The Mayor and the Municipal Council find that continued efforts are required to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities for low-and moderate-income residents, including those with special needs. This summary of the Consolidated Plan offers Newark residents an overview of the City's needs, a strategic plan to address the needs from 1995 to 2000 and a one-year action plan for use of 1995 HUD funding. MAP 1 depicts points of interest in the City.
The genesis of Newark's five-year Consolidated Plan was its highly successful exercise in "bottom-up" planning involving its neighborhoods. As an Enterprise Community (EC), it is continuing the planning and implementation process begun almost two years ago for economic development purposes. It revealed many problems that could be addressed through the Consolidated Plan. The Mayor and the Business Administrator requested the following HUD FY 1995 funds to assist in meeting the needs:
Consolidated planning in Newark began in August l994 with a meeting among City government agencies to discuss the initiative. In September l994, city staff, Newark Housing Authority personnel, and representatives from leading non-profits participated in a HUD-sponsored training session. Following that session, the Department of Administration drafted a new citizen participation plan based on the proposed regulations.
During the last week in October l994, we mailed a "Request for Proposals" (RFP) package for the four C-Plan programs to a combined list of approximately 200 non-profits in Newark and our EMA (HOPWA). The RFP described the C-Plan, all the changes that HUD and the City were implementing, and included our draft citizen participation plan for review and comment. The mailing was followed by a newspaper notice announcing the availability of the RFP and the draft citizen participation plan.
On December l2, l994, we conducted the first of five ward meetings. These were designed to accomplish the same objectives as our hearing, but on a smaller scale. This meeting was organized on short notice, both to seek advice and comments on an Economic Development Initiative/Section l08 loan application we had been invited by HUD to submit in conjunction with our Empowerment Zone (EZ) request. Approximately thirty-five persons attended.
Based on exchanges at the meeting, we decided to conduct one or more smaller, focus group-type sessions with representatives of stakeholder groups. On December 21, l994, we held such a meeting. Only two of seven invited groups sent representatives. The New Community Corp. argued that the C-Plan process should parallel Empowerment Zone planning; the International Youth Organization's director said that she was "meetinged out" after the Empowerment process and that our C-Plan priorities should be the same as those for the Empowerment process. We ascertained that further of these focus group-type meetings would not be well attended and did not conduct any more.
Between January 26 and February 1, l995, we conducted four more general neighborhood meetings. Only in the West Ward was attendance below the level attained at our first meeting. These meetings were advertised through a news article, a mailing, and cooperative efforts by the host agencies, the St. James CDC, the Ironbound Community Corp., Unified Vailsburg Services Organizations, and the Donald Jackson Neighborhood Corp. We responded to all verbal requests for information. Only one written comment was sent, from the Smyrna Development Corp.
By December 2, l994, the deadline date for our RFP, we had received 202 proposals from over l50 non-profits under the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs. We devised a proposed review process that would be within the spirit and letter of our citizen participation plan. We invited two non-profits that had not submitted funding proposals and have city-wide, comprehensive-interests, to join city staff in the review and recommendation process. These are the Newark Tenants Council, and the Newark Fighting Back Program. In terms of the HOPWA proposals, the respective jurisdictions, in which each of the non-profit activities were proposed, joined with the Newark Department of Health and Human Service to review and make recommendations. RFP rankings and recommendations were received from Essex County, Morris County, Union County, Warren County and the City of Elizabeth.
Between November l, l994, when we sent a mailing to proposal submitters describing the process, and March l, l995, when we met to set up a priority list for funding, the Tenants Council and Fighting Back organizations were given full and complete access to all proposals and city eligibility/national objectives reviews. We additionally received a comment on this process, from the New Community Corp., and a letter from the Greater Newark Conservancy stressing the importance of its activities.
In early March, to supplement our communications with Newark non-profits that receive our RFP's and related communications, we sent a letter requesting consultative comments to l60 health and social services agencies in the city and county. We determined that this type of formal communication with affordable housing providers was unnecessary as the frequency of our interactions that can be classified as "consultative" with this smaller and more specialized universe has been more than adequate. Specific reference in this regard must, however, be made to the Newark Neighborhood Network, which represents Community Based Development Organizations (CBDO's) and Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO's) and has begun meeting with the City's Director of Development to better plan, implement and coordinate affordable housing activities.
Likewise our consultations with the Newark Tenants Council and NHA
officials directly responsible for the Comprehensive Grant program, including
citizen participation, have been frequent and substantive. This consultation
and coordination will be a continuing component of our consolidated planning.
Newark is the largest city in the State of New Jersey and the 6lst largest in the nation. With 275,000 people in its 24 square mile area, it has the fifth highest density among American cities. Newark is the core of a four-county metropolitan region with l.9 million people, making it the seventeenth largest such region in the country. While the 1990 Census shows Newark's economic and demographic changes over the past ten years to be quite dynamic, the City is still characterized by a predominantly minority, lower income population. It is comprised of many different ethnic groups, with the majority of its population Black (58.5%) and Latino (25.1%).
The City of Newark has one of the premier transportation net works in the
nation and the best in the region. Newark International Airport is the fastest
growing such facility in the U.S., handing over 28 million passengers annually.
Port Newark is the largest containership port in the country. The City is the
hub of seven major highways, including the Garden State Parkway and the New
Jersey Turnpike. Pennsylvania Station, situated in the central business
district, provides train and bus transportation for 70,000 commuters daily.
In the aggregate, in 1990, the housing needs for all types and income levels were projected at approximately 1,200 units per annum, based upon the principal that a municipality should produce annually one percent of its previous decennial census housing stock. In 1990, the census figures show a total of 102,473 housing units. Thus the projection shows a 1995 -1999 need of 6,000 units, inclusive of rehabilitation and new construction, tenure type and family/household characteristics.
Over half of the 90,878 households in Newark as of the 1990 Census had very-low incomes, i.e. 0 to 50% of the median family income (MFI) for the Newark Metropolitan Statistical Area, two-thirds of them were at or below 30% of the MFI. Of the 46,396 very low -income households, 10,528 were elderly renters, with 1 and/or 2 members; 15,660 were small related renters (2 to 4) and 6,213 were large related renters (5 or more).
Renter households totaled 39,876, owner households 6,520. Seventy one percent of the very low-income households had housing problems, as defined by the Census Bureau; 48% had housing cost burdens greater than 50% of their monthly incomes.
Approximately 13% of Newark Households had other low incomes, i.e. 51 to 80% of the MFI. Of these 11,551 households, 1,424 were elderly, 1-and/or 2-member, with 775 being renters, 649 owners; 4,252 were small related renters (2-4) and 1,532 were large related renters (5 or more). Renter households totaled 8,638, owner households 2,913. Thirty-three percent to the other low-income households had housing problems.
There are no disproportionate housing needs of significance in Newark by racial or ethnic group. Worth mentioning, however, is the somewhat more youthful profile of very low-income Hispanic, as compared to other households. This implies greater non-elderly housing needs for this group, as well as a greater need to accommodate children, over the next one-to-five year period.
According to the U.S. Census, Newark had, as of l990, 102,453 year-round housing units, of which 91,532 were occupied, for an ll% vacancy rate. These were rather evenly divided among 0 to 1, 2, and 3-or-more bedroom units. Of the occupied units, 77% were rental, a very high proportion as compared to the housing stock of other large cities.
Newark has lost approximately 22,439 housing units through demolition permits alone since l970. Over the 20 year period (l970-l990) two distinct patterns emerged. Between l970 and l979, approximately l5,l36 housing units were demolished. Between l980 and l990, approximately 7,450 housing units were demolished. During the 1970-1979 period, the average number of units eliminated per year was l,5l3, while in 1980 - 1990, the average number of loss units declined to 627 units per annum. The 44.7 percent decrease in the average yearly demolition is mainly due to a drastic reduction in the demolition budget for contract services, escalating disposal costs and municipal manpower reductions.
In addition, an estimated l,500 structural fires occurred each year since l980 adding to the loss of units and resulting in a structure no longer being fit for human habitation. Many of these structures were not demolished and are pending rehabilitation. Age and obsolescence of the City's older housing stock can account for the extent of vacancy, abandonment, vandalism, fire and eventual demolition that contributes to housing unit loss and neighborhood deterioration.
For the past two years, the issuance of new building permits has outnumbered the loss of housing units from demolition. It is anticipated that the real estate market will rebound and this new, positive trend will continue to fuel increased, building construction that will, in turn, facilitate neighborhood revitalization.
Over half of the 90,878 households in Newark as of the 1990 Census had very low incomes, i.e., 0 to 50% of the median family income (MFI) for the Newark Metropolitan Statistical Area; two-thirds of them were at or below 30% of the MFI. Of the 46,396 very low-income households, l0,528 were elderly renters, with 1 and/or 2 members; l5,660 were small related renters (2 to 4); and 6,2l3 were large related renters (5 or more). Renter households totaled 39,876, owner households 6 ,520. Seventy-one percent (7l%) of the very low-income households had housing problems, as defined by the Census Bureau; 48% had housing cost burdens greater than 50% of their monthly incomes.
There are no disproportionate housing needs of significance in Newark by racial or ethnic group. Worth mentioning, however, is the somewhat more youthful profile of very low-income Hispanic, as compared to all other, households. This implies greater non-elderly housing needs for this group, as well as a greater need to accommodate children, over the next one-to-five years.
The official 1990 Census homeless count (S-Night Enumeration) for Newark was 2,816. It does not reflect the annual prevalence of homelessness in the City of Newark, which is projected by various sources as high as 10,000 individuals or 30% of the statewide homeless total. It has been speculated that the annual prevalence of homeless throughout the State exceeds 30,000 persons, which includes those precariously housed and imminently at-risk of becoming homeless. HUD's re-evaluation of its definition of homelessness to include this population and the City of Newark's efforts to include this population and its efforts to complete a new homeless count based on "annual prevalence "will produce much greater numbers of those which constitute the homeless in Newark.
The Newark Housing Authority (NHA) has 11,148 units in its inventory. Of these, 3,l317, or 29.75%, are vacant. There are 4,113 studio and/or 1-bedroom units in the NHA's stock; 4,102 2-bedroom units; and 2,933 3-or-more-bedroom units.
For FY 1995, the Newark Housing Authority (NHA) estimates that its Comprehensive Grant Program will be funded by HUD at $44.148 million. The NHA plans to allocate $2 million of this projected amount for Section 504 needs.
Physical Condition and Restoration and Revitalization Needs: The initial needs assessment for the Comprehensive Grant Program identified about $500 million of work items to bring the city's public housing stock to current standards. The needs identified included systems upgrade to code, and needs resulting from the impact of deferred maintenance due to insufficient operating funds. These needs are being addressed with funding from Comprehensive Grant and other sources such as the Vacancy Reduction Program, which is providing $9 million vacant units for occupancy.
The five public policies of significance are: Rent control; tax abatement; permits and licenses; zoning; and property valuation. These policies can, as we have explained in the Strategic Plan section, be either supportive or corrosive of housing affordability. We further believe that mechanisms to allow changes to, or elimination of these are adequate and responsive to the often conflicting demands of citizens and businesses.
The City of Newark Department of Health and Human Services applications and been awarded two (2) HUD Special Purpose Grants in the amount of $1,500,000 each: 1) Lead Demonstration Project to provide loans/grants to low and moderate income owner occupants or low income occupants of private rental units to abate lead based paint and 2) Temporary "Safe Housing" Shelter for Families whose homes are being Abated. The City will provide in-kind match for each grant in the form of Health and Human Services and Division of Housing Assistance staff support.
To summarize the Lead-Based paint hazard strategy and how it will be integrated into the City's current programs: The City of Newark's Department of Health and Human Services will administer the Lead Abatement Program in conjunction with the Newark Department of Development. Routine inspections and Lead Screening will be performed by Lead Poisoning Inspectors. This will trigger referrals to the hospitals for supportive services and possible lead "safe housing", if lead based paint is discovered. Also a referral will be made to a Loan Advisor in the Department of Development. After determining an applicant's eligibility for the proposed program, a Cost Estimator will prepare a cost estimate/work write-up that will detail the complete scope of the work and an estimate of the cost of the work. The Department of Development will also assist in the selection of a qualified vendor to perform the abatement work.
Needs With Regional implications for Newark Residents
Needs with Implications for Newark Per Se
Coordination
We believe that coordination of services among public and non-profit agencies in Newark is a very strong aspect of programming. As we have noted, approximately 100 non-profits are sub-recipients of funding from the four C-Plan entitlement programs. Many activities, especially those involving ESG and HOPWA, necessitate coordination among social service and housing providers. All of the city's and NHA's divisions, along with a substantial percentage of our non-profits, do both housing and services.
Despite these linkages, in a complex environment with high need levels, coordination can at times become problematical. For that reason, the EZ/EC planning process has been especially beneficial. Although we did not opt to establish ad hoc task forces for the C-Plan process, as a result of our experiences as well as citizen input at our neighborhood meetings we will be requiring enhanced coordination among our sub-recipients as a condition of continued grant funding.
Newark city agency staff from all our line agencies that are involved in the
C-Plan meet with and contact their state, county and metro counterparts on a
regular basis.
Newark's vision for change by the year 2000 is Jobs - Family - Neighborhoods through
The proposed projects to be funded under the FY 1995 Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program entitlement allocation of $503,000 and FY 1995 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) entitlement allocation of $4,798,000, proposes to utilize ESG and HOPWA resources to address the following priorities:
| Priority I | New Construction and Permanent Housing: Affordable for-sale and rental housing across the low/mod income range, including continuum of care and public housing at the extremely- and very-low income levels. |
| Priority II | Substantial rehabilitation: Large, multi-family rental projects, for low-income families. City wide. |
| Priority III | Moderate rehabilitation of existing , 1-4 family, owner-occupied units for low/mod income families. City-wide. |
| Priority IV | Economic development, to create employment opportunities and entrepreneurialism for lower income residents. City-wide. |
| Priority V | Outreach, Assessment and Prevention for the Homeless, low-income Persons at-risk of Homelessness and Persons with Special Needs, including lead exposure/poisoning. |
| Priority VI | Temporary Housing: Emergency and Transitional, as part of Continuum of Care. |
| Priority VII | Supportive services: homeless and special needs populations, including lead exposure/poisoning. City-wide. |
A table included in the C-Plan indicates the CDBG portion of our non-housing needs, with estimated expenditures over the specified period. Priority needs are: job-creating economic development, social services (including day care), health, arts/culture/recreation, education, and neighborhood improvement (e.g., beautification).
Given the statistical relationships among poverty, un-and underemployment, single- and no-parent families, and rundown neighborhoods, Newark's key needs generally parallel those of other cities with similar demographic and functional profiles. During the 1970's and l980's, a series of studies by academic "think tanks" and federal agencies consistently ranked us at or near the top of the largest U.S. central cities in terms of poverty and general distress, however defined. Recently, however, the 1990 Census has shown a significant reduction in our poverty rates and a commensurate increase in per capita income. Although we additionally experienced a large percentage overall population loss, we believe the upshot is a more manageable city. These positive changes are beginning to be incorporated into recent research on cities, e.g., Interwoven Destinies, edited by HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros.
As long as the distress levels in our residential neighborhoods remain high, our key needs will continue to center around the exigent and strategic reduction of poverty. This includes assistance to the small segment of the area's residents who will never be able to practice self help, and, for the majority who can improve their lives and their families', the cluster of services that result in employment at a decent wage. Here, we are of course referring to education and training, and family and neighborhood environments that foster human productivity defined in both economic and non-material (e.g., "good citizen") terms.
Barriers to the success of our anti-poverty strategy are substantial. Consistent with recent research findings, we believe them to be not so much a "mismatch" between resident skills and available jobs, or a "culture of poverty," as areawide housing and employment discrimination, an uneven development of the Newark metro region which has separated central city residents from good jobs and housing, and the deindustrialization of the U.S. economy, which has eliminated moderate skill/good wage manufacturing jobs and replaced them with low skill/low wage employment .
A further major barrier, as documented by Ladd and Yinger (America's Ailing Cities, 1989), is the high cost to Newark for basic municipal service delivery. Using factors such as the increased outlays for services experienced by cities with high poverty levels, prevailing labor costs, and state regulations and procedures, Ladd and Yinger developed a police-fire-general services index on which Newark had the highest rank among the 80 largest U.S. cities.
A final major barrier that must be taken into account in the Newark equation is our heavy reliance on local property taxes to raise revenues for municipal operating costs. The New Jersey tax structure requires Newark and its sister cities in the region to compete for private development, which is a no-win strategy in the long run.
We believe most barriers to the realization of our vision are economic, involve complex forces that impact human development, and can only be removed by self-interested partnerships that transcend local boundaries.
The major Federal resources expected to be available to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan include C-Plan entitlement funds, Enterprise Community funds, other special purpose HUD grants and JTPA funds for employment and training.
Public housing funds will provide for moderate and/or substantial rehabilitation as well as new construction and certificates and vouchers made available through Annual Contribution Agreements between the Federal Government, the NHA and the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, which acts as a second phase for Newark.
A substantial amount of our rental housing is expected to be constructed with syndication proceeds generated by the sale of low income housing tax credits.
A listing of resources follows:
Major Federal Resources Committed to/Affecting the C-Plan
The following list is of l994 and l995 grants received or committed by entitlement. It is, therefore, inclusive of both funds under contract or those committed by law to the City of Newark and key non-profits.
| Dept of Health and Human Services | $ 11,791,405 |
| Dept of Housing and Urban Development | 136,172,182 |
| Dept of Justice | 2,000,000 |
| Dept of Education | 844,135 |
| Total Federal Grants | $150,807,722 |
Other Resources
The HOME funds will be the basic subsidy to be matched by State Balanced Housing funds, Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA) funds, private foundation dollars, low income housing tax credits and developer equity generated by the tax credit sale, and may be utilized with State HOME funds. The City has provided publicly owned land and buildings for nominal fee to non-profit housing developers. In addition, it has provided tax abatement agreements to both private for profit and non-profit developers of housing to make the after construction tax burden bearable and affordable. The bulk of our projects over the next 5 years, (approximately 2,142 units of assisted housing, not including low rent public housing), would originate from the sale of vacant city owned land and vacant city-owned buildings.
The following list is of l994-1995 grants received or committed by entitlement, inclusive of both funds under contract or committed by law to the City of Newark and key non-profits operating in the city.
Dept of Commerce and Economic Development, Dept of Community Affairs, Dept of Environmental Protection, Dept of Health, Dept of Human Resources, Dept of Labor, Dept Law & Public Safety, and Dept of Education.
Essex County Resources Committed to the C-Plan include Social Services Block Grant Division on Aging, and Division of Community Health Services
Non-Governmental Resources Committed to the C-Plan include the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, and private resources.
We believe that coordination of services among public and non-profit agencies in Newark is a very strong aspect of our programming. As we have noted, approximately l00 non-profits are sub-recipients of funding from the four C-Plan entitlement program. Many activities, especially those involving ESG and HOPWA, necessitate coordination among social service and housing providers. All of the city's and NHA's divisions, along with a substantial percentage of our non-profits, do both housing and services.
Despite these linkages, in a complex environment with high need levels, coordination can at times become problematical. For that reason, the EZ/EC planning process has been especially beneficial. Although we did not opt to establish ad hoc task forces for the C-Plan process, as a result of our experiences as well as citizen input at our neighborhood meetings we will be requiring enhanced coordination among our sub-recipients as a condition of continued grant funding.
Newark city agency staff from all our line agencies that are involved in the
C-Plan meet with and contact their state, county and metro area counterparts on
a regular basis.
The activities Newark will undertake in FY 1995 with CDBG, HOME and HOPWA funds are listed on the "Listing of Proposed Projects" tables. The Newark, N.J. l995 Consolidated Plan projects funding as follows: CDBG: $12,834,000*; HOME: $3,430,000; ESG: $503,000,000 and HOPWA: $4,798,000.
* For approximately l26 projects.
The City of Newark will again direct its resources into those areas with the highest needs, which are relatively congruent with minority concentrations (the South and Central Wards, and the lower North and West Wards).
Newark Department of Administration
The ultimate goal of this continuum of care is to move the individuals and permanent housing or permanent supportive housing arrangements.
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP EC1 depicts Empowerment Zones\Enterprise Community information.
MAP EC2 depicts Empowerment Zones\Enterprise Community information.
MAP EC3 depicts Empowerment Zones\Enterprise Community information.
MAP EC4 depicts Empowerment Zones\Enterprise Community information.
MAP EC5 depicts Empowerment Zones\Enterprise Community information.
TABLE (without associated map) provides information about the project(s).
Daniel M. Schulgasser (201) 733-8410
Coordinator of Federal and State Aid
