Los antiguos centros industriales y fabriles, como Dayton, Ohio, y Gary, Indiana (conocidos como antiguas ciudades industriales) no tienen por qué elegir entre crecimiento económico e igualdad. El crecimiento perdura más cuando beneficia a toda la gente, según se indica en un nuevo Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo y un Resumen de Políticas adjunto, publicados por el Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo junto con el Centro de Políticas Greater Ohio. Las antiguas ciudades industriales pueden promover el crecimiento a largo plazo y, a la vez, abordar las desigualdades raciales y económicas que la COVID dejó en evidencia, mediante las estrategias planificadas en Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester (Desarrollo equitativo de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los Estados Unidos: Invertir en los residentes de South Bend a Worcester). En el informe se usan casos de estudio de iniciativas exitosas para guiar a los profesionales en la implementación de inversiones equitativas, tanto en proyectos físicos como en personas. Se centra en antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas, de entre 30.000 y 200.000 habitantes. Si bien tienen muchas características en común con sus contrapartes más grandes, estas ciudades enfrentan dificultades únicas y necesitan enfoques personalizados para revitalizarse.

Como se describe en el Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo de 2017 Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities y en la biblioteca digital de Legacy Cities Initiative, del Instituto Lincoln (legacycities.org), ya han surgido políticas y estrategias prometedoras, y en algunas antiguas ciudades industriales la población ya creció o se estabilizó. El nuevo informe nos demuestra que, para que la revitalización perdure, se requieren labores explícitas que hagan frente a las duras desigualdades sociales y económicas.

“Los dirigentes de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas están en una posición única para probar, pulir e innovar prácticas de desarrollo equitativo”, escriben las autoras Erica Spaid Patras, Alison Goebel y Lindsey Elam, del Centro de Políticas Greater Ohio, una organización estatal sin fines de lucro cuya misión es mejorar las comunidades de Ohio mediante estrategias e investigación de crecimiento inteligente. “Un compromiso férreo con la igualdad es una herramienta poderosa que puede mejorar el futuro de estas comunidades”.

Las autoras se valen de años de experiencia en labores de investigación, defensa y difusión realizadas en nombre de las 20 antiguas ciudades industriales de Ohio. Comienzan el informe explicando cómo una igualdad mayor mejora el acceso a las oportunidades y respalda las perspectivas económicas de las ciudades. Por ejemplo, al brindar capacitaciones en oficios a las personas que viven allí hace muchos años, la ciudad puede aumentar los ingresos disponibles y alentar a las empresas a contratar a residentes, para que terminen quedándose en la ciudad. Al reducir la pobreza arraigada y aumentar la participación ciudadana, se puede mejorar la salud económica de la comunidad a largo plazo.

Las autoras detallan siete estrategias que pueden establecer las bases del programa de desarrollo igualitario de una ciudad. Las estrategias se adaptan según las dificultades específicas de las antiguas ciudades industriales pequeñas y medianas, y también aprovechan sus oportunidades únicas, como la falta de presión del mercado, para que los dirigentes tengan más tiempo de elaborar bien los planes.

“Las estrategias presentadas en Desarrollo equitativo de las antiguas ciudades industriales más pequeñas de los Estados Unidos serán vitales para reconstruir antiguas ciudades industriales más igualitarias a nivel racial y económico”, dijo Akilah Watkins, CEO y presidenta del Centro para el Progreso Comunitario. “Todo dirigente municipal del país debería acudir a esta guía y atreverse a trabajar para revitalizar su comunidad en la era pos-COVID”.

Este es un extracto de un nuevo Enfoque en Políticas de Suelo, Through the Roof. 

En los últimos 50 años, los hogares de los Estados Unidos, en particular los de alquiler, han sufrido un cambio drástico en su presupuesto. Los alquileres aumentaron y los ingresos no les siguieron el ritmo; el resultado es que los hogares que alquilan destinan una parte cada vez mayor de su ingreso a tener un techo. La proporción de inquilinos con carga de alquiler (que dedican más del 30 por ciento de sus ingresos al alquiler) aumentó de menos de un cuarto en 1960 a casi la mitad en 2016.  Resulta más impactante que, en ese mismo período, la cantidad de hogares que alquilan y que tienen una carga muy alta (destinan más de la mitad de sus ingresos al alquiler) aumentó del 13 al 26 por ciento. Los costos de vivienda también aumentaron para los propietarios. Si bien muchos estudiosos se centran en la escasez de viviendas asequibles en ciudades costeras como San Francisco y Nueva York, la carestía ha aumentado en todo el país.

La evidencia demuestra que la carga que representan estos costos son importantes. Según ciertos estudios experimentales, los vales federales para elección de vivienda, que pagan una parte del alquiler y reducen considerablemente la probabilidad de quedarse sin techo, también mejoran los resultados de las pruebas estandarizadas (Schwartz et al. 2020). Los niños que viven en viviendas sociales tienen más probabilidades que otros niños en la misma línea de pobreza de tener seguridad alimentaria y clasificar como “bien” en el indicador compuesto de salud infantil. Posiblemente, esto se deba a que sus padres pueden costear alimentos más nutritivos (March et al. 2009). Incluso los aumentos pequeños en los ingresos disponibles pueden mejorar los resultados en educación y salud (Duncan, Morris y Rodrigues 2011).

En este informe se analizan las causas raíz y las consecuencias de la creciente falta de viviendas asequibles. Un motivo por el cual los hogares dedican mucho más presupuesto a la vivienda es que sencillamente no podemos proveer las unidades necesarias para suplir la demanda creciente en muchas ciudades donde ciertas regulaciones estrictas del uso del suelo y una creciente oposición del movimiento NIMBY (No en mi patio trasero) dificultan y encarecen la construcción. Pero puede que la falta de innovación y la aversión por los riesgos en el sector de la construcción también contribuyan. Y también lo hace la falta de lotes edificables en muchos lugares donde la gente quiere vivir. Otros factores posibles son la menor cantidad de entidades involucradas en el desarrollo de viviendas y la posesión de propiedades, el mayor flujo de inversiones mundiales y la mayor participación de grandes firmas financieras en la industria de la vivienda. Estas tendencias dan forma al tipo de construcción que se erige y elevan los costos de la vivienda y de las cargas. Las tendencias de construcción que prefieren las unidades más grandes, los cambios en la estructura económica y la mayor desigualdad en los ingresos profundizan aún más la brecha entre alquileres a precio de mercado y el presupuesto de las familias de ingresos bajos y moderados que necesitan un lugar donde vivir.

Con las amplias fuerzas de mercado que se ejercen, puede que haya quienes duden de si el gobierno puede hacer algo para cambiar la situación. En este informe se sostiene que la respuesta es afirmativa: todos los niveles del gobierno pueden tomar medidas cruciales para mejorar drásticamente la capacidad de pago. Los gobiernos locales en particular, con su poder sobre el uso del suelo, códigos de edificación, permisos e impuestos a la propiedad, se encuentran en una situación propicia para idear estrategias de vivienda efectivas y de base amplia, que aumenten la disponibilidad y la capacidad de pago. Estos dependen de subsidios federales y estatales para viviendas, pero, en general, tienen cierto criterio al determinar la mejor forma de estructurar los programas y políticas que usan dichos fondos.

Las estrategias locales de vivienda más efectivas son cabales y equilibradas, con lo cual tienen más probabilidades de obtener el apoyo político de la amplia coalición de intereses que se necesitan para fomentar los cambios de políticas deseados. Deben incorporar todo el conjunto de herramientas disponibles para los gobiernos locales, como subsidios, incentivos fiscales, regulaciones del uso del suelo y permisos para reformas. Además, fomentan cuatro objetivos que se refuerzan entre sí: crear y preservar unidades exclusivas de vivienda asequible; reducir los obstáculos a las incorporaciones; ayudar a los hogares a acceder y costear viviendas del mercado privado; y proteger contra el desplazamiento y las malas condiciones de las viviendas.

Tendencias de asequibilidad

La crisis actual de asequibilidad tiene raíces profundas. Desde 1970, las medianas de alquiler han aumentado muchísimo más que las medianas de ingresos (ver figura 1A, en la página siguiente). Entre 1960 y 2016, la mediana de ingresos aumentó cerca del 11 por ciento real, mientras que el valor real de la mediana de alquileres brutos (que incluye los costos de servicios públicos) aumentó un 80 por ciento. Esa es la cruel realidad en cifras. Es más, parece que los alquileres aumentaron implacablemente, incluso en los 70 y en la primera década del siglo XXI, cuando la mediana de ingresos real sufrió una caída.

En la figura 1B (en la página siguiente) se muestra que la diferencia entre el crecimiento de los alquileres y los ingresos fue aún más pronunciada en el extremo inferior de la cadena: los alquileres del percentil 25 aumentaron un 94 por ciento entre 1960 y 2016, mientras que los ingresos del percentil 25 aumentaron solo un 7 por ciento. Pero los alquileres superaron a los ingresos en toda la cadena. En la figura 1C se muestra el mismo patrón, aunque menos pronunciado, para el percentil 75 de ingresos y alquiler. Los saltos más drásticos en las cargas de alquiler se dieron en las décadas de 1970 y 2000. En resumen, todos los inquilinos destinan al alquiler una proporción mayor de su ingreso que hace algunas décadas. Para las personas con ingresos por debajo de la mediana, esto significa menos dinero restante para otros gastos. 

Según la evidencia, los hogares con alta carga de alquiler gastan menos en bienes y servicios esenciales. En el informe de 2018 “State of the Nation’s Housing” (“Estado de las viviendas de la nación”), elaborado por el Centro Conjunto de Harvard para el Estudio de la Vivienda, se indica que en 2016 los inquilinos del cuartil inferior de ingresos con carga de alquiler gastaron casi US$ 650 menos en bienes y servicios no relacionados con la vivienda (como alimentos, atención médica y transporte) que los hogares del cuartil inferior sin carga de alquiler (Centro Conjunto de Harvard para el Estudio de la Vivienda 2018). Sandra Newman y Scott Holupka (2014) coinciden en su conclusión de que las familias de bajos ingresos con mayores carestías de vivienda gastan menos en actividades que enriquecen a los niños.

La función del gobierno local

Considerando el poder que tienen las acciones del gobierno local para abordar la crisis de asequibilidad de viviendas, sorprende que su función esté tan poco definida y que reciba un respaldo tan deficiente. No hay consenso acerca de qué implica una estrategia local de vivienda y ni siquiera de que toda comunidad debería tener una. En contraste con la amplia red de defensores, think-tanks e investigadores centrados en las políticas federales de vivienda, solo un puñado de organizaciones se dedican a ayudar a los gobiernos locales a desarrollar estrategias de vivienda más efectivas. Además, hay muy pocas investigaciones formales que evalúan cuáles son las estrategias más efectivas.

En un intento por definir mejor la función del gobierno local y desarrollar una guía basada en la evidencia para sus dirigentes, en 2015 los autores reunieron una comunidad de práctica sobre políticas locales de vivienda: 14 de los mejores especialistas de todo el país, quienes, en su mayoría, trabajan en ciudades muy costosas. El grupo central de trabajo incluyó a un miembro del ayuntamiento, comisionados de la vivienda (en ejercicio y retirados), desarrolladores privados y sin fines de lucro, entidades crediticias, intermediarios del desarrollo comunitario, asesores y dirigentes comunitarios. La comunidad de práctica identificó los seis principios de panorama completo que se enumeran a continuación, para definir y guiar a los gestores de políticas. Todos ellos se describen con más detalle en el informe.

• Las políticas locales de vivienda son importantes. Los municipios pueden hacer muchas cosas para mejorar la capacidad de pago. De hecho, los gobiernos locales están mejor posicionados que otros niveles del gobierno para liderar las labores y hacer frente a sus problemas de vivienda.
• Toda comunidad debe tener una estrategia local de vivienda. Si bien casi todas las ciudades y condados tienen una o más políticas que afectan a la asequibilidad y otros resultados de la vivienda, la mayoría no desarrolló una estrategia formal . . . Lo importante es iniciar el proceso de desarrollo de una estrategia formal con metas bien articuladas, herramientas de políticas y métricas para registrar el avance.
• Los municipios deben desarrollar enfoques cabales que reflejen las políticas de múltiples organismos locales. La coordinación puede resultar difícil, pero dado que en muchas jurisdicciones las dificultades son multifacéticas y complejas, los gobiernos locales que implementan varias herramientas para hacer frente a sus problemas de vivienda tienen posibilidades de hacer avances más significativos.
• Las estrategias locales de vivienda deben ser equilibradas. Es importante pensar en todo el abanico de necesidades para maximizar la aceptación política de la estrategia y la probabilidad de que esta tenga buenos resultados.
• Involucrar a un grupo diverso de partes interesadas para que los municipios puedan desarrollar estrategias efectivas y bien implementadas. Los funcionarios deberían involucrar a los miembros de la comunidad, en particular la gente de color y de bajos ingresos y los grupos marginados desde el comienzo del proceso. Al incluirlos, la estrategia que se elabore será más sólida y ayudará a evitar demoras en la implementación. Además, invertir en la participación comunitaria mejora la relación a largo plazo entre el gobierno y la comunidad, para los procesos futuros de planificación.
• Las estrategias locales de vivienda deben incluir objetivos mensurables y un proceso de elaboración de informes para garantizar la responsabilidad. Algunas ciudades adoptaron objetivos en función de la cantidad total de unidades asequibles o de vivienda que se crearon. Estos objetivos numéricos de panorama completo ayudan a medir y describir el avance, y los gestores de políticas y el público los entienden fácilmente. Sin embargo, suelen omitir matices importantes, como el tamaño de las unidades, los niveles específicos de ingresos de los hogares que pueden pagarlas y la cercanía a escuelas buenas y transporte público . . . Al adoptar una serie de metas, en vez de un solo objetivo, se puede entender mejor el progreso de la comunidad.

Acerca de los autores

Ingrid Gould Ellen  es profesora de la cátedra Paulette Goddard de políticas y planificación urbana de la Escuela Superior Wagner de Servicios Públicos de NYU, y directora del cuerpo docente en el Centro Furman para Bienes Raíces y Políticas Urbanas de NYU.

Jeffrey Lubell es director de Iniciativas Comunitarias y de Vivienda en Abt Associates.

Mark A. Willis es miembro sénior de políticas en el Centro Furman para Bienes Raíces y Políticas Urbanas de NYU.

Referencias

Duncan, Greg J., Pamela A. Morris y Chris Rodrigues. 2011. “Does Money Really Matter? Estimating Impacts of Family Income on Young Children’s Achievement with Data from Random-Assignment Experiments”. Developmental Psychology 47: 1263–1279.

Centro Conjunto de Harvard para el Estudio de la Vivienda. 2018. “2018 State of the Nation’s Housing”. Cambridge, MA: Universidad de Harvard (junio). https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2018.pdf.

March, Elizabeth L., Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba, Annie Gayman, John Cook, Deborah A. Frank y Alan Myers. 2009. “Rx for Hunger: Affordable Housing”. Boston, MA: Children’s HealthWatch y Medical-Legal Partnership (diciembre).

Newman, Sandra J. y Scott C. Holupka. 2014. “Housing Affordability and Investments in Children”. Journal of Housing Economics 24: 89–100.

Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Keren Horn, Ingrid Gould Ellen y Sarah Cordes. 2020. “Do Housing Vouchers Improve Academic Performance? Evidence from New York City”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 39(1): 131–158.

From racial disparities in life expectancy to an eviction crisis that disproportionately threatens households of color, COVID-19 has magnified longstanding injustices of American society. However, many of the driving forces behind these issues, at work long before the pandemic, are less visible. Among these are a deeply flawed system of public and private finance. 

With roots in slavery, the American financial system is built in part on a foundation of exploitation. Some scholars estimate that the overall value extracted from enslaved people in the United States exceeds $14 trillion, including interest compounded over generations. For most of America’s history, the nation’s financial system actively perpetuated racial inequity, whether through redlining, regressive taxation of the poor to finance amenities for the more affluent, or other forms of racially discriminatory lending and disinvestment that persist today. 

Given the depth of the injustice, how can we create a future in which prosperity is shared by all? While a more equitable future will require systemic reforms in federal policy governing the economy, we can take big steps forward with the laws and tools available now. In particular, we can expand and improve the system of community investment—public, private, and philanthropic investment in people and places that are too often overlooked by institutions seeking only financial returns. 

The community investment field is well-positioned to redirect resources that help undo decades of structural racism in the U.S. financial system, and to contribute to an equitable economic recovery. As communities across the country begin to emerge from the depths of the COVID-19 crisis and shift toward recovery, the community investment system must deliver more capital, distribute it fairly, and achieve real progress toward a better tomorrow for residents in communities across the country. 

The Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) initiative at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is working to deliver on these goals by bringing new partners to the community investment system. We are convening a national community of practice that will create opportunities among local and state development finance agencies (DFAs), housing finance agencies (HFAs), and community development financial institutions (CDFIs) to collaborate more closely and increase the scale of their impact in lower-income communities and communities of color across the United States. (For more background on these institutions, read our announcement on the launch of ACI.) 

Currently, the community investment field is hampered in part by a myopic focus on narrowly defined financial returns. The players in the community investment ecosystem also lack knowledge about each other’s work, and how it intersects. ACI is working to identify structural and policy barriers that limit the impact of the current system while developing new channels to deliver capital investment. 

The question at the core of ACI’s work is twofold: can we help CDFIs, DFAs, HFAs, and mission-aligned investors develop a better shared understanding of the potential for collaboration? And, if so, can we more effectively steer those collaborators toward deploying capital in ways that put residents at the center of their investment decisions? 

In the first phase of the initiative, we completed field research on the public economic development and housing finance system, conducted interviews with more than 50 state and local finance institutions, and convened a community of practice with representatives from 13 states. The goal of this community of practice is to bend the arc of public finance, economic development, and housing finance practices toward social justice. This work will open a window into the mutually reinforcing ecosystems among federal tax, economic development, and affordable housing policies and related state and local policy. 

Our community of practice has already delivered curricula that explain how to deploy capital for maximum impact in targeted places and on targeted populations, and we have worked with state partners to help them identify shared, investable priorities that reflect community voices and needs. Soon, we will bring in both capital intermediaries (CDFIs and other community-focused capital providers) and mission-aligned investors who may be interested in pursuing investment or other partnerships with cohort participants. Through a combination of survey research to examine use patterns of public finance tools and technical assistance to help partners build pipelines of investable projects, we will also study the misalignment of federal policy that governs community investment with related state and local policies, with the goal of advancing reforms. 

If we succeed, we will create a new paradigm for community investment that leads to the deployment of more capital investment in places that need it most. The project embodies a commitment to a racially just future by encouraging community investment that focuses on community needs and aspirations and involves robust engagement with residents. This approach will ensure that economic development, housing affordability, job creation, and wealth building are truly accessible to all people.  

If we want to achieve a just recovery and build a path to prosperity, there can be no going back to the way things were. Our aspirations, and the moment, demand much more. In convening and learning from the ACI community of practice, the Lincoln Institute and our partners can help low- and moderate-income communities leverage new resources for greater economic health and resilience, and begin to address the enduring impacts of systemic racism. We welcome the participation and feedback of our partners and any other interested parties, and look forward to the hard work in the months ahead. 

Robert J. “R.J.” McGrail is senior research fellow in the Office of the President at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the principal investigator and director of the Accelerating Community Investment (ACI) project.

Image: Tiny Home Village, a transitional housing community in Albuquerque, New Mexico, opened in 2021. Credit: Courtesy of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

The following is an excerpt from Equitably Developing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Investing in Residents from South Bend to Worcester, a Policy Focus Report recently published by the Lincoln Institute. The Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Initiative offers additional strategies and resources. 

In 2020, leaders of smaller U.S. legacy cities confronted more than their usual challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement laid bare persistent racial and income segregation common in these postindustrial centers. A long history of discriminatory and failed policies contributes to these conditions.  

This report does not serve as a treatise on eradicating injustice from small legacy cities. Instead, the report focuses on the significant opportunity that these cities now have to combat inequity and increase economic competitiveness by embracing policies that support equitable development. 

America’s smaller legacy cities—such as Akron, Ohio; Erie, Pennsylvania; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and Worcester, Massachusetts—are well positioned to promote development that includes and benefits all residents while improving economic competitiveness. This report shows local changemakers how to incorporate equity into the traditional suite of revitalization strategies by focusing on both physical development and investment in residents. The report makes a case for why local changemakers should care about equity and offers ways to shape development policies and actions to make them equitable. Most of these strategies are tailored to the unique conditions of smaller, weak-market legacy cities and can, for the most part, be implemented at the local level. Case studies further illustrate each of these strategies. 

An earlier Policy Focus Report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center, Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities, discusses smaller legacy cities and the economic and historical dynamics that shape them, including a detailed analysis of their demographics (Hollingsworth and Goebel 2017). The 2017 report provides a more detailed foundation for the equitable development strategies discussed here. 

The Equitable Development Imperative: How Greater Equity Can Support Growth 

Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor (2012, 2015) assert the economic imperative for addressing long-standing inequality by demonstrating that racial and income inequality are not just outcomes of a postindustrial world, but also drivers of current and future regional economic stagnation. Specifically, they found that “high inequality, measured in a variety of different ways, has a negative impact on growth and that these impacts are in fact stronger in regions with what many in the literature call ‘weak market’ central cities” (Pastor and Benner 2008). While this “dragging effect” of inequality on financial strength is concerning, a growing and encouraging body of research offers a path forward, validating the economic advantages of improving equity (Pastor and Benner 2008). 

Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland supports this, finding that “a skilled workforce, high levels of racial inclusion, and progress on income equality correlate strongly and positively with economic growth” (Benner and Pastor 2012; Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Persistent disparities can depress a city’s economy. Revitalization without a deliberate equity component does little to address underlying injustices. Alan Mallach’s 2014 analysis of traditional legacy city revitalization shows us how development designed for high-income residents in the downtown or central business district alone does not improve inequities citywide. Mallach found that traditional revitalization in some legacy cities failed to improve economic and quality-of-life indicators for the least advantaged residents: “Revitalization, at least at the scale and of the character that is being experienced in these cities, does not confer citywide benefits; if anything, it may even redirect jobs, resources, and wealth away from large parts of the city, concentrating them in a smaller area and leaving the rest worse off than before” (Mallach 2014). 

Urban Institute researchers, in their analysis of how larger cities recovered from the Great Recession, concur with Mallach’s finding. They write, “Across all types of cities, local leaders are beginning to recognize that economic growth does not automatically lead to inclusion; rather, intentional strategies are needed” (Poethig et al. 2018). Federal Reserve researchers also weigh in on this, saying: “The pursuit of societal goals, such as racial inclusion and lower income dispersion, are very compatible with economic growth” (Eberts, Erickcek, and Kleinhenz 2006). 

Sidebar: What are equity and equitable development?

This report uses the term “equity” broadly to refer to an overarching goal: to make opportunity accessible to all, regardless of background and circumstance, and to make a special effort to improve outcomes for low-income populations and communities of color to bring them into parity with other populations. Greater equity is possible when poverty and disparities in wealth, employment, and health shrink as incomes and access to employment increase. In equitable cities, decision makers value the perspectives of all residents and ensure that anyone who wants to participate in civic life can have a seat at the table. 

“Equality” and “equity” are not synonymous. Many scholars of equity and inclusion have argued that equality means funding, access to support, and decision-making power are shared equally, and one solution applies to all (Blackwell 2016). But treating all issues equally does not correct underlying inequities; instead, it perpetuates them, because policies and practices impact individuals and communities differently. Committing to equity means tailoring solutions and supports to local needs and circumstances so that everyone thrives. 

The process of equitable development must include diverse stakeholders who provide critical input and take leadership roles. Equitable development must also protect residents from being physically or culturally forced out of their homes while improving market strength and encouraging new market-rate development. Practitioners need to be patient and strategic, understanding that it takes time to realize the desired outcomes. In the meantime, changemakers can track progress with data and make course corrections as needed. 

Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

One major advantage that smaller legacy cities have when advancing equitable development is that their leaders often already have meaningful relationships with each other. When intentionally nurtured, these connections can lead to fruitful coalitions. The path to better economic times is through collaboration; this was true in the aftermath of the Great Recession, and it is likely to continue to be true in the pandemic era (Brachman 2020). Conversely, strained or poor relationships resulting from competition over scarce resources or other factors can impede progress for smaller legacy cities. Steps for dealing with these conflicts are addressed later in this report. 

Another advantage is that the relative lack of market pressures in smaller legacy cities means leaders can take their time to get plans right without rapid development threatening to get ahead of the planning process. Additionally, the smaller size of these places makes them an ideal environment for testing ideas and changing paradigms, eloquently described in the Ferguson Commission report (2015) as encouraging a “culture of trying.” Smaller legacy cities can make course corrections and quick pivots—critical pieces of “trying”—by expeditiously seeking residents’ input and regularly checking back in for feedback. 

An equity agenda cannot be built entirely on a city’s real estate market. This is especially true in smaller legacy cities, which often lack the market strength to support development impact fees or exactions—payments made by developers to local governments to deliver public goods associated with a project, such as infrastructure, open space, or affordable housing. 

Because those strategies may not be suitable for all smaller legacy cities, this report describes alternative routes to equity that do not require waiting for a strong real estate market. For example, leaders in Dayton, Ohio, co-located a number of similar community programs when they renovated the Dayton Arcade. This facilitated more coordinated, collaborative, and efficient delivery of small business development services. Because revitalization work must extend beyond the physical environment, many strategies presented in this report seek to increase human capital. Case studies focus on coalition building, planning, and workforce development. Research supports this need for a breadth of strategies. In an examination of how to improve upward mobility for low-income families and families of color in America’s metro areas, researchers from the U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty found, “The evidence suggests that full-scale transformation will result not from any single policy endeavor, but through a long-term process that extends beyond investments in the distressed neighborhoods themselves to also address the economic, political, and social systems that helped create and sustain neighborhood disparities” (Turner et al. 2018). 

The case studies included here from larger cities or healthier markets can be adapted for smaller legacy cities. Many of the examples come from Ohio, which is home to 20 smaller legacy cities (a relatively high number for one state), and a state policy environment that is not particularly city-friendly. As such, Ohioans have been innovating at the local level for decades. Additionally, this report purposefully prioritizes equitable development strategies that can start at any time, regardless of market strength, and are primarily within the control of local leaders.  

Equitable Development in the COVID-19 Context 

Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened challenges faced by leaders in small legacy cities. Already weak housing markets are further strained as tenants and owners face job losses and increased financial instability. When limited resources force city leaders to make difficult strategic investment decisions, residents may sometimes view these choices as picking favorites. This dynamic erodes trust and underscores how essential it is to develop a defensible plan and an inclusive process to guide decision making. COVID-19 has also increased food insecurity and presented public health challenges such as caring for sick residents and administering vaccines. These new fiscal demands, along with concurrent or projected declines in local tax revenue, make financing revitalization even more difficult in smaller legacy cities. Yet these challenges often provide the impetus for new partnerships.  

Constrained resources can motivate committed local leaders to forge a sense of common destiny and develop strategic partnerships. Today’s conditions may further broaden awareness about existing challenges and generate momentum for new collaborations, while also encouraging leaders to strategically stretch every dollar to yield the most significant impact. 

When the pandemic began, many local governments were already financially fragile. They had not yet recovered from the Great Recession, more than a decade after its official end. Nationally, cities anticipate losing 10 to 15 percent of their revenue in 2021, and the actual amount may be more significant, depending on the type of tax revenue cities depend on (Greater Ohio Policy Center 2020; McFarland and Pagano 2020). 

These revenue challenges are compounded by a dramatic need for initiatives to help support residents and retain small businesses, such as establishing non-congregate shelters, increasing food access, offering small business grants and loans, and expanding internet access. Many local governments have already cut spending by shelving or scaling back scheduled capital projects and laying off staff, actions that then challenge their ability to undertake strategic investments. 

COVID-19 has exacerbated racial disparities in both physical health and economic well-being. While low- and moderate-income people, many of whom are people of color, have benefited from various protections against eviction in the short term, renters worry that they may not be able to pay their accumulated debt. Local landlords who are financially dependent on rental income often dominate the rental market in smaller cities, and the pandemic puts their income at risk, too. 

The long-term consequences for the economies of smaller legacy cities are ultimately unknown—but worrisome. Nevertheless, leaders of smaller legacy cities consider these challenges a setback, not a death knell. Many of Ohio’s smaller legacy cities even report that their traditional economic development efforts were extraordinarily successful in 2020 despite the effects of the pandemic. Linking these economic development successes to equity goals remains a challenge for some, but more stakeholders are growing aware of the issue thanks to an increasing number of conference panels, training sessions, and informal conversations. 

The COVID-19 pandemic also creates a unique opportunity for legacy city leaders to prioritize equity through recovery. A growing national focus on racial justice is underscoring the pandemic’s disproportionate impacts on communities of color. Racial justice protests have occurred in many smaller legacy cities, and many communities have declared racism a public health crisis (Walliser-Wejebe 2020). 

Such protests hold the potential to build dialogue among residents and municipal governments, including police (Frolik 2020; Petersen 2020). Legacy city leaders can seize the moment and fully acknowledge long-standing racial and economic disparities within their cities, as well as the fact that recent economic growth has not benefited all residents equally (Economic Innovation Group 2020). This increased awareness in an environment of heightened urgency paves the way for a more equitable strategic plan for recovery from a pandemic-driven recession and a more inclusive future for smaller legacy cities. 

Addressing Concerns About Gentrification in Smaller Legacy Cities 

An enduring tension within revitalization efforts is between the need for new market-rate housing and residents’ fears of displacement. Declining populations and low incomes in small legacy cities prompt the need to attract new and higher-income residents to approach a healthy bell-curve distribution of incomes (Mallach 2018). Many smaller legacy cities in the Midwest have weak housing markets that require interventions to strengthen the market. 

However, city leaders and developers must authentically acknowledge community concerns as they begin to bring investments to these neighborhoods. Leaders can build trust by bringing a community together to address the need for a mix of incomes, while also acknowledging and mitigating cultural changes and fear of displacement in an open, honest, and transparent way—as in the case of the Bowman Creek Educational Ecosystem in South Bend, Indiana. Physical redevelopment can meet equitable development objectives and maintain a neighborhood’s sense of cultural identity by preserving important community assets such as churches, parks, retail corridors and the long-standing merchants within them, and community and recreation centers. More strategies for addressing these dynamics are considered in the full report. 

A Common Destiny 

Today, smaller legacy cities continue to lose major employers, jobs, and in some cases residents. These trends are exacerbating long-standing racial and income disparities, which have been deepened by COVID-19’s infection rates and economic impacts. The need to address the persistent racial and income segregation common in smaller legacy cities is more urgent than ever. Equitable development offers a new playbook to address inequality while increasing economic competitiveness. 

Strategic work to improve these indicators will provide more opportunities for many residents and will increase potential for broader economic recovery. New investment needs to include deliberate interventions to correct these damaging inequalities. Some smaller legacy cities are experiencing revitalization, but the investments typically do not benefit the city as a whole (Mallach 2014). To reach everyone, revitalization strategies need to be deliberately designed to improve equity outcomes. This report offers numerous examples of how smaller legacy cities can enhance equitable development and set the stage for healthy, sustainable economic recovery. Our strategies acknowledge the importance of relationships and trust in sustaining meaningful, equitable development work. This work can lead to a sense of common destiny among diverse groups and help address disparities and improve economic prospects for the whole city. 

Erica Spaid Patras is the senior manager of special projects at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She studies the impact of potential public policy changes on the real estate market, manages a community of practice focused on expanding access to capital in underinvested neighborhoods and communities across Ohio, and evaluates the impact of transportation policy in Ohio. She holds a master of city planning degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Alison Goebel is the executive director at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She is responsible for charting the center’s strategic direction; directing the research, advocacy, and outreach teams; and securing resources for this work. She is the author of numerous research reports and policy briefs on the revitalization of weak-market cities, transportation funding, and local governance structures in Ohio. She holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in anthropology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and a B.A. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. 

Lindsey Elam is the manager of research at the Greater Ohio Policy Center. She has a master’s degree in city and regional planning and a B.S. in social work, both from the Ohio State University. She is a certified planner (AICP) with the American Planning Association and a LEED Green Associate through the U.S. Green Building Council, and she has completed trainings through the Form-Based Codes Institute.

Lead image: The Erie Downtown Development Corporation, a nonprofit in Erie, Pennsylvania, has increased Erie revitalization capacity and redevelopment funding—and also sponsors the annual Celebrate Erie festival, which traditionally includes this community-driven Chalk Walk. Credit: Robert Frank.

References 

Benner, Chris, and Manuel Pastor. 2012. Just Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in America. New York, NY: Routledge.  

———. 2015. Equity, Growth, and Community: What the Nation Can Learn from America’s Metro Areas. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 

Blackwell, Angela Glover. 2016. “Equity Is . . .” Putnam Consulting Group. October 5. https://putnam-consulting.com/practical-tips-for-philanthropists/equity-is. 

Brachman, Lavea. 2020. The Perils and Promise of America’s Legacy Cities in the Pandemic Era. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 

Eberts, Randall, George Erickcek, and Jack Kleinhenz. 2006. Dashboard Indicators for the Northeast Ohio Economy: Prepared for the Fund for Our Economic Future. Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. 

Economic Innovation Group. 2020. “Neighborhood Poverty Project, Interactive Map.” https://eig.org/neighborhood-poverty-project/interactive-map. 

Ferguson Commission. 2015. Forward Through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equity. St. Louis, MO: St. Louis Positive Change. 

Frolik, Cornelius. 2020. “More Than 100 Volunteer to Help Dayton Develop Police Reforms.” Dayton Daily News. June 30. www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/100-people-agree-help-dayton-reform-police/lfxIZ7GOeZhZCVeXk663KK. 

Greater Ohio Policy Center. 2020. A Mortal Threat to Ohio’s Economic Competitiveness: SB352, HB754, and the Buckeye Institute Lawsuit. Columbus, OH: Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Hollingsworth, Torey, and Alison Goebel. 2017. Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities: Strategies for Postindustrial Success from Gary to Lowell. Policy Focus Report. Columbus, OH: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Greater Ohio Policy Center. 

Mallach, Alan. 2014. The Uncoupling of the Economic City. Washington, DC: Urban Affairs Review. 

———. 2018. The Divided City: Poverty and Prosperity in Urban America. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

McFarland, Christiana K., and Michael A. Pagano. 2020. City Fiscal Conditions 2020. Washington, DC: National League of Cities. 

Pastor, Manuel, and Chris Benner. 2008. “Been Down So Long: Weak-Market Cities and Regional Equity.” In Retooling for Growth: Building a 21st Century Economy in America’s Older Industrial Areas, ed. Richard M. McGahey and Jennifer S. Vey, 89–118. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 

Petersen, Anne Helen. 2020. “Why the Small Protests in Small Towns Across America Matter.” BuzzFeed News. June 3. www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/black-lives-matter-protests-near-me-small-towns. 

Poethig, Erika, Solomon Greene, Christina Stacy, Tanaya Srini, and Brady Meisell. 2018. Inclusive Recovery in U.S. Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Turner, Margery Austin, Solomon Greene, Anthony Iton, and Ruth Gourevitch. 2018. Opportunity Neighborhoods: Building the Foundation for Economic Mobility in America’s Metros. Washington, DC: U.S. Partnership on Mobility from Poverty. 

Walliser-Wejebe, Maria. 2020. “Communities Across the State Declare Racism as a Public Health Crisis, the State Considers It.” Greater Ohio Policy Center blog. July 21. https://www.greaterohio.org/blog/2020/7/16/communities-across-the-state-declare-racism-as-a-public-health-crisis-the-state-considers-it. 
 

In the face of a mounting housing affordability crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of 20 organizations is urging the U.S. government to do more to make homes affordable to low- and moderate-income families. The Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition is urging the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to improve their performance in serving families that cannot access traditional mortgage markets. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—both government-sponsored providers of housing finance—are required to serve these sectors by a regulation known as Duty to Serve. In May, they submitted mandatory three-year plans for how they will comply with the regulation. The coalition is asking the FHFA to require substantial improvements to these plans this year before it approves them. 

“Amid a housing affordability crisis that requires bold and aggressive action, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have set forth plans that fail to effectively reach those not served or not served well by the conventional mortgage market” the coalition’s members wrote in a letter to FHFA Acting Director Sandra L. Thompson. 

The coalition urges FHFA to make regulatory changes to enable Duty to Serve to function as intended by providing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the flexibility to reach underserved mortgage markets more effectively. 

In addition, the coalition supports FHFA’s new initiative requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create plans to reduce racial or ethnic homeownership gaps and reinvest in formerly redlined neighborhoods. 

“Solving our housing affordability crisis requires multiple actions by all levels of government and the private sector, and an invigorated role for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is one of them,” said George W. “Mac” McCarthy, president of the Lincoln Institute. “The Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition seeks to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accountable and uphold their founding purpose: to bring housing finance opportunities to American families not traditionally served by the private market.” 

Along with advocating for stronger plans and regulations, the coalition will use a new tracking tool to closely monitor the performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related to Duty to Serve and racial equity. The coalition is also conducting in-depth research to compare the performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the broader U.S. mortgage market, which will make it easier for outside experts and advocates to assess the extent to which they are serving their public mission and to inform policy makers going forward. 

“The coalition seeks to work constructively with the FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to meet the urgent needs of millions of Americans who are locked out of the opportunities that come with safe, stable, and affordable housing,” said Dr. Akilah Watkins, president and CEO of the Center for Community Progress, a member of the coalition. 

The members of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition include: 

• Center for Community Progress 
• cdcb 
• Enterprise Community Partners  
• Fahe 
• Grounded Solutions Network 
• Housing Assistance Council 
• Housing Partnership Network 
• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 
• Local Initiatives Support Corporation 
• National Council of State Housing Agencies 
• National Community Stabilization Trust 
• National Housing Conference   
• National Housing Trust 
• NeighborWorks America 
• Next Step 
• Novogradac 
• Opportunity Finance Network 
• Prosperity Now 
• RMI 
• ROC USA 

For more background on the Duty to Serve regulation, read the policy brief Duty to Serve: Early Lessons Learned in Underserved Housing Markets. 

Image: Manufactured housing is one of three sectors that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must serve under federal law. Credit: Marje / E+ via Getty Images. 

This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published in APA’s Planning magazine. 

“The world turns and we get dizzy.” That’s how Bono would put it.

He’s right: the world’s accelerations, constant technological disruptions, social inequalities, and changing climate are only a few of the dizzying, mind-boggling challenges today’s planners face. Many of them have been with us for a while. But then came COVID-19, which has catalyzed technological disruptions, amplified our awareness of the effects and pervasiveness of social injustice, and sparked countless other challenges.

Some of these trends have such big implications, are so urgent, or are just moving so fast that planners and the profession have no choice but to stay on top of them. That’s where APA Foresight comes in. In partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, APA’s research team has been looking into existing and emerging trends in the profession so that we can understand the drivers of change, learn how we can prepare for them, and identify when it is time for planners to act. For this article, we explore what you need to know about seven of the most pressing trends for the profession today.

1. Transit ridership has dropped low. Planners will need to aim high. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership tanked. New York City saw a 60 percent decrease in subway riders, while San Francisco reported a 90 percent loss of passengers using Bay Area Rapid Transit. The national number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but transit ridership is only slowly recovering (and in some places, barely so). There are other modes, like active transportation and shared micromobility options—plus potential newcomers in the next five to 10 years like autonomous vehicles and urban air mobility—that may seem like competitors to transit instead of promising partners.

A pandemic made it even more obvious that, in most cities, people who can afford to live close to transit are not always those who rely on it for mobility. Essential workers without the option to work remotely have faced service disruptions—and there were already access and quality issues before. On top of that, most cities’ transit systems were designed to serve downtown commuters working nine-to-five jobs, which captures a fraction of the transit need, and is even more clear as city centers continue to be underused.

As in-person activities resume, transit agencies and planners will need to rebuild confidence in local transit systems. Ridership patterns before the pandemic—and what became standard during the pandemic—should not be the baseline for transportation planning going forward. 

Agile transit solutions are needed to allow for more flexible options outside a nine-to-five work schedule and to accommodate changing mobility needs and behaviors. Equitable transit is imperative to serve those who need it. Partnerships and collaboration with emerging transportation systems will enable transit agencies to be nimble and ensure fair access for all. Meanwhile, transit systems need to expand their capabilities by making immediate improvements in service and reliability, as well as committing to long-term investments. 

2. Technology is transforming communities. Planners will need to adapt to capture the benefits. In the last two decades, we have moved from an information age to a digital era. Today, advances in digital technology affect almost every aspect in life: how people live, work, play, and move around town; how businesses communicate with their customers; and even how people make decisions on what jobs to apply for, who to befriend, or who to go on a date with. Though this digital era started only two decades ago, it has been accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

The concept of “smart cities” is a logical consequence and a development of this era, prompting the digital transformation of entire cities and communities. It includes not just the operation of a city and related processes, systems, and communication streams, but also the processes planners use to make plans for a community, collect and use data, and implement their plans.

In this digital era, it is vital that planners learn about smart city concepts and how they can use smart tech to achieve community goals so their communities can benefit from them instead of being harmed by them. Adjusting planning processes to this digital environment and adding new tools, relevant skills, and knowledge to the planner’s repertoire will be crucial for planners to be able to continue creating great communities for all. (A forthcoming PAS Report on smart cities will help fill the knowledge gap, defining smart cities as those that equitably integrate community, nature, and technology and that foster innovation, participation, and co-creation. The report, due later this year, also will explain the role of the planner and identify necessary skills, methods, and approaches. Stay tuned!)

3. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but the human factor in planning is still crucial. Artificial intelligence has been in development since the 1950s. However, because of the availability of big data and increased computing power, the AI market has grown substantially over the last decade and is expected to grow 20 percent annually over the next few years. While the data-based automated decision-making capabilities of AI will create myriad opportunities to improve current planning processes, data gaps and algorithmic bias pose the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities—and even creating new ones.

Planners and allied professionals should have a strong understanding of the potential impacts and benefits posed by AI on the profession and their communities. AI is already reshaping the local landscape, and it is important to understand how planners can use AI equitably and sustainably. Some important issues to consider are privacy concerns, data quality, and the potential bias of AI.

Additionally, it will be important to emphasize the human factor of planning. While AI will enable us to automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as traffic counts, checking boxes on a list, or certain permitting processes, it won’t be able to replace the human being behind the planner, the change agent who can connect with the individual community members, and the facilitator who can listen to people’s needs and concerns.

4. High and varied demand on public space will require a balancing act. More and more activities are vying for a limited amount of public space. Sidewalks aren’t just pedestrian paths to a destination anymore (but were they ever?). They are also hubs for outdoor dining and farmers markets. When streets are too dangerous and bike lanes are nowhere to be found, sidewalks accommodate scooter riders and bicyclists. Soon, they might even become a path for little robots making autonomous deliveries. Meanwhile, plazas and parks are sites for public gatherings—from protests to picnics to concerts. Roads might handle automobile traffic on weekdays, but during weekends or evenings, they could seamlessly reconfigure into “no car zones.” And curbs are especially in high demand, whether they are for parking cars and micromobility vehicles, dropping off transit or rideshare passengers, or serving as zones for traditional or last-mile autonomous delivery.

People are always going to find a way to creatively shape the public realm. Planners need to foster spaces that are adaptable and responsive to the different types of people who use them. The key focus for planners will be to ensure accessibility and minimize exclusion when balancing these activities. Every community wants bustling public spaces, but planners understand that this should not come at the expense of people’s well-being.

With multiple players, functions, and purposes, planners need to redefine what “shared streets” can mean. They especially need to advocate for the most vulnerable (and traditionally, least protected) people who need and deserve access to public space, such as people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.

5. Climate action will take center stage—and have greater urgency. The first 100 days of the Biden administration established a promising policy environment for climate change action at all levels. Now, it’s up to planning practitioners to advance (or initiate) climate-related projects and plans.

Local and state officials have undoubtedly been leading the push for climate action in recent years. With renewed commitment at the national level, they can breathe a little easier. But the situation still requires urgent action. As hundreds of scientists recently announced, this is not a climate crisis anymore; it’s a climate emergency.

Planners can take advantage of federal and state funding, tools, and incentives to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. This might include reducing carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or supporting the green economy.

State and local governments can also expect more opportunities to engage with federal policy makers and to represent their unique perspective on climate action. And even though COVID-19 recovery might be a top priority in the short-term, climate action is compatible with these activities and can’t be pushed off any longer.

6. Communities are more diverse than ever. So are their needs and experiences. The increase in population diversity requires new planning approaches that can reflect the realities of people across various identities, such as race, age, gender, ability, or religion. This demands that planners view people as more than neat and tidy population groups, but rather as fully realized individuals with unique experiences and needs.

Most practitioners already recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to planning. But the profession also needs to start reconsidering the idea that planning is neutral.

Integrating the context and situation of a community when choosing effective practices and solutions can lead to more conscious, intentional planning. In other words, planning needs to be more dynamic—not neutral—in order to be ready for diversity in the communities that planners serve.

Practitioners should be able to quickly tailor planning solutions to the needs of the least supported, most vulnerable individuals in a community. By pursuing planning exercises that consider life at the individual level, the profession can be more mindful of those who exist at the intersection of multiple identities and how planning solutions might impact them. This can humanize the individuals within a community instead of assuming the experiences of population groups are homogenous, resulting in more dynamic planning with more equitable results.

7. The future of work and workplaces will impact how we use urban space. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, more than 60 percent of the U.S. workforce was working from home, and many continue to do so. The pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of work. Meanwhile, companies are rethinking their office space needs and considering work-from-anywhere policies or hybrids that allow for smaller to no office space, which comes with significant cost savings. The shift from central business districts to a decentralized, work-from-anywhere approach could bring myriad opportunities to change how we use urban space for the better, if planners are ready.

Previously residential-only neighborhoods will have to accommodate their remotely working residents, adding retail, restaurants and coffee shops, parks, and other amenities typically adjacent to offices. For workers who don’t have the space for an office at home or simply don’t want to stay home all day, neighborhood coworking spaces will be needed. Homogenous places will shift to mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that allow the community to socialize and connect with one another.

Vacant office and retail spaces can be repurposed to affordable housing or coliving and coworking spaces. Obsolete parking spaces can be converted into neighborhood parks. Creative thinking can lead to solutions to the housing crisis, as well as the mental health crisis that stems from extended isolation and other traumas experienced during COVID-19.

Ultimately, if jobs are not a reason to move to a city anymore, improved quality of life will become the main attraction. So planners may need to redefine what gets prioritized in their communities accordingly.

The world keeps turning and change stops for no one. That’s why APA Foresight is here. APA researchers, in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, are already preparing for our next cycle of trend research to help the profession learn with and prepare for an uncertain future. 

Cleveland native Frank G. Jackson, the city’s longest-serving mayor, has been an advocate for building equity and opportunity in this postindustrial city since taking office in 2006. Mayor Jackson is a lifelong resident of the Central neighborhood, where he began his career in elected office as a City Council member. He later served as City Council president.

A graduate of Cleveland Public Schools, Cuyahoga Community College, and Cleveland State University—from which he earned bachelor’s, master’s, and law degrees—Jackson began his public service career as an assistant city prosecutor in the Cleveland Municipal Court Clerk’s Office.

During his tenure as mayor, Jackson has focused on helping residents and businesses benefit from investments occurring in the city and advancing the Downtown Lakefront Development Plan. He also spearheaded Sustainable Cleveland 2019, a 10-year initiative designed to build a more sustainable regional economy, encourage sustainable business practices, and improve air and water quality in this former manufacturing hub.

Mayor Jackson recently spoke with Senior Fellow Anthony Flint as part of a series of conversations with mayors of cities that are especially significant to the history of the Lincoln Institute. The series is part of the organization’s 75th anniversary celebration. An edited transcript follows; the full interview, along with others in the series, is available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: When our founder, inventor and entrepreneur John C. Lincoln, got his start in the late 1800s, Cleveland was a booming place, arguably right up there with New York and Chicago, an incredible mix of innovation and jobs and homes and neighborhoods. Could you reflect on how that legacy has been on your mind as you’ve governed Cleveland over the last 15 years?

Frank Jackson: Well, it’s always good to know history, so you can put yourself in the right frame of mind and have perspective. Cleveland was a booming place, with the Rockefellers and the [economic successes] of the Industrial Revolution . . . we were ideally located in terms of our ability to be a hub and for the distribution of goods and materials throughout the Midwest. So we reflect back on those heydays, fully recognizing that what brought us to that moment is no longer here . . . and that there needs to be a relooking at where Cleveland is now and what could position Cleveland to be in a similar situation as a hub for economic opportunity and prosperity and quality of life.

AF: At the statue in Public Square, former Mayor Tom Johnson is shown seated with his hand on a copy of Progress and Poverty by Henry George. Cleveland is where John Lincoln first heard George speak. Why do you think Cleveland was so receptive to the ideas of George, who believed the value of land should belong to everyone?

FJ: I couldn’t tell you for sure, but as you know, the body takes its direction from its head . . . and I think Tom L. Johnson was a mayor with progressive thoughts and with the fortitude to execute and implement [ideas]. So he wasn’t just a conversationalist, he actually did things.

This transition that Cleveland was in then—fast-forward, and we’re in the same transitional kind of period. The Industrial Revolution produced a certain level of prosperity and wealth, but also produced a certain social condition . . . that I believe that progressive era was attempting to change to create more equitable outcomes.

I admit, I didn’t really study Mr. George’s philosophy. But what I do understand is this progressive notion of land use, and how land should not be controlled by a few entities that determine what happens. There should be broader input into what happens on that land.

AF: As the city has steadily emerged from a period of decline and population loss during the second half of the 20th century, what have been the critical elements of its regeneration? What catalysts are you most hopeful about?

FJ: Well, it’s how you position yourself, how does Cleveland position itself for the future . . . . I look at it as, how do we have a sustainable economy? How do we deliver goods and services and how do we get into sustainable industries [like electric vehicles] . . . all of this includes technology, all of it includes education, all of it includes research and development. All these things are inclusive of each other. So there’s not just one thing we can pick and say we’re going to do.

I think we need to go back to what Mr. George was talking about, and what Tom L. Johnson was trying to do, which is to say that [progress] is only sustainable if we have equity, and if we eliminate the disparities and inequities in the way our social, political, and economic systems function. And as you know, particularly around the social unrest these days, if we fail to address issues of classism and racism, then all our efforts will be doomed.

AF: Race and economic development are very much on every mayor’s mind these days, especially now that the pandemic has revealed so much entrenched inequity. What are some of the most effective ways Cleveland has addressed historic segregation and racial disparities?

FJ: Before I answer that, let me just say that whatever we have done is not sufficient, because all of these things are institutionalized . . . . We’ve gone to the point of declaring violence and poverty as a public health issue. We’ve gone to the point of establishing a new division in the Department of Health around social justice. We’re trying to institutionalize some things.

We have also attempted to work with our private sector partners to address inequities, disparity, and racism within their organizations, helping to have a better outcome in terms of contracting for goods and services with lending institutions—even though redlining is illegal, the actual practice of how investments are made and moneys are lent and developments occur is basically redlining. So we try to work with them to help them . . . be able to take a risk where they normally would not take a risk. That can only happen if you allow for wealth to occur among those who have traditionally been denied wealth. If you have leadership and career opportunities for those who had traditionally been denied those opportunities. So those are the kinds of things that we work on.

The real thing is what is the culture of Cleveland. How does Cleveland function, and what is its attitude toward these things. And that’s a behavioral thing that bureaucracy cannot really regulate.

AF: Can you tell us about recent zoning reform measures aimed at reducing barriers to housing production and other local economic activity? How important are these rules and regulations to regeneration, and how has Cleveland made innovative use of vacant and abandoned land?

FJ: As you know, land use is key . . . . We’re moving toward having zoning more aligned with people and multiple mobility, the kind of approaches where there’s bikes, cars, scooters, walking, jogging. In that context, trying to create that type of city, it’s very important to have zoning that will accommodate that and will accommodate it in a way that [minimizes conflict].

When I first came into government, there was no new housing development in Cleveland . . . . As a result of the negative impacts of federal and state policy around redlining and urban renewal and then the social impact of riots, [we had] acres and acres of vacant land in the central city, predominantly in African-American communities . . . . Mayor [Michael White, who led the city from 1990–2001] was really a genius in this regard. He worked with the financial institutions and developers to create a network of neighborhood nonprofits whose primary purpose was to redevelop land for housing and to redevelop land at all price ranges, that would make it affordable. I’m familiar with it because I was councilman of Central, where I still live, which probably had the most negative impacts.

We continue this effort today with Recovery Act money; we’re getting $511 million and we’re working with the private sector to develop tools. We’re not talking about a project or initiative, we’re developing tools. What we’re working on now to really connect all these dots . . . a lot of that has to do with land and with the availability of land, whether it’s lakefront land or empty office space downtown or warehouses, old industrial sites that need environmental cleanup. It’s not just housing, but also, how do we create entrepreneurship, commercial strips, retail strips that still have the bones—how do we bring them back and have ownership of goods and services being provided to the community by the people in that community or someone who looks like the people of that community?

AF: Well, if there’s one thing that Cleveland has, it’s good bones, right?

FJ: That’s exactly right. One of the things that culturally came out of that period that you talked about, the heyday of Cleveland, was Severance Hall [home of the Cleveland Orchestra], the museums, the whole University Circle area . . . . Now we’re trying to use old industrial sites and lakefront or riverfront property in a new way since it’s no longer used for commerce . . . [but] a freeway, railroad tracks, those kinds of things [are] almost impossible to remove, but they’re barriers. So how do you overcome those barriers? One of the things we’re looking at is a land bridge that would allow for green space and access to the riverfront, the lakefront, and with that to always have public access and not have private ownership of the waterfront.

AF: Sounds like there’s a lot of reimagining going on.

FJ: That’s the advantage to where Cleveland is now. To have a blank canvas, so to speak, gives us that opportunity. Now the question is whether or not we mess it up . . . . I’ve maintained that whatever we do, it will never be sustainable if we don’t address the underlying issues that are really the issues of America: institutionalized inequity, disparities, racism, and classism, which has a lot to do with land.

This interview is also available as an episode of the Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute and a contributing editor to Land Lines. 

Photograph: Once an industrial powerhouse, Cleveland has had to reinvent itself after experiencing decades of economic decline during the 20th century. Credit: benkrut via iStock/Getty Images Plus.