Fulfilling grand plans for riverside development

By Mark G. Schulte

Mark G. Schulte is a lawyer with Schulte Law Office LLC. He holds a degree in Urban Studies from Washington University and a Juris Doctor degree from St. Louis University School of Law. His efforts on the north riverside include his co-ownership of the Cottenbelt building and his involvement with “Tent City” and Artica. In addition, his work with clients involves affordable housing and urban redevelopment. Schulte is a life-long St. Louisan and father of two children.

A version of this op-ed originally appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on November 24, 2015. To view the original op-ed, click here.

I am one of the owners of the Cottonbelt building, property that goes from the 50-yard line out through the end zone on the proposed new stadium.

My business partner Tim Tucker and I bought the Cottonbelt 15 years ago in a desire to create a new riverfront for our community. Later we acquired, by purchase and lease, surrounding land and buildings, a contiguous assemblage of 20 acres, the main footprint of the new stadium.

I learned from the announcements in the Post-Dispatch that Gov. Jay Nixon’s commissioners had decided to put their new stadium directly upon my property. For years I had lobbied the powers that be for a “Riverside” redevelopment. Perhaps now that time has come to us.

The governor’s plan will provide $1 billion of public and private investment, not only in the stadium but in the Riverside infrastructure around it. I have not heard of any realistic alternatives from the opponents to the stadium. I haven’t heard enough about accompanying more equitable community development efforts. We can do better, still.

I would love to have a new stadium. It would be payday for me and my family, after a decade and a half of investment, struggle and sacrifice. It would be a relief of a great burden. So, my opinion contains the strong taint of self-interest. I am not sure that is bad for the city.

I played and like football, but I am not a fan of modern sports business. And I resent the profitable and ruthless beggar-thy-neighbor bidding wars of city against city. It’s a rigged game, but that’s how the people’s stadiums are built, now. Game on, fourth quarter.

I have seen our city squander opportunities and piles of money before. I have seen grand good plans brought to ruin by carping and litigious delay. Our city is renowned for the Arch, the Cardinals, Pruitt-Igoe, and now Ferguson.

I believe that our Arch is among the most splendid public monuments. It expresses the soaring aspirations of an optimistic people. It was the result of decades of patient commitment and plodding effort. It was the united common work of our community. Do we, the grandchildren of that generation that built the Arch, have what it takes to create something as splendid? Or will we devolve into discord and carping, offering opposition and opinion, but no alternative, no real commitment or serious contribution?

I hope that when we build PSL seats and luxury boxes on what was once tent city for the homeless, that some small sliver of each of those ticket receipts reappears as affordable housing. I hope that certain stadium jobs could be reserved for those folks emerging from the Honor Center prison that lurks nearby. I hope that when we tear down the LEED Platinum 21 O’Fallon, that the dust falls upon the entire stadium landscape as solar panels and green technology. I hope we honor the first people who lived there. We walk among those ghosts. Soon we join them.

Finally, if and when my Cottonbelt building is demolished, with its acre-sized mural overlooking the river, I hope that art by our local artists is commissioned and exhibited all through the stadium and grounds.

Can we build a new Riverside, one that our grandchildren would admire?

Addendum

As this November article is being re-printed in the first days of 2016, the Rams, Chargers and Raiders petitioned to move to LA. Our champions responded that we anticipated this, and that we had made our pitch in advance to keep NFL football in St. Louis. I sat in the many hearings at the Ways and Means Committee and the full Board of Alderman as the financing bill was pushed through.

At the various hearings, I disclosed my personal interest, accepted that the final decision was above my pay-grade, and asked for two things in the Board Stadium funding bill: create a Plan B should the Stadium deal fail, (to forestall the decade of drift that might befall the Riverside); and to use this moment to help capitalize our region’s premier Community Development Finance Institution Great Rivers Community Capital. Great Rivers is wholly owned by Justine Petersen Housing and Reinvestment Corporation, the largest micro-credit lender in America. Nationally-renowned, under-appreciated locally, JP and GRCC have led and assisted their constituents to build credit, create assets, own homes, start businesses here and in the nearby communities. I had hoped to convince our leaders to leverage this billion-dollar stadium public investment into more wide-spread community development. I still work on this every day.

If I were King for a day, and owned two seats on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, and could create a Plan B, I might prefer an aquarium, a Zoo-Museum district facility and parkland, a Cahokia Civilization center, a Festival Ground, with a catfish tournament starting THIS Spring. I wouldn’t wait another decade.

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.

It’s Time to Steal the Indy Cultural Trail

By Alex Ihnen

Alex is the owner and editor of nextSTL.com. He earned a B.A. in Journalism and Masters in Public Affairs at Indiana University and has studied in Adelaide, Australia and Perugia, Italy. Alex can be found on Twitter @alexihnen and reached at alex@nextstl.com.

A longer version of this op-ed, complete with images, is available on nextSTL.com. To see that version, click here.

In 2001 Indianapolis proposed that five central city neighborhoods be designated cultural districts. Taken together, they were home to nearly every significant arts, cultural, heritage, sports, and entertainment venue in the city. The problem? The neighborhoods were poorly connected and lacked an identity. The solution? The Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

Completed in 2012, the $63M 8-mile multi-use trail was funded by $27.5M in private and philanthropic support, and $35.5M from federal transportation grants. A recent studyhas found that since the project announcement and groundbreaking in 2007, property values within 500ft of the trail have increased by 148%, or more than $1 billion. The trail has increased revenue and traffic for businesses along the route. The average trail user spends $53 at local businesses. 95% of users feel safe using the trail.

The Cultural Trail has been a huge success. Beyond the numbers, it has helped to change the perception of Indianapolis as a city. The trail has put a new face on Indianapolis, encouraging human-scaled exploration of the city by locals and visitors alike. There’s new residential infill, private investment, and a greater awareness of the city’s cultural assets and urban neighborhoods. Planners from Cologne, Germany to Miami, Florida have traveled to Indianapolis to study this success. St. Louis should do this.

St. Louis has nothing like the Cultural Trail. We have the Great Rivers Greenway (GRG) system, the nearest example, but it clearly falls short. The greenways explicitly aim for a different mission – connecting the region with recreational paths, largely using old rail right-of-way, or unused land. What is the return on investment of the Centennial Greenway along I-170? Not a lot. It’s an effective low-cost strategy to build a lot of miles of paths. But a bigger opportunity is being missed.

Here’s what’s missing: the investment in St. Louis is being spent in out-of-the-way places, next to Interstate highways, along old rail lines in residential areas, on side streets and empty land on the edges of successful development, and not as a part of it, in the middle of it, where people want to go. We’re not capitalizing on our investment.

Here’s where the St. Louis Cultural Trail should go: connect the Old Courthouse/Arch, City Garden, Central Library, Grand Center/SLU, Central West End/Cortex/medical campus/Forest Park with off-shoots to Old North, Soulard, and Missouri Botanical Garden. Eight miles of on-street infrastructure connects them all.

The key is building the trail where it will be used, where it will catalyze development and where it can augment the built environment and existing investment. This is more expensive and more difficult than greenways under power lines next to an Interstate, but it also has an exponentially greater impact.

These paths, investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, work best when they act a part of a city’s transportation network, as connective tissue, when they directly address difficult connections. They’re best when not simply a place to walk or ride, but when used to go somewhere, and when, as often as practicable, the path is also a place.

St. Louis has museums, parks, and cultural assets that should make Indianapolis (and Atlanta, and maybe Chicago) blush. The city’s historic neighborhoods are as rich, beautiful, and diverse as any American city, but they’re not connected. Current strategy and plans for bicycle and pedestrian paths won’t address this shortcoming. We need to stop doing what’s easy, and start doing what’s effective.

A St. Louis Cultural trail would not only benefit its immediate environs, it could anchor and give impetus to more basic, affordable, and widespread infrastructure. By planning protected bike lanes, sidewalk replacement, and bike routes to connect with the trail, the network could be effectively prioritized, phased and constructed. The result would be a system much greater than the sum of its parts.

The existing 110-miles of greenways from Dardenne Prairie (37 miles west of the Arch) to the North Riverfront Trail are a great asset to the region. The planned 600-mile network is an important investment, but no organization is yet focused on leveraging what’s best about St. Louis into something greater, on connecting the dots. We are currently doing less with more. It’s time to steal Indy’s Cultural Trail.

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.

Why child development accounts are smart

By Jason Q. Purnell and Michael Sherraden

Jason Q. Purnell leads the For The Sake of All project and is an Assistant Professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.  Michael  Sherraden is a Distinguished University Professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work and is the founding director of the Center for Social Development at Washington University. 

This op-ed originally appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on September 15. To view the original post, click here. 

How can all children see a future? The Ferguson Commission recommends child development accounts.

Child development accounts are nest eggs, or investment accounts, for long-term goals like postsecondary education. CDAs are progressive, “seeded” with an initial deposit of $50 to $500, and put in extra for the poorest children. The accounts are universal. Every child is included. Children, parents and others can contribute.

There are many benefits. With interest and new savings, these accounts grow over time. Companies and governments can set up savings matches and other incentives. For children and their families, the accounts are learning opportunities. All participants have a stake in good financial management.
In communities near Ferguson, CDAs are taking root. Next door, the 24:1 Initiative — organized by Beyond Housing in partnership with 21 small municipalities and the Normandy School District — has opened a Promise Account for every child entering public school kindergarten. In the city of St. Louis, the treasurer’s office recently announced College Kids, a program that will deposit $50 in the accounts of all public school kindergarten children, funded in part with revenue from parking meters.

Farther away, in the states of Maine, Nevada and Connecticut, thousands of children have child development accounts. The first universal, statewide program in the nation, the Harold Alfond College Challenge in Maine, automatically deposits $500 for every newborn. To date, 40,000 Maine children have received an account. In Nevada, the College Kick Start program opened accounts with $50 for about 70,000 public school kindergarten students. Last year, Connecticut enacted legislation offering an initial deposit in CDAs for resident children.

Do these initiatives work? In the SEED for Oklahoma Kids experiment, the Center for Social Development at Washington University in St. Louis created a rigorous test of universal child development accounts to find. In SEED OK, children were randomly assigned to receive an account or not.

Findings reveal positive outcomes. For example, having a CDA with assets improves mothers’ mental health, raises mothers’ educational expectations for their children, and even boosts child development.

Interestingly, in the early years, the amount of savings is not the most important factor. Instead, having an account with assets seems to change parents’ outlook and behavior. As one mother told us when her child was about 2 years old, the SEED OK account “gives me a sense of security, a little bit of relief that something has begun, you know, and hopefully very soon I’ll be able to add to that.”

As Maine and other states have demonstrated, child development accounts can be set up as 529 college savings plans, taking advantage of already built financial infrastructure that was designed to help families save for postsecondary education. This is infrastructure, like an interstate highway, only not everyone is as yet driving toward the future with a 529 plan.

All children, not just the advantaged, can be on the road to college. Child development accounts provide an initial, automatic deposit (with an opportunity to “opt out”). Savings incentives can encourage and reward individual deposits.

The plans also have growth potential. Since deposits in child development accounts begin early, there are many years to take advantage of market gains. For example, between 2008 and 2014, Maine’s plan yielded a 25 percent gain, despite market declines in 2008-09.

By creating and expanding child development account programs, Ferguson can join other communities and states around the nation that recognize that investing in the future of our youngest citizens has the potential for large social and economic payoffs.

These initiatives work. Child development accounts help build stable families and communities, where every resident, including the very poorest and the very youngest, and completely regardless of race or ethnicity, has a stake in the future.

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.

The Leslie Knope Guide for New Mayors

By Kim S. Graziani

Kim Graziani serves as Vice President and Director of National Technical Assistance for the Center for Community Progress where she oversees, coordinates and helps deliver a diverse range of technical assistance and capacity building services to communities across the country.

“What I hear when I’m being yelled at is people caring really loudly at me.” – Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), Parks and Recreation

Trust us, residents care REALLY LOUDLY about vacant and abandoned properties…including big, empty pits that could be the next greatest park in places such as fictional Pawnee, Indiana.

You’ve won the election. You are ready to make change. You can learn from all of those before you (think Shakespeare’s “What’s Past is Prologue”). This is your time to hone in on your vision, your priorities, and your plan for hitting the ground running once you take office. Why not start with those properties that are causing significant harm to your soon-to-be constituents?

Vacant and abandoned properties hurt communities—with studies pointing to negative impacts on everything from crime, to property values, to neighbors’ physical health. Consider making this one of your key issues and priorities and, in return, all of us here at the Center for Community Progress will stand behind you.

Better yet, allow Leslie Knope/Kim Graziani to share a few lessons learned from those across the country who are at the front lines of fighting blight.

1. Address the elephant in the room: Racial and class injustices are at the heart of vacancy, abandonment, and disinvestment. Bad decisions have been made and are still being made that hurt people, divide communities, and destroy wealth-building opportunities for past and future generations alike. Be the “elephant healer” and create a safe space for people to address these wrongdoings and move forward together.

2. Make your case: Why should constituents care about vacant and abandoned properties? Listen and capture stories from residents, collect data that can quantify the numbers and economic impact on housing markets, tax base, public safety, and overall well-being. Using stories and data, make this issue everyone’s issue.

3. Embrace public discourse: Bring those who disagree with you to the table. Maybe even break some bread with them! Be an active listener and set yourself apart from those who talk “at” you instead of “with” you.

4. Tear down the silos: Navigating city departments and systems might be downright boring—but no less essential for enabling meaningful change. How can your city be more effective at preventing properties from becoming vacant and abandoned? When was the last time your data people sat with your tax collectors, code enforcement officers, and/or housing developers to discuss how to prioritize and work together to address those properties that are causing the most harm to a community?

5. Cultivate a team of do-ers: Actions (and funding) speak louder than words.  Build a team that is willing to eat, sleep, and breathe all things vacancy and abandonment. There are always going to be a million fires to put out in your community, but encouragingfolks to focus on this issue will result in better outcomes. Also, realize that everything cannot and should not be done in city hall – partner, partner, and partner some more. (Consider this formula when deciding what key players to have on your team: visionary + convener + task master + critic = change.)

6. Failing is not an option: It’s a reality. Don’t be afraid to pilot some ideas and go back to the drawing board to tweak as you see fit. Ask residents whether they think it is working and how they think it can be improved.

7. Consider this your new mantra: EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES INVESTMENT. It’s not about saying no; it’s about having honest discussion about what type of investment will make the most impact. Targeting is essential and is prudent to address varying market conditions and community realities.

8. Embrace patience, kindness, and authenticity: Remember it’s not always about the destination but more about the journey. Vacancy and abandonment did not happen overnight and therefore will not be solved overnight. Blight is certainly not something to laugh at, but laughter will certainly be needed along the way. The challenge is complex and hard but deserves your focus.

“We need to remember what’s important in life: friends, waffles, work. Or waffles, friends, work. Doesn’t matter but work is third.” – Leslie Knope, Parks and Recreation

If all else fails, surround yourself with lots of friends and waffles—and consider all of us here at the Center for Community Progress to be your friends who are glad to be on this journey with you (and also happen to like waffles).

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.

Do our streets match our communities’ values?

By Marielle Brown, AICP

Marielle is a member of the Missouri Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Manager at Trailnet, where she manages and contributes to all aspects of the planning process, from outreach to route prioritization. Marielle has a Master’s of Urban and Regional Planning from Portland State University and a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from Portland State University. Prior to pursuing her Master’s, Marielle gained first-hand experience with multi-modal transportation planning around the world by teaching English in Hiroshima, Paris, and Seoul.

For thousands of years, cities have been designed for people walking, children playing, neighbors gathering, and local businesses selling their wares. As new ways of getting around were created, humans scrambled to integrate this technology into the tradition of making communities built for walking. Over the last century, our cities have been taking part in a large experiment to design communities for cars, a technology that allows us to go much faster and take up more space.

Carts pulled by humans, horse-drawn carriages, streetcars, and even bicycles were all once disruptive technologies that changed the way we traveled and the way we designed cities. However, none of these new ways to travel were fast enough to upset the walking pace of cities. Public streets were still easy and safe places for people to play with their children, talk with their neighbors, and cross the street where it was convenient.

As cars started to become more common, our communities searched for ways to accommodate these new machines that allowed us to travel much faster than our streets had ever been designed for. We welcomed cars by paving our streets, making them wider, painting lanes on streets, and designating parking spaces.

We also had to design our communities and our behavior around the new technology. As people drove faster on our wider, smoother streets, children were taught not to play in the street, people walking across the street at their convenience were derided as “jays” or country bumpkins, and laws were passed to make sure people walking stayed out of the way of people driving.

As our streets became places to travel through, rather than places to be, the local businesses that relied on foot traffic had to relocate to a place where their customers could find a parking spot. Then the businesses needed to build signs large enough for their customers to see from a fast moving car. Next the roads had to be expanded even more to make room for the cars that customers arrived in, as a street that comfortably fits thousands of people will not fit an equal number of cars as easily.

All of these changes not only increased costs for business owners, they also made our streets feel designed for driving rather than walking. The new designs made it more inviting to drive to work, to shop in large stores on the outskirts of town, and to stay inside, away from the traffic noise and pollution. Our long tradition of building cities as places where people love to be was transformed into a new science of building places where cars could travel quickly. The freeways that connect our metropolitan regions show our successes- they are fast and pleasant for people and freight traveling between cities.

However, inside of our cities, creating streets where people love to walk and people can drive quickly has not been as successful. Our experiments have resulted in cities full of larger, faster streets that are dangerous and unpleasant for people walking or driving. Our attempts to find a compromise between designing streets for driving and for walking has hit a truth that we cannot design around–as humans we do not feel comfortable and safe in a space with large things traveling at 30 miles per hour or more.

Retrofitting our existing streets to slow the speed of cars while creating more space for people and for greenery is a relatively easy way for us to return to a city of streets where people love to be. We can help people driving to follow the speed limit through “traffic calming,” or street design that is more comfortable at slower speeds. This can include extending the curb at intersections, reducing or narrowing traffic lanes, or adding gentle speed humps on streets. The appropriate design on the appropriate street can help us return to city streets that are built for walking, playing, and catching up with our neighbors.

Over the past month, the Missouri Chapter of the American Planning Association has been working with the Healthy Eating Active Living Partnership, the City of St. Louis Department of Health, and Trailnet  to bring pop-up traffic calming demonstrations to several neighborhoods in the city as part of the Plan4Health grant.

The demonstrations in Dutchtown, the Ville, and Carondelet have helped residents reimagine the streets as places where safety and community come before speed. Overwhelmingly the people living, walking, bicycling, and even driving on these streets have told us they look great and feel safer.
On November 10th, we will have our final demonstration in the the JeffVanderLou Neighborhood. Please stop by the corner of Sheridan and Garrison, better known as Tillie’s Corner, from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm to see how we can create joyful streets that prioritize our communities’ values.

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. 

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Facing the Dilemmas

By Paul Dribin

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.

Some hugely important events have taken place in recent months that could transform the affordable housing industry. First, the Supreme Court upheld the concept of Disparate Impact in the decision Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. This decision confirmed that discrimination in housing does not have to be intentional but could be a result of subtle covert actions. The case involved a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project.

Second, HUD has issued perhaps their most significant regulations ever on the subject of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. These regulations provide specific guidance on compliance with Title VI of the Fair Housing Act of 1964 which in essence states that federal funds have to be used in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing. HUD has of course been lax in implementing this law. While communities have to submit Consolidated Plans and other planning documents which discuss the use of HUD funds, efforts have been far from serious in requiring strict compliance with the statute.

The regulations which are quite lengthy spell out a very detailed analysis of statistical data indicated where there is a relative lack of affordable housing. HUD will require very major efforts to put resources including affordable housing into areas where it is lacking. HUD has developed an assessment tool to help with this effort. The regulations suggest that HUD resources should not be concentrated in areas of minority populations and in economically deprived areas. All HUD programs are affected and the LIHTC Program is also affected as a result of the court decision and requirement to comply with the consolidated plan.

Focusing affordable housing in more affluent neighborhoods is important not only for civil rights issues but research has shown that low income families who move outside traditional areas of poverty achieve more success, including higher achievement by the students in school. HUD should be applauded for finally implementing a law that has been in effect for over 50 years. Nevertheless, there are important issues and dilemmas that need to be faced:

1. Many organizations have been doing important and difficult work involving community development in economically and racially impacted areas. Do these rulings mean these efforts cannot proceed? Are central cities being written off?

2. Cities and housing authorities have limited jurisdictions. They will be required to submit plans. What impact will these plans have if they cannot cross jurisdictional lines? Cooperative regional plans are encouraged but not mandated.

3. Will zoning laws be set aside?

4. Suburban communities will strongly resist. Potential developments will be tied up in litigation. Land costs will be significantly higher without program resources to cover these costs. Will this mean the end of affordable housing development?

My concerns may seem alarmist and perhaps there is a moderate approach to these regulations. An approach could be that priority is given to housing developments outside traditional areas of concentration but that inner city areas can be developed if part of a comprehensive development plan.
Housing practitioners need to stay informed on the issues.

You can follow further discussion of this issue on my blog, Affordable Housing from P Dribin, pdribin.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.

Community Development Needs to be Part of the Response to Ferguson

By Todd Swanstrom

Todd Swanstrom is the Des Lee Professor of Community Collaboration and Public Policy Administration at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and co-author of Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century.

In Governor Jay Nixon’s words, the first charge of the Ferguson Commission was “to conduct a thorough, wide-ranging and unflinching study of the social and economic conditions underscored by the unrest in Ferguson.” The killing of Michael Brown was the spark that started the protests but the fuel that sustained them was the accumulation of frustrations and resentments by citizens consigned to communities that not only failed to help them get ahead but actually dragged them down. The media has generally portrayed events in Ferguson as the result of old-fashioned racism but, in fact, the underlying conditions that sparked the unrest were a toxic mix of race and place.

The Ferguson Commission Calls to Action recognize the need for targeted, place-based investments to lift up disadvantaged communities. This is wise. The St. Louis region needs to invest now in a community development system that enables every community to succeed.

Where we live makes a big difference in our lives, independent of our individual characteristics. And you don’t need to have studied the impact of geography on people for over 30 years like I have to understand that. People who live in areas of concentrated poverty, for example, often pay more for groceries and lack access to fresh vegetables. The stress of living in areas of high crime can compromise the immune system and damage children’s capacities to learn with negative effects that last a lifetime. The researchers at For the Sake of All reported that children growing up in a disadvantaged zip code in the City of St. Louis can expect to live 18 years less than children in a privileged suburban zip code. Controlling for individual characteristics, residents of high-poverty neighborhoods are less successful in job markets and often must commute longer distances.

The new scrutiny in Ferguson revealed another place effect: poor municipalities are more likely to use the police like an ATM to fund municipal budgets. Municipal fiscal stress is driving the widespread pattern of police abuses. Senate Bill 5, which limits revenue from traffic fines to 12.5 percent of municipal revenue, does not address the underlying cause – the simple fact that many municipalities lack the tax base to provide decent services at reasonable tax rates.

Economic segregation also divides neighborhoods within municipalities. The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on the eastern side of Ferguson where the poverty rate is 33 percent. Political divisions in Ferguson are rooted in patterns of economic and racial segregation.

Fortunately, there is something we can do about economic segregation and concentrated poverty. Research I conducted with Hank Webber and Molly Metzger of Washington University found that, even though concentrated poverty is growing in the region, some 35 neighborhoods have successfully rebounded. The Central West End is the most prominent example but there are many more, including Shaw, Botanical Heights, Carondolet, and Maplewood.

Is there a silver bullet that can guarantee the renewal of a blighted community? No. But we did find one factor that was common to all rebound neighborhoods: strong civic engagement.

The simple truth is that neighborhoods need involved citizens and leaders. Neighborhood renewal is not going to succeed if outsiders come in and tell a community what to do.

So where does strong civic engagement start? Often, a community development corporation (CDC) leads the way. A CDC is a nonprofit with a mission to improve life in a specific neighborhood, city, town, or region. As part of my endowed professorship at UMSL, I have worked with a network of CDCs, lenders, foundations, and government agencies called the Community Builders Network (CBN). The CDC members are doing incredible work, but many of them lack the capacity or financial resources to implement sophisticated neighborhood plans. Many disadvantaged neighborhoods do not even have place-based community nonprofits at all. The network has 18 CDC members in the City of St. Louis but only five that operate in suburban St. Louis County – even though more poor people live there.

Most regions like St. Louis, including Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, have community development systems that are funded by local and national foundations. St. Louis has not had a major foundation that has invested in community development and so we have not been successful at attracting national foundations to this work. The Greater St. Louis Community Foundation has stepped into the vacuum and is working with a coalition of banks and nonprofits on a proposal, called Invest STL, to create a community development support system in St. Louis.

Community development is not a magic bullet that will correct the social injustices that drove the unrest in Ferguson. But it can give communities the chance to bounce back and create an environment where all their citizens can succeed. Unless we invest now in leveling the playing field of metropolitan development, distressed communities will not only drag down their residents – they will drag down the entire 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.

Fulfilling the Promise of the Fair Housing Act

By Will Jordan

Will Jordan is the Executive Director of the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing & Opportunity Council (EHOC), which works to ensure equal access to housing for all people through education, counseling, investigation, and enforcement. EHOC was recognized in 2008 with HUD’s Blue Ribbon Award and by FOCUS St. Louis in 2003 with a “What’s Right with the Region” Award. Will personally was awarded the 2012 Missouri Commission on Human Rights Fair Housing Advocate Award and the 2005 Governor’s Human Rights Award from the State of Illinois. Will received his B.S. in Psychology from Southeast Missouri State University and his J.D. from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. Before coming to EHOC, he served as Program Manager for the Emerson Park Development Corporation’s YouthBuild Program in East St. Louis, as Hearing Officer for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, as Regional Trainer for the Missouri Division of Youth Services, and as Community Outreach Coordinator for the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis. He is a member of Stand for Children’s grassroots organizing initiative.

The Obama administration’s newly released Final Rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is, potentially, one of our nation’s most substantial housing policy changes in decades. The Final Rule on AFFH was announced in the Federal Register on July 16, 2015: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf. The rule clarifies already existing Fair Housing obligations for states, counties, municipalities and even Public Housing Agencies that are receiving federal monies. The rule will use market-based incentives to encourage the construction of affordable housing in high opportunity neighborhoods. HUD will also be creating custom, localized, digital tools to provide local governments with extensive data and analysis of residential segregation.

From access to good schools and healthy food, to proximity to jobs and transportation, where we live impacts almost every aspect of our lives. The Obama administration’s new Fair Housing policy will help ensure that all people – regardless of race, ethnicity, family status or disability – have a range of choices about where to live. In a metropolitan region with numerous school systems and over three hundred political subdivisions, housing mobility is extremely important. Low- to moderate-income families should be able move to better school districts. Much of their children’s lives will be determined by where they go to school and the neighborhood in which they grow up.

This rule will also benefit those who live in the urban core, as it will seek to encourage development that helps ensure that all neighborhoods are good places to live, regardless of the demographics of their residents. Packing almost all of our affordable housing into a handful of disadvantaged neighborhoods has led to stark location-dependent differences in our fellow citizens’ quality of life.

By encouraging development of affordable housing in high opportunity areas, this new rule will help us to reduce the concentration of poverty and the social costs that accompany it. In one of the country’s most segregated metropolitan areas, we must overcome historic patterns of discrimination. The tools provided by AFFH will let communities evaluate segregation and make informed, data-driven decisions to help break down the invisible barriers in our region.

Our region will continue to grow more diverse, and we must take proactive steps to ensure that every family has a fair chance of living in a safe, nurturing community. AFFH will give our civic leaders the information that they need, to make sound housing development decisions that open the doors to opportunity. Failing to build affordable housing in high opportunity areas (due to prejudices against low-income families and people of color) risks the perpetuation of segregation and the dooming of future generations to continued limited opportunities and shorter lifespans. To quote Dr. King, “It is a torturous logic to use the tragic results of racial segregation as an argument for the continuation of it.”

The one-year anniversary of Michael Brown’s killing, August 9th stands as a stark reminder that we need to get to work. We are hopeful that our region’s leaders will take advantage of these new tools that can help us build a better, more inclusive St. Louis. Our children deserve nothing less.

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.

Viable Student Transfer Program, Aid to Troubled Home Districts Not Mutually Exclusive

D.J. Wilson is a former staff writer for the Riverfront Times, the Houston Press and the Houston Post. He currently freelances for St. Louis Magazine and Stlmag.com. His weekly radio show, Collateral Damage, was on KDHX from 2001 to 2015 and continues to via podcast at collateraldamage.KDHXtra.org.

For all the talk about the need for a legislative “fix” for the student transfer program in St. Louis County, it’s time for people to realize the transfer option isn’t going away, and basically, that is good news.

About 11 percent of students in the unaccredited districts of Normandy and Riverview Garden took advantage of the chance to go to an accredited school in another district. Those decisions are both a benefit for the child and the community where he or she lives, and a wake-up call to the region that public education’s problems and solutions aren’t confined within the gerrymandered boundaries of each of the county’s 24 districts.

The recent agreement by county districts to participate more fully in assisting troubled districts is a small positive step, even if it were akin to a shotgun wedding consummated three days before Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the erroneously named transfer fix legislation. That bill, opposed by St. Louis County school district superintendents, would have allowed charter schools in St. Louis County and provided public compensation for the use of private “virtual” school programs.

The real fix that is needed is for all the districts that receive transfer students to accept a reasonable “cap” tuition that does not needlessly drain state and sending district finances. Some have agreed to a cap of around $8,000, others have not.

Offering a viable transfer option and devoting personnel and resources to improve education in the sending districts are not mutually exclusive propositions. Both can, and should be pursued.

The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) stepped into this fray because it is the state’s responsibility to provide a tuition-free education to its school-age residents. School districts administer that education, but when those districts fail, the state steps in.

The state, and to a lesser degree the federal government, try to compensate for the vast discrepancies in financial capacity among school districts caused by the jigsaw puzzle nature of their boundaries. Local district funds come largely from property taxes, and no two districts are created equal.

The assessed valuation for the Clayton School District, all 3.2 square miles of it, is $1 billion. The assessed valuation per average daily attendance is calculated by dividing a district’s financial base by its number of students. In Clayton, that number is $427,415. In Riverview Gardens, it’s $35,616. In Normandy, it’s $64,179.

According to 2014 DESE and census data, Clayton spends $17,394 per student on an enrollment where the median household income is $89,479. Jennings, one of 11 provisionally accredited districts in the state, has a median household income of $28,429. It spends $9,911 per student.

Normandy and Riverview Gardens are dependent on state funds. Last school year 53 percent of Normandy’s revenue came from the state, 32 percent was local, and 14 percent was from the federal government.

Various academic metrics further document the chasm between districts. In Riverview Gardens, 65 percent of students take the ACT, with a composite score of 15.6. In Clayton, virtually all the students take the ACT and the composite score is 25.7. Statewide, the composite score is 21.8.

The multiplicity of school districts is one of the most divisive jurisdictional barriers to a sense of community. The fractured local delivery system of state-guaranteed public education accentuates socioeconomic differences and perpetuates gaps in employment, income, and access to post-secondary education.

In St. Louis, it’s far more than where you went to high school that matters, it’s what school district did you have the fortune – or misfortune – to call home. Those invisible yet real walls between districts are kept high and thick by jacked-up housing costs and apartment rents in highly regarded districts.

To the extent that the transfer program can be enhanced by a reasonable set tuition price paid by the sending district, some of those walls that divide privilege and poverty might be weakened and more students, no matter where they live, might have a better chance for a better life.

Meanwhile the surrounding districts, with help from state and federal governments, can pay more money and attention to help the many students who choose not to transfer.

It’s no mystery that the school districts in trouble have high degrees of concentrated poverty. When Normandy and Riverview Gardens lost their accreditation, they had the highest rate of free-and-reduced lunches in St. Louis County.

Consolidating districts to achieve economies of scale and a better mix of poor and not-so-poor students would go a long way to improve public education in every community.

Sadly, that won’t happen. Due to economic segregation, misplaced fear of those from a lower income bracket, and prior home purchasing decisions based on school district boundaries, chances are slim people will accept any substantive change.

Around 1900, there were 125,000 school districts in the United States. That number has dwindled to about 15,000 today. Change has happened, over time, yet more jurisdictional change is not on the horizon.

If school district boundaries won’t change, allowing a few industrious students to follow their dreams and ambitions outside those artificial boundaries, while working to improve the schools that made them flee, will have to do.

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.

A New Stadium, A New Opportunity

By David Stiffler, Community Affairs Manager, Equifax

Stadium financing is controversial. The idea of the public shouldering considerable financial burden to attract or retain a single owner or wealthy group of investors remains distasteful to many.  Adding to negative public perception is the relative lack of examples where sports facility construction correlated to significant economic development for the surrounding communities. However, there is an effort underway in the Westside of Atlanta that offers more than just hope that stadium construction can be a catalytic driver of comprehensive community improvement – it offers a blueprint for strategic public/private collaboration. Equifax Inc. (www.equifax.com) has been involved in that effort from the beginning.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Equifax Inc.’s second largest population of employees is in St. Louis. In both cities, we are committed to geographically-focused community investment strategies that are collaborative in nature, evidence-driven and long-term. Our St. Louis “footprints” are Old North and the South Jefferson corridor where over the past five years we have invested close to a million dollars.

The Westside has always been central to Atlanta’s African-American social and economic fabric. It remains home to some of the city’s most significant and influential cultural institutions and iconic leaders. Dr. King lived in Vine City at the time of his assassination. Anchor institutions, such as Morehouse College and Spelman College, historic restaurants, and small businesses are still owned and/or largely staffed by people who grew up in the Westside. Yet, years of challenges have led to properties and people neglected and disconnected from the core of Atlanta. It’s a situation not dissimilar to many of the realities and challenges that impact downtown, North City and County, and East St. Louis. With the likelihood of a new stadium, or at least a “Plan B” here in St. Louis, we also have a unique opportunity to share something more positive: best practices.

Several community leaders in Atlanta reminded me that the Georgia Dome (1992) and the Atlanta Olympics (1996) fell short on the promise of economic development for the surrounding neighborhood including the Westside. Arthur M. Blank, co-founder of Home Depot, noted philanthropist and owner of the Atlanta Falcons football team, had that in mind when he set about a plan to do things differently with the construction of the new Atlanta stadium.  The foundation made strategic hires, bringing in first rate leaders specifically to work in the Westside.  His Atlanta Falcon’s leadership structured their corporate partnerships with a component around Westside engagement and support.  He reached out to the Atlanta Committee for Progress (akin to St. Louis’ Civic Progress) and helped jump start a task force to consider the best way for the most powerful companies in the city to work with the Mayor’s office and all of its major public entities. The task force, in turn, created of a new non-profit (The Westside Future Fund) that will lead comprehensive revitalization work alongside The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation.

St. Louis can and should learn from this work.  We have wonderful regional examples of public and private collaboration:  CityArchRiver, St. Louis Graduates, 24:1 and the nascent Ready by 21 initiative. All point to our ability to work across sectors to accomplish important results.  We have tremendous leaders across sectors. We need to view the potential for a new stadium as a tie that binds development efforts in North City with development efforts in downtown and East St. Louis. We need to view this opportunity as a chance to drive racial and economic inclusion through workforce development, job creation, social entrepreneurship and a variety of other economic opportunities.  We need community and non-profit leaders, elected officials and private sector leaders to use this moment to connect our regional work. We need to consider how we sustain this work – whether we create something like our own Westside Future Fund or consider building capacity for an existing agency to take on this work.

Our work in the Westside coupled with our five years of work in North City allows Equifax Inc. a unique vantage point. We have begun to align our efforts between the two cities particularly around economic development. We co-lead an economic development roundtable in the Westside with Frank Fernandez, VP from The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, and will kick off a similar effort in North City in late August. Equifax Inc. is just one piece of the overall redevelopment puzzle

However, The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation is exceptionally well-resourced and especially committed.  National reports tell us that St. Louis has great family wealth. Having a strong philanthropic foundation or family trust step forward would help galvanize a comprehensive effort and help create a common narrative and shared future for North City, downtown and East St. Louis. Committing to such a course has value regardless of a new stadium. Whether St. Louis hates or embraces the idea of a new stadium, the region should not lose this rare opportunity to unite the great efforts underway in North City, downtown and East St. Louis around a shared resource.

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.