Community Progress Senior Fellow, Alan Mallach, discusses the basic principles of neighborhood stabilization and what actions cities should be taking to achieve it in Rooflines, the Shelterforce/National Housing Institute blog.

Last month I wrote about why Project Rebuild is basically a bad idea, and why the Obama administration is making a mistake by trying to refloat it once again, rather than taking a fresh look at the question. This month and next month I’m going to suggest what a real federal neighborhood stabilization program might look like. In this post I’m going to start with some basic principles, and next month try to translate them into what such a program might look like.

First, what is it, exactly, that we’re trying to accomplish?

In some respects, the term ‘a stable neighborhood’ is a misnomer. No American neighborhood is literally stable, in the sense that nothing changes, and people are born and die in the same house. Urban neighborhoods constantly change, and constantly confront problems and challenges; as Jane Jacobs wrote, however, “a successful city neighborhood is a place that keeps sufficiently abreast of its problems so it is not destroyed by them.”

Continue reading here.

As practitioners reclaiming brownfields to improve quality of life in distressed neighborhoods, and like many others who care about the sustainability of our communities, we at Groundwork USA wholeheartedly support the BUILD Act of 2013 that was introduced in the Senate last month.

For those of you who don’t know us, Groundwork USA is a national organization with local roots, engaging local businesses, residents and government officials to revitalize neighborhoods and transform community liabilities into community assets. Dedicated to the belief that by changing places, we can change lives, we transform blighted communities for the long term, working hand-in-hand with our network of 20 local Trusts based in small- to medium-sized cities frequently overlooked by funders and policymakers. Established in 2003 to support a growing network, we provide a national model, informed by best practices and research, and then Groundwork Trusts, working throughout America, tailor the approach to the unique needs of their community, with input from the residents, government officials and business owners who call it home. Our primary federal partners are the EPA Brownfields and Urban Waters programs and the National Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program.

Leading the transformation of vacant lots and brownfields into quality neighborhood assets is a common undertaking among Groundwork affiliates. Over the last year, we took a thorough look at the decade of achievements across our network to draw out the policy lessons that made it possible to improve outcomes in job training, public health, recreational access and safer neighborhoods. The resulting report, Strategic Lessons in Sustainable Community Building, features best practices and analysis of the policies connected to Groundwork’s approach in distressed and underserved neighborhoods over that decade. I’d like to share some of the key recommendations stemming from these with you, particularly as they relate to the proposed BUILD Act.

Groundwork Trusts are known for taking on brownfields and vacant properties deemed “undevelopable” by industry standards. Our project sites are typically small neighborhood lots – less than ¼-acre in area – situated within densely populated residential areas rather than higher-profile, larger-scale sites downtown. These pursuits, while critical for underserved neighborhoods, place an immense burden on Groundwork Trusts. Innovative financing strategies that at once account for these projects’ “off the beaten path” neighborhood locale, help nonprofits endure the typically complex and lengthy pre-development phase, and allow for the non-linear nature of that pre-development work. As it happens, the proposed BUILD Act would help address these issues in a couple of important ways.

First, the bill calls for changes to EPA Brownfield program grant eligibility requirements, so that nonprofits would become eligible for EPA Brownfield Assessment grants rather than solely EPA Brownfield Cleanup grants. This would be a real game-changer for our nonprofit Groundwork Trusts and other nonprofits, which are presently unable to explore the feasibility of potential brownfield projects on behalf of residents without spending money speculatively. This is always a gamble with philanthropic funds whose donors are eager to see results, and a real liability for a small business with a tight margin, and a mandate to make the community more sustainable.

Another way the BUILD Act could aid nonprofits developing healthy green infrastructure (i.e., underutilized land becoming parks, community gardens, trails, etc.) is through re-designation of EPA Brownfield program grants to EPA Brownfield Multipurpose grants, meaning that the funds could be used to support each phase of a large, ongoing project rather than separately securing funds for each phase. This is especially important for complicated projects found frequently in the weak-market communities where Groundwork Trusts operate. A hallmark of the Groundwork model is that we often take on projects that no one else will for a variety of reasons; abandonment, foreclosure and tax lien issues, commonplace in our target communities, make chain of title and site control difficult to ascertain. Confounding these projects further, municipalities are increasingly unwilling to take on ownership and maintenance of new public spaces; so, new models of public-private partnership-driven maintenance must also be planned and budgeted thoroughly – no small feat in these times. Finally, to make the impact of these projects sustainable, and to keep volunteer “eyes on the park” a reality, local stakeholders must be cultivated meaningfully early on and over the course of a project. An inclusive public engagement process requires time, deliberate outreach and advance planning, adding to an already intensive pre-development phase. This project in Lawrence, Massachusetts provides an interesting case study of a successful Groundwork brownfield-to-park project that successfully put all these pieces together.

Finally, the BUILD Act would help nonprofit open space developers like ours by allowing EPA Brownfield program grant expenditures on administrative costs of a given project. The staff time required to peel back the layers of issues surrounding such sites, along with the back-room requirements of doing business supported by a federal grant, are costs that nonprofits with limited unrestricted cash and a slim margin have real trouble covering. Every little bit helps, especially where a project of significant neighborhood benefit is concerned.

The BUILD Act of 2013 spurs much-needed conversation among policymakers and practitioners in the field of sustainable community development, which has slowly begun to change the face of neighborhoods across the country for the better. While we are grateful to the legislators who introduced and co-sponsored the bill, the challenges it addresses for nonprofit open space developers of brownfields and vacant lots comprise just the tip of the iceberg. We look forward to being a part of this conversation and hope that the lessons from Groundwork’s network help inform it.

Much has been written about Detroit’s financial problems of late, and they are truly staggering. At the same time, the city suffers from numerous related problems concerning public safety, basic service delivery and failing schools. These problems were a long time in the making—resulting not only from an unfortunate mixture of financial mismanagement and corruption in previous administrations over many decades, but also from the effects of long-term population decline, disinvestment, and reduced tax base—and won’t be resolved immediately. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the very appointment of an emergency manager remains inherently controversial in the state’s largest majority-minority community, particularly after last year’s popular referendum repealing an earlier version of the law.

While we at Community Progress are acutely aware of the controversies involved in the appointment of an emergency manager, now that Orr has been appointed, we wish him and the City of Detroit success in addressing the city’s significant challenges. In that spirit, we offer Orr the following advice based on our own experience working with financially distressed communities—Detroit and others—to address their legacy issues and make improvements moving forward:

• Embrace Detroit Future City. The fruit of years of extensive community engagement, Detroit Future City provides a thoughtful examination—replete with data—of the obstacles facing the city.  Even better, Detroit Future City provides concrete and realistic recommendations for overcoming these obstacles and improving quality of life for all Detroiters. While this framework and the civic engagement embedded in it cannot substitute for additional public input moving forward, Detroit Future City is a remarkable resource for Orr, providing tools and strategies for rebuilding market strength in neighborhoods and laying the groundwork for economic growth necessary to sustain any financial reforms enacted.

• Treat Detroit’s vacant land as an asset. As highlighted in Detroit Future City, vacant land presents many opportunities—for assemblage for economic development, for greening, or for storm water management. This shift in thinking is one of the most important takeaways of Detroit Future City. Orr should fight the temptation to sell this land cheap merely to get it off the city’s balance sheet as soon as possible—an approach employed by many banks in the aftermath of the housing market collapse. Such an approach would be short-sighted and devastate neighborhoods, just as it did when banks tried it. Instead, Orr should use Detroit Future City to tailor strategies to the nuances of the city’s many property sub-markets. Where there is responsible market activity, sell the property in line with neighborhood interests and let the market work. Where there is not, consider longer-term holding of property in a trust and responsible interim land uses that support neighborhood priorities.

• Control property conditions. Detroit must control its land to control its future. There are at least 150,000 vacant parcels in the city, most of which are blighted, threatening public safety and reducing property values. Orr should use the many tools already available under Michigan law—code enforcement, demolition, nuisance abatement, land banking and tax foreclosure—that have proven effective around the state when deployed strategically.

• Streamline ownership of publicly-held land. Nearly 70,000 properties within Detroit are owned by eight different public entities, each with its own priorities and bureaucratic processes for acquisition, maintenance, demolition and disposition. This divided approach to public ownership makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to report blight and complicates land assembly for economic development. Orr could improve service delivery and achieve cost savings by integrating the inventories of the four city-controlled entities.

• Empower land banking in Detroit. Detroit needs a strong land bank with the authority to effectively manage vacant property and return it to productive use. Last year’s Consent Agreement questioned the need for three different land banks—Detroit, Wayne County and Michigan—operating within Detroit and suggested consolidation. The recommendation is not as straight-forward as it seems. Wayne County Land Bank is in the process of closing. Michigan Land Bank holds several thousand properties in Detroit, but its larger purpose is to create and regulate local land banks around Michigan. As a result, it is not optimally structured to provide consistent on-the-ground services to meet a community’s needs. Orr would need to gauge the state’s interest in providing such services in Detroit before considering consolidation. In the meantime, Detroit Land Bank aspires to be that land bank so desperately needed by Detroit residents, but it has been hamstrung by city council politics denying it access to the very thing it was created to address: the city’s vast inventory of vacant property. Orr should address this.

• Tackle tax foreclosures. Neighborhoods with residual value experience the highest rate of tax foreclosure due to an outdated assessment system that overstates values. These assessments, coupled with the state’s highest property tax rates, result in a broken system in which many middle- and working-class families are priced out of neighborhoods, continuing the cycle of neighborhood instability, population decline and loss of tax revenue. While fixing assessments may result in a short-term hit to the city’s tax revenue, it will pay dividends in the long run by keeping families in homes, shoring-up neighborhoods, preventing the loss of property value and reducing ancillary costs to government. It may even increase the percentage of residents paying taxes.

While nothing is guaranteed with Orr’s appointment, we are reminded of Detroit’s motto as we join the city in hoping for better things that Detroit shall rise again.

For more information on Michigan Emergency Manager laws, click here.

Community Progress Senior Fellow, Alan Mallach, addresses the importance of code enforcement for neighborhood stabilization and calls for cities and CDCs to be more strategic in their use of the tool in Rooflines, the Shelterforce/National Housing Institute blog.

In most circles, all you have to do is say “code enforcement” and people start mumbling about previous engagements.

As I’ve been increasingly immersed in thinking about the future of urban neighborhoods, though, I find it looming large in my thoughts. That was reinforced by spending three days with a group of savvy urban professionals pulled together by the Center for Community Progress last week.

And as I’ve come to appreciate how important code enforcement is, I’ve also come to feel that real progress is held back by the mutual short-sightedness of two actors that should be working together on it but rarely do – city governments and CDCs.

Continue Reading here.

Last week, Ohio Rep. David Joyce (OH-14) introduced H.R. 656 the Restore Our Neighborhoods Act of 2013, a bipartisan bill that would provide $4 billion in new funding for demolition activities through bonding to states.  This bill has the potential to funnel millions of dollars to cities across the country for the purpose of removing abandoned and blighted structures that continue to lower neighboring property values, encourage criminal activity, and threaten public health. The bill is an encouraging step towards federal action on widespread vacancy and abandonment, but lacks the flexibility needed to address the scale and complexity of this national problem.

The promise of H.R. 656
The Restore Our Neighborhoods Act of 2013, a successor bill to H.R. 4210 that was introduced last year, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow for qualified urban demolition bonds, a type of tax credit bond that can be sold to investors. Under this approach, in lieu of receiving interest, bond holders would receive a Federal tax credit equal in value to the interest they would otherwise receive. The bond issuer would only be responsible for repaying the principal when the bond became due, after 20 or 30 years.

The bill would allocate $2 billion in bonds equally to all 50 states, or $40 million each, while  an additional $2 billion in bonding authority would be granted to “qualified” states – the states with the highest levels  of vacancies, unemployment and mortgage foreclosures, and the lowest rate  of population growth (H.R. 656, Sec 2 (g)(3)). The bill would also amend the provisions governing the Hardest Hit Fund Program to include demolition as a permitted use of those funds.   States would have to commit their funds in two years, or they would be re-allocated to other states. All funds must be spent within five years of the legislation’s effective date.

H.R. 656 could offer a dramatic boost to efforts in cities like Cleveland or Detroit, as well as many others, which are facing a surplus of vacant properties – residential, commercial and industrial – in need of demolition. At the same time, we have some concerns, both about the bill itself, and about the underlying policy framework that focuses exclusively on demolition as a response to vacancy.

Where H.R. 656 falls short
The qualified bond approach, as described earlier, is an effective way of reducing the cost to the bond issuer while limiting the cost to the federal treasury, but bond issuers will still have to spend their money to get this money. Specifically, they will have to create a sinking fund, and deposit enough money into the fund up front so that, after 30 years, that money along with the interest it earns will be enough to pay off the principal on the bonds. A fair estimate, given today’s interest rates, is that they will have to come up with about 40% of the amount of the bond; in other words, if a state were to issue $100 million in bonds, they would have to come up with $40 million from somewhere else to create the sinking fund. The question is: will hard-strapped states and cities be able to come up with that money?

A second concern relates to the definition of “qualified issuer.” As we read the bill (Sec. (g(1)), in those states that have state-authorized land banks, as later defined in the bill, only those land banks can issue bonds. In Michigan, where land banks have been in business for a decade, and one exists in nearly every county that might have a concern with demolishing properties, that’s not an issue. The same may be true in Ohio. In states like Pennsylvania or New York however, land banks are just now getting started. In fact, New York state law caps the number of land banks statewide, meaning that many communities – even if they wanted to create a land bank – would be unable to do so. Furthermore, many land banks are small with limited resources, and may not have the ability to issue bonds in any significant amount. This provision may ultimately impede getting these resources to places that need them. Similarly, the two year ‘use it or lose it’ requirement of the bill may prevent many states or localities desperately in need of funding but with limited capacity at present from successfully issuing bonds in time, resulting in the re-allocation of these resources to other jurisdictions that are more sophisticated or better-endowed financially.

Taking a more comprehensive approach
Our biggest concern remains the narrowness of the proposed response to vacancy. This bill provides funds only for demolition. While more resources for demolition are urgently needed, that is not the only area where resources are needed. Moreover, while it is fair to say that without funds for demolition, many neighborhoods will continue to deteriorate, it is not clear that demolition alone will bring them back.

In a policy brief issued at the end of 2012 written by Non-resident Senior Fellow (and Center for Community Progress Fellow) Alan Mallach, the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution proposes a more comprehensive federal approach to neighborhood stabilization and economic recovery – the Strategic Neighborhood Investment Program. The program would include both a Qualified Neighborhood Investment Bond (QNIB) and a multi-part Neighborhood Investment Tax Credit program. The QNIB, which uses the same bond structure as the Restore Our Neighborhoods Act, provides a more flexible funding source for communities. It would double the amount of available bonds to $8 billion, distribute 25 percent of the bonds equally across all 50 states, and allocate the remaining 75 percent to ‘qualified’ states. Bond funds, however, could be used not only for demolition, but also for property acquisition, rehabilitation, maintenance and reuse.  The bond program would be combined with a series of tax credits designed to provide incentives for people to buy and rehabilitate vacant homes in designated neighborhoods, as well as to provide funds for the essential ‘glue’ of neighborhood revitalization – improving the public realm, building stronger neighborhood institutions, marketing and more. The Brookings proposal thus focuses on the central issue with neighborhood revitalization – rebuilding market demand.

We strongly support federal action to further the recovery of our communities from the blows they have suffered over the past few years. We believe, though, that it should take the form of a more comprehensive program with the flexibility to address the full range of issues – including demolition –that must be tackled if we are to see strong, sustainable neighborhoods re-emerge in our towns and cities.

Pres. Preckwinkle opened with a strong justification for why a countywide land bank is necessary to get properties back on our tax rolls and improve our communities. Hot off the presses, Pres. Preckwinkle announced that the Cook County Land Bank Board of Directors was officially welcomed to start leading the initiative and would be approved on Friday, Feb. 8. The Board will be deeply involved during the search for an Executive Director and as the land bank’s policies and procedures are developed. Preckwinkle and her fellow panelists stressed that the most important task at this time is hiring top-notch staff to lead this initiative. Read a wrap-up of the event on Pres. Preckwinkle’s blog.

Scott Goldstein – who has extensive experience in neighborhood, downtown and retail planning and represented the development community – expressed his appreciation for how engaged the private sector has been in planning the land bank. As chair of ULI Chicago’s Public Policy Committee, Goldstein oversaw a two-day Technical Assistance Panel that obtained input from more than 100 experts, including the Center for Community Progress, on how to structure and create a Cook County Land Bank. Scott stressed that developers need predictability— something the land bank can deliver by stabilizing the market so that the private sector can succeed at acquiring and redeveloping blighted, vacant land.

Jim Rokakis, from Cuyahoga County, Ohio, serves as director of the Thriving Communities Institute as well as vice president of Western Reserve Land Conservancy. He is a national expert on distressed properties, foreclosure mitigation, and land banking. Rokakis described the Cuyahoga Land Bank, a model that the Cook County Land Bank is modeled after, and discussed how Cuyahoga’s land bank is not only focused on residential rehabilitation but also creative reuses of space, for example expanded side yards, green space, stormwater management, and more. According to Rokakis, a land bank’s greatest power is its ability to clear toxic titles and tax delinquencies. Given his experience, Rokakis stressed that the biggest challenge facing land banks is financing operations and demolitions; in fact, he likened the lack of funding for demolitions to having a car with no gas. That’s why the Thriving Communities Institute has been advocating for legislation to create Qualified Urban Demolition Bonds, which would provide states and land banks with 30-year tax credit bonds to finance strategic demolitions and stymie future waves of blight. MPC and other advocates will continue to support these legislative efforts that will give land banks the support they need to reach economies of scale.

Last but not least, Commissioner Bridget Gainer revealed the next steps for the Cook County Land Bank. Comm. Gainer, who has taken strong leadership to streamline the foreclosure process and create the land bank, has been named to the Cook County Land Bank Board of Directors. Comm. Gainer talked passionately about the families directly and indirectly affected by the foreclosure crisis—those left without homes, as well as those left behind, on half-empty blocks with declining home values and escalating crime. While Comm. Gainer worked to pass the Vacant Buildings Ordinance, she stressed that the County’s creation of a land bank stemmed from the acknowledgement that a more proactive, development-oriented solution was needed to remove obstacles like demolition, delinquent taxes, cloudy title, and other administrative burdens. She said the land bank fits this bill, as it combines Pres. Preckwinkle’s focus on community development with a redevelopment strategy. Comm. Gainer also stressed that the County needed to act quickly, rather than waiting for Springfield to pass legislation enabling a land bank. She wrapped up by highlighting the Cook County Land Bank’s strengths:

1. A clarity of purpose—its sole mission is to address vacancy, abandonment and redevelopment;
2. An independent, highly experienced Board of Directors;
3. A focus on being market-driven and the capacity to leverage the private sector;
4. The ability to apply for and receive funding from private, foundation and government sources with the end goal of becoming self-sustaining.

Moving forward, MPC is eager to see this initiative take life and will continue to advise on how to align the land bank with the private sector. MPC is working a variety of issues to address the changing housing market, including encouraging multi-town collaboration and helping investors and communities plan for the foreclosure crisis’ effect on the growing number of single-family rental homes. Please see the following reports for more information: Supporting and Sustaining Interjurisdictional Collaboration and Managing Single-Family Rental Housing.

I hear members of the servicing industry declare as a given that nuisance abatement obligations and housing maintenance code compliance apply only to those who caused the unlawful condition. They claim that banks and trustees who take title to dangerous or condemned houses are not liable for code violations caused by someone else.

This is a big mistake that causes discord.

The law upon which virtually all local housing, health, fire and safety laws are based, makes the titled holding owner or the person deriving authority from the title holder, legally responsible for the condition of real property it owns. It is status of ownership, not the act causing the damage that compels the repair of harmful real property.

The argument often heard from banks and servicers is that former owners, vandals, accidental fires, weather, or poor economic conditions caused damage to the houses they come to own or control. That’s often undisputable. By blaming others for causing damage, they conclude that they are exempt from the housing, health and safety codes applicable to all homeowners. What’s more, they say, since they are owners for business purposes with no intent to occupy, the laws that apply to homeownership do not apply to them. Their commercial use makes them free to buy, keep and sell, if possible, dilapidated and dangerous houses without any legal obligation to maintain them in accord with local laws. That is just plain wrong. It is unlawful for property owners to allow the condition of their property to harm others.

Officials who enforce laws cannot extend to one class of homeowners a “right to blight.” They must uphold the law and exercise the police power of the state to secure the public health, safety and security for all.  Business owners of distressed houses aren’t exempt from code compliance; but there are new ways for them to comply. It just requires communication and cooperation on both sides of the table.

There is good news.  New code enforcement methods and programs are being developed that result in better compliance by commercial owners and servicers.  At the same time, servicers are engaging more productively with code enforcement officials and with land banks to remove some of the blighted housing they control.

The Saw Mill River in Yonkers’ downtown has gone through several transformations and seen many years of intensive land use. Named after a former saw mill built along the waterway back in the mid-1600s, the river rests right outside the Yonkers central train station, a primary gateway into the downtown. It flows directly into the Hudson River and over time has become one of the largest contributors to pollution in the Hudson. As happened throughout many U.S. cities at the time, in the 1920s the Army Corps of Engineers buried the river to manage sanitation. The thought was that by covering the polluted waterway, residents would be protected from its negative impacts.

Eventually however, the cement that buried the river became an empty parking lot surrounded almost entirely by vacant commercial properties. It was adding little to the beauty and the economic stability of the downtown, while at the same time posing a major threat to the natural habitat. Much of the wildlife had died off after centuries without daylight. For these reasons, it became critical to community stakeholders that something be done. With plenty of community interest in revitalizing the site, Groundwork Hudson Valley formed the Saw Mill River Coalition. The process of daylighting, or removing the cement covering the river and restoring the waterway, presented the best opportunity to provide a community amenity, attract business and begin to undo the ecological degradation.

Yonkers isn’t the first to do this. Other cities have also looked to daylighting as a revitalization strategy and – as is the case with Kalamazoo, Michigan and its downtown Arcadia Creek – have seen an increase in annual property tax revenues and community programming.

The Saw Mill River Coalition, made up of various public and private sector partners, succeeded in securing initial funding from the State of New York along with funding from federal agencies and private foundations. The community remained a key partner in the planning process, participating in numerous public charrettes and outlining their interests through a Community Benefits Agreement. In 2011, deconstruction of the existing plaza and parking lot uncovered the waterway that had been flowing into the mighty Hudson River for nearly a century unnoticed. Today, the river now serves as a large aquatic habitat, an overflow channel to protect the community from flooding, a public park and an education center. More than ten years from initial conversations about revitalizing the site and $17 million later, the coalition has a lot to show for its lasting commitment. Local government officials, city residents, philanthropists, environmentalists, engineers, Groundwork and its Green Team youth all worked together to give the river back to the community, and continue to play a major role in its maintenance. Saw Mill River’s daylighting has shown positive results. As the Groundwork guides pointed out on our tour, new businesses have popped up around the vibrant river park and breathed life back in to the downtown. Even on a cold and windy weekday afternoon, people were passing through the park and enjoying the scenery. The formerly underutilized plaza and parking lot site had become something for the city to take great pride in. And it’s only expected to get better as the coalition has plans to expand daylighting and increase river access further upstream.

The Saw Mill River Daylighting project is a great example of a community-driven and environmentally-conscious strategy for reclaiming forgotten spaces – with the result being a welcoming public space for new businesses to invest in and for existing residents to enjoy. If you’re ever near Yonkers, it’s worth the visit!

For more information on stream and river daylighting to revitalize communities, click here.

Community Progress is always looking for innovative revitalization strategies to share with communities across the country through the Building American Cities Toolkit. If your community has its own great story to share, please contact us!

View of the daylighted Saw Mill River in the direction of the train station and Hudson River.

People love to beat up on the Postal Service these days. But for community developers like LISC, working to help local citizens improve their neighborhoods, the beleaguered mail carrier has turned out to be a surprising boots-on-the-ground ally.

Take a look at Buffalo. This once-booming city on the Great Lakes has become a symbol of Rust Belt decay, with its vanished industrial base and dramatically declining population. It’s been on the ropes pretty much since Ike was president but it is just the kind of place community developers are itching to help. And their first order of business is to figure out which neighborhoods have a modicum of hope.

How do we do that? The citizens tell us, by the streets they choose to live on and the streets they choose to leave. Yet when you walk cold into a neighborhood with one neglected house after another, it isn’t easy to tell if a home is occupied or empty. You can’t go up and knock—it isn’t practical or safe. Some are drug dens. Gangs make the rules and bodies occasionally turn up behind closed doors.

But these are the same streets that mail carriers walk six days a week. When you think about it, they are nothing short of local heroes.

One day several of us from LISC’s Buffalo office were standing on a long, dead-end, weed-strewn block. Not a soul was in sight. One house had a hole in the roof and a six-foot tree growing up out of it. We had no idea who, if anyone, was living there. Just then a mailman came along and parked his little jeep at the end of the block.

We had our guide–this was one federal employee who would know.

It turns out that over the years the U.S. Postal Service has had an agreement to give the Department of Housing and Urban Development lists of houses where no mail has been collected for at least 90 days—”undeliverable” addresses–four times a year. This was an information gold mine for us—much more current and accurate than the once-a-decade census data we were sifting through. We started studying the postal service numbers and with the mail carriers’ help, we began to see trends. Nearly every census tract in Buffalo was losing people. On the dead-end block where we stood that day, there had once had been 60 homes; now there were 27. Nine were occupied, all by renters.

We wondered how we could help those nine families. Then we started asking the people there. One guy said flat out that the place was unsalvageable. He told us his little girl was playing at a house across the street with a dead cat in the yard. “This one’s gone. Get me out of here,” is how he put it. The only help he and his neighbors wanted was an escape route.

Using information from mail carriers, we began to identify Buffalo neighborhoods where we could do some good. It would be nice to rescue every street, but resources are scarce in this line of work. In Buffalo, and in 30 cities and dozens of rural communities, LISC aims to put what public and private money we have into places that will yield the best return–places where the residents themselves see a future, where small businesses will be willing to locate, places near hospitals and transportation routes.

With our help, 500 residents and businesses in one Buffalo neighborhood joined to form the Westside Community Collaborative. Churches teamed up. Realtors came back. We got hold of some federal stimulus money and turned vacant lots into community gardens, one of which is raising fish. On two short blocks ten vacant houses were targeted for renovation. Already six of them are finished and sold. Eleven more rental units will be ready this summer. There’s a waiting list.

All across America, community developers are looking for ways to make sure low-income people—the working poor and the unemployed—don’t drift off the social monitor while the focus turns to the strapped middle-class. Progress is possible in even the most destitute places.

The agreement between HUD and the postal service expired at the end of 2010, but was recently revived. We’re glad they brought it back. For the people of Buffalo, it’s often been two steps forward and one step back, but we’re moving in the right direction. Those “undeliverable” numbers aren’t always perfect, but they lead us to the people who haven’t given up, and that’s a good start.

This blog was originally posted on LISC’s website on August 8, 2012.

Amy Hovey, Interim President

Session: Working Outside the Box: Land Banking Outside of Common County Models or in the Absence of Land Bank Legislation

Having had the opportunity to work with land banks across the country and seeing many different models, I am most excited to attend the breakout session “Working Outside the Box: Land Banking Outside of Common County Models or in the Absence of Land Bank Legislation.” I am always inspired by community leaders who feel so strongly about finding new solutions to address blight and vacancy that they are willing to venture into unchartered grounds. They challenge their communities to think outside the box and find creative ways to use land banking tools without the support of legislative framework.

While most of the land banks across the country are working at the county level or in larger metropolitan areas – this session shows how two land banks operate in smaller municipalities, it will dive into the politics involved in their creation, the model of operation and how they fund the organization.   This session verifies the case that land banking can work everywhere – the model may be different and inventory may be at a smaller scale but the impact of land banks is just as important.

Jennifer Leonard, Vice President and Director of Advocacy and Outreach

Session: Using Green Space to Rebuild Communities

There’s so much I’m looking forward to during our upcoming Land Bank conference – the time to catch up with colleagues I haven’t seen in a while, the chance to get to know new people that are rolling out land reuse efforts in new and exciting ways, the opportunity to learn about cutting-edge ideas and strategies…the list goes on. When it comes to the program, there’s a lot to choose from. But for me, what brings together all of this are the mobile workshops. In participating in these off-site adventures, you not only hear about some of Kalamazoo’s exciting strategies and programs, but also get to experience the results – walking through brownfield developments, historic properties, and gardens; you get to have a dialogue with a variety of people leading the initiatives and hear from them about the challenges and the successes; and you have plenty of time to talk with your fellow workshop participants to hear about their  experiences. So, while I’m not sure where I’ll be during the rest of the conference, you can count on me to be on time to claim my seat for the “Using Green Space to Rebuild Communities” workshop on Tuesday morning. I hope to see you there!

Courtney Knox, Program Officer – Capacity Building

Session: The Rental Option: Strategies for Effective Scattered Site Rental Management

Many of the land banks I work with are looking for new interim use strategies. “The Rental Option: Strategies for Effective Scattered Site Rental Management” is a session I would recommend to any land bank staff or board member.  This session offers insight on ways to return vacant properties to productive use, supply quality and affordable housing options, and stabilize neighborhoods.  And in Michigan, rental programs are utilized as a strategy to keep residents and tenants in their property at the time of tax foreclosure.

While complex and challenging, managing rentals is a great way to fulfill an unmet need in your community. In many markets, homes are slow to sell  and a rental program can offer you an interim strategy until the market picks back up.   I am looking forward to hearing the speakers lay out their experiences and help paint a picture of how a rental program may look in your land bank.

Michael Freeman, Program Director – Capacity Building

Session: Repurposing and Redeveloping Automotive Manufacturing and Other Challenging Industrial Sites

At this year’s land bank conference in Kalamazoo, I am looking forward to attending the breakout session, “Repurposing and Redeveloping Automotive Manufacturing and Other Challenging Industrial Sites.” As a resident of a Michigan community that maintains a significant number of former industrial properties, that currently sit idle as vacant Brownfield sites, I am excited at the prospect of land banks as partners to support their ultimate redevelopment.  Across Michigan, and nationally, these properties cause serious legacy issues that communities are forced to deal with when industrial sites are vacant, shuttered, and essentially abandoned, including the loss of jobs and tax base, and the potential for blight and subsequent loss of property values in the surrounding areas.  Furthermore, site contamination on many of these parcels may limit their re-use for economic purposes, and may ultimately cause hazards to surrounding ecosystems, habitation and human life.  The example that will be explored in this session is what I find the most inspiring;  a phyto-remediation demonstration project on a large piece of contaminated property that will grow into a community asset, help to clean the site, and contribute to community residents for many years to come.

Payton Heins, Program Officer

Session: Building Effective Land Banks Through Community Engagement

In a time of shrinking resources and overwhelming abandonment, cities are often forced to make some difficult decisions about where to focus revitalization efforts, with the residents on the ground having the most to lose and the most to gain from these decisions. For these reasons, I find the session, “Building Effective Land Banks Through Community Engagement” particularly important to discussions surrounding land banking. I spent a year studying the topic of citizen engagement for land use planning in Detroit and also worked with many residents and local leaders throughout the city. Time and time again, I saw how much progress can be made when residents are central to the efforts. I was introduced to the remarkable work of Khalil Ligon and the lower eastside – tapping into the local knowledge of Detroit residents and empowering them with technical planning skills to take action in their neighborhoods. Each of the speakers in this session brings his or her unique experiences in cities with challenging histories and staggering problems of vacancy and abandonment. I’m excited to learn more from Khalil and to hear from the others about the engagement strategies they’ve tried and tested in Flint and Youngstown. Their work truly is extraordinary!