CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

An Analysis of the City of Riverside's Eastside Neighborhood Plan:

Barrio Urbanism and Communicative Planning

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in

Chicana and Chicano Studies

By

Alejandro Rico

August 2013

The thesis of Alejandro Rico is approved:

______Martha Escobar, Ph.D. Date

______Margarita Nieto, Ph.D. Date

______Mary Pardo, Ph.D., Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page ii

List of Figures iv

Abstract v

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review 10

Chapter 3: Methods 26

Chapter 4: Findings 30

Chapter 5: Conclusion 72

Works Cited 75

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of the Eastside Neighborhood 3

Figure 2: Eastside pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk 31

Figure 3: Walgreens development on University Ave 33

Figure 4: Mexican restaurant on University Avenue 33

Figure 5: Proposed redevelopment along University Avenue 35

Figure 6: Proposed Marketplace project adjacent to the Eastside barrio 36

Figure 7: Building style Eastside residents were asked to vote on 36

Figure 8: Businesses along Park Avenue 37

Figure 9: Before and after images for Park Avenue business 40

Figure 10: A bulletin board in Cesar Chavez Community Center 42

Figure 11: Eastside mural celebrating diversity and old fashioned homes 44

Figure 12: Park Avenue Mexican Restaurant 45

Figure 13: Generic shopping center in Upstate New York 46

Figure 14: Riverside mural of old racetrack and citrus industry 48

Figure 15: One of many vacant lots in the Eastside 50

Figure 16: Housing and industrial lots with barbed wire adjacent to each other 51

Figure 17: One of the unpaved alleys in the Eastside 53

Figure 18: Poorly maintained sidewalk on Park Avenue 54

Figure 19: Heavily cracked Eastside street 55

Figure 20: Proposed University Avenue development 60

iv

ABSTRACT

An Analysis of the City of Riverside's Eastside Neighborhood Plan:

Barrio Urbanism and Communicative Planning

By

Alejandro Rico

Master of Arts in Chicana and Chicano Studies

This study analyzed the City of Riverside’s Eastside Neighborhood Plan of 2009 that attempted to resolve urban problems such as poverty, poor street infrastructure and crime that are common in barrio communities while preserving vital barrio assets. This analysis used the communicative planning model to evaluate how well the City of Riverside developed a sustained partnership between City officials and Eastside residents throughout the drafting of the Eastside Plan and its implementation. The findings indicated that though the City used the rhetoric of strong community engagement, the extensive community outreach was not implemented. Some, but not all, of the policy measures proposed that could potentially aid the Eastside barrio were enacted and the lack of accountability to the community was evident. This study concluded that local governments have little incentive to implement extensive community outreach. The findings showed that planning policy tended to cater to private development while government assistance to the Eastside barrio was inadequate. The City of Riverside initiated the Eastside Neighborhood Plan to aid the Eastside barrio, but the lack of accountability in the Plan allowed many of the policy proposals to go unfulfilled.

v

INTRODUCTION

This study focused on barrio assets and problems and how they were addressed by the City of Riverside's Planning Department. Barrios have distinct characteristics and planning policy is crucial in addressing barrio urbanism. Often, local planning departments ignore barrio communities leaving them distressed while enacting comprehensive development plans for higher income areas. The City of Riverside implemented the Eastside Neighborhood Plan in an attempt to reverse this trend in 2009.

The Eastside Neighborhood Plan was used as a case study to examine the approaches utilized by planning departments to serve barrio communities. To contextualize this study, this chapter provides a brief historical overview of the Eastside and a background for analysis.

The Eastside of Riverside is a barrio community that has been a part of Riverside since it was founded in 1870. From the City's rise in the citrus industry, to the current

University Avenue development, the Eastside has been a key area of Riverside.

Currently, the Eastside is a Latino neighborhood that exhibits many barrio traits. Streets such as Park Avenue feature small businesses with distinctly colored buildings, awnings, gates and landscaping in close proximity to barrio residents. Pedestrians frequent the sidewalks to walk to businesses, parks, schools and bus stops such as those located on

Chicago Avenue, Third Street and University Avenue. Barrio murals located throughout the neighborhood are prominent. The alleys and small businesses feature Chicano mural art that acts as an expression of cultural and community pride. Though the Eastside has many attractive aspects, it also has problems that plague barrios such as poverty, crime,

1 vacant properties and poorly maintained streets. Amid this negative chaos, the Eastside remains a vibrant community in the City of Riverside.

The City of Riverside

The City of Riverside is located in Southern California approximately sixty miles east of Los Angeles. Founded in 1870 and incorporated in 1883, Riverside was known for its economy that centered on argiculture in the early 1900s and allowed the City to prosper (LECH, 2005). As the citrus industry began to decline, other industries took a larger role in Riverside's economy. During World War I and World War II, industrial areas began to form including a factory that produced the Water Buffalo tank. The employment opportunities in these industries attracted workers to Riverside. The opening of March Air Force Base during World War II added many military families to the City's population. After the 1940s, Riverside started becoming a residential community with new housing developments and commercial centers emerging. New residents continue to settle in Riverside with the City's population continuing to rise. As of 2010, Riverside had a population of 303,871 making it California's eleventh most populated city (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2007).

The Eastside

During Riverside's historic growth, the Eastside neighborhood played a key role as it is located in an important area. The Eastside is surrounded by Downtown Riverside,

Hunter Industrial Park, University of California Riverside (UCR) and residential areas to the south in the Victoria Neighborhood. It is approximately 2.25 square miles and bordered by two major streets including Chicago Avenue on the east and Third Street on the north. The neighborhood is bisected by two major streets including Martin Luther

2

King Boulevard and University Avenue (City of Riverside: Community Development

Department, 2009).

Figure 1: Map of the Eastside Neighborhood City of Riverside (Created Image). (2009). Eastside Map. [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/Neighborhood-Plans/eastside/Eastside- Neighborhood-Plan-Final.pdf

Riverside's economy heavily relied on the orange industry during the early twentieth century and many Eastside residents were citrus workers. As the citrus industry declined and war economy rose in the 1930s and 1940s, the area remained a predominantly working class community with Mexican-Americans and African-

Americans settling in the Eastside. While segregation was in full force, the Eastside was one place people of color could live and form businesses. Two commercial corridors prospered in the decades following World War II including University Avenue and Park

3

Avenue. When UCR opened and the 60 Freeway finished construction in the 1950s, traffic along University Avenue grew causing Eastside businesses to flourish. In 1957, the Riverside International Raceway opened adding to the customer base of Eastside businesses. This all changed in 1960s when the 60 Freeway was realigned away from the

Eastside. With its economic backbone taken away, the Eastside has struggled to recover and poverty has been a factor since. With the Eastside's struggling economy and close proximity to industrial properties, Eastside property values remained low for decades.

The cheap property has attracted working class Latinos and African-Americans who continue to populate the Eastside neighborhood (City of Riverside: Community

Development Department, 2009).

Whereas the Eastside has struggled economically, several areas in Riverside have prospered with the aid of government and private developers. Large scale development has been the focal point in areas such as the Riverside Plaza, Marketplace, Galleria at

Tyler, the Riverside Auto Center, Day Street shopping center, Downtown Renaissance

District and Woodcrest residential district (City of Riverside: Community Development

Department, 2008). These areas generate tax revenue, which is in part why the City has paid so much attention to them. Some of these projects were developed using public funds to encourage development. Areas like the Eastside that have declined economically have not garnered the same considerations as they do not generate the same rate of tax revenue. This is a clear example of local government policies that cater to big business while ignoring minority communities dealing with economic hardships.

The lack of investment and government aid in the Eastside have consequences in that a historically Latino and African-American community has been left out of

4

Riverside's redevelopment strategies. As of 2000, the Eastside has largely remained a

Latino area. According to the 2000 Census, 72.5% of the Eastside population was

Latino. This is a much higher concentration of Latinos than that of the City which was

38% Latino in 2000. In 2006, the American Community Survey reported that the City's

Latino population grew to 49%, which may have increased the Eastside's Latino population (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). Since the

Eastside has been mostly left out of the economic booms occurring in other areas, Latinos are the ones who feel the impact of being neglected by private development and local government. Any government official who argues for social equity would be inclined to aid the Eastside barrio.

The City of Riverside attempted to find ways to stimulate the stalling Eastside economy and improve the quality of life of impoverished Eastsiders. In addition to the economic hardships, Eastside residents deal with common barrio problems such as crime, poor infrastructure, vacant properties and lack of investment opportunities. The Eastside

Neighborhood Plan was implemented in 2009 by the City to set a policy plan to tackle these issues (The Eastside Neighborhood Plan will be referred to as the Eastside Plan or the Plan). Neighborhood plans (also referred to as specific plans) are used by cities for a variety of purposes. Specific plans can be used to regulate land use and/or implement government strategies to address the challenges a community faces (Fulton & Shigley,

2005). The City of Riverside used this planning tool to battle the plight that has plagued the Eastside for decades (City of Riverside: Community Development Department,

2009). The Eastside Plan was created by outreaching to Eastside residents and devising a set of policies based on community comments. In 2008 and 2009, the City engaged

5 residents giving them the opportunity to voice concerns they felt should be addressed.

Four meetings were held and comments from Eastsiders regarding concerns of their neighborhood were recorded. The Planning Department set policy objectives and tools that focused on new development, crime, economic opportunities, educational opportunities and parks among others based on public comments. These proposals were given varying timelines to be completed by assigned government agencies.

The Eastside is largely a barrio community but there are parts that have seen high- end development that would not fit barrio land use patterns. According to the City,

Marketplace is located within the Eastside even though it does not resemble much of the

Eastside barrio. Marketplace features a night club, restaurant chains and a commercial corridor with upscale buildings for commercial and office uses. Likewise, University

Avenue has seen major redevelopment in the last two decades and a major portion of the street is within the Eastside. The corridor does have several barrio characteristics such as small barrio businesses including Mexican restaurants, beauty salons, liquor stores and car maintenance facilities. In recent years, University Avenue has seen major investment that will likely continue as the economy rebounds. Currently, specific plans are being implemented by the City's Planning Department to guide future development in

Marketplace and University Avenue.

University Avenue

University Avenue is a major boulevard that runs through the Eastside connecting

Downtown and UCR. It connects the 91 Freeway on the west and 60 Freeway in the east.

The increasing car traffic and business activity along the corridor have sparked business investment. UCR has added a large customer base made of students sparking apartment

6 complex development. Whereas University Avenue has struggled economically in the past, recent decades have seen steady development including new office buildings, restaurants and hotels. Amidst these new projects, some parts of the corridor remain undeveloped with empty lots and vacant buildings persisting. In 1993, the Riverside

Planning Department implemented a specific plan for University Avenue to attract businesses and address nuisances such as prostitution, graffiti, gang activity and vacant properties. The Specific Plan required new development to be mixed use with pedestrian friendly amenities. In 2007, the City funded a streetscape and median enhancement program designed to improve the look and pedestrian experience along University

Avenue (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). This is in contrast to other areas of the Eastside that have not seen the same investment from the

City or private developers. The dilapidated public streets and sidewalks in the Eastside barrio would benefit from upgrades. University Avenue has been the focus of planning development in the Eastside because high-end investment generates tax revenue and opportunities for the Planning Department to shape land use patterns through design regulations. The Eastside barrio does not generate as much tax revenue and planners cannot shape land use in the barrio because developers will not propose new projects in poor urban areas.

Riverside Marketplace

Marketplace is an area in the western portion of the Eastside that has seen major redevelopment since the nineties. Though it is considered a part of the Eastside, it is blocked off from the barrio with a barrier created by train tracks and industrial properties comprised of vacant lots, junkyards and manufacturing buildings. This separates the

7

Eastside barrio from Marketplace's retail corridor made up of restaurants such as Sevilla's and the Old Spaghetti Factory, a Metrolink Station, office buildings and North Park (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). Vacant lots and industrial land uses also separate barrio residents from the Civic Center, Downtown Riverside and

Downtown Terminal (bus station). Massive industrial lots limit the number of sidewalks and roads that connect the Eastside to Marketplace and the rest of Downtown Riverside.

Though much of Marketplace has commercial and office space use, significant portions of the area have industrial properties incompatible with a residential community.

Many of these industrial properties are frequently adjacent to housing in the Eastside.

This causes pollution and lowers property value because industrial lots are often eye sores. Presently, there is a Marketplace Specific Plan being created to implement new development such as apartments and mixed use buildings to replace unattractive industrial lots. Though these land uses are more appropriate for a residential area, the potential for gentrification exists. This study analyzed the impact of potential

Marketplace and University Avenue development on the barrio community with a focus on barrio assets and problems.

Conclusion

The Eastside has faced the hardships common in barrios that need to be resolved.

So far, the City of Riverside has had difficulty reviving the faltering Eastside economy and aiding working class Eastsiders. The City of Riverside attempted to reverse this through the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. This thesis analyzed the City's attempt to address the Eastside's problems and the outreach methods utilized to devise the Plan. The communicative planning model was used as a comparison model to measure the Eastside

8

Plan's effectiveness in implementing planning policy to serve the Eastside barrio. The literature that was reviewed in the following chapter details the effectiveness of the communicative planning model in incorporating stakeholders in policy decisions which is why it was selected for this study. The Literature Review also details the characteristics of barrios including their assets and problems. These barrio descriptions were used to find the same assets and problems in the Eastside. The Methods chapter describes how site observations and the Eastside Neighborhood Plan were used in the analysis of the

City of Riverside's attempt to assist the Eastside barrio. The Findings chapter explains how many policy proposals in the Plan were largely not implemented due to a lack of accountability and government budget cuts. The conclusion of this study asserts that accountability measures need to be more prevalent when aiding barrio communities. City planning departments tend to cater to wealthy investors who have the funds to finance large scale projects that allows Cities to generate tax revenue and planners the ability to shape urban environments. Planners are able to make improvements for communities when large scale projects are proposed, but lower income areas are left out. Lastly, gentrification will likely become a more prominent force that needs to be studied further.

9

LITERATURE REVIEW

Barrios have assets for residents as they are a place that provides key resources and allows Latinos a space for cultural expression and social interaction. Planners looking to assist Latino communities need to recognize these vital barrio assets. Barrios are beneficial, but these communities are often afflicted by poverty and neglect from government institutions. This thesis argues in favor of the communicative planning model to bridge the gap of communication between planners and Latino communities.

Though the Riverside Planning Department did not specifically use the communicative planning model, the model was used to evaluate the City's outreach process. When used, this model ensures that planning concerns important to community members are addressed by planning agencies through continuous and honest dialogue. Improving barrio communities will become more important given the impact Latinos will make on cities as their population grows.

Latino Demographics

Recent demographic trends indicate that planning scholars need to focus on

Latino land use habits as the number of Latinos living in the U.S. will grow significantly.

In 1990, 19.4 million people in the United States were of Latino descent making them 9% of the total U.S. population (Klitsch, 1990; Passel & Edomonston, 1991). By 2000,

Latinos became 12.5% of the total population (Klitsch, 1990). In some cities and states,

Latinos will become the majority. Approximately 52% of California's population is expected to be Latino by 2050 (La Ganga & Lin, 2007). There have even been projections that Latinos will constitute 33% of the American population by 2100 (Saenz,

2005). This demographic trend is due to high fertility rates and immigration from Latin

10

American countries (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Planners need to study Latino land use behavior and their needs as the Latinos continue to be a rising force. Their urban patterns produce assets for residents that are highly beneficial. In several instances, barrio residents utilize urban practices planners encourage.

Defining the Barrio

Barrios are often defined as lower class neighborhoods with a predominantly

Latino population. However, the term barrio has been redefined by various Chicano scholars. The term "barrioization" was used as early as the late seventies by various scholars (Camarillo, 1979; Villa, 2000). Barrioization was defined as the way cities allowed Latinos to settle in undesired neighborhoods away from mainstream areas.

Barrios tended to be near undesired industrial cores, inner cities and freeways clusters.

Cities ignored barrio communities as their environment was not attractive for private and civic development. Since barrios were largely ignored by local governments and private developers, Latinos could apply their own urban practices without municipal restrictions

(Villa, 2000). Barrio inhabitants organically developed land use patterns that provided crucial assets for residents.

Latino scholars, such as David Diaz, have noted that barrios act as a communal space for inhabitants. Barrio residents use public sidewalks to interact with each other and to travel (Diaz, 2005). The use of the street for social interaction has been promoted in planning (Whyte, 1988). Barrio residents have organically used sidewalks and bike lanes as working class Latinos rely on cheaper modes of transportation (Diaz, 2005).

Unfortunately, many barrio sidewalks are not well maintained which creates an unattractive environment (Diaz, 2005). One way local governments can assist barrios is

11 by improving sidewalk infrastructure. Public works departments are supposed to maintain public infrastructure; sidewalk improvements would enhance the quality of life for barrio residents. Since working class Latinos often do not have the economic resources to fund sidewalk and street improvements, local government assistance is needed.

Latinos use barrio space for other forms of communal expression. Parks, schools, clubs and churches are often places of social interaction (Diaz, 2005). Barrio restaurants and night clubs often prosper as Latinos heavily utilize them for cultural expressions through Mexican food, sports such as soccer and boxing and Mexican music. Mexican restaurants are so popular they often compete well against corporate franchise restaurants

(Diaz, 2005). Social gatherings are frequent in other areas of the barrio such as churches, schools and parks that host quinceñieras, religious ceremonies, ballet folklórico and family functions (Diaz, 2005). The cultural identity is also visible on the walls of many barrios. Murals have become a staple in barrio communities with their displays of iconography of the civil rights struggle and cultural icons. Murals often express barrio solidarity and resistance to oppression and racism (Diaz, 2005; Rojas, 1999; Ford &

Griffin, 1981). Expressions of barrio culture and social interaction are assets that create a sense of community and belonging. They establish self-esteem among the community which is an important reason why these displays of cultural and social interaction need to be encouraged (Parsons, 1993).

In addition to cultural expression and socializing, Barrios allow Latinos a place to get goods and services catered to them. Latino entrepreneurs with the know how to sell to their communities have set up shop within barrios. They produce goods and services

12 including groceries, check cashing, money orders, beauty salons, restaurants and clubs for nightlife entertainment. Latino business owners are able to serve barrio residents in a

Latino friendly environment and with Spanish speaking staff. Latino ethnic food for

Mexican households are often only found in barrio markets (Diaz, 2005). The immigration from south of the border has allowed these businesses to remain given the constant influx of new immigrants (Waldinger & Bozorgmehr, 1996). First generation

Latinos born in the U.S. benefit from these spaces as they can speak in their native language while having access to restaurants, beauty salons and night clubs where they can interact with fellow barrio residents.

Younger Latinos benefit from barrio activities such as athletics and cultural events. The soccer movement in Latino communities has been instrumental for Latino youth to socialize and learn about teamwork (Diaz, 2005). Ballet folklórico has been a source of activities for Latinos who perform dances in schools, civic centers and churches

(Diaz, 2005). These activities are important as they develop confidence and personal growth (Borden et al, 2006). Keeping youth active is vital and discourages them from joining gangs and encourages them to lead productive lives. This is why cities are called upon to ensure that schools and parks provide youth activities to stimulate the minds and encourage physical activity (Diaz, 2005).

Barrio Problems

Though the barrio can provide a positive experience, local governments have largely ignored barrio neighborhoods leaving many of their problems unresolved (Villa,

2000). This is largely due to actions taken by cities that focus on private business while

13 ignoring the plight of Latino communities (Baeten, 2012) . As barrios are neglected, their problems continue to grow.

Latino communities have struggled to shed the perception of barrio violence.

Middle and upper class people have historically fled inner cities and traditionally Latino neighborhoods because of this stigma (Curtis, 2004). Growing Latino populations in school districts has accelerated the exodus of upper income families from Latino communities (Orfield, 1996). Latinos families that find themselves in the middle class have joined the exodus which diminishes resources and capital of barrios (Ream, 2005).

The potential purchasing power that can be used for upgrading housing stock and aiding local businesses is lost to wealthier communities. College educated Latino residents are also more likely to engage in civic dialogue with local government to improve barrio conditions (Diaz, 2005). As they leave, the barrio loses an asset that can potentially improve conditions in the barrio. The perception of violence that has caused residents to leave the barrio is based on the abundance of crime which requires attention from city governments.

Another hardship faced by barrio residents is the abuse suffered from property owners (Diaz, 2005). Landlord abuse is common for working class home renters.

Latinos are often vulnerable to landlord abuse because the lack of knowledge of aid such as code enforcement. Latino families living in poverty often are not aware that code enforcement agencies can place fines on property owners who do not provide an adequate living space. This is often due to Latino immigrants not being aware of code enforcement agencies and their function. In many cases, even Latino families who have lived in the United States for generations are unaware that code enforcement agencies

14 exist (Diaz, 2005). Cities need to do a better job of letting Latino communities know that code enforcement agencies can assist them in dealing with abusive landlords. In many instances, cities have ignored the blight suffered in lower income Latino communities by refusing to enforce zoning and building code. This inaction is often intentional and a prerequisite for real estate speculation which is another example of planning policies that caters to developers at the expense of minority communities (Dogadag, 1974).

Barrio communities face additional problems because of poverty. The economic difficulties faced by those living in barrios have been constant (Diaz, 2005; Dohan,

2003). Historically, barrios have been comprised by working class residents who have experienced greater hardships in recent decades with the rise of neoliberal economic global reorganization, which deindustrialization is part of. As higher paying industrial jobs are lost overseas, the availability of quality blue collar jobs has declined (Yoder &

Gutierrez, 2004). From 1970 to 1990, Latino wages dropped forcing Latino communities to lose much of their economic power (Waldinger & Bozorgmehr, 1996; Booza et al.,

2006).

One source of income for working class Latinos has been federal assistance in the form of food stamps and welfare. Since the War on Poverty programs went into effect in the sixties, federal assistance to the poor has helped reduce poverty (Danzinger &

Gottschalk, 2005). During the beginning of deindustrialization expansion that began in the seventies, welfare programs softened the blow of unemployment. These programs changed in 1994 when welfare were dramatically reduced (Civil Rights Coalition for the

21st Century, 2007). The cutting of government assistance has damaged barrios

15 immensely compounding the problem of poverty. For planners who wish to aid barrio communities, addressing poverty is essential.

Poor economic conditions have made finding affordable housing difficult for

Latinos. In states like California, the problem will get worse as the population grows and land supply diminishes (Dear & Michaell, 2001; Fulton & Shigley, 2005). Consequently, poor Latino families are forced to live in overcrowded homes to meet housing costs

(Sanders, 1997; Fuller, 1974; Saenz, 2005). Living in an overcrowded home diminishes the quality of life caused by reduced privacy, inadequate parking, overcrowded public transit, build up of trash, too much car traffic and overused home facilities. Often, Latino families cannot afford to purchase a home forcing them to rent leaving Latinos vulnerable to landlord abuse (Diaz, 2005). The lack of home ownership prevents Latinos from building wealth stifling economic mobility. The affordable housing crisis is one of many examples of why economic opportunities are important for Latino communities.

The housing in barrios is typically cheap due to their undesirability. Residential property located within a short distance from industrial buildings, old commercial corridors and freeways are typically unwanted by developers which lowers their property value making them affordable for working class Latinos (Villa, 2000). The relationship between conflicting land uses and barrios remains as industrial facilities and strip malls continue to be built in close proximity to Latino neighborhoods. The result of such a practice has led to Latinos living in highly polluted areas (Diaz, 2005; Lipsitz, 1995).

Planning scholars such as George Lipsitz, David Diaz and Raul Villa have criticized how cities have pushed Latinos into these undesired locations. The most logical solution to pollution and low property values is to remove unappealing land uses. The problem with

16 this is that it may increase land values to the point where Latinos are no longer able to afford to live in their communities. Recently, the problem of barrio gentrification has become a concern.

Barrio communities are beginning to see the tide of gentrification. During the twentieth century, upper class residents left Latino areas and moved to the suburbs. In contrast, the twenty-first century has seen a reversal in this trend with upper class people moving into historically Latino neighborhoods (Fulton, 1997). In return, affordable housing has become more scarce forcing working class Latinos to leave their communities (Slater, 2006). The wave of gentrification has forced small businesses to compete with retail chains. For Latino communities, this can mean the loss of Latino centered businesses that are replaced by conglomerate store chains (Diaz, 2005).

Gentrification has allowed investment in traditionally Latino communities, but the barrio fabric of these neighborhoods is being lost (Saillant, 2006). One tool that has stalled gentrification in barrio communities are development restrictions set by planning departments and historic preservation planners (Godfrey, 2004).

Many of the barrio problems discussed so far are rooted in the reality that barrio residents are either in poverty or in a low economic class. Government agencies at all levels have attempted to address the economic conditions of lower income areas, but they have largely been unsuccessful (Diaz, 2005; Fulton & Shigley, 2005). A common planning tool utilized by cities has been the use of redevelopment agencies and public projects to aid underserved communities. Redevelopment agencies attempt to revitalize blighted areas by using public funds to develop projects. Redevelopment projects are supposed to aid communities in need, but they are frequently directed away from barrio

17 communities (Diaz, 2005). States and the federal government have attempted to implement programs called enterprise zones that provide tax and loan incentives to encourage invest in low income communities. However, the incentives are often not enough to entice businesses investment leaving these programs ineffective (Diaz, 2005;

Fulton & Shigley, 2005). Government aid needs to be tailored towards Latino communities if they are to have their intended purpose of serving lower income neighborhoods.

The relationship between neoliberalism and planning is complex. Planners who wish to improve the quality of life in barrio communities must tackle the urban problems that are caused by poverty. In essence, city and county planners have the authority to regulate private businesses by restricting and allocating land uses and forcing developers to fund public improvements. Though planners have this power, pressure from elected officials and developers has forced planners to serve the interests of private businesses forming a contradiction in planning (Baeten, 2011). In other words, the planning profession has catered to neoliberal philosophies though city planners exist to regulate businesses. This relationship is natural since planners can only shape urban patterns where investors chose to develop limiting their ability to improve barrio neighborhoods that see little investment from the private sector.

The barrio experience with banks and government forces can be described as a

"Tale of Two Cities". Barrios were historically disenfranchised through strict segregation that prevented Latinos from living in certain areas and acquiring loans (Diaz, 2005).

Private banking institutions used "red lining" practices to restrict loans to working class communities. The phrase "red lining" refers to banks who would draw boundaries using

18 red lines to mark the areas they deemed too risky for loans. Minority communities were often not allocated loans because of red lining (Diaz, 2005). Presently, segregation and red lining have been outlawed, but barrio communities continue to face discrimination.

As previously mentioned, public funds and tax incentives are often used to entice major development projects while Latino neighborhoods are ignored. State and local funds are regularly used to beautify mainstream areas such as popular commercial centers, civic centers and high-end residential development (Fulton & Shigley, 2005). Meanwhile,

Latino neighborhoods are not afforded the same attention to improve the barrio (Villa,

2000). In many cases, Latinos pay more in tax revenue than they are allocated for in municipal services (Diaz, 2005).

Whereas many problems in barrio communities stem from economic plight, many hardships can be traced to the refusal of government agencies to serve Latino areas.

One example are public works departments in charge of maintaining and enhancing parks, roads, streets and sidewalks. Disenfranchised Latino communities are often ignored leaving barrio infrastructure in poor condition. This is a major injustice as barrio communities are taxed but are not granted the public infrastructure care they require.

Instead, infrastructure improvements are often made where developers chose to invest

(Valle & Torres, 2000). This shows how Latinos need a voice in municipal leadership circles where they can express their concerns and combat these injustices.

Like public works departments, cities typically have a department in charge of maintaining parks. Access to open space has been a planning concept since planning became a formal profession in the United States. Early planners argued for open space as natural settings were becoming a necessity for people entrenched in urban settings.

19

Today, access to open space is still a philosophy planners consider vital (Fulton &

Shigley, 2005). Open space has been implemented by parks as they allow people to experience large spaces of natural environment to relax and for youth to engage in outdoor activities. Latinos have used parks for family gatherings, sports events and after school activities. Unfortunately barrios have been left behind when it comes to parks leaving them "park poor". In many cases, Latino communities do not have adequate access to parks. The parks that have been allocated are often understaffed, poorly landscaped, have poor sports facilities and lack after school programs. Adequate parks should be on the agenda for those looking to increase the quality of life in barrio communities.

The problems that burden barrio communities stem from poor economies and neglect from local government, but barrios have developed positive land use patterns in spite of city government neglect. Allowing barrios to freely implement their land use patterns was beneficial, to an extent. The free market economy has not been able to address the vast array of problems that barrios suffer. Local governments have the power to aid barrio communities by improving infrastructure, providing adequate parks, limiting conflicting land uses and preventing gentrification. If government institutions do not actively aid barrios, barrio residents will continue to be burdened by the hardships their communities face.

New Urbanism and the Barrio

After World War II, cities utilized sprawl land use patterns that segregated industrial, commercial and residential areas with a heavy emphasis on car usage. The general idea behind sprawl was that people would live in the suburbs and drive to work in

20 either an industrial center or office space and then drive to shopping centers for commercial needs. Open space, transit and walking were largely discouraged (Fulton &

Shigley, 2005). The sprawl movement became unpopular in the eighties when planners wished to reverse the negative impact of sprawl that caused pollution from cars, had people stuck in traffic jams, eliminated open space through the creation of housing tracts, created unattractive monotonous buildings and discouraged social interaction (Shigley &

Fulton, 2005). New Urbanism became popular in the eighties and shifted land use strategies that emphasized mixed land use, dense housing, less reliance on cars, social interaction, open space and making buildings look distinct and attractive. Since developers are the ones who fund projects, new urban development has generally occurred in middle and upper class neighborhoods (Shigley & Fulton, 2005).

Though barrios have been left out of the New Urbanism craze, barrio residents have organically practiced the ideals of New Urbanism. Latino neighborhoods already see a mixing of land uses with Latinos implementing businesses in their homes, sidewalks and street corners in walking distance from housing. Barrio residents use alternative transportation such as walking, bike use and transit as they are cheaper than constantly driving. Other New Urbanism concepts have been put into action such as the dense housing practices and social engagement in public spaces which have already been detailed (Diaz, 2005). One criticism of New Urbanism has been that it does not acknowledge communities, such as barrios, that already implement its concepts (Diaz,

2005). In the last decade, some scholars have begun to acknowledge the contributions of barrios (Myers, 2001; Mendez, 2005; Irazábal & Gómez-Barris, 2005; Cisneros &

Rosales, 2006). Planners who implement land use strategies for barrios should

21 acknowledge the urban practices Latinos have organically developed. Cities wanting to aid barrios should preserve these land use behaviors and aid them where necessary.

From Rational Planning to Communicative Planning

Community engagement plays a important role in the planning process. It allows stakeholders to notify planners of the issues their communities face. Since the early twentieth century, several types of planning philosophies have emerged including rational planning, advocacy planning and communicative planning. All three have different perspectives on community interaction. The planning profession gradually increased its emphasis on community engagement from the early era of rational planning.

During the early parts of the twentieth century when planning was becoming a prominent profession, rational planning was at its peak. Rational planning was conceived as an objective style of urban planning and stated that planners, like scientists, could discover objective practices that could benefit cities. Rational planning typically involved a mission statement, goals, consequences, choices, an implementation plan and an evaluation for implementing policy much like scientists go about testing (Brooks,

2002). Planning experts who utilized rational planning often used technical jargon and their expertise to justify planning policy and dismiss dissent. They did not feel it necessary to engage communities and claimed their policies were objectively sound

(Diaz, 2005; Fulton & Shigley, 2005).

This traditional method of planning was questioned during the Civil Rights Era.

A new focus was put on empowering underserved neighborhoods. The sixties was a time when planning scholars began to question those claiming objectivity and whether implementing policy without community consent was oppressive (Brooks, 2002; Diaz,

22

2005). In recent decades, rational planning has been mostly rejected in planning academia (Brooks, 2002). The planning profession has given lip service to moving away from the oppressive nature of rational planning, but it has not been able to shed it in practice. Rational planning is practical in application as it allows planners to implement planning strategies catered to their own worldviews and those of their superiors without the interference and heavy lifting involved in outreaching to stakeholders who may challenge their perspectives.

As rational planning was being dismissed during the Civil Rights Movement, another style of planning arose called advocacy planning. Advocacy planners challenged conventional planning practices and sought to empower minority communities such as barrios (Diaz, 2005; Brooks, 2002). As Latinos started becoming part of the middle class, they were able to go to college and become planners to serve their communities

(Diaz, 2005). Advocacy planners (also called activist planners) felt that planners should declare their policy views instead of hiding their biases under the guise of objectivity.

They felt that planning process outcomes were the result of competing interests and that minority communities needed a strong voice (Brooks, 2002). Advocacy planning utilized community participation more than rational planning by highlighting the problems in working class communities. However, advocacy planning does strive to find a consensus among community members. Instead, advocacy planners act on what they believe are the best interests of their communities. This lack of community engagement makes them akin to rational planners in that they both believe their planning principals are correct and they do not need to compromise with stakeholders (Brooks, 2002).

23

The third planning model, communicative action planning, grew in the postmodern movement and it strongly opposes the rational viewpoint of so called objective planning (Brooks, 2002). Communicative planners criticized rational planning for its dismissal of community engagement (Hemmens, 1992). Proponents of the communicative planning model argue that communication between planners and stakeholders is essential (Brooks, 2002). Stakeholders may include developers, community members, activists, political officials and business owners among others.

These interests will often have conflicting points of view in the outcome of policy decisions. Planners act as facilitators trying to mediate between differing opinions and eventually attempt to come to a consensus leaving all parties at least mildly satisfied

(Brooks, 2002). In order for the public to gain trust in this model, the outreach process has to be credible. This is achieved by planners presenting planning concepts in a comprehensible manner, ensuring sincere dialogue and following through on proposed policy (Forester, 1989).

Though communicative planning is popular in planning academia, it has its faults.

Facilitation, mediation and outreach skills are ideal to have, but many planners have not been adequately trained (Forester, 1989). Consensus building is the goal of communicative planning, but it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to achieve by skilled practitioners much less those not properly trained (Brooks, 2002). The lack of training and difficulty in achieving a consensus has made communicative planning difficult. Communicative planning is touted in academia, but in practice, it is not utilized

(Yiftachel, 1999). This is largely due to planners having to follow the will of superiors such as elected officials and planning directors (Brooks, 2002). The most common

24 stakeholder planners engage are developers who have the finances to fund projects.

Planners have to deal with developers on a daily basis and the community members they engage are typically those with the initiative to voice their concerns through phone calls, office visits and letters.

This study used the communicative planning model to measure community engagement between the City of Riverside and Eastside community. This model is effective in ensuring community voices are used to shape planning policy. Community members share what they would like to see improved in their neighborhoods and what policy methods are to be put in place. It is a participatory process that allows underserved communities a chance to see their needs met. An important aspect of the communicative planning model is that it stresses that policymaking be achieved through consensus. All stakeholders are included in the planning process including Latino communities. The communicative planning model instructs planners to share information with stakeholders including available policy proposals, their feasibility and likely outcomes.

25

METHODS

The primary goal of this thesis was to critically evaluate how the City of

Riverside encouraged barrio assets and resolved barrio problems in the Eastside. The barrio assets and problems discussed in the literature review were used to identify the same barrio characteristics in the Eastside. The communicative planning model was utilized to assess how well the City implemented planning policy, and to analyze the outreach methods for developing the Eastside Plan. The City did not specifically implement principles from communicative planning, but the model was used as a barometer to analyze the Riverside Planning Department's outreach. This study argues that this model would have been beneficial in serving the Eastside Neighborhood by ensuring proposed policy measures in the Eastside Plan were implemented.

The Eastside was selected for a case study because it has the characteristics of a barrio. The Eastside suffered from many of the classic problems such as poverty, poor infrastructure and conflicting land use. The Eastside also had many barrio assets such as pedestrian activity, small barrio businesses and muralism. Lastly, the Eastside is a predominantly Latino population according to Census data. As of 2000, the Eastside was

72% Latino which was much higher than the Latino percentage of Riverside (City of

Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). All these factors made the

Eastside a valid choice for a barrio study.

Site observations were used to study the Eastside with photos to document findings. I photographed areas in the Eastside that were examples of barrio assets and problems. Some photos were taken from planning documents including the Eastside

Neighborhood Plan, Marketplace Specific Plan Draft and University Avenue Specific

26

Plan Draft. These documents contained photos of the Eastside and renderings of projects proposed by the City. These images were used to analyze the City's planning proposals.

Site observations was utilized by planning scholar William H. Whyte who documented land use design and its impact on human behavior in New York City. He spent a year living in New York and observed various parts of the City to see how urban designs influenced human behavior. He took photos, tracked social interactions on notes and diagrams and studied different types of land use designs. Whyte spent hours studying public spaces to study building and street designs and their impact on human activity. He found that activating spaces by using building entrances and pedestrian amenities such as lawn furniture and grass caused people to congregate (Whyte, 1988).

This thesis utilized a similar method to analyze barrio features. I studied various barrio aspects of the Eastside that were highlighted in the literature review documenting areas demonstrating barrio assets and problems. This allowed me to see the benefits and adverse consequences of policies implemented by the City of Riverside. In several instances the Eastside Plan proposed policies that should have had immediate impact after 2009 such as filling vacant lots, redevelopment, improving street infrastructure and upgrading parks. In these instances, site observations were used to confirm if these policies in the Eastside Plan were implemented.

In addition to finding barrio assets and problems discussed in the literature, I used my own experience as a Planner to evaluate planning conditions in the Eastside. I was a planning intern for the City of Riverside, City of Los Angeles and full time planner for the Riverside Transit Agency. My work experience allowed me to analyze the Eastside

27 as a city and transit planner and to share my findings from interactions with the Eastside and similar communities.

The Planning Department included an appendix in the Eastside Neighborhood

Plan summarizing community outreach meetings. Two outreach meetings were held in

June and July of 2008 with detailed summaries of each meeting. Short summaries of the third and fourth meetings that occurred the following November and January were included in the main text of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. The information available of the first two meetings include the number of people who attended each meeting, how residents were contacted to attend, the format used for dialogue between City staff and residents, methods used for writing the Eastside Plan, photos taken at meetings and some demographic data of attendees at the third meeting. The communicative model was used to see if adequate representation of Eastside residents was achieved based on this data.

The methods for contacting residents was evaluated to analyze its efficiency in trying to recruit residents to attend the outreach meetings. The study also analyzed the City's strategy to continue the dialogue between Eastsiders and City officials to ensure proposed policies in the Plan were implemented.

Lastly, the Eastside Neighborhood Plan was analyzed using content analysis observing how barrio characteristics were addressed by the City and if community outreach was adequate based on the communicative planning model (Neuman, 1994).

The Plan listed twelve objectives based on the comments made by the public. Each objective is accompanied by policy tools assigned to government agencies to be completed within a specified time frame. The objectives and tools were passed with the

Plan in 2009 and this study was conducted in 2013. These tools have been updated as of

28

2013 describing the status of each tool and whether they have being fulfilled or not.

These will demonstrate if the City was able to resolve the concerns laid out by the

Eastside community. Lastly, the objectives and tools in the Eastside Plan were examined to see if barrio problems and assets were accounted for. Site observations were used to see what problems and assets the Eastside has. I analyzed every planning tool to see if every barrio problem discovered was acted on in the Plan and if barrio assets were disrupted.

29

FINDINGS

Site Observations and the Urban Environment: Eastside Barrio Assets

The Eastside features many of the barrio assets that have been discussed including pedestrian activity, barrio businesses, parks and murals. The City of Riverside enacted measures in the Eastside Plan to enhance these assets that involved a planning agenda catered to high-end New Urbanist projects. Most improvements made in the Eastside have been funded by developers on University Avenue. The City requires University

Avenue developers to implement sidewalk amenities and attractive buildings that have benefited pedestrians and small businesses such as restaurants and night clubs. The side effect is that other small businesses may not be able to compete with the influx of big business. The City was able to provide barrio assets such as state of the art parks. In contrast, the Eastside Plan ignored barrio murals that promote neighborhood and cultural pride with no measures put in place to preserve them. Policies that expanded on Eastside barrio assets tended to be incidental resulting from large scale private development and government forces already in action. They were not the result of community dialogue from the Eastside Neighborhood Plan.

Figure 2: Eastside pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/108_zps538bd326.jpg

30

Like many barrios, the Eastside has an abundance of pedestrian activity. Barrio residents utilize sidewalks to access the many destinations throughout the neighborhood such as bus stops, businesses, schools, housing and Downtown Riverside. Figure 2 shows Eastsiders walking down Chicago Avenue on a Tuesday afternoon. This is a common sight as barrio residents can be seen frequenting Eastside sidewalks throughout the day. The photo in Figure 2 demonstrates the attractive landscaping that is common among commercial corridors such as Chicago Avenue and University Avenue.

One advantage of development along major commercial corridors is that they allow opportunities for enhancing public infrastructure. The Planning Department set several policy tools in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan to ensure that new development on University Avenue will be accompanied by sidewalk upgrades and amenities. So far, new development has implemented these requirements and the University Avenue

Specific Plan will ensure that new projects will continue making sorely needed sidewalk improvements. This will aid the many barrio pedestrians that utilize the University

Avenue corridor. Too often, barrios struggle to get upgrades to sidewalk infrastructure as a result of the poor investment and unresponsive local governments. New development has been slow to come to University Avenue, but one new pharmacy chain arrived after the Eastside Plan was implemented, a Walgreens (See Figure 3). The Walgreens features

New Urbanism elements such as pedestrian amenities including abundant landscaping, trees for shade and a building with varying colors and multiple setbacks adding to the attractive look of the environment. The Eastside pedestrians benefit from New Urbanism style developments with new attractive amenities. The Eastside Plan anticipates that

31 more development will come to University Avenue allowing for future opportunities to enhance pedestrian space.

In addition to sidewalk improvements, New Urbanism development will provide barrio residents access to goods and services they may not otherwise have. The Eastside

Plan calls for new commercial development along University Avenue. In many instances, barrio communities lack access to pharmacies and groceries chains (Torok,

2013). Future development would address these issues such as the new Walgreens.

Though small barrio businesses provide many goods and services for Latino communities, they are sometimes inadequate. This is why major grocery supermarkets and pharmacy chains are needed in barrio communities. Another benefit is that new retail development can aid small businesses located near these improved areas.

Figure 3: Walgreens development on University Ave Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/173_zps4b08b87b.jpg

32

Figure 4: Mexican restaurant on University Avenue. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/130_zps2ff0bd6f.jpg

As University Avenue gets more attractive with new buildings and landscaping, the commercial corridor will attract a larger customer base that will aid barrio businesses such as Mexican Restaurants. Figure 4 above shows a University Avenue restaurant called Korean BBQ Tacos & Burgers that serves a fusion style of Mexican and other ethnic foods. There are currently three other small Mexican restaurants on University

Avenue. These restaurant have prospered against neighboring fast food chains such as

McDonald's, Church's Chicken, Taco Bell and Burger King. As the photo shows, this small business restaurant has earned enough to upgrade its shop with signage and landscaping. New Urbanism development along University Avenue will benefit businesses like these as the corridor attracts more business. This is an example of how small businesses can benefit from the beautification of New Urbanism development.

33

These examples illustrate how big business can, on occasion, help barrio communities. Big development centered policies are often criticized as governments and big business neglect underserved communities. The Planning Department aided barrio residents by forcing developers to implement New Urbanism designs that benefits barrio pedestrians and attracts customers for small business owners. This is a compromise the

Planning Department has made. Developers have been allowed to invest in University

Avenue but on the condition that they beautify University Avenue. This is not to argue that policies catered to big business are the answer to barrio issues. If there were no major shopping centers along University Avenue and Chicago Avenue, these improvements would not have been implemented. In fact, these are the only parts of the

Eastside that have recently seen major sidewalk and median improvements. These upgrades occurred because University Avenue is a major corridor that has attracted investment. The fact that these improvements happened in the Eastside barrio can be described as incidental. In other words, big business was the driving force behind these improvements and they were not the result of proactive government action. However, the

Planning Department did make sure that University Avenue improvements benefited the

Eastside.

34

Figure 5: Proposed redevelopment along University Avenue. City of Riverside (Created Image). (2013). University Avenue rendering. [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/2012/Draft-UniversityAvenue- SpecificPlan.pdf

This calls into question how much the Eastside Neighborhood Plan was a factor in the policies that required development to improve sidewalks and building designs.

Figure 5 above shows illustrates land use proposals in the University Avenue Specific

Plan. The Marketplace Specific Plan includes similar improvement requirements with an example shown in Figure 6. The illustration in both figures show common New

Urbanism elements such as pedestrian amenities, mixed use, distinct building designs and large patio spaces. As New Urbanism has become the current trend in planning, one must ask if these proposed improvements were the result of current planning trends or community outreach. Eastside community members did ask for improvements such as these, but these design guidelines would have probably been implemented anyways since

New Urbanism is so popular in the planning profession.

35

Figure 6: Proposed Marketplace project adjacent to the Eastside barrio. City of Riverside (Created Image). (2013). Marketplace rendering. [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/SpecificPlans/marketplace/document.pdf

Figure 7: Building style Eastside residents were asked to vote on. City of Riverside (Created Image). (2013). Marketplace rendering. [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/Neighborhood-Plans/eastside/Eastside- Neighborhood-Plan-Final.pdf

The Planning Department's implementation of New Urbanism planning is an example of rational planning. In this case, planners implemented New Urbanism land use designs commonly taught in planning schools. During the outreach meetings,

Eastsiders were asked to vote on their preference for commercial development. Figure 7 shows two building styles residents were asked to vote on. The image on the right is a

New Urbanism style building and the image on the left features sprawl style commercial

36 buildings with vast parking and no mixed use buildings. Residents voted evenly for both styles and the Planning Department implemented the New Urbanism style planning for new projects in Marketplace and University Avenue. The Planning Department was set in implementing New Urbanism style planning. New development has provided pedestrian enhancements and business opportunities for several businesses, but these barrio assets would have been aided through new development regardless of community comments described in the Eastside Plan.

Figure 8: Businesses along Park Avenue. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/117_zps9ba25e25.jpg The influx of New Urbanism development in University Avenue and Marketplace could potentially harm the small businesses that have been an asset for the Eastside.

Though several restaurants on University Avenue have prospered amid new

37 development, other businesses may be negatively impacted. Small barrio businesses such as those on Park Avenue shown in Figure 8 may not be able to compete with large scale businesses. These barrio businesses are an asset for the Eastside and should be protected from redevelopment. They provide service in Spanish to a Latino community that may not be found in other parts of the City. Spanish speaking businesses allow Latino residents the opportunity to interact with other Eastside residents in beauty salons, restaurants, markets and bars in a friendly Spanish speaking environment.

These businesses utilize many of the aspects of New Urbanism that planners find attractive. As Figure 8 shows, barrio businesses attempt to beautify their establishments in creative manners. Each building has a distinct color adding character to the look of the neighborhood. Business owners added more depth to the buildings by adding interesting light posts, colorful awnings and plants. Barrio urbanism also follows New Urbanism styles of mixed use. Though each building in Figure 8 has its own commercial land use, these buildings are located less than a block away from residential parts of the Eastside.

This allows residents to drive a short distance or walk to these areas saving on carbon emissions which is encouraged in planning.

The City implemented protections against potential gentrification. Some of the more vulnerable businesses are those on Park Avenue as new Marketplace development would be located less than a block away. Planners noted that Eastside residents in the outreach meeting for the Eastside Plan stressed their desire to see the character of the

Eastside neighborhood preserved. Removing small scale businesses and single family homes with large scale stores and apartments would change the character of the Eastside.

One planning tool that could protect buildings from major development are historic

38 designations. Historic designations preserve buildings by heavily restricting modifications. The Marketplace Specific Plan states that these designations could potentially be placed on homes in the Eastside close to Marketplace. Currently, the City is working on implementing historic preservation designations on Eastside homes close to Marketplace. The City has taken an inventory of homes to determine if they qualify for historic designations which could prevent gentrification.

The Planning Department also used the Marketplace and University Avenue

Specific Plans to address community concerns about gentrification. Several Eastside

Plan tools state that the Marketplace and University Avenue Specific Plans should ensure that development does not change the character of the Eastside. Site plan restrictions and permitted land uses in both plans were drawn and written with this in mind. Large scale development is limited to University Avenue and Marketplace while restricting the types of development in other parts of the Eastside. Figure 9 displays a Park Avenue church and beauty salon the types of changes the Planning Department wants to see for barrio businesses. The Planning Department wants to preserve small barrio businesses while allowing landscaping enhancements, more trees and wiring to be placed underground.

Allowing for these improvements is intended, but will gentrification completely alter the eastside barrio?

39

Figure 9: Before and after images for Park Avenue business. City of Riverside (Created Image). (2013). [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/2012/Draft-Marketplace-SpecificPlan.pdf

40

The Planning Department used its power of land use restrictions to limit the scope of potential development in the Eastside. Though the Planning Department has the intention of preserving homes and businesses, land use restrictions may be inadequate.

These regulations will not necessarily prevent property values from rising. Home prices and commercial property values could still sky rocket from nearby high-end development, which can result in the displacement of Latino residents and barrio businesses. The Planning Department has limited the scale of homes along Park Avenue by restricting building size and land uses, but rising property values can still force barrio residents to leave. Bed and breakfast, drug stores and high-end restaurants will be permitted on Park Avenue when the Marketplace Specific Plan is officially passed. If gentrification becomes a problem, then they could replace barrio businesses. It is difficult to determine how effective development restrictions will be in protecting the barrio from gentrification.

From analyzing the proposed Marketplace Specific Plan and University Avenue

Plan, it is evident that gentrification is going to threaten barrio businesses. So far, major business development in the Eastside has been limited since the Great Recession began in

2007. When the economy rebounds, investment will likely rise and the New Urbanism projects the City hopes to attract will follow. This will cause a backlash from Eastside residents concerned about losing valued barrio businesses and homes to wealthy investors. This potential confrontation was partially addressed in the Eastside Plan outreach process. The Planning Department did show examples of new development, but they did not show the large scale development that was coming. The City is currently drafting specific plans for the areas that will see major investment. Outreach meetings

41 for these plans were conducted, but the details of the meetings have not been published yet.

Figure 10: A bulletin board in Cesar Chavez Community Center at Bobby Bonds Park displaying events and promotions from local organizations. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/137_zps92d0aaec.jpg

In addition to enhanced pedestrian amenities and protections of barrio businesses from gentrification, the Eastside Neighborhood Plan lists several tools regarding Eastside parks. Currently, the Eastside has five parks, three of which have community centers providing after school programs, health services and fitness activities. The biggest park is Bobby Bonds Park which features a baseball field, swimming pool, soccer field and multipurpose center with various classrooms, an auditorium and office space for community services and after school programs. Bobby Bonds Park received several

42 upgrades during the last few years with a new skate park and a state of the art football/soccer field with artificial turf. Bordwell Park and Dario Vasquez Park both have community centers providing after school programs and community resources.

Having these facilities and programs for youth is important as they are seen as a way to develop fitness, teamwork skills and confidence for youth. Adults and seniors benefit from similar programs as well. These include soft skill training classes on finance management, job hunting and English classes for immigrants. The City of Riverside has been active in ensuring Eastsiders have access to adequate parks and community centers.

Whereas most barrios are considered park poor, the Eastside stands as an exception due to the City of Riverside's commitment to park space.

The Eastside Plan listed many tools instructing government agencies to improve park facilities and services, but they may have been implemented regardless of the Plan.

The City of Riverside's website lists park facility improvements constructed throughout

Riverside, which speaks to the City's agenda to improve parks (Parks, Recreation and

Human Services: City of Riverside, 2013). The City Council directed funds to be used for improving parks throughout the City. The Eastside's Councilman, Andy Melendrez, has a track record of passing legislation ensuring Riverside has adequate park space and services. Specifically, he passed legislation upgrading the Eastside's Bobby Bonds Park with new sports facilities and a youth center (Melendrez, 2013). Taking into account the

City's commitment to parks, the Eastside Plan played a minor role in the upgrades of

Eastside parks. A casual glance at the Eastside Plan would make it seem as though the

Plan was instrumental in park improvements, but that clearly is not the case.

43

Figure 11: Eastside mural celebrating diversity and historic homes. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/144_zps7ee628d5.jpg

The last barrio asset analyzed in this study was the Eastside's use of mural art.

Mural art adds character to a neighborhood by creating a sense of place. Barrio communities accomplish this by drawing mural images depicting aspects of their neighborhood they have pride in. For example, Figure 11 illustrates a mural located in an alley just south of University Avenue adjacent to Bobby Bonds Park. The mural's images celebrate the Eastside's diversity with depictions of people of different races. The word hate is printed above as though it is being erased signifying the Eastside community's desire for unity and social justice. The painting combines this with illustrations of the historic homes of the neighborhood honoring the Eastside's history.

44

Figure 12: Park Avenue Mexican Restaurant. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/116_zps1f88d56a.jpg

Barrio businesses take advantage of murals by displaying colorful art to create an attractive and welcoming atmosphere. Figure 12 shows a colorful Mexican restaurant located on Park Ave. It has images of tropical areas of Mexico such as palm trees, an ocean and a beating sun. Much of the signage is written in Spanish listing the types of food sold. The images of a Mexican coast and Spanish text establishes an identity of an

Eastside barrio taking pride in its culture. Other businesses use similar images and style of text adding to the phenomenon. The mural art creates a welcoming atmosphere for

Latinos and creates an aesthetically attractive alternative to corporate signage littering most urban landscapes as Figure 13 shows below. Unlike barrio murals, generic shopping centers display corporate logos used in commercial advertisements and many

45 franchises removing the cultural identity of a neighborhood. The Eastside barrio has resisted this trend by implementing unique signage and mural art adding to the distinct sense of place.

Figure 13: [Generic shopping center in Upstate New York]. Retrieved July 16, 2013 from http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/83/Strip_Mall_Troy.jpg

Almost all the mural art of the Eastside is hidden from the main corridors; murals are found in residential areas and parking lots. In contrast, the City has sanctioned its own mural art nearby underneath the 91 and 60 freeways. Whereas Eastside murals depict barrio art, Spanish language text and Chicano empowerment, the murals sanctioned by the City display aspects of Riverside's history such as the orange groves and UCR. The fact that murals along University Avenue are sanctioned by the City and are not in the barrio style of those found in the Eastside distinguishes University Avenue and the rest of the Eastside.

46

Though murals are an important fabric of the Eastside, they are not mentioned in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan. There was one comment by a community member about "retouching" them, but it is not mentioned within any of the policy tools. This inaction demonstrates that the City did not place value on mural art to warrant any action in the Plan. This could have been addressed by outreaching to stakeholders who value the presence of murals. Since murals serve a useful purpose in barrios, finding community members who value them could have been accomplished. The City has funded many mural projects throughout Riverside and promoting murals in the Eastside seemed expected. Allocating funding for preserving the murals already in place and implementing new murals would benefit the Eastside.

Surprisingly, the City was not receptive to barrio murals given its past with public art. The City has hired artists to draw paintings on public buildings and freeways throughout Riverside. These images typically emphasize the City's historic past such as the citrus industry, military efforts and historic buildings. For example, Figure 14 below depicts a mural in Downtown Riverside. The painting is a tribute to the City's history with the orange industry and car racing. Most art sanctioned by the City is similar to this and it emphasizes Riverside's rural beginnings, whereas Eastside barrio art is more

"ethnic" with symbols of Mexico, resistance to racism and barrio culture. These contrasting murals paint different versions of the history and culture of Riverside.

47

Figure 14: [Photo of a Riverside mural of old racetrack and citrus industry]. Retrieved July 1, 2013 from: http://christinecurrymurals.blogspot.com/

In regards to encouraging barrio assets, the Eastside Neighborhood Plan played a small role. New development and the planning profession's emphasis on New Urbanism would have resulted in University Avenue sidewalk improvements and business opportunities for viable barrio businesses regardless of community input. The City did attempt to address concerns of coming gentrification that could damage small businesses but the effectiveness of these policies remains to be seen. In contrast, the Planning

Departments took little action in preserving barrio murals. The Eastside Plan lists many policies calling for the improvements of parks, but they would have likely been implemented anyway.

Site Observations and the Urban Environment: Eastside Barrio Problems

In addition to being places of positive experiences for residents, barrios are heavily plagued by a vast number of problems. Like other barrio communities, the

Eastside suffers from poor economic conditions. Barrio home owners and small businesses often cannot afford to make the infrastructure improvements to pave dirt roads, utilize vacant lots and repair dilapidated homes. Since the barrio economy is unable to resolve this, government assistance is required. Barrio residents have asked

48 government officials to combat the abundance of crime in the Eastside through law enforcement and urban design. The Eastside Neighborhood Plan was drafted by the

Planning Department to resolve these problems but most of the proposed policy was neglected due to lack of accountability and neoliberal policies causing cuts to government programs. Many government programs have been cut at the state and local level due to limited tax revenue caused by the Great Recession. This caused programs to be cut that may have assisted the Eastside barrio.

Examples of this were the unfulfilled Eastside Plan tools that attempted to aid the

Eastside economy. The Eastside Plan directed many policy tools to stimulate businesses, enhance job skills training, recruit employers, establish job information centers and assist

Eastside parents to find affordable or subsidized childcare. A time frame was given to assigned government agencies to implement these programs within three to six years. So far, four years have passed and almost every tool has not been completed. A majority of these tools were assigned to the City's Economic Development agency and they have yet to complete these tasks. This may be due to the State's budget that was passed in 2011 that included substantial spending cuts. Development agency funds that were to be directed to cities to aid ailing communities were eliminated. This caused cities to restructure entire departments by cutting staff. In this case, the Eastside Plan may have been impacted due to government agencies not being able to implement proposed policy tools.

49

Figure 15: One of many vacant lots in the Eastside. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/123_zpsbbc71aef.jpg The Eastside Plan was also used to devise a strategy to address the problems of vacant lots and conflicting land uses. Vacant lots and abandoned buildings are nuisances to the Eastside because they are visually unattractive. Figure 15 shows an example of a vacant lot located across from Lincoln Park near Park Avenue. Vacant lots such as these waste space that could otherwise benefit the Eastside through infill targeted to create new homes and businesses. Many of these vacant lots exist throughout the Eastside and compound the problem. Conflicting land uses in residential and commercial areas of the

Eastside make the unattractive environment worse. This is typically caused by junkyards, warehouses and industrial sites being located directly next to residential areas. Figure 16 below shows a rusted building with barbed wire fencing located next to single family

50 homes in Marketplace where this is common. Industrial facilities burden the neighborhood by creating pollution that threatens the health of Eastside residents. The unattractive nature of vacant lots and conflicting land uses lowers property values as well.

Figure 16: Housing and industrial lots with barbed wire adjacent to each other. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/206_zps93962dfd.jpg

The Eastside Plan did account for public programs to fill in the gaps of vacant lots and remove conflicting industrial uses. Some of these tools were too general such as

"encouraging" infill projects and new development. These tools were difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness as they were too vague. Other Eastside Plan tools were more specific such as the Housing Division and Planning Department tracking vacant properties and working with the Riverside Housing Development Corporation, Habitat for Humanity and other housing agencies to implement new housing. The tracking of

51 vacant lots was to be completed in six years and the development of partnerships to create new homes in the Eastside had no timeframe and is considered "ongoing". Neither tool has been completed so far. The Housing Division was under the scope of the City's

Development Department and faced restructuring because of State budget cuts, though the Planning Department has remained intact. As of 2013, the problem of vacant lots and conflicting industrial use remains with little action taken so far. However, the City implemented programs that provided University Avenue developers with aid from public funds. Several properties have been purchased by the Redevelopment Agency to be resold with incentives to developers to encourage expensive New Urbanism development. The Eastside barrio areas have not seen the same type of attention exemplifying the need to prioritize assistance to barrio neighborhoods.

One of the more surprising disappointments of land design in the Eastside is the presence of dirt roads. There are many alleys in the Eastside barrio that have not been paved. Below, Figure 17 shows a photograph of a dirt alley taken from Bobby Bonds

Park. They are hot spots for crime as they are hidden and have little lighting at night.

They are unattractive and contribute to the blight already experienced in the neighborhood. This problem is addressed in the Eastside Plan, though no policy measures were proposed to resolve the problem. One reason they may have never have been paved is that they are not in view of the main arterials in the Eastside. Only barrio residents can view them. They are not in view from University Avenue, the area that is planned to have major private development. This may be why the alleys have seen little attention from the City as these dirt alleys have no visual impact on University Avenue.

52

The Plan states that residents have voiced concerns of having unpaved and unlit alley roads, but their concerns have gone unanswered so far.

Figure 17: One of the unpaved alleys in the Eastside. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/142_zpsdc70e0a3.jpg Another concern for Eastside residents is old housing stock. Many Eastside homes are well over fifty years old and need upgrades. The costs of required repairs are often too high for working class homeowners leaving them in deteriorated homes. This is why any assistance for home improvements would benefit residents. The Eastside Plan listed several tools to address the housing upgrade crisis. This included Redevelopment and the Planning Department encouraging Eastsiders to take advantage of programs already in place. Like some of the previous tools, this tool was vague and was difficult to track. It may mean that planners will assist Eastside homeowners through the planning

53 process when they apply for permits to fix their homes. It could also mean that

Redevelopment would promote available programs to homeowners, but it is difficult to determine if either agency is doing this. Other tools were more concise and are easier to check the progress of. For example, one tool designated that Building and Safety work with the Planning Department to standardize house plans and lower costs for residents. A similar tool called on Redevelopment, Building and Safety and the Planning Department to subsidize architecture services for property owners looking to make improvements.

Both were given over six years to be completed. As of 2013, neither policy tool has been enacted indicating that they are a low priority.

Figure 18: Poorly maintained sidewalk on Park Avenue. Alejandro Rico (Photographer). (2013). Retrieved from http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p756/PanchoMan56/118_zps8226ea61.jpg

54

Eastside Plan tools addressing poor sidewalk and street infrastructure were also lacking. Like other tools, some were vague such as encouraging property owners to upgrade their facilities. Other tools stated that Public Works make routine infrastructure improvements and maintenance. As Figure 18 shows, assistance from public works is sorely needed. Many sidewalks are in need of repairs due to poor landscaping, such as the one shown above. Figure 19 below shows a heavily cracked Eastside road located on the same street as Figure 18. Both photos demonstrates the need for vast repairs needed throughout the Eastside. Public Works makes improvements on a needed basis but it does not appear that any efforts were directed to the Eastside as the Eastside Plan proposed. This may be due to lack of priority by Public Works or lack of resources.

Figure 19: Heavily cracked Eastside street. Google (Google Earth image). (2013). Eastside street. [Image] Retrieved from google.com/maps

Another common barrio problem in the Eastside is the crime epidemic. During the outreach meetings for the Eastside Plan, residents commented on the criminal problem their community faces. This included prostitution, drug dealing and gang violence. Several policy tools were drafted by the Planning Department in an attempt to

55 alleviate the abundance of crime. These tools called on Riverside Police agencies to implement law enforcement strategies such as sweeps and stings, identifying crime hotspots and utilizing undercover techniques to apprehend criminals. Local police have been active in implementing these various policies. The most notable example was the

State's District Attorney issuing a gang injunction in the Eastside. Arrests have been made of Eastside gangs showing police efforts to address community concerns (Kelly,

2010). The question as to whether the Eastside Plan was instrumental in pushing law enforcement to act is unclear. The actions taken by law enforcement went up to the State

Attorney showing that crime had been a top priority in the area and the actions taken by police would have taken place regardless of the Eastside Plan.

Various tools in the Eastside Plan were based on policy that was already in action.

An earlier section detailed the efforts of the City Council to improve parks prior to the

Eastside Plan being implemented. Law enforcement action taken by local police would have also taken place regardless of what the Plan stated. This contradicts the communicative planning model's emphasis on open dialogue between policymakers and stakeholders. The Plan gives the appearance that these actions were the result of the policies suggested by the Eastside Plan, which was not the case. Instead, new policy measures should have been suggested that could supplement and enhance the policies already taking place. This could be achieved by recruiting the various government agencies and working with planners and community members to discuss the problems in the Eastside with government agencies reporting on what policy action is available to improve the Eastside. This planning process could have benefited from this level of communicative planning.

56

Communicative planning measures could have addressed the problem of government agencies not prioritizing several Eastside Plan tools. For example, there were numerous policy tools related to aiding barrio businesses and helping residents find employment. Other actions such as tracking vacant properties and finding ways to lower home improvement costs for property owners were not a priority. The Eastside

Neighborhood Plan did not list ways to hold agencies accountable. Tools were simply listed and assigned to City agencies but no steps of accountability were mentioned. The status of each policy tool is updated, but no stricter measures were introduced to incentivize action. Communicative planning measures would have been useful as it would have allowed community members to be involved in the process. Planners would have had to report to stakeholders on the progress of the Eastside Plan which would have been an excellent accountability measure.

The reason government agencies may not have given a priority to the Eastside

Plan may be due to a lack of resources from government agencies. Given the downturn in the economy since 2007, government agencies have seen cuts in staff and funding.

Since the economic downturn, the City froze hiring and faced budgets cuts from the City

Council and Governor. Staff resources were strained which may have prevented City agencies from implementing the Eastside Plan. Communicative planning model methods could have addressed this problem. The model stresses that all stakeholders should be involved in the planning process including government agencies. Planners could have facilitated dialogue between community residents and government agencies and stressed that government agencies are strained. Then more feasible policy tools could have been discussed and implemented.

57

The lack of government resources to enact the Eastside Plan were the result of harmful neoliberal policies. The most obvious example is the State's abolishment of

Development funding. Development agencies were designed to aid underserved communities such as the Eastside. Governor Jerry Brown justified the cuts claiming that the State's budget needed to cut spending. Unfortunately, barrio communities were hurt by neoliberal policies that removed important services. The Governor countered this by saying the funds were going to high-end private development and wasteful projects. The planning literature confirmed that this is often the case, but instead of cutting funds, exploring ways of making sure the funding is aiding barrios should have been a priority.

Instead, the State cut Redevelopment funds instead of finding ways to ensure that working class communities were receiving aid. Unfortunately, barrio communities are not afforded the influence in government to impact such decisions.

The policy tools that were enacted tended to be programs that rely on private development. The Planning Department hopes to attract New Urbanism development to the Eastside. They hope that the development will allow for a better environment with high-end shopping centers and pedestrian amenities. City planners have the power to force developers to ensure attractive land use design is implemented. As a consequence, planners can only shape the urban environment in areas where investors choose to open business. Planners are unable to make improvements in underserved neighborhoods where investors avoid and working class residents do not have the purchasing power to fund planning projects. In essence, city planning departments are partly neoliberal in nature as they need private development to remain relevant. Planning departments can implement land use regulations, but they need private investment to exercise their power.

58

Planners do not have the authority to use public funds to serve barrio communities. This is why the Planning Department had to delegate policies to other agencies in an attempt to improve the quality of life in the Eastside.

The main problem is that there is no incentive for governments to serve barrio communities. The neoliberal nature of city planning forces policy to be centered around private development while neglecting impoverished communities. The planning profession has used the language on the importance of community engagement but there is no incentive for the planning profession to aid barrio communities. Structural forces in city governments do not allow planners to resolve the problems barrios face.

Outreach for the Eastside Neighborhood Plan

The Riverside Planning Department drafted the Eastside Neighborhood Plan to give residents an opportunity to voice their concerns to City officials. Planners outreached to Eastsiders and allowed them the opportunity to make comments about their community that were used to draft the Eastside Plan. The Planning Department did not specify which model of planning they used, but stated that they wanted Eastsiders to be heard. This study used the communicative planning model to assess the effectiveness of the outreach method that was used to draft the Eastside Plan. Communicative planning emphasizes stakeholders, including underserved communities, having a voice that will shape planning policy. Though the Riverside Planning Department attempted to outreach to all Eastside residents and set forth policy tools based on public comments, the outreach and accountability measures were inadequate.

A community engagement plan was created by the City of Riverside in order to gauge what the Eastside community wished to see improved and preserved in the barrio.

59

Prior to holding community engagement meetings, an outreach process took place to notify members of the community to attend. Planners used various means to get a high turnout of Eastsiders to attend each outreach meeting. They included:

(a) Advertising in the Press Enterprise and Spanish newspaper (La Prensa)

(b) Putting up posters throughout the community

(c) Sending fliers to every business and home

(d) Attending meetings at every neighborhood organization

(e) Contacting businesses and churches

(f) Notifying active community members

Thirty Eastside community members attended the first meeting and fifty attended the second. According to the 2000 Census, 16,700 people lived in the Eastside (City of

Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). Thirty or fifty people may seem like a small number, but for an urban planning public meeting, this is a high turnout.

Figure 20: Proposed University Avenue development. City of Riverside (Created Image). (2013). Marketplace rendering. [Image] Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/SpecificPlans/marketplace/document.pdf

60

It is often easier to get a higher turnout with controversial planning projects

(Fulton & Shigley, 2005). Controversial projects such as large industrial, commercial or housing projects often cause community members to voice their concerns in planning commission and city council meetings. Community members often will voice concerns about gentrification, conflicting land uses, pollution and traffic. The potential gentrification and large scale development in Marketplace and University Avenue may upset Eastside residents in the future. The Eastside Neighborhood Plan was supposed to gauge the community's stance on these potential projects and alleviate concerns.

However, the scale of new investment was not expressed in the outreach meetings. The proposed large scale development drawings were not shown to the public until the

University Avenue and Marketplace Specific Plans were drafted years later. Figure 20 above shows an image from the University Avenue Specific Plan Draft of a proposed apartment complex. The Planning Department hopes to attract development such as these, but they may trouble Eastside residents. Notifying Eastsiders about the coming development and addressing their concerns would have been sound communicative planning. Unfortunately, getting residents to take an active role in developing neighborhood plans is a challenge. The Planning Department attempted to utilize its resources to recruit Eastsiders to attend Eastside Plan meetings but it only got thirty people to attend the first meeting.

A solution to this problem could potentially lie in tapping into community concerns about major development. Since community members come out in force for controversial projects, planners could have notified residents about the new projects that will be coming to get more people to attend outreach meetings. It would establish

61 transparency in the process by notifying the Eastside of the changes caused by new development and an opportunity to implement policy tools to alleviate concerns. The

Planning Department has expressed its desire for major projects in Marketplace and

University Avenue. Planners would have the opportunity to engage community members and explain why New Urbanism projects are beneficial. When new major projects are proposed, Eastside residents will not be caught off guard. Planners would have to implement creative ways to attract residents to attend meetings by notifying them about new development. The planning literature notes that planners often lack these skills which is a major reason community outreach is inadequate (Brooks, 2002; Diaz, 2005).

As for the demographics of those who participated in the community meetings, specifics were not provided in the Eastside Plan. Some demographic data was collected in the third meeting. During the third meeting, participants were given voting devices and asked questions about themselves. Their tallies were gathered instantly and displayed on a screen. Community members were asked five demographic questions and the results are as follows:

a) Do you live in the Eastside? Yes:88% No:13%

b) Do you work in the Eastside? Yes:31% No:69%

c) What age group do you fall into? Under 18:0%, 18-24:6%, 25-34:13%, 35-

44:19%, 45-54:31%, 55-64:13%, 65+:19%

d) Do you own or rent your home? Own:63%, Rent:37%

e) How did you hear about this meeting? Flier:74%, Newspaper:0%, Somebody told

me about it:5%, I saw a poster or flyer in a business:5%, Other:16%

62

Different stakeholders need to be represented so that all those impacted by the

Eastside Plan will have a chance to voice their concerns. Since this thesis involved the study of a barrio, having the ethnic demographics of the participants would have been insightful. Latino residents needed to be part of the process as they make up a substantial majority of the Eastside. Having the demographic data of those who attended the outreach meetings would have helped in assessing whether Latinos were properly represented. For the City of Riverside to ask for such data may have been intrusive, prompting planners not to ask. Based on comments from City staff in the Eastside

Neighborhood Plan, there was a diverse ethnic mix of participants.

Other demographic data can show whether those polled were representative of the

Eastside. Roughly 30% of Eastside residents were under the age of eighteen according to the 2000 Census (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). No one under the age of 18 was voting in the third meeting indicating that youth were not represented. This is significant given that barrio youth have many issues that need attention. For example, youth are often ignored in the planning profession leaving them with inadequate sports activities and after school programs. Barrio youth are likely to use sidewalks to get to school and they often experience the hardships of gang life which is why youth outreach is important. The outreach method did not include contacting local middle schools and high schools which may have recruited youth to attend the Eastside

Plan outreach meetings.

Those 18-64 years of age made up 61% of the population of the Eastside according to the 2000 Census (City of Riverside: Community Development Department,

2009). This group made up 76% of attendees at the third community meeting. Seniors

63 made up 7% of the Eastside residents in 2000 and made up 19% of those in the third community meeting (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009).

The high number of seniors may be due to their prominence in citizen affairs as they have more free time and are more inclined to be involved in community events.

Overrepresentation of seniors and no representation of youth could have distorted the

Eastside Plan in terms of getting adequate representation emphasizing the need to recruit youth.

The home ownership and renter demographic data were recorded as well.

Approximately 37% of attendees rented their homes while 63% owned (City of

Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). According to the 2000 Census,

56% of Eastside homes were rented, 37% were occupied by their owners and 7% were vacant (City of Riverside: Community Development Department, 2009). The percentage of renters who attended the third meeting was a lower percentage of renters of the

Eastside, but 37% is still significant (City of Riverside: Community Development

Department, 2009). Having a significant portion of renters is appropriate given that barrios are usually compromised by renters. Barrio renters often face conflicts with landlords who refuse to repair appliances, maintain housing stock and ignore complaints from renters. The renter stakeholder group was adequately represented according to the demographic data of the third meeting.

Two meetings were held in the summer of 2008 for the purpose of the Planning

Department to get an idea of what the Eastside envisioned as the key objectives in the

Eastside Neighborhood Plan. This was followed by two more meetings held the following December and January for residents to analyze proposed policy objectives and

64 tools. These tools and objectives would be based on comments from the first two meetings. After these four meetings, no more meetings were held for further revision or to check the progress of proposed policy.

Developing objectives based on the will of the Eastside community is in keeping with the communicative planning model. Every policy objective and tool produced by the Planning Department was to be based on the most frequent comments gathered in the first two meetings and the two follow up meetings allowed Eastside residents to revise them. A major flaw in this outreach method utilized by the City is that it relies on four meetings to develop a policy plan with no follow up after implementation. There are tools in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan itself promoting community outreach such as reporting planning projects to community groups and forming new community groups, but there are no specific mechanisms for accountability for implementing any proposed policy tool. There is no mechanism for sharing the progress of any policy tool with

Eastside residents. Had the Riverside Planning Department chosen to use the communicative planning model, updating Eastsiders on the progress of the Eastside Plan would have been a priority.

The first two meetings asked community participants to list problems and assets of the Eastside that would be the foundation for the policy tools drafted in the Eastside

Plan. The first meeting was attended by 30 people who were asked three questions about the Eastside neighborhood. The questions were answered in a group discussion and on written forms that were presented to the group. The questions included:

 What are the top three things you like about your neighborhood?

65

 What are the top three things you would like to see changed in your

neighborhood?

 What do you feel are the three biggest challenges facing your neighborhood?

The feedback style was fairly basic as it allowed participants two ways to have their concerns addressed, in a group discussion and in written format. A group discussion can be beneficial as it allows community members to elaborate on points already made.

When a point is made and several participants agree, a consensus can be achieved. A drawback with group discussions is that they can be dominated by outspoken individuals.

This is why a moderator is needed to facilitate (Creighton, 2005). Providing written forms is a good way to get those who may be reluctant to speak in public an opportunity to voice their opinion (Creighton, 2005). These methods of discussion are a good way to build a consensus and to obtain an outline of the important issues a community faces.

The communicative planning model encourages community residents to share their knowledge so policy makers know what issues need to be addressed and what opportunities are available within the community. The planners at this meeting elaborated on the purpose of developing a the Neighborhood Plan and how Eastside residents can get involved.

The second meeting occurred a month following the first meeting. The Planning

Department issued an outline of the Eastside Neighborhood Plan with a presentation and allowed participants to make changes on the spot. Afterwards, there were stations set up throughout a room with City staff at every station. Participants could talk to staff and ask questions and give comments on the Eastside Plan and what they would like to see improved. According to staff comments in the Eastside Neighborhood Plan, the one on

66 one dialogue with participants was the most beneficial. Group discussions may be difficult for those who are nervous about public speaking and talking to staff one on one may get participants to feel comfortable sharing information and concerns about their neighborhood (Creighton, 2005). This allows staff and residents to build a relationship and share their thoughts. The Planning Department acknowledged that the strong point of their outreach was talking to participants individually. Developing this tactic further would be ideal for the communicative planning model. Having face time and developing relationships with residents would be beneficial in trying to learn the many issues and desires of a community. Maintaining these relationships and feedback after the passage of the Neighborhood Plan would aid in assessing the impact of proposed planning policy.

The third meeting was held several months after the second meeting in November of 2008. Planning staff presented an Eastside Neighborhood Plan draft focusing on policy objectives. A voting device was given to each participant to vote on various objectives to see if they were satisfied. An open group discussion was held to modify each objective. The voting method allowed participants to vote on the objectives anonymously. The benefit of this is that it allowed the group to see what participants thought of each objective in real time with quantified results shown on a screen.

Surprisingly, planners relied on a group discussion to modify the objectives. Given the praise from planners of the station format that allowed for one on one discussion, they should have used that format again. It would have allowed residents more opportunities for interaction with City officials which would have provided better assessments of the

Eastside Plan.

67

The last community meeting was held a month after the third meeting in January of 2009. The focus of the meeting was on the proposed tools and objectives discussed in the previous meeting. This meeting relied entirely on the station format with the objectives and tools divided by six stations with staff responding to comments from participants. Planning staff noted that the information received at this meeting was valuable because of the one on one interactions further demonstrating their effectiveness.

The communicative model emphasizes communication methods such as these and highlights the importance of building relationships between community members and policymakers. However, one on one interaction was only utilized in two meetings with no future communicative tools to inform Eastsiders on the progress on the Eastside

Neighborhood Plan.

The Planning Department utilized methods to collect comments from the community, but it is unclear if all stakeholders were present. The Eastside Plan makes no mention of community organizations that participated in the outreach meetings. They are typically active in pushing for the interests of certain demographics and causes. The

Eastside has several community organizations representing various areas of the barrio and progressive causes. Even the local Chamber of Commerce chapter is not mentioned to have participated in outreach meetings. Having the voices heard from these groups would have been an ideal communicative planning action. Including their concerns and preferences in the final draft of the Eastside Plan would have shown that the City listened to a large list of stakeholders.

Even though the City did not specify that they were using the communicative planning model, the language used in the Plan sounds similar to the rhetoric associated

68 with the communicative planning model. The relationships established during outreach meetings were not utilized for future interactions to hold the City accountable for implementing proposed policy in the Plan. Ideally, the communicative model calls on planning staff to communicate with community members during the implementation of policy to ensure promises are kept. This action would have insured accountability measures and mechanisms for engagement were implemented after the Eastside Plan passed.

One of the problems with planning is that there is no pressure on city governments to implement extensive outreach methods to underserved communities.

There is no financial incentive to aid barrios unlike areas that attract investment. The communicative planning model is useful for giving voice to community members, but it requires that planners take action. The rhetoric of academia that celebrates the virtues of community engagement is not enough. Planners need to find institutional changes that will match talk with action and encourage planners to serve barrio communities. Since government aid is required to address barrio problems, government action must be a solution. Government aid is also necessary as the economies of barrios are unable to address the vast number of problems that they face. In this case study, government action was instrumental in providing the Eastside with abundant park space and community center services.

Elected officials were the reasons government agencies took action and they could possibly be the driving force behind communicative planning actions. This could involve a community action coalition appointed by the councilperson for the Eastside community. This group would represent interests of the Eastside and make

69 recommendations to the Planning Commission, City Hall and City agencies regarding matters in the Eastside. This group would answer to the councilperson of the Eastside implementing a measure of accountability. Currently, there is an Eastside Forum that holds monthly meetings. It allows community members to meet with the Eastside

Councilperson in a town hall format. A community action coalition would expand on this by having a group of appointees who are periodically engaged with Eastside residents. They would be held accountable by the Councilperson as they would be a part of their staff. This would ensure that the coalition acts in the interests of the

Councilperson who, in theory, acts in the interests of their constituents. Considering that the current councilman was a key player in ensuring that the Eastside had adequate park space, the same effort could be applied to other Eastside matters. A community action coalition would allow the Councilperson the opportunity to have staff that would engage residents and City officials over Eastside maters. This would encourage constant dialogue between Eastside residents and the City and would be an engagement tool that will put pressure on city agencies to take action on the concerns of the Eastside.

One of the promising developments in the Eastside Plan was one on one interactions between planners and Eastside residents. The Planners noted that the comments they received in talking to residents was productive and provided keen insights on the opinions of Eastside residents. This may be the answer to some of the problems of community engagement. In addition to incentivizing planners to serve barrio communities, developing relationships can encourage communicative planning. The comments left by planners show signs that planners enjoyed establishing relationships with Eastside residents. Allowing for this type of dialogue on a continual basis could

70 stimulate relationships between planners and community members that can be the foundation for community building. This could establish trust between planners and barrio residents that could develop into permanent discourse allowing barrio residents to voice concerns, share knowledge of assets and follow up on proposed policy.

The lack of training for planners in community engagement needs to be addressed. Planning schools emphasize the importance of community engagement, but better training is needed. Resolving this needs to a priority by those who preach the importance of community outreach. Communicative planning tools that emphasize open dialogue, accountability and consensus building would improve the quality of life in barrios. The problem in current planning is that City governments have little incentive to serve barrio communities. This highlights the need for institutional planning changes that holds planners accountable to serve low income communities.

71

CONCLUSION

The City of Riverside attempted to address the problems of the Eastside barrio while preserving its assets. Government agencies were assigned tools in the Eastside

Neighborhood Plan to meet these objectives. Unfortunately, the enforcement of these accountability measures was not clearly defined and no mechanisms were implemented for accountability. Planners often do not have the skills or incentives to implement communicative planning measures that require policymakers to address barrio interests.

Perhaps the question planning scholars should ask is what incentive do planning agencies have to implement a communicative planning model centered on community outreach? The communicative action model is popular in planning academia yet this case study was an example of how it is not implemented though planners use the rhetoric of community engagement. Planners and policymakers are expected to enforce accountability measures and encourage dissent which is counterintuitive. Why would planners and policymakers put pressure on themselves to act on the benefit of a community consensus? According to the literature, planners are expected to implement this style of planning because it satisfies a consensus of stakeholders, but the rhetoric clearly is not enough to influence planning practice. The planning literature does acknowledge the difficulty in implementing the model though it has not found a way to bridge the gap between academia's preference for utilizing the model and the planning profession's unwillingness to utilize it. Planners who preach communicative planning need to find ways to encourage its use.

One of the key problems with planning is its inherent ties to private development.

Planners rely on developers to shape urban spaces and generate tax revenue. The New

72

Urbanism movement is tied to wealthy areas that can attract developers to finance major projects. On the other hand, planners have ignored Latino communities as they do not have the funds to implement major projects. Many of the assets and problems that were successfully addressed in the case study were the result of high-end New Urbanism development. The main areas of the Eastside that will and have received beautification are Marketplace and University Avenue. In contrast, government programs and agencies that were supposed to aid the barrio community were ineffective. Neoliberal budget cuts and the lack of accountability to poor neighborhoods resulted in deficiencies in government aid.

This case study also found the need to study the impacts of potential gentrification. The Eastside was an example of a barrio community that will be threatened by large scale development. The City implemented land use restrictions to address this, but its effectiveness remains to be seen. As the economy rebounds from the

Great Recession, inner city barrios that were the launching points of suburban flight in the twentieth century have the potential to be the landing sites of high-end investment.

This new development is one of the next steps barrio urbanism scholars will need to focus on.

Lastly, this study laid out circumstances that will likely be seen in other areas.

Specific plan and general plan updates will be more common in historically Latino areas as gentrification continues. Barrio advocates should ask for the types of development a

City wishes to propose. New Urbanism is popular in the planning profession and one should see if a planning department wants to implement this type of development that could alter a barrio neighborhood. Typically, there should be renderings of proposed

73 development. Ultimately, land use is what planners have the most influence over and they should be able to address concerns in this area. Lastly, the biggest flaw to the

Eastside Neighborhood Plan was the lack of accountability measures and ways for community members to stay involved in the planning process. Community members should ask how proposed policies will be implemented. Simply making a list of policy changes is not enough to ensure action.

74

WORKS CITED

Baeten, Guy. (2011). Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, Policies, and Politics. New York, New York: Springer.

Berry, K., and Henderson, M. (2002). Geographical Identities of Ethnic America: Race, Space, and Place. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

Blue Ribbon Commission on L.A.’s Grocery Industry and Community Health. (2008). Feeding Our Communities: A Call for Standards for Food Access and Job Quality in Los Angeles’ Grocery Industry. LAANE. Retrieved from http://www.laane.org/downloads/B413P312C.pdf

Booza, J., Cutsinger, J., and Galster, G. (2006). Where Did They Go? The Decline of Middle-income Neighborhoods in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.

Borden et al. (2006). Challenges and Opportunities to Latino Youth Development: Increasing Meaningful Participation in Youth Development Programs. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 2, 187-208. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/research/cmliterature/Latino%20Youth%2 0Dev%20Borden%20et%20al.pdf

Brooks, M. P. (2002). Planning Theory for Practioners. Chicago, Illinois: Planners Press.

Camarillo, A. (1979). Chicanos in a Changing Society: From Mexican Pueblos to American Barrios in Santa Barbara and Southern California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cisneros, H., and Rosales, J., (2006). Casa y Comunidad: Latino Home and Neighborhood Design. Builder Books.

City of Riverside: Community Development Department. (2007). Riverside General Plan 2025. Riverside, California: City of Riverside. Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/gp2025program/general-plan.asp

City of Riverside: Community Development Department. (2009). Eastside Neighborhood Plan. Riverside, California: City of Riverside. Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/Neighborhood-Plans/eastside/Eastside- Neighborhood-Plan-Final.pdf

Civil Rights Coalition for the 21st Century. (2007). Race, Class, and Economic Justice. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/civilrights101

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

75

Irazábal, C., & Farhat, R. (2008). Latino Communities in the United States: Place- Making in the Pre-World War II, Postwar, and Contemporary City. Journal of Planning Literature, 22. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:10139

Curtis, J. (2004). Barrio space and place in South East Los Angeles, California. In Hispanic spaces, Latino places: Community and cultural diversity in contemporary America. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Danziger, S. and Gottschalk, P. (2005). Diverging Fortunes: Trends in Poverty and Inequality. The American People: Census 2000, 2, 49-75.

Dear, M. (2001). From Chicago to L.A.. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Diaz, D. (2005). Barrio urbanism: Chicanos, Planning, and American Cities. New York and London: Routledge.

Dogadag, T. (1974). Spatial Control and Public Policies: the Example of Mexican American Housing. Professional Geographer, 26, 3, 262-69.

Dohan, D. (2003). The Price of Poverty: Money, Work, and Culture in the Mexican American Barrio. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ford, L., and E. Griffin. (1981). Chicano Park: Personalizing an Institutional Landscape. Landscape, 25, 2, 42-8.

Forester, J. (1989). Critical Theory and Planning Practice. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Fuller, H. (1974). The Mexican Housing Problem. New York, New York: Arno Press.

Fulton, W. (1997). The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fulton, W., Shigley, P. (2005). Guide to California Planning. Point Arena, California: Solano Press Books.

Garcia, J. A. (2003). Latino Politics in America. New York, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gold, S. (2008). Gentrification divides Echo Park community in Los Angeles. LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere27- 2008jun27,0,3921841.story

Godfrey, B. (2004). Hispanic Spaces, Latino Places: Community and Cultural Diversity in contemporary America. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

76

Greenberg, H. (2012). Crackdown Needed in Predatory Lending. CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/48777323

Hemmens, G. (1992). The Postmodernists Are Coming, the Postmodernists Are Coming. Planning, 58, 7, 20.

Herzog, L., (2000). Shared Space: Rethinking the U.S.-Mexican Border. La Jolla, California: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, 41-74.

Irazábal, C., and Gómez-Barris, M. (2005). Latino New Urbanism: Reformulations of urban practices and living preferences in Los Angeles. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) 46th Annual Conference “Beyond the City Beautiful.” Kansas, Missouri, October 27-30.

Irazábal, C., and Eggebraten. S. (2006). The Emperor’s New Clothes: Covert Reassertion of the Rational Planning Model in the Los Angeles River Revitalization Process. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) 47th Annual Conference “Borders and Cores: What is planning in the global era?” Fort Worth, TX, November 9-12.

Kelly, David. (2010). 50 Arrested in Riverside Gang Sweep. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/local/la-me-gangs28- 2010jan28

Klitsch, M. (1990). Hispanic Fertility Rate 40 percent Higher than Rate of Non- Hispanics. Family Planning Perspectives, 22, 3, 136-37.

La Ganga, M., and Lin, S. (2007). 60 million Californians by Mid-Century. LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/ news/local/la-me- population10jul10,0,1878846.story?coll= lahome-center

Lipsitz, George. 1995. Toxic Racism. American Quarterly, 47, 3, 416-427.

Méndez, M. (2005). Latino New Urbanism: Building on cultural preferences. Opolis, 1, 1, 33-48.

Melendrez, Andy. (2009). Riverside City Council Candidate Statement. Retrieved from http://www.instantriverside.com/2009/05/andy-melendrez-city-council-statement/

Myers, D. 2001. Demographic Futures and a Guide to Planning: California’s Latinos and the Compact City. APA Journal, 67, 4, 383-97.

Neuman, W. L. (1994). Social Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

77

Orfield, G., and Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York, New York: The New Press.

Passel, L., and Edomonston, J. (1991). Immigration and Race: Recent Trends in Immigration in the United States. Paper presented at a conference: The Integration of America’s Newest Immigrants, Held at the Urban Institute, Washington D.C., June 17-18.

Parks, Recreations and Human Services: City of Riverside. (2013). Bobby Bonds Park Website.. Riverside, California: City of Riverside. Retrieved from http://www.riversideca.gov/park_rec/center-bonds.asp

Parson, D. (1993). The Search for a Centre: The Recomposition of Race, Class and Space in Los Angeles. International Journal Urban and Regional Research, 17, 2, 232- 240. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468- 2427.1993.tb00478.x/pdf

Ream, R. (2005). Toward Understanding How Social Capital Mediates the Impact of Mobility on Mexican American Achievement. Social Forces, 84, 1, 201-24.

Rojas, J. (1999). The Latino Use of Urban Spaces in East Los Angeles. La Vida Latina en LA: Urban Latino Cultures, 131-138.

Saenz, R. (2005). Latinos and the Changing Face of America. The American People: Census 2000, 12, 352-379.

Saenz, R., C. Cready, and Morales, M. C. (2007). Adios Aztlan: Mexican American Out- Migration from the Southwest. The Sociology of Spatial Inequality, 189-214.

Saillant, C. (2006). Fewer Pupils Create More Worries. LA Times.

Sanders, H. (1997). Communities Organized for Public Service and Neighborhood Revitalization in San Antonio. Public Policy and Community.

Schmidt, R. J. (1991). Language Education Policy and the Latino Quest for Empowerment: Exploring the Linkages. Latinos and Political Coalitions.

Slater, T. (2006). Current, Editorial Pages Desk. LA Times.

Taylor, N. (1998). Mistaken Interests and the Discourse of Planning. American Planning Association, 64, 1, 71.

Thorgmorton, J. A. (1999). Learning through Conflict at Oxford. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 3, 269.

78

Torok, Ryan (2013). Food Deserts Exposed. LAANE: A New Economy for All. Retrieved from http://www.laane.org/whats-new/2010/05/18/food-deserts-exposed/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). National Population Estimates. Infoplease. Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

USDA: Food and Nutrition Service (2013). Learn how you can accept SNAP Benefits at Farmers' Markets. USDA: Food and Nutrition Service Website. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/fm.htm

Valle, V., and Torres, R. (2000). Latino Metropolis. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Villa, R. H. (2000). Barrio-Logos: Space and Place in Urban Chicano Literature and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Waldinger, R., and Bozorgmehr, M. (1996). Ethnic Los Angeles. New York, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Anchor Books.

Yiftachel, O. (1999). Planning Theory at a Crossroad: The Third Oxford Conference. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 3, 267.

Yoder, M., and de Gutiérrez, R. (2004). Social Geography of Laredo, Texas, Neighborhoods: Distinctiveness and Diversity in a Majority-Hispanic Place. Hispanic Spaces, Latino Places: Community and Cultural Diversity in Contemporary America.

79