Excellence in the Public Sector: Cheryl Lovell

Congratulations to Cheryl Lovell, Executive Director of the St. Louis Housing Authority, winner of our 2018 Award for Excellence in the Public Sector!

The Award for Excellence in the Public Sector recognizes an individual, government, quasi-government agency, or tax-supported entity that:

  • Develops or protects policy that supports investment in communities.

  • Demonstrates innovative use of resources for community improvement.

  • Is proactive, persistent, professional, and efficient in finding ways to support community building initiatives.

Cheryl Lovell_St Louis Housing Authority Executive Director.JPG
Cahill House Apartments

Cahill House Apartments

Cheryl Lovell has served as the Executive Director of the St. Louis Housing Authority for 20 years. In her tenure at the Authority, the agency has transformed from a deeply troubled housing authority to a high performer. Cheryl’s leadership transformed the agency’s operations and brought the Authority’s HUD rating score from 14 to 92. During her tenure, the Authority implemented four major HOPE VI Initiatives, including the Near Southside, Cambridge Heights, Renaissance Place at Grand, and North Sarah projects. These transformative developments led to the demolition of decaying high-rise projects, which were replaced by attractive, mixed-income garden and townhouse style rental units. Under Cheryl’s direction, the Authority has developed over 2,200 new rental units, of which over 1,000 units are public housing, using public and private partnerships, leveraging $225 million in public money with $325 million of private funds for a total development cost of $550 million.

Arlington Grove Apartments (formerly Arlington School)

Arlington Grove Apartments (formerly Arlington School)

Cheryl has always been a strong proponent of safe, sanitary, and attractive housing and has been involved in public housing for over 25 years, previously serving as the Executive Director of the East St. Louis Housing Authority. Prior to her career in public housing, Cheryl practiced construction law and worked as a construction engineer. She has a Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering, from Vanderbilt University and a Juris Doctorate from St. Louis University.

 

We hope you can join us to celebrate Cheryl’s achievements and those of other community partners at our 6th Annual Awards Reception on April 26th!

Excellence in Resident Leadership: Antwan Pope

Congratulations to Antwan Pope, winner of our 2018 Award for Excellence in Resident Leadership!

The Award for Excellence in Resident Leadership recognizes an individual who:

  • Has shown incredible volunteerism and involvement in their community and/or community initiatives.

  • Goes above and beyond normal resident action to sit on boards, head committees, or encourage the engagement of other residents.

IMG_9861.jpg

Antwan Pope of Wellston Loop CDC has lived and volunteered his time in the Wells-Goodfellow neighborhood for over 30 years. On any given Tuesday morning, you can find Antwan working to open his doors at 1514 Hodiamont Avenue to offer free breakfast and health services to community members. He is a passionate community development professional who works tirelessly to serve his community.

As a native of the 22nd Ward, Antwan understands the unique needs of the community and networks with individuals and other professional community developers to increase his neighborhood’s access to resources. Both on his own and through networking with valued partners like St. Louis City Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards, Anthony Shahid and Sultan Muhammad of Tauheed Youth Group, Dr. Edward McFarland and Dr. Jerry Marks of the Catholic Family Services Fatherhood Initiative, the Salvation Army, and Job Corps, Antwan has addressed substance abuse issues, food and nutrition, housing, and mentorship, and assists people re-entering society from prison. He sees his work as being in the spirit of Joanne Wayne, former Alderwoman of 22nd Ward; his grandfather, Mack Hibler; his friends and family from the Wells-Goodfellow neighborhood; and his aunt, Linda Rogers.

IMG_9857.jpg

Antwan has been a leader in programs like Operation Ground Zero, which aims to reduce rates of crime and drug use across neighborhoods, and Community Reconnect, which brings community members together for block clean-ups. On an individual level, Antwan has sponsored, encouraged and transported people with substance abuse to attend treatment and change their lives for the better. He has also brought a breakfast and lunch program for children to the area around Hodiamont and Martin Luther King Boulevard, arranges outings and activities like eagle watching for neighborhood residents, and runs classes for community organizations that support fathers and strengthen families.

Antwan has an endless amount of energy, love and commitment to an area that is in desperate need and he inspires those around him to participate. His outlook towards community betterment is just like his smile—open and inviting.

Antwan gives special thanks and credit to his grandmother, mom and aunt for their support over the years.

 

We hope you can join us to celebrate Antwan’s achievements and those of other community partners at our 6th Annual Awards Reception on April 26th!

Effective Consolidation

By Jacob Rebe, Chemist at St. Louis County Department of Public Health

This column was originally published on Inmost City.

Jake Rebe.jpg

Lately, I’ve heard rumblings of support for State sponsored legislation forcing the consolidation of the St. Louis region.I think this is a bad idea which reeks of desperation. I get the issue people have with fragmentation: It’s a problem which needs to be resolved. But to assume that a single piece of legislation coming from MOLeg could solve such a complex problem belies a deep sense of ignorance.

This is not an issue which can be solved with a single vote. It may be tempting to point at Louisville, Indianapolis, or Nashville and say, “See! They voted to consolidate and now they’re doing better than us!” As I’ve written previously, consolidation in these cities has not led to the stunning reversal of fortune that many in St. Louis hope will happen to us. The Louisville consolidation was essentially a merging of Metro Louisville with unincorporated Jefferson County (most of the individual towns remain in existence). The Unigov model in Indianapolis involved the merging of top level city and county governments, along with the elimination of County Executive. Again, most small municipalities remained in existence. I don’t particularly find these examples to be very inspiring or noteworthy.

Do we want to merge the Board of Alderman with the County Council and fire Steve Stenger (Unigov model)? Do we think it would be effective for St. Louis City to absorb certain areas of unincorporated St. Louis County (Louisville model)?

The answer is, no. We don’t. This leads me to my next point.

The myth of leadership

First of all, let’s drop this idea that our elected officials have had a meaningful impact on the destinies of the various municipalities in St. Louis. St. Louis City isn’t poor and crime ridden because of who we voted into the Board of Aldermen. Chesterfield residents are not making $96k per year on average because of their responsible Republican leadership. Throughout the 20th century, the middle class had been incentivized to move away from urban centers and into the suburbs by cheap land, federal subsidies, and the advent of the automobile. It doesn’t matter who sat in City Hall Room 200; there wasn’t anything they could do to stop this wholesale loss of financially secure families and tax revenue. I won’t even get into the macroeconomic forces and technological advances which continue to siphon money and talent away from the Rust Belt to this day, but suffice it to say that city leadership isn’t solely responsible.

The next myth that needs to be dispelled is this idea that local government is some sort of monolithic entity which is being piloted by our elected officials. The level of control that a Mayor or a Board of Aldermen has over the functioning of the government is tenuous at best. In reality, large bureaucracies are unwieldy and difficult to manage. Power gets delegated out to smaller departments. Any blame you want to place on the current struggle of St. Louis has to be distributed among the hundreds (or thousands) of competing personalities, each playing their own small part in the massive work of maintaining our civic structure.

For a consolidation to be effective, we’re not just talking about merging the top-level offices of St. Louis City with St. Louis County, or some variation of this idea. Consolidation will require the surgical integration of hundreds of governmental departments, each with different leaders, missions, and ideals. It will require the untangling of a deeply complex network of taxing districts, employee benefits, assets, and debts.

When you start to appreciate the immensity of the problem, you come to realize that this cannot be accomplished with a single vote by the MO Legislature or even a vote by the people of St. Louis.

Let’s make it worth our while

No matter what, any talk of consolidation is going to be contentious. So let’s not waste our time trying to drum up votes for an impulsive top-level consolidation or redistricting plan which might make us feel better, but won’t actually fix any problems. Let’s take a lesson from MSD’s creation in 1954 and define a unique problem, show the negative effects of this problem, and then argue why it can only be accomplished in a coordinated manner.

Here’s an idea, let’s consolidate the police service for our region. Is that contentious enough for you? Police consolidation is not completely unheard of. The watershed of crime vastly outsizes any individual municipality. It certainly doesn’t respect borderlines.

Crime rates are typically driven by a small number of people offending at a very high rate. Most of the people who live in dangerous neighborhoods are just as afraid of the crime as you are. Police seem to be most successful when they are embedded at the street level. When the Gang Units know the names, faces, and addresses of the major players, they can apply pressure in all the right places with great success. But this isn’t easy. It requires coordination: the sharing of police knowledge and resources throughout the region. Currently, we have 60 different police departments with vastly different pay scales and workloads. I don’t think our current crime problem has anything to do with not being tough enough on crime. I think it has everything to do with an ineffective police strategy and lack of sufficient street level knowledge on the part of these 60 police departments.

If we can successfully consolidate our many police departments into a single effective force, fairly and equally compensated throughout the entire region, then there’s no limit to what we can accomplish next. The debate would certainly be heated, but at least it would be limited in scope and clear on intent, unlike the many other fuzzy consolidation debates we’ve had over the last 150 years.

***

Jacob Rebe has been a North Hampton resident for 30 years. He is a graduate of Mizzou (B.A. Biological Sciences, 2010), works as a chemist, is a member on the board of the Kingshighway Hills Neighborhood Association, and writes for his website inmostcity.com.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Localism Can Only Flourish With A Competent, Generous, and Fair Federal Government

By Joe Cortright, Economist and Director of City Observatory

This column was originally published by City Observatory.

Joe Cortright cropped.jpg

In the past year, a growing chorus of voices, disillusioned by growing polarization, has called for cities to be our saviors.

There’s an understandable impulse in the face of growing national divisions and what for many was the shocking and unpleasant outcome of the 2016 national elections to retreat to a comforting cocoon of the like-minded. Blue cities will do what a Republican national government won’t do: respect LGBTQ rights, provide sanctuary for immigrants, denounce climate change, and tax themselves to pay for needed investments and public services. Butwithdrawing to the safety of agreeable blue localities cedes the important national battle when it needs to be contested most.

It is well and good to celebrate the successes that mayors and local leaders are having. But transforming these successes into a sweeping call for a new localism is misplaced when the fundamental functions of the national government are being steadily undermined. Localism doesn’t work in a world where the federal government is not simply rending holes in the safety net but knocking down its foundations.

What cities do badly or can’t do at all

Cities are ill-equipped to tackle major challenges on their own, and localism has a history of making many problems worse. Take two big issues of our time: climate change and surging inequality. Mayors and cities can demonstrate effective tactics, but they lack the policy throw-weight to solve these problems.

Bravo for mayoral pledges to adhere to the Paris accords, but there’s little substance and sufficient scale. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio can sue the oil companies, but is an ardent opponent of congestion pricing, a tangible, effective market-oriented step that would reduce the top source of greenhouse gases. It’s hard to imagine that we’ll take effective action against climate change unless it’s done at a national level in cooperation with the rest of the world. Without a federally imposed carbon tax or cap and trade, localized efforts are likely to relocate the dirtiest pollution to the most permissive states.

Similarly, inequality—which has been dramatically worsened by changes to the federal tax code—dwarfs anything cities can do. Cities are constitutionally incapable of redistributing income because the wealthy have the option of exit (which they have regularly done). Witness the exodus to suburban enclaves, a trend Robert Reich has termed the secession of the successful. Similarly, states and cities have been largely powerless to take on large corporations. Globalization moved a considerable part of corporate earnings beyond the reach of state and local tax collectors (note Apple’s relocation of its profits to Ireland thanks to U.S. tax laws), and states and cities are falling over one another to offer Amazon tax holidays and subsidies for HQ2.

Cities have also been implicated in the nation’s housing affordability and segregation problems. Local control of zoning and land use, which has been effectively exempt from federal control, has worsened the economic segregation of our nation’s metropolitan areas. In sprawling metros, separate suburban cities have leveraged land use regulation to exclude apartments, deepening the concentrated poverty that perpetuates the worst aspects of income inequality.

The root of the problem is too much localism. The most localized governments have the strongest incentives to exclude low-income groups and minorities. Suburbs within metropolitan areas do the same. Only larger units of government have the incentives and ability to challenge this kind of parochialism. Two initiatives of the Obama administration—HUD’s affirmatively furthering fair housing rule and the Council of Economic Adviser’s critique of local zoning—were important national steps pushing local governments to confront this issue. Both are going nowhere under the current administration.

We can’t take the federal government for granted

The danger is that calls to renewed localism aid and abet ongoing efforts to systematically dismantle federal programs. The clarion call to act locally diverts our political attention from the national stage and perhaps, unwittingly, becomes an excuse to stand by and watch foundational programs be destroyed.

Localism will work brilliantly—provided we have a competent, generous, fair, and functional federal government. We need a 21st century federalism that envisions strong and mutually supporting actions at both national and local levels.

For a long time, we could more or less take for granted that the federal government would, at least, keep doing what it had always done: cashing social security checks, bankrolling medical care for the poor and aged, enforcing minimum civil rights everywhere, engaging seriously with the rest of the world on global issues. Now, each of those fundamental roles is in jeopardy. If the poor lose health care, are turned out of subsidized housing, see their education prospects dim, it will add to the costs burdening states and cities. The pressure to fill in for a diminished federal presence will handicap local innovation.

Like localism? Time to fight for an effective national government

If you care about cities and believe local initiative can lead to solutions, you need to be marching on Washington and fighting for a federal government that does its job well. The hollowing out of the federal government now underway is the clearest threat to creative, effective localism. Ultimately, the magic of our federal system is that both national and local government have important and complementary roles to play. It’s not either/or. It is both/and. Innovative cities require a supportive federal government.

***

Joe Cortright is a Portland based economist and Director of City Observatory, a virtual think tank on urban policy (www.cityobservatory.org). Cortright has served as an adviser for state and city economic development efforts around the nation, and has been a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Community Development at Work: Mt. Sinai Development Corporation

Mt. Sinai Development Corporation Harnesses Local Power and Partnerships to Foster a Vibrant Community

Dennis Jackson, Executive Director of Sinai Family Life Center

Mt. Sinai Development Corporation, part of the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church in East St. Louis, has been working for decades to leverage partnerships and community strengths to increase development and opportunities for residents within their footprint. Dennis Jackson plays a lead role in Mt. Sinai’s development projects and has been an important part of the Mt. Sinai team for many years. He sees the challenges and the potential of this area that had been all but abandoned by developers and whose residents lack opportunities that many other communities take for granted. Through the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church and Development Corporation, Jackson has been instrumental in bringing a number of new developments to the area.

After spearheading the development of a senior residential facility right across the street from the church, Mt. Sinai added two low-income housing developments in the blocks around the church. They have worked to keep as many existing residents in their homes as possible—before, during and after construction—to help keep the community intact. They have also provided support for existing homeowners to renovate their homes, which they believe will help the overall value of the neighborhood. There is a great deal of work left to do for this neighborhood and Jackson is motivated and committed to doing his part.

Sinai Village Phase II affordable housing development project

Mt. Sinai was given a large building in the neighborhood in which Jackson sees a great deal of potential and believes could be a community center or other community anchor in the future. In addition to housing developments, Mt. Sinai believes it is important to provide some of the services that the residents need to thrive. Jackson and his team understand that new housing doesn’t build a community or serve all of the needs of its residents, and they place a great deal of importance on meeting those needs and nurturing that community.

Sinai Family Life Center Summer Day Camp for youth

Seeing that Mt. Sinai cannot meet all of the needs of the community alone, Jackson is currently working with a number of banks, non-profits, and other funders to seek ways to increase investment in the area. One of the big challenges for Jackson and others seeking to increase development and resources for residents in East St. Louis is securing funding, tax credits, and other development-supporting ventures in a city with little cohesion and no comprehensive plan. While East St. Louis has plans, they are not active, and many people do not know they exist. Mt. Sinaiis therefore seeking partnerships and funding to work toward a comprehensive plan that could help not just Mt. Sinai but other communities in East St. Louis.

An important partner for Jackson and Mt. Sinai is East Side Aligned, a collaborative effort to improve the lives of children in East St. Louis. Jackson strongly believes in the importance of childhood development and sees great potential in the way that East Side Aligned has been able to bring together a number of different organizations and people involved with helping children.

The East St. Louis community and its residents have come a long way in the past couple of decades. While many challenges remain, Mt. Sinai Development Corporation is ready to tackle them while improving the well-being of their residents.

Written by Kathleen Redmon, CBN Practicum Student

Technology Can Make the Housing Market More Transparent, but it Won’t Solve Every Problem

By Dustin McKissen, Vice President of Entrepreneurship and Marketing for EDC Business and Community Partners

Dustin McKissen.jpg

When I was 4 years old, my dad lost his job as a welder. My mom’s morning shifts at McDonald’s and afternoon paper routes delivering the South Idaho Press weren’t enough to keep our home. We ended up living with my grandmother, in a tent, in a trailer, and finally in a rented house so infested with mice and bats that my brother, parents, and I all lived injust one room.

The second house my parents lost to foreclosure was a cabin my dad built, literally with his own two hands, in the mountains 30 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah. Losing that home broke my parents. Their marriage didn’t survive, and in many ways, they didn’t survive. My mom struggled with an off-and-on painkiller addiction until she died in 2014, and my dad struggled with his own addiction issues for years.

My parents losing the only two homes they ever owned strongly shaped my childhood. The insane housing market of the 2000s and the collapse that followed also had a big impact on my young adulthood. These experiences are the reason I’m interested in the housing market and the effect housing policy has on people, neighborhoods, and the economy.

And very few (if any) cities have been shaped by housing policy as much as St. Louis has.

When my wife and I moved here almost five years ago, we chose to live in St. Charles simply because we could get a lot of house for the price, and I liked the idea of riding my bike or walking to a historic Main Street. When we chose St. Charles, I thought I was moving to the part of St. Louis that worked best for my family. I had no idea I was planting my flag in a bitter regional economic and racial divide.

That divide has many of its roots in housing policy. St. Louis, I learned, has a long and awful history of discriminatory housing policies that have helped keep specific communities impoverished for decades.

Some of the discriminatory housing practices and policies that have shaped our region share a common trait with the housing practices and policies that nearly destroyed the economy a decade ago:

A lack of transparency.

When lenders and federal housing officials redline specific neighborhoods, or lenders and federally insured bankers create complex mortgages that leave buyers with little to no understanding of harsh loan terms, it allows powerful institutions to take advantage of buyers by leveraging a lack of transparency. And the buyers getting taken advantage of almost always come from underrepresented groups.

Economists have a term to describe practices like the ones mentioned above. “Information asymmetry” exists in transactions where one side has more information than the other and abuses that advantage. Information asymmetry is practically a fundamental feature of the housing market, especially when it comes to transactions with low-income buyers.

One way to help reduce information asymmetry is with technology. A friend of mine, Bryan Bowles, is the founder of a St. Charles-based startup called Transactly. Bryan’s company is a digital platform that puts all the communication and documents that occur in a typical home sale in one easy-to-access place.

Tools like Transactly will make the housing market more transparent, and a transparent market is both more efficient and harder to abuse. Transactly has also positioned itself as a competitive advantage for agents, meaning buyers will hopefully choose to use agents who use the platform. It’s exactly the sort of market-based solution policymakers love to see. It’s introducing more transparency as a business advantage, not as a legal or regulatory requirement.

However, technology alone will not create a fairer and more equitable housing market.

No matter what you read, blockchain, bitcoin, or any other technology of the moment is not going to solve all our problems. Innovations in the housing sector can be easily abused. After all, no-down-payment mortgages and mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were innovations, and look how that turned out. Tech innovation must be coupled with policy that recognizes housing as not just a fundamental right, but a fundamental building block to a strong economy. I work in economic development and I actively participated in the effort to attract Amazon. However, our metropolitan area will not become the chosen destination for companies like Amazon until we start making a better attempt to fix historical inequities, many of which are rooted in housing policy.

Policymakers also must recognize that the economic inequality that defines our region isn’t a product of the free market. Rather, the drastic differences in wealth, educational opportunities, and even lifespan facing St. Louis area communities located just minutes from each other are the unnatural outcomes of predatory and discriminatory policies.

The economic inequality perpetuated by the St. Louis housing market will only be fixed with policies and programs that are specifically designed to fix inequities. Once that happens, technology can play an important role in making the housing market fair and lucrative for everyone involved—including homeowners from historically unrepresented communities.

***

Dustin McKissen is the Vice President of Entrepreneurship and Marketing for EDC Business and Community Partners. He is also a columnist for VentureBeat, Inc., Entrepreneur Quarterly, and CNBC, and a two-time LinkedIn Top Voice on management and culture. Prior to his work with the EDC, Dustin was a strategy and communications consultant for financial services, real estate, and economic development organizations. He holds a bachelors in public policy from Prescott College and a masters in public management from Northern Arizona University.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

St. Louis Gun Buyback: Good Enough?

By Mike Wiley, Student of Public Policy at the University of Chicago

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Wiley_Mike cropped resized.jpg

City officials and community organizers seem to agree: Last month’s gun buyback program in St. Louis was an undeniable success. And they’re right, mostly. After collecting more than 800 handguns and rifles in a single afternoon at the Omega Center, program directors should be proud. More specifically, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis and other groups that raised the $125,000 to pay for the program should be proud.

It is important to remember, however, that this initiative was a response to the 205 murders that occurred in St. Louis last year, the highest number the city has seen in two decades. It was the belief of Mayor Lyda Krewson and others that taking guns off the street will lower the rate of gun violence. But there’s more to it than that. It’sabout taking the right guns from the right people.

Due to the no-questions-asked nature of the buyback, it’s tough to gather a comprehensive profile of its participants, but two things are clear. First, some of the guns came from people who did not live in the city. For example, the Post-Dispatch talked to Kent Oxman, who came to the event looking to sell a dozen guns, even though he works and lives in St. Charles County. Second, and perhaps a more obvious point, these aren’t the right guns. These were unused guns that came from dusty attics and old garages, not from the hands of criminals.

Put simply, county residents aren’t flocking to the city to murder people with old guns. It is unlikely that the city will see a significant dip in the murder rate this year, at least not because of last month’s efforts.

None of this is to say that the buyback was a failure. It did one thing: It sent a strong message that St. Louisans are ready to get serious on the issue of gun violence. Sadly, the same can’t be said for the state in which they live. The people responsible for the buyback—the people who put up flyers, spread the word, raised money—these people have been failed by Missouri politics.

Missouri has proven itself to be a pro-gun state. As if its lax gun laws weren’t evidence enough, its current governor was elected after airing ads showing him firing a machine gun into a lake. By now, residents of St. Louis have gotten used to the fact that they’re living in a deeply red state.

St. Louis’ buyback program did a lot with what it had. It was entirely funded by private groups. In fact, private donations were the only way to circumvent a 2013 state law requiring guns from buybacks to be sold to gun dealers, completely defeating the purpose of any program. Had the city funded the buyback, the state would have forced it to put these guns back into circulation.

If, as predicted, this buyback isn’t successful in lowering the number of gun deaths, it won’t be the city’s fault. The blame will fall on the state politicians who have the power to fight gun violence and instead do nothing. It needs to be harder to obtain a firearm in the state of Missouri. Plain and simple.

What’s the first step? Politicians—especially the kind who like to fire machine guns into lakes—need to recognize that a St. Louis death is a Missouri death. As long as urban Missouri has a gun problem, rural Missouri has a gun problem. It’s up to the state to fix the state’s problems.

As long as the solution is left to private donations, as long as the city is left alone to deal with problems that are much too large, this gun buyback might be the best that can be done. Next year, when we’re looking at number of murders in St. Louis, maybe we’ll be able to answer the question: Was it good enough?

***

Mike Wiley was raised in south St. Louis, where he attended St. Louis U. High. He’s currently in his second year at the University of Chicago, where he studies Public Policy with an emphasis in urban issues.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

CDBG: How HUD Offers a Hand Up

By Heidi Aggeler, Managing Director with BBC Research & Consulting

This column was originally published in the American Planning Association Housing and Community Development Division newsletter.

Heidi-Aggeler-1-300x300.jpg

The poster child—or, um, poster senior?—of news articles expressing concern over the President’s proposed cuts to HUD was a little old lady receiving her lunch from Meals on Wheels.

The chance that the President’s budget could take away that little old lady’s lunch led to a great debate about whether or not Meals on Wheels—and similar programs—could survive without the Community Development Block Grant, or CDBG, which is currently on the chopping block. Not to worry, say many conservatives: Meals onWheels and other similar programs would likely be continued through private sector donations.

And that may be true. The private sector is very good at providing charitable, Hand Out, programs. Giving money to the disadvantaged makes people and business owners feel good. It’s also pretty good PR. There is a decent chance the private sector will step in and continue programs like Meals on Wheels—at least until another cause catches their attention.

Those arguing for elimination of CDBG also say that it isn’t effective in providing services to the most needy. One of the reasons that this may be true is because federal regulations limit the amount of CDBG that can be used for charitable programs to 15 percent of total funds. CDBG isn’t a major player in Hand Out programming simply because it isn’t allowed to be.

So…if CDBG isn’t really in the Hand Out business, what exactly does CDBG do? The real value in CDBG in its Hand Up effect.

By “Hand Up” I mean the infrastructure that leads positive economic outcomes. Outcomes like better educated and well trained workers. Stable housing. Safe neighborhoods. Thriving rural Main Streets.

In this realm, the public sector is simply better equipped than the private sector. Although the private sector has good intentions, the PR benefits of influencing the hot issue of the day far outweigh the practical side of community needs. Should I fund a program that provides computers to children of new immigrants or make façade improvements to Main Street in rural Indiana? The former is much more newsworthy.

We have all needed a Hand Up at some point in our lives. Think about that teacher, coach, parent, neighbor, admissions committee member. Someone believed in us at some point in time and, because of this, we believed in ourselves. Ben Carson had his mother; Barack Obama had his grandparents; Donald Trump had dad. Many children don’t benefit from family support and need to find this elsewhere—through an afterschool computer programming class, or by connecting with a mentor at a community center.

How does CDBG provide a Hand Up? Across the country, CDBG has funded the construction of community centers for at-risk youth, early childhood education centers, and education and training facilities—all places where the connections happen that deliver Hand Ups. In rural areas, CDBG funds the public infrastructure improvements that lead to economic development and support the longevity of small towns—a Hand Up. CDBG provides loans to small business owners to jump start their expansion. Hand Up.

CDBG is also responsible for the existence of housing and community planning departments across the U.S. This is not an area where the private sector will—or should—take the lead.

The civil servants who work for these departments worry about the things that are key to all of the things we value in America—safe, stable housing, good schools, economic achievement. They make sure that police officers and teachers can afford to buy a home, that quality schools are available throughout a community, that persons with disabilities have the same access to community amenities as those who are fully-abled. These are the real reasons that communities change for the better and that people can access economic opportunity.

HUD doesn’t exactly have a stellar reputation for creating programs that lead to positive economic outcomes…once there was redlining, and concentrating public housing.

Yet in CDBG—HUD has this one right.

***

Heidi Aggeler is a Managing Director with BBC Research & Consulting and leads the firm’s housing practice. Ms. Aggeler has more than 16 years of experience conducting economic analyses of housing markets. She is a nationally recognized expert in fair housing research and has managed the completion of several high-profile fair housing studies.

Prior to joining BBC, Ms. Aggeler worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis where she researched economic conditions for the Ninth District of the Federal Reserve System. Before joining the Fed, Ms. Aggeler conducted fair lending audits of financial institutions for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Ms. Aggeler has been invited to speak about her work at conferences held by HUD, the American Planning Association (APA), the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Ms. Aggeler is a current member of the Denver Planning Board.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Governor Takes the Money, But Not the Politics, Out of Tax Credit Program

By Stacy Jurado-Miller, Chief Mission Officer/Developer and Co-Founder at the Vecino Group

This column was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Stacy Jurado-Miller.png

On Nov. 17, Gov. Eric Greitens and six out of eight members of the Missouri Housing Development Commission moved to eliminate state low-income housing tax credits. They did it outside of the legislative process. They did it with unconfirmed commissioners. They did it after almost an entire year of inaction regarding the creation of new affordable housing.

As a company, the Vecino Group debated how to react. We knew that speaking out against the actions of the governor and commissioners could be career suicide. One of the problems with Missouri is that these tax credits are awarded without a point system. The commission is made up of the state’s top elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. With political influence potentially affecting which housing deals are funded and whichdeals are not, the safe move is to curry political favor, hold back on criticism, and stay quiet.

But safe isn’t always right.

In eliminating the state low-income housing tax credit, the governor talked about ending “politics as usual.” What he moved to end, though, is funding. He kept the politics completely intact.

Nowhere in his statement on ending the tax credits did the governor present an alternative plan for addressing affordable housing needs in Missouri. That alone is a red herring. There are 28,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing at the St. Louis Public Housing Authority. In Kansas City, there are 1,600 homeless people and a two- to three-year waiting list at the KC Public Housing Authority. All across Missouri, rents are rising, housing inventory is shrinking, and vast swaths of our neighbors are one stroke of bad luck away from living on the streets. Nearly every mayor in Missouri stands united in opposing the elimination of the tax credits.

A few things deserve light and transparency in this situation:

  • The commission proposed no changes to eliminate potential political influence from the funding process. Almost all states, except Missouri, allocate their low-income housing tax credits via a point system. A scoring rubric is published in advance, applications are analyzed and scored according to the published rubric, and all scores are posted on state agency websites for public viewing. In Missouri, there is no point system. No one every really knows why a deal was or was not funded. Some of the MHDC commissioners are elected officials. Elected officials receive donations. The whole thing is rife with the potential for influence and a lack of transparency.

  • Creating a point system also allows the state to prioritize what type of housing it wants, proactively meeting the most pressing housing needs. This ensures the quantifiable results Greitens says are missing from the current program.

  • If this tax credit program is eliminated, another funding source will be needed to bridge the funding gap for permanent supportive housing. The draft qualified application plan still prioritizes housing for homeless veterans and people with developmental disabilities. Without tax credits or an alternate form of supplemental funding, though, it will be impossible to create the extremely low rents and supportive services required for supportive housing. This alternative should be determined before the tax credit program is eliminated.

  • Changes to the tax credit program are to be determined by the Legislature, as per the Missouri Constitution. The events of Nov. 17 violated legislative process. Additionally, Commissioner Jason Crowell, who brought forth the plan to eliminate tax credit program, was quickly appointed by Gov. Greitens and has not been approved by the state Senate.

  • The Missouri Housing Development Commission has failed to act on a state-approved notice of funding availability issued in 2016 for a 4 percent bond funding round. The notice solicited applications for housing applications, with funding decisions expected in March. It is now December and nothing has happened. The applications received were never even posted on the website. Though a new administration might look toward future changes, when Missouri issues such a notice and businesses spend time and money to respond, the notice should be executed.

The best governance is transparent, honest and inclusive. Affordable housing is too important to merit anything less.

***

Prone to toothy smiles and passionate causes, Stacy Jurado-Miller brought the greater good mission to the Springfield, Missouri-based Vecino Group and maintains its focus today. As a Co-Founder and a Supportive Housing Developer, she’s grateful to make a living through social activism. She’s also grateful for fine-waiving day at the library, morning workouts, and any weekend that doesn’t involve a kid birthday party.

***

Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

We invite readers to contribute to the civic conversation about community development in St. Louis by writing an op-ed for the Community Builders Exchange. Op-eds should be short (400-700 words) and provocative. If you have an idea for an op-ed, contact Todd Swanstrom at swanstromt@umsl.edu.

Community Development at Work: The St. Louis CDFI Coalition

The St. Louis CDFI Coalition: Investing for Equity

St. Louis CDFI Coalition member organization representatives

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) were created by the Department of the Treasury to serve communities that traditional financial institutions overlook. Mission-driven and financially flexible, CDFIs invest in communities with low incomes, the nonprofits that serve them, and small business entrepreneurs.

Many associate CDFIs with client-specific financial services, but CDFIs also help entire communities thrive with investments that expand access to opportunity. Local CDFIs have been key to connecting St. Louis’ underserved communities to critical resources, including healthcare, healthy foods, quality education, and affordable homes.

The St. Louis CDFI Coalition was formed in 2015 to help build a more equitable St. Louis through deep, creative systems-level investments. More specifically, the Coalition seeks to address the Ferguson Commission Report’s Calls to Action, which outlined greater investment in local CDFIs as a critical strategy to advancing racial equity in the region. The Coalition’s current members include Alliance Credit UnionGateway CDFIIFFInternational Institute CDCJustine Petersen, and St. Louis Community Credit Union, with two new organizational members expected in 2018.

The Coalition’s micro-lenders offer critical capital to growing small businesses in low-income and immigrant communities. The group’s real estate lenders support nonprofits and grocery stores and transform vacant buildings into affordable homes. Credit union members build wealth and credit for low-income individuals. Collectively, the Coalition’s work serves constituents on both an individual and collective level, from their most personal needs to the physical and economic infrastructures necessary to ensure their communities thrive.

CDFIs also invest in specific issue areas. For instance, IFF has managed two Healthy Food Financing Initiatives, designed to increase the financial resources and technical assistance available for businesses and nonprofits to open grocery stores in communities without fresh, healthy foods. Proactive investments like these fundamentally shift the feedback loop that governs a system’s rules and dynamics: they create jobs in economically distressed places, empower residents financially, and support better health outcomes for entire populations.

The CDFI Coalition believes that development for community benefit is a systemic effort, and that CDFIs can and must serve individuals and nonprofits while also investing in key elements that underpin the systems in which they live and operate. The Ferguson Commission Report calls for CDFIs and other community institutions to apply both approaches to push St. Louis toward a state of racial equity. The CDFI Coalition leverages the Report’s road map to guide its individual and collective investments and plans to continue deepening its engagement with the Calls to Action in 2018.

Below are photos from the CDFI Coalition’s strategic planning session in September 2017.

If you’d like to learn more about what the CDFI Coalition is doing, please feel free to reach out to one of the Coalition staff members or one of the member organizations below.

Coalition Staff

CBN
Gary Newcomer, Community Development Specialist
gary@communitybuildersstl.org

IFF
Breigh Montgomery, Associate
bmontgomery@iff.org

Member Organizations

Alliance Credit Union
Frank Evans, VP – Human Resources
fevans@alliancecu.com

Gateway CDFI
Colleen Hafner, Asset Manager
colleenhafner@slefi.com

IFF
David Desai-Ramirez, Executive Director – Southern Region
ddesairamirez@iff.org

International Institute CDC
Diego Abente, VP & Director
abented@iistl.org

Justine PETERSEN
Galen Gondolfi, Chief Communications Officer
ggondolfi@justinepetersen.org

St. Louis Community Credit Union
Maria Langston, AVP – Community Development
maria.langston@stlouiscommunity.com

Written by Breigh Montgomery, Associate at IFF