There Is an Alternative to Payday Lenders

By Paul Woodruff, Executive Director of Prosperity Connection

Everyone in St. Louis seems to have an opinion on payday lending. Politicians decry the industry asusurious. Consumer advocates demand that ‘predatory lenders’ be shut down. Middle- and higher-income people don’t understand why the loans cost so much, or why anyone would take one out.

Meanwhile, the consumers who use these services just want access to a short-term loan so they can pay rent, repair their car, keep the lights on, and more. Payday lenders fill that need and are accessible.

People everywhere are struggling to get by. According to the 2018 Prosperity Now Scorecard, despite low nationwide unemployment rates, nearly a quarter of all jobs in America are low-wage. For those living on a fixed income, primarily seniors and the disabled, the picture is increasingly bleak as their benefits remain flat and the underpinnings of state and federal safety nets continue to fray.

Throwing stones at the payday lending industry is easy. Building something with those stones requires thought leadership, investment, and awareness. Thankfully, St. Louis has an opportunity to turn the tide against payday lenders through existing market-based solutions.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and nonprofit loan funds operate in our area to offer consumers small-dollar loans ($100 – $1,000) at more affordable rates and the opportunity to engage with financial experts who can provide free guidance on how to build credit, eliminate debt, and manage household finances. CDFIs like Justine PETERSEN and St. Louis Community Credit Union (SLCCU) give consumers a pathway to financial wellbeing through a host of affordable opportunities. Prosperity Connection, a nonprofit, established RedDough Money Center to compete directly against payday lenders by offering small-dollar loans, check cashing services, and more.

Not only have these organizations developed the right tools to help economically vulnerable people, they’ve deployed facilities and staff in areas devoid of financial services. Take for example Prosperity Connection’s Wealth Accumulation Center in Pagedale. Through their partnership with SLCCU, the 24:1 Community Land Trust, and Beyond Housing, they have opened a multi-use financial service/education center that offers the community the chance to get a lower-cost, small-dollar loan through RedDough Money Center; open a mainstream checking account with SLCCU; and connect with a financial coach through Prosperity Connection’s Excel Center.

By meeting underserved people where they live and work, as well as aligning with policies and interventions derived from the community (see, for example, the Ferguson Commission Report’s discussion of Financial Empowerment Centers in their Opportunity to Thrive section), payday lenders and other predatory organizations can be diminished over time. Families need access to affordable loans, pathways to better paying jobs, and the support of their community to get ahead.

Your opinion matters. Your actions matter more. Consider supporting CDFIs and nonprofit loan funds with your deposits, your loan needs (car, house, etc.), and your donations so that they can do more for families facing tough times. Together, we might go beyond ‘talk’ and have real impact.

***

Paul Woodruff serves as the Vice President of Community Development for St. Louis Community Credit Union (SLCCU) and Executive Director of SLCCU’s affiliate non-profit, Prosperity Connection. In these capacities, he is charged with developing and overseeing the strategic direction for numerous community outreach initiatives supported by both organizations. He began his career at SLCCU in 2009 after completing his master’s in Public Administration from Saint Louis University.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Effective Consolidation

By Jacob Rebe, Chemist at St. Louis County Department of Public Health

This column was originally published on Inmost City.

Lately, I’ve heard rumblings of support for State sponsored legislation forcing the consolidation of the St. Louis region.I think this is a bad idea which reeks of desperation. I get the issue people have with fragmentation: It’s a problem which needs to be resolved. But to assume that a single piece of legislation coming from MOLeg could solve such a complex problem belies a deep sense of ignorance.

This is not an issue which can be solved with a single vote. It may be tempting to point at Louisville, Indianapolis, or Nashville and say, “See! They voted to consolidate and now they’re doing better than us!” As I’ve written previously, consolidation in these cities has not led to the stunning reversal of fortune that many in St. Louis hope will happen to us. The Louisville consolidation was essentially a merging of Metro Louisville with unincorporated Jefferson County (most of the individual towns remain in existence). The Unigov model in Indianapolis involved the merging of top level city and county governments, along with the elimination of County Executive. Again, most small municipalities remained in existence. I don’t particularly find these examples to be very inspiring or noteworthy.

Do we want to merge the Board of Alderman with the County Council and fire Steve Stenger (Unigov model)? Do we think it would be effective for St. Louis City to absorb certain areas of unincorporated St. Louis County (Louisville model)?

The answer is, no. We don’t. This leads me to my next point.

The myth of leadership

First of all, let’s drop this idea that our elected officials have had a meaningful impact on the destinies of the various municipalities in St. Louis. St. Louis City isn’t poor and crime ridden because of who we voted into the Board of Aldermen. Chesterfield residents are not making $96k per year on average because of their responsible Republican leadership. Throughout the 20th century, the middle class had been incentivized to move away from urban centers and into the suburbs by cheap land, federal subsidies, and the advent of the automobile. It doesn’t matter who sat in City Hall Room 200; there wasn’t anything they could do to stop this wholesale loss of financially secure families and tax revenue. I won’t even get into the macroeconomic forces and technological advances which continue to siphon money and talent away from the Rust Belt to this day, but suffice it to say that city leadership isn’t solely responsible.

The next myth that needs to be dispelled is this idea that local government is some sort of monolithic entity which is being piloted by our elected officials. The level of control that a Mayor or a Board of Aldermen has over the functioning of the government is tenuous at best. In reality, large bureaucracies are unwieldy and difficult to manage. Power gets delegated out to smaller departments. Any blame you want to place on the current struggle of St. Louis has to be distributed among the hundreds (or thousands) of competing personalities, each playing their own small part in the massive work of maintaining our civic structure.

For a consolidation to be effective, we’re not just talking about merging the top-level offices of St. Louis City with St. Louis County, or some variation of this idea. Consolidation will require the surgical integration of hundreds of governmental departments, each with different leaders, missions, and ideals. It will require the untangling of a deeply complex network of taxing districts, employee benefits, assets, and debts.

When you start to appreciate the immensity of the problem, you come to realize that this cannot be accomplished with a single vote by the MO Legislature or even a vote by the people of St. Louis.

Let’s make it worth our while

No matter what, any talk of consolidation is going to be contentious. So let’s not waste our time trying to drum up votes for an impulsive top-level consolidation or redistricting plan which might make us feel better, but won’t actually fix any problems. Let’s take a lesson from MSD’s creation in 1954 and define a unique problem, show the negative effects of this problem, and then argue why it can only be accomplished in a coordinated manner.

Here’s an idea, let’s consolidate the police service for our region. Is that contentious enough for you? Police consolidation is not completely unheard of. The watershed of crime vastly outsizes any individual municipality. It certainly doesn’t respect borderlines.

Crime rates are typically driven by a small number of people offending at a very high rate. Most of the people who live in dangerous neighborhoods are just as afraid of the crime as you are. Police seem to be most successful when they are embedded at the street level. When the Gang Units know the names, faces, and addresses of the major players, they can apply pressure in all the right places with great success. But this isn’t easy. It requires coordination: the sharing of police knowledge and resources throughout the region. Currently, we have 60 different police departments with vastly different pay scales and workloads. I don’t think our current crime problem has anything to do with not being tough enough on crime. I think it has everything to do with an ineffective police strategy and lack of sufficient street level knowledge on the part of these 60 police departments.

If we can successfully consolidate our many police departments into a single effective force, fairly and equally compensated throughout the entire region, then there’s no limit to what we can accomplish next. The debate would certainly be heated, but at least it would be limited in scope and clear on intent, unlike the many other fuzzy consolidation debates we’ve had over the last 150 years.

***

Jacob Rebe has been a North Hampton resident for 30 years. He is a graduate of Mizzou (B.A. Biological Sciences, 2010), works as a chemist, is a member on the board of the Kingshighway Hills Neighborhood Association, and writes for his website inmostcity.com.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Localism Can Only Flourish With A Competent, Generous, and Fair Federal Government

By Joe Cortright, Economist and Director of City Observatory

This column was originally published by City Observatory.

In the past year, a growing chorus of voices, disillusioned by growing polarization, has called for cities to be our saviors.

There’s an understandable impulse in the face of growing national divisions and what for many was the shocking and unpleasant outcome of the 2016 national elections to retreat to a comforting cocoon of the like-minded. Blue cities will do what a Republican national government won’t do: respect LGBTQ rights, provide sanctuary for immigrants, denounce climate change, and tax themselves to pay for needed investments and public services. Butwithdrawing to the safety of agreeable blue localities cedes the important national battle when it needs to be contested most.

It is well and good to celebrate the successes that mayors and local leaders are having. But transforming these successes into a sweeping call for a new localism is misplaced when the fundamental functions of the national government are being steadily undermined. Localism doesn’t work in a world where the federal government is not simply rending holes in the safety net but knocking down its foundations.

What cities do badly or can’t do at all

Cities are ill-equipped to tackle major challenges on their own, and localism has a history of making many problems worse. Take two big issues of our time: climate change and surging inequality. Mayors and cities can demonstrate effective tactics, but they lack the policy throw-weight to solve these problems.

Bravo for mayoral pledges to adhere to the Paris accords, but there’s little substance and sufficient scale. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio can sue the oil companies, but is an ardent opponent of congestion pricing, a tangible, effective market-oriented step that would reduce the top source of greenhouse gases. It’s hard to imagine that we’ll take effective action against climate change unless it’s done at a national level in cooperation with the rest of the world. Without a federally imposed carbon tax or cap and trade, localized efforts are likely to relocate the dirtiest pollution to the most permissive states.

Similarly, inequality—which has been dramatically worsened by changes to the federal tax code—dwarfs anything cities can do. Cities are constitutionally incapable of redistributing income because the wealthy have the option of exit (which they have regularly done). Witness the exodus to suburban enclaves, a trend Robert Reich has termed the secession of the successful. Similarly, states and cities have been largely powerless to take on large corporations. Globalization moved a considerable part of corporate earnings beyond the reach of state and local tax collectors (note Apple’s relocation of its profits to Ireland thanks to U.S. tax laws), and states and cities are falling over one another to offer Amazon tax holidays and subsidies for HQ2.

Cities have also been implicated in the nation’s housing affordability and segregation problems. Local control of zoning and land use, which has been effectively exempt from federal control, has worsened the economic segregation of our nation’s metropolitan areas. In sprawling metros, separate suburban cities have leveraged land use regulation to exclude apartments, deepening the concentrated poverty that perpetuates the worst aspects of income inequality.

The root of the problem is too much localism. The most localized governments have the strongest incentives to exclude low-income groups and minorities. Suburbs within metropolitan areas do the same. Only larger units of government have the incentives and ability to challenge this kind of parochialism. Two initiatives of the Obama administration—HUD’s affirmatively furthering fair housing rule and the Council of Economic Adviser’s critique of local zoning—were important national steps pushing local governments to confront this issue. Both are going nowhere under the current administration.

We can’t take the federal government for granted

The danger is that calls to renewed localism aid and abet ongoing efforts to systematically dismantle federal programs. The clarion call to act locally diverts our political attention from the national stage and perhaps, unwittingly, becomes an excuse to stand by and watch foundational programs be destroyed.

Localism will work brilliantly—provided we have a competent, generous, fair, and functional federal government. We need a 21st century federalism that envisions strong and mutually supporting actions at both national and local levels.

For a long time, we could more or less take for granted that the federal government would, at least, keep doing what it had always done: cashing social security checks, bankrolling medical care for the poor and aged, enforcing minimum civil rights everywhere, engaging seriously with the rest of the world on global issues. Now, each of those fundamental roles is in jeopardy. If the poor lose health care, are turned out of subsidized housing, see their education prospects dim, it will add to the costs burdening states and cities. The pressure to fill in for a diminished federal presence will handicap local innovation.

Like localism? Time to fight for an effective national government

If you care about cities and believe local initiative can lead to solutions, you need to be marching on Washington and fighting for a federal government that does its job well. The hollowing out of the federal government now underway is the clearest threat to creative, effective localism. Ultimately, the magic of our federal system is that both national and local government have important and complementary roles to play. It’s not either/or. It is both/and. Innovative cities require a supportive federal government.

***

Joe Cortright is a Portland based economist and Director of City Observatory, a virtual think tank on urban policy (www.cityobservatory.org). Cortright has served as an adviser for state and city economic development efforts around the nation, and has been a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Technology Can Make the Housing Market More Transparent, but it Won’t Solve Every Problem

By Dustin McKissen, Vice President of Entrepreneurship and Marketing for EDC Business and Community Partners

When I was 4 years old, my dad lost his job as a welder. My mom’s morning shifts at McDonald’s and afternoon paper routes delivering the South Idaho Press weren’t enough to keep our home. We ended up living with my grandmother, in a tent, in a trailer, and finally in a rented house so infested with mice and bats that my brother, parents, and I all lived injust one room.

The second house my parents lost to foreclosure was a cabin my dad built, literally with his own two hands, in the mountains 30 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah. Losing that home broke my parents. Their marriage didn’t survive, and in many ways, they didn’t survive. My mom struggled with an off-and-on painkiller addiction until she died in 2014, and my dad struggled with his own addiction issues for years.

My parents losing the only two homes they ever owned strongly shaped my childhood. The insane housing market of the 2000s and the collapse that followed also had a big impact on my young adulthood. These experiences are the reason I’m interested in the housing market and the effect housing policy has on people, neighborhoods, and the economy.

And very few (if any) cities have been shaped by housing policy as much as St. Louis has.

When my wife and I moved here almost five years ago, we chose to live in St. Charles simply because we could get a lot of house for the price, and I liked the idea of riding my bike or walking to a historic Main Street. When we chose St. Charles, I thought I was moving to the part of St. Louis that worked best for my family. I had no idea I was planting my flag in a bitter regional economic and racial divide.

That divide has many of its roots in housing policy. St. Louis, I learned, has a long and awful history of discriminatory housing policies that have helped keep specific communities impoverished for decades.

Some of the discriminatory housing practices and policies that have shaped our region share a common trait with the housing practices and policies that nearly destroyed the economy a decade ago:

A lack of transparency.

When lenders and federal housing officials redline specific neighborhoods, or lenders and federally insured bankers create complex mortgages that leave buyers with little to no understanding of harsh loan terms, it allows powerful institutions to take advantage of buyers by leveraging a lack of transparency. And the buyers getting taken advantage of almost always come from underrepresented groups.

Economists have a term to describe practices like the ones mentioned above. “Information asymmetry” exists in transactions where one side has more information than the other and abuses that advantage. Information asymmetry is practically a fundamental feature of the housing market, especially when it comes to transactions with low-income buyers.

One way to help reduce information asymmetry is with technology. A friend of mine, Bryan Bowles, is the founder of a St. Charles-based startup called Transactly. Bryan’s company is a digital platform that puts all the communication and documents that occur in a typical home sale in one easy-to-access place.

Tools like Transactly will make the housing market more transparent, and a transparent market is both more efficient and harder to abuse. Transactly has also positioned itself as a competitive advantage for agents, meaning buyers will hopefully choose to use agents who use the platform. It’s exactly the sort of market-based solution policymakers love to see. It’s introducing more transparency as a business advantage, not as a legal or regulatory requirement.

However, technology alone will not create a fairer and more equitable housing market.

No matter what you read, blockchain, bitcoin, or any other technology of the moment is not going to solve all our problems. Innovations in the housing sector can be easily abused. After all, no-down-payment mortgages and mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were innovations, and look how that turned out. Tech innovation must be coupled with policy that recognizes housing as not just a fundamental right, but a fundamental building block to a strong economy. I work in economic development and I actively participated in the effort to attract Amazon. However, our metropolitan area will not become the chosen destination for companies like Amazon until we start making a better attempt to fix historical inequities, many of which are rooted in housing policy.

Policymakers also must recognize that the economic inequality that defines our region isn’t a product of the free market. Rather, the drastic differences in wealth, educational opportunities, and even lifespan facing St. Louis area communities located just minutes from each other are the unnatural outcomes of predatory and discriminatory policies.

The economic inequality perpetuated by the St. Louis housing market will only be fixed with policies and programs that are specifically designed to fix inequities. Once that happens, technology can play an important role in making the housing market fair and lucrative for everyone involved—including homeowners from historically unrepresented communities.

***

Dustin McKissen is the Vice President of Entrepreneurship and Marketing for EDC Business and Community Partners. He is also a columnist for VentureBeat, Inc., Entrepreneur Quarterly, and CNBC, and a two-time LinkedIn Top Voice on management and culture. Prior to his work with the EDC, Dustin was a strategy and communications consultant for financial services, real estate, and economic development organizations. He holds a bachelors in public policy from Prescott College and a masters in public management from Northern Arizona University.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

St. Louis Gun Buyback: Good Enough?

By Mike Wiley, Student of Public Policy at the University of Chicago

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

City officials and community organizers seem to agree: Last month’s gun buyback program in St. Louis was an undeniable success. And they’re right, mostly. After collecting more than 800 handguns and rifles in a single afternoon at the Omega Center, program directors should be proud. More specifically, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis and other groups that raised the $125,000 to pay for the program should be proud.

It is important to remember, however, that this initiative was a response to the 205 murders that occurred in St. Louis last year, the highest number the city has seen in two decades. It was the belief of Mayor Lyda Krewson and others that taking guns off the street will lower the rate of gun violence. But there’s more to it than that. It’sabout taking the right guns from the right people.

Due to the no-questions-asked nature of the buyback, it’s tough to gather a comprehensive profile of its participants, but two things are clear. First, some of the guns came from people who did not live in the city. For example, the Post-Dispatch talked to Kent Oxman, who came to the event looking to sell a dozen guns, even though he works and lives in St. Charles County. Second, and perhaps a more obvious point, these aren’t the right guns. These were unused guns that came from dusty attics and old garages, not from the hands of criminals.

Put simply, county residents aren’t flocking to the city to murder people with old guns. It is unlikely that the city will see a significant dip in the murder rate this year, at least not because of last month’s efforts.

None of this is to say that the buyback was a failure. It did one thing: It sent a strong message that St. Louisans are ready to get serious on the issue of gun violence. Sadly, the same can’t be said for the state in which they live. The people responsible for the buyback—the people who put up flyers, spread the word, raised money—these people have been failed by Missouri politics.

Missouri has proven itself to be a pro-gun state. As if its lax gun laws weren’t evidence enough, its current governor was elected after airing ads showing him firing a machine gun into a lake. By now, residents of St. Louis have gotten used to the fact that they’re living in a deeply red state.

St. Louis’ buyback program did a lot with what it had. It was entirely funded by private groups. In fact, private donations were the only way to circumvent a 2013 state law requiring guns from buybacks to be sold to gun dealers, completely defeating the purpose of any program. Had the city funded the buyback, the state would have forced it to put these guns back into circulation.

If, as predicted, this buyback isn’t successful in lowering the number of gun deaths, it won’t be the city’s fault. The blame will fall on the state politicians who have the power to fight gun violence and instead do nothing. It needs to be harder to obtain a firearm in the state of Missouri. Plain and simple.

What’s the first step? Politicians—especially the kind who like to fire machine guns into lakes—need to recognize that a St. Louis death is a Missouri death. As long as urban Missouri has a gun problem, rural Missouri has a gun problem. It’s up to the state to fix the state’s problems.

As long as the solution is left to private donations, as long as the city is left alone to deal with problems that are much too large, this gun buyback might be the best that can be done. Next year, when we’re looking at number of murders in St. Louis, maybe we’ll be able to answer the question: Was it good enough?

***

Mike Wiley was raised in south St. Louis, where he attended St. Louis U. High. He’s currently in his second year at the University of Chicago, where he studies Public Policy with an emphasis in urban issues.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

CDBG: How HUD Offers a Hand Up

By Heidi Aggeler, Managing Director with BBC Research & Consulting

This column was originally published in the American Planning Association Housing and Community Development Division newsletter.

The poster child—or, um, poster senior?—of news articles expressing concern over the President’s proposed cuts to HUD was a little old lady receiving her lunch from Meals on Wheels.

The chance that the President’s budget could take away that little old lady’s lunch led to a great debate about whether or not Meals on Wheels—and similar programs—could survive without the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, which is currently on the chopping block. Not to worry, say many conservatives: Meals onWheels and other similar programs would likely be continued through private sector donations.

And that may be true. The private sector is very good at providing charitable, Hand Out, programs. Giving money to the disadvantaged makes people and business owners feel good. It’s also pretty good PR. There is a decent chance the private sector will step in and continue programs like Meals on Wheels—at least until another cause catches their attention.

Those arguing for elimination of CDBG also say that it isn’t effective in providing services to the most needy. One of the reasons that this may be true is because federal regulations limit the amount of CDBG that can be used for charitable programs to 15 percent of total funds. CDBG isn’t a major player in Hand Out programming simply because it isn’t allowed to be.

So…if CDBG isn’t really in the Hand Out business, what exactly does CDBG do? The real value in CDBG in its Hand Up effect.

By “Hand Up” I mean the infrastructure that leads positive economic outcomes. Outcomes like better educated and well trained workers. Stable housing. Safe neighborhoods. Thriving rural Main Streets.

In this realm, the public sector is simply better equipped than the private sector. Although the private sector has good intentions, the PR benefits of influencing the hot issue of the day far outweigh the practical side of community needs. Should I fund a program that provides computers to children of new immigrants or make façade improvements to Main Street in rural Indiana? The former is much more newsworthy.

We have all needed a Hand Up at some point in our lives. Think about that teacher, coach, parent, neighbor, admissions committee member. Someone believed in us at some point in time and, because of this, we believed in ourselves. Ben Carson had his mother; Barack Obama had his grandparents; Donald Trump had dad. Many children don’t benefit from family support and need to find this elsewhere—through an afterschool computer programming class, or by connecting with a mentor at a community center.

How does CDBG provide a Hand Up? Across the country, CDBG has funded the construction of community centers for at-risk youth, early childhood education centers, and education and training facilities—all places where the connections happen that deliver Hand Ups. In rural areas, CDBG funds the public infrastructure improvements that lead to economic development and support the longevity of small towns—a Hand Up. CDBG provides loans to small business owners to jump start their expansion. Hand Up.

CDBG is also responsible for the existence of housing and community planning departments across the U.S. This is not an area where the private sector will—or should—take the lead.

The civil servants who work for these departments worry about the things that are key to all of the things we value in America—safe, stable housing, good schools, economic achievement. They make sure that police officers and teachers can afford to buy a home, that quality schools are available throughout a community, that persons with disabilities have the same access to community amenities as those who are fully-abled. These are the real reasons that communities change for the better and that people can access economic opportunity.

HUD doesn’t exactly have a stellar reputation for creating programs that lead to positive economic outcomes…once there was redlining, and concentrating public housing.

Yet in CDBG—HUD has this one right.

***

Heidi Aggeler is a Managing Director with BBC Research & Consulting and leads the firm’s housing practice. Ms. Aggeler has more than 16 years of experience conducting economic analyses of housing markets. She is a nationally recognized expert in fair housing research and has managed the completion of several high-profile fair housing studies.

Prior to joining BBC, Ms. Aggeler worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis where she researched economic conditions for the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve System. Before joining the Fed, Ms. Aggeler conducted fair lending audits of financial institutions for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Ms. Aggeler has been invited to speak about her work at conferences held by HUD, the American Planning Association (APA), the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Ms. Aggeler is a current member of the Denver Planning Board.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Governor Takes the Money, But Not the Politics, Out of Tax Credit Program

By Stacy Jurado-Miller, Chief Mission Officer/Developer and Co-Founder at the Vecino Group

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

On Nov. 17, Gov. Eric Greitens and six out of eight members of the Missouri Housing Development Commission moved to eliminate state low-income housing tax credits. They did it outside of the legislative process. They did it with unconfirmed commissioners. They did it after almost an entire year of inaction regarding the creation of new affordable housing.

As a company, the Vecino Group debated how to react. We knew that speaking out against the actions of the governor and commissioners could be career suicide. One of the problems with Missouri is that these tax credits are awarded without a point system. The commission is made up of the state’s top elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. With political influence potentially affecting which housing deals are funded and whichdeals are not, the safe move is to curry political favor, hold back on criticism, and stay quiet.

But safe isn’t always right.

In eliminating the state low-income housing tax credit, the governor talked about ending “politics as usual.” What he moved to end, though, is funding. He kept the politics completely intact.

Nowhere in his statement on ending the tax credits did the governor present an alternative plan for addressing affordable housing needs in Missouri. That alone is a red herring. There are 28,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing at the St. Louis Public Housing Authority. In Kansas City, there are 1,600 homeless people and a two- to three-year waiting list at the KC Public Housing Authority. All across Missouri, rents are rising, housing inventory is shrinking, and vast swaths of our neighbors are one stroke of bad luck away from living on the streets. Nearly every mayor in Missouri stands united in opposing the elimination of the tax credits.

A few things deserve light and transparency in this situation:

• The commission proposed no changes to eliminate potential political influence from the funding process. Almost all states, except Missouri, allocate their low-income housing tax credits via a point system. A scoring rubric is published in advance, applications are analyzed and scored according to the published rubric, and all scores are posted on state agency websites for public viewing. In Missouri, there is no point system. No one every really knows why a deal was or was not funded. Some of the MHDC commissioners are elected officials. Elected officials receive donations. The whole thing is rife with the potential for influence and a lack of transparency.

• Creating a point system also allows the state to prioritize what type of housing it wants, proactively meeting the most pressing housing needs. This ensures the quantifiable results Greitens says are missing from the current program.

• If this tax credit program is eliminated, another funding source will be needed to bridge the funding gap for permanent supportive housing. The draft qualified application plan still prioritizes housing for homeless veterans and people with developmental disabilities. Without tax credits or an alternate form of supplemental funding, though, it will be impossible to create the extremely low rents and supportive services required for supportive housing. This alternative should be determined before the tax credit program is eliminated.

• Changes to the tax credit program are to be determined by the Legislature, as per the Missouri Constitution. The events of Nov. 17 violated legislative process. Additionally, Commissioner Jason Crowell, who brought forth the plan to eliminate tax credit program, was quickly appointed by Gov. Greitens and has not been approved by the state Senate.

• The Missouri Housing Development Commission has failed to act on a state-approved notice of funding availability issued in 2016 for a 4 percent bond funding round. The notice solicited applications for housing applications, with funding decisions expected in March. It is now December and nothing has happened. The applications received were never even posted on the website. Though a new administration might look toward future changes, when Missouri issues such a notice and businesses spend time and money to respond, the notice should be executed.

The best governance is transparent, honest and inclusive. Affordable housing is too important to merit anything less.

***

Prone to toothy smiles and passionate causes, Stacy Jurado-Miller brought the greater good mission to the Springfield, Missouri-based Vecino Group and maintains its focus today. As a Co-Founder and a Supportive Housing Developer, she’s grateful to make a living through social activism. She’s also grateful for fine-waiving day at the library, morning workouts, and any weekend that doesn’t involve a kid birthday party.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

The EPA and Us

By Jessica Estes, MSW, Community Organizer at Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE)

This column was originally published in The St. Louis American.

America is in crisis, and it is of a constant yet varied nature. Multiple natural disasters, mass shootings, civil unrest, racial tension and political discourse dominate every media outlet and every conversation with friends and family. One could be so overwhelmed by the state of our nation that one crisis may be unintentionally overlooked or overshadowed.

When regime change happens in America—when there is a new presidential election—priorities change. One such priority change grossly decreases the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget. In relation to the other crises at hand, the state of the EPA could be easily put on the back burner. But the EPA budget cuts will have atrickle-down effect on us here in St. Louis, so we must advocate for environmental justice.

The EPA defines environmental justice as fair treatment and meaningful inclusion regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

The EPA’s Environmental Justice Program funds local projects. Dutchtown South Community Corporation and Trailnet are two local organizations utilizing those funds for the betterment of the community.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reports the $81 million Missouri receives in grants from the EPA is in jeopardy. In 2016, the EPA provided Missouri with $3.6 million to keep our drinking water safe; 2.5 million Missourians rely on the EPA to keep their drinking water safe. Unfortunately, the Trump administration intends to strike these funds from the budget. Where does that leave Missourians?

The EPA budget cuts impact us all, but vulnerable populations stand to lose the most. Missouri has 1,022 Brownfield sites, which are sites that have a presence of hazardous substances, contaminants or pollutants. The Trump Administration has proposed decreasing EPA’s clean-up initiatives. Funding to Brownfield sites will be slashed more than 20 percent.

There is a high concentration of these Brownfield sites in predominantly black and low- to moderate-income neighborhoods—for example, Wellston and Jeff-Vander-Lou. The median household income in Wellston ranges from $16,912 to $30,250. In Jeff-Vander-Lou, median household incomes are as low as $9,732. This is not by happenstance. This is the manifestation of environmental racism.

When low-income individuals and minorities are relegated to living in close proximity to toxic and hazardous waste, including urban decay, we call this environmental racism. The environment in and of itself is not racist. However, the institutions that mediate environmental hazards and disasters, such as the EPA, are led by people, who establish priorities based on personal bias and prejudices. Nationally, consider the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; locally, consider the handling of the Clemens Mansion.

The EPA provides us with a number of services that improve our quality of life. It is imperative that we ensure those services continue. We must hold the Trump Administration accountable and demand environmental justice.

***

Jessica Estes, MSW obtained her Master of Social Work, concentrating on social and economic development and policy. She utilizes her social work skills and knowledge as a new community organizer at Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE). A St. Louis native, Jessica is committed to working for transformative social policy, so everyone in this city can have a high quality of life. She believes your values manifest in how you spend your time. Jessica sits on the base-building committee for the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS) and volunteers with Missouri Jobs with Justice (JwJ).

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

The Public Benefit of Historic Tax Credits

By John Burse, FAIA, LEED AP, Principal at Mackey Mitchell Architects

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Business Journal.

As a recipient of Missouri’s state historic tax credit, I contributed insights to the governor’s committee on taxation. I was consequently surprised to read the committee’s finding that “no member of the public provided a plausible explanation of the public benefit” from historic tax credits.

The dividend reinvesting in the tired neighborhoods of our state’s small towns and abandoned cities pays vast benefits. As the greenest building is the one that already exists, taking advantage of existing structure reduces pollution, contains sprawl and preserves landscape. At the scale of the neighborhood, the investment of home ownership across a spectrum of generations and income levels is a fundamental building block to creating sustainably healthy, safe and vibrant communities—public benefits for sure!

I received a state historic tax credit by renovating a vacant, crumbling dwelling in Old North St. Louis. The home was on a block of similarly abandoned structures, and required more work than real estate appraisal comps could justify a bank loan to cover. There was a significant chasm between what I could get for a loan—about $80,000—and the work that needed to be done—about $350,000 to $400,000. Making the project happen required six years of “sweat equity,” something most banks do not typically tolerate.

Having completed the project, reaping the tax credit helped defray risk. Equally important, the tax credit made me feel the state was a partner in what I was doing. Missouri believed in the power of what vibrant historic neighborhoods in its cities and small towns could do for the state, and wanted to encourage risk-taking and investment.

Over more than 10 years of living in Old North, countless other families and individuals were attracted to and invested in the area, many using the historic tax credit. I saw the lights gradually turned back on down my block and across Old North. This energy helped leverage nearly $55 million in additional investment in an inner-city neighborhood that had witnessed decades of decline. The results were astounding: Old North St. Louis posted a 30 percent gain in population; the results garnered national recognition for smart growth, affordable housing and historic preservation.

With these experiences in mind, in May of this year I offered the governor’s committee suggestions to improve the program:

• Remove the cap. The current cap discourages being able to depend on the availability of the credit and constrains and diminishes the amount of investment we could be seeing.

• Within our region, there are neighborhoods where the market is well established. These are not the places that need the tax credit. It’s our forgotten communities that need the leg up, and the application of the state historic tax credits should be prioritized for jump starting momentum in those areas which need reinvestment the most.

Growing healthy neighborhoods from disinvested, abandoned ones is a public benefit. Reform ought to allow tools like this to be more focused on those places which would benefit the most from risk taking and bold investment. Prohibiting single-family development from using this tool is short sighted, as homeowners in particular have the greatest potential to reinvest in rebuilding healthy, stable and safe communities across Missouri.

***

John is originally from Canterbury, Connecticut. His passion is design which fosters community. He oversees the design for many higher-ed student life projects, including dining, residential halls, academic spaces and student centers. His area of expertise is student centers, where he applies his love for creating community. John’s leadership style is engaging, thoughtful and enjoyable and it emphasizes design as a collaborative journey.

His designs for student centers have been recognized by the Association of College Unions International’s Facility Design Award of Excellence. John is a frequent presenter at national and regional conferences for ACUI, ACUHO-I and SCUP. His experience includes planning and design of residence halls, dining centers, performing arts facilities and campuses.

John enjoys giving back to the community, helping to lead community development efforts of the nationally recognized Old North St. Louis Restoration Group, past chairmanship of the City’s Preservation Board. His leadership was recognized with a national AIA Young Architect’s Award, as well as a Focus St. Louis “What’s Right with the Region” award. He has been featured in Architectural Record, Competitions, Marketplace and Metropolis.

John Burse joined Mackey Mitchell Architects in 1997 and was named principal in 2005.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Tax Credit Cuts Will Spurn Economic Development

By Joel Smiley, M.P.A., Principal at Attracting Resources, LLC

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Business Journal.

Our state and national economy are still in a very fragile environment. Gov. Eric Greitens and President Donald Trump are targeting tax credits as deficit reduction measures. The impact these cuts could have on manufacturers and other new developments could be substantial. All things being equal, manufacturers look at economic conditions, as well as market conditions, in determining site selection and growth strategies.

Tax incentives, especially on the state and local level, target underperforming areas as well as key industry clusters, job creation and infrastructure. While a massive infrastructure investment on the federal side will stimulate job creation, it may have little impact in urban core areas, rural development, poverty reduction and primary sector job creation.

State and local programs target these areas on a micro level and use tax incentive programs to level the playing field as well as reduce market condition costs, enabling the employer to create more jobs and opportunities.

A prime example is the Brownfield Tax Credit program. Brownfields are declared on environmentally challenged areas and are used to assess the site, create an action plan for clean-up and assist with the actual clean-up. Additional credits may be applied for a job creation component. By cleaning up a blighted property and creating jobs, you are not only improving economic opportunities for the site, but also for the surrounding area as property values improve.

New Market Tax Credits allow for investment in primary and secondary blighted census tracts. This program has job creation and investment criteria and helps revitalize high poverty areas with development. Community Development Entities assure the projects are tax credit worthy as well as shovel ready. The investor of the tax credits is investing in high poverty areas that would normally not attract economic opportunity in high risk areas.

Job training programs, including on-the-job training, offset training wages for high risk individuals as well as development projects in targeted area. OJT programs assess the training requirement for a position and offset training wages to an employer. Work Opportunity Tax Credits offer federal tax credits to employers who hire high risk individuals. These credits also reduce employer training costs.

State opportunities, especially primary sector positions that target key industries, are in tight competition on a national level. Corporate headquarters, manufacturers and high tech companies look at access to a highly educated workforce, lower taxes, available property with infrastructure, and lease office space availability. Tax credits are used by other states to offset some of these costs during the first few years of operation to offset infrastructure, training and investment costs. These savings can make the difference in the first few years of operation.

When elected officials talk about eliminating tax credits, are they eliminating new investment and job creation as well? Are they thinking about targeted areas in key industries? From an economic development perspective, I hope they take these criteria into consideration.

***

Joel Smiley launched Attracting Resources, LLC in 2013. He has over ten years of experience in economic development, encompassing a diverse set of work in Logan County, Illinois; Chesterfield, Missouri; and for SUPERVALU, Inc., where he successfully helped to recruit and/or retain over $500 million in commercial projects, mostly involving tax credits. His accomplishments cover economic development planning, business development, fundraising, and grant writing. Mr. Smiley has been active with the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) and other state economic development agencies. He is a member or former member of numerous chambers and civic organizations, including the Kiwanis Club, Rotary Club, Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce, Valley 2000, MO BIO, Missouri Economic Development Council, Illinois Development Council, Missouri Municipal League, and the National Business Incubation Association.

***

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 invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.