|
|
The Outer Harbor Initiative: Affordable Development DistrictsMonday, June 29, 2009Posted by Mike Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of Chesapeake Habitat for Humanity, under Big Visions Post the next comment (5 so far) |
Baltimore’s central paradox is this: there are 30,000 vacant properties while 42 percent of residents earn $25,000 a year or less and struggle to find decent affordable housing. Outsiders are often struck by the number of vacant houses they see as they pass through Baltimore on a train. Insiders too are also struck by the way in which these vacants houses contribute to more crime, underfunded schools, poor health, and lost neighborhood stability and property tax base. Citizens and government alike should see these vacants houses as assets and seize their potential as a huge opportunity.
This opportunity can be realized through the creation of Affordable Development Districts. Through the revision of existing laws, these districts would require small subsidies for developers to complete homes that would be paid for by incremental increases in tax revenue from new owners. The subsidy would only be available to developers who make houses available for homeownership and who sell homes to buyers below the Area Median Income.
This and other ideas like it are part of the Outer Harbor Initiative. The Outer Harbor Initiative is a plan to catalyze development in neighborhoods that are just beyond successfully developed “Harbor” neighborhoods like Fells Point, Federal Hill, Canton, Patterson Park, and Locust Point. While these are literally associated with the successful Inner Harbor, they are – more importantly – areas of strength. Other examples of Outer Harbor neighborhoods in concept include Better Waverly next to Charles Village and Pen Lucy adjacent to Guilford. Outer Harbor neighborhoods surround strong neighborhoods and build from their strength. The only way for Baltimore to overcome its paradox is to make its assets positive and ensure its residents can prosper from them.
posts
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mike: thank you for writing on the OSI Audacious Ideas blog. While I am familiar with Chekapeake Habitat for Humanity, I was not aware of the Outer Harbor Initiative until your post. It sounds like a great idea, and I hope that it succeeds. I view the number of vacant properties owned by the city (via the housing authority or similar entities) counter-productive to the revitalization of Baltimore. Additionally, the pace (or lack there of) at which the city’s entities sell (or even make available for sale) these properites seems very slow and essentially impossible for the small rehabbers and developers to particiapte in. Why this is the case is unclear to me. Perhaps the city is scared of getting “egg on its face” from a bad deal (i.e. sale) that is later publicized; if this is the case, then I’d say that this fear is holding back a lot of potential good that could be getting done in our city. The city should make the process of buying vacant houses easy and swift; that would likely go a long way to reducing the number of vacant houses in our city. Matt
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Everyone wonders about the overwhelming number of vacant properties. I’d also like to see development for community based social benefit organizations and entrpreneurs in the neighborhoods. It’s so difficult for grassroots groups to find office, retail or drop in space at affordable prices that does not need loads of rehab. It’s even harder to find out how to get access to office or retail space as well when you are a small nonprofit organization. If we focused on neighborhoods, rehabbing houses, offices and community spaces, small business opportuntiies, and bring in community services based on the assets and needs of the community, revitalization would sprout up everywhere. (like the Harlem Children’s Zone ( a harm free zone) for every neighborhood)
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:56 am
Boulder, CO has a good affordable housing program: properties are offered through the program; the participants must prove their work benefits society, fill out an extensive application, and they must attend homeowner classes that includes economics of owning. (This keeps drug dealers or welfare participants from getting cheap housing without participating in society). This program design should be disseminated to other cities.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
The Affordable Development District is an excellent idea! I have long argued that these vacant properties should be viewed as an asset.
I would like to suggest another value-added proposition to further encourage such redevelopment. With the City’s designation of “Sunshine Zones” in those Districts, the City could mandate (and facilitate the financing for) “Smart Grid” upgrades to the power grid that would support the installation of solar panel arrays above those abandoned properties. In this way, the value of those abandoned properties can be significantly enhanced. The City may even be able to create a new stream of revenue through its production and distribution of electricity from properties that are not yet redeveloped or productive. Following redevelopment, the new residents or tenants of those commercial and residential properties should be entitled to purchase electricity at a significantly reduced rate from the City’s Sunshine Zone power grid. To the extent those same residents conserve consumption of electricity to the extent where there is a surplus of electricity generated from those Sunshine Zone properties, they would be entitled to receive a monthly rebate based upon the value of that surplus electricity production that gets re-distributed over the Smart Grid. In this way, the affordability and the desireability of those properties would be enhanced, and the redevelopment opportunity should become more attractive to potential developers too, particularly if they can benefit from green energy tax credits to partner with government in financing the installation of solar panel arrays and energy conservation building materials and technology. Reduction of energy costs is a significant component of affordability for residential and commercial owners alike.
Let me know if you have any interest in joining the Baltimore Solar Initiative Braintrust to further refine this concept, or to pursue this approach as an adjunct to your Affordable Development District concept.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 at 5:17 pm
We agree wholeheartedly with Matt’s suggestion above — however, we’d like to add one condition. We’d like to see the houses owned by the city offered to residents who would like to go from renting to owning…with a time restriction — they’d have to live in the home for XX-number of years before selling. If they sell before the time restriction has passed, they’d have to pay the city back any financial incentives they received.
Adding thoughtful restrictions on the purchases of city-owned property would have cut down on the number of “investors” who swooped into our city to make a fast buck, and would in the future allow our marginal neighborhoods to start having a sustainable future.