood for more than five years, and eight out of ten have lived where they are for more than five years (cf. two out of three for all East Riversiders).

Satisfaction with East Riverside

The elderly are more satisfied with East Riverside than younger people.  Their complaints are similar to general complaints, but there is more concern with litter and poor lighting.  More old people worry about after-dark hazards in the neighborhood, frequently alluding to poor lighting as well as inadequate police protection.

Willingness to move

Despite longer-term home and neighborhood associations and higher rates of home ownership, the elderly appear as ready to move away as everyone else in the community.  Their loyalty to the neighborhood, evidenced by willingness to attend community improvement meetings, is high. But a substantial proportion (201) said that they could not come because they are physically unable.

Neighborhood preferences

Specific location choices:  Among the elderly who wanted to move, only one-third specified an alternate location.  Of the few who did, two out of three wanted to move to the suburbs, mainly the Shiloh community.  A third preferred another close-in location.

Elements of choice:  In selecting a new neighborhood, the elderly seek much the same kinds of things as everyone else in East Riverside.  However they put somewhat more stress on police protection and a "clean" neighborhood, and less stress on an integrated neighborhood.  Moving away from East Riverside they would, as others, miss

Attitudes toward Housing

Ownership versus rental

As noted earlier, the ownership ratio among elderly people is high, but preference for home ownership is much below the neighborhood average.

Extent of dissatisfaction with housing

The elderly are more satisfied than most people with their accommodations.  Where there is dissatisfaction, complaints are the same as everyone else's, except that inadequate heating is more frequently cited.

How dissatisfied are the elderly who expressed dissatisfaction? There was a very low response to the question on willingness to spend money to buy improved accommodations. Among the handful of homeowners who responded to this question, relatively fewer said they would improve their homes if favorable credit were readily available.  Not surprisingly, interest in self help home improvement is low.  Lack of "know-how" was cited less frequently as an explanation, but among those lacking know-how only one wanted to learn.

Where half of East Riverside's renters are willing to pay more rent for improved accommodations, only 42% of the elderly want to spend money for this.  Among those who are not interested about half say they cannot afford it and the remaining half that it is not worthwhile.

Housing preferences

Faced with the necessity of having to choose a new home, the housing preferences of the elderly who live alone generally parallel those of other people in East Riverside with a few significant exceptions.  Most people prefer

Among the elderly who live alone there is slightly more antipathy toward public housing than there is in the community generally,  Relatively fewer of the elderly have applied for public housing than have others in the community; and very few old people have lived in public housing.

Attitudes toward Renewal

Renewal information in the community

Information about the renewal program is reaching the elderly who live alone in about the same quantity as it is reaching other people in East Riverside—eight out of ten have heard "something."  Among the elderly however, relatively fewer have heard "a lot."

Information sources

As in the total community, the Redevelopment Commission's neighborhood newsletter is the chief information source of the elderly.  It is interesting to observe that the Redevelopment Commission is cited more frequently as an informant (the second most important source) than friends. The Asheville Citizen ranks fourth, followed by television.

Extent of program understanding

Indications are that the elderly in the community under­stand the redevelopment program about as well as everyone else, but that they may be a little more wary than others.

SPECIAL NEED GROUP:
THE POOREST OF THE POOR

Population Characteristics

About 374 people, almost 10% of the population of East Riverside, make up the community's 166 poorest house­holds (i.e., those with incomes of $1,200 a year or less). For the most part, these are smaller households. While adults predominate in this group, there are fewer adults to a household (a relatively large number of single adult families; and only a handful with more than two adults), and a relatively high proportion of elderly people.

The white population of this group is relatively high as a proportion of the total (8% vs. 2% for East Riverside).  Half of the community's white families are among the poorest of the poor.

Income and Employment

Income sources

Relatively few of the poorest are supported by income from wages, and the unemployment rate is almost three times the already high community average.  The proportion of reported welfare assistance reaching this group is four times that reported for the total community.

Nine out of ten people have a limited, low or no skills. As in the total community, men are more likely to be skilled than women.  There is, however, at least one professional woman in this group.

Women in the work force

The poorest households rely even more heavily on women for financial support than do other households.  More

Job satisfaction and efforts at job improvement

Lowest income people are scarcely more dissatisfied with their jobs than the more affluent of the community, which is to say that only a trace of dissatisfaction shows up.

Considering that all of the working people in this group earn much below what is needed for subsistence, it is startling to observe that only a fourth of them are dissatisfied with their pay and only 14% with the kind of work that they do.  As is true communitywide, women are more likely to be dissatisfied than men, and more frequently with pay than with kind of work.

Lowest income people make neither more nor less effort to improve their job situations than others in East Riverside.  (In both cases, eight out of ten people said they had never tried to get a better job.)  Job finding methods are also essentially the same.  Most people locate jobs through friends.  However, the State Employment Office is a more important job finding resource for these people than for their neighbors.  They go more frequently to this office than directly to employing firms.

Patterns of Daily Life

Adult and family activities

This group participates less in community social life and is less interested in the expansion of organized groups (only 32% of indicated need for additional leisure time activities was for "more clubs" vs. the 40% communitywide vote). Consistent with the presence of fewer typical families, shared family activity seems less common (63% of the households vs. 75% for the community as a whole).

Family travel away from home is much less common in this income group. While long distance trips are much more

Child care

The proportion of working women in lowest income families is much below the neighborhood average, and fewer employed women work full time.  Relatively fewer households contain pre-school or school-age children.  The facts noted above reduce somewhat the dimensions of the child care problem in the poorest households since mothers or close relatives are present where children need their supervision and care Among these households, none report that pre-school children care for themselves; and only three of the 44 households where grade school children return to adult-less homes are in the lowest income category.

There are 32 pre-schoolers in 19 households with income below $1,200 a year.  Virtually all of these are cared for by a mother, relative or friend.  Only one family uses a nursery school, but ten said that they prefer child care in such a setting.  However, this group favors care in the home by the same margin as the total community.

There are 29 school-age children in 20 of the lowest income households.  As noted above, only three of these come home to an adultless household.

Among the few households reporting on this question, 10% cite children below 16 years not living in homes with their parents, a somewhat higher proportion than for East Riverside as a whole.  In all cases, parents said these children would be at home if adequate day care were available.

As in the neighborhood, poorest families responded infrequently to the question of satisfaction with child care.  Eight out of ten of the few responding were completely satisfied with existing arrangements. Relatively fewer of the lowest income families pay for child care.

Overall, the free time after school activities of the children of the poorest families resemble those of all children in the community.  However, there is under­standably relatively less television watching and some­what more outdoor play.  Despite more parental supervision, fewer youngsters do homework.

Summer time activities of these children generally follow the community pattern.  A few specific numbers convey the picture.  Two of 29 school-age children go to summer school; of 61 youngsters, three go to camp and seven play in playgrounds during the summer.

Housing and transportation

Despite extremely low income and high unemployment, home ownership is quite high.  This is somewhat below the neighborhood average but well above averages for nonwhites in the South and the Asheville area.  The automobile ownership rate, however, is less than half the neighborhood rate.  Although more of the poor families use buses than East Riversiders in general, they report the same amount of trouble getting places as everyone else.

Shopping and credit buying

Most of the poorest families shop supermarkets, but the proportion that does is much below average for the community.  The preference for supermarkets is much higher, but well below the neighborhood preference. Among lowest income families that shop at supermarkets there is relatively more use of taxis to bring purchases home.

At 7%, credit buying loss recorded among these families appears slight, but it is somewhat higher than the East Riverside average.

Health and Health Care

General well-being and medical care

Family illness is a much more frequent concern among lowest income families than it is in the community (51% vs. 29% community rate).  However, some medical attention is apparently widely available.  As in the total community, 98% of the poorest families reported seeing a physician within a year.  The proportion using private physicians is substantial but below the community average.  Most reported visits were for check-ups.  However, lowest income respondents reported a somewhat higher proportion of emergency and illness visits.

Prenatal care

Prenatal care at hospitals and clinics is more common among the women of the lowest income households.  Absence of prenatal care was more characteristic of these women than of others in the total community.  Only 12% of the community's adult population is in this income group, but it includes one-fourth of all women reporting "no prenatal care."  Seven out of eight of these women said that they did not feel prenatal care necessary.

Dental care

More than three-fourths of the lowest income families reported no recent visit to a dentist (vs. the already alarming 56% proportion for the total community).  And the proportion of families who have never been to a dentist is twice the community average.  Of those who had seen a dentist recently, many more went to have a tooth pulled.  As neighbor hood wide, relatively few lowest income people reported on why they had never been to a dentist.  Three-fourths of those who did report said this was not necessary.

Some 126 specific ailments were reported for the 166 lowest income families—on the average 8 ailments for each 10 households (a ratio double that for the East Riverside community as a whole).  Where poorest house­holds make up only 15% of all households in East Riverside, they account for 27% of all specific ailments reported.  Overall the frequency distribution of various kinds of ailments resembles that for the total community.  "Just sickly" (48) and "heart trouble" (32) are most often mentioned, followed by disablement (paralysis or cripplement, 22), blindness (15), deafness (4) and retardation (3).  However, handicaps such as paralysis or crippling constitute a higher proportion of specific ailments reported (18% vs. 13% for the total community).

A somewhat higher proportion of reported ailments afflicts the elderly among poorest households (31% vs. 27% for the community).  All retardation in this group is associated with children.

Attitudes towards Neighborhood

As most East Riverside people, those in lowest income households have lived where they are for a long time.  But the poorest families include a higher proportion of newcomers (people who have lived in the neighborhood or their house for less than five years) than old-timers (people who have lived in their house or in the neighborhood for more than five years).

Overall, the lowest income families are about as satisfied with the neighborhood as everyone else.  However, enthusiasm is somewhat less marked and expressions of positive dissatisfaction are more frequent.

Complaints about East Riverside

Complaints of these people generally match those of the community, but there is below average concern with "the kind of people around here," and poor lighting, and virtually no concern with litter.  But the group

Willingness to move accompanies neighborhood loyalty

Given the choice, the poorest families seem somewhat more willing to move away from the neighborhood than most East Riverside families.

Interest in community improvement, while fairly widespread, is substantially less than in the community as a whole.

Neighborhood preferences

Specific location  choices:  Among the people in this group who said they would like to move away from the neighborhood, many had no specific alternate location in mind.  Among those with definite ideas, a relatively high proportion wanted to leave the Asheville area entirely, and there is above average interest in center city locations as opposed to the suburbs.  Shiloh was the particular place favored by most of the would-be movers.

Elements of choice:  The criteria used by lowest income families in selecting a new neighborhood were essentially the same as those suggested by others.  However, they emphasized house, people, and stores over schools, play­grounds, police protection and integration.

As everyone else in East Riverside, lowest income families leaving the neighborhood would miss people first, house next, and neighborhood last.  However, the poorest would miss "house"   somewhat less and neighborhood and people somewhat more.

Anticipating moving problems, these  families are more concerned with finding "a place I can afford," "another house in this neighborhood," and with whether there will be friendly neighbors   in a new neighborhood.  Stated another way, finding "a house I like," is a lesser worry in the face of many other things in the possibly hostile new environment.

Attitudes toward Housing

Ownership vs. rental

As noted earlier, the home ownership rate for lowest income families is high but below the neighborhood average.  Similarly preference for home ownership is high but still well below the neighborhood average (62% vs. 82%).

Extent of dissatisfaction with housing

Lowest income families are quite dissatisfied with housing accommodations, but not quite as dissatisfied as others in East Riverside.  Among their complaints, rent levels, plumbing and toilet facilities, and heating inadequacies are most frequent.

Reflecting their lower purchasing power, lowest income home owners are somewhat less willing to commit themselves to home repair.  Reflecting the higher proportion of old people in the population, there is much less interest in self-help home repair.  Explaining this, they are less likely to say they "don't know how," as do most others in the neighborhood.  Among those citing lack of "know-how," there is little interest in learning.

Renters are also less willing to pay more rent for improved accommodations than are renters in the community. Among the reasons given for this reluctance, "I can't afford" shows up more frequently than "it's not worth it"—the reason most commonly given by all of the community's renters.

Among lowest income families, as in the total community, there is more interest in paying for improvements than in investing time and effort.  In all, 8 of 31 people said they would be interested in self-help home improvements, while 3 of 13 people said they would be interested in learning how.

As everyone else in East Riverside, the lowest income families preferred the new subdivision type house, but by a much smaller margin.  Their preference for row-house-type garden apartments at 28% is much above the community-wide average of 16%.  Also somewhat above average is the interest shown in the high rise apart­ment building,  (The high proportion of old people in this group probably explains this.)  Interest in the larges well-maintained old house is below average among these families, an understandable situation in view of the relatively small size of these families and the sub­stantial elderly population.

Relatively more low income families have applied for public housing, but proportionately fewer have lived in these developments.  Lowest income families are somewhat, but not much, less prejudiced against public housing.

Attitudes toward Renewal

Renewal information in the community and information sources

Lowest income families know less about the renewal program than other families in East Riverside.

The Redevelopment Commission neighborhood newsletter, most common information source for the community as a whole, does less well with lowest income families.  Friends are their chief informants, next the Redevelopment Commission news­letter, and then the Redevelopment Commission staff (which appears to be getting through here better than it is to the total group).  Radio and television—especially radio—are relatively important information sources.

Extent of program understanding

Some degree of program understanding, or a favorable or hopeful attitude that renewal will make a better neighborhood, is somewhat less prevalent among lowest income families than it is in the total community.  A higher

SPECIAL NEED GROUP:
THE WHITE MINORITY

Population Characteristics

There are about 130 white people in 39 East Riverside households.¹ This survey covers 20 of these households which include 60 adults and 18 children.

In relation to the community of which it is part, this minority contains fewer conventional husband-wife families (40% vs. 55%), more three or more adult house­holds (45% vs. 27%), and fewer single person households (15% vs. 28%).  There are relatively few elderly people Where family doubling up is rarely reported in the East Riverside, it is common in this group.²

Income and Employment

The white households are among the poorest in the East Riverside community—19 out of 20 earn below $3,000 a year, and half, less than $1,200.

Fewer families are supported by income from wages, and the proportion reporting welfare assistance is almost four times the community average.  Unemployment is almost twice the high neighborhood average.

In marked contrast with the larger community, men predominate over women in the small work force by more than three to one, and there are proportionately fewer husband-wife working situations.

Few reported the kind of work they do.  Of those reporting

^{________________________________________
1} According to an unpublished survey conducted by the Redevelopment Commission in 1965.
² Respondents report a total of 37 families living in the 19 households interviewed.

As others in the neighborhood, nine out of ten of these people are satisfied with their work.  Everyone is content with hours and working conditions.  Despite pervasive low income, only a third of these respondents complain of pay. 

Apparently, however, these people are somewhat more venturesome than their neighbors in seeking to improve their job situation.  (Almost 27% have tried for a better job vs. 20% community average).  Job seeking methods of this group differ significantly from prevailing neighborhood patterns where leads from friends are heavily relied on.  None of the white respondents rely on friends.  Most go directly to employing firms.  The State Employment Office ranks second as a job source, followed by newspaper announcements.

Patterns of Daily Life

Social life beyond the immediate family appears quite limited.  Travel away from home is slightly less frequent among the white families, and short range trips (less than 50 miles) are more common than longer trips (another notable difference between these families and the larger community where long distance trips are five times as frequent as those close to home).

Child Care

There are few children in the relatively few households with children.  Also noted above, fewer women work.  There is a working mother in only one family where a paid relative takes care of the children in the home.  In all other situations a mother or another relative is present, and there is not evidence of child neglect.

^{___________________________________
3} But there are no professional people in this group.

Out of school activities of children

All of the respondents report that children play in the street after coming home from school.  None of the children go to camp in the summer.  Those under 15 all "play around home."  Two families report that older children work in the summertime.

Housing and transportation

While high, the rate of home ownership is lower in this group than it is in the larger community, but automobile ownership is more common.  Despite this, the public bus system is used more frequently, and transportation is reported as somewhat less of a problem.

Shopping and credit buying

Use of the neighborhood store is much more common than supermarket shopping, and, while more than do shop supermarkets would prefer to, this preference is well below the average for the larger community.  Two-thirds of those who shop the supermarket use a taxi to get them­selves and their groceries home (a significantly higher proportion than the average for the larger community or even the poorest families in the larger community). Discussing their reasons for preferring the neighborhood store, a fourth of the respondents pointed out they could get credit there.  About half of the others prefer neighborhood stores because they are "friendly" and half because they are "cheaper."  All who shopped at the neighborhood store walked there.

Credit buying loss slightly exceeds the community average.  Reported credit losses were for automobiles.

Health and Health Care

Family illness is a greater concern among families in this group than it is in the larger community.  Relatively fewer families, however, have seen a physician recently.  But all mothers had prenatal care by a physician.  Hospital and clinic medical services are more commonly used by this group than others in the community.

Relatively fewer had seen a dentist recently, and a proportionately larger number had never seen a dentist.  However, among those that report visiting dentists, extractions are somewhat less frequently involved.  All of the respondents who reported never having been to a dentist said that this was "not necessary."

Specific ailments were reported for six members of this community, five adults (one crippled, one diabetic, and three sickly) and one child with congenital heart trouble.

Attitudes towards Neighborhood

Most of the white families, as others in the community, have lived in the neighborhood and in their present home for a long time.  However, a slightly lower proportion have been there for more than five years; and a slightly higher proportion for less than a year.

While somewhat below average for the community, satisfaction with the neighborhood is generally high.  At the same time, there is more dissatisfaction—a higher proportion of the people in this group say they don't like it, most frequently complaining of the "people around here."  Poor lighting and inadequate police protection are also frequently mentioned.  Not a single member of this group felt that it is safe to be out after dark in the neighborhood.  There were relatively few complaints with the generally run down quality of the neighborhood or with poor streets and sidewalks which so concern other people in the area.

Given the choice, nine out of ten white families would leave East Riverside.  Their orientation is entirely away from the city—more than eight out of. ten of the would-be movers want to move to the "country" or to a suburban location.  Relatively few are without a specific idea as to the kind of place they want to move to.  A few (but the proportion is above average for the neighborhood) want to leave the Asheville area entirely.

In choosing a new neighborhood they give almost equal weight to all considerations—house, stores, schools, people, playgrounds, police protection and clean neighborhood; but conspicuously omit any interest in an integrated neighborhood.  Furthermore, in their specific neighborhood choices, they frequently indicate their preference for living in a white community.  In view of this, it is interesting to observe that among the things they would miss most in moving away from East Riverside is "people."  After people, they would miss "places in the neighborhood."  Lastly, "my house."

Anticipating moving difficulties, their most frequent concern is with finding a standard place "I can afford."  While others in the community were most worried about "finding a place I like," this was of least concern to the white families, ranking below their anxiety in finding "friendly neighbors."

Attitudes towards Housing

As has been noted, the home ownership rate among the white households is somewhat lower than the neighborhood average.  Preference for home ownership (47% vs. 82%) is greatly below average.

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this group with existing housing conditions.  General disrepair is the most frequent complaint--in the words of one respondent, "The place is going all to pieces around me."  Inadequate toilet facilities were the specific complaints mentioned most frequently.

None of the white respondents elected either the row-house-type garden apartment or the large old house in good condition.  The majority of them preferred the small, new subdivision house.  However, many more of them preferred the high rise building than did others in the community (42% vs. 14%).

Relatively fewer of the white families have applied for or lived in public housing accommodations. Their negative reaction to public housing matches that of the community as a whole.

Attitudes toward Renewal

The white minority in East Riverside knows and understands less about the renewal program and feels more negatively toward it than other members of the community.

Among those who know something of the program, two-thirds have gotten their information from friends.  Less than one respondent in five reported the Redevelopment Commission as source.  Commission staff is cited more frequently than the neighborhood newsletter which doesn't appear to be doing well here at all.

Where seven out of ten people in East Riverside felt that the renewal program would bring about a "better neighborhood," only one in twenty people of this minority group felt that this positive result would occur.  More than a fourth of the respondents felt that the program would put people out of their homes, and two-thirds of the respondents either didn't know or felt that the area would be changed into an industrial or commercial district.

SECTION II. RELOCATION HOUSEHOLDS

In many respects, the people to be relocated share the general characteristics of the East Riverside community of which, of course, they are a part.  The discussion that follows highlights the differences, providing numbers where necessary to illustrate the dimensions of particular problems.

Population Characteristics

Not quite half the population of East Riverside, about 1,700 people live in the 524 households surveyed that occupy structures to be acquired.  These households contain relatively fewer children (54% of the neighborhood’s adult population is to be relocated, but only 25% of its children) and a proportionately higher number of elderly people.  More than half of the community’s elderly people (309) occupy structures to be acquired.

More than half of the white households covered by this survey (11) face relocation.  These households contain 27 adults (only 4 of them elderly) and seven children (in seven households).

Income and Employment 

Families to be relocated are generally poorer than those who will remain.  Among them are found over half (90) of the neighborhood’s lowest income families.  Virtually all of these consist of or contain old people.  While the unemployment rate is slightly lower than the neighborhood average, the reported welfare assistance rate is more than twice that for the community.  (Two-thirds of all respondents reporting welfare assistance live in structures to be acquired.)

Patterns of Daily Life

Child care

While the proportion of women at work is above average for the community, relatively fewer households have children.  Only one relocation household in five (172) contains pre-school children.  Seven out of ten of these children are cared for at home, in an above average number of cases by their mothers.  Nursery or kindergarten attendance by youngsters from relocation households is even less common than in the community (which is very uncommon indeed).  Where only 12 relocation families send their small children to nursery school, more than six times that number (77) prefer day care in this setting.  Relocation families are much more interested in day nurseries than others in the community.

Only one household in four (133) contains school-age children.  While there is an adult home to greet these youngsters when they get home each day in most households, they fend for themselves in 27.

In terms of numbers, the dimensions of the child care problem in relocation households seem less than the community average.  However, a significantly higher proportion of the evidence of child neglect is identifiable with the relocation population.  Where a below average number of these households contain children, three-fourths of the reports of pre-schoolers caring for themselves (12 of 16) and two-thirds of the children 

Among 187 households, 11 report children under 16 living elsewhere.  In most instances, here as elsewhere in the community, parents say that children would be with them if day care were available.

Housing and transportation

Home ownership is high among relocation households, but somewhat below the community average.  Automobile ownership is significantly below the community average.

With a lower automobile ownership ratio, it is not surprising to find a higher than average proportion of bus riders and that transportation presents somewhat more of a problem for this group.

Shopping and credit buying

Most people in relocation households shop the supermarket and even more would prefer to, but in both instances averages are slightly below those of the neighborhood.

Credit buying loss, while still slight, substantially exceeds the community average, a significant finding since relocation households are more likely than others to be making substantial purchases as they resettle in new homes.

Health and Health Care

Family illness is somewhat more frequent among relocation households, but fewer have seen- physicians recently.  A slightly larger proportion of these families use hospital or clinic medical services, but a large majority relies on private physicians, Dental care, alarmingly scarce in the community as a whole, is even more neglected in relocation households where the number of people who have never seen a dentist is double the East Riverside average.

Some 239 specific ailments were reported by relocation households—on the average, about 5 ailments for each 10 households (a slightly higher ratio than for the total community).  The frequency distribution of various kinds of ailments is the same as that for the total community.  Most often reported are "just sickly" (111 responses) and heart trouble (60).  Crippling or paralysis is reported for 30 people; blindness in 28; retardation of 6; and deafness in 4.  A slightly above average number of ailments is reported for the elderly (30% vs. 27% for the total community); and most of the retarded (4 of 6) are children.

Attitudes towards Neighborhood

People in households to be acquired have lived in the neighborhood and their present residence about the same length of time as everyone else in East Riverside.  However, the families in special need groups—the elderly, the poor, and the white families in particular— have been in the community longer than most others.

Reflecting less favorable living conditions that make their homes subject to demolition, people in relocation households are not as satisfied with the neighborhood and their homes as others in the community.  Their complaints are substantially the same as everyone else's.  Fortunately, for the Redevelopment Commission's relocation staff, they are more anxious than others to move away from the neighborhood.  Despite this interest in moving, relocation respondents show more than average willingness to attend community improvement meetings.

Neighborhood preferences

Neighborhood preferences:  Locations preferred by families to be relocated were similar in most respects to community preferences.  But, while suburban locations were preferred by most (Shiloh, most frequently), there was above average interest in close-in areas (Washington Road, most frequently).  In general, the relocation

Analyzing the racial composition of specific neighborhood choices for the relocation population, we observe somewhat smaller proportions favor predominantly white or Negro neighborhoods, and a larger proportion preferring mixed neighborhoods.

Elements of choice:  In looking for a new neighborhood, the prime concern of people to be relocated is, as everyone else's, with a nice house and nice people; but those to be displaced weigh these considerations even more heavily, while placing less emphasis on police protection, clean neighborhood, and integration.  Despite their lesser concern with police protection in a new neighborhood, a substantially larger proportion of the relocation population feels that the streets of East Riverside are unsafe after dark.

Moving problems anticipated are essentially the same as those of the total group, with even greater concern for "finding a house I like" and slightly above average interest in "another house in this neighborhood."  Greater willingness to move away appears to be accompanied by a somewhat stronger attachment among the fewer that want to remain.

Attitudes toward Housing

Ownership vs. rental

Home ownership rates are only slightly lower than the neighborhood average as is preference for home ownership.

Extent of dissatisfaction with housing

People in structures to be acquired are much more dissatisfied with their housing situation than others in the community, but property owners are somewhat less willing to spend money for improvements.  Renters, on the other hand, showed an above average willingness to pay more rent for improved accommodations.  And property

Among various deficiencies noted, poor toilet facilities are cited more frequently by relocation respondents than by others in the community.

Housing preferences

People in houses to be acquired have much the same housing type preferences as everyone else in East Riverside, with a little more enthusiasm for the large well maintained house than that of the community.

Relatively fewer relocation families have lived in public housing.  Overall their