A Regional Assessment of Fair Housing For Hidalgo County, TX

A
Regional Assessment of Fair Housing for Hidalgo County, TX
The stories of the people

SiJng on a worn, faded green couch in her sunlit living room, Norma Aldape recalls the painful
aMermath of Hurricane Dolly nearly a decade ago, when ooding inundated her home and the rest of
In far South Texas, along the
her small community in rural Hidalgo County, Texas.
border with Mexico, housing
segrega=on takes a unique form in Aldape, a 41-year-old mother who speaks with a soM yet determined demeanor, has lived in
rapidly growing Hidalgo County. Olivarez Acres for the past 14 years with her husband and six children. This humble residen=al
neighborhood lies about 8 miles outside of Mercedes, Texas, and like many other low-income
Many foreign born immigrants communi=es beyond municipal boundaries, it lacks cri=cal infrastructure. At the =me of the hurricane, it
and people with limited English had no drainage system.
prociency are excluded by We were underwater for three weeks, Aldape says in Spanish as family members amble across a
tradi=on and public policy from hallway stacked with boxes and childrens toys behind her. The water didnt drain on its own. They had
non impoverished urban to come with [tanker trucks] to take out the water.
neighborhoods. To make ma[ers worse, sewage from overowing sep=c tanks saturated the stagnant oodwaters.
With a pair of infant twins born prematurely just a year earlier, Aldape knew it wouldnt be safe to stay.
Residen=al segrega=on exacts the
same high price on its vic=ms in Thats unhealthy for everyone, she says. There wasnt anything for my children.
Hidalgo County as it does She found refuge for her family with rela=ves nearby, but the damage to her home, which her
elsewhere in the country. husband built with his own hands, was severe. In the absence of government assistance and with limited
income, the family was faced with rebuilding their home li[le by li[le. And Hurricane Dolly wasnt the
Vic=ms of housing discrimina=on last =me they saw ooding.
live in colonias and impoverished
Since [the hurricane], weve been suering from oods, Aldape says. And not just with hurricanes
urban barrios, isolated from retail, but also when theres just enough rain.
employment, public safety, quality
Aldape is not alone in her plight. Her story is a glimpse into the distressing reality of life in the
schools, with inadequate public
colonias of Texas, where hundreds of thousands of mostly low-income La=nos live in substandard and
services.
isola=ng condi=ons along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Though colonia simply means neighborhood in Spanish, the term is used to describe
unincorporated, makeshiM communi=es that frequently lack the basic infrastructure available in ci=es,
www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 1

including adequate drainage and sewage systems,
public ligh=ng, paved roads, and safe housing.
Olivarez Acres is just one of about 2,300 colonias in
Texas, which has the largest colonia popula=on of
any state. In Hidalgo County alone, there are about
850 colonias.
To take a closer look at fair housing issues in Hidalgo
County, Texas Low Income Housing Informa=on
Service, also known as Texas Housers, recently
analyzed the condi=ons of neighborhoods across the
county. The analysis revealed a system of residen=al
segrega=on in which families and individuals who live
in colonias and similarly impoverished
neighborhoods within city limits face greater barriers
to opportunity than those who live in low-poverty
urban neighborhoods.
Colonia residents in par=cular are oMen cut o from
public services, facili=es, and benets that allow
individuals and families to thrive. They live far from
jobs and in areas vulnerable to natural and manmade
hazards. Poverty, isola=on, and language barriers,
combined with a lack of aordable housing op=ons in
ALL ALONG THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER, HUNDREDS ci=es, further deprive colonia residents of equal access to opportunity.
OF THOUSANDS OF MOSTLY LOW-INCOME LATINOS
LIVE IN COLONIAS THAT LACK BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE The analysis also found that low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods tend to have larger white
AND SERVICES. PHOTO BY JOHN HENNEBERGER, popula=ons than poor areas both in and outside of ci=es.
2013.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 were meant to break down the walls
of segrega=on and to create truly integrated living environments. As Texas Housers analysis shows, that
objec=ve has yet to be achieved in Hidalgo County. But a 2015 rule from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may provide a way to advance housing equality in the county.
The Arma=vely Furthering Fair Housing rule is the federal governments latest eort to address
segrega=on and promote fair housing choice. Under the rule, local governments and housing authori=es
that receive HUD funding, which includes those in Hidalgo County, are required to iden=fy and address
pa[erns of segrega=on and dispari=es in access to opportunity. As Hidalgo County is currently draMing

its Assessment of Fair Housing plan, county residents have the chance to weigh in and demand that their
local ocials take meaningful ac=ons to overcome segrega=on and inequality.
Inequality in the Rio Grande Valley is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced back to an era when
Anglo Texans brazenly ins=tuted discriminatory prac=ces and policies to exclude Mexicans from white
neighborhoods, public services, and civic life. Today, the Rio Grande Valley occupies a unique posi=on
when it comes to ma[ers of civil rights and fair housing. Unlike in other areas of the country,
discrimina=on and segrega=on are not as obvious as white-versus-brown. The current poli=cal
leadership in Hidalgo County is predominantly Mexican American, and the vast majority of the regions
popula=on iden=es as Hispanic. Yet discrimina=on persists in the county and throughout the Rio
Grande Valley, where many residents principally poor immigrants with limited English prociency and
their families remain vic=ms of a separate and unequal system of residen=al segrega=on with roots
more than a century old.
***
Discrimina=on, segrega=on, and violence commi[ed by Anglos against people of Mexican origin has
been a part of the Rio Grande Valleys story ever since the United States seized the territory in the
Mexican-American War. Throughout the la[er half of the 19th century, white Americans especially in
the form of the Texas Rangers and vigilante posses subjugated Mexicans in the new U.S. territory
through acts of terror and twisted fron=er jus=ce.
There were a lot of lynchings, Jennifer R. Njera, associate professor of ethnic studies at the
University of CaliforniaRiverside, told Texas Housers. This was really just to establish dominance, in the
sense that, There is a new system, a new racial order, and Anglos are going to be on the top of that
order.
In her book, The Borderlands of Race: Mexican Segrega8on in a South Texas Town, Njera describes
the Texas Rangers as a sort of fron=er police force in Texas. But, she writes, as borderlands historians
have noted, rather than apply the law objec=vely, the Rangers eec=vely promoted the interests of
Anglo Texas to acquire land and power. Even though interna=onal law granted ci=zenship to Mexicans in
the new territory, Njera argues, the prevalence of an=-Mexican violence relegated them to second-
class-ci=zen status.
Such tac=cs helped set the stage for what came in the early 20th century, when segrega=on as we
think of it today really began to take hold in the Rio Grande Valley. The arrival of the railroad to the Valley
brought an inux of Anglo farmers and land speculators from across the United States and set in mo=on
the regions transforma=on from a ranching economy to an agricultural economy. And in this new
economy, Anglos would be the farmers and Mexicans their laborers.

These werent small family farms, either, said John
Morn Gonzlez, director of the Center for
Mexican-American Studies at the University of
Texas at Aus=n. It was a managerial agribusiness
model where they weren't there to farm the land.
They were there to get rich managing cheap labor.
Tejano ranchers, already dispossessed of their land,
and a steady ow of Mexican immigrants
represented a large and inexpensive labor force
that the new white elites could exploit. A racialized
division of labor had formed.
However, Njera argues, this division of labor
wasnt enough to sustain a system of segrega=on.
It also required, in part, widespread nega=ve racial
aJtudes about Mexicans and local customs that
enacted those aJtudes in the form of segrega=on.
Whites from the East Coast, Southeast, and
Midwest were already accustomed to segrega=on
in their home states. So when they arrived in the
Valley, Njera said, they sought to gure out where
to place Mexicans in the racial hierarchy. Legally,
Mexicans were considered white. But on the
ground, it was a more complex ma[er. Some
people of Mexican origin mainly those with
more wealth, educa=on, and Anglo cultural uency
M EXICAN RESIDENCES IN S AN J UAN , T EXAS , 1939. were able to make par=al claims to whiteness and the privileges that held. But Anglos tended to
I NCREDIBLY , CONDITIONS FOR SOME COLONIA view the majority of Mexicans as nonwhite and thus inferior.
RESIDENTS HAVE IMPROVED LITTLE TODAY . P HOTO BY
R USSELL L EE . They were bringing their ideas about segrega=on with them to the region, Njera said in a phone
interview. So, the migra=on of people comes with the migra=on of ideas and social norms, which
happened to be racist.
In the ci=es that formed along the railroads, segrega=on was as clear as the tracks that divided
them. The line was enforced by signs on businesses reading No Mexicans Allowed and Whites Only.
It was supported by both authori=es and individuals who barred Mexicans from using certain public

restrooms, hospitals, schools, restaurants,
hotels, and other public and private
establishments. And segrega=on was formalized
in the policies of many real estate companies.
The McAllen Real Estate Board and Delta
Development Company, for example, refused to
sell property to Mexicans in the white part of
town.
[Ci=es in the Rio Grande Valley] were actually
planned so that there's a separate Mexican
neighborhood, usually on the other side of the
tracks from the white neighborhood, Njera
said. On the Anglo side of town, you'll have
larger lots. You'll have more infrastructure,
sidewalks, parks, schools, City Hall, and the
main-street kinds of businesses everything
that has to do with the public life of a city
usually happens on the Anglo side of town. The
Mexican side of towns, she said, were more like
shanty towns. They were very cramped. They
oMen experienced ooding when there were
rains. They were the last to get indoor plumbing
and sidewalks and those kinds of things. It was a
really unequal structure.
MEXICAN MIGRANT HOUSING IN EDCOUCH, TEXAS, 1939. Another factor that reinforced segrega=on and
THE UNITS WERE OWNED BY A LABOR CONTRACTOR WHO further isolated Mexican communi=es was the establishment of the Border Patrol in 1924. Though
RENTED THEM TO HIS WORKERS, WHO WOULD WORK FOR ocers were charged with enforcing civil laws, Njera writes in her book that they took a more
ABOUT NINE MONTHS EACH YEAR IN THE VEGETABLE AND aggressive approach, one that resembled the pursuit of criminals: Border Patrol ocers would prac=ce
CITRUS FIELDS OF THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY. PHOTO
racial proling, interroga=ng Mexican laborers on roads and in towns as well as conduc=ng sweeps to
BY RUSSELL LEE.
apprehend suspected illegals. In her research on the town of La Feria, she found that even U.S.
ci=zens of Mexican origin would ee the Border Patrol agents for fear of deporta=on.
Following World War II, the regime of strict segrega=on in the Rio Grande Valley imposed
through racial violence and discriminatory aJtudes, prac=ces, and policies began to weaken. While
many whites s=ll supported segrega=on, schools and other ins=tu=ons were star=ng to integrate,
though oMen with the goal of assimila=ng Mexican Americans into Anglo culture. At the same =me,

Mexican Americans who had fought in the war were returning home with a degree of economic
stability granted by the GI Bill. But as Njera pointed out to Texas Housers, that just creates this class
of Mexican Americans who are sort of excep=ons to the rule of segrega=on.
The post-war period was also when the concept of colonias emerged. Long before the term
colonia was coined, poor laborers who couldnt aord housing in ci=es lived out on larger ranches
and farms where oMen they also worked. These were li[le more than worker camps whose
residents were the poorest of the working poor, writes Chad Richardson, former professor at the
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, in his book Batos, Bolillos, Pochos and Pelados. By the 1950s,
however, some landowners realized a way to prot from unproduc=ve or ood-prone farmland by
subdividing the land into small parcels, puJng in some roads and electrical lines here and there, and
selling the lots to farmworkers and Mexican immigrants who had been excluded from ci=es. These
subdivisions were what would come to be known as colonias.
At face value, the colonias represented opportunity for the poor workers and families who bought
these cheap plots of land: By living outside the city limits, Richardson writes, the new owners could
get around loosely wri[en and poorly enforced building codes. Here, they could build whatever house
they could aord. The downside, of course, was the lack of basic services and risk of ooding.
Addi=onally, the payments for these proper=es tended to carry high interest rates.
Most importantly, perhaps, colonia residents remained at the margins of society, both literally
and gura=vely. Their physical distance from city centers greatly limited their access to jobs, schools,
hospitals, and other services that even some poor city dwellers could access. And with no poli=cal
clout to eect change, colonia residents couldnt compel county ocials to address their needs.
The civil rights movement that emerged in the 1960s sought to address precisely this sort of
inequality. Farmworkers and chicano ac=vists organized to ght against segrega=on and
socioeconomic inequality and for greater representa=on in poli=cal and civic life. The movement gave
greater voice to the Mexican American community at large, and by the end of the 20th century, many
Mexican Americans had moved into the middle class.
Despite these gains, en=re classes of people in the Rio Grande Valley today s=ll have no choice
but to live in underserved colonias and poor urban barrios systema=cally cut o from opportunity and
upward mobility.
***
Even with the challenges they face, colonias are vibrant and vital communi=es. They are places
where families, who could not otherwise aord it, can own a piece of land. They are home to

hardworking and determined people looking for
their fair shake at the American dream, people
who have to ght twice as hard just to get basic
necessi=es like clean water or a simple streetlight
on their corner, who sacrice the li[le =me and
money they have to work for, organize for, or pay
for the services other communi=es take for
granted.
The people of the colonias s=ll have a long way to
go before they are liMed from their present
condi=ons, but in some places they are making
progress, especially through campaigning by La
Unin del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), a civil rights
group founded by Csar Chvez that works with
colonias and immigrants, and A Resource in
Serving Equality (ARISE), a faith-based, women-
led group helping children and families in the
colonias overcome barriers to success.
Several years aMer Hurricane Dolly ooded Norma
Aldapes home, her family received a new house
through a pilot disaster recovery housing
program. Its a modern-looking yet modest abode
with tall, white ceilings and an ample front porch.
More importantly, though, its constructed with
safety in mind. Unlike many of the improvised
MEMBERS OF ARISE AND LUPE HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE construc=ons common in colonias, her home has
OUTSIDE OF THE HIDALGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT concrete support beams built into the ground. Its also raised high enough to avoid frequent ooding.
BUILDING TO KICK OFF THEIR CAMPAIGN TO BRING EQUITABLE
And if a strong storm were to cause serious damage, its made of modules, making it easier to rebuild.
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS TO THE COLONIAS IN HIDALGO COUNTY.
PHOTO BY JOSU RAMREZ. FEBRUARY 2017. But Aldape is one of the fortunate ones. In October 2015, not long aMer geJng the keys to her new
house, a heavy rain ooded much of her community once again.
I had many mixed feelings, she recalls. I was happy that my children could come out and not get
soaked geJng in the truck, and we could leave. But I was looking around and all my neighbors had to
tread through water to get in their cars.

Along with fellow members of LUPE, Aldape has
worked for years to bring drainage systems,
public ligh=ng, paved roads, and other services
to colonias in Hidalgo County. And shes seen
some localized successes, including a deep, new
drainage ditch running along her street. S=ll, she
knows much more work is needed to address the
inequali=es that put families like hers at a
disadvantage.
We live in colonias because we dont have
money to live in the city where there are all the
conveniences like public transporta=on, garbage
[collec=on], or simply internet, she says. We
dont have all these privileges. Why? Because we
live in the county. We all want these privileges,
but its a shame to see that we have to ght for
our necessi=es when our commissioners should
be providing these necessi=es.
The residen=al segrega=on that exists today in
PHOTO 5: THROUGH A PILOT DISASTER RECOVERY HOUSING the Rio Grande Valley is not based on the overt
PROGRAM, NORMA ALDAPES FAMILY RECEIVED A NEW HOME racism that dened it in the previous century. However, the separate and unequal system that Anglos
BETTER EQUIPPED TO WITHSTAND STORMS AND FLOODING.
established in that era con=nues to disenfranchise vulnerable popula=ons. The power dynamic is no
longer as simple as Anglo oppression of Mexicans. Rather, it is driven by a complex set of shiMing and
interweaving iden==es among a mostly Hispanic popula=on: mul=genera=onal Mexican Americans
versus recent immigrants; documented versus undocumented; lighter skin versus darker skin; bilingual
versus monolingual Spanish-speaker.
In short, its complicated, Njera told Texas Housers. And its not neatly about Mexican Americans
versus immigrants. For example, she said, there might be a lighter-skinned immigrant who enjoys more
privilege than a darker-skinned Mexican American. Or an undocumented immigrant who speaks perfect
English may have more opportunity than a Mexican American who spent most of his life only speaking
Spanish.
Its really dicult to disentangle, Njera said. But certainly, I think that these legacies of power
and inequality are s=ll present.

Texas Housers analysis of Hidalgo County neighborhoods demonstrates that these inequali=es
persist indeed. Researchers at Texas Housers started by laying out three =ers of separate and unequal
residen=al areas that exist in Hidalgo County: 1) high-poverty areas outside incorporated areas where
colonias are primarily located; 2) high-poverty neighborhoods inside incorporated areas; and 3) low-
poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods inside city limits.
The analysis showed that, on average, low-poverty incorporated neighborhoods have access to
higher quality schools, more than twice as many employment opportuni=es, and over double the
labor force par=cipa=on and human capital compared to the unincorporated colonia areas. High-
poverty incorporated neighborhoods also had higher quality schools, more employment opportuni=es,
and more labor force par=cipa=on and human capital on average than the colonias. Addi=onally,
transporta=on costs tend to be lower for neighborhoods in incorporated areas.
Texas Housers also found that the propor=on of white, non-Hispanic residents in low-poverty
incorporated neighborhoods was about four =mes higher than in both colonias and high-poverty
incorporated areas, where more than nine out of 10 residents are Hispanic or La=no. Heres another
way to look at the racial disparity between neighborhood types: 69 percent of high-poverty
unincorporated areas are in racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. That means more
than two-thirds of unincorporated colonias and similar neighborhoods are in majority non-white areas
where more than 40 percent of residents live below the poverty line.
Lastly, Texas Housers found that although the majority of the popula=ons both within and outside
of city limits is na=ve-born, the propor=on of immigrants in unincorporated areas is higher than in the
ci=es.
One thing that isnt so easy to measure is how colonia residents internalize the s=gma of poverty,
immigra=on status, or lack of opportunity in general and in many cases, how they refuse to stand
idle despite enormous obstacles.
***
Lizbeth Ramos, an 18-year-old recent high school graduate, grew up in South Tower Estates, a
colonia sandwiched between an open lagoon sewer treatment plant and the city limits of Alamo,
Texas. The lagoon, which serves the city but not South Tower Estates, emits a noxious odor that
permeates the colonia.
Even if the door was closed, even if the windows were closed, it would s=ll smell inside, she
says. It smells like poop. It smells like animal stu. It smells so bad some=mes that you couldn't even
stand outside for a while.

She says people from outside the community would
oMen ask her thoughtless ques=ons. Everybody that
visited is kind of like, You like to live where it smells?
Are you happy that you live where it smells? And,
no, we are not happy that we live in a place that
smells. We are not happy that we have to smell
somebody elses waste.
Ramos family moved into Alamo several years ago.
She says its a huge relief not to smell the fe=d
lagoon anymore. The air is actually fresh, she says.
You can spend =me outside. But moving away from
the colonia hasnt stopped Ramos from gh=ng for
those who s=ll live there.
As a youth leader with South Tower Power, a
campaign that seeks to end environmental injus=ces
in colonias, Ramos and other high school students
have pushed state and local ocials to eliminate the
treatment facilitys foul smell. These young people
organized their community to report the eects of
the foul smell to TCEQ, whose inves=ga=ons
ALBERTA RAMIREZ STANDS WITH HER GRANDDAUGHTER ON determined that the facility violated the law. As a
THE STEPS OF HER HOME OUTSIDE OF EDINBURG, TEXAS. consequence, the City of Alamo has pledged to invest $1.7 million for planning to retrot the plant with
RAMIREZ SAYS INCREASING BORDER MILITARIZATION WILL MAKE pumps and aerators to reduce the smell.
COMMUNITIES LIKE HERS LESS SAFE. PHOTO BY DANI
MARRERO HI. AUGUST 2017. Unfortunately, the retrots have not completely solved the problem. The plant con=nues to release
intermi[ent odors, and community members say that it should be upgraded permanently.
What we really want, Ramos says, is for the [wastewater] ouall to turn into a mechanical plant,
and for it to be updated and to be checked every =me that it needs to be, because we don't want the
smell anymore.
***
Even though most colonia residents are U.S. ci=zens, many are immigrants, and virtually everyone
living in colonias has family or knows someone who is an immigrant. So its understandable that the
current rise in an=-immigrant legisla=on and increasing militariza=on of the border have many colonia
residents on edge. Fearing racial proling by police and deporta=on, many immigrants and their
families are wary to step outside their already isolated communi=es.

Alberta Ramirez, a 53-year-old grandmother who lives in a colonia on the outskirts of Edinburg,
Texas, came to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990. She says many immigrants in the colonias are worried
about new laws giving local police the authority to enforce immigra=on law.
We dont go out with condence. And for those who dont have a drivers license, its a fear
simply to take their kids to school, to the doctor, Ramirez says in Spanish.
She says these laws make communi=es like hers less safe by discouraging immigrants from
repor=ng crime, because how are you going to talk to the police if the police are going to come and
ask you your immigra=on status? If you [are undocumented], its be[er to stay silent.
Its an outcome not all too dierent than what happened in the early days of the Border Patrol:
Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, and their family members are driven back into the
shadows.
The stories presented here, Ramirez, however, hasnt stayed silent. With fellow members of LUPE, she campaigns for
together with the neighborhood immigrants rights, to keep families from being torn apart.
analysis that follows, document
We are not gh=ng for ourselves, she says, but for our families, so that there are no more
the harmful eects of a children without their fathers and their mothers.
separate and unequal housing
and neighborhoods. They also ***
remind us that increasing Josu Lpez was living in a house he built with his family when Hurricane Dolly ravaged his colonia
aordable housing choices gives in 2008. Strong winds ripped the shingles from the roof and wrenched the garage door from its hinges.
families be[er lives. Water ooded the house, and eventually, much of the structure was destroyed.
The best thing a family can have is property and to know that you can give it to your children, to
The Hidalgo County Assessment know that it is a house for which you have worked hard for many years, Lpez says in Spanish. Seeing
of Fair Housing must the damage and knowing that I didnt have [money] to x it. That is frustra=ng.
acknowledge and propose a
Two years ago, with the aid of a pilot rehousing program, Lpez and his family were able to leave
solu=on for the enduring legacy
the colonia and secured safe and aordable housing in San Juan, Texas. He says the moving into the
of racial and ethnic residen=al
city has improved life for his family.
segrega=on and the extreme
inequality of opportunity it My children each have their own room, he says. We have a spacious back pa=o where the kids
produces for colonias and play. We dont have problems with them geJng too close to the street, even though its a pre[y quiet
barrios. neighborhood. We dont have problems with cars rushing by or people doing bad things. Also, its a
place that doesnt ood.

Lpez recognizes that most people arent so lucky, and he believes government ocials should do
more to help those less fortunate.
The government has a responsibility to use all its resources on the people, because at the end of
the day, the people are what make this country. So if we improve the condi=ons of families, we have
be[er families.
Video (click below to play) or go to https://vimeo.com/233856686
Texas Low Income Housing Informa=on Service www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 12
Data and analysis
Hidalgo County is in many ways The analysis of fair housing for Hidalgo County performed by TxLIHIS is broken into
dierent from the rest of the three parts which together demonstrate a pattern of growth, development, and
country. It has the highest provision of public services over decades that has negatively affected those living both
concentra=on of poverty in the in the colonias and model subdivisions found predominately in unincorporated areas of
US. 91 percent of the popula=on the county, and in high poverty areas within city limits.
is Hispanic or La=no. The The first section will briefly examine patterns of development with regard to
tradi=onal white/black racial colonias, as well as model subdivisions built since the mid-1990s under rules adopted to
binary that underlies fair housing address the infrastructure and public services issues that have long plagued colonias in
issues in most of the US is not the Hidalgo County, as they have in Texas at large. This section will establish a pattern of
issue here. ever-sprawling development outside of cities in Hidalgo County that is home to a
disproportionate number of non-native born people.
Yet data shows extreme The next section establishes a method for analyzing the data provided by the
residen=al segrega=on. The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T) for Hidalgo Countys Regional
inequali=es produced by it are Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Because the county, along with a number of
widespread. Segrega=on here is municipalities and housing authorities, has elected to perform a regional AFH, a regional
deeply rooted in public policy and method of analysis is needed to look at the data provided in the AFFH-T that the Tool
tradi=on. It is prac=ced against does not adequately facilitate. TxLIHIS has established three neighborhood tiers that are
non-na=ve born persons, persons mutually exclusive areas of the county as a way to better assess disparities and
with limited English prociency inequities across the county on a regional basis rather than assessing these conditions
individually among the participating jurisdictions as the Tool better facilitates. Using
and people with darker skin color.
these tiers, the AFFH-T data is analyzed and mapped to demonstrate the disparities and
inequities between unincorporated areas that are high poverty and where most colonias
In Hidalgo County segrega=on
and model subdivisions are found, high poverty areas within municipalities, and lower
separates people into three types
poverty, high-opportunity areas within municipalities. This section first analyzes the
of unequal neighborhoods:
indices provided by the Tool by neighborhood tier, and then analyzes population
colonias in unincorporated areas demographics by these same neighborhood tiers.
of the county, impoverished urban
barrios and non-impoverished Finally, TxLIHIS analyzed other data not included in the Tool that relates to two
issues which are acute in colonias and model subdivisions. First, while millions of dollars
urban neighborhoods.
have been expended to address basic infrastructure and public service deficiencies in
colonias that were a result of lax subdivision regulations and unscrupulous developer
www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 13

practices, storm water drainage remains a widespread problem in many of these
communities today. The sprawling development of unincorporated Hidalgo County that
was reviewed in the miles of infrastructure to connect them to the regional drainage
system owned and maintained by the County, as well as that within the right of way of
county- and state-maintained roads and highways. Additionally, many drainage issues are
related to deficiencies within colonias that require investment into structures that
convey storm water safely from peoples property along local streets and out of colonias
into the regional system. Secondly, both colonias and model subdivisions lack a particular
provision of infrastructure that is in high demand among residents. Street lighting is
something that many residents of incorporated cities might take for granted. However,
most colonias and model subdivision lack this basic infrastructure, posing threats to
residents safety. There have been some small scale efforts to address this issue;
however, a more concerted effort through a formal program is likely needed to address
this problem across the region.
Spatial Characteristics of Development and Nativity in Hidalgo County

The estimated population of Hidalgo County in 2014 was just over 830,00091
percent of which is Hispanic or Latino of any race, and 7 of which is white, non-Hispanic.
The existence of a predominately Hispanic or Latino population might lead one to think
that race and ethnicity-based discrimination and inequity found in most other cities and
counties across the state and the nation doesnt exist or is at least less of a problem.
However, discrimination and economic inequity are indeed issues that instead are based
more on national origin or nativity to the US. The following analyses seek to identify
distinctive socioeconomic and spatial characteristics of these groups that demonstrate
this issue in Hidalgo County.
Because there is little data available that distinguishes population characteristics of
colonias and model subdivisions from the geographies that contain them, a series of
analyses is required to infer these characteristics based on trends and comparisons in
data of the census block groups that contain these communities. This section provides
analyses to demonstrate the differences between colonia and model subdivision areas,
and cities with regards to proximity and population. The analyses below were generated
utilizing census block data selections where these communities were located. In
instances where a municipal boundary bisected a block group, manual validation using a
Geographic Information System (GIS), satellite imagery, and some assumptions were
performed to determine if the majority of a block groups population were located inside
or outside a city limit boundary.

Table 1: Distribution of native & non-native Table 1 shows an increasing non-native population
going from inside urban city limits, to those cities
Born City Limits ETJ Unincorporated* County extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJ), and beyond to
the unincorporated areas of the county outside any
Native 357,982 (73%) 162,886 (69%) 37,963 (62%) 558,831 (71%)
type of municipal oversight. For the purposes of
Non-Native 135,718 (27%) 72,604 (31%) 23,493 (38%) 231,815 (29%) this section of the report, an unincorporated
area shall refer to the area of the county outside of
Total 493,700 235,490 61,456 790,646 an ETJ (even though an ETJ is technically
unincorporated, as well).
Source: Block group selections from ACS 2009-2013, TNRIS
*does not include ETJ Table 2 shows where subdivision development in
Hidalgo County has been focused across these
three jurisdictions. Over a third of colonias are
Table 2: Distribution of settlements among jurisdictions
now within city limits, while only 4 percent of early
Settlement City Limits ETJ Unincorporated* County Total model subdivisions and a single recent model
subdivision are within city limits. A somewhat
Colonias 298 (35%) 456 (54%) 96 (11%) 850 similar amount across these settlement categories
are located with ETJs. Only one in 10 colonias are
MSR-pre 2005 22 (4%) 337 (59%) 208 (37%) 567
in an unincorporated area outside an ETJ, while
MSR-2005 to over one-third of early MSRs and one-half of recent
1 (0.7%) 55 (50%) 55 (50%) 111 MSRs are located in these distant, unincorporated
present
areas.
Source: Office of the Attorney General, Noah J. Durst 2015, TNRIS
*does not include ETJ Finally, table 3 represents the approximate native
born population through selections of block groups
using the three categories of settlements. These
percentages are the proportions of native and non-
Table 3: Native born population of census block groups containing
native born populations in the block groups that
MSD-2005 to contain each settlement type. Note how the oldest
Born Colonias MSD-pre 2005 County Total of the settlements, colonias, have the largest
present
proportion of native born people while the most
Native-born 69% 67% 64% 71% recent settlements, model subdivisions (MSDs)
platted since 2005, have the smallest.
Non-native-born 31% 33% 36% 29%

Map 1: Colonias & Model Subdivisions with percent non-native born population
Map 1 visualizes the findings of these analyses by showing

how MSRs tend to be located in more distant
unincorporated areas than colonias. Particularly to the
west of Alton and Palmview, as well as to the east of
Edinburg, note how a band of colonias along the city limits
is followed by a more distant cluster of MSRs.
Together, these analyses suggest that rural development in
Hidalgo County is increasingly sprawling over a larger area
that is getting further away from the urban cores where
more jobs and services are located. They also suggest that
it is disproportionately non-native people who are buying
or renting in these areas that put them at a disadvantage
for accessing cities as well as getting quality infrastructure
and services extended to their communities.
AFFH Data Analyzed by Neighborhood Tier

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data
available from the HUD Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) is
only presented at the geographic level of a single
jurisdiction. This provides a summary of socioeconomic
and housing conditions in that jurisdiction but misses the
nuances of neighborhood level conditions for residents.
For example, jurisdictions can be made up of low and high
poverty neighborhoods that may average out to non-
alarming levels of poverty. Additionally, if the data is only
analyzed by jurisdiction, it is impossible to see how those
results fit into the context of their region when a group of
jurisdictions elects, as those in Hidalgo County have, to
perform a regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).
Together, the policies and histories of individual
jurisdictions contribute to the fair housing issues that
exist in their region, and together they must analyze them
and come up with regional solutions. To provide a regional

Categories of neighborhoods used in this analysis look at fair housing issues, TxLIHIS
analyzed the census tracts and block
Tier 1: high-poverty areas located outside incorporated areas groups in all of Hidalgo County and,
using poverty and incorporation status,
Tier 2: high-poverty neighborhoods located inside incorporated areas
categorized them to reflect the three
Tier 3: low-poverty, high opportunity residential neighborhoods inside incorporated areas tiers of separate and unequal
residential areas:
Table 4 shows the count of census
Table 4: Establishing tracts and census block groups included in each of these tiers. Maps 2 and 3 below
Neighborhood Tiers visualize geographically these classifications by each defined neighborhood tier with Map
1 illustrating the categorized block groups and Map 3 illustrating the categorized Census
Census Block Groups Tracts. The maps also show the location of Colonias and Model Subdivisions. As is
illustrated by the maps, Colonias and Model Subdivisions are largely located in Tier 1 of
Tier 1 81 Hidalgo County.
Tier 2 183 The inequitable conditions for each neighborhood tier are illustrated further in this
report by analyzing the AFFH data provided by HUD. Analyzing the data by neighborhood
Tier 3 74 type rather than by jurisdiction, shows a disparity in opportunity for individuals and
families living in Tier 1 and Tier 2 residential areas versus Tier 3 neighborhoods.
Census Tracts
The Regional Assessment of Fair Housing should consider these inequitable
Tier 1 32 conditions when creating goals and policies in the Hidalgo County regional AFH to
address fair housing issues and obligations throughout the region.
Tier 2 64
The AFFH Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) allows a user to download tables and maps
Tier 3 17 for the entitlement jurisdictions of Edinburg, McAllen, Mission, Pharr and Hidalgo
County. While the tables and maps give information for each jurisdiction, they do not
clearly show the differences and inequalities between neighborhoods among the
jurisdictions participating in this regional AFH. Additionally, the HUD data does not
include Colonia or Model Subdivision data. To better understand the conditions of the
region, TxLIHIS has classified three neighborhood tiers and analyzed what the data looks
like for each neighborhood type, as well as included colonias and model subdivisions in
maps visualizing the AFFH tool data.
The underlying raw AFFH data used by the AFFH-T is available in a series of
spreadsheets broken down by geography: CBSA, jurisdiction, census tract and block
group. Using the raw census tract and block group data, TxLIHIS conducted an analysis for
the three neighborhood tiers by assigning a neighborhood tier value to each Census Tract

Map 2. Neighborhood Tier by Census Block Group

Map 3. Neighborhood Tier by Census Tract AFFH Data Analysis

and block group.
Using these neighborhood tiers, TxLIHIS analyzed the seven opportunity indices used
by HUD based on the smallest available geography:
Low Poverty Index (Census Tract)
School Proficiency Index (Block Group)
Jobs Proximity Index (Block Group)
Labor Market Engagement Index (Census Tract)
Low Transportation Cost Index (Census Tract)
Transit Trips Index (Census Tract)
Environmental Health Index (Census Tract)
An explanation and interpretation for each index is available in the Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. With the
Data and Mapping Tool Table, Table 12 provides a summary of these Opportunity Indices
by Race and Ethnicity at the jurisdiction geographic level. A table summarizing the Table
12 information for all the entitlement jurisdictions in Hidalgo County is shown at the end
of this analysis.
As detailed below, TxLIHIS neighborhood tier analysis shows a lower average score
for almost all the measured opportunity indicators for the Tier 1, unincorporated areas
when compared to the Tier 3, lower poverty, incorporated areas. All tables below use the
AFFH data as provided by HUD unless otherwise specified.
Block Group Indices

The AFFH-T Indices available at the block group level are the Jobs Proximity Index and
the School Proficiency Index. The higher the number for the Jobs Index, the more
employment opportunities are available for the Block Group. The July 2017 release of
AFFH raw data provides an alternate job index that uses a slightly different
methodology. For both the Jobs Proximity Index and the Alternate Jobs Proximity Index,
the average value for the block groups located in high opportunity incorporated areas are
over twice as high as the unincorporated areas where colonias and model subdivisions
are primarily located.
At the block group level, the average percent of White, Non-Hispanic, residents in the
third neighborhood tier of incorporated, low poverty areas is four times that of Colonias

Table 5: Demographics of Neighborhood Tiers by Census Block Group At the block group level, the average percent of
White, Non-Hispanic, residents in the third
Average Percent White Average Percent Hispanic neighborhood tier of incorporated, low poverty
Neighborhood Tier
not Hispanic or Latino areas is four times that of Colonias or
Incorporated, high poverty areas.
Tier 1 5.2% 94.3%
Table 6 indicates that there are fewer job
Tier 2 5.9% 93.3% opportunities in Tier 2, higher poverty
incorporated areas, and significantly fewer job
Tier 3 21.1% 75.5%
opportunities in the unincorporated areas of the
county where most colonias and newer model
subdivisions are located. This means that residents
Table 6: AFFH-T Jobs Indices of these Tier 2, and especially Tier 1 areas are
Alternative Jobs Index having to drive longer distances for not only their
Neighborhood Tier Jobs Index Average jobs, but also for the goods and services that those
Average
jobs provide. This equates to higher costs related
Tier 1 27.6 24.4 to time spent and miles driven to access these jobs
and services.
Tier 2 53.5 54.9
For the School Proficiency Index, a higher value
Tier 3 63.1 63.2 indicates a higher quality of school system
available. The school index is higher in the low
poverty areas than in the Colonia, unincorporated
Table 7: AFFH-T School Index neighborhood tier. Most public schools, according to data displayed in Map 4 from
Children at Risk, are located within incorporated city limits within Hidalgo County. This
Neighborhood Tier School Index Average map does not consider the actual attendance zones of these schools, for which the
Tier 1 40.4 policies governing them vary by school district and year.
Tier 2 44.1
Tier 3 55.6

Map 4: School Quality in Hidalgo County

Census Tract Indices
The majority of the AFFH raw data is available at the Census Tract geographic level.
The Indices available are the Poverty Index, Labor Index, Environmental Hazard Index,
Low Transportation Cost Index and Transit Index. An explanation and interpretation for
each index is available in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping
Tool (AFFH-T) Data Documentation. Table 8 analyzes this data by neighborhood tier,
below.
When the indices are evaluated by the neighborhood tier
categorization, the index averages show that the low
Table 8: AFFH-T Indices by Neighborhood Tier by Census Tract poverty areas of the incorporated
cities have a higher poverty
Low index, an over double Labor Index
Environmental Average, and both the high and
Neighborhood Low Poverty Labor Index Transportation Transit Index
Hazard Index low poverty incorporated areas
Type Index Average Average Cost Index Average
Average have a higher Low Transportation
Average
Cost and Transit Index than what
is found in the higher poverty
Tier 1 6.2 18.3 40.6 14.9 10.7
Colonia areas. Factors such as
access to jobs, transportation
Tier 2 10.7 26.1 35.3 31.6 15.4 costs, and access to transit all
stand to affect those with lower
Tier 3 40.3 63.1 40.2 28.6 13.8 incomes more, as they have less
means to absorb these costs.
Analyzing the Population of the Neighborhood Tiers

With disparities across the neighborhood tiers established through the analysis of
AFFH-T index data, the next thing to do is analyze the populations living in each tier to
see if any groups are being disproportionately affected by these inequitable conditions.
Analysis using the neighborhood tiers and tract poverty data other than that provided
by the opportunity indices highlights the large income disparities between the
unincorporated areas, high poverty incorporated areas, and low poverty incorporated
areas as seen in the table below.

Table 9: Average Tract Poverty Rate by
Neighborhood Tier Map 5 illustrates where these concentrations of poverty are in relation to city
limits, colonias, and model subdivisions. Note the large concentrations of primarily
Neighborhood tier Poverty Rate Average model subdivisions located to the northwest of Alton that are located in an area
with a poverty rate of over 50 percent, as well as the cluster of model subdivisions
Tier 1 41.7% to the northeast of Edinburg and of model subdivisions and colonias to the south
of Elsa, Edinburg, and Edcouch.
Tier 2 34.8%
Almost three times three times as many White, non-Hispanic residents live in low
Tier 3 13.4% poverty incorporated areas as unincorporated areas as shown in Table 10. Also, the
Hispanic population of low poverty incorporated areas is almost 20 percent less
than in unincorporated areas. The map below illustrates these concentrations of
White, Non-Hispanic residents, particularly in areas of north McAllen, south
eastern Edinburg, northern Mission, and southern Weslaco.
Table 10: White not Hispanic and Hispanic or Latino
As the first section of this report found, there is a

Average Percent White Average Percent Hispanic
Neighborhood type greater proportion of foreign born (non-native)
not Hispanic (2010) or Latino (2010)
people living in unincorporated areas, categorized
Tier 1 5.6% 93.5% here as Tier 1. Within incorporated areas, there
also a greater proportion of foreign born people in
Tier 2 7.7% 91.2% higher poverty areas as shown in Table 11. These
same patterns exist for people who are Limited
Tier 3 15.0% 74.5% English Proficient (LEP). Areas with more people
who are LEP can have difficulties engaging with
elected officials and participating in public
Table 11: Average Foreign Born and Limited English Proficient (LEP) by meetings that may not provide translation services.
neighborhood tier This can lead to issues not being adequately
addressed in their communities
Neighborhood Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent
type Foreign Born LEP LEP Households Maps 7 and 8 illustrate where these concentrations
of Foreign Born people and those who are LEP are
Tier 1 31.1% 31.8% 22.0% located within the county.
Tier 2 29.2% 30.0% 23.1%
Tier 3 23.1% 19.1% 19.1%

Map 5: Poverty Rate by Tract in Hidalgo County

Map 6: White not Hispanic Residents by Neighborhood Tier

Map 7: Foreign Born People and Neighborhood Tiers

Map 8: Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Neighborhood Tiers
Neighborhood Classification Range Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent

Foreign Born LEP LEP Household
Min 17.6% 31.8% 22.0%

Colonias, unincorporated areas
Max 45.1%
Min 11.1% 30.0% 23.1%

Incorporated, high poverty areas
Max 43.0%
Min 16.4% 19.1% 10.6%

Incorporated, low poverty areas
Max 38.4%

Table 12: R/ECAP areas by Neighborhood Tiers Over two-thirds of the census tracts that are
primarily located in unincorporated Hidalgo
Number of R/ECAP areas Percent of Tracts in County are racially and ethnically concentrated
Neighborhood Tier
(CTs) Neighborhood Tier areas of poverty (R/ECAP) are located in the
unincorporated areas of Hidalgo County. These
Tier 1 22 69% areas have high poverty where more than 40
Tier 2 21 33% percent of residents are living below poverty and
have a population that is majority non-white.
Tier 3 0 0% One-third of tracts that are incorporated, high
poverty areas are also R/ECAPs.
Table 13: Higher Education Attainment by The low poverty areas of incorporated areas of Hidalgo County has over four
Neighborhood Tier times the number of individuals with a bachelor s degree or higher as the
unincorporated areas.
Percent Bachelor s The AFFH-Tool raw data version released in July 2017 contains data at the
Neighborhood Tier
Degree or Higher Average Census Tract level indicating the number of households earning 30%, 50% and
Tier 1 7.6% 80% of Median Family Income. When analyzed by neighborhood tier, Table 14
shows that the Colonia and high poverty incorporated neighborhood tiers
Tier 2 13.4% have significantly higher percentages of families at all low-income levels
compared to Tier 3.
Tier 3 33.3%
Table 14: Income as a Percentage of Median Family Analyzing Subsidized Housing Sites
Income by Neighborhood Tier The AFFH-T includes data on where subsidized
housing developments are located, categorized by
Percent of program. Across the three programsLow Income
Percent of Percent of Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Public Housing, and
households with
Neighborhood Tier households with households with Project Based Section 8a similar siting pattern
less than 30% AMI
less than 50% AMI less than 80% AMI exists. Analyzing the siting of these developments
Average
by neighborhood tiers (using census block groups
Tier 1 22.5% 40.6% 59.7% in this case) finds that while relatively few of
these sites are located in unincorporated areas,
Tier 2 21.2% 37.6% 55.9%
there is a large disparity between high-poverty
Tier 3 8.7% 17.6% 30.1% incorporated areas where subsidized housing
from all programs is concentrated, and low-

Map 9: R/ECAP areas and Neighborhood Tiers

Table 15: Subsidized Housing Development Sites by Neighborhood Tier poverty high opportunity areas where few of
these developments exist.
LIHTC Project-Based
Neighborhood Tier Public Housing
Developments Section 8 It s worth recalling here that, as shown in Table
4, there are more than double the number of
Tier 1 10 3 3 census block groups in Tier 2 than Tier 3.
However, the disparities found in the siting of
Tier 2 71 25 19
subsidized housing developments are far greater
Tier 3 7 2 3 than double; rather, there are roughly 10 times
the number of developments from these
Total programs located in higher poverty Tier 2 areas,
88 30 25
Developments as Table 15 and Map 10 display.
Also provided by the AFFH-T is data on the
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program.
Table 16: HCV Locations by Neighborhood Tier in Hidalgo County
Specifically, the Tool provides a map layer
showing the percentage of all housing units in a
Number of Housing Percent of Housing
Neighborhood Tier census tract where the household is relying on
Choice Vouchers Choice Vouchers
the assistance provided by an HCV. In order to
Tier 1 882 15% better analyze where HCV holders have found
housing in the Hidalgo County region, TxLIHIS
Tier 2 4.596 76% requested HCV data from all public housing
authorities (PHAs) operating in the county. In
Tier 3 549 9%
Map 11 and Tables 16 and 17, this program is
Total Housing Choice analyzed across the 7 PHAs that have responded
6,027 100% to a public information request as of September
Vouchers
9, 2017.
Like the previously analyzed housing programs,
there is a large disparity between the tiers in the number of households using an HCV.
Table 16 shows this disparity across the entire county, while Table 17 looks at this
disparity for each PHA individually. Again, while Table 4 shows that there are roughly the
same number of census block groups in Tiers 1 and 3, and a little more than double the
number of block groups in Tier 2, there are over 8 times as many HCV holders living in
Tier 2 areas than Tier 3, and 60 percent more HCV holders living in the high poverty,
underinvested unincorporated areas of Hidalgo County than in the urban, higher
opportunity areas in Tier 3.

Map 10: Subsidized Housing Development Sites by Neighborhood Tier

Map 11: Housing Choice Vouchers by Public Housing Authority by Neighborhood Tier

Table 17: Housing Choice Voucher Locations by PHA by Neighborhood Tier
Neighborhood Hidalgo County

Donna PHA Edinburg PHA La Joya PHA McAllen PHA Mercedes PHA Pharr PHA
Tier PHA
Tier 1 25 156 112 52 0 144 0
Tier 2 189 655 520 75 1166 135 846
Tier 3 43 93 81 7 122 17 32
Total Housing
Choice 257 934 934 134 1326 325 911
Vouchers
With the exception of Donna (17%) and Hidalgo County (11%) PHAs, less than 10
percent of HCV holders in each PHA jurisdiction are finding housing in Tier 3 higher
opportunity areas.
Environmental Justice
The environment we live in affects peoples lives and
neighborhoods in
Table 18: Total Environmentally Hazardous Sites by Neighborhood Tier
multiple ways. Land
Permitted uses that pose an
Neighborhood Wastewater Municipal Solid
Superfunds Hazardous Brownfields environmental
Tier Outfalls Waste Sites
Waste Sites nuisance or hazard
can not only affect
Tier 1 1 0 15 19 0 peoples health, but
can generally make
Tier 2 0 1 24 24 7
an area less desirable
Tier 3 0 0 1 5 0 for investment and

Map 12: Environmentally Hazardous Sites in Hidalgo County with Neighborhood Tiers

negatively affect wealth-building for low-income home owners affected by these
hazardous facilities. Refineries, waste water treatment plants, hazardous waste facilities,
and contaminated vacant property are just a few of the kinds of land uses that can affect
the communities they are allowed to exist in.
Most of these sites are located in higher-poverty areas of cities in Hidalgo County, as
well as in the unincorporated areas where most colonias are found, categorized in Tiers 1
and 2. Table 18 shows the results of analyzing this site data by neighborhood tier. Map 12
visualizes the locations of such sites, specifically certain facilities regulated by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ).
Data Analysis Beyond the AFFH-T

In addition to the issues highlighted by data provided by the AFFH-T, there are two
other issues that are acute in parts of Hidalgo County, particularly the unincorporated
areas where most colonias and model subdivisions are located, that this report examines.
Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure

Drainage issues are widespread across the county. In unincorporated areas, however,
the infrastructure is often of poor quality, badly maintained, or non-existent. The Hidalgo
County Drainage District #1 (HCDD1) constructs and maintains a regional system for
drainage serving most developed areas of the county. However, the system can only
benefit those who live in areas connected to the system or have other infrastructure to
convey water out of their neighborhoods.
266 out of 567 model subdivisions in Hidalgo County are more than mile from
the regional system (47%)
324 out of 850 colonias in Hidalgo County are more than mile from the regional
system (38%)
A drainage study led by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in 2014 and 2015
identified 404 colonias across Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties that were remotely
analyzed, surveyed, and prioritized based on the severity of perceived flooding problems.
Roughly three-fourths of these surveyed colonias are located in Hidalgo County. The

Map 13: Colonias and Model Subdivisions Located More Than mile from Regional

Map 14: TWDB Solution Categories for Surveyed Colonias,
Hidalgo Precinct 1
issues identified included insufficient or missing

infrastructure within the colonia, improper grading
between roads and private property, missing or
obstructed outlets for conveying storm water out of the
colonia, regional waterways overflowing their banks
and flooding nearby colonias, and standing water
issues, among others.
The study assigned a solution category which related to
the type of drainage problems experienced in a colonia.
The A categories meant that the issues were a result
of infrastructure or grading deficiencies within the
colonia. In Hidalgo County, 203 colonias were
categorized in this way. The B categories meant that
the issues were a result of a regional waterway
conveying water into the colonia. Thirty-eight colonias
were found to be affected by regional flooding issues.
These categories were modified by a 1 or 2
indicating the presence of structure flooding or
nuisance flooding, respectively. The Phase 1B Report
contains more information about this study.
Maps 14 through 17 display the locations of the
surveyed colonias, which are symbolized by their
solution category. These maps are scaled by county
precinct. Colonias circled in orange and listed are those
which are expected to benefit from projects underway
that are funded by bonds or disaster recovery money
received after Hurricane Dolly struck the area in 2008.

Hidalgo Precinct 2

Hidalgo Precinct 3

Hidalgo Precinct 3

Map 18: TWDB-Surveyed Colonias with Standing Water Issues Lasting 3 or More Days

Table 19: Public Street Lighting Expenditures in Hidalgo County
Annual
Infrastructure Fee per
Subdivision Total Lots Total Lights Setup Cost Subdivision
Costs resident
Fee
Goolie $ 3,313.38
161 19 $ 4,061.34 $ 475.00 $ 20.58
Meadows I & I
Lucero del
56 9 $ 593.13 $ 200.00 $ 27.74 $ 1,553.44
Norte
Eldora Heights
340 30 $ - $ -0 $ 12.29 $ 4,178.60
I , II, III
Eduardos #8 56 17 $ - $ 485.65 $ 56.13 $ 3,143.28
Mi Sueno 36 7 $ - $ 146.94 $ 37.68 $ 1,356.48
Pueblo de
110 17 $ - $ - $ 27.31 $ 3,004.10
Palmas 10
Pueblo de
104 16 $ - $ - $ 26.80 $ 2,787.20
Palmas 11

Map 19: Night time satellite view of Central Hidalgo County TX
Note that areas outlined in red that lack lighting are colonias.
Map 18 highlights the
colonias where
residents reported
having standing water
last for three or more
days. This can pose
both a nuisance and
health risk, as
mosquitoes can
proliferate any may
spread diseases such as
Zika virus. There were
93 colonias identified
in Hidalgo County that
reported this issue, and
90 of them are located
in the two higher
poverty tiers.
Public Street
Lighting
Another issue facing
unincorporated
colonias and model
subdivisions is the
provision of public
street lighting. These
areas, as illustrated
well in Map 19, are
completely dark in many cases, which poses a safety hazard to residents of these

Opportunity Index for the Entitlement Jurisdictions

Comments on draA Hidalgo County AFH Plan
From Texas Low Income Housing Informa8on Service

Historical governmental prac=ces by coun=es, ci=es and public housing authori=es in Hidalgo County
have created and to this day maintain unlawful residen=al segrega=on into the three types of separate
and unequal neighborhoods that we describe in our comments. These prac=ces were rst adopted years
ago by Anglo poli=cal leaders in an era when discrimina=on on the basis of na=onal origin and skin color
What is to be done to overcome was some=mes ocial. While many of todays poli=cal leaders in Hidalgo County are Mexican-American,
the long standing tradi=ons and they govern a region where residen=al segrega=on s=ll widely persists. Many of the policies put in place
policies that produce residen=al to establish and maintain segrega=on and inequali=es years ago con=nue to maintain inequality between
segrega=on and inequality in Valley residents today.
Hidalgo County?
Remedying residen=al segrega=on and inequality requires:
These are the solu=ons proposed A. Assessing and acknowledging the problem which is the purpose of this AFH process;
by Texas Low Income Housing B. Overcoming residen=al segrega=on through policies that promote residen=al integra=on;
Informa=on Service, La Union del C. Remedia=ng harms segregated and substandard neighborhoods have done to residents.
Pueblo Entero (LUPE) and A
Resource In Serving Equality We request the governmental par=es in this AFH plan each commit to the following ac=on steps.
(ARISE). Authority to undertake individual ac=on steps may fall on dierent par=es. Yet, it is vital that all par=es
make a joint and concerted commitment, including seJng deadlines, to implement these ac=ons.
Hidalgo County did not include
these recommenda=ons in the
A. Assess and acknowledge the problem of residen@al segrega@on and inequality in Hidalgo
Assessment of Fair Housing Plan it
County.
adopted and submi[ed to HUD
1. Assess and es=mate public infrastructure needs at the neighborhood/colonia level
for approval. (drainage, streetlights, sidewalks, streets, parks, etc.).
2. Establish a county task force with immigrant advocacy organiza=ons to assess and
develop a plan to mi=gate the vulnerability and harms to documented and
undocumented immigrants living in isolated, lower-opportunity segregated
neighborhoods.
3. Conduct a county land-use study to assess suitability and supply of land for aordable
housing development.
4. Conduct a county and local jurisdic=onal level review of development plans, policies
and prac=ces to promote residen=al integra=on and access of low-income people to

4. Conduct a county and local jurisdic=onal level review of development plans, policies
and prac=ces to promote residen=al integra=on and access of low-income people to
high opportunity areas.
5. Prepare a county-wide environmental risk assessment and environmental hazard
mi=ga=on plans for low-income neighborhoods
6. Undertake a regional transporta=on study to assess public transit needs and availability
for low-income neighborhoods and iden=fy funding to overcome the isola=on of
colonias and low-income neighborhoods to jobs, educa=on and essen=al services.
7. In coopera=on with the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV), establish an
ongoing, faculty and student involved research and community dialogue to assess and
understand the extent, causes and harms of residen=al segrega=on.
8. Establish a commi[ee of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council to study
and make recommenda=ons to eliminate the residen=al isola=on of Valley residents on
the basis of race, color and na=onal origin and promote the adop=on of remedia=on
policies and prac=ces of ci=es and coun=es.
9. Document the per capita under alloca=on for federal housing funds to Hidalgo County
and its ci=es rela=ve to the rest of the country and advocate for a fair share of housing
subsidy funds to HUD and Congress.
10. Assess the public safety and security needs of colonias and advocate that funds for
these purposes be included in state and federal border protec=on ini=a=ves.
11. With the UTRGV School of Public Health and Medical School develop a public health
indicators and risks assessment project in colonias and low-income neighborhoods.
Study and test for lead and other contaminates in water supplies, asthma, frequencies
of mosquito-borne pathogens (ZIKA, Dengue Fever, West Nile, etc.) and general health
issues. Iden=fy funding for educa=on and remedia=on strategies designed to be
eec=ve in colonias and impoverished urban neighborhoods.
12. Support establishment at UTRGV a mul=disciplinary border life public policy research
ins=tute to study and propose solu=ons to issues of inequality along the US-Mexico
border.
B. Overcome residen@al segrega@on by adop@ng policies that promote residen@al integra@on.

1. Establish a policy to priori=ze the development of aordable owner and renter
occupied housing, aordable to extremely low- and very low-income households in
urban High Opportunity Areas.
2. Operate a Housing Choice Voucher mobility program to support voucher holders to be
able to obtain quality housing in High Opportunity Areas.

3. Governing bodies should designate High Opportunity Areas as loca=ons where they will
provide formal support for applica=ons for rental housing developed with Low Income
Housing Tax Credits.
4. McAllen, Mission and Weslaco should develop aordable housing plans that iden=fy
High Opportunity Areas for aordable rental and owner-occupied housing, increase the
amount of land zoned for mul=family housing in those areas and develop city
incen=ves for increasing the supply of aordable housing.
5. CDBG funds should be used exclusively for the development of aordable housing and
the provision of missing infrastructure in colonias and low-income urban communi=es.
The county and local units of government should set aside local revenue to funds social
services now being funded with CDBG.
6. Conduct an inventory of vacant and underu=lized public land in High Opportunity Areas
and permit that land to be developed for aordable housing.
7. Financially support nonprot housing providers to provide urban in-ll aordable
housing (owner and rental) to both Extremely Low Income and Very Low-Income
households on vacant and underu=lized property in High Opportunity Areas.
8. Establish a small subdivision and inll urban Mi Casita housing program in High
Opportunity neighborhoods based on the program of the Brownsville CDC.
9. Provide addi=onal nancial support to McAllen Aordable Housing and Proyecto
Azteca to construct homes for Extremely Low Income and Very Low-Income
households in High Opportunity neighborhoods.
10. Modernize, provide one-for-one replacement and economically integrate public
housing through appropriate RAD conversion and other strategies.
11. Adopt more aggressive property tax exemp=ons targe=ng Extremely Low Income and
Very Low-Income homeowners to protect their ability to aord to live in urban high
opportunity areas.
12. Establish and enforce strong subdivision standards for new developments that provide
for high levels of ood protec=on, streetlights, parks and full levels of quality public
services.
13. Monitor and oversee developer compliance with infrastructure standards in
subdivisions developed under the Model Subdivision Standards.
14. Advocate for the fair alloca=on of Federal housing subsidies for jurisdic=ons in Hidalgo
County.
15. Adopt a substan=ally equivalent fair housing ordinance for Hidalgo County and fund a
complaint, inves=ga=on and enforcement oce.
16. Seek funding for a non-prot fair housing tes=ng and inves=ga=on center from HUD.

C. Remediate the harms segregated and substandard neighborhoods have done to residents.
1. Establish a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) in the county to provide remedial infrastructure
to colonias.
2. Improve neighborhood resident civic engagement to be[er understand problems of
colonias and other impoverished areas by adop=ng a Limited English Prociency (LEP)
ini=a=ve to provide English/Spanish transla=on services at mee=ngs of governmental
bodies.
3. Provide a program to priori=ze basic, essen=al public safety in colonias and low-income
urban areas by providing in every community: 1) Safe Pathways to Schools (sidewalks),
2) streetlights, 3) re hydrants and 4) regional sheri and re protec=on substa=ons to
reduce response =me to colonias to state standards.
4. Adopt and fund a county Mi Casita incremental homebuilding and nance program
based on the program operated by the Brownsville CDC.
5. Establish a county revolving loan fund to nance owner-occupied housing repair.
6. Based on the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) study of Hidalgo County colonia
drainage needs, priori=ze current and future county bonds for the rapid buildout of
colonia level infrastructure.
7. Amend the Valley regional drainage plan to include the TWDB Hidalgo County colonia
drainage needs in the plan as an equal priority with the regional drains.
8. Aggressively promote and incen=vize developer use of low impact drainage principles
in new subdivisions.
9. For all new subdivisions, adopt as county standard a 25-year internal drainage standard
and a 100-year and runo deten=on for a 100-year event so that peak discharges are
no more than the pre-development peak ows for the corresponding storms. This will
help prevent new and exis=ng colonias from ooding worse than they do at this =me.
10. Work with the Texas Legislature to secure zoning, full building code and land-use
authority for the county.
11. Provide adequate funding to ins=tute a complete residen=al building code inspec=on
program for all residen=al units constructed in Hidalgo County.
12. Provide aggressive mosquito borne illness monitoring in low-income neighborhoods,
provide expansive mosquito vector control and establish a funded ini=a=ve to provide
window and door screens free of charge to extremely low and very low-income owner
and renter households.
13. Be[er priori=ze federal block grants for essen=al housing and infrastructure projects.

14. Provide funding to Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid to represent colonia residents in claims
against developers for failing to provide adequate infrastructure and to represent
tenants against landlords over substandard rental units.
15. Assess and expand public transporta=on access between low-income communi=es,
employment centers, cri=cal services and high opportunity areas.
16. Implement a coopera=ve agreement with the school districts to adopt an open
enrollment policy for schools, publicize data of school quality and oer free
transporta=on to any student who wishes to transfer from a school that has failed to
meet state standards to a standard or high performing school of their choice.
17. Ci=es should conduct an evalua=on of land uses and especially public facili=es and
provide for the remedia=on and reloca=on of noxious public facili=es (e.g. sewer
lagoons, etc.).
18. Ci=es should be required in provide storm water runo deten=on for a 100-year event
so that peak discharges are no more than the pre-development peak ows for a 100-
year storm event. This will prevent the overuse of regional storm water capacity by
urban areas, freeing up capacity for new and exis=ng colonia storm water and city
funds for downstream drainage impact.
19. Replace the equal division of county drainage, road and bridge funds with a needs-
based alloca=on system to allocate funds through a formula based on precinct-level
cri=cal infrastructure needs.
20. Establish a needs-based formula for the award of the Hidalgo County Urban County
share of CDBG funds that priori=zes cri=cal housing and infrastructure projects.
21. Adopt sanctuary county / sanctuary city policies across the county.
22. Establish a regional colonia issues and oversight commi[ee to advise city councils and
county commissioners on issues and needs of the disadvantaged communi=es.
23. Large ci=es in the county (McAllen, Edinburg, Mission and Weslaco) should each
establish a community development commission to advice their respec=ve city council
or city commission on the issues and needs of residents of these communi=es. The
commissions should be composed of two-thirds elected representa=ves from low-
income communi=es within their jurisdic=ons and one-third other concerned ocials
and ci=zens and should meet in a work session twice each year with the members of
the city council city commission.
24. All governmental bodies in the county should provide Spanish language transla=on
services at public mee=ng and public hearings to permit persons with Limited English
Prociency to make their need known and to par=cipate in their democracy.

Comments on draA Hidalgo County AFH Plan
From La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) and A Resource in Serving Equality (ARISE)
Drainage
Iden=fy colonias and low-income subdivisions with inadequate drainage and ooding
condi=ons and priori=ze according to ood risk/need for infrastructure improvements.
Monitor substandard drainage infrastructure and public facili=es in ci=es and the
unincorporated county.
Equitably distribute funding and resources to colonias and low-income subdivisions iden=ed
as needing internal and localized drainage solu=ons.
Amend the Model Subdivision Rules to create a higher standard of 25 years for the drainage
infrastructure in new subdivisions.
Public Ligh@ng
Iden=fy colonia and low-income subdivision with inadequate or missing public ligh=ng
infrastructure in the municipali=es and county and priori=ze according to community interest
in receiving and paying for the public service.
Create a line item in the Hidalgo County budget for the installa=on of service of street light in
colonias and LMI subdivisions in the unincorporated county.
Amend the Model Subdivision Rules to mandate:
o public ligh=ng infrastructure (poles, transformer, light, etc.) in front of newly
subdivided proper=es
o developers pay a one year escrow for the public ligh=ng service.
Housing
Prepare and implement local plans to iden=fy and priori=ze aordable single family and mul=-
family housing in High Opportunity Areas (HOAs).
Create an incremental home/nancing program for low-income county residents (Example: Mi
Casita Loan)
Create a county-wide program to iden=fy substandard homes through an inclusive outreach
process that pairs them with housing assistance programs.
Adopt equal standards and facili=es for city and county subdivisions and impose legal ac=ons
on developers who do not follow standards.
Create programs for =tle clearance and wills

Environmental Jus@ce
Iden=fy colonia and low-income subdivisions near environmental hazards.

o Iden=fy local, state and federal agency enforcement plan or ac=ons.
Immigra@on
Support and pass pro-immigrant ordinances and resolu=ons against SB 4 and the Border Wall.
General Accessibility
Provide English/Spanish transla=on at public mee=ngs

Establish an Hidalgo County colonia improvement commission that includes residents of
colonias who can give input and sugges=ons for improving colonia condi=ons.
Establish city community development commissions that includes city residents who can give
input and sugges=ons for improving their barrios
Recommended Priori8es to Implement Hidalgo County AFH Plan with comments from TxLIHIS and
community
To increase access to aordable housing via homeownership opportuni@es and/or securing safe and
decent rental housing.:
Increase of 3% u=liza=on rate through 2022

Increase in 30 aordable housing units annually
To preserve and rehabilitate the region's exis@ng single family housing stock:
Rehabilita=on or reconstruc=on of 45 housing units annually

o Comment: single family? mul8 family? aordable at what income level? In high
opportunity areas?
To improve the living condi@ons and increase access to areas of opportunity for residents of Hidalgo
County.
Partner with LRGVDC to support goals and projects iden=ed within the providers long term
strategy.

o Comment: What is the LRGVDC's long term strategy?
Program par=cipants will annually review available resources and a[empt to ameliorate any
dispari=es
o Comment: Program par8cipants will annually iden8fy and map the aordable housing
stock and the areas of high opportuni8es and in their jurisdic8on and ETJ.
To improve housing and suppor@ve services to the region's residents who face lack of access to
quality housing:
Bi-annually conduct housing related classes

Conduct 8 Landlord training/outreach events
Encourage similarly funded en==es to collaborate and streamline processes
o Comment: Don't just encourage, but set goals towards integra8ng or streamline
dierent processes or data collec8on/repor8ng methods. For example, the way that
PHA's collect resident informa8on can be streamlined and implemented by all PHA's.
To preserve, provide and improve social services for residents including those with special needs,
elderly, physically disabled and vic@ms of domes@c violence:
Financially support 40 nonprot agencies annually

o Comment: Why not base number of nonprot agencies on community priori8es and
have specic requirements on what kind of services are eligible and which are not?
To expand economic opportuni@es in Hidalgo County:
Partner with Texas Workforce Solu=ons to provide addi=onal outreach services through annual
communica=on
Support goals and projects iden=ed within providers long term strategy
10 communica=on/coordina=on/outreach eorts to local Economic Development Corpora=ons
or Chambers of Commerce
Comment: What will these communica8on eort/outreach, etc. look like? Will they have a
specic theme or focus on specic communi8es?
To provide accessible public facili@es and infrastructure improvements in an eort to provide access
for all persons
20 projects annually which improve public facili=es/ infrastructure to assure access for all

o Comment: What kind for project? and what do they mean by access for all
To ensure access to quality educa@on and transporta@on services:
Support goals and projects iden=ed within school and transporta=on service providers long-
term strategies
Comment: Work with LRGVDC to review their master plan and include connec8ng ___
colonias in RECAPS by crea8ng ____ bus stops with a year.
Are those long term strategies going to ameliorate the issues of access? If so how?
Increase the amount of renter owned aordable housing near good schools.
To iden@fy and strengthen measures to ameliorate discriminatory prac@ces for protected classes:
Con=nue/strengthen PHA mobiliza=on opportuni=es

Partner/con=nue partnerships with agencies whose eld of interest provides these services
o Comment: Could include UTRGV and should include nancial literacy and real estate
services. Engage UTRGV in policy exper8se on colonias and barrios
Provide support, including nancial, to the eorts and ini=a=ves of agencies that support
housing choice
Create a Fair Housing informa=on and resource web page by 2019

A Regional Assessment of Fair Housing For Hidalgo County, TX

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Regional Assessment of Fair Housing For Hidalgo County, TX

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A

Regional Assessment of Fair Housing for Hidalgo County, TX

The stories of the people

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 1

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 2

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 3

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 4

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 5

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 6

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 7

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 8

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 9

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 10

www.texashousers.org The stories of the people Page 11

Video (click below to play) or go to https://vimeo.com/233856686

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 13

Spatial Characteristics of Development and Nativity in Hidalgo County

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 14

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 15

Map 1 visualizes the findings of these analyses by showing

AFFH Data Analyzed by Neighborhood Tier

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 16

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 17

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 18

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 19

Block Group Indices

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 20

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 21

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 22

Analyzing the Population of the Neighborhood Tiers

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 23

As the first section of this report found, there is a

Tier 3 23.1% 19.1% 19.1%

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 24

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 25

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 26

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 27

Neighborhood Classification Range Average Percent Average Percent Average Percent

Min 17.6% 31.8% 22.0%

Min 11.1% 30.0% 23.1%

Min 16.4% 19.1% 10.6%

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 28

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 29

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 30

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 31

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 32

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 33

Neighborhood Hidalgo County

Tier 1 25 156 112 52 0 144 0

Tier 2 189 655 520 75 1166 135 846

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 34

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 35

Data Analysis Beyond the AFFH-T

Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 36

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 37

issues identified included insufficient or missing

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 38

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 39

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 40

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 41

www.texashousers.org Data and analysis Page 42

Eduardos #8 56 17 $ - $ 485.65 $ 56.13 $ 3,143.28