November
FOUNDATION FOR THE CAROLINAS:
CENTER FOR CIVIC LEADERSHIP
2009 Initiative Identification –
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
Conducted by Anne F. Vail
08
Table of Contents
PURPOSE: ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
METHOD:......................................................................................................................................................................3
COMMUNITY GLIMPSE ...........................................................................................................................................4
CURRENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL PICTURE ................................................................................................5
COMMUNITY CHALLENGES: Potential Center for Leadership Initiatives .......................................6
POVERTY............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
HOUSING ......................................................................................................................................................................9
Residential Real Estate Slump ............................................................................................................................... 9
Mortgage Crisis ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Affordable Housing ...................................................................................................................................................11
Homelessness ...............................................................................................................................................................12
URBAN REVITALIZATION ..........................................................................................................................................13
IMMIGRATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
Community Snapshot ...............................................................................................................................................15
Public Policy Debate .................................................................................................................................................16
Infrastructure Implications...................................................................................................................................18
Housing ...........................................................................................................................................................................18
Employment .................................................................................................................................................................19
Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................................19
Healthcare .....................................................................................................................................................................19
Education.......................................................................................................................................................................19
Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................20
PUBLIC EDUCATION .....................................................................................................................................................20
AT-RISK CHILDREN AND YOUTH ..........................................................................................................................23
PUBLIC SAFETY ...............................................................................................................................................................27
Crime Rates and Public Confidence ...................................................................................................................27
The Criminal Justice System ..................................................................................................................................28
Juvenile Delinquency and Gangs .........................................................................................................................29
ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Water Quantity/Quality .........................................................................................................................................31
Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................................................31
Green Building .............................................................................................................................................................32
Protecting, Preserving, and Restoring Flora and Fauna .........................................................................33
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................35
Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................35
Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................36
MAKING CHARLOTTE “GREAT” ..............................................................................................................................38
2
FOUNDATION FOR THE CAROLINAS: Center for Civic Leadership
2009 Initiative Identification – INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
November 2008
PURPOSE:
The Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC or the Foundation) established the Center
for Civic Leadership (CCL or the Center) in 2008 to institutionalize the Foundation’s
position as a catalyst in the Charlotte region for community problem-solving. The
Center is charged with the task of identifying key community challenges, and
engaging Charlotte’s leaders and citizens in the development of possible action
plans to address the challenges for the long-term betterment of the community.
The Foundation’s previously successful efforts in activating civic leadership include
the Citizens’ Task Force on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the Carolina Thread
Trail, the United Agenda for Children, and Crossroads Charlotte. In these instances,
the Foundation was able to build alliances among various and, sometimes
competing, stakeholders to forge potential solutions to the problems addressed.
The first task of the Center is the establishment of an ongoing and continuous
environmental scan to identify existing and emerging issues in the community that
could benefit from the attention of the engaged partnership of stakeholders in the
Charlotte region.
METHOD:
This initial environmental scan involves identification of, and research on, national
and community trends to identify potential CCL initiatives. Additionally, this scan
includes preliminary interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders in the
community (e.g. city/county staff, civic leaders, donors, etc.).
Subsequent reports will involve a progressive and increasingly detailed review of
the potential initiatives, as well as a deeper pool of interviewees as a means to
narrow the possibilities for the Center’s focus initiative for the upcoming calendar
year.
3
COMMUNITY GLIMPSE
The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau data provide the
following snapshot of the community:
 Charlotte is the nation’s 19th largest city. The population of the city is
696,000 and continuing to grow at a remarkable pace (35% from 1996 to
2007). Mecklenburg County is home to over 902,000 people. The city is the
center of the sixth largest urban region in the United States, with a 100-mile
radius population of 6.9 million (compared with 8.1 million in the Atlanta
region and 6 million in Miami’s region).
o The 2006 Census Bureau statistics for the city of Charlotte found
residents are 54.7% Caucasian, 34.4% African American, 11%
Hispanic or Latino, and 4.1% Asian.
o 40% of the households are married-couple families, 21% are other
families and 32% live alone.
o 64% of the population lives in single-unit residences, and 35% in
multi-unit homes.
o The median income for a household in the city is $53,211, and the
median income for a family is $59,452.
o 11.4% of the population, and 9.3% of families are below the poverty
line. 16.5% of Charlotte’s children are impoverished. For families
with a female head of household the number rises to 23%.
o 87% of people over 25 in Charlotte have at least a high school
education and 37% have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
o Charlotte is largely a young city with only 8% of the population over
65. The 25-44 year old age group is the largest at 33%, and 26% are
children under 18.

Charlotte is the second largest financial center in the nation with over $2
trillion in assets, serving as the headquarters of Bank of America and
Wachovia, as well as a branch of the Federal Reserve.

Nine Fortune 500 companies are also headquartered in Charlotte, which
gives the city the distinction of being 6th in the nation in terms of
headquartered firms. Additionally, over 900 companies in Dun &
Bradstreet’s Million Dollar Data Base have facilities in the region with 421
headquartered here.
4

Mecklenburg County’s manufacturers generate an annual payroll of nearly $2
billion with over 1,300 producers in a variety of sectors including industrial
machinery, metal-working, computer & electrical products, and bio-medical
facilities.

The Charlotte region is a major distribution hub due to its location at the
center of the nation’s largest consolidated rail system, the intersection of I-77
and I-85, and the corresponding trucking firms located here (12th largest in
the nation).

Charlotte Douglas International Airport ranks 18th among the most active air
transportation centers in the U.S., and the region’s transportation needs are
further served by the state and federal highway network.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District is the 23rd largest in the nation
and 2nd in the Carolinas with over 134,000 students. 28 colleges and
universities serving over 100,000 students in the Charlotte region.
CURRENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL PICTURE
Much has changed on both the national and local economic and political landscape
since the summer of 2008. On the national political scene, of course, Americans
elected Barack Obama to the Presidency. Here in North Carolina, voters ousted
Senator Elizabeth Dole in favor of Democrat Kay Hagan; and five-term Congressman
Robin Hayes lost his seat as the representative for the 8th congressional district
(which includes parts of Mecklenburg, Union and Cabarrus counties) to Democrat
Larry Kissell. In Raleigh, Bev Perdue will take office as the state’s first female
governor after defeating Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory.
Nerves are frayed among the citizens of the Charlotte community.
The financial picture has also changed drastically in the intervening two months. In
the summer months, the economy slowed significantly due to a combination of high
energy costs, rising consumer pessimism, the credit crunch, a weak job and housing
market, and persistent inflation. The financial industry was battered early in the
year by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage markets, and the FDIC’s takeover of
IndyMac Bank as well as the troubles at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac further unnerved banking investors over the course of the summer.
The summer’s sluggish economy deteriorated into a financial disaster of historic
proportions with both Wall Street and international markets reflecting a deeply
shaken world economy. The federal government took unprecedented actions to
stabilize the U.S. financial system and boost liquidity in the form of a $700 billion
Federal rescue plan for the financial industry, and a $250 billion investment by the
U.S. government in America’s banks. In addition, the leaders of the G-8 nations
announced they will hold an economic summit in November to “remedy deficiencies
[in the regulation of the world’s financial sector] exposed by the current crisis.”
5
On the local level, Charlotte’s leading economic indicators experienced a sharp
downturn in September (the sharpest drop since 1990), wiping out the modest
gains of the first half of 2008. The unemployment rate in North Carolina hit 7.0% in
September, the eighth consecutive monthly increase. The national unemployment
rate is at 6.1% – the highest level in five years. Unemployment numbers in the state
are often higher than the national average due to the relatively large manufacturing
base in North Carolina. The Charlotte region’s broader economic base - particularly
with more jobs in healthcare, leisure, hospitality, business and professional services
– typically provides some level of insulation from the job losses elsewhere in the
state. Charlotte’s jobless rate dropped to 6.8% in September, after reaching 7.1% in
August, while Mecklenburg County remained steady at 6.6%. In another bit of good
news for the region, the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce New and Expanding
Business Report for the first and second quarters of 2008 found that Charlotte
added new firms, new jobs, new square footage and new investments – growth that
indicates the region remains somewhat strong relative to other areas of the country.
The country’s financial crisis is most evident to Charlotteans in its impact on the
city’s two big banks. Bank of America was able to acquire investment firm Merrill
Lynch when the venerable institution stumbled in the crashing market. The
purchase creates a major presence on Wall Street for the Charlotte-headquartered
bank, which is now the nation’s largest retail bank, credit card company, mortgage
lender, and retail brokerage business.
Wachovia Bank, already weakened by the huge losses incurred in its acquisition of
Golden West, was unable to ride out the storm to remain independent, and Wells
Fargo purchased the Bank in a deal brokered by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. The exact costs of the loss of this significant corporate headquarters to
the Charlotte economy remain to be seen as the details of the acquisition are
finalized in the months to come.
COMMUNITY CHALLENGES: Potential Center for Leadership Initiatives
Clearly, this is a complicated time for both the U.S. and Charlotte. Where pressures
mount on the average citizenry, existing and emerging community challenges take
on even greater urgency. Some of these will require quick response and, for that
reason, are not well suited to action by the Center for Civic Leadership. The CCL
seeks to undertake annually an issue that has long-term and community-wide
implications, which could benefit from the attention of the engaged partnership of
stakeholders that CCL can bring together.
6
The Foundation for the Carolinas has identified many such critical issues in our
community for the inaugural CCL initiative:










Poverty
Housing
o Residential real estate slump
o Mortgage crisis
o Affordable housing
o Homelessness
Urban Revitalization
Immigration
o Community snapshot
o Public policy debate
o Infrastructure implications
Public Education
At-risk Children and Youth
Public Safety
o Crime rates and public confidence
o Criminal justice system
o Juvenile delinquency and gangs
o Prevention and rehabilitation
Environment
o Water quantity and quality
o Air quality
o Green building
o Protecting, preserving, and restoring flora and fauna
Infrastructure and Transportation
o Infrastructure
o Transportation
Making Charlotte “Great”
This report is intended to provide a brief overview of the situation in the Charlotte
community relating to the issues, and provide information on any initiatives
currently underway to address them.
POVERTY
In order to define poverty for the purposes of statistical tracking, the Census Bureau
uses a set of pretax income thresholds that represent the minimum income needed
to support a family. The thresholds vary by family size and composition, and are
adjusted annually for changes in the cost of living (i.e. inflation).
The Census Bureau statistics historically support the fact that poverty rates for
certain groups in the U.S. are higher than the nation’s overall poverty rate: children,
7
African Americans, Hispanics, single women heads of households (particularly if
African American or Hispanic), and foreign-born residents.
The following is the 2006 Census Bureau picture of who is living poverty in
Charlotte:






11.4% of the entire population of Charlotte
9.3% of all families
3.8% of all married couple families
23.4% of all families with a female head of household (no husband present)
16.5% of children under the age of 18
10% of individuals 65 and over
Translating the statistical information to the impact of poverty in real life in the
Charlotte region isn’t difficult. This report will discuss the issues of housing,
immigration, at-risk children and youth, education and public safety. Within each
topic the subtext of poverty can be read between the lines. The 185,000
impoverished people in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region struggle daily with
keeping a roof over their heads, providing healthcare and education for themselves
and their children, locating affordable and accessible childcare, finding or keeping a
job, and simply just getting around town.
The good news is that charitable giving and volunteerism in the CharlotteMecklenburg region is second in the nation. Additionally, numerous local, state and
federal government agencies provide assistance to Charlotte’s poor, as well as a
wealth of nonprofit organizations. Despite the relative generosity of the region’s
donors, these many organizations are currently stretched to their limits to provide
for the large and growing needy population in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Troubling
economic times only make the task at hand more difficult for these organizations, as
the potential for more individuals to slip into poverty rises, and the ability of donors
to continue giving declines.
Adding to the stress of this sad reality is the recent controversy regarding the large
compensation package of former United Way of Central Carolina’s CEO, Gloria Pace
King. Many in the community have expressed concerns that donations to the United
Way and, consequently to the 91 organizations that rely on UWCC to raise and
distribute funds, will drop. The fallout from the controversy also poses a danger to
the funding of other, unrelated nonprofits in the region. Nonprofits understand that
donors send their trust along with their checks to these organizations – trust that
the charity will use the funds prudently and properly to help those in need. Many
donors have expressed concern that United Way of Central Carolina violated that
trust, a concern that is particularly painful given the fact this controversy is
occurring concurrently with difficult economic times that also pose a threat to
charitable giving. The United Way annual fundraising campaign began in midAugust and, as of early November, is down significantly from previous years. Only
8
time will tell how the reduced giving will impact the philanthropic scene in
Charlotte. In the meantime, the region’s 185,000 impoverished people continue to
live each day in need.
HOUSING
The matter of housing is a multi-faceted one, overlapping with the issues of the
residential real estate market slump, the mortgage crisis, affordable housing, and
homelessness.
Charlotte’s rapid growth over the last two decades has spurred massive suburban
development, significant high-rise residential construction in Uptown, and
gentrification of many “older” neighborhoods, such as NoDa and the South End.
Meanwhile, residents in some areas feel essentially “left behind” by the community’s
growth spurt – their areas deteriorating and seemingly underfunded while other
neighborhoods prosper. Less wealthy newcomers and low wage earners find a
shortage of affordable housing. The problem of homelessness has grown along with
the population of the community at large.
Residential Real Estate Slump
The ripple effect of the national residential real estate slump has definitely hit the
Charlotte market, but the area has not been as hard hit as most of the nation.
Charlotte was the only one of the top twenty urban markets nationwide to
experience a rise in residential prices during the first 3 months of the year. April
brought the first drop with a modest 0.1% reduction, and subsequent months have
seen continued drops. Most recent figures indicate that sales declines continue, but
pricing declines have eased – indicating a flat market from that perspective at least.
Residential inventory in Charlotte is increasingly large, the construction of new
homes has dropped significantly (as evidenced by Mecklenburg County’s 10 year
low in residential construction permit applications), developments for Uptown
residential towers have been put on hold, sale prices are dropping, and new
residents are unable to purchase homes here because they’ve been unable to sell
their property elsewhere in the country. Most experts expect housing prices to hit
bottom by the end of 2008 and those in the Charlotte area expect sales to begin
picking up again by mid-2009. Of course, the market will likely experience more
pain once Wells Fargo determines how many jobs to eliminate from the 20,000
current Wachovia employees.
Mortgage Crisis
The most shocking impact of the national real estate market slump can be found
locally in neighborhoods where many homeowners hold sub-prime mortgages. In
developments like Peachtree Hills, the real impact of the nation’s mortgage crisis is
evident. The neighborhood is one of 13 starter-home communities clustered in
9
northwest Charlotte with a high rate of foreclosure. Foreclosure rates in
Mecklenburg county jumped an astounding 200% in 2007, and the county is on pace
to reach 9,000 foreclosures in 2008 – half of those resulting in eviction and many of
those in these high-foreclosure neighborhoods.
Peachtree Hills has 147 homes, and almost 30% are in foreclosure. The City Council
approved $449,000 in funds to be used in the rehabilitation of the neighborhood by
a not-for-profit group called Self-Help, a nationally recognized community
development group based in Durham. The city hopes that its efforts with Peachtree
Hills will serve as a pilot program that may be applied to the other troubled
neighborhoods. Self-Help intends to spend $3.4 million in Peachtree Hills to
stabilize the community - an investment they believe is justified by the proactiveness of the remaining homeowners. Blighted properties will be bought and
renovated for a lend-lease program; community landscaping, lighting, sidewalk and
road repairs are also part of the plan to make the neighborhood more attractive to
investors and less vulnerable to criminal activity.
State and federal legislative efforts to assist troubled borrowers are creating a
patchwork of programs that will ease the suffering of some homeowners. In North
Carolina, legislators created an emergency program that requires lenders to give
homeowners 45 days notice before beginning foreclosure proceedings. Only owneroccupied homes and those subject to sub-prime loans are eligible. This will give the
state’s Commissioner of Banks time to examine the loan terms, provide debt and
legal counseling to the homeowner, and assist in negotiations with lenders in an
attempt to restructure the deal and prevent the foreclosure.
At the Federal level, the President signed into law a plan gives the Treasury the
authority to extend a higher line of credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or buy an
equity stake in the companies. It also gives the Federal Reserve a “consultative role”
in regulating the two troubled mortgage companies. The hope is that quick action
on this matter will calm the turbulent investment markets.
For individual mortgage holders, the new law could provide relief for some 500,000
homeowners at risk of foreclosure. The centerpiece of the law is a $300 billion
program to refinance mortgages headed toward foreclosure into affordable fixedrate loans backed by a federal guarantee. It also includes tax breaks for low income
housing, and a tax credit for first-time homebuyers who buy previously foreclosed
and unoccupied housing.
Another consequence of the mortgage crisis is that many renters are also losing
their homes when their landlords default. Area experts estimate that one in four
foreclosed homes in Charlotte are not owner-occupied. State law requires the
landlord to provide 30 days’ notice to renters before eviction, but that time is
shorter than the national average, and the evicted renter’s plight is further
complicated by the fact that Charlotte suffers from a severe lack of affordable
housing for families making less than $16,000 a year.
10
Affordable Housing
A recent study by the City of Charlotte Neighborhood Development Office found that
the Charlotte market lacks 15,000 affordable housing units for low-to-moderate
income individuals and families, and the need was projected to grow to more than
17,000 units by 2012. The Charlotte Housing Trust Fund, established in 2001 by the
city council to provide financing for affordable housing, estimates the cost to meet
even half of the affordable housing need by 2010 to be $75 million. Affordable
housing is defined as a home (including utilities) costing no more than 30% of the
occupant’s gross income. A city report found that close to half of the renters in the
Charlotte area pay more than that in this area where the average monthly rent is
$724.
A study for possible solutions to the affordable housing shortage in Charlotte was
completed in 2007 by the Housing Charlotte Committee, which was comprised of
representatives from more than 60 business, civic and city leaders. The report (see
http://www.housingcharlotte2007.org/HousingImplementation.pdf) recommends
that the implementation committee focus on five areas:
1. Education outreach and advocacy
2. Rental housing subsidy
3. Acquisition strategy
4. Dedicated funding source
5. Incentive-based inclusionary housing policies
Housing Charlotte is now in it’s implementation stage with a committee of 24
representatives from business, non-profit organizations and neighborhood
interests. The recommendations of the implementation committee are scheduled
for presentation to Charlotte’s City Council on November 24, 2008.
Another measure to address the shortage of affordable housing was approved by
voters on the November ballot: a $10 million affordable housing bond referendum
(activists were seeking $30 million). The city’s three bond referendums in 2002,
2004 and 2006 resulted in $45 million into the Charlotte Housing Trust Fund, which
provides low interest loans and grants to entice builders to construct and
rehabilitate low-rent units.
The Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) is tasked with the responsibility for
providing safe, decent housing options for low to moderate income families and
individuals. These include mixed-use and assisted living developments, and Section
8 vouchers. The CHA also provides services to residents to help them achieve selfsufficiency and home ownership opportunities by partnering with other social
service providers both private and public.
Private efforts to improve the affordable housing situation in Charlotte are
numerous and include:
 Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing Partnership is a nonprofit “housing
development and finance corporation organized to expand affordable and
11




well-maintained housing within stable neighborhoods for low and moderate
income families…with a continuing interest in the ability of occupants to
more fully enter the economic mainstream.”
Community Link (formerly The Travelers Aid Society), whose stated mission
is, “To help break the cycle of poverty by enabling working poor individuals
and families to obtain and sustain, safe, decent, and affordable housing.”
Charlotte’s WISH organization (Workforce Initiative for Supportive Housing)
is a non-profit, faith-based program that provides rental subsidies to working
poor in the area, particularly those families with children.
Charlotte’s affiliate of Habitat for Humanity is one of the nation’s most
successful, having provided housing to over 800 families and counting since
1983.
The YWCA sponsors the Women in Transition Program that is “…the only
comprehensive, long-term transitional housing program for unaccompanied
adult women in the Charlotte area.”
In addition to these efforts to fund, build and assist clients in finding affordable
housing, many other organizations function simply to keep people in their current
homes, and out of the homeless population. Crisis Assistance Ministry accomplishes
this task for over 80,000 people annually by providing emergency financial
assistance for mortgage or rent, and utilities.
The list could go on, and these organizations are crucial to thousands of CharlotteMecklenburg individuals and families. To paraphrase the words of a veteran of
civic, philanthropic and academic activities in Charlotte: In some ways, each
organization providing assistance with housing may be seen as operating in a silo –
grouped together, but operating without the benefit of coordination among each
other.
Homelessness
Over 5,000 people (including some 1,900 children) are estimated to be homeless in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg on any given day. This translates to tens of thousands
without homes in the region every year. Who are these people and how did they
come to be without homes? Like any group or population, individual characteristics
and circumstances differ, which makes the question of how to address the problem
a multi-faceted one with no single, simple solution. The homeless population in
Charlotte encompasses virtually every age group, ethnicity, and other statistical
demographic. Additionally, the causes of homelessness vary. Some of this
population can be identified as individuals or families who are homeless by
situation. That is, they live day to day with the risk that a job loss, a landlord
decision, a relationship change, or some other economic or social factor may put
them out on the street. The shortage of affordable housing in Charlotte, combined
with the mortgage crisis and a tough economic climate has led to concerns that the
numbers of such “situational homeless” may increase in the coming months.
Another segment of the homeless population are those who are chronically
homeless. In the Charlotte region, only 10% of those without homes fall into this
12
“street homeless” category. These are individuals, often suffering from mental
illness and/or substance abuse, who are consistently without a roof over their
heads.
Many individuals and organizations in the Charlotte community have worked
tirelessly on this issue, but much of the activity has been uncoordinated (similar and
related to the situation with respect to affordable housing), the result being a
patchwork of programs that inevitably leaves many of those in need without
assistance.
Mecklenburg County sponsored an assessment of homelessness in 2000 titled,
“Living in the Shadows”. This assessment led to the creation of the Mecklenburg
County Task Force on Homelessness, which used its 2002 study, “Out of the
Shadows”, to create the umbrella organization, A Way Home – The Mecklenburg
Council on Homelessness. The work of A Way Home focuses on strengthening the
efforts of the area’s Homeless Services Network (a loose affiliation of organizations
working with those in need) to “reduce the prevalence, duration and impact of
homelessness…through advocacy capacity building and strategic planning support.”
Pursuant to that goal, A Way Home completed a comprehensive implementation
strategy in 2006 entitled, “More Than Shelter! Charlotte Mecklenburg’s 10 Year
Plan to End and Prevent Homelessness---One Person/One Family at a Time” (see
http://www.awayhome.org/MoreThanShelterExecSum.pdf). The plan advocates
the shifting from a shelter-based, reactive model to a housing with enriched social
services model and A Way Home says the plan is currently in the implementation
stage.
Private efforts include a myriad of shelters and food services, social service
assistance with mental and physical healthcare, education, childcare, domestic
violence, job search, and transitional and affordable housing programs provided by
many organizations including the Salvation Army, United Way Central Carolinas,
United Family Services, the Charlotte chapter of the American Red Cross, the
Emergency Winter Shelter, Charlotte Rescue Mission, the YWCA Central Carolinas,
Crisis Assistance Ministry, the Uptown Day Shelter, Charlotte Emergency Housing,
Urban Ministry, Samaritan House, the Harvest Center, and others. Even individuals
help with this large and needy population in Charlotte by providing regular meals
and other simple services for the homeless at various locations around the area.
URBAN REVITALIZATION
Amidst all the growth, gentrification, and new development are some
neighborhoods whose residents feel overlooked, even ignored. Increasingly, many
of such areas are in the so-called “middle ring” of Charlotte, not inside the Center
City, but not suburban either. These older neighborhoods provide relatively
affordable (mostly rental) housing for low wage earners, as more middle class
residents become upwardly mobile and move away to suburban or Uptown areas.
13
Similarly, businesses follow residential trends, so the retail sections of these areas
are weakened by attrition over the years.
Charlotte’s Independence Boulevard corridor provides an excellent example of this
phenomenon. On Charlotte’s Eastside, residents and merchants feel it’s their turn to
receive the focus of Charlotte leaders. In April, the city council approved $400,000
to study the corridor on the Eastside, and retained the consulting firm of Glatting,
Jackson, Kercher, and Anglin (known for it’s work on the light rail station plan for
CATS) for the project. The hope is the plan will provide a strategy for accessibility
and land use that will allow existing neighborhoods to thrive, as well as position the
corridor for future growth.
The area is essentially dominated by busy Independence Boulevard, which cuts
across a once-thriving residential and commercial neighborhood. Surface street
access is limited, one-time neighbors are cut-off from one another – the sense of
community is difficult to maintain in such circumstances. Compounding the problem
is Eastland Mall. A long-time Eastside community anchor and more recently a
symbol of Eastside decay, the mall continues to present consternation for city and
neighborhood leaders. The owner of the mall recently walked away from the
property, petitioning a court to name a third party to manage and sell it (as an
alternative to foreclosure proceedings). The city had previously purchased options
on two of the mall’s anchor properties, which may provide some leverage for the
city to have a hand in future planning for the mall.
Currently, a Citizens Advisory Group is working with the consultants and city staff to
develop the revitalization plan, following three community forums to provide
stakeholder input, as well as interviews with individuals and organizations. The
City Council expects to adopt the plan in the spring of 2009. Thus far, the Advisory
Group has identified 9 fundamental principals to guide the planning process:
1. Strengthen, Build & Protect Neighborhoods
2. Create Nodes
3. Reclaim & Showcase Natural Systems
4. Orient Towards Monroe & Central
5. Leverage Opportunities (e.g. foster public/private partnerships)
6. Provide [mobility and land use] Choices
7. Balance Neighborhood, Community and Regional Needs
8. Define U.S. 74
9. Implement the Plan
A draft of the fundamental principals guiding the plan that emerged from the
community forums is available at http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land Use
Planning/IndependenceBlvd/CitizenAdvisoryRevisedPrinciplesComments(2008_08
_Aug_07).pdf
14
IMMIGRATION
Community Snapshot
About 12% of Mecklenburg County’s population was born outside of the United
States. By far the largest and fastest growing immigrant population in the Charlotte
region is Latino peoples. In the 1990’s, almost one in four new residents arriving in
Charlotte was Latino. More recently, North Carolina ranked third nationally in per
capita Latino population growth from 2006 to 2007, and Mecklenburg County added
over 16,000 Latinos in that period to an already burgeoning community that makes
up some 9% of the County’s population. Within the city limits, that percentage was
11% in the 2006 census (over 75,000 people).
The impact of this significant population on the infrastructure, cultural life and
future of the Charlotte region is only just beginning to be studied and understood.
Likewise, the Latino community’s changing needs also require assessment in light of
its rapid growth and complex nature. A 2006 Mecklenburg County Latino
Community Needs Assessment (MCLCNA) by the Urban Institute of UNC Charlotte
(funded by a grant to the Latino American Coalition from the Knight Foundation)
provides a good starting point for a discussion of the impact and needs of the
community (see
http://www.ui.uncc.edu/docs/DocumentArchives/LACNAP_Report_Final7-1106.pdf).
In their book, Latinos in the New South, Heather Smith and Owen Furuseth of UNCC,
provide an excellent snapshot of the Latino community in the Charlotte region:
While Charlotte had a small group of elite-born Cuban, Puerto Rican and South
American residents as early as the 1970’s, today’s Latino community is far more
complex. The last twenty years have seen immigrants largely of Mexican decent
with a steady influx also from Central and South America (especially, Colombia,
Venezuela, and El Salvador). Many of Charlotte’s more recent Latino arrivals have
come not from their native lands, rather they are migrating from other less
economically-advantaged places in the U.S. to the Charlotte region. Additionally,
whereas the majority of Latino immigrants in the 1980’s and ‘90’s were young
males, today the region is increasingly attracting families as evidenced by the
growth of Latino children in public school enrollment figures (now 15% of CMS
students). Latino’s are more likely than other Mecklenburg County residents to live
in poverty (22.5%) and in crowded living conditions (34.9%). Almost half of this
population have not earned high school diplomas and are working in low wage jobs.
Median Latino household income is less than 75% of the Mecklenburg County
median income. Three neighborhoods, while not majority Latino, provide homes for
most of the Latino residents in the region – the Eastside, Southwest Charlotte, and
North Charlotte.
The Latino community is increasingly visible, yet observers note that it remains
somewhat “outside” of the greater Charlotte community. The causes of this
separation include language barriers, the historically transient nature of Latinos in
15
Charlotte, and their immigrant status. The Social Capital Benchmark Survey,
conducted in 2001 on behalf of the Foundation for the Carolinas by Voices and
Choices and the UNCC Urban Institute, indicated that the Charlotte region is not
particularly welcoming or inclusive of “outsiders”. In fact, the Charlotte region
ranked 39th out of 40 communities surveyed in its level of social and inter-racial
trust. The Survey concluded, “The most significant finding from this study is that
the Charlotte region needs to build social capital including social and inter-racial
trust if it is to continue to be viewed as a growing, dynamic Southern and national
city. Failure to develop a higher level of social capital will defer if not destroy this
dream.”
Efforts are being made within the Charlotte community to achieve racial and ethnic
inclusion and equity. One such effort is the Foundation for the Carolina’s Crossroads
Charlotte project that intends to “involve leaders and community organizations in
meaningful dialogue and promote individual and organizational actions that will
build social capital and promote access, equity, inclusion and trust”. Activists
believe that continued commitment to this and other outreach partnerships is
crucial to the long-term health of both the immigrant community in Charlotte, as
well as the greater Charlotte region. As discussed below, these are challenging goals
in an increasingly divisive political environment.
Public Policy Debate
From a public policy perspective, the welfare of the entire region requires
attentiveness to all segments of the region’s population. The significant numbers
and increasingly permanent nature of the Latino population in Charlotte emphasize
the necessity of addressing the community’s needs and working to ensure the area’s
infrastructure (particularly public transportation, healthcare, childcare and
education) is adequate to provide support for all of Charlotte’s residents. However,
the current economic and political climate, as well as the fact that a large percentage
of Latino immigrants are undocumented makes tackling this issue challenging to say
the least.
Several non-profit organizations are working to meet the Latino community’s needs.
The Latin American Coalition is the region’s largest non-profit Latino-focused
service and advocacy organization. Partner agencies of the LAC include United Way,
Crisis Assistance Ministry, Goodwill, International House, the Arts and Sciences
Council, and Communities in Schools among others. Independently and together
these organizations try to provide support to the community on a variety of levels:
advocacy initiatives such as labor and consumer rights programs, immigration
services, and grassroots efforts to empower Latinos; also educational initiatives like
tutoring and workforce development programs, small business development, firsttime homebuyers support, and programs to assist women and children.
Governmental responses to the Latino community are a more complicated matter,
especially given the “hot button” nature of immigration in America today. While
16
most agree that immigrants legally living in the U.S. are entitled to the public
benefits that go along with such residency, significant debate exists over whether
undocumented immigrants should receive the same benefits. Great public pressure
exists to oust immigrants in the country illegally. On the Federal level, local
Congresswoman Sue Myrick has made illegal immigrants her legislative target by
sponsoring initiatives such as a bill to deny grants and federal dollars to colleges
and universities that admit students who are in the country without proper
documentation. N.C. Senator Elizabeth Dole also vigorously supports efforts to
prevent federal dollars from in any way supporting undocumented immigrants by
calling for strict adherence to immigration laws and making her stance a key issue in
her reelection campaign. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency
(ICE) placed one of only four fugitive-tracking teams in Charlotte, which is tasked
with the pursuit of fugitive undocumented immigrants that have left other U.S. areas
after being scheduled for deportation (6,000 are thought to be in the area). At the
State level, the North Carolina Community College Board barred undocumented
students from attending the system’s schools. North Carolina’s state legislature also
exhibited a trend in the most recent legislative session towards denying funding or
services to undocumented immigrants. Mecklenburg County also adopted practices
that follow this public policy trend. For example, Sheriff Chip Bailey lauds the 287g
program started in 2006 (and the first such program in the country) that trains
sheriff’s deputies to identify Hispanics who commit crimes, then begin deportation
for those in the country illegally.
Since the costs of most public social services associated with immigrants fall largely
on local governments, there is significant (and progressively more emotionallycharged) debate in the Charlotte area as to whether the growing costs are justified
by the economic benefits provided by this population, particularly when some of the
group is without documentation.
The economic benefits of the Latino community in Charlotte were discussed in a
2006 study by the Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise (part of the Kenan-Flagler
Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), entitled "The
Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina." The
study was funded by the North Carolina Bankers Association, in cooperation with
the Consulate of Mexico in Raleigh, NC. The Kenan Study found Hispanics in
Charlotte contribute close to $2 million to the city’s county, while the community
has a buying power of almost $1.9 million.
Proponents of those who would limit access to public benefits to undocumented
residents argue that by enforcing immigration laws and restricting social services,
the Charlotte area will become less attractive to illegal immigrants and those
remaining or arriving will be only legal immigrants. The MCLCNA found that most
researchers agree that access to public benefits has little or no impact on an
immigrant’s decision to move to or stay in a locality. The key factor is economic
opportunity in the form of good job markets and low housing costs, both of which
the Charlotte region continues to offer relative to many other areas across the U.S.
17
The MCLCNA concluded that whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea that
only citizens and documented residents are entitled to certain public social services,
the fact of the matter is that the existing circumstances with respect to the large
Latino community cannot be ignored and require some public and private action to
ensure the welfare of the greater Charlotte community.
The MCLCNA found the greatest needs facing Mecklenburg’s Latinos were increased
employment services, bilingual and culturally aware services, affordable and
accessible health care, educational opportunities such as English as a Second
Language classes, better public transportation, and changes in immigration laws and
residency status. Additionally, the report recommended that improved
coordination and communication among those already assisting the community
would go a long way towards improving matters for the Latino community.
Infrastructure Implications
The most obvious needs of the any community fall into five categories: housing,
employment, healthcare, education, and transportation. With a population of at
least 75,000 and one in which over 20% live below the poverty line, the Charlotte
region’s Latino community has a great impact on the area’s infrastructure.
Housing
The “middle ring” neighborhoods where many Latinos in Charlotte reside are
significantly influenced by the presence of this single ethnic group, particularly now
that more families are in the mix that used to be primarily single males. The
Eastside, Southwest Charlotte, and North Charlotte provide homes for majority of
the area’s Latino community. The neighborhoods are attractive to immigrants
because of the availability of affordable rental housing, the proximity to businesses
that cater to their needs, and the desire to live among largely Spanish-speaking
peers.
To some extent, the abundance of Latino residents has led to some revitalization of
formerly declining neighborhoods and moribund business corridors. This is
particularly true of the Eastside and Southwest Charlotte areas where, for example,
immigrant-owned businesses now occupy many previously vacant commercial
spaces along Central Avenue and South Boulevard. These businesses bring tax
income to the city and state, as well as provide a spending outlet for Latino
shoppers.
An increasing concern with respect to housing matters associated with the Latino
community is the risk of homelessness. Rising unemployment among low-wage
workers in the Charlotte region raises the prospect that some of these individuals
and families may be unable to remain in their current housing and will end up on
the street. Being homeless in Charlotte is difficult enough, but being homeless and
18
having poor or no English language skills is even tougher as many homeless services
are not adequately prepared to respond to this constituency.
Employment
In troubled economic times, low-wage workers are typically the first to feel the pain.
As a majority of Latino workers fall into this category, the community is clearly
among the hardest hit in the Charlotte region. Goodwill Industries reported recently
that it’s JobLink program saw a 238% increase in Hispanic job seekers in the first six
months of 2008, versus the same period last year. While some of these individuals
are undoubtedly undocumented immigrants, the fact that this very large population
is unemployed causes community-wide burdens on public services and the region’s
economy.
The MCLCNA found that the greatest need for Mecklenburg County’s Latino
residents is that of increased employment opportunities. Clearly the organizations
that are currently trying to meet this need (among them Goodwill, United Way and
the Latin American Coalition) are unable to keep up with the increasing demand for
assistance in finding jobs.
Childcare
The search for affordable, accessible, and good quality childcare is extremely
challenging for those in the Latino community. Licensed bi-lingual facilities are rare,
and childcare subsidies are extremely limited, leaving some Latino parents to make
arrangements with neighbors and family, or use unlicensed facilities.
Healthcare
The rising presence of families in the Latino community, especially more
childbearing-age women and children, increases the need for accessible, bi-lingual,
and affordable preventive and primary health care services – particularly in the
areas of prenatal and pediatric care. Many in Charlotte’s Latino community seek
medical attention only in extreme emergencies. Many do not have, nor can they
afford health insurance, nor do they qualify for Medicaid. The lack of affordable,
accessible (within walking distance or near public transportation), and bilingual
health care is costly on many levels. Students miss school, laborers cannot work,
and highly communicable diseases are untreated.
Education
The importance of educational programs starts even before the children are of
school age and programs like CMS’s Bright Beginnings for at risk 4 year olds, as well
as Head Start and More at Four are a few tools in use for preparing children of low
income families for school. Such programs are under fire for their costs and
criticisms that they are not having any real academic impact, and are therefore at
risk of falling victim to public and private program budget cuts.
Approximately 10% of CMS students participate in English as a Second Language
programs (the majority of which are Spanish-speaking). Many of these students
19
come from economically disadvantaged families where the parents do not have high
school diplomas, factors that make the students at risk for poor performance and
high drop out rates. The school system is working to create effective strategies to
teach English to these students, and improve their performance on standardized
tests, but continuing budget constraints pose a constant threat to the success of such
strategies. Additionally, CMS launched Parent University this summer in an effort to
provide training to parents so they can be more effective in assisting with their
child’s education, and also to provide access to educational opportunities for
parents. Some of the assistance offered will be GED courses, literacy and math
programs, as well as English as a second language classes.
Transportation
While Charlotte’s public transportation system is improving its access to previously
underserved areas, those living in some areas continue to find it challenging to catch
a bus. This is critically important on a variety of levels to the Latino community,
which is significantly dependent on public transportation on a daily basis. The
MCLCNA found that the majority of Latino-oriented public services are located in
Uptown, which requires time, money and transportation to access. Latino
commuting to and from work also is highly dependent upon public transit because
many cannot get drivers licenses (since they are without documentation). While
some individuals will drive without a license, others do not and for those Latinos
living in the more affordable outer reaches of Mecklenburg County the commute can
range from discouragingly lengthy to entirely unavailable.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
The subject of public education in Charlotte is one that understandably, given the
school system’s turbulent history, evokes a wide variety of reactions – ranging from
laudatory comments to exasperation. The Charlotte Mecklenburg School District
(CMS) is responsible for the education of some 134,000 students, from pre-K
through high school graduation. CMS provides the following “fast facts”:
 174 total schools – 10 pre-K and alternative schools, 99 elementary schools,
31 middle schools, and 34 high schools
 Annual budget over $1 billion
 17,061 employees – 8,860 teachers
 1,241 buses utilizing 37,000 bus stops for 111,000
 120 native languages spoken by CMS students
 12,443 students enrolled in English as a second language programs
 24 million meals served per year
 49,480 volunteers
 Student body composition is 4% Asian, 4% American Indian/Multi-racial,
15% Hispanic, 35% White, and 42% African American
20
The last three years have seen significant changes in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
School system. The challenges remain great, but most observers agree that progress
is being made towards improving public education in Charlotte.
The prioritization of education on the civic agenda began in earnest after voters’
sound defeat in November 2005 of an education bond package, exposing quite
clearly the public’s lack of trust in its school board and the school district’s
management. The Foundation for the Carolina established the Citizens’ Task Force
on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in July 2005. Comprised of 16 corporate and
civic leaders and led by co-chairs Cathy Bessant of Bank of America and former
Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt, the Task Force was charged with overseeing a study
of the school system’s governance and management and making recommendations
to ensure a positive education experience for all CMS students. The resulting
December 2005 report, “Findings and Recommendations of the Citizens’ Task Force
on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools” (see
http://www.fftc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=100) identified 21
recommendations and resulted in the 2006 creation of Mecklenburg Citizens for
Education (Meck Ed), an independent, non-profit organization that “…mobilizes
leadership, rallies resources, and engages the community so all CMS students will
achieve significant, measurable academic success.”
Among the Task Force recommendations was the need for a strong superintendant
of schools, and one who would be given greater authority and be held accountable
via a performance contract. In July 2006, CMS hired Dr. Peter Gorman as
Superintendant. Within 100 days of his arrival, Dr. Gorman unveiled the CMS
“Strategic Plan 2010: Educating Students to Compete Locally, Nationally, and
Internationally” (see
http://pages.cms.k12.nc.us/gems/superintendent/100DayPlanParent.pdf). The
plan outlined seven keys to success for CMS, the primary focus being the first - high
academic achievement – and the remaining six goals supported that focus:
1. High academic achievement
2. Effective educators
3. Adequate resources and facilities
4. Safe schools
5. Freedom and flexibility with accountability
6. World-class service
7. Strong parent and community connections.
The influence of the Task Force recommendations on the CMS strategic plan is
evident in several areas.
One of the key recommendations of the Task force was decentralization of the CMS
bureaucracy to better position resources for schools, and to provide increased
flexibility to teachers and principals to fix the needs of their student populations.
Decentralization was also included in the Strategic Plan and in July 2007, CMS
established six geographic Learning Communities and an Achievement Zone (for
21
closer management of the district’s lower performing schools), each with its own
Area Superintendent. One year into the Learning Community era, the question of
whether this is true decentralization from Uptown (as envisioned by the Task
Force) is debatable. Many education watchdogs have seen little in the way of
flexibility within individual schools or real impactful authority on the part of the
area superintendants.
Another goal of the CMS Strategic Plan was the provision of adequate resources and
facilities. To this end, the then-new Superintendent Gorman campaigned tirelessly
in 2007 for a $516 million bond package, which voters approved by a 2 to 1 margin.
The funds are currently being used for 40 projects, including 12 new schools to
alleviate overcrowding. Although the pace of enrollment growth has slowed in the
last year, persistent overcrowding continues - particularly in suburban areas and
increasingly at the middle and high school levels. For example, Community House
Middle School with an enrollment of over 1,500 students is the largest middle
school in the Carolinas. Critics argue that In such instances, having new schools on
the drawing board does little to provide relief at the present, which raises the sticky
subject of redistricting. CMS has made great strides in recent years to try to include
all stakeholders in discussions of redistricting, holding community forums and
keeping the process transparent to minimize controversy.
The Strategic Plan’s aim to make strong parent and community connections is
slowly coming to fruition with the establishment of Parent University. The initiative
is aimed at training parents in ways to encourage and support their students, as well
as assisting parents in obtaining learning opportunities of their own. The free
courses for parents include GED, literacy, and ESL and are located at area schools,
libraries, businesses, houses of worship, and nonprofit and government offices. At
this point, however, the Parent University training is only offered during traditional
business hours and that may be problematic for many of the targeted families
because childcare needs and/or jobs may make participation during such hours
difficult, if not impossible.
The Task Force recommendations pertaining to the school district’s governance
have not, to date, been implemented. The report suggested the reduction of the
School Board from 9 to 7 members, and change of responsibilities to that of a policy
board, and a redrawing of district lines to adjust for population changes. To ensure
continuity, the Task Force recommended a rotating 4 year-term basis. The Task
Force also suggested that the seats all be district based, rather than the current
district and at-large seats, and elected by county voting, with one seat assigned by
the County Board of Commissioners.
Of course, significant challenges continue to face public educators in Charlotte. An
example of the magnitude of the task at hand is the 66.6% graduation rate for CMS.
This rate increases dramatically for the thousands of students living in poverty and
the lowest levels of graduation occur with limited English speakers, Native
Americans, students with disabilities, Hispanics and African American students. The
22
school district and education activists recognize that effective answers to these
constituencies in particular are vital to the long-term success of CMS, as well as to
the greater Charlotte community in general.
The continued reference by the community to the Citizens’ Task Force and the clear
influence of it’s recommendations in the CMS Strategic Plan, as well as the vitality of
Meck Ed two years after it’s inception is a testament to the Charlotte community’s
persistent determination to make the success of the public education system a top
priority. The challenges are, and will continue to be, ongoing.
AT-RISK CHILDREN AND YOUTH
The overall wellbeing of the Charlotte region’s children and teens is another subject
that is interwoven with other topics of discussion in this report. The need to
provide our children and youth with housing, healthcare, education, early childhood
development programs, safe homes and neighborhoods, clean air and water,
recreational and cultural activities, and skills for adult life are crucial to the success
of the community.
Of course, the task is enormous and complex, but according to some observers
Charlotte-Mecklenburg appears to be on the right track. In 2007, America’s Promise
Alliance, a group founded by General Colin Powell and now the largest multi-sector
collaborative dedicated to the well-being of children and youth in the United States,
named Charlotte one of the 100 Best Cities for Young People. America’s Promise
noted the region’s success in creating partnerships and collaborations “across all
sectors from public to private and faith-based” organizations. Highlighted programs
included the high level of volunteerism in public schools, the Mayor’s Mentoring
Alliance, A Gang of One, Right Moves for Youth, Think College, and the Council for
Children’s Rights.
As the region has grown, so have efforts to provide for children and youth in the
community. In the late 1990’s, several nonprofit organizations serving the needs of
families and children worked with community leaders in Charlotte to address how
to more effectively coordinate their operations to better serve those in need. The
result was a $9 million fundraising campaign to build the Children’s Family Services
Center (CFSC), which now houses nine agencies, creating a single location for many
social services that is near public transportation and centrally situated in the First
Ward. CFSC’s goals include reducing crime and homelessness, enhancing
communities, fostering self-reliance, properly educating children, keeping families
together and decreasing abuse and neglect.
The CFSC provides a good starting point for a discussion of at-risk children and
youth because the activities of the agencies housed in the Center’s represent a
picture of the variety of services children, youth and their families require.
Moreover, the CFSC is a good example of how the creation of a coordinated system
23
of independent providers working collaboratively with each other, as well as with
public and private providers outside of the CFSC, can ease the access to and delivery
of services for those they serve. The agencies at CFSC are:
1. A Child’s Place – Ensures the physical, educational, social and emotional
needs of homeless children are met (from clothing to school supplies to
medical care and tutors), enabling them to succeed in school. A secondary
goal is to help families reduce their periods of homelessness.
2. Alexander Youth Network - Provides a comprehensive array of services
developed to treat children with, or at risk for, serious emotional
disturbance.
3. Communities in Schools – Connects community resources (such as tutoring,
mentoring, health care, arts education and community service) with children,
youth, and families at the children's schools.
4. Community Health Services - Provides preventive healthcare for
underserved children and adults. The services target Mecklenburg County
residents who are uninsured, underinsured, or otherwise lacking access to
affordable, timely, and high quality health care.
5. Community Link – Utilizes community resources to efficiently provide
effective individualized long-term services (e.g. job training, counseling,
educational programs, substance abuse programs, etc.) to break the cycle of
poverty among individuals and families and move them towards
independence.
6. Council for Children’s Rights - Provides a unified, comprehensive
continuum of advocacy and legal services for children’s issues, including
research, legal representation, best interest advocacy, systems advocacy, and
public education (particularly in areas of special education, abuse/neglect,
mental health, custody domestic violence and juvenile justice).
7. Smart Start of Mecklenburg County/Mecklenburg Partnership for
Children – This local chapter of a statewide public-private initiative, funds
and partners with community programs to improve the quality, affordability,
and accessibility of family support, health and early care & education
services. A few of these services include: child care subsidy, pre-k
classrooms for bilingual and at-risk children, advanced education for child
care providers, dental services, community education and outreach.
8. United Family Services - Offers programs and counseling services to
individuals, families and communities in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Union and
South Iredell Counties via counseling and education relating to issues such as
domestic violence, economic independence, employee assistance, and
advocacy for victims of violent crimes.
9. Youth Homes, Inc. - Provides an array of responsive programs to give hope,
help and healing to children in need of temporary out-of home care and to
youth and families in need of supportive services and care. These programs
include foster care services, delinquency prevention, family restoration, and
professional parenting.
24
The CFSC also coordinates its agencies’ activities with those of United Way of
Central Carolinas, Crisis Assistance Ministry, and Thompson Child and Family Focus
(TCFF). All three organizations provide crucial assistance to at-risk children, youth
and families. The recent merger of TCFF and The Family Center further illustrates
the increased recognition among service providers in the Charlotte area that
collaboration makes the provision of care to the needy less expensive, more
efficient, and ultimately better for their constituency.
The Urban League’s Urban Youth Empowerment Program is an initiative that
exemplifies the potential success of public and private partnerships in providing
services to at-risk youth. The program, with an 80% success rate, involves
participation in a nine-month session that helps school dropouts and young
offenders achieve GEDs; find steady employment; or enroll in vocational schools, the
military or college. The successful program recently fell victim to budget cuts by the
U.S. Department of Labor, leaving it without funding to continue. Fortunately, a
generous and quick response by the Levine Foundation and, subsequently,
additional funding from the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services
saved the program and will even allow for increased participation and changes in
strategies that may provide for even greater successes.
The Children’s Alliance provides another example of how the CharlotteMecklenburg region is trying to serve as a national model for restructuring how atrisk children are cared for. The Children's Alliance describes its activities as, “a
collaborative of nearly 50 public and private agencies that have joined together to
create approaches to human services that are holistic, accountable, participatory,
and workable across systems.”
The community’s commitment to serving the needs of children and youth is evident
in the United Agenda for Children (UAC). In 2004, the Foundation for the Carolinas
collaborated with the Lee Institute and a coalition of 1,000 individuals, civic leaders,
corporations, public entities and community agencies to convene in the largest
citizen’s meeting in the history of Mecklenburg County to address health, safety and
education issues relating to the county’s children. The resulting United Agenda for
Children listed 14 priorities to ensure a positive future for all Mecklenburg County
youth:
1. Increase school resources for health-care services, especially by
employing school nurses
2. Provide health-care services at home, school and day care facilities.
3. Increase health programs in schools
4. Implement universal health care
5. Coordinate services among providers, nonprofit agencies and faith-based
organizations
6. Teach parenting skills and hold parents accountable for their child’s safety
7. Increase after-school and out-of-school activities
8. Improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of child care and day care
9. Increase employer support for child care, school visits and mentoring
25
10. Require higher standards and provide better pay for teachers and teaching
assistants
11. Expand and improve facilities including smaller classrooms and better
student-teacher ratios
12. Improve communication between parents and schools
13. Increase the number of mentoring programs for students
14. Expand Bright Beginnings and take it to community sites
Two years later, in 2006, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Community Foundation (an
affiliate of FFTC) underwrote a task force comprised of key stakeholders that
utilized the UAC priorities as a basis for developing a unified action plan to identify
progress made, gaps and needs remaining in serving the needs of children and
youth in the region. (see
http://www.dukemansion.com/leeinstitute/images/PDFs/UAC_WhitePapers.pdf).
This list of participants in the development of the UAC action plan essentially
provides a “who’s who” of individuals and organizations, both public and private,
working on behalf of children in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Among the participants:
CMS, CMPD, several Mecklenburg County departments (Health, Mental Health, Social
Services, Sheriff, and Parks and Recreation), the Mayor’s Mentoring Alliance,
Charlotte Public Library, Juvenile Court representatives, the Guardian Ad Litem
program, CFSC, Girl Scouts, Carolinas HealthCare, Youth Homes, Inc., United Way of
Central Carolinas, United Family Services, the Knight Foundation, Children’s Law
Center, UNCC Institute for Social Capital, Community Health Services, Summit
House, Junior League, Child and Family Focus, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of
Charlotte, Communities in Schools, Partners in Out-of-School Time, Athletes United
for Youth, Child Care Resources, Inc., Smart Start, Charlotte Advocates for Education,
Salvation Army, YWCA of Central Carolinas, Youth Leadership Institute, Arts and
Science Council, Junior Achievement, Right Moves for Children, the Levine Museum
of the New South, Charlotte Advocates for Education, and the Council for Children’s
Rights.
The collaboration of these groups and individuals on the United Agenda for Children
resulted in an unplanned, but valuable synergy among the individual participants,
and ultimately an increased level of coordination in their provision of services on
behalf of the children and youth in the community.
The task force action plan continued the UAC’s previous discussion on health, safety,
and education, but also broadened the focus of its plan to include the vital areas of
out-of-school time, parental involvement and childcare. While participants agreed
that progress is being made in all areas, the bottom line is that funding is always
going to be the primary issue, and the work on behalf of the children and youth of
the Charlotte region is never-ending and will always require adaptation to the
changing economic and social climes of the region. While the UAC has been
deactivated (as planned), the Charlotte Mecklenburg Community Foundation funds
26
a task force of stakeholders that continues to evaluate various models of
appropriately implementing the agenda to better serve the needs of Charlotte’s atrisk children and teens.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Crime Rates and Public Confidence
Statistically, while crime rates are up overall from 2007, the last few months in
Charlotte have witnessed a decline in the incidence of most categories of crime.
Despite the more positive recent crime statistics, a Charlotte Observer poll indicated
that the residents of the community do not feel any improvement – in fact, 42% of
those polled said they feel less safe now then they did last year. A fundamental
requirement for growth and prosperity is a sense of safety on behalf of visitors and
residents. City and County officials are taking note and efforts are occurring at all
levels to address the issue.
An example of City actions is the measure crafted this year, which would force
landlords to address problems at their properties where crime is frequent, or face
substantial fines. Mayor McCrory participated in a Caravan to Raleigh in 2007
where over 250 people traveled to the Capitol to elicit support from state legislators
for funding anti-crime measures in Charlotte. Despite such measures to fight crime,
the City Council has not budgeted sufficiently for the growth of the police
department to support the growth of the city over the last two decades.
The Mecklenburg County Commissioners created the Criminal Justice and Public
Safety Task Force to study the Charlotte’s criminal justice system, and address other
public safety issues in order to create a strategy for moving forward. The County
Commissioners also approved $4 million to implement the crime fighting initiatives
recommended by the Task Force (twice the earlier proposed amount). Both
measures were in response to a very vocal and organized grass roots movement to
raise the profile of crime in Charlotte.
New Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe came on the job with
significant challenges in a city where the public feels increasingly unsafe, tough
economic times are causing numerous concerns, many are questioning the drastic
rise of use of force by police, and several violent teen murders occurred within a two
week span in August. The pressure on the new Chief was multiplied further by
another finding of The Observer poll that shows just 42% of white respondents said
they were highly confident the police would keep them safe, and only 29% of blacks
polled felt the same way.
Chief Monroe has taken steps to reorganize the police department to achieve his
stated number one priority: reducing crime. The most visible effect of the
reorganization is the large increase of officers on the street – over 1,000 are on
patrol with 39 response area commanders who will be responsible for identifying
27
and addressing the particular matters of concern in their command area. Chief
Monroe also doubled the size of Charlotte’s gang unit, and established a new youth
crime unit to focus on children who have been victims of violent crime.
The Chief utilized this neighborhood-specific crime fighting approach in his former
post in Richmond, Virginia with success. Called “community prosecution”, the plan
goes after neighborhood-specific crime patterns in each command area by assigning
officers and a representative of the district attorney’s office specifically to each area.
The approach allows crime fighters in each area to become familiar with the
criminal trends and perpetrators in their territory, which in turn allows for areafocused criminal prosecution and less “catch-and-release” of habitual offenders.
While a more visible police presence may reassure an anxious public and could lead
to a drop in crime, some critics are worried that other valuable police services may
be diminished by the loss of officers to patrol from their previous roles in
specialized units such as the street crimes and international units.
The Criminal Justice System
As two Charlotte community activists for justice recently noted, “A functional court
system is not a luxury.” The criminal justice system in Charlotte faces numerous
challenges with no easy fixes. Many first offenders are released before facing trial
(many ending up becoming second offenders before their trial date), and other
suspects awaiting trail can remain in jail so long (the average is 100 days) that once
they are sentenced, they have already served the maximum sentence allowed for the
crime. The court system has a 9 to 10 month wait time for trail due to a shortage of
prosecutors (each with over 500 cases), only 2 courtrooms, and too heavy a
caseload for its too few judges to efficiently dispense. The turnover rate in the
District Attorney’s office is high and the state is looking at ways of changing its
funding to provide better salaries. Simply managing the day-to-day duties of the
criminal justice system is difficult with these many challenges. As District Attorney
Peter Gilchrist said, “We are still some distance away from being able to cover just
the big stuff, much less to be able to do the next step…”
Improving the criminal justice system in Charlotte is dependant upon funding from
the state to beef up the court system with more attorneys in the District Attorney’s
office, more judges, and more jail and court space for holding and trying suspects.
The County Commissioners’ Justice and Public Safety Task Force is a 14-member
panel of citizens that studied strategies for more appropriately allocating resources
for the city, county, and state criminal justice agencies in Mecklenburg County. The
Task Force heard from Chief Monroe, Sheriff Chipp Bailey, Mr. Gilchrist, two judges
and a state senator in their fact-finding phase. The group will also talked to crime
victims. The Task Force report released in November included 16
recommendations, the top priority being an improved relationship between the
police department and the district attorney’s office, and aligning the priorities of the
two organizations. The recommendations also focused on chronic offenders,
28
collaborating with CMS to target juvenile issues more effectively, and the creation of
a county “crime czar” to coordinate oversight of the criminal justice system.
Juvenile Delinquency and Gangs
Most gang members in Charlotte are under 21 years of age and male. CMPD founded
its Gang Intelligence Unit (GIU) in 2003. With Chief Monroe’s recent reorganization,
the GIU now has a dozen officers working exclusively on gang activity. The CMPD
estimates that some 2,000 gang members are members of about 150 gangs in the
Charlotte area, but these numbers are only educated guesses. A recent report by
CMS found 70 gangs with 450 members in the public schools. Some question the
accuracy of the CMS data, saying the numbers may be overestimated due to
inadequate training of school personnel to accurately identify gang behavior, but
clearly the schools do have some level of gang activity.
Most of the gangs are originated locally – while they may emulate the behavior and
rituals of larger national gangs, they are not affiliated with these organizations. A
good example is the Hidden Valley Kings gang. A large raid orchestrated by CMPDon
the Hidden Valley Kings in 2007 raised the public profile of the gang problem in
Charlotte. Charlotte’s only known national gang is MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha 13).
MS-13 is a notorious El Salvador-originated gang with a communication network
stretching from city to city across the U.S. Most of the members of MS-13 in
Charlotte are black males between the ages of 16 and 21, and members have been
linked to drugs, robberies, thefts and homicides.
Organizations that work with at-risk youth in Charlotte acknowledge that Chief
Roger’s build-up of the GIU is a good first step, but argue that the other side of the
equation also needs to be addressed. That is, the solution to juvenile delinquency
and gangs in Charlotte does not lie in higher arrest and incarceration rate alone. Of
course, residents want active gang members off of the streets, but an additional and
perhaps even greater goal, is keeping youth away from the temptation of illegal
behavior and gangs in the first place, and providing a way out for teens who join
gangs.
Even if Charlotte’s gangs are not as well-organized or as overwhelming in number as
other cities (e.g. Los Angeles is estimated to have over 40,000 members in some 700
gangs), the fact remains that this community is facing a growing problem that
requires quick action. In addition to the GIU, the CMPD established the Gang of One
program in 2004, which is directed by Reverend Frances Cook. As Rev. Cook so
succinctly puts it, “It’s not enough to just say ‘no’ to gangs. You have to say ‘yes’ to
something else.” In this spirit, the Gang of One partners with churches, schools, and
other community organizations to create opportunities to which at-risk youth can
say, “yes”.
In a community where the majority of households have the head adult(s) working,
youth must have supervised out-of-school time in order to prevent their
participation in juvenile crime and/or gangs. Reverend Cook points out that many
29
youths attracted to gangs are searching for a sense of belonging, camaraderie, even
love. The challenge is to demonstrate the reality that gangs are violent and will
likely lead to prison or death. This requires a commitment to educating teens where
they congregate. In addition, teens need positive alternative options - options that
are attractive for their free (out-of-school) time, so they will be less likely to be
influenced by negative peers. Some of the programs available in Charlotte have
been discussed previously in this report, including Right Moves for Youth, as well as
the Charlotte Boxing Academy and other programs do just that. Of course, funding
and space for these private nonprofit activities, as well as public programs is limited
– again, allowing for many of those in need to fall through the cracks and into the
criminal justice system.
ENVIRONMENT
The Charlotte region has been relatively slow to prioritize environmentalism.
Several factors have contributed to this delayed response, but probably the biggest
cause has been the area’s rapid and lengthy growth spurt. Development patterns
over the last twenty years have created co-centric circles surrounding Uptown with
little forethought on ideals such as conservationism or sustainability, and leading to
an expansive region reliant on automobile transportation.
While the region may have been a little late to the party, residents, businesses, and
government are increasingly talking “green”, and many projects and initiatives are
underway to address environmental issues in the region. Numerous organizations
have taken the environmental stewardship lead in Charlotte, including the Catawba
Lands Conservancy, the Davidson Lands Conservancy, the Charlotte chapter of the
Sierra Club, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Foundation’s Environmental
Committee, the Charlotte Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, the Catawba
Riverkeeper Foundation, the Foundation for the Carolinas, the American Institute of
Architects, Centralina Council of Governments, the Women’s Impact Fund, as well as
Bank of America, Wachovia, UNCC, NASCAR and the City and County governments.
In 2006, Charlotte was ranked 34th out of 100 large cities on urban sustainability by
SustainLane. SustainLane is a business that promotes green living to individuals,
businesses and government. SustainLane’s website provides an online community
for sharing information and news on sustainable living. The SustainLane rankings
rate how a city’s development meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For
example, the rankings look at “…which cities’ public transit, local food, and
development approaches are more likely to either limit or intensify…” the negative
economic and environmental reliance on fossil fuels. In Charlotte, SustainLane
recognized a new and emerging emphasis on “smart growth” – that is growth that
increases public transportation (e.g. the light rail LYNX system), improves air
quality, promotes renewable energy, and encourages infill in the core of the city (e.g.
South End). The study noted that the region is “poised to make itself a more
30
sustainable city”. Indeed, environmentalists in Charlotte say that recent projects
and activities indicate this two- year old report was right on target.
Water Quantity/Quality
Extreme drought conditions in the Charlotte metropolitan area, and across most of
the state have served as a wake-up call regarding the finite quantity of the water
supply. Local governments across North Carolina imposed a hodgepodge of water
restrictions, in turn leading to the state legislature to enact a law shifting emergency
water management away from local authority to the state level. The law requires
specified local conservation efforts and water transfers when certain defined water
emergency conditions exist. In addition, the Governor appointed a Drought
Management Advisory Group consisting of Duke Energy representatives, local and
state legislative leaders and businesses to determine a coordinated, long term plan
for drought management.
While local environmentalists consider the state law a good first step in water
conservationism, the long-term issues of reducing water consumption, making
efficient use and developing new supplies of water remain largely unaddressed
statewide and locally in the Charlotte region. Conservationists point to the
proactive efforts of Greenville and Wilmington in constructing underground
reservoirs for water storage as examples of responsible water policy that the
Charlotte region might emulate.
On the issue of water quality, the American Rivers environmental group recently
declared the Catawba River (the main source of water for the Charlotte region)
America’s Most Endangered River. The organization pointed to inadequate public
policies to protect the river, and increased demand for water due to the drought as
the two primary causes of the river’s sorry status. The state’s Drought Management
Advisory Group may begin a necessary discussion about long-term solutions to
water, but lasting change for the Catawba will require coordination between North
and South Carolina, as well as the businesses, localities, and utilities of both states.
In the meantime, the Catawba will continue to benefit from the activities of the
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit, volunteer-driven
organization that serves as “the voice of the Catawba” via advocacy, educational and
legal activities centered around the protection and enhancement of the River, its
lakes, tributaries and watershed.
Air Quality
Air quality was the weakest category for Charlotte in the SustainLane urban
sustainability ranking. Of course, air quality is not simply a Charlotte problem –
some of the particulate matter in this region’s air can be traced to the Tennessee
Valley. This is not to say that local clean air initiatives are not worthwhile, but
coordination of such activities with state, national and international programs is
31
essential to the success of clean air worldwide. As one local environmental activist
recently pointed out, “Air pollution knows no national or international boundaries.”
Reducing local auto and industrial emissions is especially challenging in light of the
Charlotte region’s sprawling development patterns (and the attendant reliance on
car transportation), but residents, business, and government are taking some steps
towards that goal.
The record high cost of gasoline has driven many commuters to abandon individual
cars and take the light rail and Charlotte Area Transit (CAT) buses, making mass
transit a significant topic of conversation in the Charlotte region. The LYNX south
corridor light rail will meet its ridership goal for 2025 in 2010. The phenomenal
success of the region’s first light rail segment has spurred much discussion about
expanding the LYNX project to destinations throughout the city and county. At this
point, however only a northeast line from Uptown to the University area is in the
planning stages and construction is still four years away.
Even before gas prices shot up so dramatically, 70% of Charlotte voters showed
their support of mass transit in voting down a proposal to repeal the 0.5% sales tax
that helps fund the system. The increasing usage and popularity of mass transit led
CATS to overhaul it’s 2032 Transit Plan in response to community input at meetings
around the region in an attempt to make the system more connective between
neighborhoods and not just to and from Uptown.
Increased residential development activities in Uptown, and in neighborhoods near
the Center City and along the light rail corridor also reflect the desire of residents to
spend less time in their cars, which bodes well for cleaner air and sustainability, as
well as alleviation of some traffic congestion.
Another indication that clean air is becoming a governmental priority is the
Centralina Clean Fuels Coalition. Charlotte-Mecklenburg participates in this US
Department of Energy Clean Cities program, which works directly with local
businesses and governments to promote better air quality and viable alternative
fuels in the region’s large transportation sector.
Green Building
A positive sep towards sustainability in the Charlotte region is the increased
commitment to green building, both in the residential and commercial development
arenas. In March 2005, about 50 people showed up for an interest group meeting to
discuss forming a Charlotte Region chapter of the United States Green Building
Council. One year later, the interest had grown to such an extent that over 300
attended the official launching of the Charlotte Region USGBC. The mission of the
USGBC is “to promote and advocate for sustainable buildings, sites practices,
products and lifestyles through the education of professionals within the building
32
and related industries, academia, public and private organizations, and the greater
Charlotte community.”
The USGBC developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating system, which provides a uniform set of standards for
environmentally sustainable construction. The system has four levels of LEED
ratings, the highest being Platinum, followed by Gold, Silver, and Certified. Both
residential and commercial developers in the Charlotte region have begun to
embrace green building, starting in 2006 with Mecklenburg County’s first LEED
certified building, the Lodge at The Sanctuary built by Crescent Communities.
Currently under construction in Uptown are at least two significant commercial
buildings that are aiming for Gold LEED certification (Wachovia’s Corporate Center,
and the Ritz Carlton Hotel). Also, Bank of America’s Corporate Center is undergoing
a five-year renovation with the intention of earning a LEED Gold rating. ImaginOn,
the Uptown public children’s library and home of the Children’s Theatre, is a Silver
LEED certified building, as will be the NASCAR Plaza Tower. UNCC, Winthrop
University, the YWCA and the Mecklenburg County also have green construction
projects underway.
Protecting, Preserving, and Restoring Flora and Fauna
Conservationists say that Charlotte’s explosive growth over the last two decades
often failed quite visibly in the area of environmental stewardship. Such a massive
and rapid influx of people inevitably leads to an equally large and immediate
demand for housing. That demand led to sprawling suburban development, often
resulting in the mass destruction of forests large and small, the loss of open space, as
well as the ruination of wildlife habitats. Several recent initiatives point to a shift
away from a laissez faire approach to environmentalism towards a larger effort to
bring Charlotte into the 21st century of green initiatives aimed at protecting,
preserving and restoring flora and fauna.
Until recently, the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department was
operating without the guidance of a Master Plan (the last such plan was completed
in 1992). Now under the new leadership of James Garges, the Department is
aggressively positioning itself to revitalize and grow parks and recreation in the
Charlotte region. In the development of the 10 Year (2008 to 2018) Comprehensive
Master Plan, the Department utilized a community survey, focus groups, public
forums and stakeholder input in order for the Plan to reflect the citizens’ desire.
The Plan acknowledges that the region’s rapid development “got ahead“of the
Department of Park and Recreation. Consequently, the County needs to “catch-up”
by focusing on the Plan’s three themes: conservation and stewardship; parks and
greenways; and recreation programs and facilities. The Plan recognizes that the
success of all three themes is reliant upon the County’s ability to acquire land in a
region that is losing 14 acres a day to development.
33
The Plan showed that 78% of those surveyed would definitely or most likely
support a parks bond to fund park and recreation projects across the County. The
County is considering a bond of up to $250 million for the November ballot.
The City of Charlotte is also showing a revitalized interest in open, green space in
Uptown. The Center City 2010 Vision Plan, adopted in 2000, called for a 20 acre
park spanning a freeway cap over I-277, as well as a linear park along I-277 and I-77
that would encircle Uptown. These initiatives would create walking and biking
paths that would connect neighborhoods around the Center City to each other and
the city center itself, minimizing the need for automobile usage in addition to
creating a “green necklace” around Uptown.
The City is also increasing its commitment to protect the city’s remaining tree
canopy. The Queen City’s once renowned tree canopy, arguably the city’s greatest
natural asset, has been severely depleted by natural and human causes over the last
two decades. Charlotte lost 35% of the canopy during this period, prompting the
City Council to enact a tree ordinance and create the Charlotte Tree Advisory
Commission. The ordinance is intended to protect trees in the public right of way,
and those on private property as they relate to development. The ordinance also
requires tree planting with new construction. The Commission’s vision is to serve
as advocates for renewing the community’s urban forest and educate citizens of the
importance of trees and landscaping as they pertain to quality of life issues.
Neighborhood activists, particularly in areas of suburban development, argue that
neither the ordinance nor the Commission have prevented the continued
destruction of green areas and forests in their neighborhoods. Some are hopeful
that these outlaying neighborhoods will see some improvement soon as a result of
the public and private sector’s increased emphasis on environmental issues.
In addition to governmental bodies, private organizations have taken up the
environmental mantle in Charlotte. The Carolina Thread Trail is an excellent
example of a private initiative that will provide an environmental benefit for the
public-at-large. The Thread Trail will link together a 15 county region by an
interconnected series of greenways. The Foundation for the Carolinas, the Trust for
Public Land, and the Catawba Land Conservancy formed a partnership to create the
Carolina Thread Trail project. The Land Conservancy is one of 24 North Carolina
trusts that actively work to conserve land by undertaking or assisting others in the
purchase of land for the purpose of protecting it from development and preserving
it for natural purposes. The Trust for Public Land is a national organization that
reclaims and preserves major river corridors and creates greenway systems in
locations where rapid growth threatens natural areas. The increased activity of
national organizations such as these in coordination with local green activists is
considered a promising sign for the future of environmental stewardship in the
Charlotte region.
34
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION
The Charlotte region’s decades of large-scale growth and development raise other
troubling issues, outside of environmental concerns. The rapid pace of residential
and commercial construction causes concerns with respect to traffic congestion,
road safety, as well as infrastructure maintenance and adequacy.
Infrastructure
A prime example of infrastructure not keeping up with the pace of development in
the Charlotte region is the recent abundance of water main breaks. A study by The
Charlotte Observer found that over the five-year period between 2003 and 2008, the
majority of water main breaks occurred in an area comprising less than one quarter
of the city between I-77 and Independence Boulevard. Some of the heaviest
traveled surface streets - Providence Road, South Boulevard and Queens Road were most likely to be impacted by breaks, and the hardest hit neighborhoods are
some of the city’s oldest areas - Myers Park and Dilworth. Areas with significantly
high construction activity are especially at risk. City and County officials assure
residents and businesses that the water delivery system is sound, but critics
question the age and installation of the system, and point to the rising incidence of
leaks, as well as the expensive, disruptive nature of repairs.
In the last five years, the city has spent $30 million on repairs to and rehabilitations
of water lines and expects to spend the same amount by 2013. Water user fees are
the sole source of funding for the water and sewer system in Charlotte and water
restrictions due to the drought has caused water usage to decline significantly
(however, this decline in usage may be largely offset by a 15% price hike). The
piecemeal repair, rehabilitation and replacement approach may be appropriate at
this point in Charlotte, but critics point to the potentially costly long-term effect of
putting off major repairs and rehabilitation: in Atlanta, the city had to sign a
consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency to repair it’s aging sewer
and water line system to the tune of $1 billion. In Birmingham, Alabama the
municipality is considering the possibility of filing for bankruptcy due to debt
incurred for similar water and sewage infrastructure improvement.
Fortunately, other utility services in the area (natural gas and electrical service)
have not encountered such notorious problems and this aspect of the infrastructure
appears, at least for the time being, to be keeping up with the pace of growth in the
region. Duke Power, for example, is using the South Charlotte area for a “smart
meter” pilot program. The meters improve the reliability of the electrical system and
communication from customers to the electric provider’s control center in this era
of increased power usage. Additionally, Duke Power spends $130 million a year to
meet the increasing electrical needs of the Carolinas. Regardless of such
innovations, local policymakers and residents alike are concerned that the area’s
continued expansion and the rising expenses of maintaining, repairing, and
35
extending the Charlotte region’s infrastructure could make potential time bombs of
these systems for essential utilities.
Transportation
Transportation issues largely follow housing patterns. For example, transportation
concerns associated with suburban development tend to range from concerns
relating to interstate and larger byway accessibility and congestion; surface street
adequacy and safety; and mass transit availability and convenience. In middle ring
and Uptown neighborhoods, surface streets and mass transit are the watchwords.
Solutions to such issues require a delicate balancing of local, state and federal
interests. The reality is that in most transportation matters, county and city officials
are at the mercy of funding and policy decisions made at the State and Federal
levels. Charlotte’s City Council is trying to address transportation concerns by
earmarking $170.2 million in the budget for projects to relieve congestion and make
road improvements. Nevertheless, state and federal funding are crucial to the
region’s transportation needs.
A new President, North Carolina Governor and corresponding legislatures will take
office in 2009. Until then, the Charlotte area is realistically in a holding pattern with
respect to state and federal input, financial or otherwise, on transportation issues.
At the state level, last year’s legislature set up the 21st Century Transportation
Committee to examine the transportation challenges facing the state and
recommend changes. Federal response will depend upon the winner of the
November election. President-elect Obama advocated during his campaign that the
Federal government play a larger role in improving the national transportation
network – he hopes to connect all regions via “a 21st Century infrastructure”
pointing to aging water, sewer systems and electrical grids, and dangerous bridges
and old roads as evidence of a faltering system that is costing Americans billions of
dollars.
Despite the uncertain funding future, the City of Charlotte has adopted a forwardthinking transportation agenda and is working on coordinating the goals of their
policy with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (which maintains
many major roadways in within the city), as well as Federal authorities. In May
2006, the Charlotte City Council adopted a 25 year Transportation Action Plan
(TAP) - the city’s first such comprehensive plan (see
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Transportation/Transportation+Action+P
lan.htm). The TAP recommends transportation improvements necessary to prepare
the city to meet its future transportation needs and better accommodate continuing
growth. While the plan addresses necessary roadway improvements, the City has
clearly recognized the need for transportation diversification away from automobile
usage and towards transit expansion, as well as pedestrian and bike modes of
movement.
The TAP reiterates the City’s vision to become “the premier city in the country for
integrating land use and transportation choices”. Noting the “direct beneficial
36
relationship between transportation and land use decisions”, the TAP utilizes a socalled “Centers and Corridors” development strategy to guide its recommendations.
This strategy is intended to achieve transportation goals, but also protect the quality
of life of Charlotte’s residents via an intensification of development along existing
centers and corridors - thereby allowing use of the existing infrastructure and
transportation systems, which will in turn provide additional employment and
housing opportunities in those areas.
The TAP goal of enhancing multi-modal capacity, and improving the connectivity of
streets and neighborhoods in order to increase the percentage of the population
that can live, work and play in the same neighborhoods is evident in local
transportation and land use initiatives currently in place (e.g. the light rail) or on the
drawing board (e.g. “the green necklace” proposal for encircling uptown with
greenways).
Critics of the TAP point out that the plan does little to provide for the very large
segment of the population who cannot or chose not to live near or in the urban
center of Charlotte, and are therefore predominantly dependant upon automobile
usage. In these areas, critics say that congestion is a daily headache and one that
doesn’t appear likely to improve significantly given state and federal funding and
policy limitations. The bottom line is that local governments are limited in their
authority with respect to transportation issues. In the Charlotte region, many
seemingly local roads are actually under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) - for example, McDowell Road is a statemanaged byway, while Tyvola Road is city-maintained. Highway funding for state
roads is derived from a gas sales tax. As N.C. residents cut down on gasoline usage
for environmental and/or financial reasons, the funds to improve roadways to
reduce congestion (thereby saving gas) and improve roadway safety decline
accordingly. Another factor in the equation is that the distribution of North Carolina
monies for road construction and repair is not tied to need, but rather operates on a
method of calculation that requires such funds to be evenly distributed among rural
and urban areas in the state. In fact, more state transportation funds per capita are
spent in rural areas, mainly in the northeastern and western parts of the state,
rather in the more populous urban centers like Charlotte. At the federal level,
funding for transportation is a ripe area for legislative pet projects and pork barrel
spending.
Traffic in the Charlotte region has predictably increased along with the population
growth. In 2007, the Charlotte area ranked as the 34th most heavily congested city
among the 85 largest in the U.S., 3rd among 30 cities with a comparable population.
The Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report of 2005 found a massive
jump in the last decade in Charlotte motorist delays from 23 hours in 1995 to 45
hours in 2005 (compared to 27 delay hours average in comparable cities with
populations of 500,000 to 1 million). Commuting times are 20% longer today than
they were ten years ago (the average Mecklenburg County worker spends about 50
minutes per day in the car.
37
Among the current discussions for alleviating congestion in the Charlotte region are
the possibility of using the shoulders of I-485 and I-77 during rush hours (an idea
being studied by NCDOT engineers), and examination of possibilities for improving
the flow of traffic on I-277 (an international planning firm is providing its services
free of charge to the city in a series of meetings taking place this fall).
As more commuters turn to mass transit in the Charlotte region, a recent study by
UNCC’s Transportation Policy Institute study of the CAT system shows some
promising statistics. The study found that transit service has improved in the last
10 years due to the dedicated source of funds provided by the transit tax on sales.
Also, operational costs of CATS for their bus service compare very well – actually
average a little lower – than similarly sized cities. Moreover, the cost of
construction for the light rail (while notoriously over budget) was relatively
inexpensive when compared to the cost of similar projects in other cities:
Charlotte’s LYNX line averaged $48 million per mile compared to the $65 million per
mile average experienced in Phoenix for its light rail.
MAKING CHARLOTTE “GREAT”
This subject is the most elusive and difficult to define. The Chamber of Commerce is
sponsoring a series of trips to U.S. and international cities to study, in part, what
makes some cities “great”. Many and various factors, most of them subjective, have
been noted:













An extensive public art collection
Numerous museums showcasing fine art, technology, nature, science, history
An emphasis on architecture and design
Urban revitalization
A multitude of performing arts venues
A strong public school system
A sense of security and safety
An extensive public transportation system
Large and plentiful parks
Affordable and safe housing
Abundant recreational opportunities
Natural beauty and an emphasis on the environment
A diverse populace with rich cultural traditions
None of the above is solely and definitely responsible for the making of a “great”
city. Many taken together seem to be present in those places that most participants
agree are “great” in the sense of creating a pull to live, work, or visit. Chicago, for
example, is noted for its tradition of outstanding architecture, the vast and well-
38
maintained public park and recreation system, and the abundance and diversity of
its neighborhoods. New York, of course, is renowned for its vibrancy and energy –
the city that never sleeps. St. Louis has recently received raves for its livability
combined with an emphasis on the arts with programs like St. Louis ArtWorks,
which helps aspiring artists place works in public spaces and in business places.
How does Charlotte rate when looking at such elusive “it” factors? This report
previously addressed several aspects of these characteristics: transportation, parks
and recreation, housing, public safety, urban revitalization, and environmentalism.
For some of the remaining factors, the Arts and Science Council (ASC) provides
illustration of the region’s ambitions to achieve greatness.
ASC believes Charlotte has the makings of a “great” city. The organization bases this
belief on 50 years of observation and activity in Charlotte. “True cultural vibrancy”
or vibrancy that touches everyone in the community, is the goal of ASC’s five year
plan. To achieve this, ASC wants to broaden the Charlotte community’s engagement
with cultural providers by creating a city that truly offers “something for everyone”,
regardless of race, creed, income or other socioeconomic factors. Additionally, ASC
is focused on the long-term sustainability of the city’s cultural offerings. For details
see http://www.artsandscience.org/uploads/documents/ASCStrategicPlan.pdf
To that end, ASC has embarked on a number of exciting plans, including its Capital
Campaign for Cultural Facilities, the establishment of a Creative Vitality Index to
track for-profit and nonprofit creative activities in the area, the newly created
Lifetime Achievement award to recognize five individuals annually who have
dedicated their lives to culturally enriching the community, and the idea of hosting a
“Quality of Life” roundtable discussion to gather input from the community at large
on the subject, among other things, of making Charlotte great.
Particularly in these difficult economic times, the case for public and private
investment in building an infrastructure for greatness – or, as Steven Pearlstein of
the Washington Post puts it “…creating and sustaining public facilities that are
accessible to everyone and nourish a sense of community”- is a challenging one to
make. But the existence of examples to point to in other cities – New York’s publicprivate partnership that resuscitated a beleaguered Central Park, and the
partnership between the City of Chicago and local businesses to embrace green
technologies – such examples and others can provide inspiration in Charlotte. The
ASC and others in Charlotte feel that creation of an impassioned shared vision and
an energized creative class is readily achievable in a city with such celebrated
ambition and remarkable community boosterism.
39