New Bleats tackles some of the big concepts of the day, and challenging ingrained beliefs with new ideas of sustainability. Key interests include: community development; local and state sustainability policy; human behavior, our collective miscreations, and the mess into which they have gotten us. Please post your comments and thoughts, I look forward to the chance for dialog!
Also visit our webpage at http://www.inregionpgh.com

Monday, November 1, 2010

Penn Ave Community Development: Glass Lofts


This was my comment/response to the following blog post, found on the East End Mutual Aid blog. See the full post after my response.

http://www.eastendmutualaid.org/archives/213



-----------------------------------------------------


To whoever posted this, I think you are right on the money in terms of the biased understanding and skewed approach to community development. I've been thinking a lot about this recently, as I watch projects like Glass Lofts and Target go up, and wonder who exactly these projects are helping. The idea that new buildings, which improve the physical appearance of the neighborhood (aka. increase property values) , are somehow considered “community development” is shameful, and takes a narrow view of the problems that afflict our community. To me, the word community is about people, not buildings, and organizations like FDA are not really interested in helping people as they are about developing real estate to attract the type of people they see fit for this neighborhood (complete with snooty coffee shop). This approach may not be as insidious as you imply, it’s just the path of least resistance to achieving the outcomes they desire. It’s also the case of the “haves” not comprehending the needs of the “have-nots”, and instead sticking to what they know best: buildings, sidewalks, lighting, trees (read Penn Avenue PennDOT Renovation).


Where I think you missed the mark is in the solutions you offer. I think you have fallen into the same trap of focusing on buildings as the solution. Derelict and condemned properties are merely the symptom of deeper problems in the community: broken families, lack of education, lack of jobs, substance abuse, personal health and wellness, discrimination, and I’m sure there are more. Home ownership is not the solution to these problems, it merely kicks the can down the road a bit. You are correct that BGC should be lauded for their programs, but not the home ownership program as much as the afterschool, job training, and workforce development programs. These are the programs that are working to restore the social fabric of the community. Fix these, and the buildings will naturally follow on their own (case in point, Shadyside doesn’t need an org to fix up buildings, the affluent residents take care of that on their own). Imagine if we had dumped $6.4 million into social programs instead of a community boondoggle how much difference we could have made in the lives of Garfield residents.


-----------------------------------------------------

Broken Logic at Root of Glass Lofts Development

[Note: Blog posts are an ongoing series where EEMA members explore their personal views and experiences relating to issues of development and community organizing. While the general spirit of the postings may reflect the opinions and work of EEMA the views expressed have not been reviewed or agreed to by the group as a whole.]

Who should society reward for building, and buying, property? Is it in the interest of an economically deteriorated community to build new subsidized housing, or could this money be better directed? Are the development strategies being pursued by local organizations about revitalizing the current communities or about displacing and replacing them? How do these developments come about? Who profits? Who loses? Are there alternative models?

Friendship Development Associates (FDA) is currently wrapping up construction of The Glass Lofts, a $6.4 million “Green” Condo complex on Penn Avenue.

The 18 units are available in a variety of sizes, from two small units (831 sq. ft.) for $127,000, up to 1,700 sq. ft. models for a cool $375,000. The majority of the units lie in the $200,000+ range.

The real kicker is in the incentives, which grant buyers eight years of no local real estate taxes and exempt them from local and state income taxes. The more you make, the more you save.

According to the FDA, the real estate tax savings alone will be over $850,000 – money that won’t be going to an already broke government.

These generous benefits come courtesy of Garfield’s designation as a “Keystone Opportunity Zone,” a collaborative program between various state bodies to spur job creation and development in blighted communities.

Take a jaunt over to the project’s showcasing web site and your eyes may be drawn to the prominent section entitled, “The Neighborhood,” ostensibly intended to acquaint prospective buyers with the place they would call home.

The first two paragraphs state, “The Friendship neighborhood offers the diversity, beauty, accessibility, and community that exemplify the best of urban living; in the heart of Pittsburgh’s East End. Friendship is a vibrant, diverse neighborhood in Pittsburgh’s East End, located within a few miles of Downtown Pittsburgh, universities, world-class medical facilities, and thriving residential and commercial neighborhoods such as Shadyside, East Liberty, and Bloomfield.”

What is missing is the entire neighborhood of Garfield. You know, the neighborhood the structure is actually located in and the reason the development qualifies as a Keystone Opportunity Zone project.

Now, there would be nothing wrong with a description that made clear the lofts sit at the crossroads of a number of communities, but it is this kind of snake oil salesman verbiage that adds to the perception that the development strategy along Penn is not so much about improving Garfield as it is about erasing it.

In fact, as of this article’s publication, you won’t find Garfield referenced even once on the website.

There is an obvious tension inherent in how development is occurring along Penn Avenue. Pretending people don’t exist can be the worst and most disrespectful position of all.

The project itself was built with millions of taxpayers’ dollars in the form of loans from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and taxpayers will pay the price for attracting the eventual buyers.

Certainly this is not the first, and doubtfully the last, such project along Penn Avenue.

This is the basic cycle: The mayor appoints favored individuals to run the URA. Taxpayers fork over large sums of money to the URA through a regressive sales tax. The URA doles out loans to development corporations. Development corporations give the mayor, and other politicians, significant campaign contributions. The politicians create special zones and inducements that further distort markets and plump up profit margins, favoring certain companies and ensuring products (in this case housing) can be produced and sold with an advantage relative to other similar products for sale. So-called “community organizations” work hand-in-hand with the development corporations to advertise the product while building and providing the appearance (and sometimes reality) of community support for the process.

What is so insidious about the arrangement is that it obscures that there might be any alternatives, and diverts attention from who is profiting in such a blatant form of trickledown community development.

If residents of Garfield were asked to vote on where to allocate $2.2 million in loans for development, or who should reap over $1 million in tax breaks, it is doubtful they would clamor for loft housing or reward a buyer who is already able to afford a $300,000 house.

Neither is it likely that residents of Friendship who have homes for sale would view their community as best served by incentives favoring buyers who choose new lofts over acquiring beautiful properties on S. Atlantic Avenue.

The reason there is little outcry is because people believe it is this or nothing, that there is no chance money could be directed towards other kinds of programs.

This is a shame, because there are a number of buildings for sale on Penn Avenue and there are a number of local small business owners that are known to be looking for property but have trouble finding financing.

There are nice houses deteriorating year after year, and Garfield could use a boost in its home ownership rate. And there are people losing homes to foreclosure. There are dozens of lots that could be turned into green spaces, community gardens, parks, farms, apiaries, and more with a couple hundred thousand dollars in seed money.

And while the general uptick in property values and activity along Penn Avenue will surely benefit some stores there is a reasonable skepticism this will trickle down to those businesses currently serving the still predominantly African American residents. High income individuals enticed into distressed neighborhoods by housing incentive programs are among the least likely to support existing small businesses.

It’s important to acknowledge that class and cultural differences are real, and that they drive divergent buying patterns. New residents with unmet consumption desires become an untapped market, leading to new businesses and upward pressure on rents. Stop into Voluto for a morning cup of Joe and it is not hard to see this phenomenon playing out.

Alas, few interesting questions are being raised in the sparse coverage emanating from the media and community organizations. PopCityMedia.com has covered the issue with some regurgitated press releases and cheerleading befitting the fact its development “news” is sponsored by the URA.

The only minor exception has been media mention of the builder’s use of steel from a company under sustained attack by labor and human rights organizations.

So what should be done?

The goal of neighborhood development should be to encourage and support those already in a community, who’ve stuck with it through the hard times and give them the reasons and resources they need to help guide its rebirth.

To do otherwise displays an extreme pessimism towards the capacity of the existing community to better its own situation. This paternalism becomes even more perverse when looking at the role other well-intentioned forces played in previous redevelopment schemes that failed in East Liberty and decimated the Hill District.

Long-term residents are the bedrock of neighborhood stability. If millions of taxpayer dollars are to be spent anywhere it should be to help renters become owners, to help existing owners fix up and improve their properties, to help small business owners expand, and to improve the general quality of life through funding the good ideas already germinating.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that there are already some good efforts along these lines, including some of the efforts of the, albeit often problematic, Bloomfield Garfield Corporation. The BGC has, for instance, been a genuine advocate of improving home ownership among existing residents.

The soon to occur official opening is not a time for celebration because the benefits are unclear and the costs to all but a few are high. It is folly for neighborhood revitalization efforts to use millions on providing incentives to continuously move around the small portion of the population who are interested in, and can afford, new loft style housing.

Let us hope that the next time a similar project is proposed our communities are better organized, that there is a more substantive debate through which many more voices are heard, and different policies are pursued.

No comments:

Post a Comment