Executive Summary
Choice Neighborhood Annual Assessment 2017 (submitted 2018)
In 2013 we anticipated that the Choice Neighborhood would become a neighborhood that is
dynamic, vibrant, and respectful of the area’s assets. It would be a neighborhood that is walkable,
safe, and where good jobs may be found. It would increase the pride of families and individuals
that call it home (Choice Neighborhood Transformation Plan 2013).
Five years later we can report change. East Meadows and Wheatley Senior Living have been built;
two houses have been renovated; 20 business facades have been improved; there is new digital
library and a new health clinic; streets have been paved, sidewalks have been created, street lights
have new, efficient light bulbs; there is a new linear park along Menger Creek; real estate values
are creeping up, and property taxes are going up even faster; property crime is down; violent crime
is up; neighbors feel safer than they did five years ago, but still don’t feel they have a productive
relationship with police; residents of East Meadows are happy with their apartment, but are not
meeting one another or making friends; the poverty rate in the neighborhood remains stubbornly
high; private investors have bought many of the vacant lots originally intended for affordable
single family, owner-occupied housing and built housing suitable for those making 200%AMI (over
$100,000). All in all, this is a very complicated place.
As inner-city neighborhoods become increasingly sought after for their unique housing stock,
diverse populations, and investment opportunities, the ability to preserve one has become
increasingly difficult. The Choice Neighborhood’s neighbors – Dignowity Hill and Denver Heights - have seen property values increase and residents flee as these processes progress. Can the
Choice Neighborhood remain affordable while also becoming safer with public investments
(streets, libraries, health clinics, schools) that rival the rest of the city? Or must it – like its
neighbors – sacrifice long-term residents and affordability in the process? We are presented with
an interesting natural experiment: Dignowity Hill and Denver Heights are examples of marketdriven neighborhood change while the Choice Neighborhood is an example of neighborhood
change that has been guided by public policy and public investment. So far, its public
infrastructure rivals that of its neighbors, and it has retained its affordability. As the Choice
Neighborhood funding concludes, is this vision sustainable?
Those are the big questions that will outlast this project. But this report covers the final year of
progress. What has been the impact of the 5th year of work? We do not evaluate the work – we
do not measure it against a standard (for what standard would we use?), we do not determine
which strategy produced which outcome (because life is much more difficult than that). Instead,
we identify many of the strategies implemented, but spend much more time on collecting and
analyzing the social indicators that have changed (or have failed to change) in the past 5-6 years
in order to document the impact of the Choice effort and investment.

1

 Since the project began in 2012 the macro economy has improved dramatically; it’s difficult to
sort local, micro changes from those occurring and impacted by macro changes. The Choice
Neighborhood Initiative lies right between those two scales. So the best we can do in order to
attribute change to the project (or to greater changes at work in the region) is to constantly
compare with the larger region – the surrounding neighborhood, city, and county. The ability to
make lasting, sustainable change while working at this scale or level has proven nearly impossible
in the past. We’re hoping this combination of strategies may prove effective, as the synergy
between so many concerted efforts may finally produce the outcomes we seek: long term stability,
improved quality of life, maintained affordability, and reinvigorated inner-city neighborhoods
without displacement.
This report is divided into three section – which will sound familiar, but are being used in a slightly
modified way:
● People – for us, does not refer to strategies or to funding streams or to partners, it refers
to people. People at Wheatley Courts, people at East Meadows, people at Wheatley Senior
Living, people who did not return to the new developments; people in the neighborhood.
● Housing – for us, means more than just East Meadows, Wheatley Senior Living, and some
of Sutton Oaks. It includes the housing in the neighborhood – both new and old – since
the original goal was to create a continuum;
● Neighborhood – for us, is the institutional environment that provides goods and services
to the entire Choice Neighborhood. Those institutions create the environment – the
neighborhood—in which People live and determine how easy it is – regardless of one’s
income, race, gender, age, or ability – to live in the neighborhood.
Data was collected from a myriad of sources. Interviews, focus groups, a randomized survey of
households, formal and informal conversations, interviews and participant observation with police
officers, census data, American community survey data, Bexar County appraisal data, real estate
data from Zillow and Realtor.com, business data from ESRI-BAO, crime data from the police
department are used together to tell the story of individual and neighborhood change. Drawing
on so many sources both amplifies and contradicts the narrative – and when that happens we
discuss it and try and understand it (for example, why do people say they feel safer although
violent crime has increased?).
Our goal in this report is to ‘channel’ the community – to listen to the voice of the residents and
community living and working in the Choice Neighborhood, and thus give them a ‘seat at the
table’. While seats have been offered throughout this entire Choice Neighborhood process, few
have participated – for so many reasons: time, politics, the weather… While the report contains
analysis – its greater emphasis is on giving resident voices a place to be heard and recorded.

2

 MAJOR FINDINGS:

People:














15% of original Wheatley Courts households have returned to live in East Meadows and Wheatley
Park Senior Living;
44% of the original Wheatley Courts residents remain in case management with Urban Strategies;
When residents chose a place to live in 2014 they did so quickly and many moved a second and
third time. When residents chose to return (or not) to East Meadows, they deliberated and
weighed the pluses and minuses of another move – indicating a new sense of agency over one’s
life;
o For many low-income families, decisions concerning daily life are made by the state
(government officials, social workers, and politicians). When Wheatley Courts was
demolished, limited time and options often compelled residents into an unsuccessful first
move. Conversely, the decision to move back to EM has been deliberate. Whether or not
residents remain in EM for a significant period of time will indicate whether increased
agency truly affects quality of life.
Median household income of former WCR has remained fairly stagnant, although the mean has
increased appreciably, indicating some families are doing significantly better than others;
o Population-level evidence indicates that some families have increased their income
considerably. Analysis of individual-level data would allow researchers to identify the
most effective strategies that impacted these families.
Few residents are aware of the mixed-income nature of East Meadows;
o Mixed-income housing has been proposed as a strategy to combat entrenched poverty.
Yet without the exchange of social, political, and cultural capital, the model will fail.
Individuals at East Meadows express optimism about their future, although they have met very
few people at East Meadows – people prefer to “keep to themselves”;
o East Meadows residents feel quite optimistic about the state of their lives today; the
novelty of East Meadows may still influence that state. With time, as the newness wears
off, a healthy community may fill that lacunae.
Individuals at Wheatley Park have formed communities and socialize frequently;
Those living in the Choice Neighborhood express increasing optimism about their community;
African-American families have been in the neighborhood much longer, and know more people
there, yet have lower rates of home ownership;
o Spanish-speaking families feel higher rates of community involvement than other families
in the Choice Neighborhood – indicating that a community may be forming among them,
or that a different understanding of community is at work.

Housing:




The one to one replacement from Wheatley Courts to East Meadows is complete; 235 new
affordable units have been built, (including those available at the Park at Sutton Oaks); 117 more
will be added by 2020;
Appraisal values in the Choice Neighborhood rose 68%; list prices rose 107% and sales prices rose
16%.
3

 o







While the neighborhood remains affordable today, the surrounding neighborhoods are
increasingly more expensive and exclusive. Short of controlling the real estate market,
other tools, such as subsidized renovation and careful monitoring of the demolition
process may deter rising real estate prices and an investor-driven market.
Tax foreclosures in the CN are 34% (in Bexar County they are 9%), possibly indicating an early
phase of displacement due to rising property values;
Private sector developers built numerous houses in 2017-2018, with asking prices much higher
than older houses in the neighborhood;
The infill housing program intended to build affordable housing for sale to owner-occupiers has
yet to begin due to a delayed start date (and increasing land values);
o Merced Housing has developed the capacity to undertake significant house renovation
projects due to this partnership. As COSA enters the rehab business, this new capacity
may now guide new partners in the housing rehab business.
The Owner Occupied Rehabilitation program has been successful for those whose houses have
begun or completed renovations. However some applicants who are still in the application or
lead based paint testing/remediation process express some frustration with the slow speed of the
process.

Neighborhood:








While the overall number of crime incidents has gone up slightly, property crime has decreased,
and residents perceive that crime has gone down overall;
Relations between police officers and residents remain tense; many residents are unaware of
policing programs, and most residents do not think police officers make an effort to get to know
residents;
o Yet residents perceive that crime has decreased and security has increased in the
neighborhood.
Residents’ perceptions of the economic sector, including their ability to fulfill their needs within
the neighborhood, have improved despite the lack of change in leakage or number of stores,
possibly due to facade improvements;
Improvements in infrastructure play a significant (positive) role in residents’ perceptions of the
neighborhood; sidewalks and lighting are cited as evidence of the neighborhood improving, yet
the lack of additions like speed bumps and stop signs negatively affect residents’ feelings of
efficacy;
o Future projects should begin with these infrastructural improvements rather than
delaying them to the latter years of the project.
Residents generally remain alienated from the process of decision-making for the region. While
many feel they have some say in their neighborhood, this awareness is largely limited to the block
they live on and many remain disaffected with neighborhood associations that could more
formally meet their needs.

4

 STRATEGIES identified in the TRANSFORMATION PLAN:
PEOPLE
1. Improve and create workforce career ladder and growing industries; make job creation a
priority for all new development initiatives [TP 30];
2. Make sure all residents have access to social services and healthcare [TP 30];
3. Promote and support health and wellness initiatives [TP 30];
4. Create community by promoting programs and neighborhood activities that help to bring
people together [TC 30];
5. Encourage upward economic mobility and self-sufficiency for SAHA residents [TP 32]
6. Create “one-stop shop” approach for supportive services coordination for current and
future residents [TP 37].
HOUSING
1. Ensure one-to-one replacement of the existing housing units [TP 51];
a) Phase I: Park at Sutton Oaks
b) Phase II: East Meadows I
c) Phase III: Wheatley Park Senior Living
d) Phase IV: East Meadows II
1. Create an economically integrated community and maximize affordable housing [TP 51];
2. Include residents in all levels of planning [TP 51];
3. Leverage substantial additional resources to ensure maximum impact in the neighborhood
[TP 51];
4. Integrate housing component with other study area components including anticipating
future housing needs [TP 51];
5. Provide appropriate unit configurations and units that are energy efficient, connected, and
free from discrimination [TP 51];
6. Create a strong sense of community through community design [TP 51].
NEIGHBORHOOD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Small businesses grow and thrive [TP i, 1];
Students excel in local schools [TP i, 1, 33];
Adults continue to learn [TP i, 1];
Walkable [TP i, 1];
Safe [TP i, 1];
Good jobs [TP i, 1];
a. Diverse range of employment opportunities [TP 1];
7. Families and individuals proud to call home [TP i, 1];
8. Diverse range of housing opportunities [TP ii, 42];
9. Diverse range of cultural, entertainment, and educational offerings [TP ii];
10. Revitalized, mixed-income neighborhood
5

 11. Builds on existing assets
12. Creates new, high quality housing options
13. Renovate publicly owned vacant houses [TP 42].

6

 




5:13 

?17 




Legend
- the Park at Sutton Oaks
- East Meadows Phase II
- East Meadows Phase 
- East Meadows Phase IV
Publcc Schools
[3 other SANA properties
Alamo Community College
choice Neighborhood



East Meadow Phase II

I


 

PEOPLE
Life at East Meadows and Wheatley Park Senior Living
“People” is the first component of the Choice Neighborhood model, and we begin our annual analysis
with it as well. While “People” amongst the Choice Neighborhood strategies referred specifically to the
former public housing residents (for funding and contractual reasons), here we use it to mean both the
former Wheatley Courts [WC] residents, all individuals living at East Meadows [EM] and Wheatley Park
Senior Living [WP], and those living in the surrounding neighborhood.
While numerous goals were listed in the original Transformation Plan, the overarching goal was to
stabilize and improve people’s lives. Original data and personal stories told of families under extreme
stress from poverty, unstable housing situations, poor nutrition, lack of healthcare, and difficult family
situations. Goals such as economic self-sufficiency were crafted and strategized to ultimately address and
negate these conditions. In this fifth and final report we return to the grander, overarching goal and
focus on quality of life. The Transformation Plan states that education, safety, employment, economic
mobility, social service support, and health and wellness are essential quality-of-life issues (TP, page 30),
thus we present some data on those indicators, but are ultimately looking for changes in the way people
talk about their quality of life, as evidenced in the interviews and surveys completed. In addition to this
list though we add membership in community. We are social beings; we thrive in community. Recent
economic and philosophical shifts prioritize individual needs above communal ones – but healthy
neighborhoods are those in which community flourishes.
This chapter begins with the former Wheatley Courts residents and builds a larger social context for
them. Where are they living now? How did they make the decision to live where they do? How are they
doing there? As a cohort, have their lives improved? For those at East Meadows, what is life like? What
is the community like? Can we say confidently that life is better? And for those who chose not to return?
We interviewed 14 EM residents, 7 of whom were former WC residents, and 8 WP residents in May-June
2018. We also spoke with 6 former WC residents who chose not to return to EM. In addition, we surveyed
approximately 447 residents of the neighborhood (including some from EM and WP), held 3 focus groups
with about 15 people, and simply spent time talking and getting to know people. We rely on these voices
along with the neighborhood survey and the American Community Survey to understand if the original
goals of the project concerning “People” are being met.
WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?
Wheatley Courts was constructed in the late 1930s-early 1940s and housed thousands of families in the
nearly 80 years it was on the Eastside. Original residents remember it fondly as a social center of the
neighborhood, as a safe place to grow up, and as an opportunity for a young couple newly returned from
the War to start a family before buying a home in the neighborhood. By January 31, 2014 Wheatley
Courts were slated for demolition and 243 households (661 individuals) relocated elsewhere either
through the section 8 tenant-based voucher program or the public housing program.

9

 For many households of very limited means, the decision to move is not their own: it is a landlord’s, or
the justice system, or another family of household member that is threatening. Movement is often fast,
hasty, and with little “decision making”. In 2014, when Wheatley Courts residents moved out of the
former WC many moved quickly, following this pattern. They moved into the first available apartment
they could find with their tenant-based voucher. Shortly after that, they moved again; the second move
was often much more deliberate as people weighed the positives and negatives of different
neighborhoods. With each move, people became more empowered (as opposed to those making the
decision impulsively or out of fear).
This last move was different. Both groups – those who returned and those who did not – gave the
decision much thought. People considered their family, their kid’s schools, their own needs, and their
feelings of safety and security when making the decision to return or not. And people offered the same
reason for both conclusions: as many said they were returning to East Meadows because of increased
sense of safety as said they were not returning for that reason. The point is not the inconsistency;
instead, the point is that people are making decisions in very different ways than they used to.
According to the CNI 2014 assessment, approximately 30% of WC residents who had originally received a
Section 8 voucher for their relocation during the construction of East Meadows had moved again that
year while none of the residents who went into public housing have moved since the original relocation.
By 2017, 53 of the original households had moved a second time (for 25 of them it was their move to EM)
and 13 a third time (for 3 it was their move to EM or WP). Of the former WC households (246 households,
661 people), 109 households (44% of the original) remain in case management (145 households have left
case management). 144 of the original 246 still receive SAHA housing assistance (58%); 37 are at East
Meadows, 26 are living in other SAHA properties, and 81 still have tenant-based vouchers.

Household in
WC
Households in
case
management
Households
returned to
East
Meadows
Households in
public
housing
elsewhere
Households
with tenantbased
voucher

2013
246

2014
0

2015
0

2016
0

0

22

109 of original
WCH (144
total)
37

0

52

141

63

2017

26

81

10

 Households in
other housing
Households
no longer in
case
management

12
145

In addition, 8 former WC households live in Sutton Oaks and 4 in Springview.

Where are former WC households now?
60%
50%
40%
30%

56%

20%
26%

10%

18%

0%
Took voucher elsewhere

East Meadows
(returned)

Other SAHA properties

Location/Decision
Figure 1. Data from former Wheatley Courts residents and East Meadows residents henceforth referred to as
FWCREM; only includes those still receiving housing assistance.

11

  

   



EormerIJWh?eitLe
. moVeme



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


. 
v. . a-J 
.. semi3?'14s
,3
- . 
I giLegend ?4

I
mama . 
?l 
A mumUtbon Studies Program
Tuinity UM
2018

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Urban Strategies resident addresses.

12

Urban Strategies caseworkers played a significant role in helping individuals make the decision to move,
whether that meant taking a section 8 voucher, going to public housing elsewhere, or eventually
returning to East Meadows. While conducting interviews, it was clear that unless Urban Strategies was
mentioned explicitly and asked about by the interviewers, the services provided by Urban Strategies
would not come into conversation at all. However, when asked whether Urban Strategies had been
helpful, most former Wheatley Court residents, including those who had and had not moved back into
East Meadows had positive responses, and claimed to have had many helpful services provided to them
through case management.
“[Urban Strategies] always kept in touch with me, made sure that I was okay where I was at. And
they looked after me. I really appreciate their support.” (Joanne)
“All of them is good. Very good people. If you need something, and if they have it, they're gonna
help you.” (Vivienne)
“To be honest, [Urban Strategies] have been trying to reach out to me a lot, and I either cancel or I
can’t go or something comes up or yeah. They really try to help me a lot, and it’s me who can’t”.
(Sarah)
“Yes, they’re the main go-to people who I can go to when I have something.” (Caroline)
“Yeah, that's what I was tryin to say. Urban Strategies was the one that got me this place.” (Larry)
It is clear that Urban Strategies played a role in the lives of former Wheatley Courts residents, but the
extent of the impact Urban Strategies had on the final decision to move is less certain. We believe that
people’s reluctance to mention Urban Strategies during interviews reflects that they are taken for
granted – they basically became part of the family.

DECISION TO MOVE (BACK) to EAST MEADOWS
37 of the former Wheatley Courts households have returned to East Meadows. Families returned at a
higher rate than single-person households. Residents gave 3 primary reasons for moving to East
Meadows: newness of the development, convenience of the location, and personal safety1.
DECISION to MOVE: Newness
The “newness” of East Meadows and Wheatley Park remains a primary reason for many choosing to
move to EM and WP this year. Residents often mentioned being drawn to the development because of
how nice East Meadows looked physically.

1

Market-rate tenants at East Meadows are not in this sample, as we were unable to interview any ….

13

 “For me, they were brand new. And I’m the first one that actually lived in this one… so I’m the first
tenant in here. I really like it. It’s nice, and they keep the property nice and clean, and it’s quiet.”
(Meagan)
“They're brand new apartments, and usually like with housing, my kid's dad, his mom, she's on
housing, and her apartment is not as nice as my apartment.” (Elise)
“Everything man, it's just nice. I really just like the way they look, you know? They're nice looking.
Something new, something new and I like them.” (Nathan)
A number of residents claimed to be drawn by the appearance of the building, both inside and out. Some
even attributed feelings of safety to the newness of the building, because they believe that if there is a
building in the area that looks brand new, people will be less likely to “do something” to it. Residents, as
well as police officers2, seem to believe that people are more likely to pay more attention and care to a
development that is brand new.
“If you see something nice, if you have any kind of sense, you're gonna try and keep it nice.”
(Margaret)

2

Further discussed on page ## in the Neighborhood section

14

 Like last year, this seemingly obvious observation is remarkable. For many living at these income levels
(<60% AMI3) they own few unused things– yet their apartment is brand new. Sense-of-self is impacted by
where one lives and this contributes to overall quality of life. In turn, this impacts how one conducts their
daily life. But the apartments won’t be new forever; and some apartments are now being rented a second
time. Soon it will be a third and fourth. Can the management maintain this feeling of cleanliness,
brightness, and security that residents associate with their “newness”? We know from experience that it
is absolutely possible to maintain multi-family development with proper care, yet public housing in the
United States has had a history of insufficient funding and maintenance, leading to deteriorated and
depreciated buildings well before their use value has expired. Can that pattern change with this new
form of development and partnership? Can we insist that it change?
DECISION to MOVE: Location
Location comes up in two forms when residents are asked about making decisions on where to live:
access to people and access to amenities. Many list old ties to the Eastside of San Antonio as a reason to
move there. A majority of residents interviewed either had family in the neighborhood or had grown up
there.
“I also visit this side of town. I want to come and be around the black side. Come over here to eat,
come over here to party, and visit relatives that we have on the Eastside.” (Bianca)
Some of the residents we interviewed expressed an emotional association with the Eastside because they
grew up there.
“The reason to come back, specifically to the Eastside. This was my home.” (Margaret)
“I was born and raised here. I grew up here so I know everyone here. It’s not like was coming
somewhere where I wasn’t from.” (Nicolette)

3

Area Median Income

15

 San Antonio prides itself on being a “city of neighborhoods” but many cities pride themselves on the
same thing – so are we unique? Statements like these indicate that maybe we are. Those old ties to a
place are both emotional and economic. Memories may comfort us, while familiarity relieves the stress
of finding one’s way around a new part of town. With increasing pressure from outside forces on our
inner-city neighborhoods, these ties to neighborhood are a strength that may keep our neighborhoods
stable and functional. They are especially important for lower-income households and families who may
be more dependent on personal ties to fulfill their needs.
EM and WP residents also list convenience and accessibility as important reasons in their decision to
move there. Convenience refers to both the location of the apartment complex in the area and the
amenities that come with each unit, such as the washer and dryer, and the kitchen appliances.
“The apartment is nice because the apartment came with washer and dryer. Came with a big
kitchen and all that.” (Daniel)
“I mean the highway is like right here and then HEB is literally, you could walk to HEB if you really
wanted to. So everything is really close.” (Elise)
“Yes, is it better? A thousand percent better. They come with everything, washer, dryer,
microwave, dishwasher, everything.” (Nicolette)

16

 DECISION to MOVE: Personal Safety
In previous years those considering returning to the new development expressed apprehension about
their personal safety if they were to return. Previous impressions had been that crime would remain the
same if the same people returned. This year, however, most of the residents seemed to have a different
perception of East Meadows. A number of residents described East Meadows as “quiet” because they no
longer noticed gang activity and heard shootings as much as they did before, which contributed
tremendously to their feelings of safety.
“I think within the five years, it has changed. It won't change that quick… you can't change it
overnight, but it has changed over five years and it's spreading more, you know?… I can tell you
before it was-- it was scary, especially for me, just growing up in the neighborhood.” (Suzy)
“It's more safe over here. Don't have to worry about me going to bed tonight, nobody breaking in
or nothing, this is a nice neighborhood. I love it.” (Ruth)
In this interview as well as others, a positive change is being noticed, but “nice neighborhood” refers
specifically to the East Meadows property and not the surrounding residential blocks. East Meadows
residents do not yet see the new apartments as part of the neighborhood; it is more like a gated
community. This perception may be due to the overall aesthetic or newness of the buildings, but either

17

 way it is reflected in the limited interactions residents have with the neighborhood in terms of personal
relationships beyond people they already know.

Our survey of over 500 neighborhood households, including many in Sutton Oak, East Meadows, and
Wheatley Park, measure the perceptions of safety in the neighborhood. Those who were familiar with
the former Wheatley Courts, which was a majority of interviewees, claimed that there is a significant
improvement in terms of safety features on the new site and a general quietness around the

Figure 2. CN Survey 2017-2018.

18

 development, but perception of the neighborhood continues to differ from perceptions of EM. Many
remain pessimistic about improvements in the surrounding neighborhood -- especially when it comes to
crime. Many of the interviewees felt safer in East Meadows, and still seemed to think that the
surrounding neighborhood was fairly unsafe.
Crime data indicates that the location of East Meadows is no longer a hot spot for crime, as opposed to
the former Wheatley Courts. A longitudinal look at crime patterns indicates that Wheatley Courts was the
center of a significant crime hot spot. Its demolition by 2014 and reconstruction by 2017 show that that
hot spot had dissipated but not disappeared, as the crime incident rate over the entire neighborhood
remains that same, just moved.

Figure 3. Crime incidents in blocks surrounding Wheatley Courts/East Meadows, 2011, 2014, 2017. Source: SAPD 2018.

Some expressed disappointment in the fact that they moved to EM thinking there were going to be
security officers patrolling the development and the neighborhood often. They were surprised to see that
after a few months the security guards seemed to have disappeared:
“I was kind of iffy about moving here, because just the area, where it was, but they have, well I
don't know if they still do, I haven't seen them around, but they had security guards walking
through the neighborhood and stuff.” (Elise)
“First, they said you’ll be having security all the time. No, the security are gone, we don't have no
securities.” (Leslie).
“Yeah. It’s a little bit less security. We felt really secure with them walking around.” (Bianca)
Wheatley Park seniors were not as concerned with the lack of security presence mentioned by the
majority of East Meadows residents. This could be attributed to the fact that seniors at Wheatley Park
primarily stay indoors, or the fact that East Meadows was open before Wheatley Park, so the security
19

 guards that the East Meadows residents witnessed at the time of move-in were already gone by the time
Wheatley Park seniors moved in. Wheatley Park Senior Living residents did express greater feelings of
safety, but mostly attributed this fact to the design of the building itself.

“Yeah. The way they got built was safer. Because when they had the old ones here they were just
in and out. They can go in and out. Wasn't no security, no security locks, nothing like that.“
(Allison)
Many residents also expressed feelings of safety due to the rules and regulations implemented by
Wheatley Park and East Meadows management. Similar to conversations discussed in the previous
report, residents in both developments do not mind strict rules if they are for the purpose of maintaining
security. This includes things like “screening” tenants with background checks and limiting visitors. Last
year many reported that they felt that rules were overly strict; we differentiate those statements from
what we are hearing this year, as those (heard in 2016) concerned non-threatening situations such as
porch furniture, wreaths on doors, and BBQ pits. In 2017 people spoke more directly about safety issues:
“They keep an eye on who goes in and who goes out. And they don't let a person stay over 14
days and stuff like that.” (Adriana)
“You have to have a background check. They screen everybody before they let them come in
here…We’re trying to be safe, you know?” (Tabitha)

20

 Some saw this as a good sign that maybe this meant they no longer needed security all the time because
the area is safer now. On the other hand, some people said having officers frequently keep an eye on the
neighborhood made them feel much safer. When this concern of decreased security presence on site was
brought to management’s attention, they clarified that all properties are opened with an intentional
emphasis on security. Since opening, there have not been any incidents to indicate the need for such a
heavy presence of security, which is why there are no longer any security guards on site. Last year,
residents specifically mentioned feeling safe and comfortable because security guards were always
present and doing walkthroughs, even late at night. However, management explained that the security
guards on site have been replaced by two on-site constables. During our interviews, a few residents
mentioned an increased activity of constable and police patrolling, which includes SAFFE Patrols by SAPD.
Aside from differences in safety perception, expectations also differ between Wheatley Park seniors and
East Meadows residents about their plans to stay in their current residence or move out. Most of the
Wheatley Park Seniors are not planning on looking for another place to live any time soon, some even
express that they planned on staying at the senior living facility for the rest of their lives.
“This is it. This always will be my home. I don't care if I move out of town, Ima still pay the rent.”
(Margaret).
This was not necessarily the case among East Meadows residents.
“Yeah I would stay here. I would. But eventually I would want an actual house of my own.”
(Nicolette).
“Well for us, short term. Like I said, I do want a house. I do want a big yard for my family.” (Elise)
Most of the residents we spoke to seemed to be happy with their accommodations at East Meadows;
many claimed that they “love it.” Although some people were so pleased with their lives at EM that they
wanted to stay there as long as they possibly could, many also described EM as a “stepping stone,”
meaning, they were hoping, if not actively looking for their next home. EM residents still long for a house
with a yard – no different than any other American family.
DECISION NOT to RETURN
Of the original 243 households that left the old Wheatley Courts in 2014 (144 of whom remain in good
standing with the housing authority, and thus were invited back), 37 have returned (15% of the original
group). When asked why they chose not to return, a variety of different answers were heard – one of
which was safety. A significant number of former Wheatley Courts residents decided not to return to the
new East Meadows due to a long-standing fear of crime in the surrounding neighborhood. Part of this
fear involves past experiences at the Wheatley Courts. In 2016, when asked about neighborhood safety,
we heard from former Wheatley Court residents that they had reservations about moving back because
of their perception of safety.
“Yeah, that’s one of the several reasons why I don’t want to move back to. Yeah, I’m not going to
lie, recently I ran into residents and there was a woman that I ran into and she told me that the
Wheatley Courts, I mean the East Meadow is like the Wheatley Courts still.” (Ana)
21

 “So I don't want to go back to over there in the East Meadows. I don't want my daughter to go to
school over there. It's too many problems over there on the Eastside.” (Ashley)
Others said their tenant-based voucher was the reason not to return:
“They gave me a Section 8 voucher when I moved out. I didn’t want to give it up. That’s basically
it.” (Sarah)
While others simply felt settled where they already were.
“Well, when I did, I wanted to get to East Meadows, but it wasn't ready yet. So I went on and
moved to Sutton Oaks and I got settled over there. I felt I'd rather stay there until they built it up
but when they built it up I was already settled in the Sutton Oaks.” (Vivienne)
Answers we heard were unique, and few generalizations can be made other than simply listening to
people and giving them a voice:
“I'm disabled. That's why I chose to stay here. I'm not going back to Wheatley Courts. I don't like
it because the managers in there is very rude. I'm disabled, in a wheelchair. I can walk, but I can't
really because of my foot, and my back, and she tried to put me on the second floor in one
bedroom.” (Larry)
For most, the decision not to return was as deliberate as for those who decided to come back. Urban
Strategies has supported both groups and has aided families in making the better decision for their
situation.

LIFE AT EAST MEADOWS
While the process of decision making on where to live gives insight into how empowered people are in
their own decision making for their family, traditional indicators may also help measure if life is getting
better – and thus the impact of the Choice Neighborhood project. Traditional indicators include income,
family structure, employment, and health of the community, or social efficacy.

22

 INCOME:

Median Household Income
$60,000.00

$50,000.00

$40,000.00

$30,000.00

$20,000.00

$10,000.00

$0.00
2013
FWCREM

2014
Choice Neighborhood

2015

2016
Bexar County

Figure 4. Source: FWCREM 2017 and ACS 2012-2016. Note: Income data under FWCREM only contains
original Wheatley Courts households-- excludes non-WC EM residents. Again, FWCREM means former
WCR and EM residents receiving subsidy.

23

 Average and Median Income of Original Wheatley Households
$12,000

$11,000

$10,000

$9,000

$8,000

$7,000

$6,000
2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018
(3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1)

Year (Quarter)
Average Household Income

Median Household Income

Figure 6: HUD 2017.

Figure 6 above graphs the mean and median quarterly income of the former Wheatley Courts residents,
no matter their location. There are two significant concerns associated with this data4:

4

Year

2013

2014

2015

Quarter

Mean Household Income

Median Household Income

3

$7,709

$8,281

4

$7,339

$8,376

1

$8,723

$8,604

2

$8,434

$8,604

3

$8,339

$8,610

4

$8,299

$8,562

1

$8,970

$8,796

24

 



Median household income has remained fairly stagnant for most former Wheatley Courts
residents. The mean has risen more rapidly though, with periodic (and predictable) cycles. This
distribution is not unique to former WCR, in fact, it is a national concern. Joanna Smith-Ramani,
of EPIC at The Aspen Institute, has written and spoken about this form of “income volatility,”
linking it to seasonal work and the work schedules of much of the working class. If it is
agricultural work, holiday retail, or construction – many of these fields are seasonal, which may
explain the swift changes in average income from quarter to quarter. So while incomes may be
stable or going up slightly, for many they remain volatile and unstable. Yet income qualifications
for most [means-tested] programs is on an annual basis. A mismatch during some times of the
year may produce extreme economic insecurity and reliance on credit. Some agencies are
considering moving to quarterly income assessments.
The mean is significantly higher than the median, indicating that the income distribution is
skewed toward lower incomes, with a few statistically significant higher income impacting and
skewing the distribution. For average and median to differ so dramatically there are a few
extremes that pull the average higher; the average income of COSA is higher than the median
also – because of a handful of billionaires. Why did some former WC families make this transition
to higher incomes? Are they unique, or can we learn from their experience? This is a worthwhile
data point to follow in the future – to determine why some are impacted more profoundly than
others in a project such as this one.

When looking at the income mix of the entire [EM] development (including but not limited to only the
FWCR) it actually mirrors the city more than it does the surrounding neighborhood. But where the city is

2016

2017

2018

2

$9,033

$8,796

3

$8,999

$8,796

4

$9,040

$8,798

1

$10,174

$8,892

2

$10,079

$8,892

3

$9,797

$8,799

4

$9,955

$8,799

1

$11,305

$9,024

2

$10,633

$9,036

3

$10,665

$9,030

4

$10,974

$9,060

1

$11,246

$9,188

25

 one of the most economically segregated cities in the country, East Meadows is one of the most
economically integrated– by virtue of the mixed-income model on which it is built

Phase

# Buildings

East Meadows I
East Meadows II
Senior Living

38
20
1

1 bedroom
garden apt
1 bedroom
flat
2 bedroom
garden apt
2 bedroom
flat
2 bedroom
townhouse
3 bedroom
garden apt
3 bedroom
townhouse
4 bedroom
garden apt
4 bedroom
townhouse
TOTALS

# Public Housing
Units
[<30 AMI]
71
42
40

# Place-Based
Voucher Units
[30-60% AMI]
8
0
36

30% AMI

50% AMI

60% AMI

Market
rate

TOTALS

2

1

21

4

28

1

7

1

9

5

34

31

82

3

5

12

20

5

10

3

18

12

1

11

19

7

42

# Tax Credit
Units
[30-60% AMI]
77
53
4

# Market Rate
Units
>80% AMI]
59
24

12
5

9

40

2

2

3

1

4

28

85

60

215 units

The mixed income housing model is increasingly being used as a tool for transforming public housing
developments across the country. This model is at the root of one of the three core goals of the Choice
Neighborhood model for addressing struggling neighborhoods5. The two primary reasons for mixed-

The three core goals of Choice include improvements in housing, personal level outcomes like income and health
(people), and neighborhood-level reinvestment to improve safety, schools, commercial activity, etc.
(https://www.hud.gov/cn)
5

26

 income development are to address urban poverty and as a general strategy for urban redevelopment.
Generally, the primary reason is for alleviating poverty, which is the case under the Choice Neighborhood
model. There is ongoing debate over whether this model is actually successful in tackling urban poverty,
and little evidence exists to support either side of the argument. Joseph et al. (2007) examine the
theoretical basis underlying the mixed income housing model, which contains several theoretical
assumptions within itself. They divide the basis into four propositions that address community,
interpersonal, and individual level concerns. They note that in support of mixed income developments,
policymakers expect that:
1. Low income residents will benefit from improved social networks/social capital
2. Low income residents will benefit from increased social control and improved social organization
[collective efficacy]
3. Wealthier neighbors will influence the behaviors of low income residents [culture of poverty]
4. Wealthier residents will advocate for improved services and goods in the area and increase the
tax base [political economy of place]
Joseph et al. ultimately argue low-income residents may benefit from greater informal social control and
access to higher quality services (#2 and #4) but cite less evidence of benefiting from social interaction,
network building, and role modeling. Overall, East Meadows residents seemed unconcerned when asked
how they felt about living in a mixed income development. Most are aware of the presence of new faces
and increased diversity but do not have strong opinions towards the model.
“It’s a mixture but I don't see it-- it's not a problem. No big deal for me.” (Roland)
“I don't think nothing about it. I'm just here, you know? Everybody has to have somewhere to stay.
They don't bother me. I just mind my business. I have somewhere to stay” (Nathan)
“There's no opinion on it. It is what it is.” (Alejandra)
This attitude from residents may be due to the claim that they prefer to keep to themselves rather than
getting to know their neighbors.
“Yeah, some people just straight in and out their door to their car or the mailbox. They don’t-- they
just don't converse with other people. And I'm with that, that's fine. I feel like I'm the same way
too. Kinda like a loner.” (Roland)
This is discouraging since the benefits of mixed income housing seem to rely on the relationships among
residents of different income levels; however, Joseph et al. note that only one of the three propositions
requires direct interpersonal interaction across income levels (#1). Even without social interaction, an
argument can be made for the benefit of mixed-income housing to low-income residents (Joseph 378).
The assumption here is that higher income residents that move to East Meadows will exert influence and
advocate for improved services and goods in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the model assumes these
same residents will remain in the area for an extended period of time.

27

 Higher income residents are expected to provide an example of residential stability in the mixed income
model, which brings into question mobility rates at East Meadows. When asked if they perceived East
Meadows as being short term or long term for residents, management expected tenants to remain at the
apartments for an extended period because of the mixed-income model, which allows a family to
improve their economic status while remaining in the same home. As of now there are no examples of
residents changing unit type due to increased income/socio-economic status. In terms of mobility, data
provided by SAHA indicated that only a handful of residents have moved out of East Meadows since
opening.

ROSARIO NEW DATA—UNREPORTED/INFORMAL INCOME—use this to discuss the existence/formation of
social networks .

EMPLOYMENT and JOB TRAINING:

Employment and Training for Able-Bodied Adults
(Former WCR in Case Management)
2017

26%

2016

26%

2015

25%

2014

30%

26%

10%

20%
Part Time

31%

24%

18%
30%

39%

17%

19%

32%
0%

6%

40%
Full Time

32%

20%
50%

60%

Job Training

30%
70%

80%

90%

100%

Unemployed

Figure 7. Data from Urban Strategies

Each year the number of people in full and part-time work has grown. The number in job-training has
gone down, but this may be a function of the number now employed. The number unemployed has
remained stubbornly stable, and about 7X that of the City. Adequate job training programs and the
overall supply of good jobs remain the most effective tool to promote social mobility. Urban Strategies
has been instrumental in connecting residents to this system. The drop in participation may reflect

28

 people leaving case management as their income increases and lives stabilize6, which is supported by the
decrease in able-bodied adults under case management every year since relocation. For most, they
believe that life has improved – which was the original goal of the entire project.
With very little disposable income, one’s ability to fulfill the most basic needs close to home is
paramount. The proximity of East Meadows to the grocery store and different bus stops makes it easy for
residents to fulfill their needs within the neighborhood:
“I think this is a wonderful location. Yeah. It's the bus is 10 minutes from downtown, you know, I
think it's centrally located, I think it's a good area.” (Margaret)
“The grocery store, like H-E-B, Family Dollar, Dollar General, King's. I pay my phone bill. It's
convenient.” (Robin)
“H-E-B is my main thing. And the closest Walmart over here off of Rigsby and 410. But H-E-B is the
closest right here. Yeah, it’s close proximity. Lot of food places around.” (Roland)
“The highway is like right here and then H-E-B is literally, you could walk to H-E-B if you really
wanted to. So everything is really close.” (Elise)
“What we like about it here is we have H-E-B, Walgreens, we have AutoZone and we just had
University Health System Clinic right here on Walter Street. Up the street.” (Juan)
As the Texas Department of Human and Community Affairs continues to refine its definition of “area of
opportunity,” these resident voices truly articulate what is important in simply getting through the day
with little disposable income. A dependable bus line, a grocery store nearby, the ability to fill a
prescription, and a neighborhood school define an area of opportunity for the residents of East
Meadows.

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE:
While most populations are nearly 50% female: 50% male, EM and WP are not. Instead, East Meadows is
64% female and 36% male, while the Choice Neighborhood is 54% female and 46% male. The percentage
of women to men in the developments is 15% greater than in the rest of the county.

We speculate here because we have been unable to meet with enough people who have willfully left Urban
Strategies to generalize.
6

29

 Gender Comparisons (%)
70

64.12%

60

53.82%
49.23%

50
40

50.76%

46.18%
35.88%

30
20
10
0
FWCREM

Choice Neighborhood
Male

Bexar County

Female

Figure 8. FWCREM 2017. ACS 5 Year Estimates for Choice and Bexar County percentages.

The age distribution, or pyramid, also differs from the rest of the county. Overall, the number of children
under 16 years old disproportionally exceeds that of young adults, and as noted, there are far more
women than men in the adult population. Thus there are fewer able-bodied adults to raise and mentor
more children.

Figure 9. Source: FWCREM 2017 and ACS 2011-2016.

30

 Beyond being purely interesting and unique, this gender balance also has social implications; of the 185
households in the developments, 151 are female-headed, and of those female-headed households, 109
have children (59%). In comparison, 34% of households in the Choice Neighborhood are female-headed
and 17% of households in Bexar County are female-headed.

Female-Headed Households
90
81.62%
80

% of total households

70
60
50
40

34.06%

30
16.52%

20
10
0
FWCREM

Choice Neighborhood

Bexar County

Figure 10. FWCREM 2017. Source: ACS 5 Year Estimates.

This demographic data is critical for gaining a better understanding of what a typical household looks like
in not only the Choice Neighborhood, but more specifically in the subsidized housing units in the
neighborhood, which includes East Meadows. From here, organizations involved in implementing housing
strategies focused on impacting individuals can adapt their approaches in order to better fit the
population that is being served.
Female-headed households in tightly integrated communities raise healthy, happy children. Femaleheaded households living in isolation from others struggle to do so – for financial, emotional, physical,
and social reasons associated with child-rearing. As we will explore shortly, a sense of community has yet
to develop at East Meadows. The provision of some sort of supportive system for these young families
(much like those found on many tax-credit properties built and managed by non-profit developers in San
Antonio) should be considered in the short-term.

ETHNIC and RACIAL COMPOSITION:
The community now living at EM and WP is unique in its diversity yet totally representative of San
Antonio’s overall demographics. As a city, San Antonio has two well-represented ethnic groups [Hispanic
(64%) and Anglo (25%)], and a small percentage of African-Americans (7%), plus even smaller percentages
of other ethnicities and nationalities. Yet in the city, these groups live in separate communities and
31

 neighborhoods. Many of our middle-income neighborhoods are mixed, but lower and higher-income
neighborhoods are not. East Meadows and Wheatley Park defy that pattern; the developments may be
the most ethnically-mixed communities in San Antonio, especially amongst our working class and lowerincome neighborhoods.

Race/Ethnicity Comparisons
FWCREM

Choice Neighborhood

3.9

Bexar County
4%

7.2%

27.6%

28.9%

31.4%

59.5%

60.6%

68.5%

7.6%

Latino/Hispanic

African American

Anglo

Other

Figure 11. Race/Ethnicity for Former Wheatley Courts' residents and present day East Meadows residents. This dataset does
not include market-rate or WP residents.

Of over 200 neighborhoods in the entire city of San Antonio, less than 20 have an ethnic mix like EM and
WP. The ability to create and maintain a diverse community such as this will be a model for the rest of
the city as we continue to struggle with segregation. Some of the challenges have already surfaced, as
residents sometimes feel they have been ‘slighted’ due to their ethnicity. A Hispanic woman, for
example, felt she had been unduly singled out for an infraction due to her race, as she perceives the
management to be predominantly African-American although the racial/ethnic identities of the
management team reflect the population of East Meadows. It will be critical to remain cognizant of the
diversity of the management team, as this community continues to form.

SENSE of COMMUNITY at EAST MEADOWS:
Individuals at East Meadows and Wheatley Park – especially those who were former Wheatley Courts
residents – seem to be doing better than they were five years ago.
“I pretty much like everything. Nobody really mess with me out here and the office is cool with me
too.” (Daniel)

32

 “It's a good place to have my kids from being from the Courts if you ever lived in the Courts. It's
way better. But if you didn't live in the courts you wouldn't understand.” (Ariel)
“In a way I'm glad [Wheatley Courts] is gone, it's real nice out here, man. I love it.” (Ruth)
“I love it. And it's so nice to sit out there, it's so peaceful. I've taken pictures everywhere, sent it to
all my friends and family, Facebook, everything. Even my church, and my pastor told me don't let
nobody mess up my blessing.” (Margaret)
But beyond personal accomplishments, the second goal of the Choice Neighborhood project is to
encourage community between residents and the neighborhood. Research shows that people who live in
community, as opposed to having few to no interpersonal ties to others, have lower rates of infant
mortality, higher life expectancies, lower crime rates in their communities, high rates of educational
attainment, higher rates of social mobility, and lower levels of depression (Ellen, Kubrinet et al.,
MacQueen, Chetty, Roberts, Sampson) Research also shows that the ability to live in community is not
unique to the wealthy; historically, American inner-city neighborhoods have been rife with a sense
community – often at a city block or neighborhood level (Anderson, Small, Whyte, Gans). However, there
is no question that America’s inner-cities have diminished, and along with them inner-city communities.
With the refocused attention on our inner-cities, are we bringing back our communities as well as we’re
bringing back our buildings?
Overwhelmingly, residents who live in East Meadows, including the families, tend to “keep to
themselves.” A surprising majority claimed to have cordial interactions and acquaintance-level
relationships with their neighbors -- but nothing more.
“I stay to myself so I really don't go out or associate with people who live in the Courts. We just
say ‘hi’ and ‘how are you doing?’ and, you know, just be respectful. Just to know how you're my
neighbor. Just things like that.” (Ariel)
“I'm a loner, I don't have friends. My kids is my friends. You fool with your neighbors, and you fool
with your friends, there's a problem. And I ain't trying to have no problems and be put out.” (Ruth)

33

 "I can ask my neighbors for a small favor"
(EM residents)
70
60

Percentage

50
40
30
20
10
0
Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Figure 12. CN Survey 2017-2018.

In turn, people don’t rely on one another to help fulfill their daily needs:
This mentality may be attributed to the fact that residents are usually not home, and when they are they
just prefer to stay inside. However, a few attributed their reluctance to form close relationships with
other residents to their perception of safety, explaining to us that keeping to themselves helps them stay
away from trouble. For those returning from the old Wheatley Courts, past experiences may be
influencing this decision to “keep to myself,” especially as young mothers are now raising children the age
they were when they may have lived at Wheatley. Management also sensed this lack of social interaction
amongst EM residents. While their ultimate goal is to have interactions between all groups -- including
people of different ages, ethnic backgrounds, and incomes -- they seem to think the residents may need
more time in order to settle in, and then possibly get to know each other better.
Interestingly, neighborhood residents are often more willing to participate in East Meadows’ organized
events than East Meadows residents are. Management remarked that neighborhood kids have been
participating in events put on by the apartments, even more so than kids that live in the apartments.
Parents in the neighborhood may be more comfortable in the community, and thus have a certain level of
trust in others that their children will be safe. This feeling of trust is yet to develop between EM
residents.
There seems to be much greater interaction between residents in the Wheatley Park Senior Living than in
East Meadows. Interestingly, WP does not contain any market-rate units and thus the assumption of
social interaction is not as critical to the success of the development, according to the model on which it
34

 is based. More WP residents participate in events and neighborhood meetings than the East Meadows
residents do – although many of these events and meetings are advertised as family friendly and/or are
meant specifically for children. This increased social interaction, especially when compared to East
Meadows, may simply be due to age. Many of the seniors we met were quite active, yet do not have the
responsibilities of raising children and working, and thus are freer to make friends and enjoy one another.

The stronger bonds in Wheatley Park could also be attributed to the shared indoor spaces, particularly
the common living areas on the first floor, as well as the gym, the billiards room, and the outdoor patio.
This highlights the importance of design when it comes to creating community.

35

 Figure 13. Wheatley Park residents congregating across the street at Malik’s.

“I know people here. Through the apartment meetings, stuff like that. When we go to meetings.
And they smoke and I smoke so we hang out over here at the store.” (Allison).
Not only do many of the residents congregate in these spaces, but there are also various events held in
these common areas throughout the week, including Bible studies and game nights. By allowing the
residents to mingle and participate in fun events within these areas, the Wheatley Park facility has
encouraged the residents to meet and make friends with each other, which gives a heightened sense of
community:
“They have the monthly meeting for us, we have a good time. So everybody got to meet
everybody.” (Robin)
The residents of Wheatley Park seem to be very satisfied with the events, as well as the management for
planning these events. Most interviewees spoke positively about the WP management team and seemed
to have good relationships and trust with the managers of Wheatley Park.

ARE PEOPLE DOING BETTER?
Are the residents of East Meadows and Wheatley Park doing better than they were five years ago? Are
the former Wheatley Courts residents – no matter where they live – doing better than they were five
years ago? When asked that question directly, most answer affirmatively – for themselves and for their
community, although analysis of individual indicators would not yield the same impression:

36

 “There's not people roaming the streets in the middle of the night. It's like always, there were bad
gunshots all the time. No, it's not as bad as it used to be. A lot safer. I feel a lot safer now.
(Joanne, East Meadows)
“I went to meetings and I heard about what they’re gonna do to stop all the madness that goes on
in the neighborhood, and I felt like it will be safe now for me to bring my son.” (Gabby, East
Meadows)
“It's nice. There's no problem. It's quiet. You don't nothing but the trains and the birds. You don't
hear nothing else, because where I stay is right there. It's open up. It's a very nice apartments.
You know, I have no problem with it at all. None.” (Vivienne, Sutton Oaks)
“I love it here. I mean we have no problems, we haven’t had any drama or nothing like that. Like
when we were in Wheatley Courts we used to see cops driving by so fast or doing chases, or there
were shootings, and we haven’t heard none of that yet. So, I like it. And the girls, well, they like it
too because a lot of their friends that they had before stayed in this area too, so they all play in
the back. So it’s pretty nice.” (Caroline, East Meadows)
“I like where I'm at, right here. I been here for five years, I wanna stay another 25 years. (Larry,
Sutton Oaks)

How has your community changed in
the past 3 years (EM residents)?
70
58%

60

Percentage

50

42%

40
30
20
10

0

0
Declined

Stayed the same

improved

Figure 14. CN Survey 2017-2018.

Quotes like these fail to align with the social indicators we have been measuring and monitoring for the
past five years. But when we look at everything together – decision making, income, household structure
– together they seem to signal that life has changed significantly. People express optimism and their
decision making reflects that sense of optimism and increased control over their own lives and their
children’s lives. In the same way that parents chose a place to live so too do they choose a school for
their children to attend – people are taking increased control and responsibility for their own lives which
37

 comes out of an increased sense of stability, security, and optimism for one’s future. That is most
definitely an impact of the Choice Neighborhood investments. The lack of community development could
threaten this though. When the novelty of life at East Meadows wears off and daily pressures again
dominate one’s life, optimism may wane. When pressures of daily life become overwhelming, there are
two ways we tend to alleviate them: with money and with community. For some of us, we buy things: we
buy after-school care and summer camps for example. For others, community serves that function. For
those with neither sufficient income nor membership in a community, the stress can become unbearable.
So the question may be: despite the overwhelming feeling of optimism right now, is it sustainable without
significant community development or significant increases in disposable income? On-site services (or
service coordination) would alleviate some of these difficulties.
East Meadows and Wheatley Park are little worlds of their own right now, full of people who still operate
as individuals for the most part, but with the dream (for some) of being part of a larger community.
While not as focused a target as the residents of the new development, those living in the greater Choice
Neighborhood also share the same hopes and concerns for themselves, their children, their neighbors,
and their community. Ultimately, these separate individuals, living in separate, and yet unformed
communities, will blend into one and thus strengthen and revitalize life in the Choice Neighborhood. The
following sections are our attempt to understand and represent individual and community life in the
neighborhood surrounding East Meadows.

LIFE in the CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD
Approximately 10,000 people live in 3,629 households in the Choice Neighborhood, which consists of two
neighborhoods, Harvard Place and Eastlawn, united into the HPEL neighborhood association plus parts of
Jefferson Heights and Denver Heights. In surveying 447 randomly selected households from this
population (thus achieving a 96% confidence rate that these answers are representative) we sought to
answer some of the same questions we had of EM and WP residents: what is life like for you as an
individual? For you in this community? What are your concerns for yourself and your community? Do
you anticipate change with fear and trepidation, or with excitement for the future?

38

 The neighborhood survey, a central component of this study, was conducted on the basis that the
community itself is our most worthy assessment of progress. Meeting people in the comfort of their own
doorways presents a unique opportunity to collect unfettered public input about needs that can be
observed in real-time. Residents frequently expand their feedback beyond the dimension of our survey
questions, and contextualize our findings with lived experience that helps capture the actual condition of
the Choice Neighborhood. This year’s neighborhood survey, which was administered to 447 residents,
asked questions linked to every institution that we examine in this neighborhood section, thus gauging how
effective they have been in changing - and improving - life in the neighborhood.

Figure 59. The 2017 Choice Neighborhood survey crew.

The total number of people in the Choice Neighborhood has stayed fairly consistent over the life of the
grant (although ACS data makes precision difficult due to the moving averages they report). The
neighborhood is far more racially and ethnically diverse than other neighborhoods in San Antonio.
American Community Survey data reports that the Choice Neighborhood is 60% Hispanic and 31%
African-American; our neighborhood survey findings are fairly similar: 50% of respondents reported
Hispanic and 41% said African-American racial heritage. Historically the area was African American, but
by the 1970s the ethnic/racial mix had begun to change as the Hispanic population became the majority.
Yet the citywide perception remains that this is the African-American part of town.

39

 Choice Neighborhood

Bexar County
4%

7.2%

28.9%
31.4%
59.5%

60.6%

7.6%

Latino/Hispanic

African American

Anglo

Other

Figure 15. Data from ACS 5 Year Estimates

The perception that it remains predominately African-American may come from the fact that the average
number of years an African-American family has lived in the neighborhood is 17 compared to 10 for an
Hispanic family7. Of those who were surveyed, African-Americans were significantly older (61 years)
compared to Hispanics (48 years). Overall, 43% of residents in the CN own their own home (compared to

7

Neighborhood Survey 2018

40

 58% in Bexar County); 45% of Hispanic respondents owned their home while 40% of African Americans
do.
The typical household in the Choice Neighborhood household has 2.5 adults. Perhaps many of these
households are multi-generational – which is a very positive adaptation to the stresses of poverty.

Occupancy Type
70.0%

50.0%

58.3%

57.0%

60.0%
43.0%

41.7%

40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%
Choice Neighborhood
Owner occupied

Bexar County
Renter occupied

Figure 16. Data from ACS 5 Year Estimates

Household Types

80%

74.7%
67.6%

70%

Percent of Total

60%

52.9%

50%
40%

34.1%

32.4% 31.2%

Female-headed
househoulds

Husband-wife
households

32.4%

30%
20%

16.5%

10%
0%

Choice Neighborhood

Households w/ own
children

"Family" households

Bexar County

Figure 17. Data from ACS 5 Year Estimates

There are 20% more households with children in the Choice Neighborhood than there are in Bexar
County. At the same time, the dependency ratio for the neighborhood (the number of children and
seniors for every working-age adult) is 79.9, compared to 59.9 in the county; the Choice Neighborhood

41

 has WAY more children and far fewer adults than elsewhere in the city – putting pressure on the adults
there to raise more children.
The average income level in the neighborhood has remained fairly consistent over the past five years.

Median Household Income
$60,000

$49,655

$50,699

$52,230

$52,353

$22,549

$23,137

2015

2016

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000
$24,576
$22,631
$20,000

$10,000
2013

2014
Choice Neighborhood

Bexar County

Figure 18. Data from ACS 5 Year Estimates

In 2016 the median income in the Choice Neighborhood was approximately 50% that of the county. While
the median income in Bexar County has increased 5% since 2013, the median income in the Choice
Neighborhood has increased only 2%. Anecdotally we hear that the more substantial household income
increases we witness in the county are due to new people moving in from outside the region; there has
been very little of that sort of mobility into the Choice Neighborhood. While the average length of time
that survey respondents have lived in the Choice Neighborhood was 12 years, newcomers have not
moved in from out of town, but rather from other parts of town. This may change as the housing stock
changes to accommodate higher incomes (as discussed in the housing section).
40% of households in the Choice Neighborhood live below the federal poverty line (53% for children). By
definition, then, the Choice Neighborhood remains a neighborhood of concentrated poverty (W.J. Wilson
1998) although the poverty rate has fallen slightly.
42

 While the income level in the neighborhood is greater than in East Meadows, the range is probably
greater in East Meadows, given its mixed-income nature. We are not privy to the income of all East
Meadows residents, but almost 33% of them make more than 80% of the area median income (thus
greater than $42,0008); basically, the new development may be much more diverse economically than
the neighborhood – a clear reversal from Wheatley Courts.

Approximate Income Distributions
35%
30%
25%
20%

15%
10%
5%
0%

East Meadows

Choice Neighborhood

Bexar County

Figure 19. Data from ACS 5 Year Estimates

According to the ACS the number of adults without a high school diploma has been decreasing since
2014. Ultimately, this steady increase in educational attainment will impact median income levels if
people remain in the neighborhood as their income rises.
% ADULTS CHOICE NEIGHBORHOOD
WITHOUT HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA (population 25
years and over )

8

42%
(2010)

46%
(2011)

42%
(2012)

41%
(2013)

40%
(2014)

36%
(2015)

16%
(2016)

This figure is based on the median income of $52,353 in the county. If using MSA, the figure will be higher.

43

 About 50% of adults interviewed are employed full or part time (the low number may be a function of
who is home at the time). 17% are retired. Of those that work, the average commute time is less than 15
minutes, so people work fairly close by. Interviewers report that many people work in a variety of
locations though – mostly those in construction who are driving to multiple sites.
57% of households have a computer and 93% of those have internet in their home. Additional census
data is appended to the end of this chapter.
When asked to reflect on the state of their neighborhood, we asked a number of different questions to
try and ascertain how residents perceive the neighborhood, and any changes they have experienced or

Figure 20. CN Survey 2017-2018.

witnessed. While many of the social indicators have remained fairly consistent in the neighborhood over
the past five years, there is a rising sense of optimism amongst residents—much like at East Meadows.
Despite the shrinkage in the number of businesses (explored more fully in the “Neighborhood” section)
and the rise in crime statistics, people feel they can fulfill their needs better than ever before, and they
feel safer in the community than in previous years.
The following graphs illustrate the distribution of answers to questions such as “my neighborhood …”.
The bars represent the percentage of people answering the question from disagree through agree (or
from seriously disagree to strongly agree).

44

 Figure 21. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

Resident Perceptions of Changes in Level of Crimes
100
90
80

30

37

27
40

35

Percentage

70
60
50
40

54

52

37

50

37

30
20
10

16

13

2013

2014

21

23

28

2015

2016

2017

0
Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

Figure 22. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

45

 Perception of Severity of Crime
100%

Percentage of Responses

80%

12

13

90%
30

24

32

25

24

70%

24

60%
50%

31

35

30%

36

40

40%

27

18
24

20%
10%

18

0%

3

18

21

4

7

6

2015

2016

2017

19
7
2
2014

2013

Survey Year
Not at all serious

Not that serious

Serious

Somewhat serious

Very serious

Figure 23. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

Similar to our understanding of the sense of wellbeing in East Meadows, these contradictory findings in
the neighborhood lend themselves to such an analysis as well. Can a sense of community alleviate some
of the challenging social indicators? To measure a sense of community in the neighborhood questions
include: how many people do you know on your block? Do you trust them to take care of your house?
Your children? Do you think this is a good neighborhood to grow up in?
73% of survey respondents feel the neighborhood is a good place to grow up, raise a family, and grow
old. Nearly 25% of those surveyed say they know everyone on their block (60% know less than 5).
African-Americans are far more likely to know more people on their block than Latino households do (of
those that answered that they know everyone, 64% are African-American, despite being less wellrepresented in the sample). This, again, may be due to length of time in the neighborhood, as AfricanAmerican households have lived in their homes for about 10 years longer than Latino households.
This difference between owners and renters in the neighborhood is substantial. Recalling that 43% of
those in the Choice Neighborhood own the home they live in (compared to 51% in San Antonio), home
owners are more likely to feel they are a part of a larger community than renters are. Of the 447
households surveyed, 184 of them were homeowners, and as expected, their answers to some of the
questions vary greatly from renters’. The question asking how many people on the block you know

46

 provided almost opposite responses. Homeowners were more likely to know everyone on the block and
renters were much more likely to only know 0-2 people.
Homeowners can have positive impacts on neighborhoods: they create stability, hopefully use

How many people do you know on your block?
33%

Every
body

16%

18%

6 to
10

12%

29%
29%

3 to 5

20%

0 to 2

43%
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%
25%
30%
Own
Rent

35%

40%

45%

50%

Figure 24. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

neighborhood facilities, and spend time investing, financially or emotionally, in the neighborhood. Most
residents surveyed agree that they belong in the neighborhood, with a greater percentage of
homeowners strongly agreeing with the statement.

Do you feel like you belong in the neighborhood?
70%
60%
60%

54%

50%

40%
30%

24%

20%
10%

13%
6% 5%

12%

9% 10%

7%

0%
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither
Own

Agree

Strongly agree

Rent

47

 There is a large discrepancy between those who own and rent and their desire to live in the
neighborhood for the next several years. The majority of homeowners, above 80%, hope to continue
living in the neighborhood. Meanwhile, more renters expect to leave the neighborhood.

Do you hope to remain in the neighborhood for
the next 5 to 10 years?
Percentage of Responses

100%
84%
80%
65%
60%
35%

40%
16%

20%
0%
Yes

No
Own

Rent

Figure 26. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018

When residents were asked if they feel connected to their community in 2015 and 2016, the majority
each year agreed. Comparing homeowners to renters throughout the years, homeowners have tended to

Agree or Disagree: "I Feel Connected to My
Neigborhood"
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

38%
55%

56%

60%

68%

67%

10%

9%

33%
24%

20%

21%
29%

21%
Owner

Renter

19%

24%

21%

24%

Owner

Renter

Owner

Renter

2015

2016
Disagree

Neither

2018
Agree

Figure 27. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

48

 feel more connected to their neighborhood than renters. However, in 2018 the sense of having a
connection with the neighborhood became increasingly similar between the two groups.
Compared to the past four years, there has recently been a palpable increase in optimism in the
neighborhood. More people feel that the community has improved.

Perceptions of How the Community Has Changed in the
Past 3 Years
100%

Percentage of Responses

90%
80%

39

43

35

34

70%

60

60%
50%
40%

40

40

40

39

30%

29

20%
10%

21

18

2013

2014

25

26
11

0%
2015

2016

2017

Year
Community has declined

Community has stayed the same

Community has improved

When asked about the future, residents were equally optimistic:

49

 Perceptions of How the Community Will Change in
the Next 3 Years
100%

Percentage of Responses

90%
80%
70%

51%

57%

50%

59%

60%

69%

50%
40%
30%

32%
32%

36%

26%
20%

20%
10%

17%

0%
2013
Community will decline

11%

14%

15%

11%

2014

2015

2016

2017

Community will stay the same

Community will improve

Figure 29. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

When asked for evidence of that, ironically, most point to new streets, sidewalks and the new single
family houses than to anything else. The obvious investment in the area has made a significant difference
in people’s perceptions of it, and, consequently, of their quality of life.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

People









109 of the 246 original Wheatley Courts households remain in case management (44%);
15% of original Wheatley Courts households have returned to live in East Meadows and Wheatley
Park Senior Living;
When residents chose a place to live in 2014 they did so quickly and many moved a second and
third time. When residents chose to return (or not) to East Meadows, they deliberated and
weighed the pluses and minuses of another move – indicating a new sense of control over one’s
daily life;
Median household income of former WCR has remained fairly stagnant, although the mean has
increased appreciably, indicating some families are doing significantly better than others;
Few residents are aware of the mixed-income nature of East Meadows;
Individuals at East Meadows express optimism about their future, although they have met very
few people at East Meadows;
Individuals at Wheatley Park have formed communities; individuals at East Meadows have not;
50

 


Those living in the Choice Neighborhood express increasing optimism about their community;
African-American families have been in the neighborhood much longer, and know more people
there, yet have lower rates of home ownership;

51

 Decennial Census and American Community Survey Data:

METRIC

CN 2010

CN 2012

CN 2013

CN 2014

CN 2015

CN 2016

Bexar
County
2016

source:

1,858,699

P1 SF1
100% data

POPULATION ESTIMATES

Total population
-- 100% count

9,884

Total population
-- 5 year
estimates

9,884

9,936 12,758

9,543 12,343

9,194 12,514

9,977 13,139

9,944 13,248

1,858,699

B01003
ACS 5 year
estimates

# and % men

5,149
(47.81%)

5,192
(45.7%)

4,933
(45.07%)

4,850
(44.6%)

5,292
(45%)

5,355

915,173
(49.23%)

S0101 ACS
5 year

5,620
(52.18%)

6,155
(54.24%)

6,010
(54.92)

6,004
(55.31)

6,266
(54%)

6,241

943,526
(50.76%)

S0101 ACS
5 year

# households

3,667

3,628

3,466

3,397

3,449

3,629

623,321

S1101 ACS
5 year

Average
household size

2.97

3.07

3.05

3.21

3.29

3.19

2.93

S1101 ACS
5 year

"Family”
households

2509
(68%)

2,480

2,243

2,222

2,316
(67.14%)

2,710

421,221

S1101 ACS
5 year

# and % women

(46.18%)

(53.82%)

(67.58%)

52

 Households with
own children

1437
(39%)

1,424

1,279

1,271

1218
(35%)

1,918*

202,027
(32.44%)

S1101 ACS
5 year

Husband-wife
families

(43.8%)
1101

36.57%
(907)

37.37%

904
(40.6%)

869
(38.6%)

1,132

202,100
(32.42%)

S1101 ACS
5 year

Female-headed
households

(43.12%)
1082

50.7%
(1,258)

51.30%

1,055
(47.47%)

1,162
(50%)

1,236

102,989
(16.52%)

S1101 ACS
5 year

BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS

Median age

31 (29 for
males, 33
for
females)

30 (27 for
males, 32
for
females

30(28 for
males, and
31 for
females)

29 (29 for
males, and
30 for
females)

28 (27 for
males, and
28 for
females)

27 (26 for
males,
28.8 for
females)

33.2 (31.9
for males
and 34.5
for
females)

S0101 ACS
5 year

% AfricanAmerican

30.40%

34.10%

29.50%

30.70%

34.40%

31.4%

7.6%

B01001B
ACS 5 year

% Latino

67.62%

61.30%

65.08%

63.50%

59%

60.63%

59.5%

B01001I
ACS 5 year

% Anglo

2.56%

4%

4.87%

4.70%

5.40%

7.17%

28.9%

B01001H
ACS 5 year

SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

53

 MEDIAN
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME

$19,815

$21,565

HOUSEHOLD
INCOME -WHEATLEY
COURTS
FAMILIES

$22,630

$24,576

$22,549

$7,339

$8,299

$9,040

$23,136

$52,353

S1901 ACS
5 year

SAHA

Working-age
adults

7,330

7,841

7,497

7,577

7,896

7,896

1,424,605

S2301 ACS
5 year

% IN LABOR
FORCE

54%

54%

56%

54%

51.40%

54.7%

65%

S2301 ACS
5 year

% UNEMPLOYED
(not in labor
force)

46%

46%

44%

46%

48.60%

45.3%

35%

S2301 ACS
5 year

DEPENDENCY
RATIO

78.7

74.4

75.86

72.6

77.8

79.9

59.9

S0101 ACS
5 year

% RECEIVING SSI

15%

20%

23%

23%

22.80%

15.9%

6.2%

DP03 ACS 5
year

% RECEIVING
FOOD
STAMP/SNAP
BENEFITS

34.25%

41%

41%

42%

45%

39.73%

14.5%

S2201 ACS
5 year

% FAMILIES
BELOW POVERTY

44.48%

47.86%

44%

40.30%

44.68%

40.2%

13.6%

S1702 ACS
5 year

54

 % CHILDREN
BELOW POVERTY

N/A

63%

60%

56%

62%

53.1%

24.31%

S1702 ACS
5 year

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

% ADULTS
WITHOUT HIGH
SCHOOL
DIPLOMA
(population 25
years and over )

42%

46%

42.30%

41.20%

40%

36.66%

16.6%

B15003
ACS 5 year

% ADULTS WITH
B.S.

4%

3.57%

4.16%

3.77

4.18%

4.34%

17.2%

B15003
ACS 5 year

HOUSING STATISTICS

Total number
housing units

4,351

4,226

4,179

4,129

4,236

4,399

627,299

B25001
ACS 5 year

Occupied
housing Units

3,667

3,628

3,466

3,397

3,499

3,629

623,321

B25001
ACS 5 year

% owner
occupied

45%

44.00%

52%

49%

43.00%

43%

58.27%

B25003
ACS 5 year

55

 % renter
occupied

56%

56%

48%

51%

57%

57%

41.73%

B25003
ACS 5 year

Median
Estimated value

48,700

52,266

55,433

55,033

57,665

58,233

134,400

B25001
ACS 5 year

Median Average
monthly rent

533

558

538

605

696

698

902

B25064
ACS 5 year

Occupied units
paying rent

1,823

1,794

1,525

1,516

1,773

2,079

248,958

DP04 ACS 5
year

% paying over
30% monthly
income in rent

67%

69%

62%

66%

70%

61.5%

45.34%

B25070
ACS 5 year

56

 HOUSING
One of the primary goals of the Choice Neighborhood was to create an economically integrated
community and revitalize the existing housing stock, thus this chapter covers the entire housing
continuum: from the construction of the new mixed-income development, through the renovation of
existing homes, to the production of new houses for economically-mobile people in the neighborhood –
or new people moving into the neighborhood. The Transformation Plan urged us to create “aligned
housing options”; this chapter seeks to understand if that goal has been or will be realized shortly.
East Meadows and Wheatley Park are the two most significant investments made in this part of the city
since the Alamodome. But the goal from the beginning of this project was not for East Meadows and
Wheatley Park to exist as islands – instead, they are meant to be fundamental pieces of a larger
continuum of housing – a continuum that allows economically-mobile families to move from one house
to another throughout their lifetime—as their needs change (from single, to partnered, to children, to
youth, to senior) yet remain in the same neighborhood – because (perhaps) their community is so strong
and their memories so vivid. If someone moves to East Meadows and rents an affordable apartment,
over time they may develop economic stability and then mobility and eventually be able to move to the
market rate units or purchase a home. All of this can happen in the Choice Neighborhood. This process is
what we mean by “aligned housing options”.
This chapter is divided into 4 sections that capture the stages of a housing continuum, from the rental
market (including East Meadows and Wheatley Park), to single-family residential housing (including the
real estate market), to renovation of owner-occupied housing, and finally to new infill housing. While this
report mainly covers 2017, in this section, we drift into 2018 because the opening and leasing of the
Wheatley Park Senior Living has been so impactful.

NEW RENTAL UNITS
East Meadows Phase 1 added 215 new rental units to the neighborhood, 33% of the units are public
housing, 4% are project-based vouchers, 36% are tax credit, and 27% are market rate.9 The recent
addition of Wheatley Park Senior Living [WP] adds 80 subsidized units for seniors, for 295 total new rental
units. Phase III will add 117 more family units to the neighborhood by 2019. By the time of its
completion, East Meadows and the Wheatley Park Senior Living will have added 412 new rental units to
the neighborhood.10

Phase

# Buildings

# Public Housing
Units

# Project-Based
Voucher Units

# Tax Credit
Units

# Market Rate
Units

Email communication with San Antonio Housing Authority July 2018
10 San Antonio Housing Authority; Webpage: Wheatley Choice Neighborhood
9

57

 East Meadows I

38

71

8

77

59

East Meadows II

20

42

0

53

24

Senior Living

1

40

36

4

0

Figure 30. Email correspondence with SAHA July 2018

The new units at East Meadows, Wheatley Park, and Sutton add to the existing 1,975 rental units in the
neighborhood.11 The median average monthly rent in the CN in 2010 was $533 and in 2016 has steadily
risen to $698.12 The table below shows the increase in rent in the CN before EM had even opened.

CN 2010

11

12

CN 2012

CN 2013

CN 2014

CN 2015

CN 2016

Bexar
County
2016

Source

American Community Survey 2011-2016
American Community Survey 2011-2016

58

 Median
Average
Monthly
Rent

$533

$558

$538

$605

$696

$698

$902

B25064
ACS 5
Year

Figure 31. American Community Survey 2011-2016

One of the original goals of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative was to ensure 1:1 replacement of the
original affordable housing units. The construction of EM, WP, and the Park at Sutton Oaks has done
that.
East Meadows 1 Affordability Layers (with 2017 income levels)
<30% AMI
$14,812 (in 2017)
30-50% AMI
$24,687 (in 2017)
50-60% AMI
$29,625 (in 2017)
Market rate

38 units
26 units
82 units
57 units

Figure 32. Email correspondence with SAHA July 2018

All former Wheatley Courts residents who qualify to return have been invited to do so. Thirteen percent
have already returned to a new home in East Meadows and Wheatley Park. Because McCormick Baron
Management Company keeps a separate waiting list from that managed by the local Housing Authority,
others who qualify for public housing (and may have been waiting for extended periods of time) have

59

 learned of the new property very slowly. Currently, the waiting list for an affordable unit at EM is less
than one year, compared to two to six years at SAHA.

There are two types of units available: garden apartments (one floor apartments) and townhomes
(multiple floors). All units face the street; however, the townhomes have backdoor access in addition to a
front door on the street. Each of the buildings are three-stories tall, and the garden apartments share an
interior stairwell. East Meadows includes many safety features, such as a gate, key-code access, and
safety patrol officers. One of the goals of the TP was to improve the residents’ sense of personal safety
by adding streetlights.13

East Meadows has one, two, three, and four bedroom units, and each floor is mixed by income, as well as
each building.

1 bedroom
garden apt
1 bedroom flat

13

30% AMI
2

50% AMI
1

60% AMI
21

Market Rate
4

TOTALS
28

0

1

7

1

9

Transformation Plan pg. 19

60

 2 bedroom
12
5
34
garden apt
2 bedroom flat
3
0
5
2 bedroom
5
0
10
townhouse
3 bedroom
1
11
0
garden apt
3 bedroom
19
7
5
townhouse
4 bedroom
0
0
2
garden apt
4 bedroom
0
3
1
townhouse
TOTALS
42
28
85
Figure 33. Email correspondence with SAHA on July 18, 2018.

31

82

12
3

20
18

0

12

9

40

0

2

0

4

60

215 units

Some of the community amenities included in EM are a pool, playground, volleyball court, and
community room. The units include central air conditioning, dishwasher, washer and dryer, microwave,
refrigerator, and energy efficient appliances. Dogs and cats under 20 lbs are allowed, and EM is smoke
free. As for WP, the shared amenities for residents include a fitness center, theater room, community
room, billiards room, as well as laundry and sitting rooms on each floor. Individual apartments include air
conditioning, vinyl plank flooring, granite countertops, and utilities are included.
As of June 26, 2018, SAHA is working with DHR Architects, Bender Wells Clark Design, and others to build
a public park on a narrow piece of land between Lamar and Arthur Street, on Gevers and Mittman Street.
This directly follows goals in the TP to increase green space, on this piece of land specifically.14 During a
meeting held on June 26, 2018 at HIS Bridge Builders addressing the park, residents expressed some of
their desires for the park, including a walking path, garden, fitness equipment, and swings. The proposed
plan is for the park to be multi-purpose, so any resident in the neighborhood can utilize it - from young
children to seniors.

14

Transformation Plan pg. 49

61

 IMPACT of the DEVELOPMENT on the NEIGHBORHOOD: Property Values
A question/concern of almost any neighborhood improvement is the impact it has on property values and
the real estate market more generally. It is difficult to separate individual factors from one another in
explaining increases in housing values. Why are prices going up for single-family houses in the CN?
Because prices are going up everywhere? Or because of the increased demand for ‘affordable’ housing
(housing that those making <80% of AMI can afford – thus $39,500 and a house worth approximately
$120,000)? Or because East Meadows and Wheatley Park are new developments that may be generating
externalities, does its sheer presence impact the value of the properties around them – in this case
positively? One of the hopes for East Meadows were the externalities it could produce; would it
encourage a reinvigorated real estate market on San Antonio’s eastside? In any case, there is change in
real estate activity in the CN.
There are 2,748 single-family residences in the Choice Neighborhood and 98 multi-family units15 (outside
of those owned and/or managed by SAHA).
According to the Census Bureau, 43% of households in the CN own their home while 57% rent.16 Yet
census data has a wide margin of error, and the true range is that 40% to 45% of households own their
15

16

Includes duplexes, of which there are many.
Missing 1% from those interviewed who did not know if the unit was rented or owned

62

 home while 53% to 60% of households rent. This is consistent with neighborhood survey findings that
indicate that 42% of homes in the surveyed sample are owner occupied and 57% renter occupied. 17

Figure 34. American Community Survey 2011-2016.

Figure 35. American Community Survey 2011-2016.

17

American Community Survey 2011-2016

63

 The average appraisal value in 2018 is $62,456 (compared to $196,660 in COSA), and the average sales
price last year was $55,492, which is 12% lower than the appraised value.18 This is odd, since sales prices
are usually higher than appraisal values in other parts of town19.

Average (appraisal) value CNI and Bexar Cty
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000

$100,000
$50,000
$0
2011

2012

2013

2014

CNI property values

2015

2016

2017

2018

Bexar Cty property values

Figure 36. Bexar County Appraisal District

18

Bexar County Appraisal District and Zillow.com

Different methods used to appraise the value of a piece of real property. With fair market value
appraising the assessor will value the property based on similar sales that have taken place in the area;
when using a cost method of appraising, the assessor determines the property value based on how
much it would cost to replace it. If the property is not new, assessors determine the amount
of depreciation that has taken place and how much the property would be worth if it was empty. The
Bexar County Appraiser uses a cost method minus depreciation method of appraising values, and then
considers the fair market value in addition. This method can result in older houses being appraised at a
higher level while newer houses are appraised lower, but obtain higher values on the market.
19

64

 Appraisal Rate Changes 2011-2018 (percent) in CN
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00

-5.00

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

-10.00
-15.00
Figure 37. Bexar County Appraisal District

Most of the houses in the neighborhood are at least 70 years old, and their close proximity and
resemblance to Dignowity Hill and Denver Heights – two rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods – may mean
that they are vulnerable to rapid change (price fluctuations with changing demand). The same house in
DIgnowity Hill is valued nearly 5X as much as the same house in the Choice Neighborhood.

Figure 38. (L-R): 1620 Burnet, in the Choice Neighborhood, 2018 appraisal value is $57,000;
618 Muncey, in Dignowity Hill, 2018 appraisal value is $269,270;
1220 S Pine, in Denver Heights, 2018 appraisal value is $160,730.

One of the goals of the Choice Neighborhood project is to revitalize the housing stock in the
neighborhood and to increase the range of property values, so that the community diversifies
economically (as opposed to isolating the low-income population into one or two neighborhoods). While
property values (according to the Bexar County appraiser) have begun to rise, they are not rising as
quickly as the rest of the county, and they remain significantly below the average property value of the
county. The rate at which they are rising has accelerated recently though (according to the chief
appraisal, as a direct result of the growing strength of the regional economy).

65

 Appraisal values have risen 47% percent in the past five years. Since the average house value in the CN is
$62,456, then property taxes on that house have risen by about $825. Given that the average income in
the CN is $23,136, this increase is 4% of one’s income, which is substantial when disposable income is
minimal. In addition, the range of property values has gone from about $100,000 in 2014 to almost
$200,000 in 2018, due almost entirely to additions at the higher price points.

Figure 39. Average appraisal value of all single family houses in the CN. BCAD,
2017.

With the city-wide (and nationwide) concern over the lack of affordable housing in urban cores, this
neighborhood remains affordable to many, and so far has avoided the rapid rises in property values seen
in the immediate vicinity. Denver Heights, for example, is located immediately to the southwest of CN;
that neighborhood witnessed a 40% rise in property appraisal values in 2018. Cities need neighborhoods
like the CN desperately; the challenge we face is to maintain its affordability while preserving its (fairly
deteriorated) housing stock and providing additional affordable housing where there’s room (i.e., infill
housing). While appraisal values have been rising since 2014, at a relatively rapid rate of increase, listing
prices have outpaced that rise even quicker.

66

 Average Sale, List, and Appraisal Values in CN
$160,000.00
$140,000.00
$120,000.00
$100,000.00
$80,000.00
$60,000.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00

$April 4 2016
Average Appraisal Value

July 17 2017
Average List Price

May 31 2018
Average Sales Price

Figure 40. Bexar County Appraisal District and Zillow.com

The values gathered about list prices are part of a synchronic analysis, or taken from one day in the year,
to represent a slice in time of real estate activity. For this report, we gathered data from Zillow.com and
BCAD on May 31, 2018. In the Choice Neighborhood, since 2016:


appraised values have increased 68%
o list prices have increased 107%
 and sales prices have increased 16%.

These vast differences signal very optimistic and entrepreneurial sellers.

67

 Figure 41. BCAD 2015-2017 and Zillow.com.

The widening gap between appraisal values and listing prices indicates that those selling houses are
placing a greater value on the house than the appraiser has, possibly because of changes in the
neighborhood rather than changes to the actual building.

IMPACT of the DEVELOPMENT on the NEIGHBORHOOD: Sales of Existing Houses

68

 Figure 42. Zillow.com

On May 31, 2018 there were 31 houses for sale in the Choice Neighborhood. There were more houses
for sale to the west of Walters Street than to the east, and some clustering around Gevers and Potomac
Street.

69

 Homes for sale

Per SQFT of homes for sale

Average 2017 Appraisal Value

$51,612

$40

Average List Price

$138,068

$106

Figure 43. Bexar County Appraisal District and Zillow.com

Figure 44. Bexar County Appraisal District and Zillow.com

Out of these houses for sale in the CN in June, only five are owner occupied; the rest are renter occupied
(the top five addresses in the chart above are owner occupied). 817 Potomac and 1751 E Crockett are
new construction, which could be why the differences between appraisal value and list price are so vast.
The tremendous difference between appraisal value and asking price may be a sign of very confident
homeowners and investors, who may be speculating that the improvements in the neighborhood – and in
the surrounding neighborhoods – may warrant higher sales prices. But thus far, with limited data, it

70

 appears that pre-owned houses are not achieving the asking prices owners wish for. From 2017 to 2018,
when looking at a single day, the average listing price has increased 61% and the sales price 16%.
2014

2015

Number houses
listed/sold20

9

Average listing
price

$62,972

Average BCAD
appraisal value

Average Sale
Price

April 4, 2016

July 17, 2017

May 31, 2018

16

32 listed 17
sold

31 listed

$66,444

$84,299
(when 3
houses listed
>$200K
removed,
mean =
$70,500)

$136,068
(when 6
houses listed
>$200K
removed,
mean =
$109,178)

$37,595

$41,960

$65,495

$55,942

$48,890

$41,854

Figure 45. 2016 Impact Assessment and Bexar County Appraisal District

In contrast to the form of real estate speculation described above, the houses immediately surrounding
East Meadows do not reflect the renewed interest seen in the rest of the neighborhood. As of now, East
Meadows has not had the anticipated spillover effect on real estate values into the blocks immediately
surrounding the development. The average price of the houses within 4-5 blocks of the development is
$38.38/square foot, compared to $72.59/square foot for houses for sale in the rest of the neighborhood.
Perhaps it is too soon since the construction of EM to see these impacts, but the hope outlined in the
Transformation Plan is for the surrounding blocks of EM to be the starting point of a wave of
revitalization. In addition, residents are aware of the land acquisition required for Phase III; many of
those homes were acquired at a higher price than anticipated. Are these homeowners postponing
investing and instead speculating on future SAHA acquisitions?

20

2018 Bexar County Appraisal District and 2016 Impact Assessment

71

 Figure 46. Zillow.com

As appraisal values and asking prices increase, some residents express concern that they will be priced
out of the neighborhood, saying, “Eventually they will push us out.”
Homeowners in the neighborhood feel pressure from real estate agents and speculators to sell their
homes. Some homeowners in the neighborhood stated:
“Every day I get a stack of cards and letters [from investors], and now they are calling.”
“They take pictures, and it infuriates me”

72

 Some are resentful of the attention, saying that it creates “trauma in this community. One house selling
for $300,000? That’s an insult.”21

Figure 47. A note left to a homeowner by a developer seeking to buy
their house.

While we cannot prevent these types of marketing techniques from occurring, we can educate
homeowners on the value of their investment, and make them aware of the opportunities available
through the City and County for help with home repair and upkeep. In addition, the Bexar County
Appraiser has expressed interest in personally educating more people about tax exemptions they may
qualify for, thus keeping their taxes lower.
While this kind of pressure is largely psychological (offering cash to a homeowner who is on a limited
income is quite enticing), there is a definite possibility that the rising costs may be forcing people out of
the neighborhood.

Mortgage Foreclosures
Tax Foreclosures
Total # of Foreclosures

Choice Neighborhood 2017
(66%)
(34%)
38

Bexar County 2017
(91%)
(9%)
4,384

Figure 48. Bexar County and CN Foreclosures – Bexar County

There were 38 foreclosures in the CN in 2017; 34% of them were tax foreclosures (compared to 9% in the
rest of the county. Of the tax foreclosures in the Choice Neighborhood (13), one was owner-occupied –
all others were occupied by renters. Our most vulnerable residents in time of speculative real estate
markets are renters.

21

Quotes from residents who participated in a focus group held on June 7 regarding the neighborhood.

73

 The adage that community development and neighborhood revitalization may force some from their
homes is absolutely true. Is that what we are seeing here? We cannot be sure without visiting each

Foreclosures from 2014 to 2017 in CN
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
2014

2015
Total

2016
Tax

2017

Mortgage

Figure 49. Bexar County 2018

household individually. However, the leadership must remain vigilant about this trend, as rising prices
and fixed incomes are a lethal combination.

INCREASING the SUPPLY of AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
OWNER-OCCUPIED REHAB and INFILL HOUSING PRODUCTION
Various estimates have been made of how many land parcels are vacant, how many homes are
abandoned, and how many houses are in various states of decay in the Choice Neighborhood. BCAD
estimates that 34 of the 2,748 residentially zoned parcels in the neighborhood are vacant land. In 2013,
at the beginning of the Choice Neighborhood project, it was estimated that 16% of residential parcels
were either vacant and/or dilapidated22; that means 440 residential properties are considered to be
either vacant or dilapidated. Using CN dollars allotted through the Critical Community Improvements
plan, there are enough CN dollars to either renovate or build 31 properties, which is 1% of those parcels

22

Transformation Plan pg. 43

74

 in need of significant investment. Two strategies are in process that are intended to do just that: one, to
renovate existing owner-occupied homes, and (two), to build new, affordable housing on vacant parcels.

Figure 50. Received from Wheatley Choice Team at Neighborhood Coffee, June 27, 2018

75

 Figure 51. 131 Gabriel St.

OWNER-OCCUPIED HOME REHABILITATION
The neighborhood section of the Choice Neighborhood Transformation Plan includes the goal to
“increase home ownership through infill housing and renovation of owner-occupied single family units.”23
The owner-occupied rehabilitation program started as a partnership between SAHA and Merced Housing,
a non-profit organization with the mission of providing safe and affordable shelter in order to enhance
communities.
The purpose of the rehabilitation program is to improve the housing stock in the neighborhood and
encourage neighboring residents to invest in their own homes. Homeowners typically invest more time
and effort into a neighborhood than renters will. They also create a sense of stability by staying long term
and feeling more connected to the neighborhood through ownership. Target areas were developed and
Merced identified, contacted, and encouraged 199 pre-qualified owners to apply for the renovation
program. The entire program has $920,000 available – enough for about 20 houses (spending
approximately $46,000 per house).24 As of the end of May 2018, Merced Housing had received 27
applications, 11 of which failed to qualify. Merced continues to recruit additional houses to the program,
and all work must be completed by August 2019.

Transformation Plan pg. v
24 Merced Housing
23

76

 To qualify for the program, the resident must reside in a single family home, own the home, which must
be located in one of the target areas, and the gross annual income of the household cannot exceed 120%
of the area median income. The applicant must also provide proof that property taxes are currently being
paid or in a payment plan, proof of current mortgage payments, and proof of homeowners insurance.
The rehab program has proven to be more difficult to implement than originally expected for several
reasons.
●

●

●

First, the identification of owner-occupied, qualified houses was hampered by the lack of
homestead exemptions (despite owner occupancy) in the target areas (this was documented in
2017);
Second, qualified homeowners have been reluctant to respond to the program for two reasons
we have been able to identify: the documentation contains college-level, legalistic language25 and
thus is difficult to comprehend, and (second) the program may simply be too good to be true.
Despite attempts at community meetings, door-to-door introductions, and open houses of
recently renovated houses, the response rate continues to be strikingly low.
Third, once qualified and accepted into the program, lead paint remediation has proven to be
more costly and time intensive than expected. The City of San Antonio was originally responsible
for testing and remediation, however, the city reached their budget on the number of homes
they could assist and ceased their program beyond households with children less than 6 years
old. Remediation typically costs between $6,000 and $19,000 depending on both the location
and amount of lead. Now that Merced is responsible for lead testing and remediation, that cost
comes out of the $47,407 budget for each home. Merced also tests the soil for lead, and the
entire testing process can take between one week and one month to complete. The maximum
budget on the exterior of the home is $7,407, leaving the largest portion of money for interior
work.

2130 Hays before rehab

25

2130 Hays during the rehab process

Original text of all documents was analyzed using readability statistic software available in Microsoft Word.

77

 1719 Nolan before rehab

1719 Nolan during the rehab process

For many participants, several months go by before the renovations even begin. Obviously, the lack of
interest from homeowners has slowed the process down, but those who have had their applications
approved wait many months for renovations to begin.
Given this analysis, an additional impact of the owner-occupied re-hab program must be noted. Merced
Housing was a small, non-profit, affordable housing provider that had some experience in re-hab when
this project began. Now they are the leading non-profit provider of re-hab services, and have built the
capacity to train others in the field. As the City of San Antonio begins to put public investment into the
older housing stock, the newly built capacity of this organization will be invaluable.

OWNER-OCCUPIED REHAB: Impact of the Process
Four homeowners in the rehab program gave interviews about their experience. Despite the low
application rate (13.5% of qualified homeowners responded, of those 16 qualified, 14 joined the program
– only 7% of the original applicant pool), those who made it through the qualification, remediation, and
rehabilitation phase have been quite pleased with the process, and with Merced Housing. One
participant was skeptical about the legitimacy of the program - she learned of it from a sign placed in her
yard - but is very happy with the work Merced is doing. She explained that the application process was
easy, and when she came across something she did not understand, she simply contacted Merced and
one of their staff members went over the document with her. All those interviewed expressed that they
had no concerns about the application. However, this sentiment may not be universal, as one resident
who did not participate in the program states that they found the documents confusing.

Figure 52. Timeline of owner occupied rehabilitation. Received from Merced Housing via email correspondence on July 18,
2018.

78

 Some of the residents in the program who have not begun the actual rehabilitation process have
concerns about the timeline for the project, which is taking longer than the average 5- or 6-month span
Merced anticipates.
One of the goals of the owner-occupied rehab program was that targeted investment in houses would
encourage neighbors who may not have qualified for the program (usually due to higher income) to
invest in their renovation of their own home. While there is little evidence of this sort of spillover yet,
asking prices for vacant lots and houses near the rehab projects have gone up significantly.

INFILL HOUSING PRODUCTION
The infill housing program is the second housing plan in the Critical Community Improvement plan, which
was approved in 2016, after two years of negotiation with HUD. When the program was initially
proposed, 10 houses were to be built on soon-to-be-purchased vacant land (averaging $13,000). By the
time the CCI plan was approved and adopted, vacant lots in the Choice Neighborhood were being listed
for over $30,000 and the program was immediately susceptible to problems because private investors
were purchasing lots, limiting the number of available lots and driving up prices. As of June 27, 2018
SAHA has 11 lots purchased and designated to the infill program. The average asking price for lots in
2018 is about $32,000, while the average selling price is $13,950, similar to the 2017 average.26 Investors
are willing to speculate that future values will rise rapidly, and seem unwilling to sell soon.
SAHA’s intent was to give these lots to developers with the capacity and capability of building affordable,
single family houses on them. The difficulty in obtaining the lots has delayed this effort.

26

Zillow.com May 31, 2018

79

 Figure 53. Bexar County Appraisal District

[this is the graph we will add infill lot purchase dates to, with CCI dates.]

80

 Figure 54. Zillow.com

Regardless, in 2017 about 15 people participated in design charrettes to choose housing styles and
composition and to decide what kind of house would fit best and be the most functional in the
neighborhood. The residents chose from different options on various aspects of a house, such as the
type and material for the roof, fencing, location and material of parking structure, and more. The
conclusion page from SAHA’s design plan from the meetings is included, which displays the potential
features for the homes. Many of the preferences were due to durability and functionality, such as
porches for sitting outside, and light colored roof material to prevent heat. These pages come from
SAHA’s New Home Design Guideline from March 2017, which outlines the process of the design charrette
and the possible designs based on the resident input.
These houses will sell for between $129,000 and $150,000, and future sales will be restricted to keep
them affordable for families making up to 80% AMI.

81

 Figure 55.. SAHA New Housing Design Guideline. March 2017.

As SAHA waited and renegotiated the program with HUD, private developers bought vacant lots and
begun building. The houses they are building do not resemble those that the Housing Authority had
envisioned. The East Crockett Urban Homes, which stand on lots that were previously vacant, are now
listed for $260,000 ($162.50/sqft) – far above the 80% AMI the Housing Authority was targeting.27 In
2012 one vacant lot was appraised for $12,930; by 2018 it was worth $32,080 and the new houses are
being constructed.

27

Zillow.com May 31, 2018

82

 Appraisal Value of 1753 E Crockett
$35,000.00
$30,000.00
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 56. BCAD 2011-2018 appraisal data.

Figure 57. East Crockett Urban development

83

 The public investments in the Choice Neighborhood are intended to spark private sector investment,
which had been nonexistent for the past several decades. And indeed, private investment has begun.
However, private investment does not necessarily play by the same rules as public investment, so, for
example, while private investors have purchased vacant lots throughout the Choice Neighborhood they
have built new housing but at a very different price point. The Housing Authority had intended to buy
many of those lots and build affordable housing with covenants to preserve its affordability. Private
developers have gone in a different direction, opting instead to build housing similar to that in
neighboring Dignowity Hill and Denver Heights. The implications of that remain unclear. It could entice
new homeowners into the neighborhood, thus diversifying the income levels; or it could impact the
values of surrounding houses and threaten current owners and renters. .

Figure 58. East Crockett Urban development.

Some residents have noted that many of the new developments are not for sale, but for rent. One
resident noted, “It’s too bad that we don’t have people to purchase the property to live here, and pay
interest in the community, because rental people they come and go.”28
It is clear that new development is taking place. Residents’ opinions and real estate prices tell us that
current neighbors are not likely to move into the newly developed properties. A common sentiment from
the residents is that these new developments are not for them. If they were, the properties would have
lower listing prices. They frequently ask: “Who are these for? They obviously are not for us!” Current
residents cannot even imagine outsiders moving into their neighborhood. These homes appear to target
more middle and higher income residents of the city. The neighborhood is in proximity to many desirable

28

Quote from a resident who participated in focus group held June 7, 2018 regarding the neighborhood.

84

 locations, such as St. Philip's College, Fort Sam Houston, and access to I-35, the AT&T Center, and
downtown. These factors, combined with the addition of these new homes should draw higher income
residents to the area.

The current real estate market of the CN is changing. While there are many older homes for sale, there
are also houses in dire need of repair, as well as newly constructed houses. It appears that there is more
influence coming from Dignowity Hill and Denver Heights than East Meadows on the real estate market,
however with more time, East Meadows may have a greater impact on the surrounding homes. The
combined effects from the new development and surrounding neighborhoods on the people who live in
the Choice Neighborhood will be seen in the years to come.
The Transformation Plan describes the Housing strategy of the Eastside Choice Neighborhood as “the
physical component of the vision created by the residents and the families that live in the Eastside” (TP,
51). It goes on:
The transformation of Wheatley Courts and strategic housing initiatives within the surrounding
area is the opportunity to reshape a neighborhood by adding value to what exists.
All of the evidence that we can possibly accumulate illustrates that indeed, the value of what currently
exists is increasing. The vision was created by the residents and families that live in the Eastside (TP, 51),
but has the value that has been created gone to them? One of the goals of the original Transformation
Plan is to re-stimulate the private housing market so that housing market values would appreciate much
like elsewhere in the city. The plan includes the infill and owner occupied rehabilitation programs as
strategies for increasing the levels of homeownership in the area. The goal was never for values to rise
such that current residents could no longer afford to live there; yet, the goal was for values to rise so
resident’s investments in their homes were wealth generating and stabilizing. Instead, it appears that
prices of recently developed properties are too high for current residents to afford, which could be a
good thing as wealthier families with more disposable income move in. But how will that demand impact
those already there? That could be up to us. With careful policy we can ensure that original residents
remain if they so wish.

MAJOR FINDINGS:


The one to one replacement from Wheatley Courts to East Meadows is complete; 248 affordable
housing units in the former Wheatley Courts have been replaced by 295 new affordable units in
East Meadows and Sutton Oaks.



List prices in the Choice Neighborhood are far greater than average appraisal values. These
prices naturally increase over time, but within the past few years the prices have increased at a
greater rate. The sale prices are lagging though, as they are much less than the list prices,
possibly signaling investor speculation.

85

 

The total number of foreclosures have been decreasing over time. However, over the past few
years the number of tax foreclosures have been rising. This, along with the increase list prices,
may indicate that people are starting to/will be priced out of their homes.



The private sector has begun developing property in the neighborhood. However, judging from
their style and price, the homes are not meant for current neighbors.



The Owner Occupied Rehabilitation program has been successful for those whose houses have
begun or completed renovations. However some applicants who are still in the application or
lead based paint testing/remediation process express some frustration with the slow speed of the
process.



The infill housing program has been slow to take off because SAHA had difficulty receiving
permission from HUD to purchase lots. In that time, lot prices have increased and some private
developers have begun to build on them.

86

 NEIGHBORHOOD (the INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT)
There are 10,000 households in the Choice Neighborhood, and approximately 125 business (including forprofit, non-profit, and governmental). There are 3 neighborhood schools (although there are more that
serve the neighborhood), and over a dozen churches. This is the environment in which individuals and
community live and flourish (or fail to thrive). But we do not simply inventory built structures and the
quality of those structures; instead, our focus is on the life led in and around them. Do people feel safe?
Can they fulfill their needs, or must they travel long distances to do so? Are children well educated? Can
people get medical care? This larger institutional environment is the focus of this chapter. A variety of
institutions provide these services and fulfill these needs – both through the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. We use the term in a very formal sense here; the institutions we refer to include city
government, the school district, health providers, and businesses. The partners examined in this chapter
include the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Independent School District, the business community,
and the health district.
The original Transformation Plan lists many strategies and goals for the neighborhood (referring to the
larger community surrounding East Meadows and Wheatley Park). While they vary in area of focus, all
aim to improve residents experience living in the neighborhood, as well as to make the area a more
desirable location for both individuals and businesses – a ‘Choice’ neighborhood. The goals and strategies
of the plan primarily fall under the categories of community and quality of life, built environment, and
economic activity.

Category

Goals

COSA:

Foster a sense
of community




Improve
relationship
with SAPD





-East Point/
Transportation &
Capital Improvements

-San Antonio Police
Department

Improve sense
of personal
safety
Deter gang
activity

Strategies







Install public art
Neighborhood events and
campaigns
SAFFE officer program
Byrne Grant
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
Match crime rate of CN to
that of COSA
Increase bus routes
Improve WiFi
Increase car & bike share
programs
Gang injunction

Transformation
Plan Page

Pp. v, 43, 44, 45,
and 46

87

 Increase
walkability and
connectivity
-Neighborhood &
Housing Services

Repurpose
properties
unsuitable for
housing

-Animal Care Services

Education

Health









Safety zone
More green space
Sidewalk improvements
Increase pedestrian signage
Infill housing
Establish community
gardens
COSA Animals Care Services
sweeps
SNIPSA spay-neuter and
foster programs

Decrease
number of
stray animals



Increase
educational
attainment



Expand selection of youth
activities

Provide
wraparound
services for
residents



Open health clinic

Prioritize
neighborhood
level retail and
services




Pp. v and 43



Economic Activity
Improve retail
corridors

Pp. v, 43, 45, and
46





Business façade program
Economic development
grants
Create incentives for
businesses to locate in the
area
Job training programs
Enhance landscaping
Screen parking lots

Pp. v, 44, 45, and
46

While this table outlines the partners, strategies, and goals involved in the Choice Neighborhood
Initiative, we also recognize that there exists a great deal of overlap between different aspects of
neighborhood improvement.

CHAPTER OUTLINE


The City of San Antonio
o The Right to Feel Safe and Secure: Crime and Safety in the Neighborhood
 Crime Statistics: Types of Crimes Committed
 Crime Statistics: Where Crime is Committed
 Crime Perceptions: What Residents Think
 Crime Perceptions: What Police Officers Think
88

 






 Crime Perceptions: What Businesses Think
COSA: Public Infrastructure
o COSA: Organization, the Neighborhood Association, and Representation
Non-profit Sector: Health and Education
o County Services: Health Care
o Education: The Public and Charter School Districts
o BiblioTech
Economic Development in the Neighborhood
o Revitalize Key Retail Areas: The Ability to Fulfill One’s Needs
o Physical Improvements to the Neighborhood: Façade Improvements
o Leakage and Surplus
o Expand and Diversify Economic Activity in the Area: Overall Economic Impact
Conclusion
o Further Recommendations

89

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

WSION ST 

   
  

Legend

 

Facade Improvements
0

County Improvements

I
OwnarOccupiod Rehab
0
Improved StreetsISidowalks

The Park at Sutton Oaks
- East Meadows Phase II

 

 

    

NEW BRAUNFELS

 

3! 

hm sm

- East Meadow: Phase IV

Alamo Community College

. Choice Nelghbo:

- East Iloadows Phase 

Public Schools

 

 

marh.,_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



I 

i5 I 

1 7 



MARTIN 
Christine Drennonmany University

Mules JUN 2013

 

 

 

90

THE CITY of SAN ANTONIO

The role and effectiveness of city services are examined here. The city is almost solely responsible for the
formal provision of safety and security in the neighborhood, for the development and upkeep of the
public infrastructure, and representation of the neighborhood to all of the services the city provides. All
are examined in this section.

THE RIGHT TO FEEL SAFE AND SECURE: CRIME AND SAFETY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The goal for the Choice Neighborhood concerning crime and safety was simple: crime and safety
statistics, as well as perceptions, in the Choice Neighborhood should not differ from those of the City of
San Antonio. We analyze both in the paragraphs below. Our analysis includes the types of crime
committed, where it is committed, and how it is perceived.

CRIME STATISTICS: TYPES OF CRIME COMMITTED
Choice Neighborhood crime categories include: violent crime, traffic-related crime, property crime, DWI,
and other. The “other” category covers a wide range of offenses, including fraud, panhandling,
trespassing, and prostitution. The Choice Neighborhood had 2,589 crime incidents in 2017. There was an
uptick from 2016 incidents in all crime categories except property, which decreased slightly.

Total Crime Incidents Within CN (All Types)
3500

Crime Incidents

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000

500
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
Figure 60. Data from SAPD.

91

 Crime Incidents Within Choice Neighborhood
1400
1200

Crime Incidents

1000
800
600
400
200
0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
Other

Property

Violent

Drug

Traffic

DWI

Figure 61. Data from SAPD.

There appears to be a consistent drop across all crime rates for 2015. Yet upon speaking with an
impromptu focus group of local police, this is explained not as the result of new policy, but rather a
reluctance of police to engage in the wake of Michael Brown and the national conversation on police
brutality. “We were holding ourselves back,” one officer hesitantly admitted, “nobody wanted to be the
next headline.”

The original goal of the Choice Neighborhood project concerning crime was that crime rates should be no
higher than any other neighborhood in the City. Comparing the Uniform Crime Rate (UCR29) of the City
and the CN are initially deceiving as they remain higher in the CN overall.

The UCR is split into two categories: type 1 and type 2. Type 1 offenses are more serious crimes; this category
consists of violent and property crimes covering homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny
theft, and vehicle theft. UCR rates are measured per 100,000 residents.
29

92

 Crime Rate per 100,000 People

UCR1 Crimes - CN vs. COSA
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
CN (rate per 100,000)

COSA (rate per 100,000)

Figure 62. Data from SAPD.

While the overall UCR1 rate for the CN is higher than COSA, the CN has maintained the small gap
between the two rates that has occurred since 2015.

Violent Crime Within CN
600

Crime Incidents

500
400
300
200
100
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
Figure 63. Data from SAPD.

93

 As in other years, in 2017 violent crimes made up a much larger portion of total UCR1 crimes for the CN
than they do for COSA.

The most dramatic change of 2017 took place in the violent crime category, which rose 9.4% from 2016.
The 496 violent crimes in 2017 are nearly approaching the levels in 2012 and 2013, up from a low of 372
in 2015. Violent crimes include aggravated robbery, family violence, assault, murder, and more. The
increase in violent crimes this year is due in large part to the increase in incidents of deadly conduct,
which increased 56% from 2016.

2017 UCR1 for CN

2017 UCR1 for COSA

Violent

Violent

Property

Property

Figure 64. Data from SAPD.

94

 Crime Rate per 100,000 People

UCR1 Aggravated Assault Rates - CN vs. COSA
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
CN (rate per 100,000)

COSA (rate per 100,000)

Figure 65. Data from SAPD.

Unfortunately, the rate of violence has been climbing since 2015, and the UCR1 violent crime rate for
2017 hit the highest point in the span of study. This is largely attributable to the rate of aggravated
assault, which jumped 40% from the 2016 rate.
While concerning, this stark increase in aggravated assault is not necessarily indicative of a decline in
safety for the neighborhood. In fact, it is actually reflective of more effective methods of detecting and
recording crime. One such tactic is SAPD’s Shotspotter system along New Braunfels, which is capable of
detecting the sounds of gunshots that may have otherwise gone unreported. In this respect, the elevated
assault rate is partially indicative of more effective methods of policing which can account for crime that
was unreported in the previous years. Meanwhile, some aspects of crime are improving in the CN. While
property crimes decreased by only 5.7% from 2016 to 2017, this continuation of a downward trend is
striking. From 2014 to 2017, property crimes decreased by 34.3%.

Crime Rate per 100,000 People

One SAFFE officer speculates that recent investments may have contributed to the drop in property
crimes. As residents witness
positive change in their
UCR1 Property Crimes - CN vs. COSA
community, they in turn take a
8000
more active role in preserving
7000
their physical environment.
6000
The rate of burglary in
5000
particular has seen a consistent
4000
decline since 2012. One
3000
possible explanation for this
2000
trend is infrastructure
improvements that deter
1000
potential burglars by increasing
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
visibility through street
Year
lighting, and fixing up
deteriorating properties that
CN (rate per 100,000)
COSA (rate per 100,000)
may have attracted burglars.
Figure 66. Data from SAPD

95

 CRIME STATISTICS: WHERE CRIME IS COMMITTED
Not only is the quantity of crime committed a concern, so too is the geography of it – where is crime
committed, and has that changed over the years as the neighborhood changes?

96

 2012

2014

In 2012, the Wheatley Courts public housing complex still stood in the neighborhood, and was
frequently a hotspot for crime. The constant hotspot around New Braunfels and Houston street existed
then (like now), but extended further into the neighborhood, nearly encompassing Wheatley Courts.
Wheatley Courts was demolished in 2014, which accounts for the significant drop in crime in the area
immediately surrounding it. 2014 shows the beginning of a pattern discussed by various business owners
and residents: crime typically moves rather than decreases altogether. The demolition of Wheatley
Courts may have pushed crime further south towards Commerce Street. Additionally, police strategies
consisted of targeting specific hotspots for a period of time, which led to the closing of Handy Stop
(located at New Braunfels Avenue and Nolan Street). Increased patrolling, including bike and foot patrols,
of small areas seems to have moved the crime further south, which is indicative that these police
strategies are only temporarily effective. In 2017, the crime around East Meadows rose again, though not
to the level of 2012. Though there is crime encroaching from every direction but north, East Meadows
appears to have a small buffer zone around it, maintaining lower levels of crime than the surrounding
blocks. Overall, 2017 hotspots underlie the perception of crime moving down New Braunfels Avenue; a
majority of crimes now take place south of Houston Street, unlike previous years where it was north of it.

97

 CRIME PERCEPTIONS: WHAT RESIDENTS THINK
Crime statistics give an objective view of crime in the neighborhood, but they do not always capture the
overall relationship between residents and crime. Even if total crime incidents stay the same, residents’
perceptions can change dramatically depending on the location and types of crime occurring. This
section also covers residents’ perceptions of police.

Collective sense of safety determines if, and how, residents choose to engage with one another and their
environment. It is imperative that residents feel secure in this respect to maintain lasting, meaningful
change. The following graph displays residents’ perceptions of the severity of crime in the neighborhood.

Perception of Severity of Crime
100%

Percentage of Responses

80%

12

13

90%
30

24

32

25

24

70%

24

60%
50%

31

35

30%

36

40

40%

27

18
24

20%
10%

18

0%

3

18

21

4

7

6

2015

2016

2017

19
7
2
2014

2013

Survey Year
Not at all serious

Not that serious

Serious

Somewhat serious

Very serious

Figure 67. Data from CN survey 2017-2018.

In the 2017 survey, fewer residents than any other year answered that crime in the neighborhood is very
serious, and more residents answered that crime was either not at all serious or not very serious. The
graph below echoes these positive sentiments, as more residents than ever believe that crime has
decreased in the past three years, from a low of 13% in 2014 to 28% in this year’s survey.

98

 Resident Perceptions of Changes in Level of
Crimes
100

Percentage of Responses

90
80

30

27

37

40

35

70
60
50
40

52

54

37

50

37

30
20
10

16

13

2013

2014

21

23

28

2015

2016

2017

0

Survey Year
Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

Figure 68. Data from CN survey 2017-2018.

Given the lack of change in the crime incident statistics, this perception of positive change is surprising.
This may be due to the decrease in property crimes over the past few years, the UCR1 rate of which is
now lower than COSA. While violent crimes like shootings and deaths are typically more immediately
salient in residents’ minds, property crimes like theft and vandalism may impact residents’ daily behaviors
and perceptions more.

Total Responses

Do police respect residents? (2017)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost
always

Response

99

 Can police keep you safe? (2017)
Total Responses

200
150
100
50
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Response

Total Responses

Can police reduce crime in the neighborhood?
(2017)
150
100
50
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Response

Total Responses

Do police care about crime in the neighborhood?
(2017)
150
100
50
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Response
Figure 69. Data from CN survey 2017-2018 refers to all four above graphs.

These four survey questions about relations between police and residents all yielded the same trend:
responses are positive overall, with an upward trend from almost never to almost always. While this is
encouraging, in each question approximately 20-25% of residents answered almost never or rarely; 25%
of surveyed residents remain unsatisfied with the police. The survey does not allow an in-depth
examination of the source of negative perceptions about police, but the three following survey questions
provide some possible explanations: 25% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that police

100

 respond to 911 calls quickly. One resident recounted that when her truck was robbed and she caught the
perpetrator, police took upwards of an hour to respond to her call.

Do police make an effort to get to know residents before
a crime occurs? (2017)
160

Total Responses

140
120

100
80
60
40
20
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Response

Do police make an effort to get to know youth before a
crime occurs? (2017)
140

Total Responses

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Response
Figure 70. Data from CN survey 2017-2018 refers to above two graphs.

The only two questions about police without majority positive responses were those asking if police make
an effort to get to know residents or youth before a crime occurs. Almost never or rarely made up 50%
and 47% of the responses, respectively. The only police officer mentioned by name was Chief William
McManus, who had spent time taking pictures and talking with residents on Hays Street. Virtually none
101

 of the residents involved in the survey mentioned any knowledge of the SAFFE program, nor the nearby
Eastside police substation.

Responses concerning community-police relations were overall very mixed. On one end, 56% of residents
genuinely think that police keep them safe, and 58% believe they have the potential to lower crime rates
in the area. Yet at the same time, when asked about personal relationships with police, very few
respondents felt they (or the youth in the neighborhood) had one. While some residents took a minute
to consider how police treat residents and how active police are in the neighborhood, others immediately
laughed at the questions, as if it were ridiculous to even ask if police care. Overall impressions of police
were also mixed; while some residents expressed that there are some good cops and some bad cops,
others perceived all police officers as primarily indifferent to their personal problems and the problems in
their community.

Figure 71. Security cameras in the Choice Neighborhood.

CRIME PERCEPTIONS: WHAT POLICE OFFICERS THINK

While the section above describes how residents feel about police, here we explore how police feel about
the community. Four different occasions were used to collect police officer’s perspective on crime and
102

 safety in the Choice Neighborhood: interviews with Captain Torres Eastside Substation Command, a
small, impromptu focus group with several patrol officers, and two ride-alongs with SAFFE officers.

Both SAFFE officers appear to have a cautiously optimistic view of the neighborhood. They agree that
minds are changing, and today’s residents seem eager to overcome the stigma of violence in their
communities. However, each officer notes that current policing only serves to shift the geographic
location of crime. “It’ll stop when we’re around,” begins officer B, “but as soon as we leave they just start
up again.” Additionally, the very public nature of crime in the neighborhood makes otherwise wellmeaning residents hesitant to collaborate with police as they fear retaliation from criminal elements in
the community. Officer A speaks highly of East Meadows. The new security measures of the complex,
along with good management, have had a positive impact on the neighborhood. He hopes that these
positive effects will extend to the entire neighborhood if other residents were inspired to take better care
of their houses due to East Meadows’ high quality. Officer A seems to have mixed perceptions about
crime levels in the neighborhood; while crime seems to have improved, it is also changing in appearance.
Compared to the ‘90s, gangs are less visible, as they do not wear their colors, and gang violence is based
more on personal issues than gang lines. Officer B, who more frequently patrols the neighborhood, notes
that crime is more sophisticated. He explains that there are certain maneuvers used by gangs in the area
to ensure that their leaders remain at large. For instance, when officers stop a group of suspects,
someone with no charges might immediately run to force a chase and attract attention away from others
in the group that may have criminal charges.

Figure 72. SAPD patrol car parked in the Choice Neighborhood.

In both ride-alongs, the officers emphasize the physical environment’s relationship with crime. Officer A
attributes the improvement of crime and safety around East Meadows to the design of the housing
complex: the security gates, the enclosed parking lots, and, perhaps most importantly, the fact that
buildings are split up and more accessible than the blocks of apartments at Wheatley Courts. Officer A
praises mixed-income housing because he believes that people take advantage of public housing, but
when residents pay for the space they live in, they take better care of it. When asked what residents
103

 could do to improve the community, Officer A states that they should do “just the simple stuff,” which
includes keeping their yards and houses clean, as well as being more involved in the community. Officer
C, another SAFFE officer in the neighborhood who we spoke with but did not attend a ride-along with,
echoes this sentiment, arguing that the biggest problem in the Choice Neighborhood is the amount of
rental houses. Illicit tenants do not have a stake in the property, so they do not maintain upkeep, and if
they are removed they can just move to another vacant property.

Figure 73. Security gates at East Meadows.

An additional challenge to community outreach are misconceptions of race. This issue also arose with the
management of East Meadows, as some Hispanic residents feel alienated by the management, who they
perceive to be mostly Black. Despite Choice Neighborhood demographics changing to a more diverse,
predominantly Hispanic area, the region is still collectively regarded as predominantly Black. In contrast,
most of the SAFFE officers in the area are white or Hispanic; only 3 out of 18 SAFFE officers are Black.
Officer B believes that this mismatch between who is patrolling and who is perceived to be living in the
neighborhood contributes to feelings of suspicion from the residents. Officer A explained that when he
joined the force over two decades ago, officers were discouraged from patrolling in the areas they grew
up. Though he grew up on the south side, he has patrolled various areas on the Eastside for his entire
career. Officer B expands on this saying that living in the same area you patrol makes your family more
vulnerable retaliation from the very crime you work to suppress. Officers from the focus group confirm
this sentiment with many disclosing that they live outside of city limits for this very reason.

104

 While community
outreach with certain
groups in the
neighborhood, namely
young kids and churches,
is effective, other
residents are harder to
reach. Schools like
Washington Elementary
and Tynan Early
Childhood Education
Center have “adopt-acop” programs to form
relationships between
officers and
neighborhood kids. SAPD
also hosted a “Walk a
Mile in my Shoes”
workshop at St. Philip’s
College, which put
civilians in scenarios that
required them to think
about the decisions that
officers have to make on a
daily basis. Officer A
stated that participants in
these events were mostly
appreciative of SAPD, and
Figure 74. Larger dots indicate an area, whereas smaller dots correspond to a specific
that SAPD gets involved as
address.
much as possible with
these groups. However,
he felt that it would be nearly impossible to reach more adults unless residents were more active in the
community, like attending Homeowner Association meetings or monthly residential meetings. Officer B
also emphasized the strong police presence at schools: weekly visits, bike rodeos, and chalk drawing
contests, but noted that a defensive shift takes place around 5th grade, after which teenagers are
significantly harder to connect to. Because of this, SAPD has redoubled their efforts to make early
impressions on youth with a continued presence in elementary school programs. Based on survey results
that show the majority of neighborhood adults surveyed do not feel that police officers make an effort to
get to know youth before a crime occurs, signaling that these in-school activities are not being conveyed
from children to parents -- possibly an indication of their effectiveness.

The officers had differing opinions on the effect of the national conversation about police brutality and
racial bias on their day-to-day work. Officer A felt unaffected for the most part. While police officers
105

 have to document their actions more thoroughly now, his attitude was that changes always happen, and
new policies are “just one of the things we have to get used to.” As for body cameras, besides the
inconvenience of remembering to turn it on and off, Officer A thought they were a positive addition
because they provide proof in court. However, Officer B had stronger feelings about the impact of this
national conversation. In addition to annoyance with the inconvenience of the body cameras, Officer B
felt antagonized by discussions of police brutality, saying that “it hurts our credibility.” While he believed
that recordings from body cameras would ultimately prove to the public that police officers are not
“racist brutes out to get you,” he still feels that officers are “working under a microscope.”

Figure 75. WestCare flier from Neighborhood
Coffee meeting.

CRIME PERCEPTIONS: WHAT BUSINESSES THINK
Interviews with three business owners [including Handy Stop (now known as Nolan Express), a hair salon
called My Place, and Walters Food Mart] note that crime had been a concern in the past, but owners
perceive a decrease in crime in the previous months. The owner of Handy Stop thought crime had
decreased since he took over the business after its previous iteration had been closed by the city. He
changed the products the convenience store sold, most notably the drug paraphernalia that had been
previously stocked. He believed that different products prompted different customers to come to the
store. In addition, the new owner no longer allows people to gather on the property for longer than
fifteen minutes. The owner of My Place also believed that a different group of people were in the area
and that the group’s influence had helped decrease crime. However, the owner said that crime was still
present in the Eastside and was moving further South on New Braunfels. The owner was concerned that
crime may come back to this area when people complete their jail sentences.

106

 Both the owners of Handy Stop and My Place expressed that they had positive relations with the police.
The owner of Handy Stop appreciated the police patrols that he saw, and said that he would call the
police if there was any activity on his property. The owner of My Place felt similarly and argued that
community members should show SAPD more respect because “they’re just doing their job”. He believes
that community members should strive for a mutually respectful relationship with SAPD officers, because
SAPD will help people in an emergency.

My Place beauty salon located at 611 N New Braunfels Avenue.

Walters Food Mart, which is located near East Meadows [EM], also saw improvements. The owner stated
that there had not been any major incidents within the past few months (although this store as
historically been both a statistical and perceived hotspot of crime activity). There is gang activity in a
house across the street from Walters Food Mart, but the owner does not believe that the gang affects
business. The owner believed that lower crime rates were a result of the new residents of EM. He
described the new residents as “nice people.” He also expressed that he had positive relations with
SAPD.

107

 Walters Food Mart located at 2106 Burnet Street.

Three additional businesses: Smart Stop, Hayes Food Mart, and Tank’s Pizza still experience violent
crime. Smart Stop experiences a great deal of night activity. In March, there had been at least two
violent crimes on the property. The car wash located across the street from Smart Shop also experiences
relatively frequent criminal activity. Smart Stop sold different merchandise from Handy Stop, such as
knives and drug paraphernalia. However, it is still unclear as to whether or not products have an effect
on the crime that takes place on business property. Smart Stop is still in the midst of the largest
neighborhood hotspot, located on N New Braunfels Ave between Houston and Commerce Street.

Smart Stop located at 222 N New Braunfels Avenue.

108

 Hayes Food Mart also has problems with crime. The clerk stated that he felt relatively safe during
daytime, but he would not work a night shift due to safety concerns. He attributes crime to problems in
the education system. He believes that children do not have role models besides people who participate
in gang activity. He described a cycle that he witnessed for many years: he would see children come in at
a young age, get arrested in their late teens or early 20’s, and get released a few years later. However,
the clerk did mention that he sees fewer homeless people wandering the area. He attributed this to
Haven for Hope, and felt that it had also helped to reduce crime by reducing the number of people
gathering on the property.

Hayes Food Mart located at 830 N New Braunfels Avenue.

The owner of Tank’s Pizza, located across the street from Hayes Food Mart, also commented on the
correlation between education and crime. He believes that children mimic the behavior they see. He
also believes that the school a child attends affects their likelihood of joining a gang or turning to crime.
While SAPD has pointed out that the location has experienced less crime since transforming from a bar
into a restaurant, the owner of Tank’s does not have a positive view of the police. He would not trust the
police to handle an incident because he feels that SAPD does not have good relations with community
members. When asked what he thought contributed to crime in the area, he pointed to education and
race. He states that race is a factor in how SAPD treats crime on the Eastside. He says that people have
complained about crime in the area for years, but since white people have started moving in, complaints

109

 have been addressed more promptly. When asked about EM, the owner thought that the development
was an improvement. He believed that EM is a good influence on the community.

Tank’s Pizza located at 902 N New Braunfels Avenue.

Overall, everyone who mentioned EM spoke very highly of the development. All of the business owners
spoke very highly of Will Miles, a member of SAPD’s Community Engagement Program, but had differing
opinions on SAPD. There is consensus that crime still exists in the eastside; however, a wide variety of
explanations were offered to explain why crime was present in some areas and absent in others.

Moving south on New Braunfels Avenue, the clerk and owner of Beacon’s Clothing Store expressed that
crime had gotten worse over the past several years. While they do not see much violent crime, they do
see a lot of people “hanging out,” often engaging in prostitution or drug dealing. They stated that this
loitering and panhandling has been bad for business, as it makes their customers uncomfortable. When
asked why crime has not improved lately, the owner felt that police officers are unable to create lasting
change; the same people are committing minor crimes, but the police just move them around the
neighborhood repeatedly, rather than getting them to stop permanently. This aligns with the events at
Handy Stop, now Nolan Express, in 2016. Numerous strategies, including establishing a community
garden next door, enforcing code violations, and holding community meetings, all aimed to decrease the
high crime level at that spot. Eventually, Handy Stop was shut down by the city, which may have
contributed to the shift in crime further south on New Braunfels. Based on interviews, business owners
seem to take issue with the police strategy of focusing on one spot heavily until crime moves elsewhere
rather than disappears altogether. However, the owner did not believe this issue was entirely the fault of
the police. Instead, he blamed business owners for the crime. By not putting up “No Trespassing” signs
that allow police to arrest anyone loitering on the property, business owners are “inviting crime.” He also
cited the existence of vacant lots and houses as a factor in crime. The owner expressed some frustration
with the city, stating that they do “stupid things,” like placing large rocks in a traffic island in front of his
store. Approximately five months after the rocks were placed there by the city, multiple rocks were
thrown through Beacon’s window. The owner had more familiarity with SAPD than any other store
110

 owners; he knew Captain Torres personally and was aware of the presence of the SAFFE officer in the
neighborhood.

Beacon’s Fine Clothing Store located at 321 N New Braunfels Avenue.

An employee at Legion Ink, a tattoo shop on New Braunfels feels that crime has gotten worse in the past
five years, especially gang violence and drug issues. While there have not been any major incidents at
Legion, there are many homeless people and drug dealers at the nearby gas stations. Unlike the owner of
Beacon’s, who had a mostly positive relationship with and perception of the police, the employee at
Legion had mixed feelings. While he thought that SAPD is “okay,” he did not appreciate the presence of
state troopers in the neighborhood. In general, he thought the neighborhood was over-policed, and that
because this neighborhood is poor, “police will find something if they’re looking for it.” Despite an
incident two weeks earlier in which SAPD officers searched the shop for a wanted person based on
misinformation, the employee still would call the police if there was an incident. This employee had
never heard of the SAFFE officer program, but his ignorance of East Meadows, as well as the fact that he
does not live in the neighborhood, may indicate that he is not as aware of neighborhood events as others
in the community.

111

 Legion Ink located at 719 N New Braunfels Avenue.

Down New Braunfels, an employee at Greenwoods Bar and Grill (who had worked at there for 10 years)
felt that although crime had calmed down a lot in that period, it is still present. Overall, she feels safe
working in the neighborhood, not due to police presence, but rather because she has worked in the area
for a long time and knows many of the residents. Like the Legion Ink employee, she had mixed feelings
about police activity in the neighborhood. While she stated that if there was an incident at the bar, “911
would be my friend,” she was not familiar with the SAFFE program, nor SAPD’s east substation nearby.
Additionally, she took issue with the highway patrol focusing on minor traffic violations on the area, which
she called “harassment” and believed her customers felt that it was entrapment.

Greenwood’s Bar & Grill located at 301 N New Braunfels Avenue.

112

 Figure 76. Location of businesses interviewed about crime. Green indicates visits in April, while orange indicates June
visits.

COSA: PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

In addition to crime and safety, the city is responsible for the investment in new and the maintenance of
old public infrastructure in its neighborhoods. This neighborhood, like so many inner-city neighborhoods
(especially those that had not been racially restricted early last century) lack the public investment now
113

 considered standard in any housing development. At the beginning of this grant the Choice
Neighborhood epitomized this condition. Its streets looked like alleys and it lacked sidewalks, drainage,
and street lighting. In the past 5 years the City of San Antonio has invested nearly $7,000,000 in streets,
lighting, sidewalks, and trees throughout the Choice Neighborhood. In most inner-city neighborhoods,
these investments were made when the neighborhood was first platted and developed, and have been
maintained since that time. Since this neighborhood never received the initial investment in public
infrastructure (and thus never received the regular maintenance of the non-existent resources),
$7,000,000 may be a conservative figure compared to what has been invested elsewhere over that period
of time.

What changes have you noticed? (2017)
160
140

Total Responses

120
100

80
60
40
20

0
Street lighting Street paving

Curbs

Sidewalks

Trees

Bibliotech

Crime changes

Response
Figure 77. Data from CN survey 2017-2018.

Last year we documented the impact of these investments on the daily life of people impacted most
directly – those who live on these blocks. While infrastructure improvements – including street lighting,
new sidewalks, and curbs were largely concluded in 2016 (and analyzed in the 2017 report), the impact of
those improvement continues. When asked what investments people have noticed in the neighborhood,
sidewalks and street paving were the most frequent answers, with 148 and 120 mentions, respectively.
Street lighting and curbs were the next most popular answers. All physical improvements to streets and
sidewalks were mentioned far more often than any other type of investment, including the East
Meadows, BiblioTech, trees, and changes in the level of crime. While these changes may appear minor in
the grand scheme of the neighborhood, environmental fixes clearly have a notable impact on residents’
daily lives and perceptions of their block.

114

 The 2017 crime hotspot map (repeated below) indicates that crime is much lower in the northwestern
corner of the neighborhood, where much of the infrastructure improvements have been made.

115

 This corner of the neighborhood is especially quiet at night, and seems to have become even quieter with
the infrastructural improvements.

116

 Throughout the survey, residents expressed concerns over elements of the environment that had
received less attention from the city over the course of the initiative. Like sidewalks and street lighting,
these elements are less immediately striking than violent crime, yet still have a significant impact on
residents’ quality of life and day-to-day safety. Programs to deal with stray animals in the neighborhood
were outlined in the Transformation Plan; SAHA proposed to work with COSA Animal Care Services and
SNIPSA to decrease the number of stray animals through spay-neuter services and animal sweeps.
However, these services have proved to be at best ineffective and at worst nonexistent. Several residents
on various streets of the Choice Neighborhood expressed concern over stray dogs roaming around.
Additionally, several surveyors observed stray animals firsthand while in the neighborhood. One pair, on
three separate occasions, had a loose dog begin barking at them and following them down the street.
Children walking to school encounter this on a daily basis.

The city has completed periodic sweeps of the neighborhood (including in 2015) that pick up trash, trim
trees, and capture stray dogs. However, without any follow-up efforts to educate residents it is difficult
for these changes to sustain themselves. Programs that allow sustainable change, such as Trap Neuter
Release, have yet to be implemented in the Choice Neighborhood.
117

 Another issue that arose repeatedly in
the process of surveying residents is the
speed at which people drive through the
neighborhood. Cars often drive well
above the speed limit or ignore stop
signs, which makes residents worry about
people in the street, especially kids.
Many, especially those who live on Hays
Street, wish speed bumps would be
installed, with some even circulating
petitions that ultimately had no effect.
The original Transformation Plan called
for “traffic calming” efforts (page 46) to
slow traffic. These have not been
implemented in the residential parts of
the neighborhood – where children play. While most residents feel they have a “say in what goes on in
their community” (see below), simple requests like speed bumps go unfulfilled.

I have a say in what goes on in my community (2017)
300

Total Responses

250
200
150
100
50
0
Disagree

Neither

Agree

Response
Figure 78. Data from CN survey 2017-2018.

118

 COSA: ORGANIZATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND REPRESENTATION
Neighborhood associations and neighborhood leaders are the conduit to the City for most residents. City
services are simply too difficult for most of us to navigate and access without a little help. And while the
character and constituency of neighborhood associations vary with each locale, one trend arises in many:
each prioritizes the interest of an empowered minority, while excluding a larger base population. This is
especially evident in the neighboring communities of Dignowity Hill and Harvard-Place Eastlawn who each
grapple with divides in capital and race respectively as they pertain to gentrification and neighborhood
change.

Dignowity Hill is a historically Black neighborhood currently experiencing such a lucrative boom in
development that several residents have been offered a check outright for their homes. People there are
fully aware that their environment is transforming, and the way they experience a disconnect in
leadership is largely determined by where their interests lie in this transformation. This is because the
Dignowity Hill neighborhood association is largely comprised of recent transplants to the area -- people
who could afford to move, and who seek a financial return in doing so. However, more longtime, local
residents actually fear the rising property tax that accompanies development, and share feelings of
119

 alienation regarding the neighborhood association. One such resident who resides in a family home she
inherited from her grandmother says “it’s not for me, we don’t see ourselves reflected in [the
neighborhood association].”

Harvard-Place Eastlawn’s divide is between older residents who have long histories in the neighborhood
(most of whom are African-American) and a younger, more recent Hispanic population. Association
meetings on one Monday a month from 2-4 p.m. suit the needs of its established membership but largely
overlook the younger, Hispanic working class who can’t attend. This lack in representation has left much
of the Hispanic population here feeling disaffected, as it is difficult to access the very framework meant to
support them.
Consistent in these observations is the phenomenon of self-appointed leadership. Throughout our
research, we encountered individuals or groups that claimed to speak in the interest of the community,
without any measurable approval to do so. This posturing is apparently possible, because of the
aforementioned ways that the greater community remains removed from its own self-determination. To
resolve this disconnect in leadership, we must recommit to the democratic process and devise a means of
recruiting community engagement that is entirely convenient for the residents that live there. There also
exists a possibility that we must rethink community engagement altogether. Are there other forms of
engagement at work in the neighborhood that go unseen because we are immersed in one model, and
thus looking for evidence of it?
120

 I feel connected to my neighborhood (2017)
100%

Percentage of Responses

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Spanish Speakers

Neighborhood

Survey Group
Disagree

Neither

Agree

Figure 79. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018.

Respondents to the neighborhood survey were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I
feel connected to my neighborhood.” Of those who answered in Spanish (approximately 20 out of over
400 surveyed), a higher percentage said they feel connected to the neighborhood than those who
answered in English. This overwhelming sense of connection experienced by Spanish-speakers to the
neighborhood may be reflective of the CN’s changing demographics. While it has grown more diverse,
the actual population of the CN is now predominantly Hispanic, and many of these respondents cited the
presence of other Hispanic people as a source of comfort. Despite that, this population remains underrepresented in many of the longstanding cultural institutions of the area, which still largely identify as
Black.

NON-PROFIT SECTOR: HEALTH and EDUCATION
The disinvestment (or even perhaps the complete lack of investment originally) in this neighborhood
extends beyond streets and sidewalks and is embedded in access to health and education in the
community. A report released by the Bexar County Health Collaborative states that life expectancy in
Bexar County varies from 75 years on the city's Eastside to 90-94 years on the far Northwest
side. Educational attainment rates vary in the same manner. Community centers, neighborhood schools,
and local clinics can be anchors in neighborhoods with historic disinvestment. In education especially, the
recent focus has been on moving children to better performing schools, but we support the opposite:
moving better performing schools to children who need them. There is little evidence that moving a child

121

 to a specific school increases their performance; instead, establishing high-quality and aspirational
programming in the community may create opportunity and foster social cohesion to all.

COUNTY SERVICE: HEALTH CARE
The lack of health care services in and around the Choice Neighborhood was one of the most frequently
raised concern of residents over the past six years. In response to public input about the lack of health
care services in the Choice Neighborhood, the UT Health Science Center built the Dr. Robert L.M. Hilliard
Center Clinic at 919 Locke Street. The clinic is a point of access for health services/treatments, and it also
counsels people on medical insurance and payment plans. Despite a need for these services, many
residents remain unaware of this facility. In addition to Hilliard being a new amenity in the area, it also
only accepts walk-in
appointments on
Mondays from 10am to
2pm. Throughout this
study, word of mouth
was observed as the
most successful means
of promotion, so this
slim window presents
an obstacle for
engagement at Hilliard.
The clinic has said that
it will not expand walk
in hours until a sizeable
need is demonstrated.
Figure 80. The Doctor L.M. Hilliard Center.

122

 Total Responses

How has the number of doctors in the neighborhood
changed in the past year? (2017) - Neighborhood Only
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

Not sure

Response

Do you go to the doctor in the neighborhood? (2017)
Total Responses

250
200
150
100
50
0
No

Yes

Response

Percentage of Responses

How has the number of doctors in the neighborhood
changed in the past year? (2017) - Neighborhood vs.
EM
100%

80%

29
11

27

60%

33

40%
20%

69
8

15

8

0%
Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

Not sure

Response
EM

Neighborhood

Figure 81. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018 refers to above three graphs.

123

 East Meadows residents are largely unaware of the new Hilliard Clinic, given around 70% of those
surveyed were unsure if the number of doctors in the neighborhood had changed over the past year.
This is most likely the culmination of several factors: Hilliard Clinic’s small window of walk-in hours, East
Meadows’ general lack of communication, and the relative newness of both facilities. This is not of great
concern, as both are expected to integrate into the community over time.

EDUCATION: THE PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOL DISTRICTS

The Choice Neighborhood is served by both public schools administered through SAISD and charter
school belonging to several different charter school districts (including IDEA and KIPP). The Promise
Neighborhood initiative was the education partner to the Choice Neighborhood, so our reporting on its
impact is limited here, as that grant has ended. The impact on area schools has been ambiguous, and the
school district is in the process of reconfiguring both its elementary and middle schools to better serve its
students.

Percentage of Students Passing

6th Grade Reading Scores for CN Schools
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

74

67
50

Young Men's
Leadership
Academy

Washington
Elementary

59

IDEA Eastside

IDEA Carver

Choice Neighborhood Schools

Percentage of Students Passing

6th Grade Math Scores for CN Schools
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

87

83

Young Men's
Leadership
Academy

71

71

Washington
Elementary

IDEA Eastside

IDEA Carver

Choice Neighborhood School

Figure 82. Data from CN Survey 2017-2018 refers to above two graphs

124

 6th grade math and reading scores from the 2016-2017 school year provide a snapshot comparison
between various neighborhood schools. For all schools, math scores are higher than reading. In both
math and reading, IDEA Carver leads the pack, with Young Men’s Leadership Academy at Wheatley close
behind. IDEA Eastside and Washington Elementary trail, with Washington maintaining the lowest reading
scores; just 50% of 6th graders passed the reading exam.
The IDEA Carver charter school opened in 2013 and has since rapidly accumulated a student body.
Conversely, Washington Elementary, a public school, has observed a steady decline in its total number of

Total Students Enrolled - Washington vs. IDEA Carver
600

Total Students

500
400
300
200
100
0
2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
IDEA Carver

Washington Elementary

Figure 83. Data from Texas Education Agency 2013-2017.

students ultimately becoming smaller than Carver. These schools do not serve the same grade levels, so
one is not necessarily a function of the other, but the increased number of school choices in the area may
impact the traditional neighborhood school population.

125

 Economic Disadvantage - Washington vs. IDEA Carver
100.00%

Percentage of Students

95.00%
90.00%
85.00%

80.00%
75.00%
70.00%
65.00%
60.00%

55.00%
50.00%
2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
Washington Elementary

IDEA Carver

Figure 84. Data from Texas Education Agency 2013-2017.

As the population of IDEA Carver has steadily increased, the overall percentage of economically
disadvantaged students has begun to even out. While it sharply increased after the first year, the rate
hovers at approximately 85%, nearly 15% lower than Washington Elementary. This is significant, as this
may indicate some level of population separation; parents with even slightly more economic capital are
moving their children to charter schools with the belief that they will perform better as a result.
Meanwhile, those lacking in resources have no other option than to rely on nearby public schools. This is
indicative of a greater shift in the role of schools; they are no longer the anchors of community that they
once were. The education system has splintered, leading to a sharp divide between those who can access
resources outside their immediate environment and those who cannot.

BIBLIOTECH
BiblioTech East is the local branch of the Bexar BiblioTech digital library system. It opened April
19th, 2018 with the intent to bridge the gaps in literacy and technology in the community by leasing
internet access (hot spots, lap tops) and offering training for various devices. However, due to its very
recent opening and lack of promotion, it has yet to be fully integrated into the community. Each of the
focus groups conducted in the course of this research were held in the Toyota Community Room of
BiblioTech East, and each time respondents had mixed levels of awareness of the facility. These focus
groups also doubled as an observation of the facility itself; despite its many resources for adults and
families, BiblioTech is predominantly frequented by children and young adults. At each visit, we observed
a significant group of youth congregating in BiblioTech’s game room, whereas only a handful of adults
126

 were present in the
computer lab. In this sense,
BiblioTech successfully
addresses a concern
frequently shared by adults
in previous years -- it
presents a productive option
for youth with free time.

Figure 85. The BiblioTech, located on Walters Street.

PRIVATE SECTOR: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

The economic development strategies of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative were developed to achieve
two main goals:
●
●

“revitalize key retail areas,” including physical revitalization through façade improvements (TP,
46)
“expand and diversify economic activities” (TP, 46).

These two key areas -- retail and overall business activity -- help us gauge two separate, yet interrelated,
economic indicators: the ability to fulfill one’s needs in the area, and the overall economic activity in the
area. This section is divided into these complementary parts.

REVITALIZE KEY RETAIL AREAS: THE ABILITY TO FULFILL ONE’S NEEDS in the NEIGHBORHOOD
The first major goal of the Choice Neighborhood Transformation Plan was to “revitalize key retail areas”
(TP, 46.) At the beginning of the project in 2014, 14.5% of neighborhood residents who responded to the

127

 My neighborhood helps me fulfill my needs
100
90
80

30

28

39

45
59

Percentage

70
23

60
50

33

13

30
20

20

34

40
49
37

35

27

10

28

0
2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year
Disagree

Neither

Agree

Figure 86. “Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree: my neighborhood helps me fulfill my needs.”
CN ad EPN Surveys 2013-2017.

Eastside Promise Neighborhood (EPN) survey felt that they could not satisfy some of their most basic
needs within the neighborhood – needs such as groceries, doctor’s visits, clothes, and car repairs.
Each year more residents agree that they can fulfill their needs in the neighborhood. Additionally, the
number of residents who feel that they cannot fulfill their needs in the neighborhood has decreased from
36.1% in 2013 to 27.3% in 2018. The amount of residents who feel they can fulfill their needs within the
neighborhood has steadily increased since 2014, now at a high of about 60%.

While it is ideal to be able to satisfy one’s most basic needs close to home, few would anticipate satisfying
all higher level needs in one’s immediate vicinity. In fact, theory predicts that we must travel further and
further to fulfill higher and higher order needs (from buying milk and cereal to clothes to a new car).
While more residents believe that the Choice Neighborhood allows them to fulfill many of their most
basic needs, higher order needs must still be fulfilled outside the neighborhood.

The CN Survey conducted in June 2018 asked residents about a variety of needs. The survey included
questions about higher-end goods that people need less frequently, such as a doctor, a bank, and clothing

128

 stores. It also inquired about everyday needs, including if people work, get their cars fixed, go out to eat,
use check cashing places, and buy groceries in the neighborhood.

Do you go to the … in
this neighborhood?

No

Sometimes

Yes

Doctor

51%

5%

44%

Bank

44%

7%

49%

Clothing

43%

14%

43%

Work

65%

4%

31%

Car Fixed

43%

11%

45%

Restaurants

24%

17%

59%

Check-Cashing

49%

10%

41%

Groceries

12%

10%

78%

129

 2017 Retail Specific Needs
300

Total Responses

250
200
150

100
50
0
Almost Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost Always

Response
Groceries

Dining Out

Car Fixed

Figure 87. Data from CN survey 2017-2018.

Many of the residents considered the H-E-B on New Braunfels Avenue to be a part of their neighborhood,
so it makes sense that such a great proportion of residents said that they can buy their groceries in their
neighborhood. Overall, more people tend to go to restaurants in the neighborhood than leave to dine
out. This may be a result of the facade improvements done to some of the local restaurants. A majority
of the residents do not rely on the neighborhood if their car is broken; residents expressed that they or
their family members fix their car, not any local dealer or business. Resident perceptions from the
neighborhood survey reflect retail trends, as ESRI-Business Analyst Online data indicates that there are
increased numbers of food services and drinking places and general merchandise stores.

Number of Choice Neighborhood Retail Establishments (2012-2017):

30

Retail Industry Group:

2012

2014

2015

2016

2017

Motor Vehicle and Parts
Dealers30

3

2

4

5

5

Furniture and Home
Furnishings

1

0

0

0

0

Electronics and Appliance
Stores

0

0

1

1

0

Bolded type indicates retail industry groups that were asked about in the 2017 CN survey.

130

 Building Materials, Garden
Materials and supply

3

2

2

3

2

Food and Beverage Stores

7

8

6

5

5

Health and Personal Care
Stores

2

1

2

2

2

Gasoline Stations

1

1

3

5

3

Clothing and Clothing
Accessory Stores

4

4

0

0

0

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book,
Music Stores

1

1

0

2

1

General Merchandise Stores

0

0

2

2

2

Miscellaneous Store Retailers

8

1

0

0

0

Non-store Retailers

4

4

0

1

1

Food Services and Drinking
Places

7

8

15

14

13

The increase in those sectors could explain why 77% of residents do their grocery shopping in the
neighborhood and 58% of residents go out to eat in the neighborhood. Meanwhile, the number of
clothing stores and building materials stores has decreased. This could explain why only 42% of residents
rely on their neighborhood to buy clothes.

131

 Figure 88. Data from ESRI Business Analyst 2012-2017.

REVITALIZE KEY RETAIL AREAS: FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS
Residents and police have speculated that the improved appearance of East Meadows has contributed to
the overall positive change in the area. Similarly, an improved business storefront is more likely to attract
commerce and improve residents’ perception of the amenities available to them. One of the original
strategies proposed in the Transformation Plan was a business façade improvement program, which
enables small businesses to beautify their outside appearance, hoping that business might improve as a
function of the upgrades. Over the past two years, 12 façade improvement grants have been awarded to
area businesses. Of the 7 businesses that received facade improvement grants in 2017, 6 were
interviewed. This program is led by San Antonio for Growth on the Eastside (SAGE), an economic
development organization that provides funding and support to businesses in the area. Through the
Choice Façade Improvement Grant, SAGE provides local businesses grants of up to $25,000 for storefront
improvements.
132

 All the business owners spoke positively about the façade improvement program. Most business owners
had no complaints about the application process. Some owners described the process as “seamless” or
“simple.”
Spotlight: Teresita’s Mexican Restaurant
Location: 901 N. New Braunfels
Project Description: exterior walls, new windows, exterior painting, lighting, and signage

May 2014

June 2018

Teresita’s has been open for the past 17 years. After nine months of renovations, the restaurant
reopened almost a year ago. Mrs. Lopez, Teresita’s owner, notes that while she has not seen a
drastic increase in sales, she sees a difference in her clientele. More families visit the restaurant, as
opposed to lone men. She also notices more Americanos, white people, visiting the restaurant.

Mrs. Lopez still sees many of her regulars. Her regulars typically drive in from outside the
neighborhood.
However,
she feels
the neighborhood
seems more
animated,
and people
However,
some business
owners
werethat
reluctant
to turn over financial
information
to SAGE.
Straight Line
Management,
a company
which
started
outneighborhood,
as a contractorsuch
for the
façade improvements,
claimed
that
approve of the
shifts taking
place
in the
as residents
improving their
yards and
some
of the companies they helped were skeptical about sharing financial information. The owner of
houses.
Rich Financial, Ltd on Lamar claimed that the application process could not have been much easier, but
that he would have preferred that “[SAGE] take [his] word for it” when it came to finances.
A few businesses expressed that they had problems finding a contractor that would work with them. This
could be a result of the city-wide labor shortage that COSA experienced after Hurricane Harvey. For
future SAGE projects, it may helpful to supply business owners with a list of recommended contractors,
preferably from the area.

133

 “We grow together by creating jobs”: Alamo Inn Motel
Location: 2203 E. Commerce
Project Description: Pavers, landscape, lighting, fencing, and stucco

Alamo Inn Motel invokes thoughts of its namesake with pictures of the Alamo on the walls and at
the front desk. Mr. Vazir, the owner, feels the improvements were, “a big help”. He is very proud of
his business and says he would not be surprised if a large corporation tries to buy the motel. “You’ll
have to come back next year,” he says smiling, as he shows photos of his plans for future
renovations. Plans include a two-story expansion into an empty lot next to his current property.

May 2018

Alamo Inn Motel currently has 6 employees, all from the local neighborhood. After his renovations
are complete, Mr. Vazir plans to employ 20 people. “We grow together by creating jobs,” he
remarks.

The clientele is roughly half out-of-town visitors and half locals. As the hotel provides easy access to
downtown and the AT&T Center, many customers stay at the motel for events in town. In addition
to the central location, his customers are also drawn in due to how quiet the area is.

As Mr. Vazir put it, “help is coming.” He notices a decrease in crime and an overall improvement in
the neighborhood. He noted that neighbors have started improving their businesses since his
improvements. That is, the appearance of his business has had a positive impact on businesses
around him.
134
Mr. Vazir did have some difficulties with the application, saying it was time-consuming and getting
bids was a challenge. He chose contractors that he knew, but could see issues if someone did not
already have those connections.

 Some businesses have regular clientele, while other businesses primarily function as office spaces.
Businesses with clients who physically patronize the location saw a notable increase in clientele, which
they attributed mostly to the façade improvements. The businesses that serve as an office space spoke
of the compliments they were getting rather than a shift in clientele.

“When people feel safer, they buy more”: Malik’s Food Mart
Location: 913 N. Mittman
Project Description: handicap ramp, bike stall, landscaping, parking lot, roof, and AC (follow up from 2016)

Mr. Gharib, the owner of Malik’s, remains highly complementary of the project. He believes that the façade
improvements are more than “just a face lift”; rather, the city is truly trying to help businesses. He claims
that San Antonio has supportive leadership, claiming that everyone working for the city “from the mayor
down” is invested in the project. Because of this support, he feels the application process is painless.

He notes that the area has improved since the implementation of the CNI. He also believes that the value of
the whole area is increasing at a steady rate. He said that the area is much quieter, which has helped his
business. “When people feel safer, they buy more,” he explains.

He has seen an increase in sales, which allows him to continue putting money back into his store. He has
replaced the flooring, upgraded the air conditioning, and plans to provide food in a deli in the back of his
store. He will also add a couple of employees to work as cooks and servers. In the long run, he plans to add
catering and delivery.

The main problem facing Mr. Gharib is finding contractors, which could be a result of the labor shortage
following Hurricane Harvey.
May 2018

July 2014

135

 Businesses with clientele mostly found that there was an increase in the number of customers and in the
frequency of their visits. A few business owners with locations near East Meadows suggested that the
new complex had brought new people to the area, who now frequent their businesses. Several owners
felt that business was doing better because the area was safer.

Business owners feel that the area is improving. Many observed that people are fixing up their houses
and yards. Some of them felt that neighborhood improvements were a direct result of their property
improvements. Others felt that East Meadows had spurred a wave of development in the area. Overall,
business owners are optimistic about the future of the neighborhood.

EXPAND and DIVERSIFY ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES: LEAKAGE and SURPLUS

ESRI’s retail leakage study indicates whether people are spending their money in or out of the
neighborhood. Leakage implies that residents leave the neighborhood to fulfill their needs for that
sector, while surplus implies that residents stay in the neighborhood to fulfill needs. The neighborhood
has a surplus of
● auto parts, accessories, and tire stores
● health and personal care stores,
● gas stations,
● drinking places,
● and restaurants/other eating places.
All other categories, including general merchandise stores, clothing stores, and grocery stores see a
leakage out of the neighborhood.

136

 Figure 89. ESRI-Business Analyst Online 2018. Green bars indicate surplus while red indicate leakage.

Figure 90. ESRI-Business Analyst Online 2018. Green bars indicate surplus while red indicate leakage.

137

 The leakage and surplus analysis differs from results of the survey in that it is limited to a particular
geographic space, whereas each resident has a subjective impression of the confines of their
neighborhood. Therefore, several false impressions present themselves in comparing the results. While
the data shows a leakage of grocery and clothing stores, it is worth noting that the H-E-B located along
New Braunfels Avenue is not included in the data because it extends beyond the boundary of the Choice
Neighborhood. Still, many residents consider it to be a part of the neighborhood, so this could give a
false impression of the sector. Similarly, several clothing stores are located on the west side of New
Braunfels. They are also not included in the data, so the data could also give a false impression of that
sector.

While people may still leave the neighborhood to fulfill daily needs, are they doing it more or less than in
previous years? When comparing leakage from 2017 to leakage in 2014, some sectors of the retail
economy have grown, including health and personal care stores and gasoline stations.

Retail
Sector

2014 Retail
Potential

2014 Retail
Sales

2014 Gap

2017 Retail
Potential

2017 Retail
Sales

2017 Gap

Change in
Gap

Building
Materials

$805,351

$2,098,080

$1,292,729

$2,686,190

$2,516,658

-$170,532

-$1,463,261

Food and
Beverages

$5,383,520

$2,107,909

-$3,275,611

$8,900,948

$3,351,894

-$5,549,054

-$2,273,443

Health and
Personal
Care

$21,500,787

$2,642,698

-$18,858,089

$2,773,905

$9,599,420

$6,825,515

$25,683,604

Gasoline
Stations

$3,032,801

$555,195

-$2,477,606

$4,971,743

$20,497,776

$15,526,033

$18,003,639

General
Merchandise
Stores

$5,213,847

$5,213,847

$0

$8,244,594

$1,847,122

-$6,397,472

-$6,397,472

Figure 91. ESRI Business Analyst 2014-2017.

In the chart above, a value of ‘0’ would indicate that there is no surplus or leakage present. A negative
value indicates that people leave the neighborhood to spend money. A positive value means that they
are spending money in the neighborhood. A negative value in the far right column indicates that there is
a greater negative correlation than there was in 2014.

Both gasoline stations and health and personal care once experienced leakage; now, both sectors
experience a surplus. Every other sector in the chart sees more leakage than they did in 2014.

EXPAND AND DIVERSIFY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE AREA: OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT
138

 The second economic goal of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative was to expand and diversify economic
activities to match those of Bexar County. At the beginning of the project, CN businesses were not
parallel with Bexar County Businesses.

Choice Neighborhood and Bexar County Business Comparison 2017 31
NAICS
Category

CNI Businesses

CNI Percent

Bexar
Businesses

Bexar Percent

Percent
difference

Construction

8

4.6%

3,818

7.3%

-2.7%

Manufacturing

5

2.9%

1,535

2.9%

0%

Wholesale
Trade

4

2.3%

1,869

3.6%

-1.3%

Retail Trade

20

11.4%

7,829

15.0%

-3.6%

Transportation
and
Warehousing

3

1.7%

824

1.6%

0.1%

Finance and
Insurance

8

4.6%

3,261

6.2%

-1.6%

Real Estate,
Rental &
Leasing

10

5.7%

3,623

6.9%

-1.2%

Professional,
Scientific &
Tech Services

9

5.1%

4,983

9.5%

-4.4%

Administrative
Support &
Waste
Management
& Remediation

4

2.3%

2,013

3.9%

-1.6%

Educational
Services

7

4.0%

1,438

2.8%

1.2%

Some business sectors appear in Bexar County but not in the Choice Neighborhood, including
agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting, as well as mining, utilities, information, and management of
companies and enterprises. Data from ESRI Business Analyst 2017.
31

139

 Health Care &
Social
Assistance

11

6.3%

4,841

9.3%

-3%

Arts,
Entertainment
& Recreation

5

2.9%

859

1.6%

1.3%

Accommodatio 15
n & Food
Services

8.6%

4,556

8.7%

-0.1%

Other Services

59

33.7%

6,174

11.8%

21.9%

Public
Administration

5

2.9%

816

1.6%

1.3%

Unclassified
Establishments

4

2.3%

2,337

4.5%

-2.2%

Overall, the breakdown of businesses in the Choice Neighborhood is similar to how it was at the start of
the grant. The neighborhood continues to see an excess of “Other Services.” This category may include
culturally significant churches which draw patronage from across the city, as well as home businesses
such as auto mechanics, or beauty services. Also noteworthy, the “Arts and Entertainment” industry
continues to see a surplus from last year. If this surplus was a redundancy, businesses would have closed.
As “Arts and Entertainment” businesses have remained open, this could lead to a specialization for the
area. Choice Neighborhood’s most underdeveloped sector, “Professional, Scientific, and Tech Services,”
may be stimulated by the recent addition of the BiblioTech, which aims to bridge the gap in digital literacy
between Choice Neighborhood residents and the rest of the county.

140

 Figure 92. ESRI-Business Analyst Online 2018.

Figure 93. ESRI-Business Analyst Online 2018.

It sounds like a contradiction: the number of businesses has remained the same, but more people feel
they can fulfill their daily needs in the neighborhood than ever before. We operate based on our
perceptions of reality, not on reality itself. To that end, improved business façades have in turn shaped
141

 the perception that the neighborhood itself is improving, that people can satisfy many of their needs
there, that they feel safer and more confident, and are optimistic about the future.

CONCLUSION
When we compare life in the neighborhood in 2018 to life in the neighborhood as described in the
original Transformation Plan, the outcomes of many of the original strategies vary, as do the
discrepancies between residents’ perceptions of improvements and their objective progress.
●
●
●
●
●

●
●
●
●

One of the most highly noticed changes in the neighborhood was the improvement of sidewalks.
These changes are small yet significant due to their impact on residents’ daily life.
Services for residents have also been expanded, most notably in the form of the Hilliard Health
Clinic and BibilioTech that recently opened.
For crime and safety, some goals lag. Property crime has declined in the past few years, but the
overall crime level has not declined significantly since the beginning of the project.
The stray animal initiative has gone largely unfulfilled, with residents still noting the high number
of stray dogs roaming about the neighborhood.
Issues with relations between police and residents persist; a majority of the neighborhood feels
that police officers do not make an effort to get to know residents, and few are familiar with the
SAFFE program.
More residents feel they can fulfill more of their needs in the neighborhood rather than meeting
them elsewhere.
Additionally, local business owners, due in part to the facade improvement grants, have a more
optimistic view of the future, both for the economy and the overall neighborhood.
However, in the economic sector, there has not been much progress in diversifying the
businesses in the neighborhood.
Local leadership and representation have failed to strengthen in the past five years. The
neighborhood association meets, but does not represent the entire neighborhood, and many
leaders seem self-appointed, and have not been able to garner the true support they need to be
effective.

MAJOR FINDINGS





While the overall number of crime incidents has gone up slightly, property crime has decreased,
and residents perceive that crime has gone down overall.
Relations between police officers and residents still need work, as many residents are unaware of
policing programs, and most residents do not think police officers make an effort to get to know
residents.
Residents’ perceptions of the economic sector, including their ability to fulfill their needs within
the neighborhood, have improved despite the lack of change in leakage or number of stores,
possibly due to facade improvements

142

 



Improvements in infrastructure maintain a significant role in residents’ perceptions of the
neighborhood; sidewalks and lighting are cited as evidence of the neighborhood improving, yet
the lack of additions like speed bumps and stop signs negatively affect residents’ feelings of
efficacy.
Residents generally remain alienated from the process of decision-making for the region. While
many feel they have some say in their neighborhood, this awareness is largely limited to the block
they live on and many remain disaffected with neighborhood associations that could more
formally meet their needs.

FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
While strengthening feelings of connection and efficacy in a rapidly changing community is a difficult task,
there are small steps that can be taken to start the process. As comments about street lighting and
sidewalks have shown, small changes to residents’ immediate environment can deeply affect their quality
of life and overall perception of the neighborhood. Thus, the city should focus on the minor issues
residents have been trying to bring attention to for months or even years. Adding speed bumps or stop
signs to streets, especially those with lots of families and children, is a relatively quick and easy way to
make residents feel that their neighborhood is safer and their voices are being heard. A simple method of
collecting and consolidating these concerns lies in revamping our organization of neighborhood
associations.
Neighborhood associations are already a conduit to the city for residents, so centralizing their role in
reform of the Choice Neighborhood can save resources and prove to be mutually beneficial for residents
and the city alike. With leadership from city council, these associations can become more democratic
hubs of engagement that capably reflect the full dimension of their communities. Throughout our survey,
many residents expressed feelings of alienation in regard to their neighborhood association but
maintained that they felt they had some control or connection to the area- namely the blocks they live
on. As such, one method of utilizing the social ties of neighbors, and mending their disaffection with the
associations themselves, could be the creation of “Block Captains” who report to their respective
associations as a representative for their street. A Captain for each block, and a remote means of
collecting input (postcards, or digital comments) can create more inclusive associations that address the
needs of all of their residents. This formalizes preexisting relationships with preexisting structures, and
creates a framework that can be utilized by city leaders to more accurately diagnose and treat issues
within a given community.
Such a reorganization can more adequately address crime also as residents will now be further integrated
into policing models of the neighborhood. While SAFFE officers are present at each neighborhood
association meeting, most residents are unaware of the program – much less able to name a specific
officer. The creation of “block captains” could provide police with a lucrative means of engagement with
more adult populations again, supplementing efforts to reach kids. The insight gained from such
relationships can be utilized to address specific concerns residents have and foster the community’s trust
in police. Most importantly, such a framework provides a constructive outlet for active residents that
already have leadership in their communities; everyone can benefit from their self-determination.
The purpose of this report is and has always been to provide a platform to the voices of residents, and,
despite the slow changes recorded in the data, it must be noted that minds are changing. People here
are becoming more open, and proud in a manner that data cannot fully convey and East Meadows shows
143

 glimpses of promise in accomplishing its original mission to become a neighborhood of choice. Thus the
overall success of neighborhood strategies is hard to gauge. While some strategies have been less than
successful and some goals remain unfulfilled, many residents see great change and promise. Survey
results show increasing optimism over the years, with more residents than ever now believing that the
neighborhood has improved in the past three years and will improve in the next few as well.

144

 MAJOR FINDINGS:

People:














15% of original Wheatley Courts households have returned to live in East Meadows and Wheatley
Park Senior Living;
44% of the original Wheatley Courts residents remain in case management with Urban Strategies;
When residents chose a place to live in 2014 they did so quickly and many moved a second and
third time. When residents chose to return (or not) to East Meadows, they deliberated and
weighed the pluses and minuses of another move – indicating a new sense of agency over one’s
life;
o For many low-income families, decisions concerning daily life are made by the state
(government officials, social workers, and politicians). When Wheatley Courts was
demolished, limited time and options often compelled residents into an unsuccessful first
move. Conversely, the decision to move back to EM has been deliberate. Whether or not
residents remain in EM for a significant period of time will indicate whether increased
agency truly affects quality of life.
Median household income of former WCR has remained fairly stagnant, although the mean has
increased appreciably, indicating some families are doing significantly better than others;
o Population-level evidence indicates that some families have increased their income
considerably. Analysis of individual-level data would allow researchers to identify the
most effective strategies that impacted these families.
Few residents are aware of the mixed-income nature of East Meadows;
o Mixed-income housing has been proposed as a strategy to combat entrenched poverty.
Yet without the exchange of social, political, and cultural capital, the model will fail.
Individuals at East Meadows express optimism about their future, although they have met very
few people at East Meadows – people prefer to “keep to themselves”;
o East Meadows residents feel quite optimistic about the state of their lives today; the
novelty of East Meadows may still influence that state. With time, as the newness wears
off, a healthy community may fill that lacunae.
Individuals at Wheatley Park have formed communities and socialize frequently;
Those living in the Choice Neighborhood express increasing optimism about their community;
African-American families have been in the neighborhood much longer, and know more people
there, yet have lower rates of home ownership;
o Spanish-speaking families feel higher rates of community involvement than other families
in the Choice Neighborhood – indicating that a community may be forming among them,
or that a different understanding of community is at work.

Housing:




The one to one replacement from Wheatley Courts to East Meadows is complete; 235 new
affordable units have been built, (including those available at the Park at Sutton Oaks); 117 more
will be added by 2020;
Appraisal values in the Choice Neighborhood rose 68%; list prices rose 107% and sales prices rose
16%.
145

 o







While the neighborhood remains affordable today, the surrounding neighborhoods are
increasingly more expensive and exclusive. Short of controlling the real estate market,
other tools, such as subsidized renovation and careful monitoring of the demolition
process may deter rising real estate prices and an investor-driven market.
Tax foreclosures in the CN are 34% (in Bexar County they are 9%), possibly indicating an early
phase of displacement due to rising property values;
Private sector developers built numerous houses in 2017-2018, with asking prices much higher
than older houses in the neighborhood;
The infill housing program intended to build affordable housing for sale to owner-occupiers has
yet to begin due to a delayed start date (and increasing land values);
o Merced Housing has developed the capacity to undertake significant house renovation
projects due to this partnership. As COSA enters the rehab business, this new capacity
may now guide new partners in the housing rehab business.
The Owner Occupied Rehabilitation program has been successful for those whose houses have
begun or completed renovations. However some applicants who are still in the application or
lead based paint testing/remediation process express some frustration with the slow speed of the
process.

Neighborhood:








While the overall number of crime incidents has gone up slightly, property crime has decreased,
and residents perceive that crime has gone down overall;
Relations between police officers and residents remain tense; many residents are unaware of
policing programs, and most residents do not think police officers make an effort to get to know
residents;
o Yet residents perceive that crime has decreased and security has increased in the
neighborhood.
Residents’ perceptions of the economic sector, including their ability to fulfill their needs within
the neighborhood, have improved despite the lack of change in leakage or number of stores,
possibly due to facade improvements;
Improvements in infrastructure play a significant (positive) role in residents’ perceptions of the
neighborhood; sidewalks and lighting are cited as evidence of the neighborhood improving, yet
the lack of additions like speed bumps and stop signs negatively affect residents’ feelings of
efficacy;
o Future projects should begin with these infrastructural improvements rather than
delaying them to the latter years of the project.
Residents generally remain alienated from the process of decision-making for the region. While
many feel they have some say in their neighborhood, this awareness is largely limited to the block
they live on and many remain disaffected with neighborhood associations that could more
formally meet their needs.

146