During the spring of 2001,12 senior sociology majors from Montclair State University conducted research on the Glenfield Park and Pine Street areas of Montclair, NJ. For background information the research teams consulted Census Bureau publications located in Sprague Library, as well as those posted on the NJ State Data Center. Other data was culled from the 1999 Uniform Crime Report and the 1999-2000 NJ School Report Card. Links to these sites can be found on the course syllabus for Dr. Kloby's Senior Research Seminar, under the section titled "Important Data Sources." [http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/ICS/srp2001.htm] Students also conducted field research through which they made systematic observations regarding the physical characteristics of the neighborhoods and conducted interviews with residents or others who are familiar with the areas. More data on these neighborhoods will be posted elsewhere on this site in the near future. This section is meant as an overview of the neighborhoods.The neighborhoods where the research was conducted are the target areas for the Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) being proposed by the Institute for Community Studies, the Center for Community-Based Learning, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the College of Education and Human Services, and the Center for Pedagogy of Montclair State University. The COPC would be funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a three year period and would be a partnership between the University and a number of community organizations in the target area.
It is often the case that a statistical profile of an area contains within it all that one would need to know to get a general sense of what that particular neighborhood is about. This is not the case as it relates to the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are better thought of as a “community within a community”, with characteristics that are separate and distinct from the other sections of town. The Pine Street area was originally an Italian working class neighborhood, and it manifests a rich tradition that reaches back into the early days of the 20th century. It is a tradition that remains to this day, albeit in a somewhat attenuated form, despite demographic and economic changes and upheaval caused by an urban renewal redevelopment project in the late 1960’s and the current installation of the “Montclair Connection” train line into Manhattan. The Glenfield Park neighborhood, separated from the Pine Street neighborhood by Bloomfield Avenue (a very busy thoroughfare) is predominantly African-American and is currently a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) eligible target area and the recipient of CDBG funding. To better understand these neighborhoods we need to put the area within the general context of Essex County and the Township of Montclair.
Essex County, New Jersey is located in northern New Jersey, approximately 12 miles west of New York City. Essex is among the most densely populated counties in New Jersey, and is home to the greatest percent of people of color in the entire state. The County is a diverse mixture of 22 urban and suburban municipalities. Eighteen of the 22 municipalities, including the Township of Montclair, have bonded together to form an “urban county” CDBG consortium as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Montclair itself is a community of nearly 39,000 individuals. When taken as a whole, the Township is well known as a relatively prosperous community that has been a national model of diversity and integration. Population figures from 1990 indicate that 31% of the population was African-American with 63% being white, 3.3% Hispanic, and 2.3% other. However, recent data from current public school enrollment statistics do not reflect the township's demographic profile. Public School enrollment data indicates that of the slightly more than 6,000 children enrolled in public school, 44.6% are white, 47.2% are African American, 4.6% are Hispanic, with 3.6% being classified as other. These proportions differ significantly from the township’s overall demographic composition and may substantiate claims that a process of “white flight” out of the public schools has been taking place.
Taken in the aggregate, the demographics of Montclair are unremarkable. According to the New Jersey Municipal Almanac 2000, the median household income for Montclair was $78,427 in 1998, with the per capita state taxable income being $44,806 in 1997. The average price for an existing home according to the Almanac was $295,242 during the period from 1998-1999. The average single family building value was put at $257,550 with the average residential assessed value in 1999 being put at $248,867. A closer review of the housing stock indicates that over half of the housing units are owner-occupied, and almost half are single family type. The housing stock is old, with almost two thirds built prior to 1940. One quarter of the houses in Montclair have 9 or more rooms; one-fifth have 5 or more bedrooms. The vacancy rate for the town overall is 3.7% as compared to the County vacancy rate of 6.7%. Furthermore, the town is making efforts to insure that affordable housing is within reach of low and moderate income residents.
Affordable housing is closely related to employment characteristics and future employment opportunities. The Fair Housing Act of 1985 had as one of its intentions the creation of realistic opportunities for low and moderate income households to live within or close to the communities within which they work. As an older suburban predominantly residential community, there is little if any industry remaining in the town. There is a central business district, which is one of six business districts, but these have undergone significant changes. The site where the last industrial businesses were located has experienced a change from an industrial/manufacturing area to an entertainment area with restaurants and jazz clubs. The largest employers in township are service and service related organizations and include the following:
Montclair Board of Education
Township of Montclair
Mountainside Hospital (partially in Glen Ridge)
Montclair Kimberley Academy
Montclair State University (partially in Little Falls and Clifton)Two of the largest employers, the Montclair Community Hospital and Saint Vincent’s Nursing Home, both closed their doors within the past few years. Saint Vincent’s was located in the heart of the Glenfield Park neighborhood.
Given the loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs, it is anticipated that the predominant growth in employment opportunities will arise from filling existing building vacancies and redevelopment. While we will say more on this below, housing affordability remains an issue.
When taken as a whole, the picture of the township that emerges is of a diverse relatively prosperous community of large, if aging, stylistic single-family residences that are typical of an upper middle class community in the suburban New York metropolitan area. Upon closer examination, particularly of the target area, a very different picture reveals itself. Some of these pictures are quite negative:
Three men dressed in oversized coats and baggy jeans duck in and out of an alley that empties onto Pine Street. One makes periodic checks one way up the street. Another peers suspiciously the other way…The extent to which the above description accurately characterizes the Pine Street area is debatable but there is little question that it is a distressed area undergoing major changes. Among the most visible of the changes is the construction of the Montclair Connection, a rail link that will offer a one-seat ride to midtown Manhattan. The construction, due for completion sometime in the winter of 2001-02, has caused the demolition of nineteen houses and the displacement of twenty seven families, to say nothing of the street literally being torn up and replaced with railroad tracks. In short, we have a “community within a community” which in essence is a community-at-risk, being further impacted by a redevelopment project that threatens to obliterate what remains of this once, and still, unique area.
All three appear oblivious to the construction going on within shouting distance… On this day it’s illegal business as usual.
“They’ll be here”…. They are the numbers of junkies, prostitutes, alcoholics, and drug dealers who congregate on Pine Street during the day and especially after the sun goes down. They do everything from alcohol to drugs to illicit sex to hanging out in groups … that spill out onto the sidewalk..
As … leads the way through a side alley that runs adjacent to his laundry and empties out into the back yard of a rundown apartment building, he points out empty miniature liquor bottles and plastic caps that once contained crack… The discarded refuse litters the ground and serves as evidence… “…. I find needles out here. They toss that stuff on the roof, too.”
Legitimate business hours conducted by Pine Street merchants … are dictated by the daylight. Weekdays … from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Weekends … 7.a.m. … until 5:00 p.m. (“A Street On The Run”, by Jeff Harrell, The Montclair Times, April 26, 2001.)The Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods correspond to Census Bureau tracts 167 and 171 in the Township of Montclair. Tract 171 is a CDBG eligible area and does receive significant CDBG funding. Tract 171 has a population of 2,573 and tract 167 has 2,693 people (Census 2000). Both tracts are approximately .2 square miles, with a population density of nearly 11,000 people per square mile. In the Pine Street tract (167) Approximately 700 of the tract’s residents are white and over 1,600 are African-American. The median household income of area residents is $28,802, with the median family income being $29,931, well below the township median of $78,427. Six percent of tract 167’s residents are in poverty (according to 1990 statistics). The median value of an owner occupied home in the target neighborhood is $154,400, as compared to the value of the average single family building for the town in general, which is put at $257,550. However, out of slightly under 1,000 housing units in tract 167, 793 are renter occupied, with an average contract rent being $577. Also, no less than 48 housing units are vacant, with the expectation being that many will remain vacant until the completion of the Montclair Connection causes rents to increase significantly beyond the means of neighborhood residents. Housing affordability is one of the single most pressing needs within the target neighborhood.
The statistics for tract 171 are similar in some respects, but bleaker in others. Tract 171 has a population of 2,573 in an area of .2 square miles. 1,985 of the residents are African-American and 297 are white. Median household income in tract 171 is $26,658 and median family income is $28,456. 25.6 percent of tract 171’s resident are below the poverty line. The statistics on the value of owner-occupied housing, average rent and the number of vacant units, are nearly the same as those for tract 167.
As indicated in the passages sited above, crime and aberrant behavior is also an issue. While we were not able to break out specific rates for the area in question, we do know that there were 499 juvenile crimes reported in 1998 by individuals between the ages of 8 and 18. We also know that according to a Community Needs Assessment conducted by the United Way of North Essex, substance abuse was identified as one of the single most important issues facing Montclair. Housing affordability was also identified as among the most important issues facing the neighborhood. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, although drug abuse among adults remained stable, illegal drug use increased by 78% among youths age 12 – 17 between 1992 and 1995. The United Way study indicated that by the senior year of high school, 90% of all students have used alcohol. No less than 10% of high school students use alcohol heavily at least once per week. Thirty percent of high school seniors have used marijuana during the last three months. Although specific statistics for the Pine Street/Glenfield Park area were unavailable, it is safe to assume, based comments made by area residents within the article sited above, as well as needs indicated to us during the open meeting of area residents hosted by the COPC Advisory committee, our target area is the “hub” of such activity.
Concerning housing, although the township of Montclair does have a history of attempting to provide housing for people of all income levels, affordable housing in the Pine Street/Glenfield neighborhood is problematic. The United Way study determined that the lack of affordable housing primarily impacted four groups of people: the elderly, female householders, the disabled, and individuals in crisis. To quote the United Way document;
For individuals, families, and the community, affordable … housing is fundamental to … quality of life. … the burden of housing costs has impacted low-income households, primarily affecting single mothers, elderly adults, individuals with disabilities, and individuals in crisis, the majority of whom are women … struggling to survive on limited incomes. A little over half of these families are located in Montclair.In one portion of the target area, out of 522 families, 201, or nearly 40%, are headed by a single female. Further, in the target neighborhood there is a shortage of affordable, available rental units because of limited incomes, long waiting lists of subsidized apartments, and high rents and purchase prices.Exacerbating the situation is the Montclair Connection, which ultimately will result in positive benefits for Montclair, but in the short run is making a difficult situation even more difficult. Nearly 30 units of housing have been demolished. Not only has this torn into the fabric of the neighborhood and reduced the number of available housing units, but the overall impact of the Connection has been to raise property values significantly in the anticipation of professionals moving into the area for easy access to midtown Manhattan. The recent median contract rent in the neighborhood was $577 but rents have been on the rise. With the conversion of abandoned buildings in the area higher prices are bound to proliferate. New housing being constructed on Bloomfield Avenue at the site of the recently demolished Belleclaire Lanes bowling alley will include rental units priced at $1,800 for one bedroom apartments and $2,500 for two bedroom units. These apartments are outside the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods but the availability of a direct rail line to Manhattan has undoubtedly had an impact on the rental price of these units as it will effect rental prices closer to the train station located at the end of Pine Street. Furthermore, some local landlords have already expressed an intention to raise existing rents, and developers who are making their way into town are anticipating rents in the range just cited. To quote a sales associate with Schweppe & Co., Realtors, who is a member of the Township’s Tenant landlord Committee, “Things have gotten expensive here.” (Montclair Times, April 19, 2001.) In fact, the County’s 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan identified “Economic Impediments” as the single most powerful impediment to fair housing. These include the cost of land and site improvements; the cost of new construction, the costs of maintaining existing housing, and high property tax rates especially as they impact on residents of modest incomes.
The bottom line here is that fewer and fewer of area residents who were born and raised in the area are able to remain in the area because of the rising cost of housing.
Among the various recommendations made within the Township’s various housing planning documents, the following are most relevant here;
· The first recommendation made within the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan developed by the Township of Montclair is “Priority should be given to locating replacement units for the Pine Street neighborhood residents displaced due to the construction of the Montclair Connection rail line”. The Pine Street area was identified as one of the primary target areas for affordable housing opportunities to be located within with the recommendation that the Township should “continue the use of federal and state grant funds”.Lest one get the wrong impression, there are numerous aspects of the Pine Street and Glenfield Park neighborhoods which give one cause to be optimistic. On March 15, 2001, Montclair State University's COPC steering committee along with 10 organizations that had been working with us as "community partners", held a meeting with neighborhood residents at the Mt. Carmel Church on Pine Street. Flyers saturated the area announcing the meeting, and individual members of the committee passed out flyers and placed them strategically in laundromats, supermarkets, childcare centers, and other areas frequented by neighborhood residents. The widespread distribution itself is a comment on the strength of social capital in the area, as was the turnout. The meeting was attended by a diverse group of approximately 125 residents, representatives of the Township, neighborhood community based organization, Montclair State University staff and several students, the Montclair Police Department, and a representative of the Board of Education.
· To address economic impediments generally, the Five year Plan recommends “that the amount of affordable housing be increased…”
· Increase the number of units available for senior citizens.
· Undertake additional educational efforts to inform tenant and landlords of their rights and responsibilities.
· Provide housing counseling to those in need.After a brief discussion and explanation of the COPC process, the group was broken down into seven smaller focus groups with a designated leader, with the task being to identify the greatest needs confronting the neighborhood, with suggestions as to how to address these needs. Many articulate and knowledgeable residents discussed not only major issues of concern but they were also able to identify individuals and neighborhood programs that they considered to be local assets.
In regard to the major issues confronting the residents there was stunning consistency. In summary form and not necessarily in any particular order, we may identify them as follows:
1. Neighborhood Decomposition. Virtually all of the residents lamented the fact that what had once been a strong cohesive neighborhood was now characterized by instability and disorganization. Residents spoke of a lack of community sense, a lack of neighborhood pride, a lack of community attachment (especially on the part of youth), a loss of a sense of history. Residents spoke of a “fractured” community and a loss of neighborliness. Residents also spoke of a lack of civility and respect.
2. Loss of a Sense of Security. Closely related to the first issue, this took the form of discussions about the physical appearance of the neighborhood. The erosion and incessant physical decline was cited, as was the need to clean up the neighborhood. Residents lamented the fact that they were frightened to venture out at night.
3. Perception of Street Crime. Again, closely related were the concern residents expressed for youth and adults congregating outside of a local liquor store waiting to get high. A sense of danger was being experienced
4. Lack of Affordable Housing. Rising rents were identified as a source of concern as was a perceived lack of home ownership opportunities. The impact of the rail line was cited by several people as impacting on this. Concern was expressed by several people that their children were having, or would have, a difficult time remaining in the neighborhood, and this greatly concerned families who had lived in the area for several decades and who had raised their families in the neighborhood. Residents complained of rent increases which would make their apartments unaffordable.
5. Perceived Lack of Social Services in the Neighborhood. A need was expressed for greater accessibility to government and services. Most area residents felt “out of the loop” when it came to accessing the human service continuum of care, and a desire was expressed for a community or neighborhood directory.
6. Perceived lack of Activities For Youth. Many residents again pointed out that too many youth were not going to school and were getting involved with the “street life”. A representative of Mt. Carmel Church also indicated that many children remain unsupervised after school and roam the street in an undirected way. The need for after school activities was expressed.
What emerges from this brief portrait of the neighborhood is a picture of a threatened but viable area, urgently seeking to re-establish its history and sense of pride and neighborhood attachment and to maintain its unique identify. The fact that so many individuals came out to a public meeting and willingly voiced their concerns speaks volumes for the positive potential and untapped energy that still remains at the heart of the neighborhood. The Township of Montclair remains a relatively prosperous community when taken in the aggregate, but the Pine Street/Glenfield Park area, has not yet shared in this continued prosperity, and in fact has experienced and is experiencing greater suffering in the face of it. The needs identified are urgent in that every day these are the “common place” experiences of hundreds of individuals who are seeking our help to preserve their birthright and live as they are entitled to.
The following documents served as background for this report: (1) Housing Element & Fair Share Plan, Township of Montclair, Essex County (adopted by the Montclair Planning Board on October 6, 1997; (2) Essex County 2001 Consolidated Plan and One Year Action Plan; (3) Essex County 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan and One Year Action Plan; (4) “A Comprehensive Human Services and Health Needs Assessment Report For The Communities of North Essex,” prepared January 1997 by the United Way of North Essex and Mountainside Hospital, Montclair; (5) “Lackawanna Neighborhood Strategic Development Plan” prepared November 14, 1997 under the direction of the Montclair Township Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee, (6) “Municipal Needs and Resource Assessment” prepared the Montclair Municipal Drug Alliance, spring, 2000; (7) “A Street On The Run”, article appearing in the Montclair Times on April 26, 2001; (8) needs identified at an open neighborhood meeting hosted by the COPC Advisory Committee at Mt. Carmel Church, 94 Pine Street on march 15, which was attended by over 100 community residents, the Montclair Police Department, members of the governing body, and representatives of several community based organizations; (9) United States Census Data for 1990; (10) “Municipal Profiles” contained within the New Jersey Municipal Almanac 2000; and (11) Census 2000.
Mail comments to: ics@mail.montclair.eduUpdated on July 5, 2001
All material Copyright © 1999, 2000 & 2001, by Gerald S. Kloby unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced without proper citation. Full articles or long excerpts may not be reproduced without permission.