HOPE FOR CHOICE? AN ANALYSIS OF HOPE VI REVITALIZATION GRANTS IN GEORGIA WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

Similar documents
Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Transforming To Thrive RAD. All Staff Information Session March 1, 2017

Public Transportation

THE NSP SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

VACANT PROPERTY REGISTRATION ORDINANCE (VPRO) Committee of the Whole 11 August 2014

How Fair Market Rents Limit Voucher Households to Live in Better Neighborhoods: The Case of Baltimore Metropolitan Area

Village of Port Jefferson Urban Renewal Plan

July 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Performance Report

THE NSP SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

HOPE SF. HOPE SF Task Force Vision. HOPE SF Task Force Principles. HOPE SF Key Next Steps

B-08-MN April 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2016 Performance Report. Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR)

When Investors Buy Up the Neighborhood: Strategies to Prevent Investor Ownership from Causing Neighborhood Decline

Systemic Approaches to Vacancy & Blight:

CPD FIELD OFFICE DIRECTORS Issued: September 21, CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS GRANTEES until amended, superseded, or PROMISE ZONES DESIGNEES

Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) 101: Public Housing Conversions. US Department of Housing & Urban Development May 14, 2018

City of St. Petersburg, Florida Consolidated Plan. Priority Needs

Managing Neighborhood Change: Building Stronger Markets. Alan Mallach, Senior Fellow National Housing Institute

July 1, 2017 thru September 30, 2017 Performance Report

THE NSP SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT

R E N O & C A V A N A U G H PLLC

The City shall support a suitable mix of housing by: [9J (3)(c)(5)]

HOUSING ELEMENT I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

Save Our Homes. A Call to Action

January 1, 2017 thru March 31, 2017 Performance Report

An Improved Living Environment? Housing Quality Outcomes for HOPE VI Relocatees

DATE: July 11, Ron Davis, City Manager/Executive Director

January 1, 2015 thru March 31, 2015 Performance Report

July 1, 2014 thru September 30, 2014 Performance Report

Project-Based Voucher Program CHAPTER 16 PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER PROGRAM

URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN CITY OF DECORAH, IOWA 2014 DECORAH HOUSING URBAN REVITALIZATION AREA ADOPTED NOVEMBER 3, 2014

to provide background about the America Park Housing Development and stakeholders;

Affordable Housing Project Request For Proposals (RFP)

SHIMBERG CENTER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Integrating Housing into Regional Planning

Little Haiti Community Needs Assessment: Housing Market Analysis December 2015

January 1, 2012 thru March 31, 2012 Performance Report

April 1, 2011 thru June 30, 2011 Performance Report

Housing Inventory. for the BOA Step 3 Implementation Strategy. City of Rome, NY March 2017

Housing Policies. A Briefing to the Housing Committee May 16, 2016

San Francisco Housing Authority (Authority)

Project-Based Voucher Program CHAPTER 16 PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER PROGRAM

CLASS 8 ELIGIBILITY BULLETIN

Georgia Initiative for Community Housing Helping Your Community Meet Its Housing Needs

Summary HUD FY 2016 Affordable Housing Preservation Provisions HR 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No (Dec.

Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency. Reviewed and Approved

NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES INVESTMENT ACT

Reviewed and Approved

THDA s Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Report

October 1, 2011 thru December 31, 2011 Performance Report

Reviewed and Approved

2013 Wisconsin Real Estate and Economic Outlook Conference: City of Milwaukee Interventions in the Wake of Private Market Failures

January 1, 2012 thru March 31, 2012 Performance Report

Reviewed and Approved

Rock Island Housing Authority Recommended Asset Management Implementation Plan. Introduction

Performance Audit: Affordable Housing

Neighborhood Price Externalities of Foreclosure Rehabilitation: An Examination of the 1 / Neigh 29. Program

APPENDIX A. Market Study Standards and Requirements

1. General Civil Rights Obligations Applicable to the Capital Magnet Fund

July 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Performance Report

ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN

CULPEPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2013

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL

April 1, 2017 thru June 30, 2017 Performance Report

Atlanta Housing Authority CATALYST. Implementation Plan (Fiscal Year Ending 2009) Board Approved

October Housing Affordability in Colorado. federal resources

Reviewed and Approved

Neighborhood Stabilization Program

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION AND SCATTERED SITE REVITALIZATION

B-08-MN October 1, 2015 thru December 31, 2015 Performance. Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR)

Housing Inventory. for the BOA Step 3 Implementation Strategy. Rome, NY 2016

Affordable Housing: Housing that does not cost more than 30% of an individual or family s total income to rent or own.

PO Box 1535 Bismarck ND Attn: Jennifer Henderson

Reviewed and Approved

January 1, 2013 thru March 31, 2013 Performance Report

July 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Performance Report

Target Neighborhood: Fort Lupton 2 Neighborhood ID:

April 1, 2014 thru June 30, 2014 Performance Report

(NSP1- Substantial Amendment No. 5)

PHA Plans 5-Year Plan for Fiscal Years Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2004

October 1, 2014 thru December 31, 2014 Performance Report

HOMESTEAD PLAN. City of Buffalo

Dan Immergluck 1. October 12, 2015

Request for Information Response from Enterprise Community Partners Enterprise/FHA REO Asset Disposition September 15, 2011

North Central Choice Neighborhoods P R E L I M I N A R Y H O U S I N G P L A N

H A C S R A D R E S I D E N T M E E T I N G R E N T A L A S S I S T A N C E D E M O N S T R A T I O N P R O G R A M

B-08-MN April 1, 2017 thru June 30, 2017 Performance Report. Community Development Systems Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR)

October 1, 2014 thru December 31, 2014 Performance Report

April 1, 2017 thru June 30, 2017 Performance Report

Guidance on Amendment Procedures Updated April 3, 2014

Matthew Mourning Research Analyst Direct Line:

PROVIDENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY Department of Leased Housing

Infill Development Incentive Policy

Board of County Commissioners. Neighborhood Stabilization Program Audit Report

Neighborhood Stabilization Program Closeout Checklist

Reviewed and Approved

Community Revitalization Efforts 2016 Thresholds and Scoring Criteria

Partnerships: Land Banks, Nonprofits, and Community Development Corporations

P3 s and Affordable Housing, Implementing Mixed Income Neighborhoods:

Oakland Renaissance. Incentive District

Combining the Historic Tax Credit with Other Tax Credits (New Markets) February 5, 2009

Housing Initiative Clinic Briefs

Transcription:

HOPE FOR CHOICE? AN ANALYSIS OF HOPE VI REVITALIZATION GRANTS IN GEORGIA WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE Kirsty Eden Sanchez Master of City and Regional Planning May 2012

PRESENTATION OUTLINE Background Reason for Study Research Design Findings Recommendations for Choice Neighborhoods Initiative & Conclusions Centennial Place, Atlanta, GA 2

BACKGROUND 6% of public housing units found to be unfit, unsafe, and unlivable due to inadequate program funding, physical deterioration, and high rates of crime and unemployment in 1992 (National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, 1992) Oglethorpe Homes, Macon City, GA 3

BACKGROUND HOPE VI Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to revitalize low-income communities with a focus in three areas: Physical improvements Management improvements Social and community services to address resident needs (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) Centennial Place, Atlanta, GA 4

BACKGROUND HOPE VI The HOPE VI Program met these goals by: Demolishing, rehabilitating, reconfiguring, or replacing obsolete projects in part or whole Providing housing in ways that avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families (placement in nonpoverty neighborhoods, mixing of incomes) Establishing positive incentives for resident self-sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents One major goal of the program was to reduce concentrations of poverty by attracting middle income families and encouraging mixed-income neighborhoods (Popkin, 2002) 5

BACKGROUND HOPE VI Funding for HOPE VI Revitalization Grants used for: Capital costs of major rehabilitation, new construction and other physical improvements Demolition of severely distressed public housing Acquisition of sites for off-site construction Community and supportive service programs for residents, including those relocated as a result of revitalization efforts 6

MIXED-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS Benefits of Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Encourage further development/investment Rehabilitate distressed properties Reduce vacancy rates Increase local revenues Increase property values Increase social mixing Stabilize declining areas Reduce sprawl Decrease crime (Atkinson, 2004) 7

MIXED-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS Negative Impacts of Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Loss of affordable housing Displacement (rent increases, housing demand) Increase in crime Loss of social diversity Community resentment & conflict Homelessness Increased cost & changes to local services Psychological costs of displacement Unsustainable property price increases Under-occupancy and population loss (Atkinson, 2004) 8

REASON FOR STUDY In 2010, HUD decided to end funding for HOPE VI and instead focus on creating a new program called Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) Choice Neighborhoods grants transforms distressed neighborhoods and public and assisted projects into viable and sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods by linking housing improvements with appropriate services, schools, public assets, transportation, and access to jobs (U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development) 9

REASON FOR STUDY Assess how HOPE VI revitalization grants have impacted housing and population trends in Georgia Identify issues encountered by HOPE VI grantees to craft recommendations for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative West End, Atlanta, GA 10

GEORGIA HOPE VI SITES Fulton County Centennial Place West Highlands Villages at Carver Capitol Gateway Mechanicsville West End Auburn Pointe Bibb County Tattnall Place Chatham County Ashley Midtown Muscogee County Ashley Station 11

RESEARCH DESIGN Collect information from: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Public Housing Authorities (5 received HOPE VI grants in GA) Literature review & analysis GA HOPE VI sites Successes and failures of HOPE VI (in general) ESRI Community Analyst Used for 1990 and 2000 data U.S. Census 2010 Data (ACS 5-year estimates) 12

RESEARCH DESIGN Housing Number of original public housing units Number of new/rehabilitated units Breakdown of units (affordable, tax credit, market rate) The following data was collected for : 1990, 2000, & 2010 Housing value Contract rent Mechanicsville, Atlanta, GA 13

RESEARCH DESIGN Population Data was collected for: 1990, 2000, & 2010 Household income Poverty status Educational attainment Employment rates West Highlands, Atlanta, GA 14

OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED Lack of consistent information provided from HUD Lack of response from contacted PHAs Inability to obtain application documents from PHAs or HUD Ashley Midtown, Savannah, GA 15

FINDINGS HOUSING 16

1400 1200 Change in Total # of Units Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI 1000 # Units 800 600 400 200 0 17

1400 1200 1000 Change in # of Affordable Units # Units Before HOPE VI # Units After HOPE VI # Units 800 600 400 200 0 18

Change in Median Home Value (Owner Occupied Units) $300,000 $250,000 Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $- 19

$800 $700 $600 Change in Median Rent Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $- 20

FINDINGS - INCOME & POVERTY 21

$35,000 $30,000 Change in Median Household Income Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $- 22

% of Population Below Poverty Line Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI Change Centennial Place 71% 42% -29% West Highlands 61% 45% -16% Villages at Carver 70% 43% -27% West End 46% 43% -3% Capitol Gateway 61% 60% -1% Mechanicsville 68% 33% -35% Auburn Pointe 46% 36% -10% Tattnall Place 45% 35% -10% Ashley Midtown 27% 49% 22% Ashley Station 47% 10% -37% 23

EDUCATION & EMPLOYMENT 24

Educational Attainment (Ages 25+) High School Diploma 1,200 1,000 800 # High School Grads Before HOPE VI # High School Grads After HOPE VI 600 400 200-25

Educational Attainment (Ages 25+) Bachelors Degree 400 350 300 250 # Bachelors Before HOPE VI # Bachelors After HOPE VI 200 150 100 50 0 26

40% 35% 30% % Unemployment Before HOPE VI After HOPE VI 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 27

Summary of Changes at HOPE VI Sites Number Affordable Units Median Home Value Rent Median Household Income Below Poverty Line Educational Attainment Rate of Unemployment Centennial Place West Highlands Villages at Carver West End Capitol Gateway Mechanicsville Auburn Pointe Tattnall Place Ashley Midtown Ashley Station 28

KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND Approximately 1/3 of the public housing units that received a HOPE VI funding were unoccupied at the time the grant was awarded The true rate of replacement in 2003 was 78% Rates of reoccupation vary due to: Former residents are pleased with current housing No desire to disrupt their lives for relocation The site brings back bad memories Residents do not trust the PHAs or property managers Some residents don t meet the requirements for reoccupation (Popkin et. al 2004) 29

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS Auburn Pointe, Atlanta, GA Develop a measurement system to measure each PHAs performance Require a one-for-one replacement of occupied public housing units Update numbers on severely distressed units and provide these sites with grants before funding other projects 30

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS Establish programs for hard to house residents Require resident tracking services Guarantee enrollment in newly revitalized schools for children displaced by grant Provide former residents with access to community services regardless of their current locations Provide improved services to reduce rates of unemployment Capitol Homes, Atlanta, GA 31

CONCLUSION While HOPE VI does not provide a one-for-one replacement of all public housing units, revitalization grants in Georgia have met the goals of HOPE VI by: Demolishing distressed units and providing new, high quality public housing Improving areas surrounding the HOPE VI site Decreasing concentrations of very low-income families Incorporating sustainable practices such as new urbanism, walkable streets, and energy efficient home appliances By implementing the suggested recommendations, Choice Neighborhoods Initiative has the potential to be a major success 32

Tattnall Place, Macon City, GA Ashley Station, Columbus, GA Villages at Carver, Atlanta, GA THANK YOU 33