From “Ghetto” to Gated Community

-- By CourtneySmith - 16 Apr 2010

Courtney, I have inserted my comments with regard to the substance of your paper in the actual text of the original. I hope that you find some of these questions and suggestions helpful, and please let me know if I can explain anything or further help. I tried to play devils advocate a little bit and point out the other side of the argument, but I think that you make some really great points concerning the downsides of development and the effect it has on the original community. Underneath, I have attached an edited copy. It deals mostly with grammar, phrases that I found awkward, and some reorganization. I tried not to change very much of the organization or substance of the paper so that you could choose which suggestions to consider. I really enjoyed reading about this subject, and I think that you did a really nice job!

“The largest private redevelopment project ever undertaken in the U.S.”

In Lubbock, Texas in 1999, local developer and self-described Horatio Alger businessman Delbert McDougal announced his plan to assemble the 325-acre parcel of land adjacent to Texas Tech University, bulldoze the 1,700 (mostly residential) buildings located on it, and construct an “upscale” mixed residential and commercial complex to serve the wealthy student population. At the time, the 325 acres, located in what some townspeople disparagingly referred to as the “Tech Ghetto,” were worth approximately $26 million.

Why is this? What factors contribute to this name?

The estimated value of the completed project is over $600 million.

I am not entirely sure what you are arguing yet. Perhaps adding a sentence at the end of this paragraph that lays out the direction that your paper will take, and what you will try to argue or prove, would be helpful to the reader.

Friends in High Places

Though the developers pride themselves on the fact that it was all done “privately,” the entire project took place in the shadow of eminent domain and with plenty of help from the local government.

Is it unusual for redevelopment of this type to be done this way?

The McDougal Company instigated four condemnation proceedings, each of which was eventually settled out of court. And the developer had the ultimate inside man in his corner: his son, Marc McDougal, was a member of the city council and then the city’s mayor during the ongoing construction project. With a little help from Mayor McDougal, Developer McDougal’s plans were approved, zoning exceptions granted, and wheels greased.

This relationship does not necessarily prove anything. You seem to be making the conclusion that there was some abuse of governmental power, but is there any actual evidence of this, or of how the wheels were greased in an inappropriate way?

The city invested millions in the infrastructure it would provide for “The Centre,” as McDougal began calling his development. The plan included parks, new streets and alleys, a massive landscaping project (the likes of which local government would never have lavished on the “Tech Ghetto,” including a note that street signs “should be installed in a visually pleasing manner that coordinates with the rest of the street amenities.” The city’s plan for “Gateway Monuments” might as well have been drafted by the developer: “Gateways are entry points that create neighborhood identity and are mainly ceremonial in nature. They offer the opportunity to identify and distinguish one community from another through the use of architectural monuments and/or special treatments within the public right-of-way. They are important because they give the first impression of the community.”

Normally parks and streets inside of the development plan are paid for by the developer, is this not the case here? Or are these things external to the plan?

What, me sir?

The area targeted for “redevelopment,” North Overton, had two strategic benefits from McDougal’s point of view: it was close to the university, and the people who lived there were poor and relatively powerless.

This is a good sentence, it gets your point across and seems to lay out what you will be talking about.

The other prime target, the South Overton neighborhood which abuts North Overton, was built at the same time as South Overton, between 1910 and 1930, and both neighborhoods contained primarily single-family houses. They were racially-integrated, working-class neighborhoods, centrally located in an older part of the city, within two miles of 50% of the city’s jobs. Buddy Holly’s Peggy Sue grew up in one of the modest North Overton wood-frame houses. Houses in South Overton are slightly bigger than were those in North Overton, and both areas contain a considerable amount of rental property. Residents of South Overton, comprised of more owners than renters, and perhaps seeing which way the wind was blowing, were able to save their neighborhood from the bulldozers by getting it listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. North Overton was an easier target: it was a crowded, high-crime area with lots of absentee landlords.

Is this not a good target for redevelopment then?

Once the McDougals started buying up property in North Overton, the end was almost inevitable. Residents who wanted to stay were eventually surrounded on all sides by boarded up, stripped down, vandalized shells of houses where once their neighbors had been. In time they almost all came around. As of June 2009 there were ten holdout properties, one of which had just been deemed unfit for occupancy by the city, and the rest of which McDougal decided to build around, announcing cavalierly that the owners would regret not accepting his final offer, which, in one case, was a paltry $70,000.

Why do you say paltry? The article that you cite previously in the paper mentions that their land is now appraised at $67,990. Normally (at least in the case of condemnations) the developer also has to pay the fair market value of the house at the time of the development, which is determined by a court. This does not sound like an unsubstantial amount given the condition of the neighborhood.

No mention of the holdouts is made in any of the project’s final reports; perhaps the family of Guyanese immigrants eventually sold; in any case they were correct to assume that by 2009 the lot they were sitting on was worth well over $70,000. The going rate for a single-family home in their new neighborhood is $375,000 to $500,000.

Isn't that because the development has changed the area and the land is worth more now?

Vicarious Leisure

Eighty-five percent of the residents of the new complex (now called “Overton Park,” as apparently “Tech Ghetto” would no longer do) are Tech students.

“Tech Ghetto” was just a nickname, though, it did have its own official name, North Overton. Is it fair to compare an official name and a disparaging nickname given to it by its own residents? Isn’t it a good thing that it is no longer referred to as a ghetto?

A one-bedroom apartment in the new “controlled access” gated community costs $900 a month, which is approximately twice the rent paid for single-family houses in the same neighborhood in the late 1990s. $900 is also well above the local average for student rentals; other complexes popular with students typically charge $500-$600 per month. Presumably most of the residents of the new Overton apartments have wealthy parents footing the bill so they can live in vicarious leisure, with an on-site Starbucks and “Always Tan” salon.

The project has added, according to the McDougals, “approximately $190 million of property tax value to city, county, and school district tax rolls.” It also makes the University more attractive to out-of-town students and their parents; it looks and feels like something you might find in a suburb of Dallas. In addition to the tanning beds and Starbucks, the complex also has a four-star hotel (Lubbock’s first), a conference center (paid for by the city), and a Super Walmart.

This all sound like good things for the town, you need to come right out and say why it is a bad thing.

Externalities

The McDougals initially announced that they would build 450 single-family houses in their new development; the plan was later scaled back to an even “more exclusive” 130 houses. In addition to reducing the overall number of dwellings included in the project, the development wiped out an affordable neighborhood and replaced it with the city’s most expensive luxury apartments.

Where did all of the residents of North Overton go? In January 2008, the South Plains Homeless Consortium counted Lubbock’s homeless population “at a record 369.” Two years later, the Texas Homeless Network “said Lubbock had 755 people - by conservative estimates - living on its streets in late January.” The city’s response? Earlier this year it voted down a proposal to create a Committee on Homelessness. Apparently local government can help create the problem, but not fix it.

It seems that you are making an assumption here that there was a direct correlation between the government approving the development of the North Overton area and the increased number of homeless people. I know the word count makes it difficult to fit everything in, but I think this connection is worth exploring and show the potentially terrible effect development can have on the people who lived in the neighborhood originally, and if you had more direct evidence to substantiate this claim it would give it a lot more force.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, CourtneySmith

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list

Courtney, I really enjoyed your paper, you raise a lot of very interesting and provocative points and clearly have a strong point of view. It is also clear that you have researched and care about this issue. It seems however, that you are implying an argument without ever coming out and saying it. Is your argument that the type of social disruption of allowing a full community to be kicked out through redevelopment is a bad thing, and that the redevelopment does not fully take into account or compensate the victims of this renovation?

If so, I think that you need to come out and state more clearly what type of abuse of power occurred, and why this development was a bad thing for the community and its residents. Who exactly benefited from this development, and who was burdened? It is now a more expensive neighborhood, and you mention the wealthy parents who must be there to foot the bill. Do you wish to say that there is a need for more affordable homes in this neighborhood, and that the developer, facilitated by the local government, took one area of low-cost housing and demolished it in order to make way for more profit-enhancing property? Was the project done under false pretenses (only wanting to make money rather than clean up the neighborhood?)

It appears that the town had an interest in cleaning up this area. I know that the 1000 word limit to this paper constricts what can discussed, but I think your paper would also really benefit from presenting a balanced look at both sides of the argument, and then explaining why your side is stronger. If I read your paper correctly, it appears that you think the developer and the local government were in the wrong. However, it also appears that this area of the city needed to be revitalized.

I tried to do some research on what the other side would say, and it seems that this revitalization could not be done by traditional rezoning, as no one wanted to buy individual lots in a dangerous, depressed area. In that case is it not beneficial that a developer would buy the entire parcel of land and renovate the area all at once? Did he not actually significantly improve the community? Would the alternative be to allow the area to remain depressed? Further, while the developer stands to make a lot of money, doesn’t he also take a tremendous economic risk by committing large amounts of capital? Many redevelopment plans also contain a requirement of affordable housing, I attempted to discover if that was the case here, and will keep looking. I tried to consolidate sentences and make changes in the edited version where I did not think it took away from you argument at all in order to free up some space for you to counter some of these arguments if you want to.

You provided a really compelling look at what is happening in Lubbock, and the ways in which this development caused the area to change. Overall I think you did a really good job!

“The largest private redevelopment project ever undertaken in the U.S.”

In Lubbock, Texas in 1999, local developer and self-described Horatio Alger businessman Delbert McDougal announced his plan to consolidate the 325-acre parcel of land adjacent to Texas Tech University, bulldoze the 1,700 (mostly residential) buildings located on it, and construct an “upscale” mixed residential and commercial complex to serve the wealthy student population. At the time, the 325 acres, located in what some townspeople disparagingly referred to as the “Tech Ghetto,” were worth approximately $26 million. The development would eventually wipe out an affordable neighborhood, however, and replaced it with the city’s most expensive luxury apartments.

Friends in High Places

Though the developers pride themselves on the fact that the funding was all raised privately, the entire project took place in the shadow of eminent domain and with significant help from the local government. The McDougal Company initiated four condemnation proceedings, each of which were eventually settled out of court. The developer also had the ultimate inside man in his corner: his son. Marc McDougal was the mayor of the city during the ongoing construction project, and was previously a member of the city council. With a little help from Mayor McDougal, Developer McDougal’s plans were approved, zoning exceptions granted, and wheels greased. The city invested millions in the infrastructure that it would provide for “The Centre,” as McDougal began calling his development. The plan included parks, new streets and alleys, and a massive landscaping project the likes of which the local government would never have lavished on the “Tech Ghetto.” This project even included a note that street signs “should be installed in a visually pleasing manner that coordinates with the rest of the street amenities.” The city’s plan for “Gateway Monuments” might as well have been drafted by the developer: “Gateways are entry points that create neighborhood identity…are mainly ceremonial in nature…and give the first impression of the community.”

What, me sir?

From McDougal’s point of view, the area targeted for “redevelopment,” had two strategic benefits: it was close to the university, and the people who lived there were poor and relatively powerless. The other prime target, South Overton, a neighborhood that abuts North Overton, was built at the same time as North Overton, between 1910 and 1930, and similarly contained primarily single-family houses. They were racially-integrated, working-class neighborhoods, centrally located in an older part of the city, and within two miles of 50% of the city’s jobs. South Overton is comprised of more owners then renters, though. Perhaps seeing the way the wind was blowing, they were able to save their neighborhood from the bulldozers by getting it listed in the National Register of Historic Places. North Overton was an easier target: it was a crowded, high-crime area with lots of absentee landlords.

Once the McDougals started buying up property in North Overton, the end was almost inevitable. Residents who wanted to stay were eventually surrounded on all sides by boarded up, stripped down, vandalized shells of houses that were once occupied by their neighbors. In time they almost all came around. As of June 2009 there were ten holdout properties, one of which had just been deemed unfit for occupancy by the city. McDougal decided to build around the rest, announcing cavalierly that the owners would regret not accepting his final offer, which, in one case, was a paltry $70,000. No mention of the holdouts was made in any of the project’s final reports; perhaps the family of Guyanese immigrants eventually sold. In any case, they were correct to assume that by 2009 the lot they were sitting on was worth well over $70,000. The going rate for a single-family home in their new neighborhood is $375,000 to $500,000.

Vicarious Leisure

The McDougals initially announced that they would build 450 single-family houses in their new development; the plan was later scaled back to an even “more exclusive” 130 houses. Eighty-five percent of the residents of the new complex, now called “Overton Park,” are Tech students. A one-bedroom apartment in the new “controlled access” gated community costs $900 a month, which is approximately twice the rent paid for single-family houses in the same neighborhood in the late 1990s. $900 is also well above the local average for student rentals; other complexes popular with students typically charge $500-$600 per month. Presumably most of the residents of the new Overton apartments have wealthy parents footing the bill so they can live in vicarious leisure, with an on-site Starbucks and “Always Tan” salon. The project has added, according to the McDougals, “approximately $190 million of property tax value to city, county, and school district tax rolls.” It also makes the University more attractive to out-of-town students and their parents; it looks and feels like something you might find in a suburb of Dallas. In addition to the tanning beds and Starbucks, the complex also has a four-star hotel (Lubbock’s first), a conference center (paid for by the city), and a Super Wal-Mart.

Externalities

Where did all of the residents of North Overton go? In January 2008, the South Plains Homeless Consortium listed Lubbock’s homeless population “at a record 369.” Two years later, the Texas Homeless Network “said Lubbock had 755 people - by conservative estimates - living on its streets in late January.” The city’s response? Earlier this year it voted down a proposal to create a Committee on Homelessness. Apparently local government can help create the problem, but not fix it.