Here's an article I wrote about community development issues: gentrification vs. inclusion.
Thirty or forty years ago, �community development� commonly referred to rural empowerment programs and � in the urban sense � the construction of suburban tract housing. As expansion of wealth and population pushed cities outward, money and time allocated for basic urban infrastructure shifted to the buildup of sprawling regional centers like the Twin Cities. As a result, many inner-city communities faced a staggering flight of human and economic capital; emptied of resources and investment, poverty and its attendant ills became exacerbated, housing stock deteriorated, and jobs disappeared to newly connected suburbs. In a sense, community development has now come full circle; revitalization of the neglected urban core is regarded as critical to long-term regional sustainability. Even as cul-de-sacs and big-box retail continue to sprout in distant ex-urbs, preference for smart-growth and New Urban design guidelines are taking hold in suburban and out-state planning arenas. The economic, social, and environmental benefits of high-density, human-scale development � in and out of the central city � are being widely recognized. In cities across the country, governing bodies and private investors are pouring billions of dollars into redevelopment; waterfronts and corridors are being refurbished and reinvented, investment in cultural amenities is a priority, and living in or near downtown is fashionable and convenient. It was inevitable that the effort to increase density and diversity in the urban core would spill into surrounding neighborhoods. While redevelopment occurs at different rates in different neighborhoods (more contingent upon racial/ethnic make-up than location) most �first-ring� neighborhoods are facing more and more development pressure. A majority of new developments target middle to upper-level income brackets, though many tap Low Income Housing Credit and Tax Increment subsidy programs in exchange for agreeing to keep a percentage of units at �affordable� levels for a set number of years (Affordable housing activists maintain that median-income ratios are continually out-dated; that what is considered �affordable� is so to a smaller and smaller segment of the population). When the term expires, what has occurred � at least on that particular parcel � is full-scale gentrification. And because it is by nature a cascading process, in a decade or less a neighborhood can be transformed. With multiple developments in line for south Minneapolis (Midtown Greenway Corridor, Portland Gateway, LRT-spurred development, major redevelopment in Elliot Park, Hi-Lake removal and redevelopment, possible access to 35W at Lake Street, etc.), poverty-concentrated neighborhoods such as Phillips are likely to see social and economic upheavals in the near future; individual projects completed in the next several years may have long-term affects for an even larger segment of south Minneapolis. Project for Pride in Living, a Phillips-based, non-profit community development agency now in it�s 30th year of providing housing, job and neighborhood services in the Twin Cities, is partnering with Augsburg college to offer a series of seminars entitled, �Building Futures: Community Building in the 21st Century�. The series seeks to spotlight new trends and innovations in community development around the United States. At the first seminar, held in early March, Joe McNeely, founder and director of the Development Training Institute and Director of Neighborhoods at HUD during the Carter Administration, said that current models for sustainable development are based upon research done decades ago. �One of the biggest questions we should be asking ourselves is whether the neighborhood revitalization strategies we use are still compelling and savvy and equitable for everybody in our communities�, said McNeely. Noting that many non-profit social services use operating models that allow for individual success, but don�t have any long-term impact on poverty in neighborhoods, McNeely said that community development agencies must come at revitalization from a wider perspective than �how many units of housing we�ve produced�. �How do we reconnect people to the mainstream who are concentrated and isolated if you ignore the question of concentration and just talk about services?� McNeely asked. PPL is currently involved in just such an imbroglio. The organization operates multiple housing units in and around North Phillips, a neighborhood with a long history of blight and neglect. When PPL proposed a large, long-term supportive housing facility near a prime intersection for at-risk, chronically-homeless families, neighborhood groups rushed to condemn the idea, insisting that organizations like PPL � with endorsement from the city � use neighborhoods as �containment zones� for inner-city challenges. Under political impetus to support affordable housing, the City Council Planning Commission unanimously approved multiple variances for the project, including over-riding its own 1/4-mile spacing rule for such facilities. PPL contends that the facility is �not another group home�, but �permanent housing with on-site amenities�, and that the design is in keeping with the neighborhood�s master plan: human-scale, traditional architecture with space set aside for future storefront/mixed-use application. Supporters say the proposal is a perfect example of equitable community development � aimed not only at its potential residents, but at increasing value and quality of life for everyone with a stake in the neighborhood. While a lack of communication and deep-seeded frustration by longtime residents may have contributed to the controversy, the proposal is an apt example of the mixed-use model being aggressively implemented across the country. It�s one way in which planners are attempting to bridge the gap between two sets of revitalization philosophies: those who wish ro reinvigorate a community with �big-plot� private-sector development, and those with rational fears of full-scale gentrification who want to preserve the character of a community and avoid displacing its poorest residents. �It�s a legitimate debate�, said McNeely. �One in which both sides are probably right�. He cited a major redevelopment in Baltimore where subsidized high-rises were replaced by a �an almost invisible� mixture of subsidized and market-rate, human-scale housing. �It�s the beginning of a community that�s not a concentration of poverty but a real mixture of people that enjoy the city and the neighborhood�, said McNeely. But this seemingly ideal picture is incomplete, he added, because the final density of the project was thirty percent less than before. �Where did the people go?� , he asked. �Can we live on the assumption that they took their Section 8 and went to a better place? Do we really believe that they�ll go the suburbs and become part of the �mainstream�? Or do people move in concentrated clusters to the same neighborhood together, reproducing the concentration that we�re concerned about?� This is the wrench in the machinery of urban revitalization. Efforts to revitalize neighborhoods and de-concentrate poverty by erecting mixed-income developments may beautify the neighborhood and attract investment, but unless the root causes of poverty are addressed, the poor are simply moved from here to there or hid among the better-off. Organizations committed to the health of inner-city communities know that the basis for sustainable community development lies in equipping everyone with stability and self-reliance, not just those able to afford new townhouses on the riverfront. Rather than bricks, mortar and a free market, what guides the wisest urban planning is attention to equitable opportunity and inclusiveness of the neediest among us. Lorna Bourg, another speaker at the March seminar, is founder and executive director of the Southern Mutual Help Association, a highly-respected community development organization in rural Louisiana. Bourg said that equitable revitalization means � very simply � that a community cares for it�s poor. Accomplishing the task of revitalization, she added, entails more than offering incentives to private developers or scattering the problems to make them less visible. Instead, we must change the systems that create poverty faster than we can solve it, requiring those in decision-making positions � government officials, developers, home-owners, and businesses � to learn that the overall health of a community is inseparably entwined with the welfare of the poor. �When the affluent people in a community learn why people are poor, and learn from them and appreciate their perspective�, said Bourg, �you will transform people, and in the long run, transform communities�. With change looming, the challenge for city planners, private developers, and community development agencies is too combine knowledge, experience, and resources to ensure every citizen equal consideration; to guarantee that for every million-dollar loft, a livable, truly affordable dwelling is built, as well. It isn�t socialism, it�s common sense. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
