It’s Time to Develop a Comprehensive Anti-Displacement Strategy for St. Louis

By Jennifer Allen

Jennifer Allen is Trailnet’s Active Transportation Manger where she oversees the Neighborhood Greenways St. Louis project, helps coordinate activities for strategic partnerships, and assists with advocacy campaigns. Jennifer is an urban planner with a Master of Arts in Urban Planning from UCLA. Prior to her work in bicycle and pedestrian planning, Jennifer worked in affordable housing development. A native St. Louisan, Jennifer returned to her hometown in 2009 to be part of the exciting work to transform St. Louis into a world-class city again.

       There are many new projects happening in the city that should strengthen the local economy and enhance the quality of life for residents. The new Arch grounds, the Cortex Innovation District, and improvements to Grand Center are examples of the myriad of projects under development in the city. These projects will provide important connections and economic, environmental, and social benefits.

The question is how do we assure that revitalization projects do not become forces of displacement–neighborhood change characterized by residents being involuntarily forced out when they cannot afford their gentrified neighborhood? Displacement will chip away at one of the greatest assets of our neighborhoods – their racial/ethnic and economic mix of residents.

Anti-displacement policies are often created when displacement has reached a fever pitch after building for years. What if St. Louis developed comprehensive policies and initiatives now as a means of preventing significant displacement rather than waiting for dire consequences? These policies and initiatives could be designed to evolve over time to match the strength of the City’s market.

The research of rebound neighborhoods by Todd Swanstrom of the University of Missouri St. Louis and Hank Webber from Washington University in St. Louis (Rebound Neighborhoods in Older Industrial Cities: The Story of St. Louis) found diversity to be an asset to neighborhood revitalization in the City over the last 30 years. Overall, the City’s rebound neighborhoods have significantly higher levels of racial/ethnic and economic diversity than non-rebounding neighborhoods. But their research also asks if our rebound neighborhoods are simply in the first stage of classic displacement found in strong market cities.

In the interest of preserving the diversity of our neighborhoods, I propose that we take a proactive approach and assume some of our neighborhoods are in the first stages of significant displacement. The Community Builders Network should form a partnership with the City of St. Louis, and others, to make sure we are collecting the right data about how households are impacted by development. A series of indicators should be tracked in a regional context, such as rising rents, property appreciation rates, and rental to single-family home conversions.

The partnership should also begin collecting information on the myriad of tools used across the country to prevent displacement, and begin sifting them along a continuum of their appropriateness for weak market to strong market cities. Finally, the partnership should propose policies and initiatives that should be put in place given our weak market. Financing for local businesses, community land trusts, tightening code enforcement to avoid land speculation, workforce readiness training, and promoting homeownership for current residents are all potential solutions given the current state of our market.

Over time, our community organizations and City agencies have worked on many initiatives that have helped prevent displacement, even if they were not expressly designed to do so. What appears to be missing is a clear, unified voice warning of the potential new levels of displacement possible as we undertake major revitalization projects at a time of significant demographic shifts. What also appears to be missing is a coordinated response at a city/regional scale. The Community Builders Network should use its strong reputation and growing influence to be the visionary leader to take action on this important issue.

The death of Michael Brown has spotlighted many inequities in our region. As we work to heal them, it is our job to make sure our city’s revitalization is a source of prosperity for all–this includes providing residents the choice to stay in their neighborhoods as conditions improve.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the view of the Community Builders Network or Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

The New North: A Proposal for Urban Sustainability

By James Holtzman

James Holtzman graduated from KU in 1980 with degrees in Environmental Design and Architecture. Early in his career he worked with St. Louis firms specializing in adaptive reuse and historic infill. In 1987 he began Miracle Design/Build, Inc., and, as president, he presided over architectural and development services for projects of up to 30 million and more in scope. James has been developing the concept of a sustainable and economically viable city development since 1998, concentrating his efforts in St. Louis on Fairground’s Park. In 2012, he earned a Master’s of Science in Sustainability at SLU using his work with Fairground’s Park as a centerpiece. For the last 5- years he has been involved directly in the renewable energy (RE) industry working with established industry professionals in Missouri and around the country.

According to a United Nations report on world population, 2008 was the first moment in history when more people lived in urban than in rural communities – a development tendency that stands to increase to over 66 percent by 2050. During this time, the total global population will increase from 7 billion to over 9 billion. To learn to live sustainably in an urban context therefore becomes the question of the century.

According to a United Nations report on world population, 2008 was the first moment in history when more people lived in urban than in rural communities – a development tendency that stands to increase to over 66 percent by 2050.  During this time, the total global population will increase from 7 billion to over 9 billion.  To learn to live sustainably in an urban context therefore becomes the question of the century.

Our inner cities, that only a couple of generations ago prospered and were sources of rich and varied activity, have become poster children for abandonment, loss, and stagnation.  Throughout history we have struggled to create a place for ourselves on the land.  Although our successes are in many ways epoch making, without a thorough understanding and respect for the land on which we live and depend for survival, our victories will not provide answers for future generations.

Human interaction with natural systems is one of the defining attributes of culture.  We need to craft human communities that not only acknowledge this axiom but use that knowledge as a springboard for the creation of a regenerative society.  Locally what is called for is a change of heart.  Treasuring our precious resources starting with our citizenry and continuing on through the man-made and natural resource base is the paradigm shift that we need.  There is no “waste” in nature.  The release of creative energy and increase in quality of life resultant from such a paradigm shift would be truly ground breaking and life enriching to community and environment.

Targeting the historic urban area of Fairgrounds Park in north St. Louis as a unifying green space, New North is an effort to define what a sustainable modern community could look like.  This change starts with our students and schools adopting a place-based experiential learning process focused on an urban ecological curriculum.  Our children are assets, not liabilities.  Our cities are places of community growth and empowerment, not something to be neglected and thrown away.  And our generous natural resource base is the gift and treasure on which we depend not only for our well-being but for the well-being of future generations.

Community engagement in New North could help define a new district that crosses ward and neighborhood boundaries using Fairgrounds Park as a unifying urban gathering space.  Once formed, the district will provide the structure for community improvements, starting with green infrastructure and irrigative garden cisterns on a district-wide basis.  Other improvements envisioned include urban farming, gardening, and composting, neighborhood weatherization and rehab, tree planting and horticulture, permaculture, aquaculture and eco-industrial business creation, community energy generation, and health and well care development.

For the benefit of future generations, those less fortunate, and indeed for our own individual survival, this work is necessary.  Natural systems teach us that human communities are dependent upon their environments to thrive and grow.  Locally and nationally we are comprised of sets of interdependent economic, social, and political relationships.  Our charge then is to provide incentives to create a thriving human culture within the bosom of resplendent nature Herself “…That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.”  Aldo Leopold, The Sand County Almanac, (1949).

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the view of the Community Builders Network or Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: A Game Changer

By Charles Bryson, Director of the Civil Rights Enforcement Agency

Charles Bryson, II, a native St. Louisan, has a passion for community service and is dedicated to improving the quality of life for all people. His extensive career in community service includes working as a Case Manager with the Associated Catholic Charities Christopher Place Men’s Shelter, the Salvation Army Hospitality House, and for the Lutheran Family and Children Services Good Samaritan Center. He has held various leadership roles as well, serving as the Director of the Urban League Head Start Program in Springfield and the Executive Director of the Harrison Youth Center in Peoria.

Prior to his current position with Mayor Francis G. Slay, Charles was the St. Louis Area Representative for the Missouri Housing Development Commission. He then worked as the Neighborhood Development Executive and Senior Policy Advisor to Mayor Slay before becoming the Director of the Department of Public Safety of the City of St. Louis. Mr. Bryson now serves as Director of the Civil Rights Enforcement Agency, and has two beautiful daughters, Bailey and Sydney.

Sometime in the very near future, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro is expected to sign the much anticipated Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule.  This rule, merely by its definition, will be a game changer with regard to fair and affordable housing.

The definition contained in the rule states that Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing “means taking proactive steps beyond simply combating discrimination to foster more inclusive communities and access to community assets for all persons protected by the Fair Housing Act.”  The rule, once signed, would require participants to work on fixing issues that have led to discrimination and segregation and that deny people opportunity.

There you have it.  HUD is tired of empty promises and wants action.  HUD has determined that the current system, including the Analysis of Impediments, is ineffective, and it must take stronger steps.  So, what can municipalities do to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing?

One of the most important ways is to disperse Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Section 8 properties throughout the community.  HUD will now require municipalities to review where the aforementioned housing stock is located, and use both the Assessment of Fair Housing and the Consolidated Plan to detail what municipalities will do to rectify the issue.  That includes working proactively with developers, private partners, and the banking community to disperse affordable housing throughout the community.

Mayor Francis Slay has proactively worked to disperse affordable housing in the City of St. Louis by placing the 51 unit affordable housing Southtowne Apartment complex was on Spring Avenue, in the heart of the South Side.

The AFFH ruling also means municipalities have to work harder to reduce the “NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) feeling that pervades certain neighborhoods.  I recently saw emails suggesting that a neighborhood did not want a low-income housing development in their area.  They gave the same arguments that have been part of this discussion for years:  the development is not “right” for our neighborhood; it will decrease our property values, it will bring too much traffic and crime.

While people are entitled to their opinions, municipalities must strongly meet those opinions with facts about fair and affordable housing; what benefits there are to both individuals and neighborhoods.

Frankly, the dispersal of housing will likely anger a number of people.  Some will say HUD is trying to break up concentrations of African-Americans or Latinos, diluting their voting power.  Others will say that because low-income earners live closer to downtown areas, the AFFH ruling is designed to give whites (or people with money) the downtown areas back and move blacks out to the suburbs.

HUD will counter with concerns about the need to locate housing near employment, education, and transportation while not concentrating poverty, and through government practice, segregating people by race and income.

At the end of the day, the AFFH rule is about creating opportunity for all persons, regardless of their race, income, familial status, or any other protected class.  It’s about stopping the segregation and isolation that exists.  It is about putting housing near jobs, near transportation, near education, and near recreation.  Finally, it’s about forcing municipalities to use federal resources to make a difference in the lives of all individuals and families.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the view of the Community Builders Network or Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Community Builders: MOHTC Needs You!

By Christina Clagett, Organizer for Missouri Historic Revitalization Alliance

The Missouri Historic Tax Credit, which some of us refer to lovingly as “MOHTC,” has done a world of good across the state. The benefits are numerous and many are easy to overlook. But chances are, if you see the redevelopment of a Missouri building older than 50 years, the project is likely utilizing state historic tax credits. Pause for a moment and reflect on the redevelopment projects that have transformed downtown or your neighborhood in the past decade, then envision what it felt like to walk down those streets prior.

The MOHTC is the most effective incentive for growth in economic districts across the state. Historic buildings put back into service with MOHTC have spurred surrounding development by increasing property values and local tax bases, creating thousands of jobs, and leveraging billions (with a B) in direct private investment. Newly revitalized offices in historic buildings have been especially attractive in drawing established companies, start-ups and young professionals in recent years. The character and spatial quality in these offices cannot be matched by new construction, nor can the proximity to walk or bike to established amenities and services. Vibrant communities with a healthy tax base have more money for their schools, and require less spending for social programs. The large demolition cost for historic buildings is avoided, as well as the expense of new roads and infrastructure to access greenfield properties.

The most beautiful part of this program is how it provides diversified economic development to communities throughout the state. Regardless of the community size and location, the rules and process are the same. Nearly one hundred individual Missouri towns have benefitted from the program already, and many more have the potential and need.

Because of the high initial cost to renovate a historic building compared to new construction, the MOHTC often represents the tipping point to feasibility for the developer or owner. Because of the other benefits listed above, it is in our best interest as citizens to do all we can to make sure the projects go forward.

It seems counter-intuitive that such a successful program would face severe cuts or elimination from our State Legislature, but it has been an annual event since a cap of $140M was first initiated in 2009. Supporters have succeeded in keeping the cap at this level until now, but some “Grand Bargain Tax Reform” discussions among our leadership this past summer included a proposed cut from $140M to $90M. Some people think this would be okay, that we could deal with a $90M MOHTC and no hurt too badly. This is simply not true.

The Missouri Department of Economic Development have disclosed cap-reaching authorizations of $146.6M for FY2014. Just last week at the Missouri Preservation Conference, Nathan Potter of the MO DED reported that ONE quarter into FY2015, we have already reached $50M in MOHTC authorizations. If we had the lower cap this year, we would be looking at holding up 1/2 of yearly projects immediately; queuing for an unclear time period while paying property taxes and other building expenses is NOT an option for most developers and/or financial institutions. Do we want to imagine what happens to the growth and redevelopment pace across the state in that scenario? Let’s work together to prevent a cut instead.

We have a long road to January when the Legislative session begins, and more action will be required as we go. Presently, our local and state leadership can represent our interest best by understanding the critical point we are at and the consequences for our communities and state under a weakened MOHTC. We are at capacity for MOHTC, and ANY cut will slow growth across the state, period. Each additional voice increases our chances of success. Please speak with Mayor Slay and his staff, follow up with email and hold them accountable: Urge them to publicly protect and defend MOHTC from any cut, to Governor Nixon and the State Legislature. Please contact the Governor and your MO Legislature district leadership as well, links can be found on the web. You can learn more and sign up for our mailing list at morehtc.org.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

Moving Forward in Ferguson

By Hazel Erby, First District Councilwoman for St. Louis County

Hazel Erby became the first African American woman to serve on the St. Louis County Council when she was elected in 2004. She is currently serving her third, consecutive term. As a Council member, she held leadership positions as Chair of the County Council and the Committee of the Whole, while Chairman of the Justice, Health and Welfare Committee.

Councilwoman Erby has a long record of improving the quality of life for St. Louis County and the people and businesses she serves. She has been a resident of University City for over 40 years and has a deep understanding of the community she represents. She sponsored and passed foreclosure mediation legislation in St. Louis County.

Ferguson is America coming to terms with issues it has long ignored: an educational system underfunded and under resourced, the flight of big business and the degradation of small ones. Years of social unrest that has spawned a mental health epidemic that has buried families and communities alike. Over the last month, we’ve seen more than just tear gas and smoke bombs, we’ve witnessed America’s commitment to a first-rate sustainable future come into question.

As we move forward, we must take an honest account of our community. The engagement forward must be one that is held on two fronts. Our passion must always remain stead fast at terminating the actions of the unjust, serving as activists for awareness and education.

The path ahead must also create a new order of fiscal parity and employment opportunities.  We must utilize our current passion to fix the current mental health state of traumatized communities. This plan must call on leaders in the tech and financial sphere, to do more than just donate funds, but invest in a generation that has been long ignored. If we are going to enact the appropriate change in response to this tragedy, the plan forward must be more concise and systematic than the antagonists that wish to undermine it.

It is going to require more than generosity of time and money to right the wrongs of years of social decay. There must be a true investment with resources, education and substantial job training to restore faith in our disenfranchised youth. Over the last few weeks, this young generation has witnessed the public indict Mike Brown as being responsible for his own untimely demise. How do you raise the prospects of hope for a large group of youth that has been deemed as unworthy in death as they were in life? If we are to regain the trust of the youth, and the parents and guardians tasked in their upbringing, it is going to take a unique and committed coalition to make it happen.

We need a collective approach to rooting out the ills that are impairing the productive growth of these communities. Without a coalition of the willing and able, this fight will not only be ineffective, but in vain.

It is time that our renowned compassion cultivates not only these downtrodden spirits, but elevates the minds of those we’ve left behind. This is a call to strike down the apathy of political dogma and ignite a cause that brings all ideologies to the table to solve this great American crisis.

As the First District Councilwoman for St. Louis County, I stand ready to apply all of the resources at my disposal to be part of this collective effort.  We cannot all go off in different directions and try to fix the same problem, as we all have seen.  Ferguson is fixable, if we work together toward the same goal.  No self-appointed leaders, just people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work.  We can do this!  There is an old African proverb that states, “Together the ants ate the elephant”.  Let’s go to work!

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

Urban Homesteading in St. Louis

By Paul Dribin of Dribin Consulting

For 30 years Paul Dribin worked with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in which he assumed leadership positions in the fields of Public Housing, Housing Management, Housing Development, and Section 8 housing.  While working for HUD in St. Louis, his most notable projects included the Chase Park Plaza, the demolition and redevelopment of the Laclede Town area, the Darst Webbe Hope VI project, and the Vaughn-Murphy Park mixed income development. Since retiring from HUD, Mr. Dribin has led Dribin Consulting, a company specializing in providing FHA and other financing for multifamily projects.  Dribin Consulting also performs grant writing, provides services to troubled multifamily housing, and participates as a member of a team administering the State of Missouri Neighborhood Stabilization Program.  Mr. Dribin is married, the father of two adult children, and resides in Webster Groves.

There is a program that would positively improve the quality of life in St. Louis City neighborhoods and place working families in homeownership.

The idea is really quite simple.  Properties in certain neighborhoods would be provided to selected homebuyers.  The properties would be provided from the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) inventory or other sources.  The homebuyers would be households who are employed and need not be low- or moderate-income.  These households could not presently own a residential home in the city.

The purchaser would be provided with a low acquisition price and receive up to $25,000 toward the rehabilitation in the form of a forgivable loan.  The family would need to live in the property for at least five years for the loan to be forgiven.

The rehabilitation would be done by a qualified list of contractors provided by the City.  To insure high quality, sweat equity would not be allowed to substitute for professional rehabilitation.

The neighborhood, property, and homebuyers need to be carefully selected.  Properties should be in good enough condition to be repaired at a reasonable price and should be located in neighborhoods with other urban development activities going on that strengthen the area.  Homebuyers must be employed and able to qualify for the loan amount they have requested.  The rehab loan of up to $25,000 would be in the form of a soft second mortgage requiring repayment upon sale.  After five years the loan would be forgiven

Initial funding should come from donations by banks, civic groups, unions and other interested parties.   Because urban homesteading would create jobs in the homebuilding industry, construction unions may be interested in helping to fund it.  Some of the funding would be repaid.

This program can be a major tool to attract young working families to the cities, stabilize neighborhoods, and provide jobs for the construction industry.

There are several important advantages to an urban homesteading program.  First, it brings middle-income tax paying households into the city.  Several important efforts are already underway trying to do just that; this adds to the mix.  Second, it will help revitalize neighborhoods and provide the needed stabilization to add other redevelopment efforts.  Third, it will improve the tax base of the city.  Finally, the effort will help provide jobs to workers in the construction industry.

New York City has operated an urban homesteading program for years that has encouraged people to occupy and fix up vacant properties.  Cities across the country are offering incentives to retain college-educated people.  The Urban Homesteading Program is one tool that can help achieve that goal.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis. 

Collaboration: Promises and Pitfalls

By Dana M. Malkus, Attorney and Assistant Clinical Professor at the St. Louis University School of Law

Dana M. Malkus is a lawyer and assistant clinical professor at Saint Louis University School of Law where she supervises students in the Community & Economic Development Clinic and teaches a transactional drafting course.  In the Clinic, Dana and her students represent both nonprofit organizations and small business entrepreneurs on a range of transactional matters including structuring and formation, operational issues, contract drafting and review, loan document review, regulatory compliance issues, and real estate matters.  Prior to her current position, she worked as an associate at Lewis, Rice & Fingersh and as a law clerk for the Honorable E. Richard Webber in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Simply put, collaboration refers to two or more organizations coming together to accomplish a specific goal.  It is helpful to think of collaboration as a spectrum: Collaborations range from informal arrangements (e.g., a committee, a task force, a joint initiative, information sharing, joint purchasing arrangements, co-locating arrangements, or program coordination) to more formal arrangements (e.g., the creation of a new entity).

Common reasons for collaborations include

• greater access to certain funding or grant streams;

• access to the expertise of the collaborating organization;

• an ability to increase the human resources that can be devoted to an event or cause;

• access to an established infrastructure or positive reputation; and

• an ability to accomplish more than the organization would otherwise be able to accomplish.

Collaborations tend to work best among participating organizations that understand and trust each other and that have closely aligned missions, goals, and core values.

While there may be benefits to collaborating, it is essential to recognize that collaboration is rarely cost-free.  For example, logistical and relational issues in the collaboration can eat up significant time and other resources (including money and reputation).  Or, the potential collaborative partner may be one who does not “play well” with others, frustrating the effort at every major step along the way.  Additionally, the collaborating organization may turn out to have less expertise or fewer resources than originally perceived.  Moreover, if the potential benefit of the collaboration is unclear—or if the collaboration is simply an end in itself (and not a means to an end)—these downsides are likely to be magnified.

The Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis (CBN) is facilitating collaboration among CDCs in St. Louis.  Among other activities, CBN provides logistical support for potential collaborations.  Such support includes arranging and facilitating meetings, generating problem-solving options when a collaborative group gets “stuck,” and compiling and distributing meeting minutes.  CBN also makes mini-grants available to help collaborative groups pay for professional assistance (e.g., technical support, funding identification support) related to the group’s common goals.

CBN has worked to facilitate relationships among three small nonprofits working in a particular disadvantaged neighborhood in St. Louis city.  All three organizations have very small staffs and find it difficult to devote any time to thinking about or otherwise exploring potential collaborative opportunities.  At the same time, the organizations’ missions have some degree of overlap, and they believe that they share similar desires and goals for the neighborhood.  After some preliminary discussions facilitated by CBN, it was clear that all three organizations recognized the neighborhood’s need for:

• strategic commercial development and increased employment opportunities;

• increased and coordinated residential real estate development;

• greater attention to neighborhood clean-up and beautification projects; and

• more coordination among nonprofits serving the neighborhood to take advantage of opportunities for coordinated programming.

Each organization recognized that its limited resources do not allow it to respond to these needs on its own on the kind of scale needed to make a lasting impact in the neighborhood.  The three CDCs decided that the next logical step was to explore whether there may be ways of working together to address these commonly shared concerns.  With logistical support from CBN, these organizations have been meeting on a regular basis for just this purpose.

The early stage planning meetings among the three organizations might or might not have led to on-the-ground-collaboration.  In the early stage meetings, the CDCs simply committed to exploring collaboration possibilities in a strategic and organized way.  After significant discussion, the CDCs have determined that some level of collaboration makes sense and are now working to memorialize their agreement in a memorandum of understanding to set out the roles and responsibilities of each organization.  Each CDC intends to remain a separately incorporated entity under the control of its own board of directors.

This potential collaboration brings with it the possibility of the three CDCs making a much larger total community impact than what any of the organizations could accomplish on its own.  In addition, the collaboration could give the organizations access to new funding streams.  Importantly, this example illustrates that, while collaboration is not cost-free, collaboration can sometimes be less “costly” when some of the logistical and relational costs are borne by another person or entity (e.g., an organization such as CBN).

The following resources provide more in-depth explanations of the information presented in this op-ed and may be useful to both community-based nonprofits and the lawyers advising them:

• Foundation Center’s Nonprofit Collaboration Resources: http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/collaboration/;jsessionid=KRV5FZ4ZYEVWZLAQBQ4CGXD5AAAACI2F

• Managing Collaboration Risks: https://www.niac.org/AMSCentral/ResourceDocuments.cfm?var_PageAction=View&var_ID=63

• Cautions: http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_reality_underneath_the_buzz_of_partnerships/

• Frameworks: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/partnerships.pdf

• MOUs: http://www.nonprofitrisk.org/library/enews/2007/enews052307.htm

• Collaborative Checklist of Questions to Consider: http://dongriesmannsnonprofitblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/nonprofit-collaborative-or-partnership.html

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

We Need to Build a Stronger Community Economic Development System in St. Louis County

By Todd Swanstrom, Des Lee Professor of Community Collaboration and Public Policy, University of Missouri St. Louis and Author of recently released Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century (3rd edition); and Karl Guenther, Community Development Specialist, University of Missouri St. Louis

The shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed young black man, by a white police officer ignited the turmoil in Ferguson.  But the fuel that is sustaining the peaceful protests and violent outbursts was produced by longstanding racial and economic inequalities that have plagued Ferguson and many other communities in North St. Louis County for decades.  St. Louis County needs to do more to create neighborhoods of opportunity and connection for all.  To build better neighborhoods, St. Louis County needs to build a stronger community economic development system.

Clearly, race played a crucial role in the events in Ferguson but place also played a role.  Poverty is increasing rapidly across North St. Louis County and Ferguson is one of the communities where poverty is concentrating (see map).  In 2012, more than one in four residents of Ferguson were below the poverty level, more than twice the County’s poverty rate.  In some parts of Ferguson, such as the apartment complexes on the eastern side where the shooting occurred, the poverty rate is as high as 33 percent.  Concentrated poverty worsens the effects of individual poverty, undermining school performance, health, safety, and economic mobility.  Racial and economic disenfranchisement, once considered almost exclusively an urban issue, is growing in the suburbs.

The Spread of Concentrated Poverty Into St. Louis County

Compared to St. Louis City, however, St. Louis County does not have as many institutions and policies in place to revitalize distressed neighborhoods.  We work with the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis, a coalition of community-based nonprofits.  Only six out of our twenty-eight members work in the County and only three have place-based initiatives in the County.

St. Louis County does not necessarily need more CDCs but it does need institutions with the capacity to convene the community for genuine dialogue to devise and implement neighborhood plans with the following necessary ingredients:

1. The plan must grow out of an extensive process of civic engagement so that all major stakeholders in the community accept its goals and so the plan is rooted in local knowledge.

2. The plan must simultaneously address the deficits and problems in the community at the same time that it leverages the assets of the area in a market savvy fashion.

3. The plan must have the support of public, private, and nonprofit organizations, inside and outside the community, with sufficient resources to accomplish the major objectives and sustain itself over the long term.

The best example of a comprehensive community plan in St. Louis County is 24:1.  Beyond Housing is doing innovative work fostering collective action on community goals under trying conditions in the Normandy School District.  However, Beyond Housing has the advantage of an anonymous funder who has funded the staff to develop the plan as well as money to implement it.  We need many more 24:1’s in St. Louis County but where is the funding going to come from?

To its credit, St. Louis County and the Economic Partnership recently supported the formation of a new community development corporation (CDC) in Spanish Lake, an unincorporated community in far north St. Louis County.  This is a start but we need more resources and more supportive public policies if we are going to address the needs of all disadvantaged communities.

Here are a few supportive public policies St. Louis County should consider:

1. Community Development Challenge Grants: Presently, the County spends a significant portion of its CDBG funds on small housing rehabilitation grants spread out over 70 plus municipalities. The County should pool some of its CDBG funds into Community Development Challenge Grants to fund comprehensive revitalization initiatives.

2. Partnership with Banks: Instead of funding 100 percent of home repair projects with public funds, the County should partner with a consortium of area banks. Participating banks would fund the part of the rehab loan that homeowners would normally qualify for and public funds would pay for the rest. Potentially, this could expand public funds for housing rehab many times over and banks could get CRA credit for their lending.

3. Land Bank: The County should establish a land bank to accept abandoned properties, clear their titles, and potentially deed properties over to qualified community-based nonprofits. The land bank should have a dedicated source of revenue, such as the penalties and interest on delinquent taxes that are used to fund the land bank in Cleveland.

4. Align Current Spending with Revitalization Plans: We calculate that direct spending on community development in the County is only between $9 and $16 million annually, while County spending that could be coordinated with community development is over $255 million. Instead of simply repaving streets, for example, the County could coordinate with communities on complete streets projects. (Montgomery County in Maryland has developed such a program.

The St. Louis County Strategic Plan (Imagining Tomorrow for St. Louis County, 2013) recognizes the problem of declining suburban communities but, unfortunately, there are few active constituencies pressuring for more progressive community economic development policies.   Recent events in Ferguson have focused the public’s attention on race, police practices, and disadvantaged suburban communities.  We need to channel the passion rising out of the turmoil in Ferguson toward justice in the death of Michael Brown but also toward progressive public policies that help bring disadvantaged suburban communities back into the economic and political mainstream.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.

Tower Grove Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation Exemplifies Benefits of Consolidation

By Sean Spencer, Executive Director of the Tower Grove Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation

Over the last 5 years, Sean has facilitated the development of over 60 properties, cataloged vacant and abandoned properties, developed housing related community initiatives and promoted Tower Grove Neighborhoods as the premier place to live in St. Louis.  

Community Development Block Grant funding (CDBG), as a business model for community development organizations, is dead. In 2013, the world of community development in the City of Saint Louis changed. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Community Development Administration (CDA), who administer HUD CDBG funding, made it clear that the process to obtain funding would be more competitive and that output and outcome expectations would be higher than ever.

Leaders from Shaw Neighborhood Housing Corporation (Shaw neighborhood), Grand Oak Hill Community Corporation (Tower Grove South neighborhood) and Southwest Garden Housing Corp (Southwest Gardens neighborhood) saw these changes as an opportunity. Combining a larger service area with increased staff capacity able to leverage CDBG funding with other income sources could create a community development corporation not-for-profit built for long term success. Over a six month period and through a series of meetings at the individual organization board level and as a combined group, the three organizations worked to develop a way forward together. The result was the creation of Tower Grove Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation.

The successful consolidation is directly related to the cooperation between organizations and across ward boundaries. Where there is a need, there is a way. The organizations have serviced the area for 80 years combined and our presence is critical to the continued growth and stability of vital south city neighborhoods. It was widely believed funding for each neighborhood CDC in 2014 would not be obtained individually which emphasized the need for a “better together” consolidated approach. Further, the additional benefits for consolidating are:

1. 28,000 residents are represented in the three neighborhoods
2. Service area increased to over 3 sq. miles
3. Increased population representation and larger geographic service area created better funding opportunities for grants and donations from public and private foundations, individual donors
4. A broader area strategy, including infrastructure planning, is more effective at the new scale
5. Increased financial stability by combining assets
6. More collaboration opportunities with neighborhood associations, business district organizations and other not for profit companies.

While there are plenty of benefits, there are also many challenges. Real estate assets need to be evaluated and addressed for continued operation or for a potential sale. Completing maintenance issues including deferred maintenance can be expensive and time consuming. Property management from the outset drained our capacity. Corporate liabilities such as financial audits and other accounting issues needed to be cleaned up. Equal representation for each neighborhood was, and always will, be a top priority and is a discussion point at board meetings.

The 5 board members for each neighborhood help the organizational balance and operation. The future of the organization is still being discussed. A neighborhood visioning process launched in 2014 with consultant H3 studio will help inform the board of the needs of our community from our community. This process will help us determine our strategic plan. The work completed in 2013 by the boards of Shaw Neighborhood Housing Corporation, South West Garden Housing Corporation and Grand Oak Hill Community Corporation to create the higher capacity Tower Grove Neighborhoods Community Development Corporation will continue to benefit City neighborhoods and the City of Saint Louis for years to come. Thanks to all the board members (present and past) for their volunteer hours devoted to making these neighborhoods the most desirable places to live in the region.

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis. 

Building community … one butterfly at a time

By Catherine L. Werner, JD, LEED AP Sustainability Director, City of St. Louis

On Earth Day, April 22, 2014, City of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay launched a new initiative to foster the connection between people and nature.  Milkweeds for Monarchs: The St. Louis Butterfly Project is an initiative designed to advance the Mayor’s Sustainability Action Agenda by increasing the chance of experiencing monarch butterflies where people live, work and play in the urban core.

For 2014, Mayor Slay has committed to planting 50 monarch gardens in public areas, such as at City parks, fire stations and City Hall.  He has challenged residents, businesses and community groups to plant another 200 monarch gardens in private or public spaces.  Together we can create 250 monarch gardens to celebrate the City’s 250th birthday, but we need the help of individuals and community groups to reach our goal.

Why worry about butterflies and their habitat?  Monarchs are unique in that they are the only butterfly species to migrate between Canada, the US and Mexico each year. Monarchs are dependent on one very special kind of plant: the milkweed. Without milkweeds, monarchs have no place to lay their eggs or food to feed their caterpillar larvae.  Monarchs also need nectar plants to help sustain them on their migration journey. So, the Milkweeds for Monarchs gardens will provide critically important habitat for the monarchs, whose population has plummeted across the continent.  Equally as important for the City of St. Louis, monarch gardens will create opportunities for community growth and enhance people’s well-being. 

Nature is a vital component of our City. Trees, parks and greenery help create a sense of place. Having access to nature often reduces stress and can improve mental clarity. Additionally, studies have shown many health benefits associated with nature.  For example, one study showed that hospitalized surgery patients with a natural view from their window stayed in the hospital for less time post-surgery, took fewer pain medications, and experienced fewer post-surgical complications when compared with similar surgery patients with different window views.  Another study found that being in nature for certain periods of time worked just as well, if not better, than medication for children with ADHD.  For more information on the health and well-being benefits of nature, check out the Biophilic Cities website.

In public spaces, the monarch gardens may serve as a living medium for community growth.  When a community plants a garden in a place that is accessible to all, it creates opportunity for people to accomplish something together for their neighborhood.  Once the garden is planted, people can continue to use it as a vehicle for community engagement by maintaining it as a group, holding events, and educating each other about the wildlife it brings.  It can also bring pride to a neighborhood as something that was accomplished communally and adds beauty to the neighborhood.

The City of St. Louis is working with several regional partners to advance the Milkweeds for Monarchs initiative. There are several resources on the City’s website to assist in the creation and care of monarch gardens, including the recommended STL Monarch Mix of plants, a list of local nurseries where plants can be sourced, instructions on how to plant a garden, and tips on plant care. Additionally, the City has partnered with Brightside St. Louis and their Neighbors Naturescaping grant program to offer materials for a 24-square-foot monarch garden in a public space to one neighborhood group in each of the City’s 28 wards. Interested organizations are encouraged to contact theirNeighborhood Stabilization Officer for more information on how to take advantage of this opportunity.  Groups may also apply to theNeighbors Naturescaping grant program directly; please note the August 15th grant deadline.

All it takes is one square meter and nine special plants.  For an investment of less than $50 and a couple hours of work, you can help people, plants and pollinators. We hope you will create a monarch garden and register it here to be added to the City’s Milkweeds for Monarchs map. Please help us by planting monarch gardens and spreading the word about Milkweeds for Monarchs.  Help us beautify our City, bring nature back to people, support the monarch population, and bring people together.