AG 1994 11 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 31, 1994 Page 2 First, if you will look at a copy of the attached map you will see the designation of "distressed counties" in North Carolina. In this past year's allocation DCA awarded "bonus points" to those communities which were located in a distressed county. None of our eight counties have received this designation. DCA also made it clear that one of the major goals of the CDBG-CR program was the elimination of pit privies and straight piping. While there are incidences of these conditions in each of our counties, this is not a large problem in this part of North Carolina. The map clearly bears out the ramifications of these policies. According to the regional delineationa used in the Investment Partnership program (another community development program), the Central North Carolina (which includes each of our eight counties) contains approximately 44 percent of the State's population. This area received only 15 percent of the CDBG-CR funds allocated in 1994. Even more telling is the fact that Eastern North Carolina, home of the large majority of "distressed counties" and which contains a large proportion of North Carolina households without indoor plumbing, received 75 percent of all CDBG-CR funds. The region, however, contains only ~ percent of the State's population. Given these statistics, it is clear to see that there is an effort being placed to shift CDBG-CR funds to Eastern counties. So long as there is an emphasis being placed on removing outdoor plumbing and funding communities located in "distressed counties", this trend will likely continue. While I do not dispute the fact that there are severe community development needs in other parts of North Carolina, the fact remains that there are needs here as well. As I am sure you are aware, there are many homes in our region in desperate need of rehabilitation. I have personally visited many homes in our area which are vermin infested, have sagging roofs, have holes in exterior walls, have crumbling foundations, and which have indoor plumbing facilities that do not operate. All of these are considered as being "severe needs" yet do not rate high enough on DCA's criteria funding scale. Unless our voices are heard in Raleigh, this problem is likely to continue. I have enclosed a sample rmsolution for your governing board to adopt and submit to DCA. The te~ms of the resolution are fairly straight-forward: it calls for a regional allocation of CDBG funds in future funding cycles. In this manner, your community would be competing with your peers for CDBG funds. Regional allocations are not new in North Carolina. As mentioned, the HOME program presently operates in this manner, as does the Energy Incentive program.