1

Rafael René Díaz Torres University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras, Department of Geography SROP 2004 Penn State University Mentor: Amy Glasmeier, Ph.D. College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Department of Geography Title: Displacement and land use change from a residential trailer park community to a commercial complex at State College, PA Abstract The lack of affordable and income-based housing in rural State College, PA is a major problem facing low-income and very poor residents of the area. The changing economic landscape in State College and the growing interests of developers, retailers and some local government officials to transform the region into an important commercial and service-oriented center, poses a potential threat to the existing stock of low income housing, which is comprised largely of trailer parks. The displacement of a trailer park community on North Atherton Street during September of 2003 is an example harbinger of what is otherwise a largely invisible housing crisis due to the unavailability of low-income residential units in the region. Concepts including gentrification, displacement, “beautification” of the geographical space, and the construction of different relative “place meanings” by certain social groups informs an understanding of the impact and relevance of this social, political and economic issue. Introduction

“This really was a neighborhood,” said the woman, who did not give her name.

“I always felt safe. There were really good people here. There a lot of spaces in State College that aren’t neighborhoods. There are just so many places in

this town where you have no idea who your neighbor is.” Centre Daily Times, December 14, 2003

The term gentrification is the subject of many interpretations depending on the

interests, views, power discourses and political agendas of different sectors within the academy, government, social groups, commercial elites, and others. Stated simply, gentrification is defined as the displacement of low-income, “non-desirable” (from the perspective of the dominant social group) people and ethnic minorities from a particular space that is slated for “revitalization” or “rehabilitation” and renovation for new land uses, inhabitants and different “cultural” purposes.

Two perspectives inform an understanding of the process and the effect of gentrification. Historically, the concept of gentrification has been interrogated from two perspectives: production and consumption. Among authors writing from a critical perspective, Neil Smith, a professor at the City University in New York City, is mostly

2

closely associated with the perspective of production. The production perspective centers on the functioning of the free market economy and the role of capital disinvestment in “establishing the opportunity for gentrification.” Based on the “rental gap” theory, developed by Smith, he argues that the opportunity for gentrification to occur is when the difference between the current property value versus its potential value, influences and determines the supply of space available for future development (Smith, 1996: p.41).

From the perspective of consumption, authors writing in the sociological and humanistic traditions consider the ideological background of the potential “pool of gentrifiers”, their consumer demands and practices, while considering certain non-economic variables such as, gender, sexuality, education, household composition, and other elements (Slater, 2002) as key variables in the gentrification process. While the first of these explanations is inspired by Marxist analysis, the second perspective emphasizes postmodern, post-structural views highlighting the importance of human agency over economic structure (Slater 2002). Most of the available literature related to gentrification focuses on how this process occurs and develops within a particular urban space. Very few studies analyze how this same event unfolds in rural areas. The lack of reported cases of gentrification in rural areas provides an opportunity to consider how displacement functions in rural versus urban settings. This research project therefore examines how gentrification unfolds in rural areas by investigating the recent experience of economic displacement of a trailer community in Centre County, Pennsylvania. The paper examines how the immediate effect of gentrification and commercialization unfolds in a rural area. I will explore the scope of this process, based on relevant literature, analysis of economic and demographic statistics, and key informant interviews. I assess how and by what manner the experience of gentrification unfolds in rural areas. The paper has three parts. The paper begins with a review of literature on gentrification and displacement and its effects in rural and urban areas. Given that the majority of the literature on the subject of gentrification has developed in reference to an urban context, I explore this material and develop a typology of the causes and consequences of displacement for groups within society in a rural area. The second approach of the paper analyzes Census statistics to identify how the Centre County housing market functions. The third part of the paper explores the sociological implications of rural displacement based on interviews with leaders in the community who have worked with low income citizens in the surrounding area. Particular importance is given to the different constructions of place meaning by particular social groups in relation to the State College area, specifically where the trailer parks are located. Displacement and its effects in rural areas

How persons visualize their residential space is important when considering the

psychosocial effects of displacement for a certain group of people or a community. What the promoters of displacement and gentrification see as possible “representations of space” after getting rid of these “non-desirable” low-income people is in conflict with the “spaces of representation” as viewed by the residents of the trailer parks (see Gibson, 2004: 137). Little effort is made to determine the perspective of place of the trailer park

3

residents prior to displacement. During the process of gentrification it is unclear whether displaced residents’ sense of community is considered by retailers, developers, politicians and commercial elites seeking to renovate the occupied space. Given the geography of rural areas, it is unlikely that displaced residents will be able to find suitable replacement housing near their former residential community. This situation is complicated even more when we consider the time-space constraints that govern or affect certain important daily activities that in rural areas, being comprised largely of sparse population settlement patterns and potentially isolated spaces, take place. Spatial separation of critical activities such as school, home, shopping, etc. in rural areas makes more indispensable the use of the automobile and enhances its role as a material need, rather than a mere luxury. In rural areas, the main problem facing displaced residents is often the lack of an acceptable alternative and proximate supply of affordable housing. Their scarce economic resources are insufficient to compete with potential gentrifiers. Thus, reducing the supply of low-income housing can contribute to the breakup of communities and families. The closure of trailer parks in State College, PA is a prime example of what happens when real estate values are bid up by a growing affluent segment of the community with consumption demands for new retail and commercial activities. As stated in a Centre County Times article of December 2003, the trailer park situation has “been a high-profile transition that set off alarms about Centre County’s lack of housing for low-income residents, whether those residents, …, live on Social Security Payments or earn low wages from washing dishes or cleaning motel rooms.” (Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspaper website, December 14, 2003). Through the years, in the absence of an acceptable supply of affordable low-income housing these trailer parks have filled this market niche. Close in spaces with good access to highways and population concentrations become attractive sites of development. The relatively high average income in State College combined with the inflationary effect of student demand for housing, help bid up rents far beyond a level of affordability of low income residents.

Literature Review

The lack of affordable housing is a major problem facing by the low-income residents of the State College borough. The accelerated commercialization and gentrification of areas of the region have led to increased upward price pressure on land and property values. Excess housing demand for moderate priced housing has impeded the development and construction of affordable and subsidized housing projects. There is a lack of literature that analyzes the impacts, scope and immediate social, economic and cultural effects of displacement in rural areas. Analyzing critically the available literature on urban gentrification and displacement, we should be able to apply it to the constantly changing rural geography.

After World war two, the unprecedented success of personal automobile transportation led to the development of the automobile-dependent society. Most central cities throughout the United States were not able to immediately respond to this socio-economic change by constructing parking lots, thus making incompatible the new societal structural changes with the traditional central cities historical and traditional urban spaces.

4

At the same time, the outward movement of middle-class residents from the city was paralleled by an inward influx of poor migrants populating those same urban areas (Teaford, 1990: 4-5). The arrival of African Americans, Hispanics, rural migrants, and other social and ethnic groups often with low-incomes and scarce economic resources, accelerated the flow of white collar middle-class persons out of the central city and into the emerging suburban America.

There was an absolute shortage of housing in central cities so suburbs were places where cheap and affordable housing was created. The search for houses with ample commodity spaces and big backyards discarded the high-density urban residential spaces. The dispersed and mostly unexploited rural areas presented a great opportunity for this middle-class sector that was trying to escape from the “noisy” and socially “varied” urban America. The suburbanization processes and the search for quiet and isolated ample spaces for living during the postwar decades were the initial steps toward a currently non-stoppable gentrification of the rural areas. Cultural characteristics of the gentrifiers Gentrification literature focuses mostly on urban gentrifiers. Applying the Marxist production-side explanation, the transition from a manufacturing to a service oriented economy precipitated the explosion of white-collar employment in many cities across the United States. The presence of multinational firms in many urban central areas became an incentive for middle-class white-collar worker who moved to the city in search of proximity from their jobs (Gibson, 2004: 44). From this perspective, the movement of capital stimulated the flow of people that would become the urban gentrifiers. Muñiz (1998) describes and complements the production-based perspective with a look at the potential gentrifiers from a consumption-side and socio-cultural explanation. She describes this group as mostly “young, well educated, professional sectors” that share the “lifestyles... consumption and personal values of the baby boom generation” (Muñiz, 1998:26). In addition:

“gentrifiers households are typically dual income households. Many prefer to pursue their careers unburdened by familial responsibilities. Hence, greater orientation to self and couple, achievement and status become more significant for these households. In such cases, access to certain types of employment, leisure activities and a wide variety of customer services in the cities becomes more attractive than suburban amenities concerned with childbearing”. (Muñiz, 1998: 27)

The consumption-side explanation focuses mainly on the choice of selection that the potential gentrifiers have for moving to a central city urban space. Among the incentives that attract this group of people, Gelb and Lions mention: the proximity to the central buildings, the ethnic and income diversity, parks and other amenities, history of cities and a promise for a good quality of life (Gelb and Lions, 1991: 7). In his book The

5

new urban frontier, Neil Smith (1996) argues that the ethnic diversity pursued by the potential gentrifiers is not necessarily a sign of cultural tolerance and desire to live with different social groups. Rather, it could be interpreted as an impulse to consume the exotic merchandise of foreign cultures as a symbol of leisure, “culture” and high-class status. This perspective presented by Neil Smith has merit if we analyze the great amount of stores, restaurants and museums that promote foreign cultures and different ethnic groups within central cities and downtown areas. Once again, the exclusion of any of these gentrification explanations for the description of the potential gentrifiers impedes us from recognizing the different economic, social, demographic and cultural variables that are part of these processes. The solely analysis of economic variables exclude the cultural and consumption tastes of the gentrifiers. At the same time, an exclusive socio-cultural and humanistic view of the problem gives us an almost absolute sovereign value to the consumer without inserting the analysis in the context of broader social, economic, political and geographic environments (Muñiz, 1998: 28). Also, the potential gentrifiers are far from being a homogeneous social group. Their cultural tastes and their consumption preferences are so varied that to restrict an explanation of them to a general description, erases the social differences that exists within a particular group. In the rural example of State College, one of the main groups of potential gentrifiers is mostly students, professors and working personnel from Penn State University. These sectors do not necessarily have the same tastes, socio-economic needs, or financial capacity that the potential gentrifiers described by the urban literature have. Commercialization and spectacularization of geographic space

In his work, Gibson (2004) describes the need for the development of a “good climate” environment to attract not only commercial investment to a certain area, but also the influx of new middle-class residents that could populate a certain area. The construction of impressive office buildings, improved roads, development of cultural centers and the clearance of every “undesirable” elements, including abandoned and obsolete structures (e.g. the trailer parks), removal of low-income people, minority ethnic groups and homeless persons from public spaces. The revitalization and commercialization of a certain area has unfortunately become a synonym for displacement, especially of low-income or minority social groups. The binary discourse used by retailers, developers and socio-economic elites of “life” and “decay” justifies and legitimizes the revitalization (and displacement) projects. Usually the “decay” of the city is associated with the maintenance of the current social and economic state of things: abandoned and obsolete buildings and the presence of “undesirable” social groups. In opposition to that, “life” of a geographic area depends in its ability to attract commercial and service oriented investment, middle and high-income residents and displaced all poverty and “uncultured” related elements (Gibson 2004). Methodology

This research project uses an inductive methodological approach based on multiple methods that combines several investigative means to explore differences in the

6

experience of displacement in rural versus urban areas. The first stage in the analysis includes a critical analytical reading of the literature on gentrification and displacement to develop a) terms of reference; and b) a catalogue of the role that space plays in the manifestations of gentrification, displacement and social spatial change in rural and urban areas. The second stage of the analysis is based on quantitative analysis of statistical data on housing trends in Centre County. The third stage of the research includes interviews with key informants involved in the displacement case in Centre County. The first stage goes beyond what is traditionally considered a simple literature review. In this case, a method of critical reading will include “reading between lines” and analyzing subtexts underlying the comments made by different authors. One of the main challenges in this type of research is in identifying when the writers, while explaining the processes of displacement and gentrification, refer to either the production or- the consumption-side or to both of these spatial processes. . Most of the literature on gentrification analyzes the events associated with the process of displacement using concrete examples of specific places. This critical reading is necessary to identify possible parallels associated with the trailer park displacement process in Centre County, Pennsylvania with urban gentrification experiences.

The second method of analysis used consists of collection and analysis of interview-based data. Interviews with persons involved in the trailer park closure represent an illuminating source of information providing unique interpretations of different points of view, and help us recognize the social perspective not represented in numerical statistics. The reading and analysis of local newspaper articles provides a more nuanced interpretation of the experience of displacement. The third element of the methodology consists of the analysis of quantitative information on the available stock of low income housing in the Centre region. Statistics from the United States Census, as extracted form the Census American Fact Finder, are analyzed at the block group level within the geographical boundary of Centre County. This information is coupled with additional data on low cost housing sites proximate to major roads and possible bus routes as well as other relevant socio-economic characteristics. The numerical information will be analyzed and displayed using Arc Map software. Comparing the different areas within the Centre County region, we are able to compare the State College borough housing supply (especially the blocks that have the trailer parks) with other sites of affordable housing in conjunction with demographic and economic variables. Findings and Discussion “I feel that the people of the trailer court a year from now will have a much better life. I personally took a drive through this trailer court and, in my opinion, the trailers are at least 35-50 years old and in most cases in deplorable condition” State College resident in a letter of support for Dan Hawbaker (Centre Daily Times, October 8, 2003)

On September 9, 2003 Dean and Linda Spanos of Halfmoon Township, PA sold almost three acres of land that sheltered the presence of about 35 decrepit trailers to Dan Hamwbaker, a local developer, builder and construction firm operator. The property was

7

sold to the development group Park Forest Centre for more than $1.8 million. The group of investors, headed by Dan Hawbaker decided to change the zoning and hence use of the land from residential to a commercial. Seven days after the purchase, the residents of the trailer park received an eviction notice from Hawbaker Rentals giving them 90 days to leave the property and find new accommodations. This was only the beginning of what has become a major issue in the State College area: the lack of affordable housing and the difficulties faced by displaced persons during their resettlement process.

Newspaper articles and formal and informal interviews with persons in the State College community, reveal an interesting, if somewhat unexpected finding: that the displaced persons from the trailer park communities on North Atherton Street are now living in better circumstances than they were prior to the eviction. After personally visiting two trailer parks, one on North Atherton Street and one located next to the new Colonnade Shopping Center, and seeing the decrepit conditions of these residential structures, I can only agree with those statements made by different members of the community. That these opinions reflect the desire to provide a better quality of housing for a particular group of people in the community does not come without a cost, however. Other social, cultural and economic concerns were not considered simultaneously when the plan for land use conversion occurred. Based on interviews with a spectrum of members of the public and concerned citizens, I learn that there are many issues that accompany the relocation of low income residents in Centre County. For Matt Hall, director of the non-profit organization Interfaith Mission, the institution that was enlisted to help relocate the displaced persons, the anger toward the developer Dan Hawbaker, was misplaced. Instead, as Hall stated, “people should be angry that for years, the old and in some cases, ramshackle trailers were the only recourse these people had” (Centre Daily Times, October 2, 2003). Different places meanings and opinions: the perspective of trailer park residents

Informal interviews with current residents living in an adjacent park provided

additional commentary about the general feeling people had concerning the eviction received on September 16, 2003, which led to the to the subsequent displacement of residents. Two men while requesting anonymity during an interview, agreed to answer some of my questions by discussing the meaning they attribute to their place of residence. One of the men living in the adjacent trailer park was optimistic that the displaced persons were probably now living in a better place. “That’s the best thing that could ever have happened to them,” said the man. When asked about the possibility that he, too, might some day be displaced from the trailer park he lives in, which is not in much better condition than the one that was recently razed, he expressed (while laughing) that: “I don’t mind if that happened , this is only temporary.” By looking at the decrepit state of the trailer parks and the damaged conditions of the roads within the place, we can not ignore the possibility that the residents find the place depressing. This kind of psychological effect should be enough motivation for wanting to move into better housing.

Following a similar line of thought, a man that lives in the trailer park next to the Colonnade shopping center, also considered the removal of the North Atherton Street

8

community a positive step forward. This person, who used to work for Dan Hawbaker, highlighted the unhealthy conditions in the north Atherton trailer parks before Hawbaker bought the land. When asked about the possibility of being displaced, should the Colonnade shopping center be expanded, the man said: “Well, I know that Hawbaker is going to try to buy this land and put his hand into a new development project. I don’t doubt that such a thing could happen. People do not recognize that there are also poor persons in State College. They only care about constructing houses for the students, the doctors and the lawyers.” This man also recognized the good relations among neighbors and the strong sense of community in his mobile home park, which is in a much higher state of repair than the park torn down across the street. . He added: “We always try to keep this place looking nice.”

The notable difference between the two people interviewed and the meaning of place they ascribed to their community, hints at the distinctive “management actions people want to see pursued in particular areas” (Yung, Freimund and Belsky, 2003). On the one hand, the first comment reflects at least tacit approval of a potential commercial or residential development for his trailer park community. This opinion is validated by the goal of moving to a better place to live, while considering his current location as a mere transition before achieving personal progress. On the other hand, the second man indirectly alludes to the negative outcome and resulting difficulties experienced by former residents when a low-income community is removed. By arguing that, authorities and developers in State College do not pay much attention to the poorer sectors of the area, he recognized the lack of affordable housing and commented on the potential problem he might face in an eventual future displacement process from the trailer park residential place.

The lack of affordable housing and its social costs

The relative meaning given to a particular place is no doubt also derived from aspects

of its functional or pragmatic use. In the example being studied, the trailer parks were conveniently located to bus stops, grocery stores, shopping centers and schools. An example of this is the proximity to bus stops that form part of the Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) public bus system. At least four different routes (N, V, W and H) and adjacent bus pass nearby the trailer parks being studied (CATA Website 2004, see appendixes for maps of the bus routes).

An immediate problem associated with the displacement process is whether or not these persons once displaced will be able to resettle nearby or even in the same area or town. Factual information from the US Census American Fact Finder shows that the median value for all owner-occupied housing units in 1999 was $104,990.625. This figure is in sharp contrast to the median value of owner-occupied mobile homes, which was $17,375.96 (US Census 2000, American Fact Finder website, see appendixes for tables). Being an affluent area, the demand for median and high cost housing in the State College area presents a notable dilemma for low-income people like the trailer park residents who do not have the necessary “monetary resources” to participate in the housing market. Even though that particular fact, the median household income of the

9

area has stayed relatively constant for the period from 1989 to 1999. The median household income for 1989 was $26,060 and for 1999 it was $37,476.67(US Census 2000 and 1990). This represents a nominal change of approximately $11,000, but considering the approximate $3,000 inflation difference between the period, it amounts to an increase of a little more of $8,000 (US Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics on the website: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm). This represents an approximate 1.5% increase per year within a decade, a fairly stable result for a ten years period.

Matt Hall of Interfaith Mission indicated that the trailer park displacement problem has raised concern about the structure of the State College housing market and the lack of affordable housing within the area. As he stated in an interview for The Centre Daily Times (October 2003):

The problem in State College, it being a very affluent community, is more low-income people are forced to live in rundown trailer parks or are forced to move… The community has to realize that these people are residents and the townships and boroughs need to take care of these people. (October 29, 2003. The America’s Newspaper Website)

The lack of low income and income-based housing in Centre County forces many displaced low-income people, including children and families, to search for affordable and available houses outside the State College area. Resettlement in more distant areas makes the use of the automobile indispensable to conduct the daily business of a working person with responsibilities. The pragmatic “place meaning”, refers to a particular location that serves certain personal needs for an individual or group of individuals. Pragmatic place meaning in the case of the displaced families, is exemplified in a comment made by a female resident of the displaced trailer park at North Atherton Street, fearing the possibility of having to move out of the State College Area School District, due to the lack of affordable housing in the Borough:

I don’t want to go to another school district, …I want to try to stay in that school. They’ve got a real good rapport and I don’t want to break up what they’ve got going together (Centre Daily Times, September 2003).

The Digital Collegian (November 5, 2003), which is the digital version of the Penn State student newspaper, investigated the issue and highlighted the difficulties faced by the displaced residents during their resettlement process:

… residents have very limited options as to where to move because of their limited access to transportation. For others

10

with disabilities, it takes a lot of coordination to arrange for help with the physically strenuous task of moving.

The displaced people have two possible options: move out of the State College Borough in hopes of finding a cheap house in a rural area, which would require the possession of a personal automobile to commute to town, or pay a higher rent (than the $225 monthly payment for being in the trailer park) to stay in the State College Borough. According to Matt Hall, both options presented problems because almost 60 percent of the residents of the former trailer park lived below the poverty line and in many cases were receiving disability income, welfare, social security payments, among other helps.

Place meanings and conflicting perspectives

The way local government and developers give value and meaning to “place” differs significantly from trailer park residents. “Place meaning” is part of broader discourses and encompasses a range of symbols reflecting particular group interests. It is a signal of values of different members of society in terms of the meaning and interpretation of land use or land use change (Yung, Freimund and Belsky, 2003). For the commercial interests of State College, the trailer parks represent what in a discourse that highlights the “life” versus the “decay, of a geographical region.

This kind of exclusive discourse relates the “life” of the State College area with the growing commercialization of the region and the desire to remove some of the “obstacles” (like the trailer parks) that detract from the visual appeal of the area. In consonance with this line of reasoning, a Centre Daily Times (February 1, 2004) article made reference to the comments of the president of the Chamber of Business and Industry in Centre County, John Coleman, who recognized the shift in the region’s economy from one based on manufacturing to one based on services and retail activities was occurring. He predicted the presence of “more national chains in the area because of its outdoor, sporting and entertainment attraction and an economy which draws workers from afar.” (Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspaper website, February 1, 2004). As personally stated by Coleman when referring to the Centre region:

It’s becoming more of a regional destination and I think you’ll continue see the larger developers show up on our landscape…You’re either growing or declining, and I’m glad we’re on the growing side. (Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspaper website, February 1, 2004)

This perspective (from the developers and retailers perspective) of the potential “representations of space” no doubt differ from the “spaces of representations” that the residents of the trailer park attribute to their place, which is considered an essential part of their life (see Gibson, 2004). Relative “place meanings” opposed to the views held by commercial and development sectors are also embodied in the views of residents of the Centre Region. Treasuring the open space of the area, these persons are “concerned about the rate of development, about sprawl, groundwater

11

pollution due to runoff from paved surfaces and the erosion of the region’s rural character.” (Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspapers website, February 1, 2004). When asked “if he believed other trailer parks in and around the Atherton Street corridor might face a similar fate due to high demand for land in that area” Dan Hawbaker, who is the main investor in the new commercial development project on North Atherton”, he agreed. (Centre Daily Times, October 2, 2002). Being in the middle of a growing commercial area, the trailer parks might seem incompatible with the potential “spaces of representation” that the developers visualize as their primary goal for the State College borough.

Preliminary Conclusion The economic landscape of the State College borough presents a growing commercialization that is changing in a definitive way the rural geography of the whole area. The construction of new residential developments nearby the shopping centers and commercial complexes is an example of the multiplicative effect created by these economic geography tendencies. The utilization of this rural land for commercial purposes increases not only its own economical value, but the value of the nearby residential developments. The houses surrounding the shopping centers, executive offices, among other service oriented industries tend to be more expensive because of their proximity and accessibility to these places. These residences are “fertile ground” for potential gentrifiers that could populate the State College commercial and office area.

This reality leaves the residents from the remaining trailer parks in a difficult situation if we consider the fact that these very low-income communities are in the middle of growing commercial region. The market value of this residential oriented land is in sharp contrast with the increasing value of surrounding and nearby commercial and recent residential terrains. Having in mind that these trailer communities are nearby commercial complexes that have the potential of extending beyond their current locations, we could expect in a near future the displacement of the remaining trailer parks as a first step to "spectacularize" and "make over" this particular space and attract more commercial investment to the area. Future research and policy making decisions should center their attention in lack of affordable housing crisis within the State College area and the potential resettlement difficulties of low-income people (many of them being below the poverty level) that are unable to find a new house nearby their former residential place where they were able to have accessibility to certain daily attendance places. Understanding the needs, interests and particular “place meaning” constructions from the trailer park residents as a focus point for the policy making and development processes does not guarantees an instant solution to the problem, but at least it represents a more democratic way of handling these complex issue.

Acknowledgments

12

• Dr. Amy Glasmeier for mentoring me during this rookie research journey. Her support and unconditional help were important factors during this new learning experience.

• Professor Tania López from the University of Puerto Rico, Department of Geography. Without her help, I wouldn’t be doing this splendid SROP research experience.

• My parents Nívea and Wilson for believing in me and supporting me during the 2004 summer experience at Penn State University.

• My research partner in Puerto Rico, Yalis De Jesús for helping me to select the literature related to the topics analyzed on this research project.

• Bill for all his help with the quantitative data search and map designing. • Matt Hall from Interfaith Mission for giving from his time to answer my

questions and for giving me some important newspaper articles related to the issue being studied.

• Cindy Freeman Fail from the Earth and Mineral Science College for giving me this extraordinary opportunity.

• The SROP office at Penn State for being responsible for all this great experience. • Professors Carlos Guilbe, Francisco Watlington and Angel David Cruz from the

Department of Geography and Professor Héctor Martínez from the Department of Political Science at the University of Puerto Rico for all their help and for being important sources of inspiration.

• Richard Nicholson, who made the time at the lab more enjoyable and shared with me some frustration commonalties related to the research project.

• The Penn State University Department of Geography for participating in the 2004 SROP program.

Bibliography

Blomley, N. (2004). Unsettling the city: Urban land and the politics of property. Great Britain: Routledge publishers Brenckle, L. (2003, October 2). Developers will help tenants with relocation. Centre Daily Times, pp. A7-A8. __________. (2003, October 29). Local aid helps trailer park residents relocate. Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspaper Website. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_docid=0FE98483... __________. (2004, March 24). Two refuse to vacate trailers. Centre Daily Times, pp. A1 and A7. Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA) website. www.catabus.com Congress of the United States of America. (1986). Revitalization, Gentrification and the low-income housing crisis: hearing before a subcommittee of the committee on

13

government operations, House of Representatives, ninety-ninth Congress, second session, June 12, 1986. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office Gelb, J. and Lions, M. (1991). A tale of two cities: housing policy and gentrification in London and New York. London: South Bank Polytechnic, Department of Planning, Housing and Development. Gibson, T. A. (2004). Securing the spectacular city: the politics of revitalization and homelessness in Downtown Seattle. USA: Lexington Books. Hirsch, J.M. (2004, July 4). Gas stations become grocery stores in “food deserts”. Associated Press at boston.com. Retrieved July 5, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://webmail.psu.edu/webmail/retrieve.cgi?mailbox=inbox&message_num=10&display=... Joseph, M. (2003, September 16). Land sale puts tenants on spot. Centre Daily Times, pp. A1 and A6. __________. (2003, November 9). Centre Line in search of low-cost housing. Centre Daily Times at the America’s Newspaper Website. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_docid=0FEBD431... __________. (2003, December 14). Prepare to move on some trailer-park residents relish opportunity as deadline looms. Centre Daily Times at The America’s Newspaper Website. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_docid=0FF75DA6... Lamb, C. (2003, November 5). Construction forces closing of local trailer park. The Digital Collegian. Retrieved November 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/11/11-05-03dnews-05.asp Muñiz, V. (1998). Resisting gentrification and displacement: voices of Puerto Rican women of The Barrio. New York and London: garland Publishing, Inc. Nyden, P. W. and Wievel W., eds. (1991). Challenging uneven development: an urban agenda for the 1990s. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Rosemblum C. (2004, February 1). Centre region focus of County Growth. Centre Daily Times at America’s Newspaper website. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iwsearch/we/InfoWeb?p_action=docid=100783B8F... Slater, T. (2002). “What is gentrification”. Gentrification web. Retrieved June 8, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://members.lycos.co.uk/gentrification/whatisgent.html

14

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. Great Britain: Routledge Publishers. Teaford, J. C. (1990). The rough road to renaissance: urban revitalization in America, 1940-1985. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. US Government Census 2000 website. American fact finder: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en US Government Department of Labor website. Bureau of labor statistics: consumer price indexes. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm Yung, L. and Freimund W.A. and Belsky J.M. (2003). “The politics of place: understanding meaning, common ground and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front,” Forest Science. Bethesda: December 2003. Vol. 49, Iss. 6; pg. 855.

15

Table 1

Tract and Block Median Household income in 1999

Owner-occupied mobile homes: median value

Tract 101, Block 1 30000 24300 Tract 101, Block 2 35893 20900 Tract 101, Block 3 41875 27500 Tract 101, Block 4 39875 23300 Tract 102, Block 1 31689 24600 Tract 102, Block 2 40398 45000 Tract 102, Block 3 30833 23300 Tract 103, Block 1 16142 32500 Tract 103, Block 2 31689 9999 Tract 103, Block 3 34968 12500 Tract 104, Block 1 32115 13800 Tract 104, Block 2 38500 72900 Tract 104, Block 3 36620 42300 Tract 105, Block 1 40363 22300 Tract 105, Block 2 38500 15600 Tract 105, Block 3 41439 40800 Tract 105, Block 4 31932 32500 Tract 106, Block 1 39922 19600 Tract 106, Block 2 35508 26900 Tract 106, Block 3 40429 28800 Tract 107, Block 1 41985 30000 Tract 107, Block 2 43690 40000 Tract 107, Block 3 53550 36900 Tract 108, Block 1 33074 42500 Tract 108, Block 2 37381 60000 Tract 108, Block 3 37000 24000 Tract 108, Block 4 41544 31900 Tract 109, Block 1 37500 12300 Tract 109, Block 2 42841 51700 Tract 109, Block 3 41875 65600 Tract 109, Block 4 42143 27500 Tract 109, Block 5 39943 20100 Tract 109, Block 6 50000 79400 Tract 110, Block 1 36016 29800 Tract 110, Block 2 42000 9999 Tract 110, Block 3 36731 0 Tract 110, Block 4 44697 0 Tract 110, Block 5 42568 23900 Tract 111, Block 1 28304 0 Tract 111, Block 2 32727 0

16

Tract 111, Block 3 39477 0 Tract 111, Block 4 35096 0 Tract 111, Block 5 42969 0 Tract 111, Block 6 30962 0 Tract 111, Block 7 27143 12500 Tract 112, Block 1 36875 21200 Tract 112, Block 2 49694 18000 Tract 112, Block 3 46136 9999 Tract 113, Block 1 47500 15000 Tract 113, Block 2 22075 19700 Tract 113, Block 3 44038 85000 Tract 113, Block 4 37768 0 Tract 114, Block 1 62833 9999 Tract 114, Block 2 68750 9999 Tract 114, Block 3 48300 0 Tract 115, Block 1 48345 0 Tract 115, Block 2 42432 9999 Tract 115, Block 3 27064 0 Tract 116, Block 1 50438 0 Tract 116, Block 2 53427 0 Tract 117, Block 1 56410 0 Tract 117, Block 2 37976 9999 Tract 118, Block 1 52177 0 Tract 118, Block 2 49412 11700 Tract 118, Block 3 66719 0 Tract 119.01, Block 1 62198 75000 Tract 119.02, Block 1 46473 0 Tract 119.02, Block 2 65772 30000 Tract 119.02, Block 3 65781 37500 Tract 120, Block 1 36154 137500 Tract 120, Block 2 14917 0 Tract 120, Block 3 17768 0 Tract 120, Block 4 16167 0 Tract 120, Block 5 10643 0 Tract 121, Block 1 15660 0 Tract 121, Block 2 36250 0 Tract 121, Block 3 25139 0 Tract 122, Block 1 0 0 Tract 122, Block 2 0 0 Tract 122, Block 3 6078 0 Tract 122, Block 4 0 0 Tract 123, Block 1 56458 0 Tract 123, Block 2 77570 0 Tract 124, Block 1 19386 0 Tract 124, Block 2 27708 0

17

Tract 124, Block 3 12780 0 Tract 125, Block 1 10776 0 Tract 125, Block 2 12784 0 Tract 126, Block 1 17794 0 Tract 126, Block 2 16747 0 Tract 127, Block 1 70625 0 Tract 127, Block 2 43224 0 Tract 127, Block 3 55625 9999 Tract 128, Block 1 70357 0 Tract 128, Block 2 24365 0 Tract 128, Block 3 24286 0 Mean 37,476.67 17,375.96 Source: US Census 2000 American Fact Finder

18

Table 2 Variable 1989 1999 Median household income 26,060 37,476.67 Aggregate selected monthly owner costs by mortgage status: with a mortgage (owner-occupied mobile homes or trailers)

624,872

10,484.375

Aggregate selected monthly owner costs by mortgage status: without a mortgage (owner-occupied mobile homes or trailers)

331,885

4,626.041667

Source: US Census 2000 American Fact Finder

19

Accessible Bus Routes

Source: Central Area Transportation Authority (CATA) website – www.catabus.com

20

Accessible Bus Routes

Source: Central Area Transportation Authority (CATA) website – www.catabus.com