Draft MTP/SCS Comments Received - sacog

From an extensive study done about land use in Seattle, they saw that the land uses that were most
strongly linked to the percentage of household walking trips in the Seattle area were educational
facilities, commercial office buildings, restaurants and taverns, parks, neighborhood scale retail
establishments, civic uses, grocery stores. They also found that the number of retail establishments
(rather than total retail square footage) was found to be important in the decision to walk for nonwork
purposes. For each quartile increase in the number of retail locations, walking for non-work
trips increased 19 percent. lxiii
Equity Impacts
Inequities exist not only in access to goods and services within certain neighborhoods, but also in the
ability to live in neighborhoods with health-promoting conditions – an ability which varies with
household economic and social resources. xxiii Nearly one fifth of all Americans (approximately 52
million people) live in poor neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods in which at least 20 percent of
residents are poor). xxiii Between 1970 and 2000, poor families became more likely to live in
neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and rich families became more likely to live in
neighborhoods with concentrated wealth. lxiv This concentrated poverty impacts inequity – according
to a recent study, the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18
times that of Hispanic households, a finding most recently impacted by plummeting home values. lxv
Individuals in minority racial or ethnic groups are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods – nearly
half of all blacks live in poor neighborhoods, compared with only one in ten whites. lxvi
Historic trends of reduced public spending affect poor neighborhoods more than wealthy
communities. lxvii The influence of socioeconomic segregation as well as racial or ethnic segregation
influences neighborhood conditions in a variety of ways, from funding and quality of public schools
to employment opportunities, housing quality, municipal services, and hazards such as pollution,
noise and crime. xxiii A recent study in New York revealed that low-income non-white populations are
at a disadvantage when trying to access daily goods and services. There was a stronger relationship
for black populations than Latino populations but both populations have less access. lxviii For lowincome
families, the costs of childcare can consume a major portion of income, leaving less money
for food, housing and other necessities. Finally, children with low neighborhood amenities or those
lacking neighborhood access to sidewalks or walking paths, parks or playgrounds, or recreation or
community centers had 20 to 45 percent higher odds of obesity and overweight, compared with
children who had access to these amenities. lxix
METHODOLOGY
Use GIS to map the distribution of daily goods and services in a particular region and households
that can access them by biking or walking. Display the proportion of parcels that can access a
minimum of four out of the eight public and private goods/services (50 percent) by noting the
geographic areas with access below 50 percent access and those areas above 50 percent access. This
analysis should produce two different maps, one showing bike access and one pedestrian access, as
well as a display of the geographic equity of distribution.
RESOURCES
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has begun to develop methodology for
mapping and quantifying neighborhood access to healthful resources. For more information, contact
Vikrant Sood at vso@sandag.org.
Richmond General Plan: Neighborhood Completeness Index xxiv – Moore Iacofano Gostsman, Inc.
(2007). Richmond general plan update- Issues & opportunities paper #8: Community health and
wellness(Draft). p23
36
Page 72 of 165