|
A Fresh Start in Distressed
Cities
Experts
Present Ideas on Renewal
By Linda Fischer
Assistant Editor
 |
| John
Gulick makes a point during a roundtable discussion at the Rays
of Hope conference in East St. Louis on Oct. 22 and 23.
Gulick is a community development specialist with the Missouri
Department of Health and Senior Services. |
|
Let’s play a word association game. I say, “East St.
Louis.” You say? Most likely “crime, corruption, poverty.”
You might want to add “crumbling buildings, inferior schools,
trash-filled vacant lots.” And the list goes on.
For decades, poverty has tightened its grip on this city, keeping
thousands who live there in its stranglehold. To those who don’t
know better, the situation seems hopeless.
East St. Louis, Ill., like many impoverished areas, is all of the
things mentioned above. But take a second look. In the midst of
the devastation that pervades the city, there are signs of new life.
New stores are going up, new schools are under construction, new
houses stretch down tree-lined streets. The progress is on a small
scale, but something is happening in the city.
That “something” prompted the Community Affairs department
of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to hold its recent conference
on community development across the river in East St. Louis. The
revitalization efforts there inspired the title of the conference:
Rays of Hope: A New Day for America’s Distressed Urban
Areas.
The specific work going on in East St. Louis and the general themes
of how community development comes about were interwoven throughout
the event Oct. 22 and 23 at the Jackie Joyner-Kersee Center. The
East St. Louis Action Research Project (ESLARP), a community assistance
program run by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, joined
the Fed as co-sponsor.
Panelists covered many topics, including building individual wealth,
traditional and nontraditional approaches to redevelopment, attracting
businesses to the inner city, redeveloping brownfields, models for
urban design and the economic benefits of a light-rail system. Keynote
speakers focused on: (1) the breakdown of cities and programs that
were intended to help but did just the opposite; (2) the renewal
that is going on in some communities.
The Breakdown of Cities
An overview. Federal housing policies going back to the
1930s are generally seen as contributing to the demise of many urban
neighborhoods, with major changes kicking in after World War II.
Prior to the war, cities had a healthy mix of upper-, middle- and
lower-income populations, said Andrew Theising, an associate political
science professor at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
He cited historian Kenneth Jackson’s book Crabgrass Frontier,
which lists three ways federal policy began to interfere with growth
in the cities after the war.
“Federal housing subsidies shifted the balance of affluence
from cities to suburbs…and made tremendous changes to the
housing landscape of the United States,” Theising said. Making
money available for home loans became a priority. Second, there
was the “ghettoization” of public housing. Although
the original intent was that public housing would be a transitional
step to home ownership, it became instead a way to clear out slums.
Third, the federal government’s transportation policies had
a negative impact on urban growth. The construction of interstate
highways to accommodate automobiles meant that transit options started
to diminish. Decisions about where to build highways hurt the economy
in many urban areas.
“Government didn’t understand what impact these policies
would have on cities,” Theising said.
Federal Reserve Board Gov. Mark Olson added, “The conventional
wisdom at the time was that improvements in housing conditions would
enhance urban residents’ overall quality of life, thereby
resolving other social and economic ills that had beset inner-city
neighborhoods.”
Into the 1960s, federal agencies were dedicated to funding home
mortgages, constructing public housing and replacing substandard
housing in the cities. “With a large budget and a heavy hand,
neighborhoods were transformed as urban planners demolished long-standing
homes and businesses and replaced them with high-density, subsidized
apartment buildings for low-income residents,” Olson said.
Those affected by the policies had no say in the redevelopment that
drastically affected their lives, he said.
The unintended consequences were displacement of residents, demoralized
communities and the concentration of poverty, unemployment and crime.
Wealth stripping. James Carr, a senior vice president at
the Fannie Mae Foundation, specifically linked inadequate financial
services in many urban areas with their breakdown. Through the years,
reputable financial institutions have moved out, leaving a void
that was easily filled by subprime lenders, payday lenders, pawn
shops and rent-to-own businesses. “There are more payday lenders
in California than McDonald’s and Burger Kings altogether,”
Carr said. That is significant because McDonald’s and Burger
King are located throughout the state, while payday lenders are
located mainly in low-income neighborhoods, he said. It is also
significant because payday lenders are not subject to the same regulations
as banks.
Such urban areas also have become incubators for criminal activity
by predatory lenders. Although Carr is quick to point out that many
alternative financial institutions operate within the law, he said
they target the nation’s most vulnerable people and do not
offer savings plans. High-cost loans turn into a cycle of debt,
with the borrower often taking out a second loan to pay off the
original loan.
For someone in a distressed area who is lucky enough to buy a home,
it often comes through a subprime lender with high interest rates,
Carr said. Although Carr acknowledged the legitimacy of subprime
home mortgage lending, he said high interest rates have an adverse
effect on homeowners. “Money spent on interest could have
been spent on home repairs instead,” he said.
Adding to the cycle of poverty are rent-to-own businesses, Carr
said. He gave an example of a person who rents a television and
ends up paying three times what it’s worth in rent. If the
customer misses one payment, he may lose the product. “People
often furnish their entire households at rent-to-own places,”
he said. “The problem is, they aren’t building wealth.”
Renewal in the Cities
An overview. It became clear to policy-makers who craft
urban revitalization programs that the federal government’s
early unilateral approach to community development did not work,
Olson said. In addition to housing, meaningful community renewal
requires community involvement, broad-based partnerships and local,
sustained investment by the private sector, he said.
Community involvement became so important to the process that by
1970, local community development corporations were created and
given federal assistance in mobilizing neighborhoods to improve
their social and economic conditions.
The process of funding redevelopment initiatives has also changed.
“For example,” Olson said, “the Community Development
Block Grant program authorized local governments to allocate federal
funding for community redevelopment, rather than the direction being
dictated by federal agencies.” This began a process that would
expand local involvement and investment and use philanthropic and
private-sector funds to leverage federal dollars for revitalizing
distressed communities, he said. Foundations, as well as banks,
have become important sources of capital for urban redevelopment,
he said.
 |
| Conference
attendees ride MetroLink, the St. Louis area’s light-rail
system, and listen to John Roach explain how its extension into
Illinois has spurred development in the East St. Louis area.
Roach is with the St. Clair County Transit District. In red
tie is Fed Gov. Mark Olson. |
|
“The change in the base of capital providers for community
development…fostered innovation in the financing strategies,”
Olson said. The federal government’s role shifted from being
the sole source of funding to providing tax incentives and credit
enhancements to encourage private investment. “This fundamental
shift in community development financing philosophy engendered market-based
strategies for redeveloping distressed communities,” Olson
said.
Wealth building. “Communities that are really vibrant
start with individual wealth building,” Carr said. It’s
important for community developers to figure out how to empower
residents to build wealth, he said. In turn, the entire community
will prosper.
He touted home ownership as the most significant way Americans build
wealth. Because a house is a major investment, homeowners will work
to improve their communities, which results in rising property values,
improved businesses and services, increased wealth and a cycle of
wealth, he said. However, low- and middle-income people have a difficult
time saving for a house and when they do, they often can’t
find a bank to give them a loan.
Carr said the Earned Income Tax Credit could be a valuable tool
for increasing wealth. The federal tax credit of up to $4,000 is
intended to help low-income workers increase their financial stability.
The General Accounting Office estimates that 25 percent of these
refundable tax dollars go unclaimed every year.
“There are billions of dollars sitting in the Treasury Department
that are untapped,” Carr said.
As for payday lenders and rent-to-own shops, Carr said they are
here to stay. And since the majority of their customers don’t
have bank accounts and deal mostly in cash, it’s difficult
to track how much money flows through poor neighborhoods.
Customers could be drawn away from fringe lenders by banks and other
lenders that offer competitive rates, Carr said. Financial literacy
classes for residents also would help. In order to prosper, low-income
people need a full range of financial services and insurance to
guard against disaster, Carr stressed.
The power of the people. One theme that ran through the
conference was the importance of using the power that already exists
within a distressed area. John Kretzmann, co-director of The Asset-Based
Community Development Institute at Northwestern University, said
those involved in redevelopment often dwell on the negative aspects
of a community. They might see unemployment, crime, illiteracy,
gangs, broken families, welfare recipients. If they focused on the
assets in a community, they might see youth, elderly, artists, libraries,
block clubs, churches, parks, community colleges. “We’re
not just talking about economic assets,” he said.
A South Bronx resident once told Kretzmann that the most difficult
thing about living in her neighborhood was other people’s
perceptions. Whenever she told people where she lived, they immediately
defined her by her neighborhood’s deficiencies, she said.
As hard as she worked to improve her community, she felt imprisoned
by outsiders’ views of what her community was like.
About 15 years ago, Kretzmann and members of his organization decided
to find out what they could learn by talking to people who had improved
some of the nation’s toughest neighborhoods. They embarked
on a three-year nationwide odyssey, collecting 3,000 success stories
from neighborhoods where young people were prospering, where drug
dealers were being moved out, where schools were being brought back
to life, where microenterprises were thriving, where things were
happening without a lot of fanfare.
The most important lesson they learned was that successful revitalization
starts with residents in the neighborhood.
“When problems come up, turn to each other first,” Kretzmann
said. “The solutions might be down the block or in the church
or in the local school, not necessarily in the big systems or institutions
whose job is to treat us after we have gotten sick.”
In most communities, there are many small civic, faith-based and
cultural groups, from softball teams to choirs, with the potential
to have a positive effect on the neighborhood.
His group also learned that the community needs to take advantage
of the local economy—there is often an untapped market—and
figure out how to link it to a larger economy.
Kretzmann said the findings do not mean that communities have everything
they need or that they can survive without help from governments.
They need help from the traditional institutions, but they also
need recognition that they are capable of improving themselves.
Kretzmann said when his group asked people what they did best—instead
of asking what they were lacking—it became clear that poor
neighborhoods have many skilled people who are capable of bringing
about change.
The National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise takes a strikingly
similar approach. Founded in 1981 by Robert L. Woodson Sr., its
members have traveled to low-income, high-crime neighborhoods around
the country to find residents who are functioning within those communities
despite the problems.
 |
| Conference
participants pick up resource material. |
|
“National Center looks for strengths in neighborhoods. Once
they identify successful people in low-income neighborhoods, they
bring them together and get them interacting with their peers,”
Woodson said. He called such people “antibodies” to
the societal diseases around them.
The center helps community and faith-based organizations that are
having some measure of success, links them to sources of support
and evaluates their experience for public policy. The organization
particularly works with groups on the issues of youth violence,
substance abuse, teen pregnancy, homelessness, joblessness, education
and deteriorating neighborhoods.
“It’s a lack of imagination and new thinking that prevents
us from serving the poor,” Woodson said.
Millions of dollars have been invested in programs to help the poor,
yet millions of people live in poverty, Woodson said. “Secular
comforts aren’t making affluent people happy. How can we expect
low-income people to be happy?”
Government programs often are weakened by the struggle between conservatives
and liberals. “People who suffer in this struggle are the
low-income people,” Woodson said. “People to the left
of center see a sea of victims who must be rescued by experts,”
he said. When the community doesn’t respond, the liberals
seek more money for programs to resolve the problems. “People
on the conservative right say if people are not responding to all
that those on the left are giving them, we should cut the program,”
he said.
Woodson contends that poverty does not cause social dysfunction.
During the Great Depression, a time when unemployment soared to
25 percent, crime and substance abuse rates were minimal compared
with today, and families and communities formed networks of support,
he said. He attributes many of today’s critical problems to
an internal and spiritual void. He cites the success of faith-based
grassroots groups and calls their leaders “community healers.”
He points to groups that are not rooted in a particular religion
but whose members have spiritual motivation for their tireless efforts.
Many of these organizations have forged solutions to youth violence
and drug abuse because they have inspired an internal transformation
in young people, on the level of heart and spirit, he said.
Woodson recommends one important criterion for evaluating public
policy on social and economic issues: “How does it affect
the least of our society?”
back to top
|