Brad Lander
Executive Director, The Fifth Avenue Committee
Brad leads FAC, a non-profit, community-based organization of
neighbors working for social and economic justice in South Brooklyn.
Jill Slater
Planner, San Francisco Planning Department
Jill works with the city of San Francisco, addressing the balance
between jobs, housing and the creation of streets at a human
scale.
Joe Molinaro
Manager, Smart Growth Programs, National Association of Realtors
Joe oversees training, technical assistance on land use regulation,
research and support to NAR's Smart Growth legislative agenda.
Mtamanika Youngblood
Former
Executive Director, Historic District Development Corporation
Mtamanika led HDDC, an Atlanta nonprofit, in promoting innovative
strategies for revitalization through historic preservation
and mixed-income development.
Radhika K. Fox
Senior Program Associate, PolicyLink
Radhika works on Equitable Development initiatives, providing
successful community building tools to people around the country.
Theresa Singleton
Research and Information Director, Housing Assistance Council
Theresa directs research for HAC, a national nonprofit dedicated
to addressing housing conditions in rural America.
Harold Simon is director of the National Housing Institute and editor of Shelterforce Magazine. He joined NHI in 1993 following a career in business and publishing. Shelterforce, the national journal now in its 28th year, is the nation's oldest continually-published housing and community development magazine.
Introduction
Executive Director, The Fifth Avenue Committee
Brad leads FAC, a non-profit, community-based organization of
neighbors working for social and economic justice in South Brooklyn.
Planner, San Francisco Planning Department
Jill works with the city of San Francisco, addressing the balance
between jobs, housing and the creation of streets at a human
scale.
Manager, Smart Growth Programs, National Association of Realtors
Joe oversees training, technical assistance on land use regulation,
research and support to NAR's Smart Growth legislative agenda.
Former
Executive Director, Historic District Development Corporation
Mtamanika led HDDC, an Atlanta nonprofit, in promoting innovative
strategies for revitalization through historic preservation
and mixed-income development.
Senior Program Associate, PolicyLink
Radhika works on Equitable Development initiatives, providing
successful community building tools to people around the country.
Research and Information Director, Housing Assistance Council
Theresa directs research for HAC, a national nonprofit dedicated
to addressing housing conditions in rural America.
Brad Lander - The Fifth Avenue Committee
Harold Simon: Gentrification is a complex process requiring a variety of responses, both housing and economic. The Fifth Avenue Committee takes a comprehensive approach by working to create and preserve affordable units while at the same time helping people to afford (through subsidy or increased wages) the rising costs of housing. Tell us more about FAC's approach, how you came to it and the challenges to community groups in implementing this approach.
So from the beginning, they established a balanced approach that has guided our work since that time:
Creating deeply affordable housing that the market will not provide: In the early years, when there was no development in or near our community, the organization developed moderate and middle income housing. But for the past 20 years, as for-profit developers have begun developing here, we have focused more strongly on very low, low, and moderate income housing. There are many people with low incomes, but essentially no one other than us is producing affordable housing in this community for them. Even when we develop mixed-use housing (as a way of filling financing gaps), we want a substantial majority of the units affordable to low income families. We also prefer to create housing that is cooperatively owned by the residents who live there, so they come to have a long-term stake in our community.
Tenant and community organizing to preserve what we have: Probably the most important piece of our response to gentrification is our community organizing. We have organized thousands of tenants, in hundreds of buildings, to preserve their rights to decent, affordable housing -- some years we are fighting abandonment, other years we are fighting displacement and massive rent increases. We work with other groups around the city to preserve New York's rent regulation laws. Those laws are the only thing that keep literally tens of thousands of low and moderate income tenants from being displaced. More recently, we have established a Displacement Free Zone, for tenants in buildings that are too small to be covered by rent regulations. Working together, local tenants, clergy, and homeowners organize to pressure landlords not to evict low income tenants for the purpose of doubling or tripling the rent, even if they are legally allowed to. We are also working on new tax and zoning policies that would provide better incentives for private owners to create and preserve affordable housing.
Helping people earn more: In order for low income community residents to take advantage of the economic development that our neighborhood and New York City have seen, they need better skills and real job opportunities. We offer sectorally-targeted job training and placement programs in commercial driving and network cable installation -- two well-paying sectors, with low barriers to entry, that can't be relocated overseas, to the suburbs, or elsewhere in the country. We have started a staffing company to help people get jobs, and we are now merging with an adult literacy education program to help people build their reading and writing skills.
Making a place for our neighborhood's most disenfranchised folks: Too many CDCs (community development corporations), in our opinion, come to advocate primarily for the middle income folks in their neighborhood. We also need to make sure that more vulnerable or disenfranchised people are included in community development. So, we have developed supportive housing for people with special needs and seniors. And two years ago, we launched a new program, "Developing Justice in South Brooklyn," to help individuals returning from prison to succeed in their re-entry. This approach not only helps these individuals -- it reduces crime, builds new leadership, and strengthens our community as a whole.
Simon: When the word "gentrification" is said in small and large communities around the country, it's not uncommon to have eyes roll and be told, "we should only be so lucky." Look around and you see abandoned and vacant buildings, population loss, joblessness, poor schools, unsafe streets and a host of other ills. How can communities, while doing the brutally difficult work of encouraging development, prepare themselves so that they won't be victims of their own success?
Lander: FAC began, like so many other community development groups, with a primary goal of improving a blighted neighborhood. When FAC was founded in 1978, there were 150 vacant buildings and 100 vacant lots within a mile of our office. We set out to rehabilitate buildings, to reclaim parks that had been occupied by drug dealers, and to clean up the commercial strip (which had over 50 percent vacancy in many stretches) and vacant lots that were strewn with garbage. So we deeply value the work that helps make neighborhoods safer, better places to live. The improvements won by community development groups in creating places where people are proud to live are remarkable, and we rightly celebrate them.
But we want something even more. We want the benefits of development to be shared more equally. We want people to become less poor. We are striving for something like "self-determination," the idea that people individually and collectively ought to be able to control the major factors in their lives. Our goal is not to make poverty more dignified, but to have people earning enough that they don't have to worry about finding housing and food from week to week.
And surely we are obligated to insure that rising rents -- created in part by our own development work -- don't push our neighbors out just as the neighborhood improves. The logic of the real estate market works against stable, mixed income communities. When one landlord is getting $1,200 a month, the landlord next door may well seek to evict the tenant who has been paying $600 for years. Is that the kind of development we want?
So, what can groups do who share these goals, who want to improve their community, but also care about equity, displacement, and self-determination:
Buy all the land you can early: This is a challenge, because it is tough for young groups, in distressed neighborhoods, to raise or borrow money to secure much property. But if you don't, and you proceed with a few projects while much nearby land remains vacant or abandoned, you will most likely increase the value of that property beyond your ability to purchase it. And then it will go exclusively for market uses, without community planning or benefit.
Insist that public and not-for-profit owned land is used for community purposes: Don't believe the mantra that only market-oriented development increases the value of a community. Affordable housing increases the value of a community. Parks increase the value of a community. New schools and day care centers increase the value of a community. Focus your resources on meeting needs that the market won't... because there are a lot of these needs, they are good for the community, and no one else will even try to meet them.
Negotiate "community benefits agreements" with developers: Where market-oriented development is taking place in your community, negotiate community benefits agreements with developers. Get written commitments in place as to who will get the jobs and benefits, what public amenities will be provided, etc. Often, we are timid in these negotiations out of fear that we'll drive away development. But private real estate developers are plenty sturdy, and they can stand some real bargaining and community benefit.
Work aggressively for public policies that promote "equitable development": In so many places around the country, local governments that are desperate for development focus on tax breaks and other giveaways to attract any kind of development. But there is now evidence showing that "equitable development" works, and community groups can work for many different policies that help to bring it about -- rent regulations, inclusionary zoning, community benefits agreements, using CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds for deeply affordable housing, sectorally-targeted job training. These policies are NOT anti-development -- instead, they help to bring about development whose benefits are shared across communities.
Simon: As you mention above, FAC looked ahead to when your efforts would be successful and began to "land bank" properties. Given the funding realities today, how can small organizations accomplish this? Are there any other strategies used to guide the market and not be priced out of the market when your efforts are successful?
Lander: The question points out one of the painful ironies in efforts to achieve equitable development, or fair growth. When a community is disinvested, there is often significant opportunity to purchase property at affordable prices, but it is difficult for a grassroots organization to obtain funding, since lenders are nervous about whether the property will retain its value. And there is opportunity for wider-scale planning that would include strong development controls and interventions to create balanced growth, but generally public officials at that stage want to do anything they can to spur development. So the opportunity is missed, and by the time community development groups can obtain financing or have the power to implement stronger zoning or land use policies, the market is too strong. Resolving this paradox means doing three things simultaneously: plan, build power and establish credibility.
Plan: As Mtamanika and Radhika point out, community planning must begin with, well, real community planning -- taking the time to involve community stakeholders in understanding their community and planning for its long-term future. One of the strengths of community development has been its "whatever works" approach to problem-solving. But we have now seen enough examples to know that long-range planning for fair growth must take place at an early stage. Know where all the vacant lots are, and what you want there instead. Plan concretely for different types of housing, schools, open space, quality jobs. And begin to understand what it would take -- in concrete terms -- to make this development happen. What would it take to develop these yourself, or to get a private sector developer to do it? What would government and philanthropy need to provide? Don't just draw maps with good-looking parks. Also run spreadsheets with real bottom lines.
Build power (i.e. organize!): At the same time that you are planning, you also have to be building power. So many community organizations make the mistake of believing that a good neighborhood plan will somehow, by itself, persuade for-profit developers to forget their own self-interest, or make public officials take notice -- but it almost never does. Private sector market actors do what is required of them... by zoning and regulation. And public sector development policy usually looks to private sector developers to tell them what to do. If you want to achieve equitable development, to share the benefits of growth -- in other words, to put strong interventions in place to direct profit and benefits toward social goals in a different way than the market otherwise would -- you'll need a strong, strategic organization with a real base. Don't just plan, organize.
Establish credibility: Even while planning and organizing, it is worth beginning to build a track record. Do a small development project on your own, or partner with a larger group (with a clear, detailed, written partnership agreement). Take on gradually larger projects, so when your organizing wins victories that enable you to put your plan into action, you can show lenders and investors that you have project experience. If you can do these things, the resources and tools are out there. Your local LISC or Enterprise office, or the community development officer at a local bank can help you figure out how to find resources for land acquisition. And the PolicyLink.org website provides the policy tools you'll need to shape development to meet your goals -- from inclusionary zoning to community benefits agreements to linkage fees. But resist the temptation to think that the tools themselves are sufficient. If you can create a plan, organize to build power, and establish credibility, you'll find the strategies that work in your community.
Simon: In addition to economic diversity, Brooklyn has significant racial and cultural diversity. FAC has had so much success, in part, because of its variety of partners and collaborators. Have you encountered any inter-group tensions and how have you dealt with them? What strategies can neighborhoods use to find common ground between various groups and build successful collaborations?
Lander: We work hard to balance our mission -- advancing social and economic justice in our community -- with creating a comfortable space where people from different race and class backgrounds can work together. On the one hand, we want people to build common ground. On the other hand, we believe that if low income and other disenfranchised people do not have a stronger voice in our neighborhood, we cannot achieve our goals.
Sometimes, of course, this provokes tension. When we have developed (or sought to develop) supportive housing for people with special needs, homeowners have sometimes fought against us. Our approach in these cases has been respectful community organizing. Rather than hide from the issue, we have knocked on every door on the affected blocks -- bringing with us people from buildings we have developed and those who would benefit from what we are proposing. We have held open neighborhood meetings, where competing interests could be discussed. But we have also, at times, been strong advocates for things that community residents involved with FAC believed were needed in our community (e.g. housing for homeless people, or people with mental illness, or people returning from prison), even when we might have lost a vote on the affected block. Still, we believe our honesty and our approach has preserved relationships for the future.
We also use creative approaches to build community across boundaries. The protests of our Displacement Free Zone almost always involve something fun -- one was a carnival, another a "fundraising dinner" on the landlord's lawn. Increasingly, we see art and culture as a way to build these bridges. This summer, we'll be working on a large community mural on the site of our new building, and exploring other cultural events and projects that build community.
Simon: Can you tell us a little more about how you go about organizing your community? How do you balance consensus versus confrontation and how you get the maximum buy-in, especially from diverse interests?
Lander: We believe in fairly "classic" community organizing to build power -- the model that has grown out of the Civil Rights Movement and the work of Saul Alinksy. For a good introduction, start with the Center for Community Change website (see related links). They define community organizing as the process of:
-
building power through involving a constituency in
identifying problems they share and the solutions to those problems; - identifying the people and structures that can make those solutions possible;
- enlisting those targets in the effort through negotiation and using confrontation and pressure when needed; and
- building an institution that is democratically controlled by that constituency that can develop the capacity to take on further problems and that embodies the will and the power of that constituency.
We want to involve diverse constituencies in our community, across lines of race and class. And of course, we want ultimately to create consensus for action that creates a vibrant, diverse community, where ALL residents have genuine opportunities to achieve their goals. But this must not mean ignoring the issues of power and privilege, or refusing to look at the hard issues of race and class. Community organizing groups are sometimes tagged as being too confrontational -- and on occasion we have perhaps been guilty of moving too quickly to a demonstration or protest. But more often, in our opinion, there is instead pressure for "community consensus" that simply reinforces the status quo. Resisting the powerful, relentless, and subtle ways that the market reinforces income inequality -- that is, rewards those who already have resources and punishes those who don't -- requires strong and forthright action.
But this does not mean being negative, or bitter, or always reactive. Instead, we work hard to create a shared, positive, vibrant vision for our community -- for a community that is characterized by social and economic justice, and is a place that everyone would want to live. So our "Displacement Free Zone," while often resorting to demonstrations when landlords are evicting seniors, families, and children, starts from the premise that we can have a neighborhood rooted in our values -- that it can be a place which is diverse, which respects neighbors, and which doesn't endorse profiteering at the expense of the most vulnerable. We have found that this vision creates substantial consensus, perhaps best judged by the diversity and number of people willing to come out to a protest or demonstration when one of their neighbors is at risk.
Brad Lander has served for 10 years as the executive director of The Fifth Avenue Committee. He serves on the boards of the NYC Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development and Grassroots Leadership, and teaches city planning at the Pratt Institute.
Related Links:
»Visit The Fifth Avenue Committee at fifthave.org.
»Learn more about community organizing at communitychange.org.
Jill Sander - San Francisco Planning Department
Harold Simon: You're currently working on a community planning process to re-zone the Eastern Neighborhoods of San Francisco including South of Market and the Mission District. Why was there a need to rezone the area and how has the city approached the project? How does the city engage citizens? What kind of support services does the city provide to strengthen citizen participation, and what role do citizens play in the process?
The Eastern portion of San Francisco (or about 15 percent of San Francisco's land) is zoned for industrial use. This land has been zoned such for the past 70 or more years. When it was originally zoned to accommodate industrial activity, planners assumed that this land was undesirable for any uses other than industrial. As a result, most uses are permitted. In the past 5 to 6 years, as greater development pressures have arisen, this industrial land came to be seen as the most flexible land, the cheapest land, and the land with the fewest potential neighbor conflicts in all of San Francisco. Since 1998, over 4,000 live/work units have been built in this area. The huge influx of residents to this predominantly industrial area caused the displacement of hundreds of production/distribution/repair jobs, as well as hundreds of artists, and Latino and Filipino working class households.
The planning department reacted with a year-long community planning process in which almost 1,000 community members have thus far participated. The goal of this ongoing process is to determine more appropriate zoning and height limits for the land currently zoned industrial and for the areas immediately surrounding these areas.
About one quarter of the Mission District (the Mission) is zoned industrial while the remainder is zoned for housing and neighborhood shops. The Mission has a long history of community activism. South of Market's (SoMa) zoning is very mixed in nature -- permitting industrial uses as well as many types of residential and office uses as well. It has a tremendous diversity of residents and businesses in the area and they are not singular in their goals.
The Planning Department has held a series of public workshops in the Mission, SoMa, and two other areas of the city as well. In the Mission, up to 350 people attended each meeting. We served full dinner and provided entertainment such as local marimba bands and the turnout seemed unprecedented. These meetings had a very grassroots feel in that residents from all backgrounds expressed their interests and desires for their neighborhood. Priorities were affordable housing, family housing, and the protection of local jobs. In some instances, participants also pushed for more market rate office and residential development.
The outreach of the planning department included sending out postcards to every resident and worker in each neighborhood, providing fliers on the events to local community groups, and listing dates in the local papers. The planning department strongly encouraged local groups, business owners, and interested citizens to bring more people to these meetings.
The community response in each area has been strong and, in many cases, individual groups have come forth with their own proposals. The Planning Department produced a range of alternatives for review by the Planning Commission. The content of these proposals came from the community's goals stated by workshop participants, research on the part of the planners, as well as ideas from the efforts of independent community groups.
Simon: Like New York City and a handful of other places, San Francisco revels (rightly so) in its diversity. But that diversity has led to cultural tensions. How has the city managed such tensions, especially when culture and class intertwine?
Slater: The primary source of tension is amidst different classes of residents in San Francisco. The diversity within San Francisco requires that developers, businesses and new and old residents must make compromises in order to coexist.
The Mission and SoMa are both areas where there are tensions between new and old communities. SoMa has long been home to a large Filipino community as well as the largest contingent of single resident occupant hotels. It was the center of attention during the dot-com boom -- start-up companies wanted their office space here and the new technology employees wanted to live in the district's trendy, new live/work condos. The Mission is a very attractive real estate option to homebuyers, and is also home to the largest concentration of working class Latino families in San Francisco. It is an area with beautiful Victorian homes and vibrant tree-lined streets. The Mission district has great access to shopping and public transit and is one of the sunniest areas in San Francisco.
The responses of the community during this planning process indicate that residents of all income levels want good places to live -- with services that make up a true neighborhood, with good urban design, and the convenience of living, working, and shopping in close proximity to one another. The owners and workers of the retail stores, offices and production/distribution/repair businesses also need good places in which to operate -- enough space to conduct a viable business with the protection from conflict with adjacent uses.
Tensions are relieved when policy makers understand the complexity of a situation in which diverse stakeholders express their demands. All sides must be listened to and well served by the outcome of the legislation.
Simon: All the qualities of San Francisco that make it desirable can also create massive displacement pressures. What are the strategies you've used to balance the need for economic diversity with the need for development, and the needs of new residents with those of long-time residents?
Slater: For this specific effort, the primary tool at the disposal of the Planning Department is strong and clear zoning rules. These rules must facilitate a generous amount of space for new development -- especially for housing. Housing that is built here must include housing that is affordable, that is built according to well-thought-out design guidelines, and that accommodates existing space for jobs. A big part of the work of this community planning process is to determine the proper balance between production/distribution/repair jobs and the pressure for more housing. The difficult task is to ascertain the importance of these jobs to the welfare, economic diversity and success of San Francisco as a place for all strata of people to live and work, and in so doing, to identify appropriate locations for housing.
Citywide, new residential projects with more than 10 apartments must provide 12 percent of the projects' apartments at a price affordable to households who earn less than or equal to the median income in San Francisco ($91,500 for a four-person household). The Planning Department is currently trying to develop other incentives that encourage more affordable units in these areas. Regulating the number of demolitions permitted, as well as the number of subdivisions of existing apartments can also contain the speed and efficiency of the gentrification of a neighborhood. The approach is to preserve as much of the existing housing stock while ensuring that new housing comes in the form of affordable units as well as market rate units. In this manner, a broader range of populations is housed in one neighborhood.
Simon: You mentioned that San Francisco has an inclusionary zoning ordinance that requires a 12 percent set aside for affordable units, but only requires affordability up to the local mean -- $91,500 for a family of four. What percentage of monthly income spent on rent is deemed "affordable"? How many households are cost burdened -- paying more than this percentage of their monthly income on rent? Describe some of the strategies the city is implementing to meet the needs of these families, at the lower end of the pay scale, who are competing for the same affordable units with families closer to or at the median income level. Are there preservation strategies in place for non-subsidized, very-low and low-income apartments?
Slater: Almost everyone in San Francisco has something to complain about with respect to housing: it is too expensive, it is too sparse, it is too dense. As San Francisco increases in desirability, land availability becomes scarce, and housing becomes a very emotional subject.
The city of San Francisco has a mandate from the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to produce a certain amount of housing for distinct resident populations. The Planning Department negotiates what is feasible for annual production with the Association of Bay Area Governments and HCD. Once the various agencies come to a compromised agreement, the Planning Department's Housing Element aims to reach these targets via its housing objectives, policies, and implementation programs. The number of housing units required reflects the city's share of regional job and household growth.
In the recent past, the city has overproduced market rate housing that serves households who earn over 120 percent of the median income. In San Francisco, the median income for a household of four people is $91,500. This amount is inflated due to the fact that it is calculated based on a metropolitan statistical area that not only includes San Francisco, but other counties with some of the highest income earners in the country. As a result, efforts to define the middle class and lower middle class are skewed.
The city has, on the other hand, woefully under-produced housing that serves households of very low, low and moderate incomes. Subsidized projects generally target low, and very low income households, leaving moderate income households the least served. These "affordable" housing projects can serve households earning annual incomes up to almost $50,000! Those households earning above $50,000 but below median are traditionally thought of as middle class and are either housed in the rent-controlled housing stock, in homes purchased decades prior or in shared living situations. The remaining households that cannot compete with those targeted for subsidized or "affordable" housing and cannot compete with the wealthier households for market rate housing are often forced to leave San Francisco in search of cheaper housing.
A typical scenario in urban areas -- the real estate market builds housing at market rates, and the government and non-profit housing developers produce housing for the lower income populations. (See table "Percent of Households Overpaying by Income Level"). There is little built in between these two extremes.
Methods for preservation of existing affordable housing stock at the Planning Department include staff-initiated discretionary reviews of all demolition permits. In other words, each project is reviewed by staff and brought before the Planning Commission for a final decision on the appropriateness of the demolition. In addition to oversight of demolitions, the Planning Code strictly discourages the merging of units. Included in the proposed zoning for the Mission are efforts to encourage the development of affordable units with a careful monitoring of the overall number of units produced. The priority in that neighborhood is that if and when units are built, the majority should be affordable or they should not be built. Another effort at preservation comes from the Mayor's Office of Housing, which provides rehab loans for low income homeowners.
Jill Slater is a city planner who has worked with the city of San Francisco for the past six years. She received a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. and a Masters in City and Regional Planning from the University of California at Berkeley.
Related Links:
»Visit the San Francisco Planning Department at sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp.
Joe Molinaro - National Association of Realtors
Harold Simon: The planning term "smart growth" is often thought to mean "stop growth," especially at the urban/suburban periphery. How does the National Association of Realtors (NAR) define smart growth? What strategies does your membership use to encourage appropriate redevelopment to minimize costs (traffic congestion, air pollution) while maximizing existing urban and suburban assets (cultural, infrastructure)?
NAR defines smart growth as growth that protects the environment, builds better communities, protects the right of Americans to own and transfer real property, and provides housing opportunity and choice, including the building of affordable housing. But each community must define for itself what smart growth is. In some places, for example, the priority is preserving farmland or natural lands. Other communities are more concerned with addressing traffic congestion. And for many older cities and first-ring suburbs, the major focus is revitalizing older neighborhoods or increasing the supply of low income housing. Realtors support a community planning process that includes all stakeholders working together to decide what the priorities are in that community and what approaches would work best.
In many communities, state and local Realtor associations have supported new approaches to achieve smart growth goals. For example, on Cape Cod, Mass., Realtors developed and supported a property tax increase to pay for the purchase of open space. In Wisconsin, Realtors supported legislation that provided local government with more tools to create comprehensive plans, including a requirement that towns adopt a Traditional Neighborhood Development ordinance that allows higher density, mixed-use communities to be built. This year in Massachusetts, Realtors have written and championed legislation that would grant local governments the power to provide density bonuses to builders who build affordable housing. In Washington State, Realtors were the catalyst for a broad-based Infrastructure Coalition that is promoting potential solutions for funding needed roads, bridges, water and sewer facilities. Of course, not all efforts are successful -- in 2002, Realtors in Virginia devoted a lot of resources to support a major referendum campaign to increase taxes to pay for roads and transit, but the voters turned down the proposal.
In many communities, reforming zoning ordinances could be a good step toward smart growth. For example, zoning that requires large lots for houses results in more expensive housing and creates more sprawl. Many municipalities do not permit apartments to be built at all. And building new mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods with a range of housing types and neighborhood shopping is forbidden by most zoning ordinances. NAR is providing training and information to our members to inform Realtors that there are better approaches; we are encouraging Realtors to get involved in the public debate about these issues.
Simon: When urban centers are weak, spillover problems affect suburbs, from higher taxes to increased crime. When city residents try to get away from these urban problems by moving to the suburbs they contribute to sprawl. Yet most suburban
communities don't see how closely they're tied to the well-being of their central cities. The result is a competition for resources creating political tensions and social balkanization. How do local Realtors challenge these entrenched beliefs and move towards creating more regional cooperation to strengthen inner cities?
Molinaro: Regional cooperation is difficult in this country due to its strong tradition of local government. While there are obvious benefits of local control of a community's affairs, the strong local government powers and the large number of local governments in a region make coordination and cooperation difficult.
One of the sources of political and social tension is fiscal issues. Every state has its own way of collecting taxes and spending tax revenues, but often the method of taxation used in a state can be a big contributor to decline in central cities, sprawl in the suburbs and a lack of affordable housing. For example, in some states, local communities keep much of the revenue raised by sales taxes in their communities, which leads to local governments competing for retail development such as shopping malls, which leads to more highway strip commercial development. However, residential development is seen as a money-loser for local communities since new residents greatly increase expenditures for public education. Many communities use zoning to keep out affordable housing and encourage expensive housing because they believe that this will improve their fiscal situations. Central cities often have large expenses for supporting an infrastructure that is used during the day by workers who don't pay taxes there.
I believe that regional cooperation and equity -- as it relates to tax issues, education funding, affordable housing, transportation funding -- will only occur when the state government mandates it. We are seeing some changes in how education is financed. Due to court decisions that have found that using local property taxes for education is inequitable to students in poorer jurisdictions, a few states are increasing state funding or otherwise trying to improve equity in education funding. One part of Maryland's smart growth effort has been to spend more state school construction money repairing schools in older neighborhoods rather than building new schools in the distant suburbs. And in Minnesota, there is a much-written-about program of tax-base sharing that tries to better balance the fiscal disparities between city and suburb and reduce the competition among jurisdictions for development that brings in high tax revenues. I think a good place for Realtors to address this issue, as civic leaders, would be to support efforts to improve equity in education -- Realtors are well aware of the importance of schools in selling homes, and they can appreciate that for central city communities to improve, the quality of schools must be on a par with those in suburban communities.
Simon: You mention that local governments often don't see (or don't feel they have the luxury to see) equity and regional cooperation as being in their primary fiscal interest. Residential development, especially affordable housing, is seen as a money-loser, where as sprawling shopping malls bring in sales tax revenue. What can we do to bring about a change in how communities (including local governments) calculate their cost-benefit analyses and envision the goal of community development? How can we bring about a shift in the worldview and values of community development, aside from waiting and hoping that states will mandate it?
Molinaro: Elected officials will continue to calculate the cost and benefit of development, in strictly today's dollar terms, as long as citizens' prime interest is in keeping their taxes lower. If citizens want to change the approach of their local government, one approach would be to convince their elected officials that they (the citizens) are more interested in the longer view of building a more sustainable and equitable community, even if it means bearing the potentially larger costs. Or, they can change business as usual and reprioritize or downscale their wants in terms of publicly-provided facilities and services. For example, do we really need to build a new school on 80 acres of land on the edge of town, or could we fix up our old school that is within walking distance of more students, for less money? Do we really need to spend millions of dollars on a new highway, or should we improve transit and invest in close-in, higher-density, transit-oriented development that will help take cars off the road and provide greater housing options? It would be possible to craft a political message that a shift to smart growth and sustainable communities will be more economical in the long run, will provide greater opportunity for poorer people to have better access to jobs and affordable housing, and will provide greater options for everyone.
How can this shift in thinking be fostered? I believe the incremental approach works best -- a good idea here, a good project there, helps people get past the "it can't be done here" mentality. Case studies of successful communities can inspire. And creating a first project that encourages people from several local jurisdictions to work together is a great start. I take part in many smart growth seminars at the local level, and often the major accomplishment of the event isn't any decision or new policy direction -- it is simply getting citizens groups, housing advocates, environmentalists, and real estate groups to talk together for the first time in a non-confrontational setting. From this small start, new alliances and new projects can arise.
But I still believe state action can play a large role in appealing to local governments' "enlightened self-interest" by developing a taxing system that does not encourage localities to fight for some types of development and shun others; by developing an educational finance system that does not rely on property taxes to fund schools; by spending transportation dollars in a way that provides greater travel options for everyone and mobility for those who do not own cars; and by providing incentives to local governments to promote the development of a wider variety of housing types and prices.
Simon: In changing communities, especially in older urban or inner-ring suburbs, there is often a tension between long-time residents and new arrivals. That tension can be a by-product of the disparity in wealth between the newcomers and the current residents or it can be caused by cultural differences. Sometimes it's both. How do Realtors balance self-interest, the positive value of a strengthening real-estate market, with the goals of stability and retaining long-term residents who were in part responsible for the area's redevelopment? And what role should Realtors, as civic leaders, take in reducing inter-group tensions when they arise?
Molinaro: Changing communities often bring tensions between long-time residents and new arrivals. Whether it is racial or ethnic change or an economic change due to rising property values, new and old residents are often faced with the task of adapting to changes they may not have desired or planned for. A Realtor has a responsibility to his or her client to represent their interests and get the best price and contract for their client, whether it is buyer or seller. A Realtor may not, according to fair housing laws and the Realtor Code of Ethics, encourage or discourage sales or rentals in a community because of the racial composition of a community or changes in the racial composition (as well as changes based on other protected classes such as national origin or religion).
Realtors help long-term residents in a price-appreciating community by assisting them to purchase housing using many available housing affordability programs, sponsoring homeownership classes and more. Realtors often work with local community-based non-profit organizations to help long-term homeowners use their increasing equity to improve their homes. In addition, Realtors and the Realtor Association often sponsor or participate in community-based activities to reduce tensions and improve community relations.
Recently, NAR began a Housing Opportunity program (see related links) to provide better information to Realtors about programs in their states and communities that assist people in buying homes. And for many years, we have had a diversity program that includes a training program called "At Home with Diversity" that improves the ability of Realtors to effectively reach out to all racial and ethnic groups in their community. (Thousands of Realtors have taken these courses.) Our diversity program also includes programs to increase the success of minority Realtors and to reach out to minority organizations including minority real estate organizations not affiliated with NAR.
Simon: One way to help retain existing residents when housing costs are escalating is through increases in density -- more units built in the same area. What are some of the advantages of increasing density in fighting sprawl and creating a "housing ladder," and what are the problems that Realtors are encountering in accepting this idea or advocating for it?
Molinaro: Realtors understand the importance of density in providing affordable housing and a wide range of housing opportunities. As land gets more expensive, it is more important than ever to use land more wisely. Home buyers are learning this too -- according to NAR's research, in 2002, 13 percent of home sales in the U.S. were condos, the highest number ever. And, of course, the development of rental apartments requires building at higher densities.
Density brings many benefits, including the following:
- Density enables walkable neighborhoods, so more people can walk to shops, to school, and to visit friends in the neighborhood.
- By reducing the need for a car for every trip, density can improve air quality.
- Density supports housing choice and affordability because it gives developers the flexibility to integrate diverse housing types in a development, and because higher densities mean less land cost per unit.
- Density makes transit work because it is more efficient to serve a high-density place.
- Density enables protection of open space and slows down sprawl because more of our need for new housing can be met on a smaller amount of land.
Having the ability to live without a car is important for many people. The very young, the very old, and those with low income are not served very well by a system that requires driving. And it is a much better long-term investment to spend your money on buying a home than on buying a car. That might seem to be a self-serving (for Realtors) statement, but many studies have shown that the primary way for Americans to build family wealth and provide a brighter future for their children is by owning a home. Higher-density, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with good transit can provide a good option for those who want to live without a car (or families who want to live with one less car!) and save money that could be used for housing.
Often, people in a community will fight the development of apartments or townhouses. One objection often raised is that higher density will worsen traffic -- but if built as a true walkable community with transit instead of a stand-alone "apartment complex" surrounded by parking lots, higher density can generate much less traffic per housing unit than detached homes in a sprawl pattern. Another common objection is that "high density" or "affordable" or "low income" housing will decrease property values, but many studies have shown this is seldom the case. Currently, we are preparing material to educate Realtors on better methods of working with communities to receive their input and gain their support for new development.
Simon: Can you tell us a bit more about the history of Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinances? I know you mentioned that Wisconsin realtors have been involved in implementing these ordinances -- is it a national trend? Is the traditional neighborhoods movement an outgrowth of the smart growth movement or just one way to approach it?
Molinaro: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) ordinances are zoning codes that encourage the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods that contain a mix of uses (residential and commercial) and a mix of housing types (detached houses, rowhouses, and apartments) on a connected network of streets. Historically, suburban zoning codes have separated development by use and by type of residences, resulting in single-use areas of low densities. In effect, the zoning codes of most jurisdictions have made the development of walkable mixed-use neighborhoods illegal.
In the early 1980s, several developers began building developments that were more like traditional towns than low-density suburbs. These early examples of neo-traditional development -- Seaside, Fla.; Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Md.; Harbor Town in Memphis -- did not conform to typical suburban development patterns and indicated the need for new ordinances that permitted this type of compact, walkable community. Now, several new model ordinances for traditional neighborhoods, or "New Urbanism," have been written; about 25 local governments have adopted this type of zoning ordinance, and four states have enacted enabling legislation that provides for local governments to adopt TND ordinances. The Congress for New Urbanism has tracked and compiled these ordinances and state laws (see related links).
TND ordinances were beginning to be written by the late 1980s, while the term smart growth began to be used later, in the mid-1990s. I would say that smart growth is a term that encompasses many more elements than TND, such as open space acquisition and transportation improvements, but the ability to build new areas as traditional neighborhoods is a vital part of making smart growth happen.
Simon: You mentioned that Realtors often work with local nonprofits to help long-term residents in price-appreciating neighborhoods improve their homes. Can you tell us more about some creative community-based organization/Realtor partnerships that support a local housing ladder in changing urban neighborhoods, including the preservation of low and moderate income housing?
Molinaro: Many local Realtor associations are involved in programs that provide homeownership assistance to low income residents or that assist in the development of affordable housing. For example, the Southwest Los Angeles Board of Realtors has established The Multicultural Real Estate Alliance for Urban Change, an outreach effort in partnership with The Enterprise Foundation, which obtains HUD foreclosure homes, rehabs the homes, and sells them back to qualified first-time homebuyers; the Alliance also offers monthly homebuyer education courses. The Tucson Association of Realtors is active with the Southern Arizona Housing Center. As part of this effort the Realtors are developing a program for 2003 implementation to train Realtors about affordable housing loan and first-time buyer programs. The Fort Wayne Area Association of Realtors is in partnership with Project Renew, the Fort Wayne Neighborhood Partnership and other housing-related public and private organizations to provide $20,000 per project as seed money to rehab homes in the inner city. Once the properties are sold, the association receives its investment back and works to identify other similar projects. The Spokane Association of Realtors has formed a Spokane Homebuyers Resource Center, with local lenders, that provides homeownership counseling seminars 2 or 3 times monthly and one-on-one counseling sessions just prior to purchase.
The Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors has joined forces in a broad-based coalition developed by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. The coalition is working to develop a project that will expand housing opportunities within the region. The effort is coinciding with the state's smart growth legislation, which requires all communities to have comprehensive plans by 2010.
The California Association of Realtors has just embarked on a major effort by creating the Housing Affordability Fund. The fund receives funding from members, non-members, and other institutions that are committed to addressing the housing affordability problem in California. The initial goal of the fund is to raise $20 million dollars within five years. The funds will be distributed through its local associations to promote homeownership and to address housing affordability issues statewide.
Joe Molinaro manages NAR's Smart Growth Programs. Prior to joining NAR, he was Director of Land Development Services for the National Association of Home Builders. He holds a Master of Urban and Regional Planning and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners.
Related Links:
»Visit the National Association of Realtors and learn more
about their Smart Growth Programs at realtor.org.
»Check out NAR's Housing Opportunity Program.
»Learn more about The Congress for New Urbanism at cnu.org.
Mtamanika Youngblood - Historic District Development Corporation
Harold Simon: Thanks to a variety of forces and initiatives, Atlanta has made a very strong and conscious effort to attract thousands of skilled and professional workers from the suburbs and other parts of the region. With that effort, displacement was in the wind years ago. To "manage" the inevitable gentrification, the Historic District Development Corporation combined market rate development, historic preservation and subsidized development to create a comprehensive plan. How did you decide on the mix and what were the key elements needed to make it sustainable over time?
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District is in Atlanta's Old Fourth Ward neighborhood. It's sandwiched between upper income Inman Park and downtown Atlanta. Knowing there would be market pressures based on its location, the resident-led board decided on a residential development mix of one third low income, one-third moderate income and one-third middle income.
When HDDC began concentrated development in earnest, it spent an entire year acquiring lots and vacant structures. Essentially, it land banked. This allowed for "planned development" so that HDDC could determine the mix of housing costs. Depending on land costs, the organization cross subsidizes, whereby the market rate housing is used to subsidize the affordable housing that is built.
Most of the initial residential development was geared to low and moderate income families and individuals. Since the early 1990s, HDDC has been using a block-by-block development strategy; building new homes on vacant lots on the same streets where it rehabbed existing dilapidated structures.
Part of this methodology was to improve the condition of many elderly residents who lived in poorly maintained rental housing. HDDC would acquire the rental property, temporarily relocate the resident to a newly rehabbed home -- sometimes right next door or across the street. Once the resident's original home was rehabbed, they would be given the option of moving back to it. HDDC would maintain the rent at its current level or assist the renter in becoming Section 8 eligible. This approach has contributed to long-term stability and created trust between existing residents (they feel secure in their "place" in the neighborhood as it improves) and the new residents. HDDC also worked with existing homeowners, by assisting them in finding resources to improve the condition of their homes.
HDDC maintains a stock of multifamily and single-family rental property to insure that affordability will always be available to low and moderate income renters.
Because of the increased value of the affordable housing it built, HDDC requires the repayment of whatever subsidy was included in a house to make it affordable whenever the house is sold. This was not an original policy, but it is becoming increasingly important to recycle subsidy dollars wherever possible.
A great deal of whatever success HDDC has had has been attributable to several factors:
- The organization's board has always been led by residents and comprised of a majority of residents.
- HDDC has spent a great deal of time planning, both organizationally and with/for the entire community.
- When HDDC is venturing into unfamiliar development territory, it has not been afraid to partner or collaborate with other entities. New home construction and the ability to land bank was funded by a partnership with Nations Bank Community Development Corporation (now Bank of America) and the City of Atlanta using HOME funds. After functioning for 13 years as an all-volunteer, board-led organization, HDDC received its first operational funding from the Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, which was also a development partner in Studioplex, HDDC's mixed-use art complex. When faced with its first multifamily project, HDDC formed a partnership with Progressive Redevelopment, Inc. Equity for the project was provided by the Enterprise Foundation which continues to provide much needed operational support and project funding.
- The organization remains steadfastly committed to its mission and guiding principles.
HDDC is proud that it has been able to revitalize without displacement, maintain the neighborhood's historic character and create an environment where a range of incomes are welcome. However, the organization's greatest challenge, and where it spends the greatest amount of time, is its effort to sustain affordability over time.
Simon: You mention that HDDC looked ahead to when your efforts would be successful and began to "land bank" properties. Given the funding realities today, how can small organizations accomplish this? You mentioned strategic partnerships. Are there any other strategies used to guide the market and not be priced out of the market when your efforts are successful?
Youngblood: There are other ways to "land bank" that do not place the burden on the community organization. There are formal land-banking entities, usually established by cities or counties that can do the same on behalf of community organizations. HDDC was forced to land bank because the entity in Atlanta that was supposed to, did not. Additionally, city-owned land that is donated or sold at a reduced cost can be used by nonprofit developers for the purpose of building and maintaining affordability.
Nonprofits, in partnership with market-rate developers, can create a mix of housing whereby affordable and market-rate housing can be developed in collaboration. This has to be well planned and may need some instigation by the city's planning or housing department.
Ultimately, some sort of public policy that protects land for affordable housing within revitalizing communities is the most effective. Nonprofits collaborating with other interested parties could advocate for such a policy.
Simon: A big part of HDDC's success has been effective community organizing. Can you speak a little more about how you do this? How do you balance consensus with confrontation and how you get the maximum buy-in, especially from diverse interests?
Youngblood: Organizing requires constant communication and the building of trust. It's important to have consensus and a community mechanism for achieving it has to be developed. That said, meaningful change and improvement needs to be accomplished in a way that provides for the greatest good. A community has to know when it has reached a point where a decision needs to be made and implementation needs to occur. If confrontation occurs after that point, it may not be possible to avoid it and achieve positive results.
Maximum buy-in comes when, given a fair and open process, diverse constituencies have a voice and can see benefit. It's important that the benefit be mutual. For example, HDDC spent a great deal of time helping long-term residents see the value of bringing new residents into the community. Once existing residents were convinced that their "place in the community" was secure, they acted as ambassadors to the newcomers. Different aspects of HDDC's revitalization strategy appealed to different residents. It was important that they be made to feel a part of that effort.
Mtamanika Youngblood is Senior Vice President for Community Impact at United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta. She previously served as executive director of the Historic District Development Corporation in Atlanta. Ms. Youngblood is a James A. Johnson Fellow through the Fannie Mae Foundation.
Related Links:
»Visit the Historic District Development Corporation at hddc.net.
»Check out the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta at unitedwayatlanta.org.
Radhika K. Fox - PolicyLink
Harold Simon: PolicyLink is dedicated to developing local and national policies and programs designed to foster equitable development. To facilitate this, PolicyLink has identified and gathered successful programs and polices along with a range of organizing and political strategies into a toolkit. Can you describe the toolkit for us?
The goal of the toolkit is to offer local communities a menu of policy options they can pursue to promote equitable development, build the necessary skills to analyze the economic, racial, and ethnic equity impacts of past investments, analyze proposals and data for prospective investments, forge strategic alliances to win their policy goals, and communicate their successes and challenges.
Simon: Moving beyond the toolkit itself, the PolicyLink Equitable Development Team is now working with groups in Portland, the Bay Area, Atlanta, D.C., Boston, and other communities. These places have varying demographics, politics and community assets (financial, social, and human capital). Given this range and variety, have common threads emerged and what pieces of the toolkit do you find most frequently used?
Fox: Focus on Fair Share Housing. In nearly every community that PolicyLink works with, the issue of decent, safe, and affordable housing that is spread across the region is a key issue. All of our regional partners currently spend much of their policy resources on campaigns for new affordable housing resources, preservation of existing affordable housing with the goal of stability for long-time residents, and on the intersection of transportation investments and housing affordability. The affordable housing section of the toolkit is the most frequently utilized by community groups.
Confront Race Dynamics. Race plays a significant role in the process of community revitalization, but it is experienced as a complex interplay of race, class and culture. Ultimately, communities with economic and social forces working against their well-being are most susceptible to displacement. Neighborhoods where people of color are living in concentrated poverty, have few job opportunities, and where there are few professionals and business leaders are the most vulnerable to displacement. In the communities that we work with, local leaders are articulating the connection between race and regional development. Confronting race dynamics and developing productive solutions to the many factors associated with racial and economic segregation in urban core communities and inner-ring suburbs is critical to building equitable neighborhoods and regions.
Increase Community Capacity. While regional coalitions or networks are eager to work on equitable development policy campaigns, few organizations have the capacity to take on significant policy work on top of the services they normally deliver. It takes reallocation of existing resources and the raising of new resources to create the capacity needed to build winning campaigns. We must have sustained investment from the public sector and foundations to build local capacity to achieve equitable development. Some of the ways that we support local communities in advancing equitable development campaigns include: crafting campaign strategy, engaging in locally relevant research; using data and information to support policy change and inform campaigns; crafting compelling messages that make the case for equitable development; and engaging diverse stakeholders.
Simon: How can community groups anticipate neighborhood change and plan appropriate responses?
Fox: First, Assess. A strategic assessment of a community's situation is a crucial first step. This is needed in order to understand the development dynamics underway and to provide a baseline of information that communities can compare to their desired state of community. For communities working to combat displacement, the most crucial time to start is at the beginning of revitalization efforts. An assessment will usually involve community mapping that identifies renter-to-homeownership rates, vacancy and abandonment rates, affordability indexes (rent or mortgage as percentage of household income), and spatial analyses of race and poverty. They should be tailored to the specific situation.
Action on Four Fronts. After an assessment, communities will have a better sense of their priorities and be ready to take action. There are four major categories of action that promote equitable development, whether that entails stabilizing a gentrifying neighborhood or trying to revitalize a disinvested community.
- Preserving and Expanding the Supply of Affordable Housing: Whether communities are working to rehab and fill vacant buildings in depopulated urban cores or to improve community infrastructure in fully populated low income neighborhoods, an explicit housing affordability plan should always be in place first.
- Controlling Land for Community Development: Land use, tax and zoning policies all shape equitable development; a housing affordability plan can't succeed without taking them into account. Communities need to evaluate zoning and public land giveaways and steer them in the direction of their aspirations.
-
Income and Asset Creation: Income and asset creation are critical for
ensuring resident well-being as the neighborhood economy improves. - Financing Strategies: Proactive financing strategies can provide neighborhood-specific ways to fund the other three categories of action. Options for funding are numerous, and can be directed at nonprofits, private developers, or even landlords.
Simon: Let's talk more about finding creative financing strategies. We've seen that the groups that Brad Lander and Mtamanika Youngblood work with began to "land bank" properties early. Given the funding realities today, how can small organizations accomplish this? Are there any other strategies used to guide the market and not be priced out when your efforts are successful?
Fox: Given that we are in an economic downturn, it is theoretically the best time to "land bank" properties since land values have decreased. However, it is extremely challenging to find new resources in this diminished funding climate. One opportunity for community organizations to explore is partnering with local government to get access to vacant, under-utilized or abandoned buildings. There are examples of city agencies turning these properties over to nonprofit organizations who then bring these buildings into productive reuse. In a variation on this idea, the city of Portland turns over portions of its land holdings to the community land trust.
However, the efforts of community organizations to advance equitable development and prevent displacement are only one piece of the puzzle. Locales must implement strategies that require the private market to contribute to the affordable housing stock in a community. For example, inclusionary zoning policies tie market-rate residential development to housing affordability, while commercial linkage programs tie commercial development to housing affordability.
Radhika Fox staffs PolicyLink initiatives focused on equitable development and regional equity. Prior to joining PolicyLink, she was a HUD Community Development Fellow. She holds a B.A. from Columbia University and a Masters in City and Regional Planning from the University of California at Berkeley.
Related Links:
»Learn more about PolicyLink and the Equitable Development Toolkit at policylink.org.
Theresa Singleton - Housing Assistance Council
Harold Simon: Gentrification is usually considered an urban issue. Does it affect rural communities? What are some
strategies to combat it?
The central difference between rural and urban gentrification is that rural residents seem not to be displaced in the same way that urban neighborhood residents are, though there is a need for more analysis of these issues. In general, rural residents are less likely to move than their urban counterparts; nearly 59 percent of the nonmetro population lives in the same houses they did in 1995. However, those nonmetro residents who moved between 1995 and 2000 were more likely than urban movers to relocate to different counties. As noted above, rural gentrification tends to affect entire counties. Consequently, residents who are pressured by gentrification and the dynamics that typically occur (e.g., rising housing costs) would be forced to leave the county to escape these pressures.
Simon: Can you speak a little more about organizing rural communities? How do you balance consensus versus confrontation and how do you get the maximum buy-in, especially from diverse interests?
Singleton: Again, organizing around gentrification has been much different in rural areas than in urban. Much of the interest in and activism against rural gentrification has come from the farming and agricultural community. There has been a loss of more than 250 million acres of agricultural land in this country since the 1950s. Further, a significant portion of prime agricultural land is currently in the path of development. Farmers have found common cause with rural residents who have seen their home prices and rents increase exponentially with increased growth and development. To combat these issues, rural residents have sometimes supported limited growth strategies to reduce the costs of development. More than 13 states have passed legislation that in some way limits or directs growth and development. Local areas have utilized planning tools such as zoning and housing caps, which may offer at least some protection for rural residents against gentrification and its potentially harmful impacts.
Rural gentrification has been a contentious issue in many rural areas, as these communities often have competing interests of wanting to preserve rural character and needing the economic stimulus that new people and businesses can bring. In order to address these issues, rural areas have been encouraged to engage in early community planning to determine the type and scale of growth the areas can handle. Planning can give a community an understanding of its needs and resources and serve to build coalitions among groups that may not consider themselves to have like concerns. Further, a community can gain insight as to the appropriate level of growth to accommodate the interests of native residents and newcomers.
Simon: Sprawl contributes to disinvestment in inner cities. What does it do to rural communities?
Singleton: Sprawl tends to impact rural areas differently than urban areas. Urban sprawl has been one, if not the, major contributor to rural population growth over the last decades. From 1990 to 2000, the nonmetro population grew by 10 percent. In the western states, such as Colorado, Arizona and Utah, rural areas have experienced population increases of 30 percent or more during this same time period. As people and businesses have moved from the urban center, many have bypassed the suburbs and relocated to rural communities. This geographic shift has multiple impacts on rural areas and residents. For some rural areas, the in-migration of new residents may be hailed, as it may mean more jobs for local residents and subsequently, an increased tax base for a struggling community.
Urban sprawl, and the resulting growth, may also bring an increased pressure on rural community resources, including roads, schools and other public works. New residents will require more, and often new, services from local governments that are typically unprepared or unable to meet these growing needs. Increased growth also places additional pressures on land and housing. As rural communities have become more attractive to developers and potential residents, agricultural land and green spaces have been lost to encroaching subdivisions. The consumption of agricultural lands is another important component of the loss of rural character that defines rural gentrification. The movement of people from urban to rural areas also creates pressures on local housing markets. Competition over limited housing and limited land leads to increased costs, which can be burdensome for many rural residents, as more than 25 percent of all nonmetro households are cost burdened, paying 30 percent or more of their household income for housing costs.
Simon: Is it possible to create urban/rural collaboratives? Where have they occurred? How do they operate?
Singleton: While rural and urban communities may have some conflicting interests with regard to urban sprawl (i.e., competition for industry and jobs), there has been collaboration between the two to address the impacts of sprawl and the results of gentrification. Under the banner of "smart growth," many states and local communities have tried to preserve rural character by limiting the amount or type of growth and development that can occur in these regions. States and counties across the nation have adopted no-growth zones and lot size requirements to limit urban sprawl and the rural gentrification that results. There is some question, however, as to how these policies may affect economic development efforts and the development of affordable housing for low income rural residents. For example, developers of low income housing in rural areas often cannot meet the large lot requirements or pay the impact fees that may be used to limit growth in rural areas. Consequently, affordable housing needs that exist in rural areas may go unmet. Smart growth and other efforts to preserve the character of rural communities must balance the often competing needs of the residents and the land.
Theresa Singleton manages research for the Housing Assistance Council. She holds a PhD. in political science. Her current areas of interest include the connections between housing and health, ethnic and racial diversity in rural areas, and organizational capacity.
Related Links:
»Visit the Housing Assistance Council at ruralhome.org.