IN THE FACE OF GENTRIFICATION:

Case Studies of Local Efforts to

Mitigate Displacement

Diane K. Levy

Jennifer Comey

Sandra Padilla

In the Face of Gentrification:

Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Copyright © 2006

Diane K. Levy

Jennifer Comey

Sandra Padilla

The Urban Institute

Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics

worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and

should not be attributed to the Urban Institute or to its trustees or funders.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Fannie Mae Foundation for funding and helping give shape to this

study. In particular, Sohini Sarkhar, formerly with the Foundation, helped move the study along

from start to completion. Anonymous reviewers provided by the Fannie Mae Foundation offered

us excellent comments on the draft report, which we took to heart in our revisions. The study

itself, of course, was dependent upon the willingness of people in each of the six study sites to

meet with us and share their experiences and expertise on neighborhood change and affordable

housing. We extend a special thanks to each of them for making this study possible. Their

names and affiliations can be found in the list of resources. We are grateful for the help of

Urban Institute colleagues. Jessica Cigna and Kathryn Pettit provided us access to HMDA and

Census data specific to our study sites, as well as advice on developing the methodology for

site selection. We greatly appreciate the work of Diane Hendricks with production of the report,

which would not have happened without Marge Turner’s support for publication. Scott Forrey

and Fiona Blackshaw helped clean up dangling modifiers and misplaced commas, and Maida

Tryon launched the report on our website. As with all reports and publications, any errors and

omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

Gentrification and Revitalization 1

The Need for Affordable Housing 2

Study Methodology and Housing Strategies 4

Findings 8

Organization of the Report 9

CASE STUDIES 10

Early Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification 11

St. Petersburg, FL - Bartlett Park 12

Sacramento, CA - Oak Park 22

Middle Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification 32

Atlanta, GA - Reynoldstown 33

Los Angeles, CA - Figueroa Corridor 43

Late Stages of Neighborhood Gentrification 52

Seattle, WA - Central Area 53

Chicago, IL - Uptown 66

CONCLUSION 76

Displacement Mitigation Strategies 76

Cross-Cutting Lessons 79

Wrapping Up 82

In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

REFERENCES 83

ENDNOTES 86

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

Introduction 1

1

section

INTRODUCTION

C

oncern, and anger, over gentrification has grown in communities across the country as

housing rental and sales prices have soared. Housing markets strengthened during the

1990s along with the national economy, and have remained strong even while the

economy began to slow down in the spring of 2000, one of the few sectors to do so. Decreases

in affordable housing units have accompanied the higher prices in many places, and there are

numerous reports of resident displacement from neighborhoods long ignored that now attract

higher-income households.

Increased housing prices themselves are

not a problem per se. It is when costs

increase in predominantly lower-income

neighborhoods where residents’ incomes do

not keep pace that displacement can occur.

As housing prices increase, lower-income

households are at risk of being pushed out

or prevented from moving into certain

geographic areas because of the prohibitive

costs and limited household earnings. It is

this geographic component, along with

restricted economic opportunities, that

makes gentrification-related displacement a

problem.

Balancing the revitalization of

neighborhoods while reducing the risk of

displacement of low-income families poses

a challenge for city officials and housing

practitioners. In this study, we present

strategies used by nonprofit organizations,

for-profit developers, and city agencies to

ensure low- to-moderate-income residents

can live in revitalizing and gentrifying

neighborhoods. We present strategies used

in the following neighborhoods in 2003:

Bartlett Park (St. Petersburg, Florida), Oak

Park (Sacramento, California),

Reynoldstown (Atlanta, Georgia), Figueroa

Corridor (Los Angeles, California), Central

Area (Seattle, Washington), and Uptown

(Chicago, Illinois).

The types of strategies used to prevent

displacement are influenced by a number of

factors, including intensity of the housing

market, local political climate and local

organizational capacity. Through the case

studies, we consider the impact of timing on

strategy selection and implementation to

untangle whether certain approaches work

better in different housing-market contexts.

Gentrification and Revitalization

For the purposes of this study, we define

gentrification as the process whereby

higher-income households move into low-

income neighborhoods, escalating the

area’s property values to the point that

displacement occurs. In addition to changes

in economic class, gentrification often

involves a change in a neighborhood’s

2 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

racial and ethnic composition, which can

further alter an area’s characteristics,

potentially leading to community tension.

Gentrification also involves investment in

previously neglected neighborhoods. Those

entities seeking to minimize displacement

associated with gentrification face the

challenge of encouraging neighborhood

investment without negatively affecting

residents who have weathered years of

neighborhood disinvestment.

We characterize the neighborhoods in this

study as being in an early, middle, or later

stage of gentrification in order to examine

the usefulness of strategies within the

context of the local housing market, and to

acknowledge the balance needed between

encouraging revitalization and managing

gentrification. Though there are no exact

thresholds for identifying different stages of

gentrification, the concept of stage is

important in regard to housing strategy

selection and success. Neighborhoods

showing signs of revitalization with the

possibility of future gentrification—evidence

of housing improvements and increased

housing prices in an area proximate to other

gentrifying neighborhoods—are

characterized as the early stage. Mid-stage

neighborhoods are those in which prices

have risen sharply, yet affordable housing

remains available along with some

developable land parcels. Communities at

the later stage of gentrification are those

where the housing prices have skyrocketed,

there is little affordable housing or few

developable parcels, and the demand for

profitable, market-rate housing

overshadows the needs of lower-income

households.

The Need for Affordable Housing

Though it is difficult to find data on

displacement, evidence of changes in the

housing market and the effect on

households is strong. Inflation-adjusted

home prices rose faster in 2001 than any

time since the late 1970s, and 2002 almost

matched that pace (Joint Center for Housing

Studies 2003). Roughly 40 percent of the

nation’s renter households spend 30

percent or more of their income on housing,

while 20 percent spend at least half their

income on housing. The picture is especially

dire for low-income households: almost half

(46 percent) spent 50 percent or more on

their housing in 2001 (Joint Center for

Housing Studies 2002).

Introduction 3

Defining Gentrification

There is no agreed-upon definition of gentrification, although the aspect of higher-income households

moving into lower-income neighborhoods is included in most versions. Urban geographer Ruth Glass first

coined the term gentrification to describe London neighborhoods in the 1960s. She defined it as the

process of middle- and upper-class households moving into distressed working-class neighborhoods,

upgrading the derelict housing stock, and eventually displacing the working-class residents, thereby

changing the social character of the neighborhood (Glass 1964).

Contemporary definitions reflect Glass’s description of class change. For instance, some observers

describe gentrification as the rehabilitation of working-class or derelict housing into housing for middle-

class residents, or as the process of higher-income households moving into neighborhoods that have

suffered from systematic outmigration, disinvestment, or neglect (Atkinson 2002, Wyly and Hammel

1999). Gentrification also has been described as the middle- and upper-class remake of the central city—

not just a residential phenomenon, but one that affects commercial and retail areas as well (Smith 1996).

Other observers include a racial component in their definition of gentrification—new, higher-income

residents are white and the incumbent, lower-income residents are racial or ethnic minorities. This change

can lead to tensions along racial or ethnic lines in the gentrified neighborhood (Kennedy and Leonard

2001).

Not all definitions of gentrification include the displacement of the incumbent, lower-income residents.

Some observers argue that displacement is not a necessary outcome of gentrification if original residents

cannot afford to move elsewhere or are attached to the neighborhood, or if higher-income households are

able to occupy vacant properties or move into newly constructed developments (Vigdor 2002).

Freeman and Braconi (2002) define different types of displacement that can occur due to gentrification.

“Direct displacement” occurs when a demographic or ethnic group succeeds another due specifically to a

process or program. Direct displacement was typical in the federal urban renewal programs during the

1950s and 1960s. “Secondary displacement” is the type of displacement most often of concern today:

low-income households relocate due to new development or gentrification in their neighborhood once

they can no longer afford to remain due to higher rents, appreciated taxes, tenant harassment, or the

withholding of services. Others refer to secondary displacement as “involuntary displacement” because

low-income households prefer to stay but cannot afford to (Kennedy and Leonard 2001). Marcuse (1986)

describes a third type of displacement, “exclusionary displacement,” where changes in a gentrified

neighborhood prevent future low-income households from locating there.

Rising housing costs increase the pressure

on existing affordable housing stock. Newly

constructed housing in strong markets tends

to target relatively higher-income

households as the size and amenities of

new homes increase. The conversion of

rental properties into condominiums also

increases the supply of upper-end housing

4 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

at the expense of potentially more

affordable rental units. Compounding the

affordable housing problem for very low

income families is the increasing role of the

private market in federally subsidized

housing. Under the federal HOPE VI

program, the number of public housing units

has decreased, placing more low-income

households into the subsidized and private

market, thereby increasing demand for

lower cost units. Another factor is the loss of

Section 8 housing as term requirements

expire and development owners opt out of

the program.

Altogether, these factors (and doubtless

others) have led to an increased need for

affordable housing units. The number of

such units has declined over the past 30

years from a surplus of 4 million units in

1973 to nearly 3 million in 1983 (National

Housing Task Force 1988). The Millennial

Housing Commission reported that housing

affordable to households with low to

moderate incomes continued to disappear

between 1985 and 1999 “at an alarming

pace” (Millennial Housing Commission

2002).

Income stagnation among poorer

households complicates the dwindling

number of affordable housing units. The

lowest 20 percent of the nation’s

households have experienced virtually no

economic gain since 1975; any slight gains

have been negated during economic

downturns (Joint Center for Housing Studies

2002). Evidence of the financial difficulties

faced by lower-income households is that

the national median housing wage is

$13.87—a wage earner would need to earn

this wage to afford rent on a two-bedroom

unit. This wage level is more than twice the

federal minimum wage (FMR) of $5.15 an

hour. On average, there must be more than

two full-time, minimum-wage workers in a

household to afford a two-bedroom home at

the FMR (National Low-Income Housing

Coalition 2002).

Low- and moderate-income households

face a number of challenges threatening

their housing options: robust housing

markets, stagnating wages, and the

gentrification of their neighborhoods. This

report highlights strategies used to help low-

income families weather these challenges

and remain in their neighborhoods.

Study Methodology and Housing

Strategies

Methodology

We selected the six neighborhoods for this

study based on analysis of Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, U.S. Census

data, and telephone interviews with local

stakeholders. HMDA and Census data

provided information on city-level change as

indicated by the number of home sales, loan

amounts, and demographic changes. We

focused on cities that surpassed the

national average in home mortgage

Introduction 5

indicators (see Table 1 for the home

mortgage indicators for the six selected

cities). Through telephone interviews with

stakeholders, we confirmed whether

gentrification was occurring in the city, in

which neighborhoods, and how far along it

had progressed. We also asked about the

types of displacement-mitigation strategies

being implemented and their success, and

the political and organizational climate of

the city in regards to affordable housing

efforts. The telephone conversations helped

us select specific neighborhoods based

upon the following criteria: whether the

neighborhood was experiencing some level

of gentrification, whether any type of

affordable housing or asset building

strategies were in effect, and how

successful those strategies were perceived

to be. (See appendix 1 for an expanded

discussion of the site selection

methodology.)

Table 1: Home Mortgage Indicators for Case Study Cities

% change in

real median

mortgage loan

% change in

housing

originations per

1,000 units

% change in

median

income of

buyer

Difference in

share of loans

Selected to whites Cities

1996–2001 1996–2001 1996–2001 1996–2001

Atlanta, GA 19.4 45.9 11.5 -0.3

Chicago, IL 26.8 30.4 19.9 4.2

Los Angeles, CA 15.2 50.4 19.6 4.9

Sacramento, CA 15.4 128.4 16.0 -3.6

Seattle, WA 33.2 39.4 24.3 0.0

St. Petersburg, FL 20.9 37.0 7.2 -1.3

National average 14.2 28.9 10.3 -2.8

Sources: 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data.

6 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

During visits to the selected neighborhoods

in the spring and summer of 2003, we

interviewed a variety of stakeholders who

were involved in and affected by the

strategy implementation. Each city applies a

variety of strategies to provide affordable

housing and address neighborhood change.

However, we selected the strategies for this

report based upon those prioritized by

respondents and our sense of what might

prove most useful for other practitioners.

Respondents included staff in city

departments who create or implement

affordable housing programs, nonprofit and

for-profit developers who build or rehab

affordable housing, nonprofit organizations

that advocate for affordable housing,

elected city officials who represent the

targeted neighborhood, and local business

owners.

Housing Strategies

Throughout this report, we refer to

affordable housing strategies. We group

strategies into three categories: housing

production, housing retention, and asset

building. (See Keeping the Neighborhood

Affordable: A Handbook of Housing

Strategies for Gentrifying Neighborhood for

a full explanation of strategies that fall into

each of the three categories.)

Strategies to Produce Affordable

Housing

Municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and

for-profit developers can mitigate

displacement of low- and moderate-income

households by building new affordable

units. Three tools or strategies encourage

the development of affordable housing—

Housing Trust Funds, inclusionary zoning

ordinances, and the federal Low-Income

Housing Tax Credit. Additionally, a split-rate

tax structure and tax-increment financing

can support housing production, although

their primary functions are not the

development of affordable housing per se.

Developing affordable housing has its

challenges. First, there must be available

space or land in gentrifying areas.

Neighborhoods seemingly without space

need to use creative tactics to free up land

for development, such as altering zoning

regulations or converting vacant properties

into developable parcels. Another challenge

is that new developments often leave out

very low income households.

Homeownership is not feasible for the very

poor due to financial insecurity or poor

credit ratings, and many unsubsidized rental

developments target slightly higher income

groups so that the projects will be financially

feasible.

Another challenge is attracting affordable

development after the cost of land

increases. The conundrum of many of the

strategies described in this report is that it

often takes foresight and political will to

create incentives or pass regulations to

build affordable housing before the need

becomes pressing and costs soar. Once a

Introduction 7

housing market accelerates and the need

for affordable housing becomes more

apparent, production becomes more difficult

due to the higher housing costs and more

profitable development alternatives.

A final challenge for the development of

affordable rental or homeownership units is

the term of affordability. Most units built for

low- and moderate-income households are

required to remain affordable only for a set

period of time. Once affordability

requirements sunset on a project, the need

for additional affordable housing will return.

It should be noted that producing affordable

housing in gentrifying areas will not

necessarily permit low-income households

to remain in their current units. What

housing development can do, however, is

provide affordable alternatives to

involuntarily displaced households,

potentially even within the same

neighborhood, by building affordable

housing stock for current and future low-

and moderate-income residents.

Strategies to Retain Affordable

Housing

Strategies to retain affordable housing help

maintain existing affordable units, thereby

preventing resident displacement and

ensuring the future availability of such

housing. Retention strategies target private-

market and publicly subsidized rental

housing, as well as privately owned

housing. The strategies include code

enforcement; rent control; preservation of

federally subsidized affordable housing,

such as Section 236 and project-based

Section 8; and tax relief and assistance.

The diverse strategies share a number of

implementation concerns. Effective

community organizing is necessary across

the strategies. Whether they involve the

enforcement of existing laws or lobbying

property owners or government officials,

most of the retention strategies will not

succeed in reducing displacement if the

people affected by the possible housing loss

are not organized and motivated to act on

their own behalf.

The strategies also involve city, state, or

federal regulations in some way. Where

laws related to the strategies already exist,

the focus of action will be on

implementation. Where the laws do not

exist, efforts might focus on lobbying

legislators on the need for supportive laws.

Either way, the retention strategies require

knowledge of related laws and of how the

laws tend to be implemented locally. For

this reason, it is helpful for tenant groups

and community-based organizations to work

together closely.

Strategies to Build Resident

Assets

Asset-building strategies aim to help low-

income individuals accumulate wealth.

These strategies have increased in

popularity due to the strength of the housing

and financial markets, in addition to

changes in welfare policy that have allowed

for increased asset limits. Previously,

8 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

welfare policy required aid recipients to

spend down any financial resources in order

to qualify for welfare (Sherraden 1991).

Policymakers from across the political

spectrum have shown support for asset-

building programs because they are

designed to aid low- and moderate-income

individuals move to economic self-

sufficiency (Weber and Smith 2001).

There are six primary asset-building

strategies: individual development accounts

(IDAs), homeownership education and

counseling, limited equity housing co-ops

(LEHCs), community land trusts (CLTs),

location efficient mortgages (LEMs), and the

Section 8 homeownership program.

Although the strategies differ in program

implementation and structure, they all seek

to increase the assets of low-income

households that are vulnerable to

neighborhood economic cycles. The

strategies focus both on place (affordable

housing and land use) and people (job

training and postsecondary education), and

thus have the potential to increase resident

stability and to promote equitable

development in gentrifying communities.

The majority of these programs require

coordination among many key players such

as nonprofits, community members,

participants, financial institutions, and

government agencies.

Findings

There are a number of strategy-based

findings that we draw from the case studies.

Though the sites differ from one another in

many ways, together they suggest lessons

that can inform most efforts to mitigate

gentrification-related displacement.

Housing production. Each site, regardless of

housing market strength, engaged in the

production of affordable housing units. The

particular strategy, or the way in which a

strategy is implemented, differs from site to

site, but as a category of strategies,

production appears to be key. This is due in

part to the challenges of retaining affordable

housing, such as acquiring properties that

are occupied or extending participation in

subsidy programs, such as Section 8. It is

also related to the need to increase the

number of affordable units (or at least

maintain parity). Timing affects

implementation in terms of land availability,

and land and development costs. The

stronger the housing market, the more

constrained options will be and more likely

that mixed financing will be necessary to

complete new housing.

Housing retention. Strategies to retain

existing affordable housing stock were also

implemented in most of the study sites.

Efforts usually target individual properties of

incumbent residents in neighborhoods with

weaker housing markets so that their homes

do not fall into disrepair. In stronger

Introduction 9

markets, retention strategies can shift to a

focus on purchasing larger affordable

properties, such as property-based Section

8 buildings, to prevent owners from

converting housing to market-rate stock.

Asset building. Efforts to increase the

assets of low-income households play a

complementary role to other strategies, but

in themselves the strategies are unlikely to

have a neighborhood-level impact on

displacement mitigation. IDA and

homeownership programs can benefit

individual participants, however. While

programs can be implemented in any

housing market context, program outcomes

will be affected by housing market strength.

High housing costs in strong markets will

limit the ability of program participants to

purchase a home or use liquid assets for

other house-related purposes.

Organization of the Report

We present the six case studies in order of

housing market strength and reported

gentrification. We start with neighborhoods

showing signs of revitalization on through

neighborhoods with increasingly strong

gentrification pressures. In the final chapter,

we discuss findings on relationships

between stage of gentrification and strategy

selection and implementation. We also

discuss related crosscutting findings.

Appendix 1 includes a thorough discussion

of our site selection methodology. A

companion piece, Keeping the

Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of

Housing Strategies for Gentrifying

Neighborhoods, provides a detailed

literature review of strategies used to

produce and retain affordable housing, and

to increase low-income families’ assets to

afford increased housing costs.

10 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

2section

CASE STUDIES

Through six case studies we present a variety of strategies used to address affordable

housing needs in neighborhoods at different stages of gentrification. We have ordered

the case studies from neighborhoods in the earliest stages of revitalization/gentrification

to those in advanced stages of gentrification. In each case study, we highlight one or two

strategies, providing a detailed account of why a strategy was chosen, how it was implemented,

strategy outcomes, and implementation challenges. We also include brief descriptions of

additional strategies used in each community to address affordable housing needs. The

following chart presents an overview of the cities, neighborhoods, and housing strategies.

Table 2: Affordable Housing Strategy Overview by City (2003)

Site Stage:

revitalization/

gentrification

Key strategies Additional

strategies

Neighborhood

organization

Bartlett Park

St. Petersburg, FL

Early Housing

rehabilitation

Infill development

Zoning changes

Economic

development

Active

organizations

Oak Park

Sacramento, CA

Early Vacant property

redevelopment

Housing Trust

Fund

Homebuyer

programs

Active

organizations

Reynoldstown

Atlanta, GA

Middle

(early)

Housing

rehabilitation

Affordable

housing

production

IDA Program

Community

building

Active

organizations

Figueroa Corridor

Los Angeles, CA

Middle

(late)

Housing Trust

Fund

Code

enforcement

Rent stabilization

Land trust

Active

organizations

Active residents

Central Area

Seattle, WA

Late

(early)

Infill development

Housing levy

Home repair

Regulation

reviews

Employment

Active

organization

Moderate resident

involvement

Uptown

Chicago, IL

Late Voluntary

inclusionary

zoning

Nonprofit

retention

strategies

Tax assistance

Active

organizations

Active residents

Case Studies 11

Early Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification

When a lower-income neighborhood begins to experience revitalization after years or decades

of being overlooked by developers and the city, focus tends to stay on ways to increase

investment rather than on preserving or increasing affordable housing. Affordable housing is

one asset such neighborhoods tend to have in abundance. It is difficult to raise issues of future

affordable housing needs when the issue is not pressing. Waiting until there is a problem,

however, can lead to its own set of difficulties. Bartlett Park in St. Petersburg, FL, and Oak Park

in Sacramento, CA, offer interesting case studies of how to think about, and what to do, in a

neighborhood that is not showing signs of gentrification but might in the future. These

neighborhoods raise questions of how soon attention should be paid to affordable housing

needs in an area still affordable though changing, and whether strategies can be employed that

promote both revitalization and neighborhood stability and affordability.

12 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

ST. PETERSBURG, FL

BARTLETT PARK

Key strategies: housing rehabilitation and infill development

Other strategies: zoning changes, economic development

City and Neighborhood

St. Petersburg, located on the peninsula

between the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay

in Pinellas County, is the fourth largest city

in Florida, with a population of

approximately 240,000 (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database) (see

Table 3 at the end of the case study). With

new construction and rehabilitation of

existing structures occurring in a number of

areas of the city, most people agree that St.

Petersburg is revitalizing. Downtown is

pointed to with pride because of the

changes that continue to occur there,

including a number of new restaurants,

galleries, condominiums, and town houses.

Geography is an important factor in the

city’s development. St. Petersburg is

bordered by water on three sides, and the

fourth side to the north is considered built

out. Without room to expand, the city has

experienced considerable revitalization in

older neighborhoods since the mid-1990s. A

number of residential neighborhoods have

rehabilitated the housing stock and

experienced increases in property values.

Vacancy rates dropped between 1990 and

2000, with the greatest change occurring in

the rental market. Homeowner units

predominate in the city, where well over half

of occupied units are owner-occupied

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

The city is divided into two sectors: north

and south of Central Avenue. Two factors

helped draw attention to neighborhood-

based needs in St. Petersburg’s poorer

southern sector. In the 1993 election, the

incumbent mayor ran on a platform that

included strong neighborhood support in

response to the frustration of residents from

lower-income neighborhoods with the city’s

focus on downtown revitalization. After

winning the election, the mayor established

a Neighborhood Partnership office and

pledged to implement neighborhood plans,

which focused on improvements such as

sidewalk repair, lighting and landscaping,

neighborhood signage, and increased police

presence, within a six-month timeframe.

Funding was made available to

neighborhood groups through competitive

grants.

Second, in the fall of 1996, riots occurred

after police shot an African American

motorist in the area that later would be

named Midtown. Following the unrest the

mayor convened community leaders to

address the needs in the so-called

St. Petersburg, FL 13

“Challenge Area.” This area included most

of the low-income areas of the city. One of

the goals identified was that of community

renewal through focusing on housing and

homeownership, and the reduction of

vacant and boarded units. The initial focus

for action was on developing solid

infrastructure and working on beautification

to attract investors. After assuming office in

2001, current mayor Baker changed the

area’s name to “Midtown.”

The focus neighborhood for this case

study—Bartlett Park—is located in Midtown.

For decades Bartlett Park was the seasonal

home to “winter snowbirds” and, on a more

permanent basis, predominantly white,

lower-middle income households. Today,

most of the neighborhood’s 4,000 residents

are lower-income African Americans. The

racial and ethnic makeup of the

neighborhood has held fairly steady since

1990. African Americans continue to make

up almost all of the neighborhood’s

population, while the percentage of white

residents declined slightly from 9 to 7

percent (Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database). Midtown, the broader area in

which Bartlett Park is situated, has long

been considered the poor part of town.

Although Midtown’s unemployment rate

dropped between 1990 and 2001 from 11 to

7 percent, the rate was still higher than the

city’s overall rate of three percent (RMPK

Group, Inc. 2002). Both Bartlett Park and

Midtown lost population during the 1990s by

9 and 16 percent, respectively (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database).

Bartlett Park is bordered to the north and

east by a hospital complex and the

University of South Florida, both of which

continue to expand. The marina and Dali

Museum are points of attraction to the east

as well. A new shopping center is planned

south of Bartlett Park, and the city is taking

proposals for a 16-acre industrial parcel

located to the northwest of Midtown.

Tropicana Field, home to the Tampa Bay

Devil Rays, is located north of the

neighborhood. In addition to the institutional

and commercial development nearby, the

area is bounded by neighborhoods that

have already experienced improvements in

housing stock and increases in house

values. Areas to the west are already

showing signs of property value increases,

and an upscale town house development is

under construction on the northern border.

Bartlett Park was one of the first

neighborhoods in the early 1990s to

develop a neighborhood plan that was

approved by the city. The city provided a

grant for $100,000 of infrastructure

improvements. Whether due to

neighborhood efforts, proximity to nearby

revitalizing neighborhoods and St.

Petersburg attractions, or the overall

economy, Bartlett Park’s housing market is

showing signs of change. The average

housing value of owner-occupied units

increased 4 percent, lower than the citywide

increase of 9 percent during the last decade

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database). According to one respondent,

Bartlett Park has had one of the highest

14 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

rates of property value increase in the city

during the last few years, however. The

area is beginning to attract younger

residents and older white households, and

new housing is being marketed to slightly

higher-income households than would have

been the case in the past. Census data

indicate a dramatic 43 percent increase in

the average household income between

1990 and 2000 compared to the citywide

increase of a much smaller 9 percent.

Another indication of change is fewer

residents are paying a large proportion of

their incomes on rent—Bartlett Park had an

11 percent decrease in the percent of

renters who pay more than 35 percent of

their income toward rent, a greater drop

than the 4 percent decrease citywide

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Some people talk about Bartlett Park in

terms of it being “squeezed” or pushed by

the surrounding changes. In addition to the

external factors, there are pressures

affecting change from within the area and

neighborhood, not least of which is that

Bartlett Park is viewed as one of the better

neighborhoods within Midtown in terms of

housing conditions and poverty rate, making

it more attractive to developers and

potential residents. Renovations to existing

houses also have drawn attention to the

neighborhood’s bungalows.

The availability of lots for development has

started to attract private developers to

Bartlett Park and Midtown in general. The

increased competition has already led to

increases in land prices. Vacant lots that

used to sell for $3,000 are selling for

between $7,000 and $10,000. As land costs

increase, the cost of new construction and

home sales has followed, reducing nonprofit

developers’ ability to provide new housing.

Another factor affecting prices is that more

owners are holding onto properties for

investment purposes because of the

University and hospital’s demand for land.

Stage of Gentrification

There is consensus among respondents

that Bartlett Park and other areas of

Midtown are beginning to revitalize.

According to city staff, 10 years ago the

county devalued Midtown properties up to

30 percent because there had been too few

real estate transactions on which to base

valuations. Since then, values have more or

less regained the lost ground. While much

of the housing stock, small wood-frame

houses built between the 1920s and 1950s,

is still considered dilapidated, it is showing

signs of coming back. The majority of

houses have been converted to rental units

over time (65 percent rental compared with

30–35 percent for the city). Midtown still has

vacant lots and boarded houses, so as

other parts of the city are built out and

housing prices rise in neighboring areas,

attention is turning to Midtown and Bartlett

Park, and property values are beginning to

St. Petersburg, FL 15

increase. With the available land and the

loss in population, there is room to grow.

When asked when the time might come that

the area would face an affordable housing

problem, most people estimated five years.

Even though there was some agreement on

the timeframe, there were differences of

opinion on whether affordable housing

should be on the neighborhood’s and the

city’s agenda at this point in time, well

before a supply problem exists.

The response to that concern might well

depend upon whether a future decrease in

affordable housing would be considered a

problem. Some respondents talked about

the inevitability of a future problem with

affordable housing and displacement

because of the changes occurring in the

surrounding areas that are “closing in on”

Bartlett Park in particular. One person

pointed out that if the economy and wages

do not improve but land prices continue to

increase, incumbent residents’ ability to

afford housing will decline. The problem is

not yet visible, but it does exist. Once it

becomes visible, it will be too late by some

people’s estimation. Given increasing costs

and geography, there will be fewer housing

and neighborhood options for lower-income

households. Not everyone shares this

perspective, however. Other respondents

believe that change in Bartlett Park will

occur more slowly than it has in other

neighborhoods. And, given the affordable

housing stock available in adjacent Midtown

neighborhoods, residents from Bartlett Park

will be able to find housing as prices

increase.

Key Strategies—Housing Rehabilitation

and Infill Development

Housing practitioners use owner-occupied

housing rehabilitation and infill development

to address housing needs and catalyze

revitalization in Bartlett Park. These

strategies aid in revitalizing the area as well

as work against future displacement through

maintaining and increasing the affordable

housing stock. Both strategies are used

across the city, though there is greater

focus on the neighborhoods in Midtown due

to the condition of the area’s housing stock

and the history of disinvestment. The

following sections describe how these two

strategies operate and the challenges

practitioners face in implementing them.

Housing Rehabilitation

The primary objective of housing

rehabilitation is to retain incumbent

residents while improving the housing stock.

Through repairing roofs, updating plumbing

and electrical systems of owner-occupied

houses, long-time residents, especially

elderly residents, will be able to remain in

their homes for a longer period of time.

Their presence can help prevent a decline

in the area’s homeownership rate and can

provide stability to Midtown neighborhoods.

There are both nonprofit and city programs

engaged in housing rehabilitation efforts.

16 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Funding for owner-occupied rehabilitation

comes from city, state, federal, and private

sources such as the city’s Working to

Improve our Neighborhoods (WIN) program,

State Housing Initiatives Partnership

Program (SHIP), the federal Community

Development Block Grant program, and

federal HOME funds. Nonprofit

organizations convinced the city to direct

more of its owner-occupied rehabilitation

funds to the Midtown area.

WIN funds are often used for roof repair,

plumbing, and electrical work. The city

increased the project-funding cap per

project in order to complete significant

rehabilitation on a unit in the face of cost

increases. The cap has been raised from

$40,000 to approximately $60,000.

Rehabilitation funds are disbursed either as

loans or as forgiven loans. The city ended

the practice of offering rehab funds as

deferred loans because of difficulties some

owners faced when selling a house of

relatively low property value with deferred

debt.

Neighborhood Housing Services, a

community-based organization in Midtown,

has been able to rehabilitate approximately

10 to 12 houses a year in the Bartlett

Park/Midtown areas. A partnership

established with Bank of America will be a

source of funding for owner-occupied

housing rehabilitation. Mt. Zion, a

community housing development

organization, or ChoDO, also completes an

average of 10 housing rehabilitation projects

a year. Across St. Petersburg, the city has

supported 1,531 rehabilitation projects of

single-family housing since 1997 (RMPK

Group, Inc. 2002).

Challenges for Rehabilitation

One of the main challenges in rehabilitating

old houses is staying within budget.

Respondents said it is difficult to know

beforehand exactly what work is needed

until they get started. Deciding which work

to do after discovering additional needs is

difficult, but finances are limited. Housing

rehabilitation can be successful when the

following factors are taken into account:

identify one or a small number of

contractors who are reliable, stable, and do

quality work; work with trusted contractors

exclusively; and hire capable staff who can

prepare clear work descriptions for

contractors, monitor projects well, and keep

them within budget.

Infill Development

The city, private developers, and nonprofit

developers rely on infill development to turn

vacant lots and abandoned buildings

scattered throughout Midtown into

developable land parcels and habitable

properties in a city otherwise built out. The

large number of vacant lots across Midtown

encourages infill development—one

respondent noted that there are 3,000–

4,000 vacant lots, along with 300–500

vacant, boarded-up houses on the city’s list

St. Petersburg, FL 17

of properties in Midtown. The city also offers

properties for sale to nonprofits at a

discounted price to encourage

development. The WIN program acquires

boarded-up properties through code

enforcement and demolition. The city also

has 50–100 lots available for private

developers to purchase, ranging from

$8,000 to $15,000 in Midtown. To date, the

majority of infill housing development is

single-family detached houses.

Infill development benefits incumbent

residents by increasing the number of

quality houses for sale, potentially turning

former renters into homeowners.

Homeowners will be less affected by

increases in housing prices than if they

remained renters. It can also serve to

increase the population of Midtown by

attracting new residents.

There are two primary nonprofit

organizations that develop housing in

Midtown neighborhoods. Mt. Zion develops

housing for households earning at or less

than 80 percent of the area median income.

It acquires old or otherwise abandoned

houses to demolish, then rebuilds on the lot.

To date, Mt. Zion has completed 50 units of

housing in Midtown, averaging 10 a year.

The director commented that the increasing

competition for land in the area, along with

dwindling number of available lots, is

decreasing the number of units the

organization will be able to build as private

developers do more.

Neighborhood Housing Services, another

organization that focuses on housing

development and homeownership, has

formed a limited liability partnership with

Bank of America to build 50 houses

throughout the Bartlett Park neighborhood.

It also hopes to receive a grant to fund

construction and purchase assistance for 37

properties in Midtown, 35 of which would be

located in Bartlett Park.

Private developers are also active in

Midtown building affordable housing. There

are approximately 10 companies active in

St. Petersburg and Midtown at present,

which according to one developer should

enable Midtown to rebuild more quickly.

The nonprofit and private developers have

made an impact. Vacant and boarded

properties in Midtown have decreased 50

percent between 1998 and 2001, to 391.

Since then such properties have further

been reduced to 180. Public investment in

Midtown since 1997 includes 383 new

housing units and homeowner assistance

for 170 clients (RMPK Group, Inc. 2002).

Implementation Challenges

One challenge in building new houses in

neighborhoods with old stock and few sales

is getting appraisals for the initial sale.

Resale can also be challenging because the

new house will be priced much higher than

surrounding properties.

Infill development is practical for Bartlett

Park and the broader Midtown area, but the

pace of revitalization through this approach

18 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

can be slow. Because vacant land parcels

are scattered, it is difficult to build more than

one house at a time, which the nonprofit

organizations and city would like to do.

Respondents hope new housing itself will

spark additional investments.

Another challenge is that the city and some

developers would like to build more

condominiums and town houses, but such

projects are difficult politically because of

resident opposition to new multifamily

developments. Respondents believe the

opposition will change, but for now, infill

development mostly is restricted to single-

family houses.

Having a supportive city government can

make a difference in the cost and schedule

of new housing production. Respondents

believe the current city government is

responsive to business and housing needs,

and they give it credit for being flexible in

responding to changing circumstances.

Additional Strategies

Zoning Changes

St. Petersburg is revising its Land Development Regulations to allow greater flexibility in development

across the city, including mixed-use developments and increased density. Current zoning regulations

were established in the 1970s and reflected suburban realities of larger lot sizes: new construction has

had to abide by the required 75-foot frontage. Houses in older areas of town, including Bartlett Park, have

50-foot frontages. To build a new house in areas with smaller lots, builders have had to request a zoning

variance, which slows the pace of building, or acquire two lots for one new house, which reduces the

number of houses. While the revised zoning regulations will apply across the city, the benefits to Midtown

are significant, in light of the current housing stock and mismatch between the lot sizes and current

zoning regulations.

Economic Development

Many respondents view economic development as an important component of housing affordability and

revitalization. The city hopes to spark revitalization by being the first to invest in economic development in

many areas across the city. By providing early support, other business and residential investors will

follow. Economic development is necessary early in the revitalization process because it will allow

incumbent residents to increase their earnings, thereby reducing the chance that lower-income people will

get caught in a cycle of being displaced to lower cost areas as neighborhoods change and housing

values increase.

St. Petersburg, FL 19

Conclusion

Bartlett Park and Midtown are beginning to

experience revitalization. At present,

housing practitioners focus on developing

and maintaining affordable housing to

address current needs and to take

advantage of opportunities available due to

the lack of gentrification pressures. Factors

such as the available and affordable land

parcels make infill development and

housing rehabilitation attractive strategies to

use. Were the community experiencing

stronger market-rate housing pressures,

affordable infill development likely would

give way to, or at least be more difficult

because of, revitalization targeting higher-

income households.

These early revitalization efforts might very

well help reduce any future displacement in

the area if and when gentrification

pressures materialize. City, nonprofit, and

private developers are increasing the

number of affordable houses in the area,

increasing homeownership rates, and

improving housing conditions for current

residents so they can remain in their

homes—all factors that lend stability to the

area while also increasing investment. The

city’s commitment to improving the Midtown

area makes most respondents hopeful that

change will come about in a positive

manner.

Most respondents talked about the

interconnection between housing and

economic development—that both needs

should be addressed simultaneously in

order to improve the lives of incumbent

residents and to attract new residents to

Midtown. If economic development is

carried out in a way that increases

employment and earnings opportunities for

current residents, then the dual approach

for revitalization can strengthen the hand of

residents so that they are less likely to be

displaced as housing prices continue to rise.

20 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Table 3: St. Petersburg, FL and Bartlett Park

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990-2000

Year City total Bartlett Park

Population

Population 1990 240,800 4,300

2000 250,300 3,900

% change population 1990–2000 3.9 -9.3

% black non-Hispanic 1990 19.2 89.5

2000 22.6 89.5

% white non-Hispanic 1990 76.4 9.3

2000 69.7 6.9

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 2.1 0.5

2000 3.6 0.8

% Hispanic 1990 2.3 0.8

2000 4.2 2.7

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 52,500 22,400

2000 57,300 32,300

Poverty rate 1990 13.5 37.2

2000 13.2 41.2

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 5.2 13.8

2000 5.2 12.7

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 106,900 1,600

2000 110,500 1,400

Total rental units 1990 44,800 1,200

2000 42,400 1,000

Rental vacancy rate 1990 13.7 21.9

2000 8.9 19.3

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 63.8 41.7

2000 65.0 44.7

Average value owner-occupied housing units (in 2000

dollars) 1990 106,000 50,400

2000 115,800 52,600

% of renters paying > 35% of income on rent 1990 34.6 49.4

2000 31.2 38.1

St. Petersburg, FL 21

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages originated/1,000 housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 29.6 14.0

Avg. (00, 01) 22.1 14.8

% change in number of mortgages originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

-25.3 5.7

Dollar value of mortgages originated/ housing unita

Avg. (95, 96) 2,534 670

Avg. (00, 01) 2,399 820

% change in dollar value of mortgages originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

-5 22

Average value of mortgages originated

(1–4-unit structures)a

Avg. (95, 96) 85,600 47,700

Avg. (00, 01) 108,600 55,400

% change in average value of mortgages originated,

1995/96–2000/2001a

26.9 16.1

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s Neighborhood

Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.

Note: Data for Bartlett Park are analyzed using census tract 12103020500.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute.

Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

22 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

SACRAMENTO, CA

OAK PARK

Key strategy: vacant property redevelopment

Other strategies: Housing Trust Fund, homeownership programs

City and Neighborhood

Sacramento, the capital of the nation’s most

populous state, experienced rapid growth in

employment, income, and population during

the 1990s. The city’s reasonable cost of

living and supply of affordable housing have

attracted businesses away from neighboring

high-cost areas, such as the Bay Area.

Sacramento’s population increased 10

percent between 1990 and 2000, climbing

to almost 400,000 people (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database) (see

Table 4 at the end of the case study). An

influx of businesses located in Sacramento

around the same time, including Hewlett-

Packard, Company NEC, Apple Computers,

and Oracle.

Business and population growth have

contributed to the rise of property values in

Sacramento. Home purchases, as

measured by mortgage originations,

increased here more than in any other of

the top 100 largest cities in the country

between 1996 and 2001, while mortgage

loan amounts increased at about the same

rate as the national average during the

same time period.

Oak Park, one of Sacramento’s oldest

communities, is beginning to experience

changes in its housing market as well. The

neighborhood is located southeast of

downtown, adjacent to Tahoe Park, a

middle-income community. Oak Park began

as a farming community in the mid-1800s.

The area developed into Sacramento’s first

suburban, middle-class neighborhood by

the early 1900s. The community started to

decline in the 1930s when homeowners,

affected first by the Depression and then

World War II, were no longer able to

maintain their properties. In response to a

subsequent housing shortage, many owners

divided their homes into rental units. By the

mid-1940s, residents were leaving Oak Park

for newer suburbs with inexpensive homes,

which led to further deterioration of the

neighborhood’s economic and social

conditions. By the late 1960s, housing and

commercial properties were in serious

decline and the neighborhood was marked

by vacant lots and poor infrastructure. The

Redevelopment Agency of the City of

Sacramento established Oak Park as a

redevelopment area in 1973, which it

remains today. The designation allows the

agency to target its activities to the area.

Sacramento, CA 23

The Oak Park neighborhood today is

described as a diverse, densely populated,

low-income residential area intersected by

commercial streets. During the 1990s, the

population grew about 7 percent, driven

primarily by an increase in Latino residents.

Latinos make up approximately one-third of

the neighborhood, whites one-quarter and

African Americans 20 percent (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database).

Incomes in Oak Park rose slightly during the

1990s. The average family income in Oak

Park increased by 5 percent, while the

percent of renters in Oak Park paying more

than 35 percent of their income for rent – a

proxy for housing hardship -- decreased

from 53 percent of the renters to 41 percent

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

The majority of Oak Park residents are

renters; absentee landlords own a

significant percentage of the rental housing.

According to respondents, the Oak Park

neighborhood has a fair share of low-

income housing, much of which is not well

maintained. Oak Park does have its

attractions. It is close to William Land Park,

a multipurpose park with picnic facilities, a

golf course, and tennis courts. The

neighborhood is also home to the

Sacramento Zoo, the UC–Davis Medical

Center, McGeorge Law School, and a local

bakery.

A number of community groups, churches,

nonprofits, and coalitions are active within

the neighborhood. These groups include

Kevin Johnson’s St. Hope Corporation

(SHDC), ACORN, Habitat for Humanity, city

council member Lauren Hammond’s

Renaissance Project, Rebuilding Together,

and Building Unity. Many faith-based

organizations, especially in Oak Park, are

active in building homeownership

opportunities in lower-income communities.

Redevelopment efforts by the Sacramento

Housing & Redevelopment Agency (SHRA),

nonprofits, and community organizations

within the neighborhood include housing

renovations, street and sidewalk

improvements, and promotion of

commercial investment.

Former NBA star Kevin Johnson’s

involvement in the Oak Park community has

been influential in the redevelopment

efforts. Johnson, an Oak Park native, has

been involved with revitalizing the

neighborhood since his first year in the

NBA. In 1989, he founded St. Hope

Academy, an intensive after-school

language arts and math program. Johnson

has since expanded St. Hope and its

revitalization efforts in Oak Park. According

to respondents, Johnson’s involvement in

the neighborhood has provided motivation

for revitalization efforts. The St. Hope

Development Corporation transformed a

20,000 square foot complex into a

commercially viable mixed-use property.

The new development, 40 Acres, includes a

bookstore, art gallery, barbershop,

restaurant, Starbucks, and loft apartments.

SHRA loans and grants in addition to SHDC

dollars funded the project. SHDC has also

24 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

been involved with preserving and restoring

other buildings in Oak Park.

In general, Sacramento has a strong

network of advocacy organizations and a

broad-based coalition of housing leaders.

The Sacramento Housing Alliance (SHA) is

a membership organization composed of

over 65 community agencies concerned

with housing-related issues. SHA focuses

on preserving and producing more

affordable housing through public

education, public policy targeting the needs

of lower income people, and advocacy. SHA

members include nonprofit and for-profit

affordable housing developers, service

providers, various constituency groups, and

residents.

According to respondents, council member

Dave Jones has played a major role in

placing affordable housing issues on the

political agenda. In addition, developers, the

SHRA, and city/county planning are all key

players in affordable housing policy. It must

be noted some respondents stated that a

lack of political will among local elected

officials for affordable housing has been a

challenge in the city of Sacramento.

Stage of Gentrification

Oak Park is in the early stage of

gentrification. The neighborhood has begun

to experience a resurgence over the past

couple years due to the strong housing

market citywide, the neighborhood’s

proximity to downtown’s art and

entertainment amenities and places of

employment for many workers in the region,

and the amenities located within Oak Park

itself. Residents facing long commutes are

moving closer to their places of

employment, including neighborhoods close

to downtown such as Oak Park. Although

property values are increasing in Oak Park,

inexpensive housing is still available. Those

who cannot afford to live in many areas of

Sacramento are gradually moving into the

Oak Park because housing is less

expensive.

It is unclear whether gentrification will gain

momentum, reducing the amount of

affordable housing and displacing low-

income residents in large numbers. People

have noticed an increase in first-time

homebuyers moving into the community,

along with longer-term households moving

out. However, the magnitude of this

movement is not clear. Some people

believe that the recent boom in the housing

market will encourage absentee

homeowners to sell their properties now that

there is a viable market in Oak Park. The

neighborhood’s proximity to other

gentrifying communities may also possibly

lead to intensified gentrification efforts.

However, ongoing problems with safety,

crime, and drugs make the neighborhood an

undesirable area for some development and

higher-income residents.

Sacramento, CA 25

Key Strategies—Vacant Property

Redevelopment and Vacant Lot

Development

Key strategies used in Oak Park to promote

revitalization and maintain affordable

housing include rehabilitation through the

Boarded and Vacant Homes Program and

infill development through the Vacant Lot

Development program. Both programs

target the acquisition and redevelopment of

vacant properties, and both serve to

increase the stock of affordable housing

while bringing investment to the

neighborhood.

Revitalization efforts in the Oak Park

community have brought together

community groups, churches, nonprofits,

and the city council member to work

together and address the abundance of

vacant lots and buildings in the community

and the low rate of homeownership. These

community groups were able to push

policies that address urban infill by

transforming vacant lots and abandoned

buildings into affordable housing

opportunities for residents. The SHRA, as a

partner, has been instrumental in

redevelopment efforts in the neighborhood.

Boarded and Vacant Homes

Program (BVHP)

Established in 1997, the Boarded and

Vacant Homes Program (BVHP) arose from

the need to provide incentives for the

rehabilitation and development of single-

family boarded and vacant homes in the city

and county of Sacramento. Boarded and

vacant properties have led to problems in

SHRA redevelopment areas. According to

respondents, the vacancies have come

about in part due to the city’s stringent code

enforcement. The city tried to purchase and

rehabilitate the properties, but this proved

too cumbersome. Instead, the SHRA moved

to an incentive-based system, the BVHP, to

attract developers to rehabilitate and

develop these properties, and then sell

them to low-income households.

Through BVHP, developers receive a

$10,000 fee for properties in target areas,

$15,000 in redevelopment areas, and

$20,000 in the Oak Park redevelopment

area, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of

a single-family boarded and vacant home.

Homes eligible for the BVHP require a

minimum of $15,000 of rehabilitation or

must be listed on the city’s Dangerous

Buildings Inspector Cases Report. The

developer must provide the acquisition and

rehabilitation financing. The Sacramento

Housing and Redevelopment Agency runs

the BVHP program and allocates the

developer fees. Homes must be sold to an

owner-occupant and income limits apply to

the buyer due to the funding source. The

developer receives the fee after final

inspection by the SHRA and the sale of the

home to a homebuyer.

In a five-year period between 1997 and

2002, more than 115 homes were acquired

citywide through BVHP and 101 were sold

to owner-occupants. In total, 119 properties

have been acquired, rehabilitated, and sold

26 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

to low- and moderate-income homebuyers.

Of the 119 homes, 24 have been completed

in Oak Park with two pending.

The Vacant Lot Development

Program (VLDP)

The Vacant Lot Development Program

(VLDP) is intended to encourage the

acquisition and development of unimproved

single-family vacant lots in the North

Sacramento, Oak Park, and Walnut Grove

redevelopment areas. VLDP is modeled

after the BVHP program, and is similar to it

in that it targets difficult properties on

scattered sites, provides a developer fee

upon completion of a project, and sets a

regulatory agreement against the property

to guarantee long-term owner-occupancy

and affordability.

The Vacant Lot Development Program

(VLDP) arose from the need to address the

long-term difficulties connected with vacant

lots, low owner-occupancy rate, and the

lack of large homes in the North

Sacramento neighborhood. Sacramento

contemplated an infill policy, and

brainstormed ideas to address the

challenges of developing infill sites

throughout Sacramento. Oak Park and

North Sacramento were identified as the

communities most appropriate to test the

VLDP on a pilot basis. The two

neighborhoods are redevelopment areas

with numerous long-standing undeveloped

residential lots that have become areas for

dumping and other illegal activities. Both

areas also had enough available set-aside

funds to capitalize the program.

In 2002, the SHRA, the city of Sacramento,

and the county of Sacramento approved

$200,000 in funding for Oak Park for the

pilot Vacant Lot Development Program, as

well as funding for North Sacramento and

Walnut Grove neighborhoods. Developers

participating in the VLDP receive a fee for

the acquisition and development of a single-

family residential vacant lot in the amount of

$7,500 for a two-bedroom/two-bath house,

$20,000 for a three-bedroom/two-bath

house, and $25,000 for a four-bedroom/two-

bath house. The new home must be sold to

an income-qualified household at an

affordable price due to the tax increment

funding of the VLDP. The developer fee is

allocated upon approved completion and

sale of home to an owner-occupant.

Residential subdivisions cannot be

developed under the VLDP because the

purpose is to target scattered sites within

current residential neighborhoods. Special

homebuyer financing is available for some

buyers of these homes.

According to the SHRA, the pilot Vacant Lot

Development Program has been a quick

success. The initial allocation of $200,000

for Oak Park was used immediately for the

construction of eight new homes: six four-

bedroom homes and two three-bedroom

homes.

Sacramento, CA 27

Implementation Challenges

The Boarded and Vacant Homes program

and the Vacant Lot Development program

face similar challenges. The incentives

offered through the two programs are

provided to offset costs of infill development

or otherwise make the projects financially

feasible. However, the payoff for developers

from developing large subdivisions in the

suburbs is more lucrative than infill

development, according to respondents.

Housing market strength also affects the

value of the fee. In the early 1990s when

the Sacramento housing market was not as

strong, many properties were rehabilitated

through the BVHP. Now that the market has

strengthened, developers do not view the

developer fee as much of an incentive as in

years past. The city is working on an

updated infill policy that would make urban

infill development more financially feasible

through discounting fees and streamlining

design review and plan-check processes.

Although the BVHP and the VLDP provide

developer fees, an arsenal of tools for

affordable development, which inherently

requires subsidy layering, is necessary.

Many nonprofit developers use tax

increment financing, Low-Income Housing

Tax Credit (LIHTC), and Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for

affordable housing development. Some

affordable housing deals use mortgage

revenue bonds and take advantage of fee

waivers and deferral provided by the SHRA.

Another challenge has come from residents

who are opposed to additional affordable

housing in their neighborhood. Some Oak

Park residents feel the community already

has a fair share of low-income housing and

see a need for new market-rate units to

attract higher-income residents into the

neighborhood. Other respondents want the

new affordable housing because they

believe it will ultimately encourage the

development of market rate-housing. Some

respondents reported that NIMBY-ism is a

major problem for affordable housing

development in both high- and low-income

neighborhoods. Various organizations in

Sacramento are involved with community

education and outreach to address the fears

that affordable housing will have a negative

impact on a community. The Sacramento

Mutual Housing Alliance works with

neighborhood organizations and provides

affordable housing education and outreach

before affordable housing development

plans are even scheduled. SHRA staff has

gone door-to-door to inform residents about

the project taking place in their community.

As a number of respondents pointed out,

very low income households tend not to be

served by the vacant property

redevelopment programs. The newly

constructed single-family homes would

require deeper subsidies to reach very low

income people. Some respondents also

have concerns that the infill and

homeownership programs, coupled with

other revitalization forces in the Oak Park

community, may fuel gentrification. These

28 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

respondents point to other neighborhoods in

Sacramento to see the dwindling of

economic diversity as a result of renovation

projects.

Additional Strategies

Housing Trust Fund

Enacted by the city council in 1989, the Housing Trust Fund is intended to ensure that nonresidential

development assist with low-income housing needs connected with job growth. The Housing Trust Fund

establishes a housing linkage fee per square foot of commercial development. The purpose of the funding

is to support the development of housing for low-income workers that are employed in new retail or

commercial developments.

Sacramento was the first city in California to adopt a housing linkage fee for commercial development.

The amount of the fee was based on a study that quantified the relationship between types of commercial

development, low-wage jobs, low-income housing needs, and the subsidy cost of providing new

affordable housing. Payment of the fee is required to receive a building permit. The fees are deposited

into the citywide Housing Trust Fund and administered through the Sacramento Housing and

Redevelopment Agency. The money can be used for gap financing for affordable housing development.

Housing Trust Fund dollars are usually layered with other financial subsidies, such as state and federal

tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds, state deferred loans, or rent subsidies.

A total of $14,897,746 has been collected for the Trust Fund since 1989. Since that time, approximately

$400,000 in Housing Trust Fund revenues has been used in Oak Park for the Boarded and Vacant Home

program and another program called the Pre-Apprenticeship Construction Training Program.

Homebuyer Programs

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency offers various homebuyer programs, two of which

we highlight, the Target Area Homebuyer Program and the First-Time Homebuyer Program. The Target

Area Homebuyer Program (TAHB) provides downpayment and closing cost assistance to low- and

moderate-income homebuyers for home purchases within Oak Park and four other redevelopment areas.

Eligible applicants must qualify for a loan to purchase the home, attend homebuyer-training classes, live

in the home being purchased, and be low-to moderate-income. Eligible properties must be located with

the program designation areas, meet minimum housing quality standards, and the sales price of the

property cannot exceed the Affordable Housing Cost for the area.

The First-Time Homebuyer Program (FTHP) offers downpayment and closing cost assistance to low-

income homebuyers on home purchases within the city and county of Sacramento. Eligible applicants

must be first-time homebuyers, qualify for a loan to purchase the home, attend homebuyer training

classes, live in the home being purchased, and be low-income. Eligible properties are single-family

Sacramento, CA 29

homes located within the city or county of Sacramento and a few surrounding cities, and the appraised

values cannot exceed the HUD 203b mortgage limit for the area. Program features include a deferred

payment loan secured by a deed of trust and no interest charged on the loan.

Prospective homebuyers can layer programs to purchase a home. In Oak Park, 107 homebuyers used

some type of homebuyer assistance program to purchase a home, for a total of $395,089 in assistance.

Within the entire city and county, 3,865 homebuyers used some type of homebuyer assistance program,

for a total of $15,009,428 in assistance.

Conclusion

The increased investment and development

in Oak Park is carried out in ways to

balance The increased investment and

development in Oak Park is carried out in

ways to balance redevelopment efforts with

nondisplacement strategies. The Boarded

and Vacant Homes and the Vacant Lot

Development programs combined with

various homeownership programs through

the SHRA provide homeownership

opportunities for residents to move into the

rehabilitated properties. Similar to efforts in

St. Petersburg’s Bartlett Park, the

combination of rehabilitating properties and

providing affordable homeownership

opportunities to residents will benefit current

residents while supporting the area’s

strengthening housing market.

An important difference between the two

neighborhoods is the opposition to

increasing the affordable housing stock in

Oak Park, leading to the need for greater

community outreach. Oak Park practitioners

learned the importance of involving the

community in the planning and

implementation of such strategies so that

the community is aware of the potential

benefits of redevelopment efforts. General

misperceptions about affordable housing

and NIMBYism within Oak Park and

Sacramento have proven to be challenges

to affordable housing development.

30 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Table 4: Sacramento, CA and Oak Park

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000

Year City total Oak Park

Population

Population 1990 358,800 37,000

2000 395,800 39,500

% change population 1990–2000 10.3 6.8

% black non-Hispanic 1990 14.9 22.6

2000 16.5 20.4

% white non-Hispanic 1990 53.6 33.1

2000 41.7 24.9

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 15.7 16.7

2000 20.4 18.1

% Hispanic 1990 15.7 27.6

2000 21.4 36.6

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999

dollars) 1990 54,900 32,600

2000 54,500 34,100

Poverty rate 1990 17.1 34.1

2000 19.8 33.9

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 7.6 12.7

2000 7.8 14.1

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 140,600 12,300

2000 150,500 12,300

Total rental units 1990 73,400 7,500

2000 79,700 7,600

Rental vacancy rate 1990 6.5 8.3

2000 5.6 6.5

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 51.2 44.0

2000 50.0 41.9

Average value owner-occupied

housing units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 176,700 94,600

2000 151,300 86,500

% of renters paying > 35% of

income on rent 1990 38.3 53.3

2000 34.2 41.1

Sacramento, CA 31

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages

originated/1,000 housing unitsa Avg. (95, 96) 23.8 17.9

Avg. (00, 01) 62.4 45.3

% change in number of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

162.1 153.1

Dollar value of mortgages

originated/housing unita

Avg. (95, 96) 2,916 1,330

Avg. (00, 01) 8,053 3,468

% change in dollar value of

mortgages originated,

1995/96–2000/2001a

176.2 160.8

Average value of mortgages

originated (1–4-unit

structures)a

Avg. (95, 96) 122,400 74,500

Avg. (00, 01) 129,000 76,600

% change in average value of

mortgages originated,

1995/96–2000/2001a

5.4 2.8

Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s

Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S.

Censuses.

Note: Data for Oak Park are analyzed using census tracts 001800, 002700,

002800,003700, 004401, 004402, 004601, and 004602.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the

Urban Institute. Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

32 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Middle Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification

The next two neighborhoods, Reynoldstown in Atlanta, GA, and Figueroa Corridor in Los

Angeles, CA, have experienced increased gentrification pressures but still have considerable

affordable housing stock and/or developable land. These neighborhoods are in the middle stage

of gentrification. Increased land values make development more difficult, affecting the strategies

selected and how they are implemented. Nonprofit organizations and city agencies active in

these neighborhoods increasingly have turned to private partners, making it more challenging to

manage the balance between meeting affordable housing needs and attracting private

investors.

Atlanta, GA 33

ATLANTA, GA

REYNOLDSTOWN

Key strategies: housing rehabilitation and affordable housing production

Other strategies: IDA, community building

City and Neighborhood

The city of Atlanta, Georgia, is relatively

small in relation to its region—only 415,000

people live in the city compared to the

region’s population of 4.1 million (Census

CD Neighborhood Change Database). The

city’s population is significantly poorer than

the region—Atlanta’s 2000 poverty rate is

25 percent compared to the region’s 9

percent. However, during the 1990s, Atlanta

increased in population by 6 percent, and

the housing market accelerated above the

national average (see Table 5 at the end of

the case study).

Factors contributing to Atlanta’s increasing

population and home values can be

attributed to three interconnected factors:

the hosting of the 1996 Olympics, the

strengthening of community development

corporations (CDCs), and public reactions

against sprawl, traffic, and long commutes.

The 1996 Olympics brought an influx of

federal, state, and private funds into the city

resulting in capital and streetscape

improvements in select neighborhoods such

as Summerhill, Mechanicsville, and

Cabbagetown on the city’s eastern side.

The games encouraged people to visualize

improvements in other in-town

neighborhoods surrounding the central

business district, which suffered from

decades of neglect. The Olympics also led

to the displacement of many low-income

residents to make room for the Olympic

facilities.

During approximately the same time period,

national and local intermediary groups, such

as the Enterprise Foundation and the

Atlanta Neighborhood Development

Partnership (ANDP), began building

community development capacity in

organizations located in these same in-town

neighborhoods. This attention to

community-based organizations and CDCs

helped stabilize communities and attract

private investment. It also ensured that

long-term attention was paid to in-town

neighborhoods after the Olympics were

over.

Sprawl and related commuter traffic and

congestion also contributed to making

Atlanta neighborhoods near the central

business district attractive, as more people

moved closer to their workplace. The region

averages a 35-minute commute—second

only to Los Angeles.

Reynoldstown, the neighborhood for this

case study, is located east of downtown,

next door to the already gentrified

neighborhood of Cabbagetown, and near

some of the first neighborhoods to

34 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

experience housing market appreciation

after the 1996 Olympics. Immediately to the

north of Reynoldstown (across the railroad

tracks) is the historically white, upper-class

neighborhood of Inman Park, with its large

single-family homes with sizeable yards.

Reynoldstown was one of the first free

African American neighborhoods in Atlanta,

and it has been a black working-class

neighborhood since World War II. It is a

relatively small, residential community

consisting of narrow, tree-lined streets. Little

retail or commercial activity exists within the

neighborhood, although small businesses

such as auto repair shops and restaurants

are located on the neighborhood’s

boundaries. A steel plant sits in the middle

of neighborhood and a former cotton mill

(recently converted to lofts) is located just

outside of the neighborhood. Historically,

Reynoldstown residents worked at the steel

and cotton plants.

The neighborhood started to revitalize over

the past decade. The local CDC,

Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation

(RRC), worked with the police department

to reduce petty crime, prostitution, and

loitering. RRC’s sister civic organization,

Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League

(RCIL), initiated a neighborhood

beautification campaign, cleaning the

streets and planting trees. Long-term and

absentee landlords have cleaned up their

properties, and private investors developed

interest in the neighborhood. Bike riders,

dog walkers, and joggers can be found the

neighborhood—positive signs that residents

from the neighborhood and elsewhere feel

comfortable doing recreational activities in

Reynoldstown.

With such improvements, new residents

have begun to move in. Many of the new

residents are childless couples or single

residents, who represent a diversity of

races, sexual orientations, and professions.

These new residents tend to have higher

incomes than the incumbent residents and

pay more in rent. For instance, the

neighborhood’s average income rose 21

percent during the last decade (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database). The

number of whites increased by over 200

percent, pulling white resident’s proportion

up to 12 percent in the neighborhood

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Reynoldstown’s housing market began

accelerating three to four years ago.

Housing consists primarily of single-story

bungalows, many of which are for rent.

Homeownership is historically low in

Reynoldstown. However, within the last few

years, RRC and private developers have

built new single-family housing for sale

similar in style to the original bungalow

single-family stock but with additional floors.

RRC also built a new multiunit rental

apartment building, the first multiunit

building in Reynoldstown.

Atlanta, GA 35

Stage of Gentrification

Reynoldstown is in the early- to mid-stage

of gentrification. Gentrification forces that

previously affected the surrounding

neighborhoods, the Historic District,

Cabbagetown, and Kirkwood, have started

affecting Reynoldstown. Housing and lot

prices have appreciated during the past few

years such that lots selling for $5,000 five

years ago now sell for between $30,000 and

$40,000. Also, five years ago single-family

homes cost no more than $80,000, while

now a rehabilitated house costs between

$150,000 and $200,000.

Census data show the average value of

owner-occupied housing to have increased

from $46,000 to $96,000, a 108 percent

increase in a decade (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database). While

there have been sharp increases in housing

prices and turnover in properties, the

majority of housing stock in Reynoldstown

remains rental and affordable. It is not clear

how much displacement has occurred due

to the increased housing prices. It may have

been minimal in the first few years because

RRC built new units in vacant lots and

targeted owner-occupied rehabilitation as

their primary housing strategy.

Instances of backlash against gentrification

have occurred in some neighborhoods in

Atlanta, particularly when new residents

have been gay or lesbian. For instance, an

African American clergyman spoke out

against homosexuals moving into his

parish’s neighborhood (Atlanta Journal and

Constitution, Editorial, June 9, 2002).

Separate from who is causing housing

appreciation, there is also vocal concern for

elderly homeowners on fixed incomes

having to cope with appreciating property

taxes. Proposals for tax abatement

programs have stemmed from such

discussions. Community support of

gentrification has occurred as well. A former

councilwoman, who represented

Reynoldstown and other neighborhoods in

east Atlanta, ran her reelection campaign on

a strong anti-gentrification platform. She

was voted out of office in favor of a new

official, who takes a more moderate

approach toward gentrification.

Within Reynoldstown, there has been no

public anti-gentrification, anti-white, or anti-

gay or lesbian backlash, although

gentrification has not progressed as far as it

has in other neighborhoods. RRC’s strategy

of serving incumbent residents first via

owner-occupied rehabilitation programs

may be a reason for the lack of opposition.

(This strategy is discussed in greater detail

below.)

Key Strategies—Housing Rehabilitation

and Affordable Housing Production

Housing rehabilitation and production were

first carried out in the neighborhood by the

Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation

(RRC). RRC helps homeowners rehabilitate

their homes, builds affordable single-family

and multiunit rental housing projects, as well

as offers an individual development account

(IDA) program, works toward crime

36 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

reduction, and sponsors a yearly festival.

The organization encourages incumbent

residents to remain in their neighborhood

and improve their properties, while

simultaneously encouraging new residents

to move in.

RRC began its work in Reynoldstown by

conducting a needs assessment survey in

the early 1990s. Residents’ priorities

included improving/repairing existing

homes, increasing neighborhood safety,

reducing abandoned property and lots, and

building new housing. Based on this

assessment, RRC worked in the early

1990s to stabilize the existing housing stock

through code compliance and rehabilitating

owner-occupied housing. They successfully

rehabilitated 300 units, which has been an

important factor in stabilizing the

community, bringing value to residents, and

keeping residents connected to the

community. According to respondents, this

work was a comfort to long-term residents

and helped RRC forge a partnership with

the community. RRC made it clear that they

were dedicated to the incumbent residents,

and only later did they focus on developing

new housing to attract new residents. RRC

staff believe that working on existing

community needs first helped reduce the

negative effects of gentrification because

new residents were not attracted to

Reynoldstown until later.

It was not until 1996 that RRC began

building new homes. Often the newly

constructed homes were on vacant lots,

which RRC was able to purchase before the

housing market appreciated. The

community supported the development of

these vacant lots, as they were recognized

as a source of neighborhood blight.

RRC’s success in developing affordable

housing is reflected in the number of

affordable homeownership and rental units

they have built. Altogether they have built

30 affordable rental units and built or

rehabilitated 43 single-family homes, 35 of

which are affordable. They are planning to

build 80 affordable rental units in two

projects, and an additional 35 affordable

homeownership units—six single-family

units, plus 12 town homes in one project

and 17 town homes in another. Specific

examples include 10 modular town homes

where they used HOME financing to buy

down the price, and they consolidated four

rooming houses, which had been

problematic in the community. In addition,

they built Amberwood Village in 1994, a fully

leased, 30-unit multifamily building financed

by LIHTC and Section 8 that targets

residents at 60 percent of the area median

income (AMI).

RRC was able to purchase vacant lots

through a partnership with the Bank of

America Community Development

Corporation. The Bank of America CDC

provided capital and startup financing

enabling RRC to purchase vacant parcels

before land prices became too high. RRC

Atlanta, GA 37

spent two years assembling properties, and

they worked with the state and county land

bank to clear back taxes and liens on them.

Currently, there are few parcels remaining—

approximately six—and competition with

private investors is fierce, driving up the

cost of land.

Because of the reduction in available land

and increasing land prices, RRC has

switched approaches—from building

affordable housing on their own to building

affordable housing with for-profit private

developers. RRC’s impetus for partnering is

their need for capacity, and private

developers (or lending institutions) benefit

by fulfilling community investment and basic

philanthropic interests. RRC believes that

their work in Reynoldstown has contributed

to stabilizing the neighborhood’s rental and

homeownership market—they have acted

as the risk capital. Through partnership with

RRC, developers learn the Reynoldstown

housing market and can realize a profit.

One for-profit partner is John Wieland

Homes, a private development company

known for its work in the Atlanta region.

RRC and Wieland Homes have a joint

venture partnership with a 50-50 split for a

project to build homeownership and rental

units on 3.7 acres of a subdivided property.

On 1.25 acres will be 40 to 50 low-income

rental units for seniors. In addition, they are

renovating 22 existing flats and building 24

new town homes, which will be two- and

three-bedroom units. Approximately half of

the new and rehabilitated town homes will

be pegged as affordable, costing

approximately $140,000, while the market-

rate units will be priced between $180,000

to $200,000.

Financing is a key issue for RRC. According

to respondents, RRC’s new affordable units

tend to run between $135,000 and

$180,000, which is the top of the IDA

spectrum, compared to $270,000 for

privately developed housing. One way RRC

keeps the units affordable is by adjusting

the unit size, building two floors instead of

three, and reducing the number of

bedrooms, while still including two

bathrooms to ensure future marketability.

RRC protects their subsidy through a

“recapture clause,” which places a third-

position lien on the property for the amount

of the subsidy for 10 years. RRC decided

against capping the resale value because

they want to contribute to the buyer’s equity;

however, the lien ensures that the CDC can

recapture some of their investment should

the buyers sell early. The recapture clause

also acts as a disincentive for “flipping,” or

buyers selling the property for a higher price

soon after purchasing it.

Implementation Challenges

The challenges facing RRC’s work are

typical of any nonprofit developer. The

market has made development difficult as

demand has driven up the cost of land, and

competition with private developers is fierce.

For instance, respondents report that land

prices increased from $1 a square foot in

1998 to $6 a square foot in 2000. RRC must

38 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

rely on different types and multiple sources

of financing, which results in more

complicated and drawn-out deals—a

disadvantage compared to private

developers. They also rely on mixed-income

housing to develop affordable units. The

market-rate units help subsidize the

affordable units. RRC’s partnerships with

private developers has allowed them to

provide affordable housing, especially in

light of appreciated housing prices.

Land acquisition is a large challenge for

RRC, as prices have increased and

availability decreased. A county-run land

bank proved ineffective and hampered the

potential for gaining parcels early on. Only

RRC’s work with the Bank of America CDC

assisted with acquiring vacant land. RRC

approached funders in 1996 to create a land

bank, but the funders questioned whether

Reynoldstown would ever be a desirable

locale. An effective land banking system

would have allowed more affordable units to

be built. Development and construction

costs stay relatively consistent over time,

even when gentrification occurs, while land

costs more easily fluctuate and appreciate.

By controlling land costs, CDCs can better

provide affordable housing and reduce

competition with private investors.

RRC also recognizes the need to turn its

attention back to rental housing. The market

has driven the strategy of new construction

and homeownership, but it is recognized

that lower-income residents need more

rental housing. The housing stock in

Reynoldstown is typically single-family

homes—the only multi-family rental unit

available is a 30-unit apartment building

RRC built in the mid-1990s. Consequently,

they have another 30-unit apartment

building in development funded with Low-

Income Housing Tax Credits.

RRC’s overall challenge is harnessing the

forces of gentrification. In many ways, an

appreciated housing market and new influx

of residents have improved Reynoldstown.

However, RRC needs to ensure that

incumbent and new lower-income residents

can live in the neighborhood as housing

costs continue to increase.

Additional Strategies

IDA Program

RRC’s IDA program began in 1998 and is funded by the United Way. The program enables participants to

build wealth and serves as a community building tool. Participants can use their savings toward

homeownership in Reynoldstown or in any of the other 10 approved neighborhoods. Participants receive

$4,800 to match their required $1,200 in savings after successfully completing RRC’s education,

homeownership, and budget counseling. The subsidy can be used for downpayment or closing costs.

(The subsidy is slightly lower if participants use it outside of the approved neighborhoods but in the same

Atlanta, GA 39

county.) Since the program began, 21 Reynoldstown residents have participated, eight of whom have

purchased homes with IDA funds. Seven of the eight purchases were in Reynoldstown.

Community Building

In conjunction with their mission, RRC works with RCIL to improve the quality of life in Reynoldstown.

RRC worked with the police department asking them to target nuisance and quality-of-life crimes that

negatively affect the community, such as loitering, prostitution, and drug dealing. RRC and RCIL have

worked to beautify the neighborhood through neighborhood cleanups and tree planting campaigns. Since

1996 RRC has organized a yearly neighborhood festival, the Wheelbarrow Summer Theater, which

attracts visitors from all over the city. The festival is designed to celebrate Reynoldstown by providing the

community with quality entertainment and promoting local talent. The festival acts as a community

outreach mechanism and a way to positively promote Reynoldstown.

Task Forces

Additionally, Atlanta convened two task forces on affordable housing showing the city’s interest in tackling

the issue. The Atlanta city council convened the Gentrification Task Force in September 2001, with

members from city agencies, area universities, and including involved residents. This first task force

focused on the plight of the lowest income households in Atlanta. City Council passed 4 of the 40

recommendations to assist in the development of affordable housing and to ensure that very low and

extremely low income families were targeted for subsidies. One of these recommendations defined

“affordability” as targeting only those making less than 50 percent of AMI, and the second required two-

thirds of all public subsidies (i.e., CDBG and HOME) to target “extremely low income” families or those

making less than 30 percent of AMI. These stringent definitions were not well received by developers,

both private and not-for-profit, who believed the strict definitions would eliminate profitability and restrict

them from providing affordable housing at all. Currently it is unclear whether the legislation passed from

the task force’s recommendations will be applied.

Atlanta’s current mayor, Shirley Franklin, convened the Affordable Housing Task Force in 2002. This task

force focused on “workforce housing”—housing for the middle class such as teachers, police officers, and

firefighters—and championed mixed-income neighborhoods. Eleven members selected by the mayor sat

on this task force, consisting of private and nonprofit developers, city officials from the housing

department, representatives of intermediary groups, and the banking community. Among the

recommendations of this task force are calls to improve the city’s building permit process, implement

inclusionary zoning ordinances, create a more effective land bank authority, freeze property taxes for over

65-year-old homeowners, and streamline Empowerment Zone and CDBG financing. In addition, the task

force recommended targeting affordable housing to families making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI.

40 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Conclusion

The majority of housing stock in

Reynoldstown continues to be rental and

affordable, though there have been sharp

increases in housing prices and property

turnovers. As Reynoldstown moves into a

middle stage of gentrification, there could be

adequate time to implement policies and

processes to hedge future displacement of

current residents. However, this goal has its

challenges. To encourage additional

investment without displacing residents

requires carefully balancing efforts to attract

private developers without losing focus on

the housing needs of current and future

lower-income residents. Respondents from

different sectors reported that improving the

city’s permitting process and implementing

an effective land banking system would

greatly improve community development

corporations’ and other nonprofits’ ability to

develop more affordable housing. Managing

the influx of higher-income residents by

offering rental housing for lower-income

households, as well as subsidized

homeownership options, will help lower-

income residents share in the neighborhood

improvements. If development efforts are

carried out in a way that reverses years of

decline in Reynoldstown and creates new

opportunities for lower-income residents,

incumbent residents are less likely to be

displaced as housing prices continue to

increase.

Involving the community is another crucial

lesson learned in Reynoldstown. The role of

RRC is not only affordable housing

development and retention but community

building as well. By focusing on the

community—focusing on their needs and

developing leadership among the incumbent

residents to advocate for their own needs—

RRC has been able build community

support for its efforts and seemingly

minimize displacement. Involving the

community has also proved fruitful in

involving residents in RRC programs. For

instance, RRC reached out to renters from

Amberwood (their low-income multiunit

rental building) to participate in the IDA

program. Approximately five previous

Amberwood residents have purchased

homes through the IDA program.

Atlanta, GA 41

Table 5: Atlanta, GA and Reynoldstown

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000

Year City total Reynoldstown

Population

Population 1990 390,000 1,700

2000 415,100 1,600

% change population 1990–2000 6.4 -5.8

% black non-Hispanic 1990 66.5 95.5

2000 61.4 83.1

% white non-Hispanic 1990 30.5 3.3

2000 31.6 11.5

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 1.0 0.5

2000 2.4 1.6

% Hispanic 1990 1.9 0.7

2000 4.5 3.8

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 59,600 32,800

2000 73,300 39,800

Poverty rate 1990 27.3 26.4

2000 24.5 20.0

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 9.1 12.9

2000 14.0 7.2

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 154,600 600

2000 167,900 700

Total rental units 1990 104,200 500

2000 103,000 400

Rental vacancy rate 1990 15.1 14.3

2000 7.4 7.9

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 42.8 36.6

2000 43.2 42.3

Average value owner-occupied housing

units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 165,500 46,200

2000 240,900 96,000

% of renters paying > 35% of income on

rent 1990 34.9 39.2

2000 32.3 26.2

42 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages

originated/1,000 housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 26.3 18.0

Avg. (00, 01) 48.8 51.1

% change in number of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

85.5 183.9

Dollar value of mortgages

originated/housing unita

Avg. (95, 96) 4,211 1,325

Avg. (00, 01) 8,882 5,957

% change in dollar value of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

111 350

Average value of mortgages originated

(1–4-unit structures)a

Avg. (95, 96) 160,100 73,400

Avg. (00, 01) 182,100 116,500

% change in average value of mortgages

originated, 1995/96-2000/2001a

13.7 58.7

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s Neighborhood

Change Database (NCDB), based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.

Note: Reynoldstown consists of one entire census tract (131210031), and three partial census

tracts (131210032, 131210050, and 131210052). The census and HMDA data shown above

come exclusively from the one complete census tract, 131210031.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute. Dollar

amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

Los Angeles, CA 43

LOS ANGELES, CA

FIGUEROA CORRIDOR

Key strategy: Housing Trust Fund

Other strategies: code enforcement, rent stabilization, land trust

City and Neighborhood

Los Angeles grew in population by

approximately 6 percent between 1990 and

2000, reaching 3.7 million (see Table 6 at

the end of the case study). During the same

time period, the Latino population grew by

one-quarter, accounting for approximately

half of the total population by 2000 (Census

CD Neighborhood Change Database). The

housing market accelerated in the late

1990s. Home purchases increased by 50

percent, roughly 30 percentage points

higher than the national average, and

mortgage amounts increased by 15 percent.

More than half of Los Angeles residents

rent, and rental housing became scarce as

the rental vacancy rate decreased from 7 to

4 percent (Census CD Neighborhood

Change Database). People talk of the city’s

affordable housing crisis.

The escalation of housing prices in Los

Angeles can be attributed to steady

population growth and the reduction in the

supply of land. In years past, Los Angeles

built new housing to meet the increasing

housing needs of the growing population.

Currently, construction has practically

stopped altogether, even though the

population continues to grow, because of

high construction costs, especially for infill

development, lack of vacant land, and

building codes that prevent mixed-use

development. By the late 1990s, property

values increased to the point where working

families in the city were paying a higher

proportion of their income on rent than in

any other jurisdiction in California

(Recommendations of the Housing Crisis

Task Force 2000). According to

respondents, neighboring cities and

counties have developed little affordable

housing due to their policies of exclusionary

zoning and covenants. This, in turn, placed

additional pressure on Los Angeles to

provide affordable housing in an already

tight market.

The Figueroa Corridor is a predominantly

Latino community located downtown,

southwest of the central business district.

The neighborhood encompasses 40 blocks,

bounded to the south by the University of

Southern California (USC) and to the north

by the Staples Center, home to the LA

Lakers basketball team and Kings hockey

team. The Figueroa community is an older

residential part of the city with some

commercial properties. The housing stock

includes multifamily developments and

single-family homes, including some

Victorian homes. Part of the Figueroa

Corridor is located in the West Adams

section of Los Angeles. West Adams was

one of the most fashionable areas in the city

44 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

at the turn of the 20th century until it was

overshadowed by the development of

Beverly Hills in 1917. Well-known architects

constructed large mansions in West Adams,

many of which remain today but are in poor

condition. Some of the multifamily

residences in Figueroa Corridor are

severely overcrowded and in need of major

rehabilitation. The Figueroa community was

designated a redevelopment area by the

Community Redevelopment Agency, but the

designation has since expired.

Figueroa Corridor has a large low-income

population—the poverty rate for the

neighborhood was 43 percent in 2000,

almost double the city’s rate (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database). Many

low-income residents are immigrants who

work in garment factories and service jobs.

Large concentrations of homeless can be

found in Figueroa Corridor—the single-room

occupancy hotels in the neighborhood

provide temporary housing.

During the 1990s, Figueroa Corridor

experienced an influx of wealthier residents.

The neighborhood’s population increased 7

percent, slightly more than the citywide

average, driven by new white residents.

Greater numbers of Latinos moved out. The

average household income increased by 23

percent, and within two census tracts,

average incomes increased by almost half

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database). Adding to a tight housing

market, rental vacancy rates decreased

from 11 to 4 percent in Figueroa Corridor

overall.

The housing market in the Figueroa

Corridor has been affected in part by the

area’s major institutions and amenities.

USC students who want to live closer to

campus are moving into the area. In

response, landlords are evicting lower-

income residents to make room for students

who pay higher rents. For instance, garment

industry workers who live in the community

have experienced rent increases and have

noticed the marketing of low-income

housing to students. Respondents noted

that university alumni buy older buildings in

the Figueroa neighborhood and rent them to

students at higher rates.

The Staples Center and its planned

expansion has affected the housing market

as well. Developers are converting

commercial properties around Staples

Center into lofts to attract people downtown.

Consequently, single-room occupancy

hotels are losing properties, as new lofts are

being developed.

In recent years, “urban pioneers” have

moved into the Figueroa Corridor and

surrounding areas to restore older buildings

and revitalize the community. There is some

tension between the historic preservation

efforts by the West Adams Heritage

Association and affordable housing efforts

in the Figueroa Corridor. According to

respondents, the West Adams Heritage

Los Angeles, CA 45

Foundation was successful in removing the

Community Redevelopment Agency from

the area in order to receive a Historic

Preservation Overlay Zone. Maintenance of

historic properties tends to be more

expensive, making it difficult to keep

housing affordable for current residents.

While some respondents noted the

importance of historic preservation, they

also noted the pressing need to ensure a

safe and affordable living environment for

current residents.

The area has a strong affordable housing

advocacy base, consisting of various

community groups. When developers were

initially planning the expansion of the

Staples Center, they did not include local

residents in the planning process. In

response, Strategic Actions for a Just

Economy (SAJE) brought together 30

community, labor, and religious

organizations and founded the Figueroa

Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice

(FCCEJ) to provide a community-based

perspective to development plans.

In May 2001, FCCEJ negotiated an historic

Community Benefits Agreement with the LA

Arena Land Company, owned by billionaires

Rupert Murdoch and Phillip Anschutz.

According to the agreement, the Land

Company must make significant

improvements to the area surrounding the

Staples Center in order for the expansion to

move forward. The agreement requires the

developers to include living wage and union

jobs, affordable housing, local hiring, and

parks to the Center’s four million square foot

addition (Esperanza 2003). The progressive

Community Benefits Agreement provides a

model for ensuring low-income residents

are considered when major developments

are built in their communities.

The Esperanza Community Housing

Corporation (ECHC) is another organization

that has made a significant impact on

affordable housing in the Figueroa Corridor.

ECHC has taken a leadership role in

pushing forward the dialogue and initiatives

necessary to address the affordable

housing crisis in Los Angeles. ECHC played

an important part in the establishment of the

Housing Trust Fund. The organization also

provides information on legal rights to

tenants living in dilapidated housing.

Stage of Gentrification

The Figueroa Corridor is in the middle to

late stage of gentrification. According to

respondents, rent prices are increasing at a

faster rate in the Figueroa Corridor than in

the city of Los Angeles. The changes

occurring in the Figueroa Corridor can be

attributed to its proximity to USC, the

Staples Center, and the historic

preservation efforts. As an example of the

immense pressure on the local real estate

market in the neighborhood, the Esperanza

Community Housing Corporation (ECHC)

was approached with high, all-cash offers

for three of its properties. Around the same

time, tenant organizers at SAJE were

inundated with calls from tenants claiming

their landlords were attempting illegal

evictions, harassment, and discrimination in

46 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

order to evade the rent stabilization

ordinance and replace working-class

residents with higher-income renters. In

response to the displacement efforts, SAJE

organized tenant unions and trained

residents on their legal rights. SAJE hired a

tenants’ rights lawyer, held weekly legal

clinics, and worked with a network of pro

bono lawyers to slow the displacement

process.

Key Strategy—Housing Trust Fund

The Housing Trust Fund, established in the

2000–2001 budget by the Los Angeles City

Council, provides money for a variety of

affordable housing development and

preservation needs using loans or grants for

predevelopment, acquisition, development,

new construction, rehabilitation, or

restoration of rental or ownership housing.

The trust fund allocates city funds to be

leveraged with other state and federal funds

to address affordable housing needs. The

priority of the trust fund is to expand and

preserve the number of rental units for

households with combined incomes less

than 60 percent of the area median income.

The history of the trust fund begins with

nonprofit attention. In 1998, the Southern

California Association of Nonprofit Housing

(SCANPH) organized a two-year campaign

to establish a housing trust fund targeted

solely toward affordable housing. This

campaign was fueled by instances of

affordable housing funding being

reallocated for economic development. The

campaign included a broad coalition of

community organizations, housing

advocates, and the business community,

which marks a shift from the business

community’s previous lack of involvement in

housing issues. In 1999, the City Council

convened the Housing Crisis Task Force to

make recommendations on legislative and

program reforms to address the affordable

housing needs. The first recommendation

listed in the 2000 report was the

establishment of a housing trust fund.

In 2000, the Housing Trust Fund was

established with seed funding of $5 million.

In the following fiscal year, $10.5 million

was appropriated to the fund. In January

2002 the mayor released a proposal for

permanent funding sources, separate from

the City Council proposal. The funding

option produced through the mayor’s office

was eventually approved. In the 2002–03

budget, Mayor Hahn and the City Council

provided $42 million for the trust fund as the

first installment of a three-year, $100 million

commitment, which is the largest

commitment to a Housing Trust Fund for

any city in the United States. Resources for

the 2002–2003 allocation of $42 million

comes from the city’s general fund, the

Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG), the Community Redevelopment

Agency, the Department of Water and

Power’s public benefits fund, and bond

savings.

Los Angeles, CA 47

In May 2002, Mayor Hahn appointed a

Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee

composed of nonprofit and for-profit

developers, community and business

leaders, housing advocates, and land use

experts to recommend guidelines to govern

trust fund allocations and administration. In

2003, the City Council approved the

following percentages for expenditures of

the Housing Trust until further guidelines

are established: 60 percent for multifamily

rental projects serving households at or

below 60 percent of the area median

income (AMI); 20 percent for projects that

create homeownership opportunities for

households at or below 120 percent of AMI;

5 percent for emergency rental assistance;

10 percent to remain flexible with the priority

going toward preservation of housing that is

at risk of converting to market rate; and 5

percent for administrative costs.

The Los Angeles Housing Department

(LAHD) administers the Housing Trust

Fund. The LAHD issues a Notice of

Financial Award (NOFA) to announce the

availability of funding. Developers may then

apply for the money from the trust fund by

completing the appropriate application along

with other subsidy applications. Developers

who apply for trust fund money must

leverage the funds with other state, federal,

or private market capital. Leveraged funding

has come from federal programs such as

Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),

HOME, Community Development Block

Grants (CDBG), and state bond financing.

Even while relatively new, the Housing Trust

Fund has successfully contributed to the

construction of new housing. The beginning

net balance for 2002–2003 was $39.7

million and the beginning net balance for

2003–2004 was $57 million. Ten projects

have received financial commitments

totaling $15.2m for the development of 527

units, of which 518 are earmarked for

households earning below 60 percent of

AMI. Two Housing Trust Fund projects are

located near the Figueroa Corridor as

defined in this study: Broadway II, located

just south of Figueroa Corridor, and Mt.

Zion, which is located slightly south and

east of the Corridor.

The Housing Trust Fund has also been

successful in helping to establish affordable

housing as a priority in the city. Inclusionary

zoning and mixed-use development are now

on the political agenda. According to some

advocates, if made economically viable,

inclusionary zoning offers the greatest

potential for involving the private sector in

affordable housing. SCANPH helped run a

campaign for inclusionary zoning that

advocated bonuses and other incentives

provided to developers to offset their

development costs. Many of the advocates

for inclusionary zoning also worked on the

Housing Trust Fund.

Implementation Challenges

Respondents identified a couple of

challenges to implementation, especially

financing difficulties and land availability.

The rising cost of affordable housing

48 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

construction and the difficulty in subsidy

layering are factors inhibiting the

effectiveness of the Housing Trust Fund.

Money from LIHTC, HOME, CDBG, the

CRA, state bond financing, and foundations

contribute to the construction of affordable

housing, but in certain instances, layering of

these funds does not provide the gap

financing needed for a project, even with

trust fund dollars. Also, practitioners caution

to ensure that other subsidies come through

before allocating trust fund dollars. Some

affordable housing developers hire a project

manager or outside consultant to package

the subsidy layers because working with the

subsidies can be time-consuming and

difficult. In addition, the cost of land is rising

as the availability of inexpensive land

quickly dwindles.

Additional Strategies

Code Enforcement

In 1998, the city council approved the Systematic Housing Code Enforcement Program (SCEP),

to inspect all residential rental properties with two or more dwellings every three years to

determine housing code compliance. SCEP assigns a certificate of compliance if no deficiencies

are found, and citations when a building is not in compliance. If deficiencies are found, a

reinspection will take place, and if necessary, a General Manager’s Hearing will take place to

deal with any continuing code compliance problems. If citations are not resolved, the LAHD has

programs that address properties that are out of compliance: the Rent Escrow Account Program

(REAP) allows tenants to pay their rent into a city-administered escrow account until the

citations are resolved, and the Rent Reduction Program (RRP) reduces tenants’ rent based on

the LAHD’s evaluation of the value of the missing service. SCEP also enables the housing

department to identify areas of the city with older housing stock, and to direct developers to do

rehabilitation in those neighborhoods. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, legal aid

groups, ACORN, and tenant advocates played an integral role in the adoption of SCEP.

Rent Stabilization

The Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) was passed in 1978 to protect renters from sharp rent

increases, while permitting landlords to receive a reasonable return on their investments. Most

housing stock built before October 1978 is covered by RSO as long as a tenant has resided in it

for 60 or more consecutive days. The annual permitted rent increase for units under the RSO is

tied to the Consumer Price Index and is calculated each year. Workshops are available in some

Los Angeles, CA 49

communities to inform tenants under the RSO about their rights as renters. The RSO is

administered through the housing department.

According to respondents, the RSO has played an integral role in maintaining units’ affordability

in Los Angeles. However, the number of units under the RSO is decreasing due to the qualifying

date of the program and turnover rate of the units. As a result, the preservation effects of the

RSO are becoming diluted. In addition, respondents stated the average rents under rent

stabilization do not tend to be much lower than market-rate rents.

Land Trust

Although the city offers programs such as the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing

development and preservation, community organizations are stepping in to take a more

aggressive approach to affordable housing development and preservation in their communities.

For example, the Esperanza Community Housing Corporation (ECHC) and Strategic Actions for

a Just Economy (SAJE) are working to establish a land trust. Community leaders from the

Figueroa Corridor visited cities across the country to explore longer-term solutions to slowing

resident displacement. The idea for a land trust resulted from these visits. The goals of the land

trust are to help stabilize the community by bringing existing housing under community

ownership, help improve the quality of life of neighborhood residents, and create a variety of

ownership opportunities, ranging from single-family ownership, limited-equity cooperatives, and

condominiums, by regulating land costs over time.

Conclusion

The Housing Trust Fund has contributed to

the construction of new affordable housing.

Other strategies are needed, however, to

provide additional affordable housing. The

price of constructing new housing—

particularly infill housing—is steadily

increasing, which is motivating housing

practitioners to consider other strategies

involving private developers, such as

inclusionary zoning. The city plays an

important role in creating an environment

that can help attract private developers.

While the Housing Trust Fund is only one of

a number of strategies, it has helped put

affordable housing on the political agenda,

which in itself is a success.

Community groups within the Figueroa

Corridor have played a crucial role in

preserving and producing affordable

housing within the community. Practitioners

learned the importance of involving many

stakeholders in the process of formulating

the details of the trust fund. Hosting public

hearings and workshops enabled the

community to become involved creating

support for the strategy. However, it is

important to note that the community was

torn between the pull for historic preser-

vation and the need for affordable housing.

50 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Table 6: Los Angeles, CA and Figueroa Corridor

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000

Year City total

Figueroa

Corridor

Population

Population 1990 3,480,400 16,600

2000 3,697,300 16,500

% change population 1990–2000 6.2 -0.6

% black non-Hispanic 1990 13.2 5.7

2000 11.4 5.7

% white non-Hispanic 1990 37.5 19.5

2000 30.8 20.1

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 10.0 4.7

2000 11.3 9.7

% Hispanic 1990 39.3 70.1

2000 46.5 64.5

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 68,300 27,200

2000 64,200 30,005

Poverty rate 1990 18.9 44.3

2000 22.1 42.7

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 8.4 9.2

2000 9.3 12.2

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 1,216,100 4,100

2000 1,276,400 4,000

Total rental units 1990 790,900 4,400

2000 815,000 4,000

Rental vacancy rate 1990 6.8 10.4

2000 3.8 6.2

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 39.4 5.9

2000 38.6 7.0

Average value owner-occupied housing

units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 380,400 206,700

2000 316,100 167,400

% of renters paying > 35% of income on

rent 1990 39.4 45.5

2000 37.0 37.0

Los Angeles, CA 51

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages

originated/1,000 housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 20.1 4.2

Avg. (00, 01) 32.2 6.7

% change in number of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

60.2 59.5

Dollar value of mortgages originated/

housing unita

Avg. (95, 96) 4,214 679

Avg. (00, 01) 7,160 1,071

% change in dollar value of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

69.9 57.7

Average value of mortgages originated

(1–4-unit structures)a

Avg. (95, 96) 209,300 160,700

Avg. (00, 01) 222,400 160,100

% change in average value of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

6.3 -0.4

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban

Institute’s Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and

2000 U.S. Censuses.

Note: Data for Figueroa Corridor are analyzed using census tracts 23110,

221900, 224020, 224420, 224600, and 224700.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute. Dollar

amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

52 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Late Stages of Neighborhood Gentrification

In previously disinvested neighborhoods that now have a strong private housing market,

housing practitioners face constrained options for addressing affordable housing needs.

Organizations working to produce or preserve housing for lower-income households must act in

an environment with limited access to land and high housing costs. Central Area in Seattle, WA,

and Uptown in Chicago, IL, are examples of such neighborhoods.

Seattle, WA 53

SEATTLE, WA

CENTRAL AREA

Key strategies: infill development and housing levy

Other strategies: home repair, review of development regulations, employment

City and Neighborhood

Seattle, Washington, located in the Pacific

Northwest on Puget Sound, is perhaps best

known as home to a number of major

companies, including Boeing, Microsoft, and

Amazon.com, as well as Starbucks. The city

takes pride in being recognized as one of

the best places to live and to locate a

business. Between 1990 and 2000, Seattle

grew by 9 percent to reach a population of

563,374 (see Table 7 at the end of the case

study). Whites make up more than two-

thirds of the population and Asians are the

second largest demographic group, at

approximately 13 percent (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database).

Even though Seattle has been hit hard by

the dot-com bust and layoffs at Boeing, the

housing market has remained strong with

home sales indicators above national

averages. Home purchases increased by 39

percent between 1996 and 2001, compared

to a 29 percent national increase. The

percent increase in median mortgage

amount during the same time period was 33

percent, compared to a 14 percent average

increase nationwide (HMDA). Vacancy rates

remained very low in Seattle for both

homeowners and renters.

Housing costs have increased tremendously

across Seattle; respondents described

prices as “skyrocketing” since the late

1990s. One reason cited for the increases

was the growth in management regulations

limiting suburban growth. The regulations

are believed to direct development back into

the city. With the city mostly built out, land

and housing prices have risen.

Central Area, also referred to as Central

District, is located about one mile east of

downtown. Central Area has four sections,

though it is considered one neighborhood.

For this case study, we focus on the 23rd

and Jackson section.

Central Area is credited as being the first

residential area in Seattle. Since it was

developed in the mid-19th century, the

neighborhood has been home to a number

of white and Asian immigrants, and Jews.

After the Second World War, African

Americans who moved to Seattle for

employment opportunities settled in Central

Area, one of the few neighborhoods in

which they were then allowed to purchase a

home. Subsequent white flight led to

increased racial segregation. A number of

subsidized housing projects were built in the

neighborhood beginning in the 1960s, which

by 1990 constituted 25 percent of the

neighborhood’s housing stock. In the mid-

54 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

1960s, the neighborhood was affected by

urban renewal as many properties were torn

down and lots left vacant. The commercial

hub at 23rd and Jackson streets lost nearly

all of its businesses in the 1960s (Carter

1997). People who were able to move from

Central Area did so in order to leave what

was a growing problem of crime and drugs.

Central Area was designated a Special

Objective Area (SOA) in the late 1980s. The

designation meant that without community

approval, no additional subsidized housing

could be built in the neighborhood with city

funds. When Seattle was recognized as the

most livable city in the early 1990s, Central

Area residents raised the issues of high

crime and poverty by organizing a large

march downtown to the Chamber of

Commerce. Participants asked the business

community to become involved in efforts to

revitalize Central Area and nearby Rainier

Valley.

In 1994, the Central Area Development

Association (CADA), a community-based

development organization, was founded to

help spark neighborhood revitalization. As

change began to occur in Central Area,

higher-income white households started

moving to the neighborhood, in part

because of the attraction of living in a

diverse area. Major chains, including

Starbucks and Walgreens, also began

investing in the community, which further

supported housing price increases.

Respondents commented that today, people

who left the area before it started to

revitalize no longer can afford to return.

There has been considerable change in

Central Area’s demographics between 1990

and 2000.1

The population increased 10

percent to 22,000 residents. Whites and

Latinos fueled the increase, while the

African American population decreased

from more than half of the neighborhood’s

population to slightly more than one-third

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Housing and income data also point to

change in Central Area. The average home

value increased by 81 percent (from

$153,000 to $277,000), much higher than

the still-notable increase of 43 percent

citywide. In addition to large increases in

average house price, the change in average

household income also was significant.

Average income increased by 48 percent in

Central Area compared to a 26 percent

increase citywide (Census CD

Neighborhood Change Database).

Changes occurring in Central Area are

attributed to its proximity to downtown and

to public transportation. As the downtown

area revitalized in the late 1980s to mid-

1990s, interest in living near downtown

increased. The neighborhood is also close

to a freeway, parks, and universities.

Another factor affecting the housing market

is that houses are more affordable relative

to other neighborhoods. According to

Seattle, WA 55

CADA, 10 years ago housing prices were

low in Central Area and as elderly

homeowners either moved from the area or

passed away, their houses were renovated

and rented or sold for a higher price.

Respondents also credited CADA for much

of the change, especially in the business

sector. Once major chains moved into the

shopping center at 23rd and Jackson,

changes began occurring more rapidly.

Residents in Central Area have not been

highly organized to work on affordable

housing and other issues, though local

leadership is strengthening. Residents did

have input into the Neighborhood Action

Plan, a plan that explicitly discusses

gentrification and the need to balance

neighborhood improvements with stability of

the current residents and businesses. More

than 2,000 people participated over three

years in the planning process to develop the

Central Area Action Plan II, the most recent

neighborhood plan.

There is hope that the city will increase its

focus on gentrification in part due to the last

mayoral election. Current Mayor Nickels

narrowly was elected with help from the

African American community because of his

campaign promise to focus on race and

social justice issues. Some respondents

said that the city is not yet doing enough but

is beginning to direct more attention and

resources to affordable housing issues.

Stage of Gentrification

Central Area is at an advanced stage of

gentrification. Sections of the neighborhood

are more gentrified than others, and there

are still a number of depressed housing

units as well as underdeveloped parcels of

land, though few vacant lots. As evidence of

gentrification, people point to housing

prices, displacement, changes in the

commercial areas, and the types of people

who are moving to the neighborhood. The

median home price in 2002 was $278,500,

compared to average prices of $231,000 to

$249,000 in other distressed areas of

Seattle (CADA). While there is no data that

track displacement, most people refer to

anecdotal information about people leaving

because of increasing rents. There is also

concern that elderly residents might not be

able to remain due to deferred maintenance

issues and costs of upkeep. A number of

respondents talked about the inability of

people who previously lived in Central Area

to afford to move back.

According to CADA and city staff, African

American residents who are leaving Central

Area are moving to the southeast and

southwest areas of Seattle, as well as to

neighboring towns. All of these locations

tend to be lower-income communities. New

residents in Central Area have higher

incomes—the area is second only to

downtown in household income increases.

They also tend to be white. Changes in the

commercial corridors, especially 23rd and

Jackson, are also pointed to as indications

of gentrification. Some of the local

56 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

businesses serving primarily the African

American community are hurting because of

the change in population base and the draw

of the new businesses.

Responses to the changes in Central Area

vary. Some people are pleased with what

they view as improvements on par with

other parts of the city. However, there is

also concern about the degree of change

among residents and businesses. Local

businesses are working to take advantage

of the changes without being displaced, with

businesses located closer to the chains

faring better than others.

To understand the sentiments about the

changes occurring in Central Area, it is

important to know that there was active

redlining in Seattle until the late 1960s. In

the mid-1960s, an open housing measure

was put before voters that if passed, would

have allowed African Americans to buy a

home anywhere in the city. The measure

was defeated. The city council later passed

a comprehensive open housing law in 1968.

Respondents spoke of racial tensions as

long-term residents notice that the

improvements seem to come along with the

increase in white residents. There is, as one

person stated, an “undercurrent of

suspicion” regarding the motivation behind

the changes—that were it not for the white

households, the level of investment would

be lower. One person stated that while he

likes the new investments, he does not want

to see the area become a white

neighborhood. In his business he has

experienced an attitude among in-movers

that the neighborhood should now cater to

their needs.

Although the investments and housing

prices keep increasing in Central Area, most

respondents talk about the situation in ways

suggesting that it is not too late to prevent

widespread displacement. Central Area was

contrasted with Capitol Hill, which has

gentrified to the point that there is little to no

affordable housing left. Acknowledging that

Central Area will continue to gentrify, people

spoke of the need to create a balance so

that lower-income households can remain

or move into the area.

Key Strategies—Infill Development and

Housing Levy

Key housing strategies used in the Central

Area neighborhood are infill development,

including the development of mixed-use

projects, and a citywide housing levy to

raise funds for the production and

preservation of affordable housing, both

rental and homeownership.

Infill Development

Through mixed-use infill projects, CADA

seeks to revitalize the business areas in

Central Area that were nearly cleared by

urban renewal and to provide additional

affordable and market-rate housing units.

CADA likes mixed-use projects because of

Seattle, WA 57

the belief that every community should have

a viable business node. An example is a

construction project at 23rd and Jackson,

described below, on land zoned for mixed-

use development. The envisioned project fit

well with the neighborhood plan, which calls

for projects that will strengthen existing

business nodes.

Most respondents agreed that the Central

Area is built out. Infill development allows

developers to take advantage of the vacant

or dilapidated properties that exist in the

neighborhood. According to CADA there are

10 to 15 available parcels. Were the

neighborhood completely gentrified, like

Capitol Hill, infill projects might not be

possible to initiate. Rather, the focus likely

would shift to preserving existing affordable

housing stock, which the organization is

anticipating doing in the near future.

The size and location of a property affects

the type of project that can be done. CADA

has redeveloped individual lots for single-

family houses, as well as larger parcels,

such as the current mixed-use project.2

The

larger, higher-density projects can have the

most impact on the neighborhood by

increasing employment opportunities and

outlets for shopping and other business

transactions for current community

members, as well as drawing new residents

and customers to the area. The organization

views infill development on vacant or

underdeveloped land as a way to balance

gentrifying forces by building without

displacing residents or businesses.

CADA raises both public and private funds

to finance its housing and commercial

projects. To acquire properties for

development, development organizations

can purchase land from the city at lower

than market value. CADA has purchased

one land parcel from the city to date, though

it paid the appraised value, which at the

time was affordable. Given the lengthy

development process of mixed-use

developments, the land value increased 80

percent by the time construction began.

When a community-based development

organization purchases land from the city’s

Office of Economic Development, there are

a number of stipulations, including

requirements for a certain number of

affordable units at 60 to 80 percent of AMI,

maintaining affordability of the units over

time, and hiring construction staff from the

local community.

CADA’s 23rd and Jackson project under

construction is a good example of infill that

serves both housing and economic

development goals. Welch Plaza is being

built on the former site of a neighborhood

hardware store, diagonally across the street

from a Starbucks. CADA is partnering with a

private real estate development company to

develop the site, and will retain part

ownership once the project is completed.

The approximately $27 million project,

funded by a major bank, private investors,

and two city departments (Economic

Development and Housing), will provide

affordable and market-rate rental housing

units, and retail and commercial space.

58 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

The initial plan called for two apartment

buildings and one office building, but with

the office vacancy rate in the city on the

rise, the plan was revised. The final plan

includes a total of 162 apartments from

studio to two-bedroom units, 17 percent of

which will be affordable to households

earning up to 60 percent of AMI and 31

percent of which will be affordable to

households earning up to 80 percent of

AMI. The project also includes 18,000

square feet of ground floor retail and

commercial space, and slightly over 200

parking spaces, most of which will be

located underground. The first phase of the

project was scheduled for completion in

October 2003, with the entire project slated

for January 2004 completion.

The project has incorporated economic

development into the construction phase by

setting targets for the participation levels of

minority and women subcontractors and for

the employment of local residents. CADA’s

newsletters document these participation

levels. Overall, respondents said there has

been more positive than negative responses

to the Welch Plaza project. Community

members have been pleased to see racial

minority and women employees on the

construction site. And though some

residents are unhappy with the higher

density and overall large size of the project,

other residents like it. One issue has been

the selection of a non-union contractor,

which has created a problem with the

unions.

According to CADA staff, the CDC’s role in

leading new development in Central Area is

not as significant now that the private

market has taken over. Since Starbucks and

Bank of America arrived in the

neighborhood, private developers are more

willing to move in. Now that private

investment is coming to the area again, the

organization is starting to prioritize other

aspects of what it does, such as preserving

affordable housing. As a next step, the

organization is beginning to look at project-

based Section 8 opt-out properties to

purchase and maintain as subsidized

housing. Although these properties’ values

are increasing as well, they are not yet

valued at the market rate. CADA has

purchased one Section 8 development so

far that consists of 24 housing units in two

buildings.

Implementation Challenges

Housing practitioners in Central Area must

cope with increasing land prices posing a

challenge to the viability of development

projects. As an example of the increasing

land costs, CADA purchased the parcel at

23rd and Jackson for $198,000; five years

later, the property was appraised at $1.2

million. Even though the CDC can purchase

land from the city at lower than market

value, increasing land values makes such

purchases difficult. In addition to cost, the

number of vacant parcels in Central Area is

declining. CADA estimates that it will be

Seattle, WA 59

able to continue purchasing land for

development for perhaps two more years.

Mixed-use projects bring other challenges,

which include acquiring funding for the

commercial portion of a project. The city’s

Office of Community Development has an

equity fund for commercial development,

which CADA taps. CADA also identifies

private developers with which to partner.

Many CDCs do not get involved with

commercial projects because of the funding

difficulties. Mixed-use developments are

higher risk than housing developments. As

CADA said, a CDC needs to work with a

private developer who understands the

risks, has deep pockets, and is patient.

Community involvement and communication

are critical when doing infill projects. CADA

spoke of the importance of gathering

community input on specific projects from

the earliest stages of planning. A CDC

needs to get the community involved, pay

heed to any concerns, and incorporate

ideas. In Seattle, the permitting process can

take about 18 months. Because the city

requires community input into a plan in

order to grant permits, not inviting

community involvement early on can lead to

serious permitting delays. Updating key

constituents and the broader community

during the course of a project helps keep

people aware of progress and any obstacles

so that they feel in the loop.

CADA staff offered suggestions for work on

mixed-use infill developments: if working in

a union town, negotiate with the unions to

secure a quality contractor. Find a private

partner for projects on which it is difficult to

raise sufficient public money. As mentioned

earlier, a “good” partner is one who

understands the risks involved, is patient,

and has pockets deep enough to weather

the few years it might take to realize decent

revenue streams. CADA recommends

mixed-use developments in part because of

the revenue streams and developer fees

that can be realized. However, it

acknowledges that it usually takes time for

the revenues to materialize.

Housing Levy

The housing levy is a property tax

assessment that raises funds for affordable

housing preservation, production, and

assistance. Levy funds can be used across

Seattle, though most of the funds are

intended for use in Special Objective Areas

(SOA), areas that the city has designated as

economically distressed. Central Area is

one of the four SOAs listed in the 2002 levy.

The decision to place a housing levy before

citizens for a vote stemmed from the need

to increase the affordable housing stock in

the city. Prior to the first levy, passed in

1981, the only funding sources for

affordable housing production were CDBG

and public housing funds. When the city

was designing the levy, staff debated

whether to structure the assessment as a

percentage of property taxes or to specify

an overall amount to be raised. Believing

that there would be greater support if voters

knew the exact amount they would be

60 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

asked to approve, staff decided to specify a

dollar figure. The planning process for the

most recent levy began two years before it

was initiated. There was a citizen advisory

committee that included former mayors. The

city spent about $300,000 on the levy

campaign, which it raised through

contributions from banks and other

contributors.

Seattle voters have since passed four

housing levies. The first levy raised funds to

meet housing needs of senior citizens. The

city’s decision to target the levy this way

was pragmatic—the elderly was an easy

group to serve politically. The second levy in

1986 was broadened to include special

needs and family housing. This levy also

focused on the downtown area of the city.

The levy of 1995 was expanded again to

include rental preservation and production,

homeownership, and operations and

maintenance of housing.

The 2002 levy will total $86 million over

seven years, costing the average

homeowner approximately $49 a year

(Seattle Office of Housing 2003). The levy

was placed on the ballot after the city

council passed an ordinance that adopted

an Affordable Housing Financing Plan. The

current levy is organized into five programs:

the Rental Preservation & Production

Program, the Homeownership/Home Buyer

Assistance Program, the Neighborhood

Housing Opportunity Program, the Rental

Assistance Program, and the Operating and

Maintenance Program. Five percent of levy

funds will be set aside for each program

administration. The Office of Housing is

charged with administering each of the levy

programs except for the Rental Assistance

Program, for which the Human Services

Department is responsible. Each program

calls for leveraging of funds with other city,

state, or federal funding sources, including

the McKinney Homeless Assistance

program, the State Housing Trust Fund,

HOME, CDBG, various city sources, and

foundation support.

There have not been significant challenges

to the levy program; however, the changing

housing market has affected the levy’s

Homeownership/Home Buyer Assistance

Program. Now, the downpayment

assistance mostly goes toward the

purchase of condominium units because of

the increasing costs of detached housing.

Seattle, WA 61

Programs Funded by Housing Levy

Most of the funding, 65 percent or $56.1 million, is targeted for the Rental Preservation and Production

Program. This program offers funding for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of vacant or occupied

buildings, new construction, and for financing. Tenants of housing produced or preserved with levy

funds must have incomes at or below 30, 50, or 60 percent of AMI, depending on the type of project.

However, nearly 60 percent of the funds from this program must go toward units affordable to

households with income at or below 30 percent of AMI. Funds are in the form of various types of

loans, which are made to nonprofit organizations, the Seattle Housing Authority, public development

authorities, and private developers. Projects funded through the Rental Preservation and Production

Program may be located across the city.

The Homeownership/Home Buyer Assistance Program will receive 9 percent of the levy funds ($7.8

million total). This program seeks to help low-income, first-time homebuyers to purchase a house in

Seattle. Beneficiaries of the assistance must have incomes at or below 80 percent of AMI, with at least

half of the funds targeted to households earning at or below 60 percent of AMI. Most of this program’s

funds will be targeted for use in the four Special Objective Areas, which include the Central Area.

The Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program (NHOP) is new in the 2002 levy. It will receive 8

percent of levy funds ($7.2 million total). This program will support three objectives: projects located in

the identified economically distressed areas, projects in historically distressed areas, and projects that

can serve as a catalyst to revitalization. Geographic stipulations on these funds include the Central

Area. The program criteria include mixed-use or mixed-income projects and projects that will help

mitigate the impact of gentrification in an area by providing a range of housing types and prices.

Housing funded by this program must be affordable to households at 80 percent of AMI, and at least a

quarter of the funding must support housing for people at or below 30 percent of AMI.

The Rental Assistance Program accounts for 3 percent ($2.8 million) of the levy. The program pays a

rent subsidy directly to a private landlord via a public agency or a nonprofit organization. The

assistance is short-term, meant to help prevent homelessness due to economic hardship and to help

households transition from homelessness into rental housing. Households receiving assistance under

this program must have income at or less than 50 percent of AMI.

Finally, the Operating and Maintenance Program makes up 9 percent of the levy ($7.8 million total).

This program offers multiunit developments under the Rental Preservation and Production Program

operating support so that units in the developments can be affordable to extremely low income

households (income at or less than 30 percent of AMI). Private developers, nonprofit organizations,

and public agencies except for the Housing Authority may participate in this program.

62 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Under the 1981 Housing Levy, 1,300 units

of elderly housing were affected, exceeding

the goal of 1,000. The goal for the second

levy in 1986 was to affect 1,000 units of

housing, and again the city exceeded the

goal by 900 units. Under the current levy,

housing goals are 1,522 units under the

Rental Preservation and Production

Program; 326 under the Homeownership

Program; and 196 in the Neighborhood

Housing Opportunity Program, for a total of

2,044 units produced or affected. City staff

estimated the actual number will likely be

closer to 2,500 units. In addition, the Rental

Assistance Program is estimated to assist

approximately 500 households a year or

3,500 households over the course of the

levy.

According to CADA, the housing levy has

provided support to three projects in Central

Area. Harvey Apartments received about 20

percent of project costs from the levy to

preserve 20 units as low-income housing.

Union James project received about 40

percent of project costs to include 28 units

of affordable housing. Finally, the Welch

project under construction has received

about 5 percent of the project cost to go

toward 21 affordable units.

Implementation Challenges

City staff offered a number of suggestions

for creating a housing levy. First, keep it

simple at the start by beginning with one

program rather than with many. Poll to get a

sense of the type of program that could

garner widespread public support. Seattle

found that senior or family/workforce

housing were good initial programs. Even

with careful design of the levy, a city should

anticipate a hard sell of the program. The

planning process for Seattle’s housing levy

began two years before the levy was

initiated. The city spent about $300,000 on

the campaign, which was raised through

contributions from banks and other

contributors. The political strategies for

gathering support for the levies have been

different each time around. The process of

getting the levy passed is a good

opportunity to bond with nonprofit

organizations. City staff commented that the

relationships developed during the process

of shaping and getting passed the housing

levy has helped the implementation of the

levy programs.

Seattle, WA 63

Additional Strategies

Home Repairs

Efforts to preserve affordable housing include home repair work. CADA has carried out maintenance and

repair work for neighborhood homeowners for the past seven years. Volunteers work on up to 10 houses

each summer during weekends to paint exteriors, repair roofs, do yard work, and improve home security

for elderly or disabled residents. The city also offers a home repair program, called HomeWise.

HomeWise offers loans at 3 percent interest to low- and moderate-income homeowners to cover the costs

of health and safety-related repairs, accessibility modifications, or code violation upgrades. The program

also offers free weatherization grants to low-income households.

Housing Regulations

Another strategy in Central Area is to revisit development regulations that affect affordable housing

production. The Central Area satellite office of the Department of Neighborhoods worked with the

Department of Housing to host a forum in June 2003 to discuss lifting the moratorium on affordable

housing development that exists because the neighborhood is designated as an SOA. At present,

projects located in SOAs that receive city funding cannot include affordable units unless developers

receive neighborhood approval. The SOA was initiated in order to disperse new affordable housing

developments into areas that did not already have a concentration of them. Now that housing prices have

increased in Central Area, some people want the moratorium lifted so that it will be easier to build new

affordable housing in an effort to balance the gentrification forces in the neighborhood. The number of

subsidized units in Central Area dropped from 25 percent of the housing stock in 1990 to approximately

15 percent at present (compared to 8 percent citywide). City staff did not anticipate opposition to lifting the

moratorium in Central Area.

Employment

Another strategy is based on the perspective that anti-displacement efforts must take a broader focus

than housing alone, and include employment. The Chamber of Commerce established the Urban

Enterprise Center (UEC), a nonprofit affiliate with ties to the business community, which focuses on the

Central Area. UEC held a retreat with Central Area leaders to discuss community needs. The primary

issue identified was the lack of jobs. Two of UEC’s initiatives are job creation and business development.

UEC has sent out approximately 3,000 letters to employers encouraging them to hire people from inner

areas of the city. To work with the program, businesses have to offer a yearly salary of at least $20,000

along with benefits. UEC works with the Employment Security Office to identify potential employees and

get them job-ready before matching them with employers. To date, UEC has helped over 7,000 people

from Central Area and Rainier Valley who previously had received welfare to find employment. With

financial support from the Ford Foundation and private businesses, UEC has funded community-based

organizations to help develop businesses. New businesses are required to hire 50 percent of their

workforce from the local community. Graduate students from the University of Washington provide

businesses with marketing and accounting assistance so that they might remain competitive as larger

chains locate nearby.

64 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Conclusion

Because the Central Area neighborhood is

in process of gentrifying, respondents

believe that it is not too late to prevent

increasing displacement of current

residents. The availability of

underdeveloped parcels of land and some

vacant lots allow for infill development for at

least two more years. The city’s housing

levy programs will support the construction

and preservation of affordable rental and

homeowner properties in Central Area and

elsewhere in the city. If the SOA designation

is altered, developers will be able to

construct subsidized housing using city

funds once again as a way to balance the

strong private housing market. Importantly,

respondents all understand the need for

economic development initiatives to bring in

new stores and services and to support

existing businesses. This broader view of

both neighborhood revitalization and

displacement mitigation acknowledges the

interdependence between residential and

business components of a community.

Table 7: Seattle, WA and Central Area

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000

Year City total

Central

Area

Population

Population 1990 516,200 20,300

2000 563,300 22,200

% change population 1990–2000 9.1 9.4

% black non-Hispanic 1990 9.8 56.5

2000 9.6 38.9

% white non-Hispanic 1990 73.8 30.6

2000 68.8 41.7

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 13.1 10.3

2000 16.4 11.1

% Hispanic 1990 3.3 2.6

2000 5.3 8.3

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999

dollars) 1990 66,600 43,500

2000 83,800 64,300

Poverty rate 1990 12,400 20,900

2000 11,800 19,200

Seattle, WA 65

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 4.9 9.1

2000 5.1 6.2

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 236,700 8,800

2000 258,500 10,000

Total rental units 1990 127,100 5,600

2000 138,400 6,100

Rental vacancy rate 1990 4.8 6.9

2000 3.7 4.3

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 48.9 40.4

2000 48.4 42.1

Average value owner-occupied

housing units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 220,600 153,100

2000 315,500 276,800

% of renters paying > 35% of income

on rent 1990 31.2 35.8

2000 30.6 35.3

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages

originated/1,000 housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 26.5 27.5

Avg. (00, 01) 38.8 39.5

% change in number of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a 46.4 43.6

Dollar value of mortgages

originated/housing unita

Avg. (95, 96) 4,446 3,945

Avg. (00, 01) 8,246 7,869

% change in dollar value of

mortgages originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

85.5 99.5

Average value of mortgages

originated (1–4-unit structures)

a Avg. (95, 96) 167,900 143,300

Avg. (00, 01) 212,700 199,400

% change in average value of

mortgages originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

26.7 39.1

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban

Institute’s Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on

1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.

Note: Data for Central Area are analyzed using census tracts

007700, 007900, 008700, 008800, 008900, and 009000.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute.

Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

66 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

CHICAGO, IL

UPTOWN

Key strategy: voluntary inclusionary zoning

Other strategies: nonprofit retention strategies, tax assessment retention strategies

City and Neighborhood

Chicago increased in population and

housing values during the 1990s. Chicago

grew by roughly 4 percent in the 1990s

reaching 2.9 million people in 2000 (Census

CD Neighborhood Change Database). The

price of homes increased one-quarter

during the late 1990s, while the number of

homes bought increased by 30 percent (see

Table 8 at the end of the case study). The

accelerated housing market did not happen

uniformly across neighborhoods throughout

the city, however. Neighborhoods bordering

Lake Michigan north of the central business

district and neighborhoods immediately

south and west of the downtown area

appeared to drive the city’s overall housing

market gain. Neighborhoods located on the

far south and west sides—historically

African American and poor—continued to

experience neglect during the 1990s.

Uptown is located along Lake Michigan,

approximately eight miles north of

downtown. South of Uptown are upscale

neighborhoods, and immediately north is

Edgewood, a neighborhood that also

experienced an accelerated housing market

during the 1990s, along with an influx of

new upscale retail and restaurant

establishments.

Uptown historically has been a diverse and

densely populated area. Since the early

1900s, it has been the port of entry for

immigrant populations, including Russians,

Koreans, Mexicans, Vietnamese,

Cambodians, and Laotians. During the

1940s and 1950s, the neighborhood’s

population continued to diversify as African

Americans, southern rural whites, and

Native Americans were attracted to

Uptown’s affordable housing stock. During

the federal deinstitutionalization of mental

health institutions in the 1970s, the

neighborhood also became home to a large

number of former mental health patients.

During the 1950s post-World War II housing

shortage, housing was converted to

accommodate more units by splitting single-

family residences and smaller apartment

buildings into multiunit properties. Uptown

also experienced a 25 percent reduction in

housing stock during the federal urban

renewal period during the 1960s and 1970s

(Chicago Fact Book Consortium 1963).

The neighborhood’s housing stock consists

of mid-sized and large apartment buildings,

Chicago, IL 67

as well as the largest concentration of

single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) in the

city. Roughly two-thirds of Uptown’s housing

stock is concentrated in buildings with 20 or

more units, compared to the citywide

average of only 23 percent (Haas et al.

2002). High-rise apartment buildings line the

lake, while smaller rental units—some as

small as six-flat apartments—are located

further west in the neighborhood. Uptown

has some single-family detached homes,

which are designated historic, located along

the lake and on the western border.

Homeownership rates are relatively low in

Uptown, 23 percent compared to 44 percent

citywide (Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Residential development has been

prevalent in Uptown during the past 10

years. According to respondents,

condominium conversions—where

developers convert rental apartment units

into owner-occupied condominiums—have

become commonplace. Data supports this

perception: parcels occupied by apartment

buildings decreased by 12 percent while the

number of parcels with condominiums

increased by 102 percent (Haas et al.

2002). Consequently the homeownership

rate of 23 percent—while still relatively low

for Chicago—increased by 35 percent over

the 1990s (Census CD Neighborhood

Change Database). The number of vacant

units—another indicator of demand for

housing—decreased from 10 to 6 percent in

Uptown (Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Uptown has a rich pool of human service

providers and nonprofit organizations, such

as ethnic and immigrant organizations,

homeless service providers, job training

programs, and churches and religious

institutions. Commercial and retail activity is

concentrated on the main streets running

north-south and east-west in the

neighborhood and consist of small

businesses such as beauty and nail salons,

convenience stores, and fast food

restaurants. Two large entertainment and

music venues are also located in Uptown,

attracting patrons from across the city.

While there is a plethora of small

businesses in Uptown, upscale commercial

development has not kept pace with

residential development. Three Starbucks

coffee shops, the Seattle coffee chain

considered a harbinger of gentrification,

opened in Uptown, but little other high-end

retail has entered Uptown thus far.

The neighborhood continues to be one of

the most diverse in Chicago. Whites make

up the majority of residents, while one-

quarter are African American, 20 percent

are Latino, and 18 percent are other

ethnicities, which consists mostly of Asians

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database). Uptown experienced an

increase in middle-aged residents, while

children and senior citizens decreased in

number.3

According to respondents, more

singles and childless couples moved into

Uptown attracted by condominium

conversions; hence the increase in the

middle-age category. Many of these new

68 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

residents were also reported to be white,

middle-class, and gay.

Uptown’s residents became somewhat

wealthier during the 1990s. The

neighborhood’s poverty rate decreased by

22 percent during the 1990s, and the

average family income increased by 25

percent (Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database).

Factors influencing Uptown’s housing

market are numerous. It is one of the last

north side neighborhoods along Lake

Michigan affordable to middle-income

residents. The Lakeview and Wrigleyville

neighborhoods to the south have already

gentrified, and Uptown’s inexpensive land

from years of disinvestment is attractive to

developers. Uptown also offers a number of

amenities—access to public transportation

through a subway station and bus lines, a

relatively short commute downtown, and the

lake itself, with its beaches, parks, bike

lanes, and sports fields.

Local groups have advocated both for and

against gentrification. Chicago has a history

of grassroots advocacy and organizing

stemming from the work of Saul Alinsky

during the 1930s, and Uptown is no

exception. The Community of Uptown

Residents for Accountability and Justice

(COURAJ), a grassroots advocacy group,

organizes against new developments that

exclude affordable units for low-income

residents. Other organizations, such as the

Uptown Chicago Commission, tend to have

a more pro-development outlook. Block

groups are active in some parts of Uptown,

representing mainly homeowners. Tensions

have erupted between some affordable

housing organizations and block clubs over

low-income housing developments.

Affordable housing is an issue on the

mayor’s agenda. The city’s Department of

Housing administers programs intended to

benefit low- to moderate-income families

through homeownership and in the rental

market (some of these programs are

described below). However, critics of Mayor

Daley contend he has not done enough to

ensure an adequate amount of affordable

housing for low-income and working

families, but focuses on attracting middle-

income residents to the city.

Aldermanic support for affordable housing is

particularly strong in Uptown. Chicago is

divided into 48 wards with an elected

alderman representing each ward. Uptown

is split between two wards, with the majority

of Uptown represented by Alderman Helen

Shiller and the remaining by Alderman Mary

Ann Smith. Alderman Shiller has served

Uptown residents for the past 16 years and

is credited with focusing on diversity and

affordability in her ward. For instance,

Uptown has the greatest concentration of

single-room occupancies hotels (SRO) in

the city. Alderman Shiller recognizes that

development opportunities exist in Uptown

and she helps to ensure that current

Chicago, IL 69

residents benefit, as well as new residents.

Alderman Shiller’s goal for development is

“gentrification without displacement,”

believing that a mixture of economic classes

should coexist within her ward. Alderman

Shiller also has her critics—some consider

her obstructionist and anti-development.

Stage of Gentrification

Housing prices for single-family detached

homes, condominiums, and larger

apartments have increased, while some

rental housing stock remains affordable.

Indications of rising housing costs are the

following: the median sales price for single-

family detached homes increased by 33

percent between 1990 and 2000 compared

to the citywide increase of 12 percent, and

condominiums increased in price by 112

percent compared to 53 percent citywide

(Haas et al. 2002).

Though affordable housing still exists in the

form of rental housing, the pool appears to

be shrinking. For instance, the total number

of rental units declined by 11 percent

(Census CD Neighborhood Change

Database). Small apartments tend to cost

less in Uptown compared to other parts of

the city, and SROs still make up a great

proportion of Uptown’s rental stock (Haas et

al. 2002). According to recent estimates,

there is also a relatively large amount of

subsidized housing in Uptown: 18 percent,

or 5,896 units, are subsidized (Haas et al.

2002). While federally subsidized housing

exists in Uptown, respondents are

concerned about landlords opting out of

Section 8. Two census tracts in Uptown saw

a decrease in the number of voucher

holders by 21 percent between 1997 and

2000, while the remaining three census

tracts in Uptown held steady (Haas et al.

2002).

Affordable housing advocates point out that

landlords and developers rather than

residents have benefited from Uptown’s

gentrification. Because most of the housing

stock is rental, most real estate transactions

occur between landlord and developer or

between private developers. There has

been little asset building for residents.

Instead, many incumbent residents are

faced with higher housing costs (at least for

larger apartments, condos, and single-

family homes) and the threat of expiring

Section 8 contracts.

Key Strategy—Voluntary Inclusionary

Zoning

The key program highlighted in this case

study is an inclusionary zoning program

called Chicago Partnership for Affordable

Neighborhoods (CPAN), which was

implemented citywide in 2001. CPAN is a

voluntary program where developers and

aldermen from each ward determine the

number of affordable units, if any,

developers will set aside in their market-rate

developments. Those affordable units are

“written down” by the developer and the city

provides purchase price assistance to

homebuyers. Residents eligible for CPAN

can earn no more than 100 percent of the

area median income, or $68,700, and

70 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

participants must be either first-time

homebuyers or not have owned a home in

the last three years.

While CPAN is a citywide program, it is at

the discretion of each alderman whether

developers must participate. The developer

and alderman negotiate the percentage of

affordable housing set asides, although the

program recommends between 10 and 20

percent. Therefore, CPAN is applied on a

case-by-case basis differing across the city

and even within wards by project. However,

because developments over six units

normally need some type of aldermanic

zoning change approval (even as basic as

alley access), aldermen usually have the

leverage to negotiate. Normally it is also in

the developer’s best interest to get

aldermanic and community support. If

developers want a zoning change, they

must hold a public hearing.

Tangible incentives exist for the developers

to participate beyond aldermanic zoning

approval and good community relations. For

every affordable unit, the city waives the

required building permit fees, which can

cost up to $10,000 per unit. The city also

assists with the developer’s site

improvement budget, such as perimeter site

improvements and landscaping, on a case-

by-case basis. Multiple benefits exist for the

buyer as well. The city provides housing

and pre-purchase counseling, as well as

purchase price assistance that covers the

difference between the developer’s write�down price and 30 percent of the buyer’s

income. This assistance is offered as a

deferred loan at 0 percent interest for

income-eligible individuals, which is reduced

on an annual pro rata basis. The unit must

be the resident’s main housing. If the

homebuyer lives in the unit beyond the

length of the loan, the loan is forgiven.

Purchase price assistance is provided

through HOME dollars.

CPAN has provisions to avoid “flipping”—

where homebuyers quickly sell the

subsidized unit at higher market-rate prices.

The city adds a junior mortgage on the write

down. If residents move within 30 years, this

subsidized money goes into the Chicago

Low-Income Housing Trust Fund, which

uses the proceeds for affordable housing.

The owners do not realize the subsidized

equity.

As of May 2003, 18 months into the

program, 21 developers have participated in

the CPAN program citywide, totaling $7.4

million in developer write downs. The

average developer write down per

affordable unit was $70,000, and, on

average, 17 percent of units per project

were deemed affordable. This translates

into 179 affordable units out of 1,457 units

to be built citywide. Construction is not

complete in all the projects.4

In Uptown, five

developers have participated in CPAN since

its inception. Twenty-two affordable units

out of a total of 282, 11 percent, are in the

process of being built. The average

Chicago, IL 71

developer write down per project is $56,000,

with a total of $281,000 of total developer

write downs.

The most recent high-profile project using

CPAN in Uptown is a formerly vacant

department store, the Goldblatts Building,

that is being remodeled and rehabilitated for

mixed-use development using CPAN and

tax increment financing (TIF) dollars. The

development will include 37 one- and two-

bedroom condominiums, of which

approximately eight units will qualify under

the CPAN program. The ground floor of the

former Goldblatts Building will house a

Borders Books & Music store, as well as

other retail shops.

Those eligible for the affordable units can

make only between 60 and 80 percent of

AMI. CPAN provides purchase price

assistance to the potential buyers, but the

developer needed additional financial

assistance beyond CPAN to write down

their market-rate units. Therefore, $700,000

of TIF funds will be used to write down the

market-rate price from $225,000 to

$155,000.

The developer is receiving $5.75 million

through the TIF district to finance the

Goldblatts Building project. In turn, the

developer is providing $1.25 million to a not-

for-profit developer to rehabilitate the

neighboring six-story residential Leland

Apartments, which has 99 single-room

occupancy units and 34 studios for low-rent

tenants. The nonprofit intends to rehabilitate

the building and rooms, as well as provide

in-house social services and retail space on

the ground floor.

There was both vocal opposition and

support to the Goldblatts project. Grassroots

advocacy groups like COURAJ opposed the

TIF subsidy for market-rate condos

advocating that more affordable housing,

especially rental housing, is needed in

Uptown (Walters 2002). Other

organizations, like the Uptown Chicago

Commission, a coalition of block clubs and

businesses, advocated for retail and

commercial development using TIF dollars

like the renovated Goldblatts building in

Uptown (Grossman 2001).

Implementation Challenges

A citywide challenge for CPAN is that it is a

voluntary program, leaving it to the

discretion of aldermen whether developers

will participate. Alderman Shiller is both a

strong proponent of CPAN and one of its

architects. However, support is not as

universally strong in the rest of the city.

Another problem inherent in a voluntary

program is whether developers will choose

to participate or take their business

elsewhere. Aldermen have leverage only if

the developer needs zoning approval.

Those developers who have the appropriate

zoning may choose not to participate in

CPAN even if the alderman would normally

support and require it, and may outbid other

developers that would set aside affordable

units.

72 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

In reaction against the voluntary nature of

CPAN, 15 affordable housing organizations

formed the Balanced Development

Campaign to advocate for mandatory

inclusionary zoning. An ordinance was

introduced to the city council for such a

mandatory ordinance requiring a 20 percent

set-aside of affordable housing units, higher

than the CPAN recommendation. While this

mandatory ordinance was being lobbied for,

another similar ordinance, the Affordable

Housing Ordinance, was accepted by the

city council in April 2003. It requires

developers buying city-owned land below

market rate price to set aside 10 percent of

the new units as affordable. If a developer

receives city financial subsidies, then the

developer must set aside 20 percent of the

units as affordable. In addition, there is an

in-lieu-of fee of $100,000 per unit if

developers do not build the mandatory

number of affordable units that is applied to

the Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust

Fund. While the city’s ordinance has been

recognized as a good start by a number of

organizations, it is also criticized that it is

limited in scope due to the small amount of

developable city-owned land.

A number of lessons were learned in regard

to CPAN. First, ensuring community support

for housing development is crucial. Some

developers believe that only elected

official’s support is necessary to approve

housing development. In Uptown, the wider

community needs to be informed and

involved. Residents can organize around

the issues of too much density or the threat

of taking away parking, blocking the

development of affordable housing. Or,

grassroots organizations may protest the

development of market-rate housing in favor

of low-income housing.

Private developers need to be coached in

regard to community charettes and public

hearings. Often private developers are not

accustomed to working with the public and

negotiating compromises, but it is crucial in

active neighborhoods like Uptown.

Another lesson learned in regard to

retaining affordable housing is the need to

bank land. In the mid-1980s, gentrification

was dismissed as a potential threat in

Uptown according to one nonprofit. People

thought it would never happen. In

retrospect, the nonprofit believes they

should have put as much land in a land trust

as possible and converted private buildings

to nonprofits. They now advise a

neighborhood west of Uptown that has yet

to experience gentrification to anticipate its

arrival and begin landbanking now.

Chicago, IL 73

Additional Strategies

Retention Strategies of Nonprofits

Local nonprofits working in Uptown and the surrounding neighborhoods have waged campaigns to retain

existing affordable housing. Organization of the NorthEast (ONE)—an umbrella organization representing

78 members from three neighborhoods including Uptown—recognized the importance of land use and

affordable housing early on. Between 1980 and 1995, ONE worked to convert privately owned apartment

buildings into nonprofit ownership. They focused on high-rise properties along the lakefront to help keep

the area diverse and affordable, and successfully assisted in the purchase of 10 Section 8 privately held

buildings that would opt out in 20 years. ONE also worked to convert apartment buildings into limited-

equity co-ops creating permanent affordable buildings, and assisted nonprofits in purchasing privately

owned SROs, which resulted in rehabbed SROs with social services. The nonprofit Lakefront SRO

Corporation, for instance, owns approximately 600 beds in six SRO buildings in Uptown.

The Jane Addams Senior Caucus, an organization focusing on the housing and health care needs of

senior citizens living in Uptown and the surrounding neighborhoods, also works to retain affordable

housing for seniors. They led a successful campaign convincing the landlord of the Rienzi Plaza

Apartments to renew his Section 8 contract in the Lakeview neighborhood, which neighbors Uptown. In

addition, the Jane Addams Senior Caucus along with two other nonprofits successfully purchased city

land in Uptown and built 83 units of affordable rental housing specifically for seniors.

Retention Strategies Through Tax Assistance

The Cook County Assessor’s Office offer three tax incentives to retain multiunit family rentals in Chicago:

Class 3, Class 9, and Class S. The Class 3 tax classification reduces the assessment on all multi-unit

residential properties with seven or more units from 33 percent to 26 percent. The Class 9 tax

classification applies to buildings with seven or more rental units targeted to low- and moderate-income

households (or households making less than 80 percent of the area median income) that have been

rehabilitated or newly constructed. These buildings’ assessments are reduced to 16 percent of market

value for up to 10 years with the possibility of two 10-year extensions. The Class S classification provides

incentives to owners of expiring Section 8 buildings to renew their contracts using HUD’s Mark Up to

Market program. The purpose of the tax incentive is to slow affordable rentals converting to market-rate

rentals and condominiums. Landlords that decide to renew their Section 8 contracts qualify to cut their tax

assessments from a 33 percent to a 16 percent assessment rate, matching the assessments of

homeowners. Previously, this tax reduction could be applied only in low- and moderate-income census

tracts but now it applies countywide.

Conclusion

Uptown has not yet completely gentrified,

therefore there are still affordable housing

units available to current residents. Due to

the fact that aldermanic approval is often

necessary for developers to proceed,

aldermen have a certain degree of leverage

74 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

to negotiate set-asides—thus ensuring

some amount of affordable housing in the

foreseeable future. However, aldermen do

not necessarily have control over the type of

housing built, and because condo

conversion is prevalent in Uptown, most

incumbent residents are faced with higher

housing costs (at least for larger

apartments, condos, and single-family

homes) and the threat of expiring Section 8

contracts. As a result, the pool of housing

for families and the lowest income

population in Uptown is most at risk as

gentrification proceeds. Subsidized rental

units are crucial for low- and very low

income residents, and there are steep

challenges to ensure affordable rental units

as land prices skyrocket and financial

incentives exist for landlords to opt out of

federal subsidy programs.

To prevent displacement of current

residents, respondents remain hopeful that

continued support from programs such as

CPAN and local aldermen offices as well as

further improvements to existing efforts will

help ensure the availability of affordable

housing, particularly rental units, in Uptown.

While respondents recognize the benefits of

development activity, they stress the

importance of coordinated, focused efforts

on behalf of the city, aldermen, developers,

and community groups alike in supporting a

more universal adherence to the 10 to 20

percent affordable set-aside provision

throughout the revitalization process.

Table 8: Chicago, IL and Uptown

City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000

Year City total Uptown

Population

Population 1990 2,783,500 24,700

2000 2,895,600 24,200

% change population 1990–2000 4.0 -2.0

% black non-Hispanic 1990 38.7 25.4

2000 36.9 23.3

% white non-Hispanic 1990 38.2 37.8

2000 32.1 39.2

% other race non-Hispanic 1990 3.9 16.2

2000 5.0 17.9

% Hispanic 1990 19.2 20.6

2000 26.0 19.6

Chicago, IL 75

Income and poverty

Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 52,100 40,000

2000 59,200 50,100

Employment

Unemployment rate 1990 11.3 10.9

2000 10.1 8.7

Housing conditions

Occupied housing units 1990 1,025,200 10,600

2000 1,061,700 11,000

Total rental units 1990 663.9 10.0

2000 637.5 8.9

Rental vacancy rate 1990 9.7 9.6

2000 6.4 5.5

% housing units owner-occupied 1990 41.5 14.5

2000 43.8 23.5

Average value owner-occupied housing

units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 124,000 223,400

2000 169,000 312,200

% of renters paying > 35% of income on

rent 1990 34.4 37.6

2000 30.8 31.0

Home mortgage indicators

Total number of mortgages

originated/1,000 housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 22.8 13.4

Avg. (00, 01) 33.9 35.0

% change in number of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

48.7 161.2

Dollar value of mortgages

originated/housing unitsa

Avg. (95, 96) 3,078 1,602

Avg. (00, 01) 5,813 5,401

% change in dollar value of mortgages

originated, 1995/96–2000/2001a

88.8 237.1

Average value of mortgages originated

(1–4-unit structures)a

Avg. (95, 96) 134,800 119,700

Avg. (00, 01) 171,400 154,200

% change in average value of

mortgages originated, 1995/96–

2000/2001a

27.2 28.8

Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s

Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.

Note: Data for Uptown are analyzed using census tracts 031000, 031200, 031300,

031600, and 031900.

a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban

Institute. Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

76 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

3section

CONCLUSION

Arange of approaches has been taken to address affordable housing needs in six

diverse neighborhoods located across the country. The six neighborhoods represent

the spectrum of gentrification and housing market pressures. Whether housing

practitioners in these neighborhoods referred to housing market pressures and accompanying

neighborhood change as revitalization or gentrification—as a positive or negative situation or a

complicated mix of both—most agreed on the need to balance the strengthening housing

market with affordable housing provisions so that lower-income residents are not displaced.

We draw from the case studies lessons

related to the three types of strategies to

reduce gentrification-related displacement:

affordable housing production, affordable

housing retention, and asset building. We

also consider a number of cross-cutting

issues important to strategy implementation:

land availability; the role of city government;

the role of community members; and the

importance of economic development.

Displacement Mitigation Strategies

Our findings begin with the fact that none of

the practitioners believed it was too late to

implement some type of affordable housing

strategy. Even in later-stage neighborhoods,

such as Central Area and Uptown, building

or retaining affordable housing stock was

still possible, though constrained. Figure 1

offers an overview of findings by strategy

type and gentrification stage with regards to

feasibility and implementation.5

Figure 1: Housing Strategy by Stage of Gentrification

Stage of Gentrification

Early → Middle → Late

Affordable housing

production strategies

Feasible

Affordable housing

→ Constrained

Mixed-income

housing

Affordable housing

retention strategies

Feasible

Retain individual

homes

→ Feasible

Retain multi-unit

properties

Asset-building strategies Feasible

Effective → Feasible

Less effective

Conclusion 77

Affordable Housing Production

Housing production is the key approach to

addressing affordable housing needs in

each of the six sites, regardless of the stage

of the local housing market. The emphasis

on production might be due in part to the

relative ease of building new or

rehabilitating existing housing units

compared to retaining existing affordable

housing. While production is common

across the case study sites, the way in

which projects are implemented is shaped

by the local context. Housing production

tends to focus less on incumbent residents

than retention strategies. By focusing on

increasing the affordable housing stock,

production can mitigate exclusionary

displacement, though it also benefits current

residents who might move into new

affordable rental or homeownership

properties.

Two primary, and related, factors affecting

housing production implementation are land

availability and the stage of gentrification.

As a neighborhood’s housing market begins

to gain strength, most of the units produced

can be affordable because land costs are

still relatively low and developable parcels

are still relatively plentiful. In such a market

environment, the motivation for housing

development stems from neighborhood

investment. Residents want to see their

neighborhood improve while they,

community based organizations and the city

hope that initial investments lead to

additional private investments for further

revitalization. Under these conditions, it is

feasible for nonprofit developers and niche

for-profit developers to produce affordable

housing. Their investment can serve as

evidence to other builders that the financial

risk is sufficiently low and interest in the

neighborhood is sufficiently high to make

additional activity worthwhile. Bartlett Park

and the Midtown areas in St. Petersburg are

examples where land is available, new

housing is affordable, and most people

hope that additional investments will lead to

both residential and commercial

improvements.

In neighborhoods with strengthening or

strong housing markets, high land prices

constrain the number of new affordable

units that can be built and the role of

nonprofit developers in housing production.

In such areas, nonprofit developers might

partner with for-profit developers on mixed-

income housing projects, leveraging the

demand for market-rate housing and retail

and commercial businesses to help finance

affordable units. Community and city

support for low-income housing can help

motivate entities to build affordable housing.

Inclusionary zoning regulations, for

example, can encourage or require for-profit

developers to include affordable units in

their own projects. As we saw in Los

Angeles’s Figueroa Corridor, people

anticipate a turn to the mixed-use and

mixed-income models of development in the

near future due to the increasing costs of

housing and land. In Central Area of Seattle

and in Chicago’s Uptown, such

development already is taking place.

78 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Affordable Housing Retention

Most sites also employed strategies to

retain existing affordable housing stock. In

many instances, retention strategies

focused on ensuring the continued

affordability of housing units and the ability

of current residents to remain in their homes

and neighborhood—housing retention can

mitigate secondary displacement of

residents.

In neighborhoods beginning to experience

increasing housing costs, retention efforts

can strengthen the affordable housing stock

through assisting residents with home

improvements so that they can remain in

their homes. The concern is not necessarily

one of affordable housing supply. Such an

approach tends to focus on already existing

homeowners. Improvements help stabilize a

neighborhood for current residents as well

as send visual signals that investment is

occurring, which in turn can attract

additional investment. Early on, retention is

often targeted to individual housing units or

small blocks of units rather than larger-scale

efforts. Until the housing market

accelerates, there is not much concern with

retaining large quantities of affordable

housing stock—housing already in supply.

Affordable housing retention efforts often

intensify once land costs increase and the

available parcels diminish—and concern

with the loss of affordable housing units

becomes widespread. Retention strategies

in stronger housing markets often target

rental units. In Central Area, the CDC is

looking into purchasing additional property-

based Section 8 developments as they

become eligible to opt out of the program,

and as production opportunities wane due

to high costs. Uptown offers a slightly

different example of retention efforts. There,

organizations anticipated future pressures

on affordable housing and converted a

number of privately owned affordable

properties to nonprofit ownership before

housing and development prices rose

significantly.

Asset Building

Asset building strategies, also used in each

of the six sites, play a complementary role

to production and retention approaches.

The goal is to increase individuals’ assets

so that they have increased ability to

address housing and other needs, making

them less at the mercy of housing market

changes. Individual development accounts

(IDAs) and programs to increase

homeownership are examples of such

efforts. Alone, asset building efforts are

unlikely to have a broad impact in a

community, though certainly they are

important for individual participants. In

combination with other approaches, they

can strengthen overall displacement

mitigation efforts.

The implementation of asset-building

approaches is not as affected by stage of

Conclusion 79

gentrification as other strategies, production

in particular. Programs related to asset

building can be carried out regardless of

land or property costs, although the

outcome of such efforts can be greatly

affected by the strength of the housing

market. Whereas participants might be able

to use IDA savings toward the purchase of a

home in an area before prices increase,

once prices are high, they are less likely to

be able to do so.

Cross-Cutting Lessons

The study sites differed from each other in

many ways, but together they suggest a

number of lessons that are important

regardless of city size, housing market

strength, or stage of gentrification.

Land Availability Is Essential

The availability of developable land parcels

is a factor for entities addressing affordable

housing and displacement mitigation,

regardless of the strength of the housing

market. The availability and cost of

developable sites will affect the choice of

strategy—plentiful land at affordable prices

makes housing production feasible; lack of

land or high costs can encourage mixed-

rate or mixed-use housing resulting in fewer

affordable units or push organizations

toward housing retention efforts.

People across the study sites spoke of the

need to bank land early, before costs

become prohibitive for affordable housing

development. Purchasing parcels early at

low cost can help control future

development costs, ensuring affordable

housing units for lower-income households.

Effective land banking, however, requires

foresight. Respondents from areas

experiencing later stages of gentrification,

such as practitioners in Uptown, spoke with

regret of not purchasing land early. In some

instances, people spoke of how hard it was

beforehand to imagine their neighborhoods

would ever experience such strong housing

demand, such as in Atlanta’s Reynoldstown.

St. Petersburg’s Bartlett Park is at a stage

where the city and CDCs could bank land; it

is available and costs have not increased

dramatically. This site is also an example of

how difficult it can be to convince other

people of the need to bank something

currently in supply. There is no guarantee

that Bartlett Park will experience

gentrification in the future. And there is little

consensus among interested parties as to

when, or if, attention to a possible future

affordable housing pinch should occur. In

places such as Bartlett Park in which there

appears to be time to monitor land and

housing cost trends, land banking can still

take place in the near future if indicators

suggest it should, and if support for such

action can be garnered.

City Government Involvement Is Crucial

The case studies suggest that local

government involvement and leadership is

vital to addressing affordable housing needs

regardless of the stage of gentrification.

Local government plays a key role in

creating regulatory supports and removing

80 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

barriers to housing development, providing

project financing or technical support, and

sending a message that affordable housing

is an important component of the broader

community. Attentive management of

regulations and city programs can help

create opportunities to affect neighborhood

revitalization/gentrification and

displacement, or hinder them. If a city does

not proactively support the provision of

affordable housing and become involved in

efforts to manage gentrification forces, it will

be that much more difficult for community

organizations and developers to do so.

The case studies offer a number of

examples. In St. Petersburg, the city was

reviewing the zoning regulations and

preparing to change them to better reflect

local context and development needs.

Without the zoning changes, developers in

in-town neighborhoods would need to

purchase two lots for one new house in

order to meet zoning requirements that

were established based upon suburban lot

sizes. Changing the zoning regulations will

allow new development without reducing the

number of land parcels in Midtown’s Bartlett

Park and other city neighborhoods. Seattle’s

Department of Neighborhoods and

Department of Housing were reviewing the

Special Objective Area designation of

Central Area, which was initially established

to disperse additional affordable housing

away from the neighborhood that already

had an abundance of such housing. Now

that housing costs have risen considerably

in Central Area, the city and community

residents were discussing removing the

designation so that it will be easier to build

affordable units. By managing the SOA

designation, it might be possible to affect

the balance of affordable and market-rate

housing production. Uptown provides

another example of significant government

involvement. Given the voluntary approach

to inclusionary zoning established in the

city, it is up to local aldermen to negotiate

the inclusionary zoning requirements. To

the advantage of Uptown’s affordable

housing community, its alderman is a strong

proponent of inclusionary zoning.

Community Involvement Is Crucial

Community involvement is crucial as well. It

can help motivate city government and

other organizations to support affordable

housing initiatives. Community members

can identify specific needs of a

neighborhood and develop workable ideas.

Once developments or programs move

toward implementation, community

members can assist or block any change.

The community played a pivotal role in a

number of the case studies. Figueroa

Corridor is a good example of strong

community involvement in identifying and

addressing local housing needs.

Organizations active in the area have

organized tenants and trained them on their

rights in response to clear efforts to displace

lower-income residents. Community

Conclusion 81

involvement is not always in support of

affordable housing and displacement

mitigation efforts, of course. A pro-

development organization in Uptown is

against efforts that might slow the pace of

investment in the area. Seattle offers an

example of courting community support for

its housing levies. The city is dependent

upon community support for the levies—the

levies are put up for vote. The city has

marketed the levies prior to the elections. It

also designed the first levy to be politically

expedient by targeting funds to seniors.

Based upon initial success, subsequent

levies have expanded in scope to reach

broader segments of the population in need

of affordable housing.

It is interesting to note that while there is

some level of organizational activity in each

of the six neighborhoods, resident

involvement in affordable housing activities

was strong only in the three most gentrified

communities. We are cautious in

interpreting this finding, but it does suggest

that residents are more likely to become

involved once housing concerns are

pressing. The challenge for community-

based organizations is to promote resident

participation earlier so that people are

involved with defining and addressing

housing needs before options are limited

and they feel powerless in the face of

market forces.

Displacement Is a Housing and

Economic Issue

Many respondents across the sites agreed

that while affordable housing is needed, it is

not sufficient by itself for reducing

gentrification-related displacement.

Employment and earnings also affect

housing (and neighborhood) stability. In

order for low-income residents of gentrifying

neighborhoods to remain in place and

benefit from neighborhood improvements,

communities need to develop a holistic

approach to mitigating displacement. In

many of the neighborhoods in this study,

business corridors experienced

disinvestment similar to the residential

communities. Changes to the housing and

business sectors have been occurring

reflexively—changes in one support

changes in the other. Support for the

development of existing businesses, so that

they can weather change, and incentives for

successful businesses to locate in the

neighborhoods can create job opportunities

for incumbent residents. Depending upon

the wages offered, new jobs might in turn

increase residents’ ability to remain in their

community.

Seattle offers two examples of economic

development initiatives. Through the

Chamber of Commerce’s Urban Enterprise

Center, employers are encouraged to offer

jobs with decent salaries to former welfare

recipients who receive job-readiness

training. The program also supports the

development of new businesses committed

to hiring locally. The businesses receive

82 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

technical assistance to take advantage of

the changing market conditions. The CDC

active in Central Area sets hiring targets for

minority and women subcontractors for its

development projects, and publishes the

results in its newsletters.

Wrapping Up

The term gentrification is laden with

meaning, much of it negative in the eyes of

people for whom it has become

synonymous with displacement. Focusing

on whether neighborhood investment,

increasing land and housing values, and an

influx of higher-income residents should be

labeled gentrification or revitalization shifts

focus away from what many respondents

see as the key issue of concern—balancing

the positive and negative changes that

accompany increased neighborhood

investment. Can ways be found to

encourage investment and residential

stability at the same time? Are there

strategies that might serve both goals? The

case studies offer hope in this regard

through their examples of community

involvement—not to stop change from

occurring but to help direct it. Nonprofit

organizations and local governments can

take advantage of the opportunities at hand

to leverage additional affordable housing

units from market-rate developments. But to

strike a balance, involved parties need to

take stock of changing conditions on a

regular basis and act in a timely manner

while it is possible to make adjustments.

Starting late in the game in a context of cost

limitations will only make it more difficult to

make a difference. Attempting to balance

the forces at play in neighborhoods by

necessity will be an ongoing process.

The one regret mentioned by respondents

from areas in later stages of gentrification is

that they did not act earlier, especially in

relation to land acquisition. Considering

displacement early on can help maintain

neighborhood balance over time. Interested

parties can monitor changes occurring and

plan courses of action rather than respond

after the fact when options are constrained.

Anticipating change might also reduce later

community resistance if the people most

affected by increasing costs are involved

and know their concerns are being taken

into consideration. It certainly increases the

likelihood that the range of opportunities for

future actions will be as broad as possible.

References 83

REFERENCES

Atkinson, Rowland. 2002. “Does Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighborhoods? An

Assessment of the Evidence-Base in the Context of the New Urban Agenda.” Economic

and Social Research Council, Centre for Neighborhood Research, Paper 5.

Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Editorial. June 9, 2002. “Our Opinion: Mixed Blessings: Make

community revival benefit all,” page 8f.

Carter, Don. 1997. “Central Area Blooms and Booms.” Seattle Post Intelligencer. November 1.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/neighbors/centralarea/cent26.html (Accessed July 2003).

Chicago Fact Book Consortium, ed. 1963. Local Community Fact Book Chicago Metropolitan

Area 1960. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Esperanza Community Housing Corporation (ECHC) and Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

(SAJE). 2003. “Hoover-Adams Neighborhood Land Trust.” Strategy paper.

Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2002. “Gentrification and Displacement.” The Urban

Prospect. Citizens Housing and Planning Council. Vol. 8, No. 1.

Glass, Ruth. 1964. “Introduction: Aspects of Change.” In Centre for Urban Studies (ed) London:

Aspects of Change, MacGibbon and Kee.

Grossman, Kate N. 2001. “Uptown Protestors Seek More Low-Cost Housing.” Chicago Sun-

Times, May 6, p. 20.

Hass, Peter, Philip Nyden, Thomas Walsh, Nathan Benefield, and Christopher Giangreco. 2002.

“The Uptown Housing and Land Use Study.” The Center for Urban Research and

Learning, Loyola University of Chicago.

Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. 2002. “The State of the Nation’s

Housing: 2002”. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/Son2002.pdf.

(Accessed July 2003).

Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. 2003. “The State of the Nation’s

Housing: 2003”. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2003.pdf.

(Accessed April 2004).

84 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. 2001. “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A

Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices.” Discussion paper prepared for the

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and PolicyLink.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

Marcuse, P. 1986. “Abandonment, gentrification and displacement: the linkages in New York

City.” In Smith, N. and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrification of the City. London: Unwin

Hyman.

Millennial Housing Commission. 2002. “Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges.” Report of

the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission Appointed by the Congress of the United

States.

National Housing Task Force. 1988. “A Decent Place to Live.” Washington, DC: National

Housing Task Force.

National Low-Income Housing Coalition. 2002. “Out of Reach 2001: America’s Growing Wage-

Rent Disparity.” http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/introduction.htm. (Accessed July 2003).

Recommendations of the Housing Crisis Task Force. 2000. “In Short Supply.” March.

RMPK Group, Inc., A.A. Baker and Associates. 2002. Strategic Planning Group, Inc., City of St.

Petersburg Midtown Strategic Planning Initiative.

Seattle Office of Planning. 2003. City of Seattle 2002 Housing Levy. Administrative and

Financial Plan: Program Years: 2003 & 2004.

Sherraden, M. 1991. Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy. Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe. pp. 101–105.

Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:

Routledge.

Vigdor, Jacob L. 2002. “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” In Gale, William G. and Janet

Rothenberg Pack (eds.), Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2002. Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Walters, Sabrina. 2002. “Activists Rip Pricey Condo Plan in Uptown.” Chicago Sun-Times.

February 3, p. 13.

References 85

Weber, Rachel and Janet Smith. 2001. “Assets and Neighborhoods: The Role of Individual

Assets in Neighborhood Revitalization.” Fannie Mae Foundation 2001 Housing

Conference proceedings.

Wyly, Elvin K., and Daniel J. Hammel. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing

Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification.” Housing Policy Debate Vol. 10, Issue 4,

pp. 711–71.

Data Sources

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires certain mortgage lending institutions to

compile and disclose data about loan applications and approvals. Institutions required to

file HMDA data include commercial banks, savings and loans, credit unions, and

mortgage companies that meet specific criteria. Data collected under HMDA are used to

help the public determine if lending institutions are meeting the housing credit needs of

their communities, to help public officials target community development investment, and

to help regulators enforce fair lending laws. The data include individual loan records for

almost all mortgage lenders in the U.S, including loan amounts, terms, and

characteristics of the borrower and lender.

Web site: http://www.ffiec.org

Census CD Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB)

The NCDB is the main source of decennial census data used in this report. Funded by the

Rockefeller Foundation, the NCDB is a joint project between the Urban Institute and

Geolytics, Inc., to develop a national set of comparable population and housing variables

from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. A methodology has been

developed to link the associated data to 2000 census tract boundaries so that consistent

comparisons can be made across census years. For more information, refer to Tatian,

Peter A. 2003. CensusCD Neighborhood Change Database: Data Users’ Guide (Long

Form Release). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. October.

Geolytics, Inc., Web site: http://www.geolytics.com

86 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Related Publication

Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Comey, and Sandra Padilla. 2006. “Keeping the Neighborhood

Affordable: A Handbook of Strategies for Gentrifying Areas.” Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute.

ENDNOTES

1

Neighborhood data differ somewhat depending upon the source due to slight differences in census

tracts included in analyses. For the purposes of this study, the tracts used are 007700, 007900, 008700,

008800, 008900, and 009000. Though the data in Urban Institute’s analysis differ from some of the data

provided by city staff, the trends are the same in all cases.

2

In addition to the large, mixed-use projects, CADA has developed 57 homeownership units and 59

rental units in Central Area. CADA assists approximately 10 households a year through its program to

help maintain the homes of elderly and disabled residents.

3

The 40–64 age group increased by 21 percent, while the percentage of children under age 18

decreased by 22 percent and senior citizens age 65 and older decreased by 9 percent (Haas et al. 2002).

4

Numbers come the city of Chicago, Department of Housing summary of Chicago Partnership for

Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) as of May 13, 2003.

5

The arrows in the chart pointing toward increasing degrees of gentrification should not be interpreted as

suggesting neighborhood change occurs in one direction or along one path. For purposes of this study,

we were looking at neighborhoods experiencing changes that at the time indicated increasing

neighborhood investment and gentrification.

APPENDIX 1

SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

Our methodology for selecting case study sites involved three steps:

• identify cities that experienced accelerated housing markets between 1996 and

2001 using data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA);

• identify census tracts within the top cities that experienced above-average

housing market activity using HMDA data; and

• survey stakeholders in potential sites to determine whether gentrification has

occurred, in what locations, and at what stage; identify the type of mitigation

strategies implemented; and assess the political and organizational climate.

Cities with Accelerated Housing Markets

We first identified the top 100 central cities within the country by population. To identify

cities within the top 100 that experienced an accelerated housing market, we calculated

the percent change in the number of home purchase loans that were approved for

owner-occupied, principle dwellings and the percent change in the median amount of

home purchase loans between 1996 and 2001. We focused on HMDA data from 1996

to 2001 in order to capture the economic boom the nation experienced during the mid- to

late-1990s. We retained cities that ranked above the national percent increase in

median loan amount and the number of loan originations for further analysis. A total of

21 cities remained from our original list of 100.

Census Tracts with Accelerated Housing Markets

We next identified the census tracts in each of the 21 cities that had above-average

housing activity between 1996 and 2001. First, we excluded census tracts from our

analysis if the median household income of the tract was greater than 120 percent of the

median household income of the city in 1990 (120 percent is a HUD standard) because

we are only interested in gentrifying areas (i.e., those areas where high-income people

were moving into lower-income neighborhoods). Census tracts were also dropped if

HMDA data at the census tract level was missing in 1996 or 2001.

We again calculated the percent change in the number of home purchase loans and the

percent change in the median amount of the home purchase loans between 1996 and

2001 in each tract. Census tracts were dropped from the analysis if the percent change

in median loan amount and number of loans between 1996-2001 were less than the

average city change. The remaining census tracts represent the areas with accelerated

housing markets within the 21 cities.

Stakeholder Surveys about Gentrification and Strategies

Our final task was to survey local stakeholders, knowledgeable city department

employees and nonprofit staff, to corroborate HMDA findings and to gather specific

information on:

• where gentrification has occurred in a city since 1996 (i.e., in what specific

neighborhoods), and whether the gentrification in those neighborhoods is in the

beginning or later stages for each identified area. In addition, we asked for

census tract numbers to compare to our analysis when possible;

• the types of displacement mitigation strategies being implemented in the areas

identified, if any, how long the strategies have been in place, and strategy

outcomes;

• the policy climate regarding mitigation strategies, i.e., whether city departments

are working to address affordable housing needs;

• the organizational capacity of the residents and organizations in the identified

neighborhoods; and,

• neighborhoods showing early signs of market change that might gentrify in the

future. Identifying areas in the early stage of gentrification is very difficult to

pinpoint through HMDA or Census data; gathering local opinion ensures better

success in identifying these areas.

After contacting people in the potential study sites, we eliminated three cities from

consideration because gentrification had not occurred in the neighborhoods or because

it was a politically sensitive topic and city government officials did not want to participate

in the study.

Based upon stakeholder information on the types of strategies implemented, the

intensity of the housing market, and in consultation with Fannie Mae Foundation staff,

we selected the six neighborhoods in six cities represented a range of strategies and

stages of gentrification.

APPENDIX 2

ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED FOR CASE STUDIES

Atlanta

Young Hughley, Executive Director

Kevin Byers, Manager of Housing Production and Economic Development

Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation

Bruce Gunter, President

Progressive Redevelopment, Inc.

Nathaniel Smith, Public Policy Manager

Myke Harris-Long

Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc.

Kwaku George, Director of Lending and Equity

Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund Inc. (an affiliation of ANDP)

Protip Biswas, Project Director

The Enterprise Foundation

Mike Dobbins, former Commissioner of Department of Planning and Community

Development, city of Atlanta

Larry Keating, professor

City and Regional Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology

Chicago

Sarah Jane Knoy, Executive Director

Organization of the NorthEast (ONE)

Joyce Dugan, Director of Community Economic Development

Uptown Community Development Corporation (UPCORP)

Stacie Young, Director of Research Planning and Development

Marti Wiles, Coordinating Planner

William Eager, Deputy Commissioner

Kelly Marie Clarke, Assistant Commissioner

Department of Housing, City of Chicago

Kenneth Snyder, Executive Director

Mary Burns, resident

Jane Addams Senior Caucus

Maggie Marystone, Assistant

Alderman Helen Shiller’s Office, 46th Ward, City of Chicago

Greg Harris, Chief of Staff

Alderman Mary Ann Smith’s Office, City of Chicago

Los Angeles

Sheila Bernard, President

Lincoln Place Tenant’s Association

Steve Clare, Executive Director

Venice Community Housing Corporation

Margarita H. de Escontrias, Housing Manager

John McCoy, Deputy Administrator, Community Development II

Donald Spivack, Deputy Administrator

Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles

Sister Diane Donoghue, Executive Director

Helen Villagomez, Asset Manager

Esperanza Community Housing Corporation

Gilda Haas, Executive Director

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy

Beatrice Hsu, Legislative Deputy

Councilmember Eric Garcetti, Thirteenth District, City of Los Angeles

Sam Mistrano, Deputy Director

Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing

Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember

Gerald G. Gubatan, Chief Planning Deputy

First Council District, City of Los Angeles

Nataki Finch Richards, Deputy Director of Housing, Mayor’s Office of Economic

Development

City of Los Angeles

Sally Richman, Manager, Executive Management, Policy and Planning

Los Angeles Housing Department

Thomas Safran

Thomas Safran & Associates

Walker Wells, RESCUE Program Director

Global Green USA

Sacramento

Paul Ainger, Director of Development

Community Housing Opportunities Corporation

Tim Brown, Executive Director

Joan Burke, Director of Advocacy

Loaves and Fishes

John W. Dangberg, Executive Director

Jacqueline Whitelam, Administrative Services Director

Captiol Area Development Authority

Ethan J. Evans, Executive Director

Sacramento Housing Alliance

Beverly Fretz-Brown, Director of Policy and Planning

Sarah Hansen, Acting Director City Community Development

Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency

Tina Glover, Information Services

Katrina Middleton, Information Services

Laurie Simon, Adult and Aging Commission

Community Services Planning Council

Mari Grimes, Fellow

St. Hope Neighborhood Corps

Dave Jones, Council Member District Six, Vice Mayor

City of Sacramento

Greg Sparks, Director Housing Development

Mercy Housing California

Seattle

Ted Divina, Neighborhood District Coordinator

Department of Neighborhoods

Central Neighborhood Service Center

Darlene Flynn, Neighborhood Development Manager

East/Southeast Sectors

Department of Neighborhoods

Rick Hooper, Manager

Planning and Policy

Office of Housing

Herman McKinney, Vice President, Urban Affairs

Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce

Lenny Rose, Owner-Operator

Rose & Associates, L.L.C.

Red Apple Markets

George M. Staggers, Chief Executive Officer

Central Area Development Association

Laura Hewitt Walker, Senior Planning and Development Specialist

Office of Housing

Lish Whitson, Senior Planner

Department of Design, Construction and Land Use

St. Petersburg

Askia Muhammad Aquil, Executive Director

St. Petersburg Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.

Lolita Dash, Community Liaison

Front Porch

Michael Dove, AICP, Deputy Mayor

Neighborhood Services

City of St. Petersburg

Elder Martin Rainey, Chairman

Front Porch

Brian Smith, Marketing Agent

General Home Development Corporation

George Smith, Executive Director

Mt. Zion Human Services, Inc.

Thomas deYampert, Manager

Housing and Community Development

City of St. Petersburg