"“If smart growth is to flourish, it needs to be applied to the tangled issues of where people of different races and classes live, work, and go to school.” Per Rochester, NY, Mayor, William A. Johnson, Jr., (page 8) 11...
Sprawl, regional inequity, and the hardships they cause are not natural results of a free market economy. Rather, they are direct results of public policies that have provided incentives for suburban growth at the expense of central cities. (p. 6)...
page 8, "One strategic venue where community based
regionalists are advancing regional equity is smart
growth initiatives. Although smart growth principles
recognize the interconnectedness among a healthy
environment, a prosperous economy, and social
equity, early efforts at implementation often
neglected equity concerns. Now, those concerned
with equity are increasingly building broad-based,
equity-focused alliances pushing for regional
agendas to explicitly address the lack of affordable
housing, poor school quality, poor transportation,
and other dimensions of inequity, in addition to
preserving open space and reducing traffic
congestion.
As articulated by the mayor of
Rochester, NY, William A. Johnson, Jr., “If smart
growth is to flourish, it needs to be applied to the
tangled issues of where people of different races
and classes live, work, and go to school.”11
The Road Ahead
While low-income and communities of color suffer
the most negative consequences of regional inequity,
the impacts of uneven and unhealthy development
patterns create widespread problems. Auto-oriented
sprawl is causing people to drive more, leading to
worsening air pollution. Growing commute distances
among two-worker families are stealing parental time
from children. In fast-developing areas on the
metropolitan fringe, children must be driven to huge,
anonymous schools that are often overcrowded when
they open.12
While reversing unhealthy development patterns and
building greater equity appear to be a win-win for all,
these undertakings also face entrenched challenges.
Today, there are few laws in place that explicitly
promote regional equity. Some opponents of
strategies focused on more equitable regional
development view any significant change as a threat
to the existing balance of power that has favored
their interests. They consider these initiatives as
potentially eroding resources that they already have
rather than a win-win. Others, including some leaders
of low-income communities of color, worry that
advancing regional equity is synonymous with a
system of formal regional government that would
dilute hard-won gains in the political representation
of minority communities. Advocates must consistently
demonstrate and give voice to the notion that
regional equity is indeed in the interest of all."
page 5:
"Sprawl and Inequity
Increasingly, people’s life chances are determined by
where they live. In many of our nation’s metropolitan
regions, the outer edges enjoy growth and prosperity,
while central cities and inner suburbs experience
overall population loss, a declining tax base, and
increasing concentrated poverty. Residents of inner city
neighborhoods, for instance, are more than twice
as likely to live in poverty than their suburban
counterparts.1
Living in concentrated poverty is usually ruinous to
people’s life chances.2 People in poor neighborhoods
are typically cut off from access to livable wage jobs,
quality education, adequate health services, or
protection from criminal activities. Because of
persistently high unemployment, conditions in poor
communities are often self-reproducing. When most
of one’s neighbors have either no jobs or bad jobs,
then the social networks in that community will not
be helpful in connecting to available employment.3
Exacerbating the unequal distribution of resources
and opportunities in metropolitan regions is suburban
sprawl—defined as the continuous spread of
businesses and housing beyond the boundaries of the
central city and inner suburbs into more distant, once
rural, areas. As critical services such as public schools
in older communities erode because of declining tax
bases, and employment opportunities, including
entry-level jobs, move away from urban centers, low income
residents are increasingly challenged in
gaining access. For example, the City of Cleveland
contains 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s
African-American poor while 80 percent of the entry level
jobs are in the suburbs. 4
As our nation and communities grow more ethnically,
racially, and culturally diverse, both enhancing and
complicating our social fabric, it becomes even more
critical to build broad public commitment and
engagement for equity and inclusion.5 Shaping the
development of our metropolitan regions in the 21st
century will be a key arena for addressing this challenge."
==================================
page 6
"The Challenge:
Forging More Equitable Regions
Many of the challenges families and communities face
cannot adequately be addressed by traditional
political boundaries and jurisdictions. Economic
development, for example, extends beyond cities to
regional economic clusters; environmental issues exist
within bioregions; and social issues cut across
neighborhoods within regions. 6 Those concerned
about social and economic equity recognize that the
future for residents of low-income neighborhoods is
tied to regional social, political, and economic factors
and thus require analysis, engagement, and impact at
the regional level.
Sprawl, regional inequity, and the hardships they
cause are not natural results of a free market
economy. Rather, they are direct results of public
policies that have provided incentives for suburban
growth at the expense of central cities and older
suburbs and their low-income residents. Federal laws,
such as the National Housing Act of 1934, which
insured low-interest mortgage loans to middle-class
households making a new life in the suburbs, have
served to undermine the health of central cities.
Moreover, state and local practices have contributed
to the problem as suburban governments, for
example, committed public monies to attract
businesses, and therefore jobs, out of the inner city
and older suburbs.
Regional equity means giving children and families of
all races and classes the best possible environment in
which to live. Advancing regional equity thus involves
reducing social and economic disparities among
individuals, social groups, neighborhoods, and local
jurisdictions within a metropolitan area.7 Regions
grow healthier economically when all communities in
the region are strong. In essence, “the fate of the
cities is linked with that of the suburbs, the fate of
business with that of the workforce, and the fate of
the middle class with that of the poor.”8
Reducing inequities within regions means providing
economic opportunity and secure, living-wage jobs
for all residents. It involves building healthy, mixed income
neighborhoods with sufficient affordable
housing distributed throughout the region. It means
fostering strong civic engagement and responsive
institutions to ensure that all residents have a voice in
the major decisions that affect their lives. It means
providing low-income residents with the opportunity
to build assets and become beneficiaries of
reinvestment and positive change in their
communities. Finally, regional equity involves greater
cooperation to promote a broader tax base and to
have a more fair distribution of resources for quality
schools and other public services.
Regional equity comprises three basic premises:
• Regional health depends on the health of all the
region’s sectors—public, economic, and civic;
• Central cities and declining suburbs cannot
successfully confront the problems of concentrated
poverty independently; that is, without a regional
focus;
• A regional approach to equity supports rather than
undermines the political power, social cohesion,
and sense of place of all residents of the region, but
particularly those communities who have long been
denied effective voice as a result of regional forces.9
Tackling the system of regional disparities, however,
involves particular challenges. The consequences of
sprawl and disinvestment are regional in scope, but
modes of government are typically not. Where
regional governments exist, they usually have
authority only over specific functions such as
transportation, air and water quality, and sewers.
Regional equity thus becomes a “moving target.”
Regional equity advocates must direct their efforts to
a thicket of local jurisdictions, state governments, and
special districts in order to make change. Community based
organizations pursuing social and economic
equity find this particularly challenging. Many are...
page 7
focused exclusively at the local level in addressing the
symptoms of urban disinvestment. Local actors,
especially those representing communities of color,
often do not have the resources to maintain
engagement in regional planning and policy
discussions and campaigns, nor have they always
been welcomed. Unsuccessful past attempts and
oftentimes strained race relations can and do
complicate these regional alliances.
This framing paper aims to expand the dialogue and
action promoting regional equity. It highlights a
number of key equity issues that are challenging our
nation—from education to housing to environmental
justice—and speaks to the regional dimensions and
web of connections that weave them together. These
connections and efforts accomplished to date offer
promising opportunities to build synergies and make
progress across issues. This paper closes by offering a
framework from which to develop an action agenda.
Towards Regional Equity:
Community Based Regionalism
The emergence of the region—rather than the city—
as the dominant economic and social geographic unit,
as well as the decentralization of urban growth, has
led advocates for social change to think and act
regionally. This “community based regionalism”"....
-----------------------
page 10, "Transportation
Transportation systems have a significant impact on
the way a region develops and on the quality of life
for its residents by determining access to housing
locations, economic corridors, and employment
opportunities. Therefore, transportation policy,
planning, and investment can be a powerful vehicle
for promoting regional equity.
Low-income communities of color have been
adversely affected by our nation’s transportation
priorities in many ways. For decades, the vast majority
of transportation dollars has gone to highway
construction and repair, fueling suburban sprawl and
the isolation and decline of central cities and older
suburbs. Most metropolitan transit investment is
geared towards benefiting suburban, white-collar
commuters, while “reverse commute” routes—those
that enable workers from inner cities and older
suburbs to travel to entry-level jobs outside their
neighborhoods—are nonexistent or severely
underfunded.
Low-income communities of color disproportionately
pay the price of regional transportation investment as
“roads, freeways, and rail transit systems have
divided, isolated, disrupted, and imposed different
economic, environmental, and health burdens” on
them.13 At the same time, families earning less than
$12,000 per year spend over one-third of their
income on transportation.14 Residents of these
communities of color have traditionally had little voice
in metropolitan transportation decisions.
While low-income communities have not equally
benefited from transportation and transit investments,
these expenditures can be an engine for
neighborhood revitalization and regional opportunity.
However, such investments can be a double-edged
sword. Building economic development projects
around transit stops in low-income communities, for
example, can provide a lifeline to opportunities across
the region, but at the same time fuel gentrification
that eventually prices residents out of their
neighborhood. If transportation investments are not
included with awareness of the potential impacts on
neighborhood affordability, and accompanied by
mitigations and strategies to promote community
benefit, existing low-income residents may be
harmed.
An equitable transportation system is a cornerstone to
achieving greater access and opportunity within
regions. Transportation equity proponents affirm that
an equitable transportation system would:
• Ensure opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the transportation planning process;
• Be answerable to standards of public accountability
and financial transparency;
• Prioritize efforts to revitalize low-income people—
particularly communities of color;
• Ensure benefits and burdens from transportation
projects (e.g., jobs and pollution) are distributed
across all income levels;
• Provide high-quality services to low-income minority
communities.15
What’s Being Done
National Efforts. At the national level, an important
transportation equity framework is being advanced
through the Surface Transportation Policy Project’s
“new transportation charter.” The charter calls for the
reform of existing transportation governance
structures, incentives, and investment policies in order
to better promote public health, social equity,
economic prosperity, and improved energy use and
environmental protection.16 The charter focuses on
the reauthorization of important surface
transportation legislation, the Transportation Equity
Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21). Equity advocates
are lobbying for more funding for access to jobs,
public transit, system preservation, and programs that
explicitly promote coordination between
transportation and land use, including incentives for
affordable housing close to transit.
page 11
Local Efforts.
Complementary to broad national
efforts, groups at the local and metropolitan levels are
succeeding in having an impact on transportation
policy and investment practices. They are prompting
greater community involvement in regional
transportation decisions; strengthening reverse
commute options for workers from inner cities and
older suburbs; developing community-driven, transit oriented
development projects at transit hubs; and
advocating for equitable transit investment.
On the Move: Greater Boston Transportation
Justice Coalition 17
Alternatives for Community & Environment (ACE), an
environmental justice organization based in Roxbury,
MA, is spearheading a transportation justice coalition
of over 50 groups to fight for greater equity in the
Boston area’s public transportation system. Members
of the coalition, known as On the Move: Greater
Boston Transportation Justice Coalition, include transit
advocates, CDCs, affordable housing advocates, civil
rights organizations, and environmental justice groups.
Organized in March 2002, On the Move maintains that
the transit needs of low-income neighborhoods and
communities of color have been systematically
neglected by the state’s transportation decisionmakers.
For example, the Boston-area metropolitan
transit authority invests four times more in commuter
rail than buses, even though there are four times as
many bus riders. The bus fleet consists of 980 aging
diesel vehicles that spew large quantities of particulate
matter in bus-dependent, low-income neighborhoods.
According to the American Lung Association, fragile
lung tissue is easily damaged by pollutants in the air,
resulting in increased risk of asthma and allergies,
chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, and other respiratory
diseases. On the Move has developed an agenda and
action plan that calls for improvements in the service
and environmental quality of the bus system; a fair
share of transportation investment for low-income
communities of color; greater community involvement
in transportation decisions; and linkages between
transportation improvement and neighborhood
affordability strategies. The coalition has been
advocating for its goals with the governor in addition
to the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization,
which makes key decisions about transportation
investment. The coalition has already secured almost
$40 million in the region’s long-range transportation
plan for adding 100 clean-fuel buses to the area’s fleet.
____________________
Community-driven Transit-oriented Development
in Chicago’s West Garfield Park Neighborhood 18
Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development
corporation (CDC), has spearheaded the development
of a $4 million, 23,000-square-foot Transit Center in
the low-income West Garfield Park neighborhood of
Chicago. The impetus for the Transit Center originated
in 1992 when the Chicago Transit Authority
announced plans to close the local station and the
entire Green Line. Community leaders convinced the
Authority to modernize the line instead; in 1993 the
Authority introduced a $300 million capital project to
rebuild the Green Line. Since construction was
completed, ridership has increased by 10 percent a
year.
The Transit Center is designed to coordinate economic
investment around the transit stop with the needs of
the surrounding low-income community. It will include
shops and restaurants, a day-care center (which will
eventually include around-the-clock and weekend care
for those families not working regular business hours),
an employment office, and a walkway that connects
the building to the Lake Pulaski station. It will produce
some of its own energy with photovoltaic generators
and is designed to serve the local neighborhood as well
as commuter rail line. The project also calls for 65 units
of affordable single and multifamily homes to be built
one block from the rail station, which is also ten
minutes from an elementary and a middle school.
page 12
Housing residents by unleashing a process of rapidly escalating
property values and rental conversions to for-sale
properties.
Low-income residents become at risk for
displacement as revitalization occurs and property
values rise. The crisis in affordable housing—commonly defined
as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of
gross household income—is one of the most telling
indicators of poverty and inequity in America.
According to the National Housing Conference,
approximately 13 million families nationwide spend
more than half of their income on housing or live in
“severely substandard” conditions. 19
Achieving housing equity rests on four principles:
• Increase the overall supply of affordable housing;
• Distribute affordable units across the region;
• Include affordable housing as a key component of
any urban revitalization strategy so that
the lack of sustained investment in the nation’s residents are not displaced;
affordable housing stock is a key cause of this crisis.
Money for federal low-income housing programs
peaked in 1978, then declined precipitously in the
early 1980s when the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) terminated almost all
public housing development.20 The visibility of the
relatively small portion of public housing concentrated
in large high-rise projects obscures the fact that, in
many communities, public housing is a primary source
of decent, affordable housing.21
• Develop mixed-income housing as a way to build
diverse, inclusive communities.
What’s Being Done
Advocacy groups and some local jurisdictions are
pursuing a variety of housing strategies that
contribute to regional equity. These efforts are
helping to reduce racial segregation and concentrated
poverty, stem polarization occurring among a region...and house workers closer to jobs.
...In many metropolitan regions, for example, residents of
central cities and older suburbs are isolated from
entry-level employment opportunities at the periphery
because they cannot afford to live near those jobs.
The Millennial Housing Commission’s recently
released report notes that “restrictive zoning
practices” and “adoption of local regulations that
discourage housing development” are key culprits
Inclusionary Zoning.
Inclusionary zoning distributes
affordable housing throughout a region’s
jurisdictions. It is a regulatory strategy that requires or
encourages that a percentage of housing units in new
residential developments be made available for low and
moderate-income households, thus fostering
mixed-income communities....
Housing development that incorporates smart growth
principles can actually improve choices and affordability.23
Pioneered in Montgomery County, MD, through a
1974 ordinance, inclusionary zoning has been utilized
successfully in communities throughout the country.
Most effective in communities that are already
growing, inclusionary zoning requires or encourages
developers to contribute to affordable housing stock
in exchange for benefits, such as zoning variances,
development rights, and other permits.
The revitalization of urban core areas can also have a
detrimental impact on housing affordability. Local
economic development plans that do not include an
explicit affordable housing component can displace..."
=========================
Ed. note: Smart growth, transportation justice, environmental justice, eliminating the suburbs, high speed rail, etc. are all connected. These plans have been going on a very long time all across the US. The above paper came out 10 years ago.
==========================
"The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act)."...
4/6/12, "California Declares War on Suburbia," WSJ.com, Wendell Cox, "Planners want to herd millions into densely packed urban corridors. It won't save the planet but will make traffic even worse."
"It's no secret that California's regulatory and tax climate is driving business investment to other states. California's high cost of living also is driving people away. Since 2000 more than 1.6 million people have fled, and my own research as well as that of others points to high housing prices as the principal factor.
The exodus is likely to accelerate. California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment