Community Development Corporations: What They Are, How They Work, and How One Could Save La Crosse Neighborhoods

Community Development Corporations:
What they are, how they work,
and how one could save La Crosse neighborhoods.
ANDREW LONDRE
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS:

WHAT THEY ARE, HOW THEY WORK, AND HOW ONE COULD SAVE LA CROSSE NEIGHBORHOODS
By: ANDREW LONDRE
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Acknowledgments:
The author thanks the many individuals and organizations who have contributed to the cause of creating strong neighborhoods in La Crosse as well as those who have done a tremendous amount of research on this topic, much of which is included in the research that follows: La Crosse City Planning staff, La Crosse County Economic Development staff, the Joint City-County Housing Task Force, Couleecap, Habitat for Humanity, Gundersen Lutheran, the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood Association, the Neighborhood Revitalization Commission, Livable Neighborhoods and many others. The author also especially thanks La Crosse County Administrator, Steve OMalley, La Crosse County Community Development Specialist, Brian Fukuda, La Crosse County UW-Extension Agent Karl Green, and La Crosse County Planner, Charlie Handy for exposing him to the cause of neighborhood revitalization and for their tireless work to improve La Crosse neighborhoods.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Contents
Acknowledgments: ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Development Corporations ................................................................................................................10 Funding Sources ...............................................................................................................................................................14 Organization Structure ..................................................................................................................................................17 The Board of Directors .........................................................................................................................................17 Staffing ........................................................................................................................................................................18 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................................19 Housing is the bread and butter of CDCS ...................................................................................................20 Best Practices .....................................................................................................................................................................22 Walk first... then run ..............................................................................................................................................22 Remove The Worst of The Worst .................................................................................................................23 Case Study / Needs Assessment: Powell-Hood-Hamilton ..............................................................................25 STUDY AREA: .....................................................................................................................................................................28 Case Study Introduction ......................................................................................................................................28 Challenges/Needs/Opportunity Assessment of ........................................................................................29 Powell-Hood-Hamilton ........................................................................................................................................29 Can a CDC Save La Crosse Neighborhoods by Breaking The Cycle of Urban Decline? .......................46 Next Steps:...........................................................................................................................................................................47 Establish a CDC in La Crosse to work in the Powell-Hood-Hamilton and Washburn Neighborhoods rather than city-wide .........................................................................................................47 Model for Success: Phillips Neighborhood - Minneapolis, MN .....................................................................48 Conclusion based on research ....................................................................................................................................54
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Introduction
For more than a decade, there has been interest in establishing a special non-profit organization called a community development corporation (CDC) in La Crosse, Wisconsin as a way to reinvigorate underserved and underperforming neighborhoods in the city. Past attempts have stalled as they hit a number of roadblocks. Now, a decade later, there is a new effort afoot to establish a CDC in La Crosse. The new interest comes from a long list of compounding events starting with the release of UW-Extension agent, Karl Greens Challenging Trends report coauthored by La Crosse County Administrator Steve OMalley which painted a frightening picture of housing conditions in the city of La Crosse. Among the alarming figures Green put on display was data that showed a staggering two thirds of residential properties in the city of La Crosse valued at under $100,000 as of 2009. By contrast, at the same time, the city of Onalaska just north of La Crosse boasted a housing market where more than two thirds of its properties are valued at above $100,000; essentially, an inverted picture of La Crosse housing conditions. But what seemed to get everyones attention was Greens explanation of how these housing values have impacted local property tax rates. Green explained that the citys failure to stabilize housing values has sent property tax bills through the roof because as the report explained, Spreading the municipal services of a community the size of La Crosse is challenging, but when the majority of the Citys housing
structures are low value you have very little value to distribute the burden of the city services [Green, 2010]. While there had been many past attempts at sounding the alarm about these issues, it was not until Greens report that the broader public took notice. Shortly after Green began presenting his findings to local policymakers and community leaders, the city of La Crosse and La Crosse County, established the Joint City-County Housing Task Force, which was a public/private task force of industry professionals and City and County elected officials that convened to discuss the issues that are pulling the City of La Crosses housing market down [Housing Task Force, 2011]. After more than seven months of meetings, that group released their report which described in great detail how La Crosse neighborhoods had fallen so far and struggled so greatly to recover. Most importantly though, the group offered a number of policy options available to lawmakers and community members to improve local housing conditions. Among the highest recommended solutions were two strategies to pool private investments for the purposes of neighborhood revitalization. While neither recommendation specifically referenced a community development corporation (CDC), as this research will eventually explain, the pooling of resources is at the heart of what has made CDCs so effective in so many cities across the United States. The final paragraph of the report was dedicated to the city of La Crosses Neighborhood Revitalization Commission. Specifically, it stated that The logical
governmental entity that should be able to pick up this report and continue this work is the City of La Crosse Neighborhood Revitalization Commission (NRC) [Housing Task Force Final Report, 2011]. The LNRC was established by city ordinance in the mid-1990s but had not met until shortly after the conclusion of the Housing Task Force in 2011. That body now meets regularly once a month and has made great progress at elevating the issue of neighborhood revitalization as a city priority, both in terms of public policy and in within the citys budgetary process. In 2012, the NRC helped begin to set up a framework for future neighborhood improvements through a number of strategies. They began the year by making several budgetary requests to the citys capital improvement budget, including $50,000 for a city-wide paint and fix-up program to help incentivize homeowners to put a fresh coat of paint on their property where needed or to fix a part of their home that has fallen into a state of disrepair. Additionally, the NRC was successful in getting $250,000 into the citys capital improvement budget for a new program called Reinvest La Crosse which will provide sizable grants to property owners who make specific home improvements that will create additional tax-base for the city.
The LNRC also engaged local residents in a number of social activities to build support for neighborhood revitalization and to help bring neighbors together. Events included five individual neighborhood walk-throughs which offered community members a chance to tour various parts of La Crosse with city staff and neighborhood leaders to see the opportunities and challenges of each neighborhood up close. The walkthroughs were generally well attended and well received. So too were the more traditional get-togethers held in each defined city neighborhood. Again, these gatherings gave the community an opportunity to come together to empower local residents and increase neighborhood networking. Members and supporters also engaged in a number of gardening projects in public spaces. The NRC also helped shape local ordinances, such as the citys revised garbage ordinance, and they also spent a considerable amount of time developing a comprehensive action plan. Included in that action plan is the number one
5 months June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 December 2013 January 2013 March 2013 April 2013 October 2010 9 months June 2011 7 months December 2011 3 months February 2012
8
The Long Road to a La Crosse CDC
Karl Green begins presenting his Challenging Trends report ... Joint City County Housing Task Force begins meeting ... Joint City County Housing Task Force finishes meeting & report ... La Crosse Neighborhood Revitalization Commission (LNRC) begins monthly meetings ... First stakeholders meeting to discuss forming a CDC Second stakeholders meeting to discuss forming a CDC Third stakeholders meeting to discuss forming a CDC LNRC releases Action Plan including forming a CDC First public meeting ofPHH Neighborhood - Campus Plan Concept presentation PHH Neighborhood - Campus Plan Final PHH-GL Campus Plan presented including forming a CDC PHH-GL Campus Plan Approved by La Cross governing bodies
Whats next?
Figure 1
long-term goal to Establish a Community Development Corporation (NRC, 2013). Finally, it is hard to overstate the importance of the Powell-Hood-Hamilton (PHH) Joint Neighborhood-Campus Plan. This plan was a result of numerous public meetings involving PHH residents and stakeholders, as well as a huge amount of work done on the part of the team of consultants at Perkins+Will and La Crosse City Planning staff. The final document included a number of recommendations to improving the natural and built environments of the PHH neighborhood ranging from streetscaping on major corridors, to improved access to La Crosses extensive and underutilized southern waterways such as Isle Le Plume and the Coleman Slough. These projects, along with park improvements, alley paving, and many other items, will be funded through a tax incremental financing district (TID). However, because Gundersen Lutheran has agreed to pay a very sizable portion of these projects, the establishment of a joint development corporation (JDC) was included in the developers agreement as well as the final plan. A JDC is different from a CDC in that the JDC will be designed to be focused on those public infrastructure improvements, whereas a CDC will focus primarily on improving housing conditions in PHH and likely Washburn as well. Now that an understanding of what has been done recently to build support for establishing a CDC in La Crosse has been established, let us now dive deeper into CDCs. The following section will explain in more detail what CDCs are, what is their
10
typical scope of work, what challenges do they commonly face, and what are some of the important nuts and bolts of CDCs?
Community Development Corporations

A Community Development Corporation (CDC) is a non-profit organization structured to provide economic and real estate services for an otherwise underserved or under-performing defined geographic region. Perkins+Will, 2013
Generally, CDCs are 501(c)3 non profit corporations with a board of directors and a small staff. Common-Wealth.org, a clearing house of information about community development strategies like CDCs, describes CDCs as community-based organizations that anchor capital locally through the development of both residential and commercial property, ranging from affordable housing to shopping centers and even businesses. They further state that, An industry survey published in 2006 found that 4,600 CDCs promote community economic stability by developing over 86,000 units of affordable housing and 8.75 million square feet of commercial and industrial space a year and that, No sector of the expanding community wealth-building economy is more celebrated for its success than community development corporations (CDCs). From humble beginnings, the CDC movement today has grown to an estimated 4,600 CDCs spread throughout all 50 states and in nearly every major city (Commonwealth.org).
11
What makes CDCs so unique is that, while their bread and butter is in housing and real estate development and redevelopment, they also offer the flexibility needed to address other issues common to poor neighborhoods. As a result, it is common for these organizations to go beyond housing projects and provide additional resources such as support for small businesses and entrepreneurs or social services like daycare or leadership trainings. An additional unique quality of CDCs is that they are non-profit development entities. Generally, when one thinks of a typical property developer, we associate that practice as one that is driven purely by profit and is considered successful by the amount of profits they can generate in a given year. By contrast, CDCs are motivated primarily by improvements to a defined geographic area and measures success in their ability to address the needs and challenges of that defined area. Another important and unique role of CDCs is their ability to promote reinvestment by communicating accurate market information to investors and by demonstrating, through clear projects, that neighborhoods are market-worthy (Urban Institute, 2002). But what seems to be the most important role of a CDC is to be the voice of the community they serve. The importance and value of actively insuring that existing residents of a CDCs targeted area are involved in every step of the process cannot be overstated.
12
CDCs make changes happen and change can be frightening to a lot of people, even if the changes seem so clearly positive to anyone from the outside looking in. A perfect example of this is a recent event in La Crosse. For decades, the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood - which will be the focus of a case study later on in this research had struggled with rises and falls in crime rates. But more than anything, many would argue, it has struggled with a negative stigma associated with a shooting that occurred at Hood Park more than 20 years ago. That shooting, combined with the unfortunate connation with the word hood has maintained a persistent cloud over the whole neighborhood. From the outside looking in, renaming the park seemed to be a quick, easy, positive change for the neighborhood which is why it has been suggested by countless La Crosse local government officials and community leaders for many years. Seeing an opportunity to help improve the neighborhood, the La Crosse City Planning department twice approached the PHH Neighborhood Association with resolutions to support changing to the name of the park to something with a more positive connation. Twice the city officials were rebuffed. Residents gave a wide array of reasons for why they wanted to keep the name, but it would seem that the underlying reason why they did not like the idea of a name change was because they were never involved in the process that led up to such a big change until they were asked to vote on it. As a result, they were not invested in it and pushed back. That was until the city changed their approach.
13
In February of 2013, no more than a year after the neighborhood association voted overwhelmingly to keep the name Hood Park the same organization, this time with a much bigger crowd of roughly 50 attendees, voted unanimously in favor of changing the name of the park from Hood Park to Poage Park after the first black athlete to medal in the Olympics who grew up in La Crosse. The difference? This time the neighbors were involved, invested, and inspired. This time it was something they wanted, not something someone else wanted for them. That is the only way change is going to happen in neighborhoods like PHH and that is the kind of work CDCs are great at. To summarize, CDCs are non-profit corporations whose driving motivation is to improve neighborhood conditions of a defined geographic area through real estate development, communicating and improving market conditions, sometimes through social services and other programming, but always by involving the residents within the geographic area the CDC serves.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Funding Sources
Neighborhood revitalization is an expensive endeavor.
14
For example, when one factors in property procurement, site preparation, and the cost to build a single home, the Citys Housing Replacement program almost always ends with the city losing money in the process. Project Component (Example) Property Procurement Cost to Build New House Sold For Net Loss / Gain Cost (Example) ($35,000) ($150,000) $125,000 ($60,000)
Table 1 CDCs across the US rely on aggressive fundraising and creative budgets in order to ensure fiscal solvency. Table 2 shows some, but not all, of these sources.
Funding Source Source Description / Explanation
Gifts and Bequests.
Private parties are eligible for tax deductions for donations made to a nonprofit. Funding and/or assets can be gifted to the CDC, and the contributors can reduce their tax obligations in accordance with the tax code. (Payne, 2012) "CDCs can take advantage of tax credits because they are a substantial provider of affordable workforce housing. Newmarket tax credits are a relatively new financing mechanism available to a CDC. For CDCs that establish for-profit subsidiaries, limited liability companies or partnerships may be eligible for equity investments by new-market tax credit investors. To structure the use of these funds the CDC extends loans to qualified local businesses, which are then eligible for tax allocation credit to be purchased by private investors. Frequently, financing supported by these tax credits can have a net effect of reducing the costs of project funds by 150 basis points, or 1.5 percent. For example, the cost of a loan could be reduced to 5.5 percent from 7.0 percent. The formation of CDEs represents a unique opportunity for CDCs to partner with private investors, cities, financial institutions and developers for specific projects. (Payne, 2012)
Tax Credits and Community Development Entities
15
Enterprise Loans. "this revenue source consists of housing and economic development loan funds, which are self-sustaining through the collection of principal and interest from borrowers. This funding source can also include private lender proceeds."
(Payne, 2012)
Income and Asset "Funding secured through loan repayments, property Management ownership, development participation and ongoing property Funds. management is available to CDCs." (Payne, 2012)
Foundations
Foundations are one of the most common funding sources for CDCs. There are a great many charitable foundations in La Crosse like the Community Foundation, the Franke Foundation, and many others in addition to the large number of national community development foundations such as: Enterprise Community, Fannie Mae, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Living Cities, many many more There are a number of local funding government funding sources in La Crosse that a CDC could draw from, including: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Tax Incremental Financing, Architectural and Engineering Analysis (A&E), Small Business Development Loans (SBDL), Upper Floor Renovation Loans (UFRL) Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA), Wisconsins WORKnet, Wisconsin Historical Society, Forward Wisconsin Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Economic Development Administration, Community Development Financial Institutions New Market Tax Credits, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and HOME funds, Environmental Protection Agencys brownfield development fund, US Department of Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) funds, credits for community development entities (CDE)
Table 2
Government Funds (Local) La Crosse Specifically
Government Funds (State) Wisconsin Specifically Government Funds (National)
CDCs shine brightest when they coordinate simultaneous investments and pool together funding from a number of sources. For instance, a CDC that wants to fund a
16
sizable mixed-use development project would not rely on just one of the above funding sources, they would draw from several of those sources as well as traditional funding methods such as loans from banks. A good example of a CDC using a number of sources of non-traditional capital to fund a development project is the Northwest Side CDCs construction of the Midtown Center in Milwaukee. That project was the result of the Northwest Side CDC pooling together funds from a Milwaukee-based national real estate firm, Boulder Venture, Inc., and a major investor, the Canyon-Johnson Urban Fund based in Los Angeles, and by attaining tax incremental financing. In other words, the Northwest Side CDC did not just go to a bank and ask for a loan, they brought together a committed group of funding partners and executed a plan that resulted in a new town center on the site of an abandoned shopping mall and features restaurants and community meeting venues such as a Magic Johnson-owned Starbucks (National Housing Institute, 2013). One can also look at the long list of development projects in the Phillips neighborhood in Minneapolis as examples of the utilization of a number of funding sources to achieve spectacular results. The story of the Phillips Neighborhood will be the focus of a case study later in this report.
17
Collaborative funding is entirely possible in La Crosse and is exactly what will be needed to see large-scale redevelopment occur in underperforming neighborhoods and retail zones.
Organizational Structure
As previously mentioned, a CDC is a non-profit organization with a board of directors and a small staff.
T HE B OARD OF D IRECTORS
In 2010 the City of Roseville, California decided to form a CDC to revitalize a neglected commercial district. Because of the way CDCs are regulated in the state of California, it was up to the city council to appoint the CDCs board of directors. This will not be the case in La Crosse. Nevertheless, their board is made up of just five community members with development, financing, and/or business operations experience. By contrast, the How to Organize A Community Development Corporation manual referenced at the beginning of this document suggests that at least 51% of the Board must be elected directly by area residents who are members of the CDC and should serve a three year term. Based on these approaches a better approach may be to simply get the blessing of whichever neighborhood associations fall within the boundaries of the eventual La Crosse CDC. In 2002, La Crosse City Planner Larry Kirch suggested in a Powerpoint presentation that a La Crosse CDC Board of Directors have representation from neighborhood
18
residents, institutions, foundations and non-profits, financial institutions, private businesses, government, economic development officials. According to Mtamanika Youngblood, President & CEO of Sustainable Neighborhood Development Strategies, Inc., Board Chair and former President and Executive Director of the wildly successful Historic-District Development Corporation in Atlanta Georgia, board members should bring one or more of the three Ws to the table: 1) Work Ethic 2) Wisdom 3) Wealth Youngblood also said in a phone interview for this research paper that the most important quality for CDC leadership to offer is energy and vision. This she says is true for both board members and staff positions also. Once a Board is assembled, staffing is the next concern.
S TAFFING
In Roseville their CDC has four paid staff positions: 1. Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 2. Vice President of Development 3. Chief Financial Officer (CFO), 4. Administrative assistant.
19
Kirch suggested in his 2002 Powerpoint an annual operating budget of $185,000 $200,000 to pay for an executive director, housing specialist, and an administrative assistant as well as general overhead costs. Whatever number of staff positions a La Crosse CDC can eventually afford, it will be important that the board maneuver the hiring process carefully and hire an executive director with as much energy and vision as qualifications, because without these two qualities to make the many projects in La Crosse neighborhoods happen they will not.
Scope of Work
The work of improving a neighborhood can seem incredibly daunting, and biting off more than an organization can chew before they even start eating can be paralyzing. Often times CDCs become bogged down before they even get started by overwhelming themselves with their desires to solve every problem a neighborhood faces. By and large though, the work done by CDCs fall under three general categories: 1. Housing development 2. Economic development 3. Social development A study produced by the Urban Institute in 1999 surveyed 163 CDCs and put specific numbers to the question of what do CDCs do?
20
Percent of CDCs Engaging in Various Activities Activity Type % Housing Development Planning and Organizing Homeownership Programs Commercial and Business Development Workforce and Youth Programs Community Facilities Open Space
Table 3
94 80 69 60 55 45 29
H OUSING IS THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF CDCS

The data in Table 1 shows that nearly every CDC engages in some form of housing development and there are a number of reasons why. 1. Visibility / Spillover Housing improvements, unlike social services or people building activates, are highly visible. Good and bad housing is clear to see and a reflection of the whole neighborhood. CDC programs that rehabilitate dilapidated properties and vacant lots create a more attractive physical environment within a neighborhood. In some cases, CDC housing programs have other immediate effects, as when rehabilitation of deteriorated properties remove havens for illegal activites. These efforts have spillover effects: the quality of ones home is affected by the condition of surrounding properties Economists refer to this phenomenon as an externality (Urban Institute, 2005) 2. Sends a message In areas where economic activates have stagnated, improvements to dilapidated housing conditions send a message to investors big and small that progress is being made and that investing in a formerly rundown area is now less of a risk. CDC housing programs help promote investment in underserved areas by communicating market information that helps perspective investors accurately gauge the profit potential of inner city neighborhoods By making successful investments in residential developments, CDCs lead the market, allowing investors to accurately assess demand for housing in inner city neighborhoods.
21
As a result, a CDCs housing program can help trigger future investment in its neighborhood, which can lead to improvements in neighborhood quality (Urban Institute, 2005). 3. Coordinated investment When a single organization or individual puts money into a distressed area, it is often said that they are putting good money after bad. CDCs change market dynamics by facilitating multiple investments at once. CDCs can organize multiple and simultaneous investments needed to create a dramatically new market environment, overcoming what economists refer to as a collective action problem. The problem occurs when no single investor can make money unless other investors agree to invest as well. For example, a single homeowner might want to remodel his or her home but realize that unless others fix up their properties also, the investment wouldnt be rewarded with a corresponding increase in property values (Urban Institute, 2005) Another reason why so many CDCs engage in housing projects is that there are a number of forms of housing they can develop. For instance, a CDC can identify a specific project and determine if the best option is to rehab or tear down and from there if the resulting property should be rented or owned, and even more specifically who the property will be marketed for. This is in contrast to many organizations which are often tied to strict restrictions on what they can and cannot build. For example, when government grants are involved, typically, they only subsidize the construction of owner-occupied homes with strict income qualifications that often times only exacerbate the issue of high concentrations of poverty. Moreover, community groups often find themselves spending money repairing homes that truthfully should be bulldozed. Because CDCs are generally funded by individuals, institutions, businesses, and foundations, as well as government grants, they are not always bound to income requirements, owner vs. rental restrictions, or other conditions which makes them a very efficient and nimble mode of transforming neighborhood housing.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Best Practices
22
W ALK FIR ST ... THEN RUN

CDCs have been around for a long time. According to Community-Wealth.org the average age of a CDC in the United States is 18 years. It is tempting to look at successful CDCs like, REACH Community Development Inc., which has been in operation in Portland Oregon since 1982, who now develop beautiful condos, mixed-use complexes, and high-quality high-rises and forget that they started off like virtually every other CDC by focusing on buying and renovating single family homes. This is not to say that lofty goals should not be set. Rather, the important take-away is that if a CDC tries to do too much too fast, they run the risk of being disappointed and frustrated with themselves right out of the gate, losing important supporters the most important of which are the neighborhood residents they seek to serve. There is a fine line between ambitious plans and unrealistic ones. Finding the right balance between realism and idealism is a crucial component to establishing and maintaining a successful CDC.
23
R EMOVE T HE W ORST OF T HE W O RST

CDCs have the best chance to improve neighborhoods if they can remove major sources of blight or target properties visible enough to be taken as bellwethers of neighborhood vitality. Urban Institute, 2005
Quick improvements to a neighborhood are often referred to as a low-hanging fruit. The certain projects are ripe and ready to be consumed according to the analogy. But perhaps the lowest hanging fruits are the ones that have rotted and fallen off the tree. Stretching the analogy further, it is important to realize the freshest fruit becomes irrelevant if its in a box next to a rotten apple. This is a perfect way to describe the need to eliminate chronic nuisance and or blighted properties. Blight comes in many forms. Vacant lots, rundown buildings and homes with broken windows, poor siding, and things of that nature is one form of blight. Then there is blight in the form of unkempt landscaping, and junk strewn about and around a property. Nuisances also come in a number of forms. Constant shouting and loud music can be described as a nuisance, so can properties that harbor drug and gang activity.
24
In either case, nuisance and blighted properties are the rotten apples in the analogy. The rotten apples need to be dealt with before people consider eating the fresh apples nearby. An example of this comes from Paramount California. As a result of urban sprawl and a few other factors, many of Paramounts neighborhoods had fallen into a cycle of urban decline. Property owners took less pride in their homes, landscaping disappeared, as did windows, because they were being targeted by vandals. Things got so bad in fact that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) declared Paramount a disaster area. The city responded by getting permission from owners of vacant lots to turn them into pocket parks until the housing market improved enough for the property owner to build a new home on the once-vacant lot. They also created a rebate program to provide businesses with fresh stucco, decorative walls, and colorful landscaping and agreed to pay up to 75% of the cost. They also targeted especially unattractive and visible properties to replace chain link fences with white-picket fences again, paying for up to 75% of the installation costs. As a consequence of the citys long-term blight transformation strategy, Home Depot opened a new store along one of the citys main corridors, creating hundreds of jobs for neighborhood residents and a great deal of tax base for the city. Success stories like this one can be found all over the country in cities big and small, but the message is clear: if you are to succeed in improving a neighborhood, the worst of the worst needs to go first.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Case Study / Needs Assessment: Powell-Hood-Hamilton
25
The activities of CDCs are specifically tailored to the needs of the communities within which they operate. Take for example, Chicanos por la Causa, a CDC in Arizona. While they do engage in many of the usual activities of CDCs across the US, they also air a weekly Spanish-language radio program. Or the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation out of Oakland, California which works in an area that is 45% African American, 40% Asian and Pacific Islander. Their CDC provides housing opportunities but also provides a tremendous amount of resources specifically tailored to the needs of their Asian population (Community-wealth.org 2013). The point here is that the neighborhood that the CDC operates in dictates what a CDC needs to do, not the other way around. So the more prudent question is, What do La Crosse neighborhoods need that is not being provided currently? And can a CDC do what a neighborhood needs to succeed? This sentiment is echoed in a the Commonwealth of Massachusetts How to Organize A Community Development Corporation step by step manual for creating a CDC which states that the very first step is, 1. Assess Needs In keeping with the manuals suggestion to first assess the needs of a given area, the following section of this research will be a case study of the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood in La Crosse. In the context of creating a CDC in La Crosse, one of the remaining and much debated questions is, How big of an area will the La Crosse-based CDC serve? Some argue that it should be narrowly focused on one or two neighborhoods. Others
26
believe a La Crosse-based CDC should seek to revitalize the entire city. And some even believe there should be no defined boundaries at all. Again, the Massachusetts CDC manual provides very clear advice on this subject, saying, A CDC operating area must be defined. The manual explains further that, Within its general operating area, the CDC must designate one or more target areas. Nix Noel, writing for the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota explains that choosing the geographic area where a CDC will focus its efforts is a very important decision to make and that there is precedence for both neighborhood-specific and area-wide CDCs. Noel explains that there are pros and cons to both approaches. He explains that neighborhood specific CDCs can be undercapitalized which means drawing boundaries which result in exclusion of investors who would have otherwise been involved if a wider net had been cast, which is not a positive thing, but that operating within a smaller geographic area allows for a greater focus of resources. Below are two charts that illustrate the difference in the two competing approaches. Of course these charts are simplifications of a more complex issue, but at the heart of the matter is a need to decide if a CDC should spread its resources througought the entire city and raise all ships, or pump a tremendous amount of energy and cash into a smaller area for a more visible result.
Focus CDC Resources in Small Area
27
5 4 "Neighborhood Desirability" 3 2 1 0 Added Desira bility Prese nt Desirability
PHH
W ASH
GOOSE
LOW ER NS
GENA
Neighborhood
Graph 1
Spread CDC Resources Across Entire City
6 5 4 "Neighborhood 3 desirability" 2 1 0
Added Desira bility Prese nt Desira bility
PHH
W ASH
GOOSE
LOW ER NS
GENA
Neighborhood
Graph 2
In either case, whether a La Crosse-based CDC would be focused on just one neighborhood or two, or city-wide, it is unquestionable that ground zero of any La Crosse-based CDC would be in the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood which has been identified, many times over, as the neighborhood with the greatest level of need with the Washburn neighborhood running a close second. Consequently, the following information represents close study of that area.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S STUDY AREA:
The boundaries of this study are depicted in the following map:
28
Map 1
C A S E S T U D Y I N T R OD U C T I O N
Why study Powell Hood Hamilton? #1 Community Consensus: The greater La Crosse community has identified this as the neighborhood in the greatest need of attention. #2 Availability of Information: The following information relies heavily on information from city-info.com which includes data on everything from income levels to academic achievement and allows users to zero-in on a much more concise area than other traditional statistical resources such as Census tracks. Particularly relevant to this study is that city-data.com makes information available that fits
29
exactly within the boundaries of the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood and often provides block-by block information. #3 Joint Neighborhood Campus-Plan: As a term of the Tax Incremental Financing agreement for TIF 14 between Gundersen Lutheran and the City of La Crosse, a planning consultant was hired to develop a joint neighborhood-Gundersen campus plan to create a framework for future development in PHH. The final plan included a treasure-trove of background information on the PHH neighborhood that will be incredibly useful for the purposes of conducting this case study.
C H A L L E N G E S /N E E D S /O PP O R T U N I TY A S SE S S M E N T P O W E L L -H O O D -H AM I L T O N
OF
The need for serious community attention in the southwest corner of the city of La Crosse, particularly within the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood is well documented. This part of La Crosse has struggled with a mix of issues based in truth, and many based in hearsay which has resulted in a common perception that this area is both unsafe to live in and unwise to make an investment in. This portion of the larger document will study a variety of the real challenging trends of the Powell-Hood-Hamilton neighborhood, but it will also describe the incredible opportunity that this neighborhood holds if only certain needs were fulfilled and certain challenges dealt with. CHALLENGE 1: POVERTY NEED: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MIX INCOMES, PEOPLE BUILDING OPPORTUNITY: UNMET MARKET NEEDS The City of La Crosse as a whole boasts one of the highest poverty rates in the state of Wisconsin and perhaps more importantly one of the lowest median household
30
incomes (Green, 2010). Unfortunately, PHH is the poorest neighborhood in one of the poorest Wisconsin cities Interestingly, statistical analysis shows that while PHH does not suffer from a dramatic unemployment problem, much of the neighborhood show median household income levels very near the federal poverty and the wages for most PHH residents do not appear to be rising.
Map 2
Map 3
How does a CDC alleviate neighborhood poverty?
31
Based on the work of other CDCs, a La Crosse CDC could address the challenge of neighborhood poverty through a huge number of strategies which fall under three broad categories: 1) People building 2) Mixing incomes 3) Expanded job opportunities Poverty Reduction Strategy 1: People building These stategyes focus on improving and empowering the residents who currently reside in the neighborhood. People building is often thought of as the longest lasting approach, but also the most challenging and resource-intensive, and in a city like La Crosse where there are so many non-profits and charities focused on aleviating poverty, a La Crosse CDC should be very careful not to waste precious time and resources duplicating something that is already being done by another group or by enaging in people building activities that could be better administered by someone else. Poverty Reduction Strategy 2: Mixing Income Levels: Poverty begets more poverty. Knowing that, an important stategy pursued by many CDCs is to mix things up by attracting new residents with middle-class/upper-class jobs to a traditionally high poverty area. This is usually done by expanding housing opportunities.
32
Unfrotuately, at present, PHH offers very few properties that are the kind of places middle class families would be excited to move into in an inner city neighborhood and as a result, there are relatively few middle class families living in the neighborhood. In La Crosse, a CDC could dramatically change neighborhood dynamics through mixing income levels by buying up a large number of the low-valued properties in PHH, rehabing or replacing them, and selling or renting them to middle income families at market or slightly below market rates to attract new families to the neighborhood. Also in the arsinal of mixing income levels is the strategy that in the authors opinion is the closest thing to a real silver bullet to solving PHHs many challenges, including concentrations of poverty. That strategy is is to get employees of the major institutions which border PHH to live in PHH. If a La Crosse CDC wants to attract employees from Gundersen, Viterbo, and Mayo, into homes in PHH, they will need to make sure public infrastructure is improved, streets and homes are made more attractive, parks and recreation activities improved and expanded, and crime stamped out. But if the day comes that Gundersen, Viterbo and Mayo employees start moving into the neighborhoods that surround their place of work, that will be the day that a tsunami of change will come to the PHH neighborhood. Thankfully, all of those things which need to happen before those employees move into neighborhoods like PHH are doable.
Poverty Reduction Strategy 3: Expanded job opportunities
33
Some say that more jobs! is the way to solve the problems of La Crosses poor neighborhoods. While it is far to simplisitc to say that more jobs in PHH, without specifying which kinds of jobs, will resolve chronic neighborhood poverty, there is a definite case to be made for expanding job opportunities for PHH residents as a way to aleviate neighborhood poverty levels. Currently there is a very odd employment paradigm in PHH. On one hand you have a neighborhood that struggles with chronic poverty and on the other hand, you have a neighborhood which is surrounded by three major institutions (Gundersen Health System, Mayo Health System, Viterbo University) who employ thousands of high wage employees. Given that set up, it is tempting to ask, the poor class of PHH, Why dont you just get a job at one of those places? (Just like it is tempting to ask employees of those institutions, Why dont you live near where you work?) The reality is that many of the employment opportunities at these insititutions require - at mininimum - a degree from a four-year acreditied university, and usually much more than that, and PHH residents do not have those qualifiecations by and large many do not even have a high school diploma. So the challenge for a CDC in La Crosse will be to figure out a way to set up PHH residents with employment opportuniites that maximize their earning potential.
Thankfully, we know from a recent market analysis of PHH coducted by Perkins+Will that the neighborhood has an unmet demand for retail shops,
34
restaurants, and fresh food. That market analysis showed that PHH could support new development of those types of establishments and a recent survey of PHH residents led by Couleecap VISTA volunteers, showed that if groceries, restaurants, coffeshops, and other new businesses moved to the neighborhood that they would use them [Couleecap 2012]. Perkins+Will also pointed out that a CDC would be critical to facilitate that kind of business growth. But once that business growth did occur, that would mean a big influx in job opportunities for PHH residents not to mention the improved qaulity of life new markets bring. Sadly though, those employment opportunities do not currently exist in PHH and have fueled the challenge of low wages of neighborhood residents, and when families are living paycheck to paycheck, doing their best to pay for the bare necessities such as food and clothing for themselves or their children, it becomes more understandable why many impoverished families do not seem to place a particularly high premium on some things that more afluent individuals do, such as the exterior aeshtetics of their home rented or owned. In this way, poverty helps explain at least in part the poor housing conditions in PHH. But of course, there are many other reasons for the huge number of run down properties in PHH
CHALLENGE: PROLIFERATION OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING NEED: MORE HOMEOWNERSHIP AND BETTER RENTALS OPPORTUNITY: PLENTY OF CHEAP PROPERTIES TO RENOVATE OR REPLACE
35
The current state of the housing stock of La Crosse is not good, plain and simple. It is old and low valued, and in no neighborhood are housing values lower than PHH. Below is a map that shows how concentrated these low property values are in PHH.
Map 4
36
Here is a map showing home ownership rates in PPH. Dark spots represent rental properties, light grey represents home owners.
Map 5
PHH has, over time, been flooded with rental properties; some in the form of once owner occupied single-family homes which have been converted to multi-family rental properties, and others in the form of 6- and 8-plex rental properties on lots zoned for single family homes. To be sure, there are a few examples of high quality rental properties in PHH, but far too many rental properties take the shape of low quality properties which bring with them a number of problems parking, noise, refuse, etc. simply because they do not fit and are poorly managed.
37
Recently, Couleecap conducted a comprehensive Property Inventory Evaluation (PIE) survey which analyzed the current conditions of the entire housing stock of PHH on two criteria, the homes current condition and the preservation value (how worth it is it to save a given property. These are the results of the survey:
Current Condition
Below High 12 2% Average 60 9% Low 28 4% Total 100 15%
Standard 76 12% 339 52% 26 4% 441 68%

Table 3
Above 43 7% 60 9% 7 1% 110 17%
Total 131 20% 459 71% 61 9% 651
This information shows that there are very few PHH homes which have an appearance that is above-average, a vast majority with appearances which are considered to have standard aesthetics, and a small but impactful group of homes that are below-standard. What is most interesting, however, is that when PIE surveyors finished their observations they went back and checked which properties were owner-occupied and which ones were not. The data that resulted showed very clearly that the most attractive properties are owner-occupied homes and the unattractive properties are rentals.
Preservation Value
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Current Condition Above Standard Below Standard Owner Occupied 80 72% 29 29%
Table 4
38 Rental 31 28% 71 71% Total 111 100
This data goes a long way in demonstrating in just one neighborhood what many people have contended for a long time the majority of below standard properties in La Crosse are rentals and the majority of high quality properties in La Crosse are owner-occupied. However, it is impossible to deny that there is a clear demand for rental properties within PHH. Unfortunately, the supply of quality rentals in PHH is very low which is a result of an old housing stock, poor rental property management, and residents who cannot afford expensive rental rates. A CDC could fill that gap in ways that other non-profits and municipal governments cannot and have not because non-profits and municipal governments who engage in low-income housing projects in La Crosse generally are funded by grants that can only be used to construct single-family owner-occupied properties this is a serious limitation. A La Crosse CDC should do what many CDCs in the US have done, which is to provide a variety of quality housing options, including quality rental opportunities. If done right, a La Crosse CDC could hit two birds with one stone; by constructing new high quality rental living spaces, PHH residents would be pulled out of the existing rental properties in the neighborhood, many of which come in the form of
converted single family homes, this would presumably mean an expanded possibility to convert those homes back to their original use of being owner-occupied, single-family homes. CHALLENGE: CRIME (REAL AND PERCEIVED) NEED: BETTER POLICING AND REMOVAL OF CRIME HAVENS OPPORTUNITY: PHH IS THE SECOND SAFEST LA CROSSE NEIGHBOHROOD
39
One of the greatest barriers to progress in PHH is the perception of high crime rates. It is true that PHH suffers from higher crime rates than the rest of the city as a whole, but not by much as seen in Graph 3 on the following page. In truth, PHH is very much an example of it depends how you look at it. When compared directly to the other four defined city neighborhoods (GrandviewEmerson, Goosetown-Campus, Lower-Northside and Washubrn) PHH has the second lowest neighborhood crime rate according to data provided by the La Crosse Police Department.
Graph 3
40
In fact, the heart of PHH has seen a substantial decrease in crime and much of the neighborhood has a fairly stable level of criminal activity. According to La Crosse Police officials, the bulk of the crimes committed in PHH originates from and occur at a very small number of properties. Most notable is a rundown rental property at 1314 4th Street. Amazingly, over the course of less than one year (10 months) this single apartment racked up 106 calls for service, 24 criminal arrests/charges, and 17 ordinance citations (Abraham 2012). Thankfully, this property has since found a new owner, but unfortunately, the new owner is another landlord with a less than stellar reputation. But this property just goes to show how quickly a single poorly managed property can attract a massive amount of criminal activity to a single area or even a single property.
Map 6
41
Map 6 was produced by the La Crosse Police Department using an online crime mapping software called Command Central by Crime Reports and is a visual representation of increases and decreases in crime in the PHH from 2011 to 2012. The spots within the neighborhood which have seen crime rates go up are represented by red blotches, spots where crime rates have remained steady are represented by light green areas and spots where crime has decreased are represented by blue. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about criminal elements in PHH. However, there is good news. It is plain to see by looking at the above heat map that criminal activity is generally confined to two major geographic areas. Moreover, besides those two hot-spots the rest of the neighborhood is either stable or improving with respect to criminal activity. A La Crosse CDC could have a tremendous impact on real and perceived crime issues in PHH by doing four things: 1) Educate the community on the relative safety of PHH 2) Target investments especially physical improvements - and other efforts into those hot spots 3) Remove properties that consistently harbor crime, such as rental properties on 4th street, from the neighborhood 4) Set a bold goal of making PHH the citys safest neighborhood by a defined date
CHALLENGE: POOR GENERAL PERCEPTION OF PHH NEED: BETTER MARKETING OF ASSETS OPPORTUNITY: A LOT OF EXISTING ASSETS
42
While there is no existing data that quantifies the perceptions of given parts of the city of La Crosse, it is safe to say that the Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighborhood is perceived in a generally negative light by much of the public despite the tremendous potential and assets it already has. A major priority of a La Crosse CDC would need to be marketing the many assets of neighborhoods like PHH. The following map was produced by Perkins+Will and highlights a few of PHHs many assets.
43
In addition, it is reasonable to believe that a very small number of people have actually read entirely let alone heard of the PHH-GL Joint Neighborhood-Campus Plan, so in addition to marketing the neighborhoods many assets, a La Crosse CDC would also need to communicate to the public what is to come in neighborhoods like PHH. For instance, a young family may be more interested in moving to PHH if they knew that within a few years, the City and Gundersen were going revamp both Powell and Hood Parks, make drastic improvements to watershed trails, build around 100 new homes, and all of the other things in the plan. In other words, a CDC would do a lot of good by helping shape the perception of the neighborhood as one of unlimited potential and on the verge of exciting changes. CHALLENGE: EDUCATON NEED: HIGHER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OPPORTUNITY: PARTNER LOCAL K-12 SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER ED Horace Mann, one of the most influential individuals in the field of public education, wrote in 1848 that education is "the great equalizer of the conditions of menthe balance wheel of the social machinery. If we assume for a moment that that is true, we must then assume that the converse is true, that a lack of education is the greatest predictor of poor conditions of men. That seems to be the case in PHH where, according to City-data.org, roughly 20% of the neighborhood residents have not even graduated high school. This is an enormous problem. This reality underscores how important it is for innovative efforts such as the La Crosse Promise to be successful and to stop the cycle of impoverished families
44
raising children who are less likely to do well in middle school, high school, and attempt to get into college. A La Crosse CDC should support the La Crosse Promise and look for partnership opportunities with La Crosses K-12 school system to better educate the citys poor youth. There is also a great potential to work with nonprofits, philanthropists, businesses, and others to expand learning opportunities for poor residents of neighborhoods like PHH. A La Crosse CDC should also look at other successful CDCs which have engaged in educational activities for neighborhood residents, both young and old. One such CDC is the Vanguard Community Development Corporation which works out of Detroit, Michigan and is an example of one of many CDCs which offer education programs and initiatives, ranging from female mentorships to youth camps that focus on reading, math, health and fitness through creative partnerships and with funding from a variety of foundations focused on education. But education is not just for children. In a neighborhood with as low of academic achievement levels as PHH, helping to educate the adults in the neighborhood will also be something worthy of further study. Again, Vanguard CDC offers a strong example in this respect with programs such as adult basic computer classes to help them become more connected to the digital world. Classes are held on a weekly basis and are designed to promote independent learning and allow for the individual to work at their own pace based on their needs.
45
Another common form of adult education provided by CDCs comes in the form of homeowner education courses which seem to be a natural fit in PHH.
ULTIMATE CHALLENGE: BREAK THE CYCLE OF URBAN DECLINE

All of the challenges listed above are related. They are all a part of a greater cycle of urban decline. The notion of a self-perpetuating and self-feeding downward cycle of urban decline was the main thrust of Karl Greens Challenging Trends report. Essentially the cycle of urban decline is a positive feedback system where one negative neighborhood influence causes or creates another negative neighborhood influence, which in turn creates more of the first negative neighborhood influence thus creating a vicious self-feeding cycle. In the figure below, we can use the 1980s shooting at Hood Park as what scientists refer to as the initial forcing factor or the first event to trigger the negative cycle. That event then leads to a perception of criminal activity in the neighborhood which leads to disinvestment in housing, which then leads to a greater perception of neighborhood crime and so on and so forth.
Simplified Cycle of Urban Decline

Initial Forcing: Hood Park Shooting Perception of Neighborhood Crime
Disinvestment in housing
46
This phenomenon is also commonly referred to as the cycle of urban decay and is related to the well-known broken window theory which states that if one window in a neighborhood is broken and left that way, neighborhood pride decreases and more windows will go broken and remain unrepaired. But of course, the cycle of urban decline is worse than what was illustrated above. In truth, the cycle is multiplicative meaning, in the example used above, not only does disinvestment in housing lead to a greater perception of crime, it also creates a whole new cycle of higher tax rates, and a new cycle involving poverty rates, and reduced neighborhood pride, and each one of those new cycles create more cycles, and so on. So the ultimate question is...
Can a CDC Save La Crosse Neighborhoods by Breaking The Cycle of Urban Decline?
Based on all of the research included in this report, the answer is yes. The current piecemeal approach to improving La Crosse neighborhoods is not working. No doubt, outstanding nonprofits and government initiatives have done incredible good in La Crosse neighborhoods including PHH. And if neighborhoods in La Crosse are to truly rebound, the continued support of those organizations will be essential. And those groups deserve a great deal of credit for keeping large parts of La Crosse from passing the point of no return. However, they all have other very important priorities. In order to finally save La Crosses struggling neighborhoods from the vicious cycle of urban decline, they
47
need a full time advocate, a full time developer, and a full time support network all wrapped up into one. That is exactly what a CDC could and would provide.
Next Steps:
Now that we understand what CDCs are, how they work, what they do, and how one could save La Crosse neighborhoods like PHH, the appropriate next question would seem to be Where do we go from here? Whats next? Based on the research presented in this report, as well as recent developments in the La Crosse community, the author suggests the following steps:
ESTABLISH HAMILTON
CDC I N L A C R O S S E T O WO RK I N T H E P O W E L L -H O O D A ND W A S H BU R N N E I G H BO R H O O D S RA T H E R TH A N C I T Y - W ID E
A
1. FORM INTERIM ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 2. INITIAL ORGANIZING (BY INTERIM COMMITTEE) a. Assess needs of PHH/Washburn b. Begin community involvement and open meetings 3. FULL SCALE ORGANIZING (BY INTERIM COMMITTEE) 4. BUILD AN EFFECTIVE CDC
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Model for Success: Phillips Neighborhood - Minneapolis, MN

The author of this report was lucky enough to be given a tour of the Phillips
48
Neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota through the Neighborhood USA National Conference on Thursday May 26, 2013. In 1996, Minneapolis was dubbed, Murderapolis by the New York Times and the Phillips Neighborhood was a major reason why. Since then, Phillips has been reborn. Their rebirth is a great model for success for future efforts to revitalize La Crosses neighborhoods in need. The story of Phillips is one of a much greater scale than PHH and Washburn. Neighborhood conditions in Phillips at the start of their renewal process were far worse than anything PHH or Washburn has ever known. However, their story demonstrates that, if they can do what they have done, there is no reason why La Crosse cannot follow suit. In particular, the Phillips Partnership tells the story of major employers stepping up to the plate and making major investments in the neighborhoods that surround them just like is the case in PHH and Washburn with Gundersen Health System, Mayo Health System, Viterbo University, The Brewery, and Logistics Health Incorporated all major employers with a tremendous capacity to improve nearby neighborhood conditions. Rather than duplicating a document that has already been created, a copy of the Partnering for Positive Change In Phillips tour guide that was distributed at the May 26, 2013 tour of Phillips has been scanned and can be seen below and was produced by the Phillips Partnership.
49
50
51
52
53
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Conclusion based on research

Local non-profits and government efforts have done a good job at stabilizing
54
neighborhoods like PHH but their capacity is too limited to truly transform whole neighborhoods. However, in order to once and for all break the cycle of urban decline being experienced by La Crosse neighborhoods, La Crosse must finally establish a CDC.
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Works Cited
Bratt, Rachel. "Challenges And Dilemmas Facing Community Development
55
Corporations In The United States." Community Development Journal 42.1 (2007): 63-78. Political Science Complete. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. Brophy, Paul. "Re-Engineering the Community Development Housing Sector for Increased Effectiveness and Long-Term Sustainability." Living Cities. (2009): Print Community-Wealth.org Overview: Community Development Corporations http://community wealth.org/strategies/panel/community development corporations/index.html Strategies. Retrieved on March 3, 2013 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Office of Community Economic Development: Division of Neighborhoods and Economic Opportunity. How to Organize A Community Development Corporation. Boston: , 1990. Print. Couleecap, Property Inventory Evaluation survey, La Crosse Wisconsin, 2012. Print Joint City-County Housing Task Force. La Crosse County. La Crosse Housing: A Plan to Reinvest in the Citys Housing Market. La Crosse WI, 2011 Green. Karl. UW-Extension. Challenging Trends Facing La Crosse Housing. La Crosse WI, 2010 The Urban Institute: Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center. Impact of Community Development Corporations on Urban Neighborhoods. Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2005. Print.
Myerson, Deborah. The Urban Land Institute, Charles H. Shaw Forum on Urban
56
Community Issues. Community Development Corporations Working with ForProfit Developers. Washington, D.C.: , 2002. Print. Perkins&Will. Joint Powell-Hood-Hamilton Neighbohrood-Gundersen Lutheran Campus Plan. Atlanta GA, 2013 City of Roseville selects the Cordish Companies and the Evergreen Company as Master Developer for Downtown The Sacramento Bee, February 2013. Serang, Farzana, et al. The Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland. Anchor Mission Leveraging the Power of Anchor Institutions to Build Community Wealth: A Case Study of University Hospitals. College Park, MD: , 2013. Print. La Crosse Tribune Editorial Board, Our View: Spiraling home values deserve attention La Crosse Tribune, La Crosse Wisconsin, May 2011. Mallach, Alan. "Managing Neighborhood Change: A Framework for Sustainable and Equitable Revitalization." National Housing Institute. (2009): n. page. Print Noel, Nix. Advancing Neighbohrood Goals: The Role of Geographic Based Community Development Corporations Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Spring 2012. Print. Poverty and Race Research Action Council Academic Research on Communit y DevelopmentCorporationshttp://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=1089&item _id=9881&newsletter_id=0&header=Economic+%2F+Community+Development Retrieved on March 3, 2013
57
Walker, Christopher. The Urban Institute: Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center. Community Development Corporations and Their Changing Support Systems. Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2002. Print. Vanaguard CDC, Programs http://www.vanguardcdc.org/ Retrieved on May 9, 2013

Community Development Corporations: What They Are, How They Work, and How One Could Save La Crosse Neighborhoods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Development Corporations: What They Are, How They Work, and How One Could Save La Crosse Neighborhoods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Development Corporations:

What they are, how they work,

and how one could save La Crosse neighborhoods.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS:

By: ANDREW LONDRE

Community Development Corporations

Gifts and Bequests.

Tax Credits and Community Development Entities

Government Funds (Local) La Crosse Specifically

Government Funds (State) Wisconsin Specifically Government Funds (National)

H OUSING IS THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF CDCS

W ALK FIR ST ... THEN RUN

R EMOVE T HE W ORST OF T HE W O RST

C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Case Study / Needs Assessment: Powell-Hood-Hamilton

5 4 "Neighborhood Desirability" 3 2 1 0 Added Desira bility Prese nt Desirability

Added Desira bility Prese nt Desira bility

Below High 12 2% Average 60 9% Low 28 4% Total 100 15%

Standard 76 12% 339 52% 26 4% 441 68%

Above 43 7% 60 9% 7 1% 110 17%

Total 131 20% 459 71% 61 9% 651

38 Rental 31 28% 71 71% Total 111 100

ULTIMATE CHALLENGE: BREAK THE CYCLE OF URBAN DECLINE

Simplified Cycle of Urban Decline

C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Model for Success: Phillips Neighborhood - Minneapolis, MN

C O M M U N I T Y D E V E LO P M E N T C O R P O R A T IO N S Conclusion based on research

You might also like