HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthGeyerSpringsIA T-;:�,eport ow
so�th e e r Sp r/L vi..g s
C�tU of L�ttLe Roca pepa vtwLewt of -pLn vl vd v-uq a wd 200z
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Existing Conditions
Introduction
3
Existing Land Use
4
Existing Land Use Map
5
Existing Zoning
6
Zoning Map
7
Future Land Use
8
Future Land Use Map
9
Circulation
10
Master Street Plan
11
Open Space and Parks
12
Socio-Economic Conditions
12
Population
12
Race
12
Age
13
Income
13
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments
14
UALR Survey
15
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Introduction
The South Geyer Springs Study area is located in the southwest portion of Little
Rock and is located in the Geyer Springs -West planning district. Mabelvale
Cutoff on the North, Geyer Springs Road to the East, the city limits to the South,
and Chicot Road to the West, form the boundaries of the study area.
Early development in the area consisted of low -density single-family
development on large lots in a rural setting. The first suburban development took
place in the early 1970's in what is now the Yorkwood Neighborhood.
Development took place throughout the 1970's and through the early 1980's in
the Yorkwood, Deer Meadow, and Woodland Ridge neighborhoods. The latest
housing construction is located along Langston Lane in the Deer Meadow
Neighborhood with construction of new houses in the 1990's and early 2000's.
The Woodland Ridge Neighborhood suffered damage in the tornados of the late
1990's with the loss of 12 houses.
Subject Area
B _L
sr✓ ✓,`,''�✓ter. _".� ✓•".~ ✓✓
.- .�, �„-'" ,,. ✓ �;,✓✓ f `ram "' s�•����! }
Railroad ✓ �f, ��✓✓✓r,✓,�✓✓ -✓!r
County Line GREEN
WILL V! S RIM S
3
Existing Land Use
Department of Planning and Development staff collected Existing Land Use data
on a parcel -by -parcel basis. Data was recorded in the field based on actual
observation using the window survey method.
The study area contains three large residential areas featuring single-family
dwellings. The first concentration of single-family dwellings is located in the
northern portion of the study.area and includes the Rob Roy Way Neighborhood,
the Yorkwood Neighborhood, and the neighborhood located on Shady Green
Road. The Deer Meadow Neighborhood constitutes the second large area of
single-family residences. Woodland Ridge and an adjacent neighborhood
located at the northwest corner of Hilaro Springs and Willow Springs Road forms
the third major concentration of single-family homes. An even mix of stick built
and manufactured homes spread throughout the remainder of the developable
land in a pattern of rural development.
The only apartments in the study area are located on Mabelvale Cutoff at Judy
Lane. The study area includes a few concentrations of Duplex developments.
Duplexes are the only residential units found on Topaz Court. A few duplexes
are found in the Yorkwood Neighborhood on Stevenson Drive. The Woodland
Ridge Neighborhood features duplexes on Quail Creek Road, Chimney Rock
Place, and Blue Rock Place.
Only a few businesses are located in the study area and are all sited at the edge
of the study area. A large portion of the study area remains undeveloped due to
the low elevation and drainage patterns.
A GIS inventory of buildings in the study area reveals 2 churches, 5
manufactured homes, 698 houses, 14 duplexes, 7 apartments buildings, 283
accessory structures, 11 commercial structures, 1 office building, and 1 fire
station.
4
9 .r. 'lr' .i!� ��i.it��i ` � �Q-�-�4���,.t D9'�', • �'C '..sue- ��e•�'i'—QQ
{.• � ,•• % , ! ar a 8'4�gr�ge, �[ � ,�'
:d ��� t� �E�I ��lip� d�`•L. '1 p• u ��, de lr..o•-�...q.� g t
_ °.R•••� �_, $°�° `� 4 °^ , ---gig y�t� i�� '�.
!�rJ {°�•, �. r6eC•' RAa; Sf ° ° �� �\, �Zi iit m"�"P!" 1:.•...
y 14
kp yl 1117.' �i °• eff
r�Jill.
fff
jj a n
`R�i,�� abo Yl !�+9'+3.. oB• 1 o � . i � ie ___ vs +P ,r
o S p
x , Y1 f I,A 1 �. n•...fi0 rb1 ..fl �{ � '�—. „�`di �.R �! ...� s`. gem,
�\ � �� s'I R b . ske�•p-.. Pi' .err.$ P} ������ � ��:�
4 r
>, �• a mxr:.iinw i.! . �'"'." „..a75,� wo���:p a[•
I W1 •i e°—�...
'O °4v Yi• e
{ i in fj
i� RR
t } ,1 �-.+.a. a }r. ••-E 4
Al
_e
la r fir
e d
,•. E Q N� •�.R
.•....
•R•
jj
jjjjrhi � of f
i
.. Y.r �• o 0. s s
. y Q i 194��E'• y.
i dew.... 9 e.P • �'°•
Ala urti[
-�-- Existing Land Use N
E D9 ENT 0 1000 2000 Feet
Existing Zoning
Department of Planning and Development staff collected zoning data on a
parcel -by -parcel basis.
Property found in the study area can be divided into residential and non-
residential zones. Residential zones in the area consist of single family, two-
family, and multi -family zones. R-2 Single Family and R-3 Single Family are the
primary single-family zones found in the area. There are 916.30± acres (46%) of
R-2 Single Family located in this area while there are 19.32± acres (1 %) of R-3
Single Family. The total acreage for both single-family zones is 960.09+ acres
(48%). The other residential zones consists of R-4 Two -Family, MF-12
Multifamily, and MF-18 Multifamily. The R-4 Two -Family zoning classification
covers only 3.16± acres (.2%)of land. The land zoned MF-12 Multifamily covers
the smallest area with only 1.03± acres (.05%) covered while MF-18 Multifamily
covers 13.8+ acres (.7%). There is also a Planned Residential Development
covering 9.90± acres (.5%) in the study area.
A total of 17.1± acres (.9%) of non-residential land is zoned for either open space
or commercial purposes. The land zoned Open Space covers a total of 15.52±
acres (.8%). There are .75+ acres (.03%) zoned C-2 Shopping Center and .81+
acres (.04%) zoned C-3 General Commercial. The total acreage zoned for
commercial uses is 1.57± acres (.07%).
6
�2
HI
R2
Outside city Limits
�!
R2
city Limits
d UTT![ Q
Existing Zoning N
p.*Y � M6 7666 2N6 F
7
Future Land Use
Land uses found in the study area can be divided into residential and non-
residential uses. Residential categories found in the neighborhood consist of
Single Family, Multi -family, and Low -Density Residential. Single Family makes
the largest residential use in the area with 1,553.09± acres (79%). Low -Density
Residential, with a total of 65.69± acres (3%), comprises the next residential use
found. Two tracts of land shown as Low -Density Residential are divided between
two tracts with one located at the southwest corner of Geyer Springs Road and
Mabelvale Cutoff and the other lies further south on Geyer Springs Road. Multi-
family, with 30.11 + acres (1.5%), makes up the third residential category. Most
of the Multi -family is divided between three properties located on the south side
of Mabelvale Cutoff. A fourth tract of Multi -family sits on Chicot Road at the city
limits.
Non-residential categories found in the study area consist of Park/Open Space,
Mixed Use, Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Public Institutional.
Park/Open Space, at 216.43± acres (11 %), makes up the largest non-residential
use in the study area due mainly to several creeks that run into Little Fourche
Creek located along the city limits. The small area shown as Commercial lies at
the southeast corner of Mablevale Cutoff and Chicot Road and measures 7.43+
acres (.4%). The smallest category, Neighborhood Commercial, occupies .61±
acres (.03%) of land. Mixed Use is shown at the southeast and southwest
corners of the study area and covers 80.15± acres (4%) of land.
' —
�1
......... _.
a-..� StF
r -
F' S � ��F S
3
_
4 \
� I
I
J
P
� LQR
` .
SF
k f
r.LiR
f/
d.� , -
SF
MU 15�
_
L RI a
f
s
SF
SF
/ /
y f
SF
r
;
_
..................................
I
'
f
I
�d ut
A
Future Land
Use
N
PVM i ]LYNN
�I
M6 1609 2"0 F
Circulation
Arterials in the study area run along section lines in a grid pattern. The Master
Street Plan shows Chicot Road as a Principal Arterial and Geyer Springs Road
as a Minor Arterial, both running north — south and connecting the study area to
1-30. Mabelvale Cutoff is shown as a Minor Arterial running east — west and
connecting Chicot Road to Geyer Springs Road.
Collector streets shown on the Master Street Plan connect neighborhoods to the
arterials in the study area. Warren Drive is shown as a Collector street on the
Master Street Plan running north — south and connecting the Yorkwood
Neighborhood to Mabelvale Cutoff. Yarberry Lane is shown as a Collector street
running east — west and connects the Deer Meadow Neighborhood to Chicot
Road.
The Master Street Plan also shows proposed streets that will affect traffic
circulation in the neighborhood. The proposed South Loop will run east — west
near the Saline County line and will connect 1-430 to 1-530. Two proposed
Collectors are shown in the south portion of the study area. The first proposed
Collector will link Chicot Road southeast to Green Road south of the proposed
South Loop. The second proposed Collector will create a loop from the end of
Horizon Lane and connect to Geyer Springs Road.
Several barriers effect the circulation of traffic in the study area, one artificial, and
the others natural. The non -natural barrier is the Union Pacific Railroad tracks
running diagonally across the study area. The Little Fourche Creek and a
smaller tributary stream that run basically parallel to the railroad tracks form a
natural barrier. Another creek provides a natural boundary between the
Yorkwood and Deer Meadow neighborhoods.
10
11
Open Space and Parks
The Park System Master Plan sets aside land along the branch of the Little
Fourche Creek that flows through the Yorkwood Neighborhood as a Priority 2
Proposed Open Space. The Park System Master Plan does not show any other
property in the study area set aside for either parkland or open space. However,
land shown as Park/Open Space could affect the Park System Master Plan.
Most of the property on creek banks that is classified as Park/Open Space could
provide land for future Open Space requirements by the Parks and Recreation
Department. There are also large tracts of undeveloped land that may be
developed in the future for parks already classified as Parks/Open Space. Land
zoned Open Space would have little effect on the availability of land available for
parkland or open spaces since there is very little land zoned Open Space.
Socio-Economic Conditions
Population
The population of the study area is divided between two census tracts. The
combined population for both census tracts for the year 2000 population within
city limits was approximately 2,411 residents. Census tract 41.06.01 held a
population of 2,090 residents while census tract 40.06.04 held a population of
321 residents. Due to annexations and changes in census tract boundaries,
Census tract 41.06.01 provides the 1990 population for the study area and
includes only the residents of the study area that lived within city limits. In 1990
the population for the study area was 1,776. The population of the study area
increased by 635 residents (26%) between the 1990 and 2000 census, while the
City of Little Rock grew by 1.8%. The biggest change in the study area
population occurred with the annexation of the Woodland Ridge Neighborhood in
July 1996.
Race
The racial composition of the study area changed between the 1990 and 2000
census. Overall, the numbers of Whites living in the study area decreased in the
past ten years while the number of all other races increasing in numbers with the
number of Blacks increasing the most. In 1990 Whites made up 67.9% of the
area population with 1,206 residents while in the 2000 census Whites decreased
to 24.0% of the population with 580 residents. The White population of the study
area decreased by 626 residents or 52% while the White population for the city
decreased by 12%. In the 1990 census Blacks made up 29.9% of the area
population with 531 residents while in the year 2000 Blacks increased up to
72.9% of the population with 1,759 residents. Blacks grew by 1288 residents
with an increase of 70% while the Black population for the city increased by 16%.
In 1990 other races made up 2.2% of the area population with 39 residents while
12
in the year 2000 other races consisted of 2.9% of the population with 72
residents. Other races grew by 33 residents or by 42%. Citywide, the population
for other races grew with an increase of 71 %. In 1990 Hispanics made up 1.1 %
of the population with 19 residents while in 2000 Hispanics continued to make up
1.1 % of the population with 27 residents. However, the Hispanic population grew
by 8 residents or 30%. The citywide population for Hispanics increased by 71%.
Age
As of this date the Age data for the study area based on the 2000 census is not
yet complete. The 1990 census data revealed that persons ages 18-64 made up
62.9% of the population with 1,117 residents. Persons in the less than the age of
18 category made up 30.7% of the population. Persons over the age of 65
consisted of 6.4% of the population with 113 residents.
Income
As of this date the Household Income data for the study area based on the 2000
census is not yet complete. The annual household income ranges included in
the 1990 census range from less than $5,000 to over $150,000. The
percentages of the Household Annual Income data can be broken into thirds with
38.4% making less than $30,000, 31.8% making between $30,000 and $40,000,
while 29.7% make between $40,000 and $100,000. The 1990 census shows no
household making more than $100,000.
SURVEY RESULTS:
A survey was performed by the Institute of Government College of professional
Studies at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (IOG Publication # 01-30).
This survey in its entirety is attached at the end of this report.
13
�d urrt
Proposed Land Use
Plan Amendments se. lost M F�
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments
14
U•A•L•R
Neighborhood Plan Survey
For
South Geyer Springs
Prepared by:
UALR INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT
COLLEGE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK
Neighborhood Plan Survey
For
South Geyer Springs
Prepared for:
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
Prepared by:
Cindy Boland
Tim Sweet-Holp
Institute of Government
College of Preprofessional Studies
University of Little Rock
2801 South University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
(501) 569 8561
August 2001
IOG Publication # 01-30
16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes the perceptions and opinions of residents of the South Geyer
Springs neighborhood in Little Rock. Information for this report was obtained from a
telephone survey conducted on behalf of the City of Little Rock Department of Planning
and Development by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government.
The most substantive reason for undertaking this survey was to assess residents'
opinions of neighborhood planning issues in the first stage of a neighborhood action
plan. The following issues were addressed in this survey: (1) infrastructure, (2) traffic
conditions, (3) crime, (4) maintenance of local schools, (5) maintenance of local, city -
funded parks, and (6) housing and zoning enforcement. The survey also allowed the
opportunity to assess these residents' impressions of general neighborhood and
citywide relations. The major conclusions that emerge from this survey include the
following:
• Statements assessing general neighborhood impressions (Questions 1 through 8)
indicate high levels of satisfaction when compared to other issues.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding infrastructure (Questions 11 through
16) indicate a positive outlook by respondents. The exception being issues related to
sidewalk availability and maintenance, indicating higher levels of dissatisfaction.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding traffic conditions (Questions 19 through
23) show respondents are not totally satisfied with these aspects of their neighborhood.
• Fifty-nine percent (59%) indicated that police presence is adequate to enforce traffic
rules, while fifty-six percent (56%) report that their streets suffer from excessive
speeding.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding neighborhood crime (Questions 24
through 34) indicate that crime, i.e., loitering by juveniles, drugs, or gang activity is not a
problem in the neighborhood.
• Respondents are divided with respect to whether or not police patrols are regular
enough to deter crime in their neighborhood, while sixty-six percent (66%) report street
lighting is adequate to deter crime at night.
_• Fifty-three percent (53%) of the respondents were aware of an Alert Center in their
neighborhood. Of those indicating knowledge of the Alert Center only nine -percent
(9%) had contacted the Center for assistance.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding neighborhood schools (Questions 35
through 41) show that respondents think that neighborhood schools are well maintained
and that truancy is not a problem.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding parks (Questions 42 through 46) relate
that respondents feel that local parks are safe and the equipment is well maintained.
• Statements assessing perceptions regarding housing and zoning issues (Questions
47 through 57) demonstrate higher levels of dissatisfaction for some issues,
• Sixty-four percent (64%) of the respondents indicated a need for a city -funded
hardship program to help disadvantaged homeowners maintain their property.
• Neither apartments nor the conversion of single-family residential houses to
commercial property are viewed as good for the neighborhood.
METHODOLOGY
The Survey
The UALR Institute of Government (IOG) developed and administered this survey using
a staff of trained and experienced interviewers. All interviews were conducted using the
IOG computer -assisted telephone interviewing system (CAT[), and all interviews were
constantly supervised and randomly monitored to assure quality control. The survey
was conducted from June 8, 2001 to June 13, 2001.
The completed survey sample consisted of one hundred and thirty-seven (137)
interviews. At least twelve (12) contact attempts were made during the day and evening
hours throughout the week and on weekends to maximize the possibility of inclusion.
For the phone sample, the IOG used a randomized drawing of listed phone numbers for
the neighborhoods to be surveyed. Numbers from the phone sample were then
screened for the following: (1) to verify resident's address and (2) to identify and
interview the adult with the most recent birthday.
Sampling Error
Based on a sample size of 137, our sampling error (at conventional 95% confidence
level) is ± 8%. In theory, one can say with ninety-five percent (95%) certainty that the
results of the entire sample differ no more than eight percent (8%) in either direction
from what would have been obtained by interviewing all residents of the specific
neighborhood.
For example, a survey item that reveals approximately fifty-nine percent (59%) of the
sample indicated that "Our area is a good and safe place to shop". With these
statistics, the reader can be ninety-five percent (95%) confidant that a comparative
figure for the neighborhood population as a whole would be between 51 % and 67%.
This variability is due to sampling.
The Analysis
The IOG developed an analysis of this survey data. Broadly, this analysis consisted of
(1) frequency distributions of survey answers, and (2) the creation and ranking of
weighted indexes.
18
NTRODUCTION
The neighborhood of South Geyer Springs and the Little Rock Department of Planning
and Development have undertaken the task of developing a neighborhood plan. A
series of neighborhood meetings and a telephone survey have been employed to obtain
information that is unique and applicable to this unique area of Little Rock. The
information gathered through the telephone survey was selected on the following
criteria:
• Appropriateness and validity. The information must relate to
neighborhood objectives.
• Uniqueness. The questions must relate to the specific issues of the
neighborhood.
• Completeness. The survey should address all or most of the issues facing
a particular neighborhood.
• Controllability. The issues need to be at least partially under the
neighborhood's control.
• Timeliness of feedback. The information must be obtained within a narrow
window of time before extraneous events can influence outcomes.
• Accuracy and reliability. The information presented must be a factual
representation of the neighborhood's population.
PURPOSE
The survey of South Geyer Springs was undertaken to provide information on issues
that are central to the neighborhood plan that is underway. The random telephone
survey of South Geyer Spring's residents provided the most efficient manner for
allowing full representation of residents in the planned direction of the neighborhood's
future. In the development of a neighborhood plan, residents undertake to form a set of
recommendations unique to their neighborhood. In order to form recommendations on
purposed improvements it is essential that opinions be obtained that depict the existing
conditions of the neighborhood. This survey has helped provide an active voice to the
-people that will be the most profoundly affected by the decisions that will come out of
the neighborhood plan.
CATEGORY INDEXES
Residents were asked to rate a series of statements about their neighborhoods. Based
on these ratings, several areas of concern were identified as potential problems and
category indexes were created to rank order these concerns. The indexing method was
as follows: The response set to each positively worded statement (i.e., "The condition of
streets and curbs in our area is generally good.") was weighted whereby "strongly
agree" was equal to one and "strongly disagree" was equal to five. In the case of
negatively worded statements, "strongly agree" was equal to five and "strongly
disagree" was equal to one. Any "not applicable" responses were adjusted out so that
the index reflected only statement ratings. An index therefore can be read as such:
Higher scores indicate higher levels of dissatisfaction. The following tables depict the
indexes for each of the content areas addressed in the questionnaire.
19
REPORT SECTION INDEXES
Exhibit A shows the index scores from all of the report sections. As a reference point,
the mean score of all indexes is 53, and this score will be used as the benchmark in
comparisons found throughout the sections.
Exhibit A: Section Indexes
AVERAGE INDEXES
FOR REPORT SECTIONS
INDEX
Housing & Zoning
68
Traffic Conditions
56
Neighborhood Crime
53
Neighborhood Schools
51
Neighborhood Parks
49
Neighborhood Infrastructure
48
General Neighborhood Impressions
43
AVERAGE INDEXES FOR REPORT SECTIONS
53
The above exhibit demonstrates the use of these indexes as a comparative tool. The
remaining sections of this report show the development of the individual scores used in
creating the average indexes displayed above.
20
GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPRESSIONS
When asked a series of general impression questions, residents rated their
neighborhood highly on all issues. A majority, eighty-three percent (83%), of all
respondents indicated that their "area is a good and safe place to live." When asked
about issues related to children in their neighborhood, eighty percent (80%) of all
respondents indicated that their "area is a good and safe place for children to play,"
while seventy-five percent (75%) indicated that their "area is a good and safe place for
children to go to school."
Exhibit 8: General Neighborhood Impressions Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPRESSIONS
INDEX
Good & Safe Place to shop
51
Good & Safe Place For Children to Go to School
44
Good & Safe Place to Work
43
Good & Safe Place For Children to Play
43
Good & Safe Place to Live
42
Good & Safe Place For Churches
37
AVERAGE INDEX FOR GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPRESSIONS
43
When asked about non-residential concerns in the area, eighty-nine percent (89%) of
residents responded that "our area is a good and safe place for churches and their
services." In addition, on issues related to local businesses, seventy-two percent (72%)
responded that "our area supports its local businesses," and seventy-one percent (71 %)
indicated that their "area is a good and safe place to work." Fifty-nine percent (59%) of
all respondents indicated that "our area is a good and safe place to shop."
When asked about the future of their neighborhood, sixty-one percent (61 %) of all
respondents indicated that "our neighborhood is continually improving," and ninety-two
percent (92%) indicated that "the character and image of our area should be protected
and preserved."
As the above analysis demonstrates, higher levels of satisfaction translate to a lower
index score. Within the section, most of the individual scores are very close to the
mean score of 43. The reader can see that a "Good & Safe Place to Shop" generates a
score of 51, indicating higher than average dissatisfaction. Conversely, a "Good & Safe
Place For Churches (37)" is well below the section average, indicating a higher level of
satisfaction.
The average score for this section is 43, a score below the overall average of 53 for all
section indexes (Exhibit A). Indeed, this score is the lowest of all sections and indicates
a high level of satisfaction with general neighborhood impressions, relative to the other
topic areas.
21
NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE
Exhibit C: Infrastructure Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS
INDEX
Sidewalks
56
Water Drainage
49
Street & Curb Conditions
47
Water Lines (Drinking & Waste)
45
Trash
43
AVERAGE INDEX FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
48
The scores in this section, with an average index of 48, show that the primary
infrastructure concern of the surveyed residents is the issue of sidewalks. Water
drainage concerns also have a higher index rating than the section average of 48,
indicating relative dissatisfaction. All other services score below 48 indicating higher
levels of satisfaction, relative to the section average.
Compared to the average score of 53 for all sections, an index score of 48 indicates
that, overall, residents are more satisfied with their neighborhood's infrastructure than
with 5 of the other sections (Exhibit A).
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Exhibit D: Traffic Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
INDEX
Speeding
66
Traffic
59
Traffic Enforcement
53
Business Parking
44
AVE AVERAGE INDEX FOR TRAFFIC
56
_Respondents were asked to rate a series of statements about traffic conditions in the
neighborhood. Their responses indicate that speeding is their primary traffic concern,
compared to the section average of 56. Traffic congestion is an other issue that had a
higher than average index score in this section. Question frequencies indicated that
sixty percent (60%) of respondents would be amenable to installing large speed bumps
to remedy the speeding situation.
Compared to the other six sections, traffic conditions score the second highest of all
indexes (56), indicating higher levels of dissatisfaction. Only housing and zoning issues
generate a higher overall index score (68).
NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME
When asked to rate a series of statements about neighborhood crime, respondents
generally rated such concerns lower than issues in the traffic or infrastructure
categories. The following table displays the crime indexes.
22
Exhibit E. Neighborhood Crime Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME PROBLEMS
INDEX
Juvenile Loitering
55
House Break-ins
54
Drug Sales & Usage
52
Car Theft
49
AVERAGE INDEX FOR CRIME
53
Within this section, residents are more concerned with juvenile loitering and house
break-ins than they are with drug sales and usage, and car theft.
Relative to all report sections, crime issues generate an index score of 53, which is the
same as the average scores for all sections. Compared to housing and zoning, and
traffic conditions, residents are more satisfied, but less satisfied compared to the other 4
sections (Exhibit A).
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS
Respondents who identified schools in their neighborhood (n=106) were asked to rate
the following school concerns.
Exhibit E: School Problem Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL PROBLEMS
INDEX
Truancy
54
Property Maintenance
50
Traffic Conditions
48
AVERAGE INDEX FOR SCHOOLS
51
In terms of the problems rated within this section, truancy was identified as resident's
primary concern with schools. Property maintenance and traffic conditions are also
important, but not to the same degree.
The overall low index score for the section shows that there is some dissatisfaction with
neighborhood schools. Although the school index is lower than three of the other
section scores, it is higher than the indexes for parks, infrastructure, and general
neighborhood impressions. This overall score indicates that residents feel that there
are some school problems.
LOCAL CITY -FUNDED PARKS
Respondents who identified city -funded parks in their neighborhood (n=75) were asked
to rate the following concerns. Only fifty-five percent (55%) of respondents knew of,
and therefore rated, parks in their neighborhood.
23
Exhibit F. Local Park Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROBLEMS
INDEX
Crime
52
Maintenance
49
Safe Equipment
47
AVERAGE INDEX FOR PARKS
49
Responses from residents indicate that crime is the leading park concern. The index
scores for equipment maintenance and equipment safety are somewhat lower than the
index score for crime, indicating relatively higher levels of satisfaction.
The index for local parks is one of the three lowest compared to the other report
sections. This lower score indicates higher levels of satisfaction for parks when
compared to housing and zoning, traffic conditions, crime, and schools.
HOUSING & ZONING ISSUES
All respondents were asked a series of questions pertaining to the city's housing and
zoning regulations. The following table depicts responses to select statements
regarding housing and zoning, and the index score shows a high level of dissatisfaction
with these issues.
Exhibit G: Housing & Zoning Indexes
ASSESSMENT OF
HOUSING & ZONING ISSUES
INDEX
Combined Building Usage
74
Division of Single Family Houses Into Apartments
73
Residential to Commercial Property Conversion
71
Stricter Property Maintenance Standards
70
Apartments
67
Late -Hour Retail
61
New Commercial Buildings
58
AVERAGE INDEX FOR HOUSING/ZONING
68
Respondents rated combined building usage, i.e., people living above stores, among
their highest concerns. Respondents are also notably against the division of single
family houses into apartments, and the conversion of residential property to commercial.
Stricter property maintenance is desirable while question frequencies reveal that fifty-six
percent (56%) of residents believe current property maintenance standards are
enforced by the city.
This section of the report generates the highest average score of any section, meaning
the highest level of dissatisfaction when compared to the other sections. Based on the
indexes calculated and the comparative strengths of index scores, these figures
suggest that housing and zoning issues should be placed on the top of the listing of
neighborhood priorities.
24
RACE RELATIONS
Overall, respondents felt that race relations in both their neighborhood and the entire
city were the same as a year ago, and that they expect race relations to remain the
same throughout the next year.
NEIGHBORHOOD -CITY COMPARISON
When asked how they would compare the reputation of their neighborhood to the rest of
the City of Little Rock, the majority of responses were evenly divided. Thus, thirty-six
percent (36%) stated that it was "better," and thirty-seven percent (37%) stated that it
was "about the same." Only a small percent (13%) responded that it was worse and
14% did not respond to the question.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The two sections with the highest levels of dissatisfaction are housing and zoning
regulations, and traffic conditions. As noted in previous sections, there is a high level of
satisfaction associated with neighborhood impressions, neighborhood infrastructure,
and with local parks.
25
Questionnaire
INTRODUCTION: Hello, I am calling from the University of Arkansas at Little
Rock. We are conducting a neighborhood survey for the City of Little Rock. I
assure you 1 am not trying to sell you anything; I am just interested in getting
your opinions.
SCREENING Q1: Is this «PHONE»? Your phone number was randomly selected
for this interview.
SCREENING Q2: Now, in order for our poll to be an accurate and random sample,
we need to speak to the adult (age 18 or older), living in your house, who has had
the most recent birthday. [IF ONLY ONE ADULT, THEN IT'S THAT PERSON. IF
THE PERSON WITH THE MOST RECENT BIRTHDAY IS NOT AVAILABLE, SET UP
AN APPOINTMENT. IF THE PERSON WITH THE MOST RECENT BIRTHDAY
REFUSES, THEN CODE AS A REFUSAL. REPEAT INTRODUCTION IF YOU ARE
SPEAKING TO A NEW PERSON.]
SCREENING Q3: City of Little Rock records show that this phone number is
located at ((ADDRESS)). Is that correct? [IF REFUSAL, CANCEL THE INTERVIEW
BY SAYING, "THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME." IF INACCURATE, ASK SCREENING
Q4.]
SCREENING Q4: May I ask for your address? I assure you that this information
will only be used by my supervisor to confirm if you live in one of the designated
areas.
First, I am going to read some general statements regarding your neighborhood,
and I'd like you to tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE
NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE with each statement.
wi : uur area is a gooa ana sare place to live.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
25
18.2
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
11
8.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q2: Our area is a good and safe place to work.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
20
14.6
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
12
8.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2
1.5
NOT APPLICABLE
17
12.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
26
Q;J: uur area is goon ana sate place for cnilaren to play.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
25
18.2
NEITHER
11
8.0
DISAGREE
10
7.3
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5
3.6
NOT APPLICABLE
1
0.7
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q4: Our area is a good and safe place for children to go to school.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
20
14.6
NEITHER
11
8.0
DISAGREE
10
7.3
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5
3.6
NOT APPLICABLE
8
5.8
TOTAL
137
100.0
wo: uur area is a gooa ana sate place to snop.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
14
10.2
NEITHER
SEEM
15
10.9
DISAGREE
28
20.4
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4
2.9
NOT APPLICABLE
9
6.6
TOTAL
137
100.0
W0. var area 1b a UUUU ana bare Puce wr cnarcneb ana LneIr berv1ce5.
RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE 32 23.4
NEITHER 8 5.8
GREE
)NGLY DISAC
APPLICABLE
kL
wf: uur area supports its local nusinesses.
-STRONGLYAGREE
;Ty
qyy
..,,, ., ..
��i�,,,u€.,,,.� e�i�ss�k
. r.... .. _
STRONGLY DISAGREE
• APPLICABLE
• 1
27
cats: in general, our neighborhood is continually improving.
Q9: Since you indicated that you either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed,"
could you please tell us why [n=65].
RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT*
POOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 8 16.0
CRIME AND FEAR OF CRIME 8 16.0
STAYS THE SAME/NO IMPROVEMENTS 7 14.0
POOR BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT/NO RETAIL 6 12.0
PRIDE AND RESPECT 4 8.0
OTHER 3 6.0
DRUG USAGE/SALES 3 6.0
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES 50 100
*Count and percents represent responses. not individuals. since this was an oven -ended. multiple
response question. Responses reflect the general tone of the aggregated responses - not direct quotes.
QW: The character and image of our area should be protected and preserved.
RESPONSE ICOUNT PERCENT
NEITHER 8 5.8
DISAGREE 1 .7
STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 1.5
TOTAL 137 100.0
Next, I am going to read you some statements about infrastructure (i.e. roads,
sidewalks, etc.). Please tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER
AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
Q11: The condition of streets and curbs in our area is generally good.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
22
16.1
NEITHER
EMSEMENNEMEMMMM
10
7.3
DISAGREE
18
13.1
STRONGLY DISAGREE
7
5.1
NOT APPLICABLE
2
1.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
wiz: Water lines (drinKing and waste) are well maintained in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
21
15.3
NEITHER
7
IMENIMENNINNEW
5.1
DISAGREE
16
11.7
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4
2.9
NOT APPLICABLE
6
4.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
28
uiu: 5ldewams in our area are adequately maintainea.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
13
9.5
NEITHER
11
8.0
DISAGREE
30
21.9
STRONGLY DISAGREE
8
5.8
NOT APPLICABLE
32
23.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
W 14: uur area nas enougn SlaewalKS to support current root trams.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
8
5.8
AGREE
34
24.8
NEITHER
8
5.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
16.8
23
NOT APPLICABLE
14
10.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
5: 1 would be willing to pay part of the sidewalk installation/repair cost on my
property over T1ve to ten years.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
3
2.2
AGREE
40
29.2
NEITHER
19
13.9
STRONGLY DISAGREE
21
15.3
NOT APPLICABLE
12
8.8
TOTAL
137
100.0
w-io: water drainage is r4u 1 a promem on my street MOCK.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
25
18.2
NEITHER
4
2.9
DISAGREE
27
19.7
STRONGLY DISAGREE
10
7.3
TOTAL
137
100.0
ww: l ne trasn.ana recycling piCK-up at my reslaence 1s aaequate.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
24
17.5
NEITHER
4
2.9
DISAGREE
9
6.6
STRONGLY DISAGREE
8
5.8
NOT APPLICABLE
1
.7
TOTAL
137
100.0
29
Q18: Residents should be required by the city to remove trash containers frorr
Lift; *L1WWL aILGI Lra*n NwR-uN.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
39
28.5
NEITHER
4
2.9
DISAGREE
12
8.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3
2.2
NOT APPLICABLE
1
.7
TOTAL
137
100.0
Next, I am going to read you some statements about traffic in your area. Please
tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE,
DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
Q19: The police presence in our area is adequate to entorce traffic rules.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
16
11.7
NEITHER
7
5.1
DISAGREE
41
29.9
STRONGLY DISAGREE
6
4.4
NOT APPLICABLE
2
1.5
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q20: many streets or intersections in our area suffer from excessive speeding.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
19
13.9
NEITHER
6
4.4
DISAGREE
47
34.3
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5
3.6
NOT APPLICABLE
2
1.5
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q21: many streets or intersections in our area suffer from too much traffic.
.RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
13
9.5
AGREE
39
28.5
NEITHER
16
11.7
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4
2.9
NOT APPLICABLE
3
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
2: Large speed bumps that require motorists to reduce speed are a good idea
for our neighborhood.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
25
18.2
RMNIMMEMEMEMMISM
NEITHER
17
12.4
DISAGREE
26
19.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE
9
6.6
NOT APPLICABLE
3
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
30
Q23: Parking for our area businesses is adequate.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
10
7.3
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
10
7.3
STRONGLY DISAGREE
1
.7
NOT APPLICABLE
16
11.7
TOTAL
1 137
100.0
Next I am going to ask you some questions about crime in your neighborhood.
For the following statements, please tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE,
NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
WAAF. .ruvWnnt! 1V1Lenn9 is a PF-OL)M I M vur area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
10
7.3
AGREE
36
26.3
NEITHER
8
5.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
9
6.6
NOT APPLICABLE
3
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
uz5: gang activity is a problem in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
1
.7
AGREE
14
10.2
NEITHER
20
14.6
STRONGLY DISAGREE
11
8.0
NOT APPLICABLE
Ti
8.0
TOTAL
137
100.0
wze: urug sales ana usage are problems in our area.
_RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
7
5.1
AGREE
23
16.8
NEITHER
12
8.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
7
5.1
NOT APPLICABLE
21
15.3
TOTAL
137
100.0
wzt: house breaK-ins ana burgiaries are a problem in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
8
5.8
AGREE
33
24.1
NEITHER
8
5.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
9
6.6
77
NOT APPLICABLE
6
4.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
31
wzu: L ar inern is a propiem in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
4
2.9
AGREE
21
15.3
NEITHER
14
10.2
STRONGLY DISAGREE
8
5.8
NOT APPLICABLE
7
5.1
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q29: Little Rock police patrols are regular enough to deter crime in our
neighborhood.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
16
11.7
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
37
27.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE
17
12.4
NOT APPLICABLE
19
13.9
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q30: The street lighting in our area is adequate to deter crime at night.
RESPONSE ICOUNT PERCENT
DISAGREE 30 21.9
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7 5.1
TOTAL 137 100.0
The next question deals with Alert Centers furnished by the City of Little Rock.
Q31: Are you aware of an Alert Center in your neiqhborhood?
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
YES
72
52.6
NO [skip to Q34]
48
35.0
NOT APPLICABLE
17
12.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q32: Have you ever contacted the Alert Center for assistance?
NOT APPLICABLE
xtw'. &Q.u.�.
off
32
Please tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE with the following statement.
w;5: i ne Alert center aaequateiy serves our neignborn000.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
12
8.8
_t
NEITHER
7
5.1
DISAGREE
5
3.6
NOT APPLICABLE
78
56.9
TOTAL
137
100.0
Next, I am going to ask you some questions about schools in your neighborhood.
Q34: Are you aware of anv uublic or private schools in vour neighborhood?
RESPONSE
COUNT PERCENT
NO
31 22.6
TOTAL
137 100.0
I am going to read you some statements about schools in your area. Please tell
me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE,
DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE with each statement.
ujo: i ne scnooi properties are well maintainea in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
8
5.8
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
17
12.4
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5
3.6
NOT APPLICABLE
37
27.0
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q36: Traffic conditions around schools are unsafe.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
9
6.6
AGREE
29
21.2
NEITHER [skip to Q38]
11
8.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE [skip to Q38]
1
0.7
NOT APPLICABLE
38
27.7
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q37: In what ways are traffic conditions unsafe near area schools [n=78].
33
*Count and percents represent responses, not individuals, since this was an open-ended, multiple
response question. Responses reflect the general tone of the aggregated responses - not direct quotes.
Q38: Truancy is a problem for area residents and businesses.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
3
2.2
AGREE
17
12.4
NEITHER
20
14.6
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3
2.2
NOT APPLICABLE
54
39.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q39: Our area residents and businesses should form partnerships with schools
to improve the learning environment Tor children.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
34
24.8
NEITHER [skip to Q41]
6
4.4
DISAGREE [skip to Q41]
6
4.4
NOT APPLICABLE
36
26.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q4U: What sort of partnersnips snoulcl De tormea with schools Ln=155j-!
*Count and percents represent responses, not individuals, since this was an open-ended, multiple
response question. Responses reflect the general tone of the aggregated responses - not direct quotes.
Q41: The permanent closing of a school in our area would adversely affect the
neighborhood.
"RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
29
21.2
NEITHER
10
7.3
DISAGREE
9
6.6
STRONGLY DISAGREE
1
.7
NOT APPLICABLE
40
29.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
34
Next I am going to ask you some questions about city -funded parks and
recreation facilities in your neighborhood.
Q42: Are you aware of any city -funded parks and/or recreation facilities in your
area?
For the following statements, please tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE,
NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
W4J: vur areas City parKs anauor recreation tacinties are Well maintainea.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
9
6.6
NEITHER
8
5.8
DISAGREE
14
10.2
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2
1.5
NOT APPLICABLE
67
48.9
TOTAL
137
1100.0
W44: cur area's city parKs' ancuor recreation tacuities- equipment is sate.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
6
4.4
NEITHER
11
8.0
DISAGREE
6
4.4
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2
1.5
NOT APPLICABLE
74
54.1
TOTAL
137
100.0
045: Streets and pathways in our area's city parks and/or recreation facilities
should be developed and/or improved to be pedestrian -friendly.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
13
9.5
NEITHER
10
7.3
DISAGREE
3
2.2
STRONGLY DISAGREE
0
0
NOT APPLICABLE
73
53.3
TOTAL
137
100.0
35
Q46: Our area's city parks and/or recreation facilities are safe from crime.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
5
3.6
NEITHER
9
6.6
DISAGREE
13
9.5
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3
2.2
NOT APPLICABLE
73
53.3
TOTAL
137
100.0
Next, I am going to read statements about housing and zoning. For each
statement tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR
DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE.
W47: current property maintenance stanaaras are entorcea in our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
16
11.7
NEITHER
16
11.7
DISAGREE
30
21.9
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4
2.9
NOT APPLICABLE
11
8.0
TOTAL
1137
100.0
Q48: Property maintenance standards should be stricter to deal with problems in
our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
19
13.9
NEITHER
15
10.9
DISAGREE
31
22.6
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3
2.2
NOT APPLICABLE
5
3.6
TOTAL
137
100.0
49: There is a need for a city -funded hardship program that would help
economicaiiy or pnysicaiiy aisaavantagea nomeowners maintain tneir property.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
24
17.5
NEITHER
17
12.4
DISAGREE
21
15.3
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2
1.5
NOT APPLICABLE
9
16.6
TOTAL
137
1 100.0
Q50: The city's rental inspection program is important to our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
29
21.2
NEITHER
14
10.2
DISAGREE
8
5.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
1
.7
NOT APPLICABLE
15
10.9
TOTAL
137
100.0
36
ute1: Apartments are gooa Tor our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
5
3.6
AGREE
35
25.5
NEITHER
14
10.2
STRONGLY DISAGREE
17
12.4
NOT APPLICABLE
8
5.8
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q52: Combined building usage where people live above stores and offices are
good for our neighborhood.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
3
2.2
AGREE
18
13.1
NEITHER
11
8.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE
18
13.1
NOT APPLICABLE
15
10.9
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q53: The conversion of single-family houses from residential to commercial
property is good Tor our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
5
3.6
AGREE
24
17.5
NEITHER
14
10.2
STRONGLY DISAGREE
19
13.9
NOT APPLICABLE
8
5.8
TOTAL
137
100.0
U04: Subdivision of single -tamely houses into apartments is good Tor our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
1
.7
AGREE
28
20.4
NEITHER
8
5.8
STRONGLY DISAGREE
24
17.5
NOT APPLICABLE
7
5.1
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q55: Our area should impose a delay period on the building of new multi -unit
housing such as apartment complexes, duplexes, and townhouses.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
24
17.5
NEITHER
MEMEMEMMEMEM
9
6.6
DISAGREE
26
19.0
STRONGLY DISAGREE
6
4.4
NOT APPLICABLE
11
8.0
TOTAL
137
100.0
37
UOU: Late -pour retail businesses are gooa for our area.
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
STRONGLY AGREE
3
2.2
NEITHER
6
4.4
DISAGREE
44
32.1
STRONGLY DISAGREE
16
11.7
NOT APPLICABLE
6
4.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
u57: 1 ne building of new commercial buildings would be gooa for our area.
The next questions are about general life in your neighborhood and in the City of
Little Rock as a whole.
Q58: What areas or places IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD would you be willing to
show visitors (summarized responses)?
•
All of it
•
Church
•
General Area
•
Homes
•
My Home
•
My Block
•
My Street
•
Police Station
•
Pool
•
Post Office
•
Recreation Center
•
Parks
•
Southend
•
Shopping / Stores
•
Yorkwood
Q59: What areas or places in the ENTIRE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK would you be
willing to show visitors (summarized responses)?
• All of it
• Capitol Complex
• Chenal Area
• Downtown
• Maumelle Park
• Murray Park
• Museums
• Quapaw
38
• Old Mill
• Riverfront
• River Market
• West LR
• Zoo
Q60: What areas or places in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD would you be hesitant to
show visitors (summarized responses)?
• 12th Street
• Areas with poorly maintained apartments
• Between Shady Grove and Yorkwood
• Central High
• College Station
• Closed up stores
• Holly Springs
• McClellan area
• Pine Cone area
• Parts of Geyer Springs off Baseline
• Parts of SWLR
• Parts of Baseline Road Area
• Run Down Areas
• Trailer Parks
• Village Drive
• The Bad Areas
Q61: What areas or places in the ENTIRE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK would you be
hesitant to show visitors (summarized responses)?
• Arkansas Baptist College
• Central LR's bad Neighborhoods
• College Station
• Downtown
• East end
• Geyer Springs
• Granda Mountain
• High Crime Places
• Industrial Park Area
• Parks that have been destroyed
• Projects
• Pine/Cedar/Asher/Broadway 12th street
• Roosevelt (at night)
• Rundown Places
• Vacant buildings on University
39
Q62: Overall, would you say that race relations in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD are
better, about the same, or worse than a year ago
Q63: Overall, would you say that race relations in the ENTIRE City of Little Rock
are ue«er, d9JVUL LIM same, yr worse uNan a year dqu
RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT
BETTER 27 19.7
WORSE 14 10.2
DON'T PERCEIVE A PROBLEM 5 3.6
NOT APPLICABLE 27 19.7
TOTAL 137 100.0
Q64: Over the next 12 months, do you expect race relations in YOUR
NtIUH13UKr1000 to get better, stay about the same, or get worse"l
Q65: Over the next 12 months, do you expect race relations in the ENTIRE City of
Littie KOCK to get better, stay about the same, or get worse-!
Q66: How would you compare the reputation or image of your neighborhood as a
community to otner parts of Little KOOKY woula you say it Is LKtAU L15 I J
40
The next few questions are about your demographics.
ytu: In what Kind of home do you live? Is it [READ LI51]
RESPONSE COUNT IPERCENT
APARTMENT 18 15.8
TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUM 1 .7
NOT APPLICABLE 12 8.8
TOTAL 137 100.0
Q68: Do you rent or own vour home?
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
RENT
17
12.4
NOT APPLICABLE
3
IFIRSISSEESSEM
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
clay: Mow many years nave you lived at your present aaaress-r
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
Less than a year - 5 years
19
13.9
11-20 years
41
29.9
21 or more years
30
21.9
NOT APPLICABLE
5
3.6
TOTAL
137
100.0
U7U: MOW many years have you lived in the city limits of Little ROCK?
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
Less than a year-10 years
19
13.9
11-20 years
34
24.8
21-25 years
19
13.9
NOT APPLICABLE
28
20.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
uti: Mow many aduits and cnuaren live in your nome, incluaing yourselt-r
Lull M—
n
0.�XW bra m
av .»1 .: ' H�:a
✓m'w;,'u�`�`""�
�.�?ii&"
•�a i��b `�`:ie a-,4. �:s.�.w'�a�.:..
•
41
Q72: GENDER (ASK ONLY IF NECESSARY)
EVA4201M
.:..-b.'w�mn..2� wA .,,, .ii�'^�. � w.. �v�i.�#:.v,M'g
r..� �.#��+� �`t;'�3..,��.w.+-��j, &+� ^'m��,wfww'°.�w' �
'a�$.'.� .3�.3�a• vY'o. @ z��.'�li..�
• APPLICABLE
cars: Are you
Q74: Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic oriqin?
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
NOT APPLICABLE
MOMMEMMMEMOM
6
4.4
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q75: Into which age range do you fall,
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
18-24
13
9.5
25-44
39
28.5
65 OR OLDER
25
18.2
NOT APPLICABLE
3
2.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
Q76: What is the approximate total annual family income of all members of your
household? Is it
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
LESS THAN $10,000
1
.7
$10, 000-$19, 999
4
2.9
$30,000-$39,999
10
7.3
$40, 000-$49, 999
13
9.5
$50, 000-$59, 999
13
9.5
$60,000-$69,999
10
7.3
$70,000 AND OVER
20
14.6
NOT APPLICABLE
51
37.2
TOTAL
137
100.0
wt i s vo you own a Dusiness
in your neignpornooa-r
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
YES
4
2.9
NOT APPLICABLE
2
1.5
TOTAL
137
100.0
42
Q78: Do you own a business that is located or has locations within the city -limits
of Little Rock?
RESPONSE
COUNT
PERCENT
YES
3
2.2
NOT APPLICABLE
2
1.5
TOTAL
137
100.0
That was my last question. Thank you for your time.
43