1 Letter from the Publisher Andrew Mooney 2 2 1St Century Community
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THe Journal of the Institute for COmpreHensive COmmunity DeVelopment Inaugural Issue DeCemBer 2010 1 Letter from the Publisher Andrew Mooney 2 21st Century Community Development and Federal Policy Author Interview Lessons from the Field Robert Weissbourd 15 Building the Platform for Community Development Reflections Andrew Mooney 18 After Shorebank Richard Taub Commentary 18 Shorebank and the Future of CDFIs Mark Pinsky Commentary 21 Voices from the Field III Anne C. Kubisch, Patricia Auspos, Research Report Prudence Brown, Tom Dewar 24 Social Capital Research Review Chris Walker 25 Politics of Happiness Book Review Eileen Figel 26 The Obama Administration and Neighborhood Revitalization Legislative Update Benson (Buzz) Roberts 28 Take Courage Bishop Arthur M. Brazier Reflections (1921-2010) The JoUrnal oF The Institute For Comprehensive Community DeveLopmenT The Journal is published by the Institute for Comprehensive Community Development, a venture of Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The Institute works to advance the field of comprehensive community development and the positive impact it has in urban and rural communities across the country by: • Building the capacity of community development practitioners • Providing on-site support and technical assistance to comprehensive community devel- opment initiatives in cities across the U.S. • Applying lessons learned through research and performance evaluation to continually improve on-going comprehensive community development initiatives and to develop new initiatives • Supporting the development of public policies which integrate government programs in order to effectively facilitate and support comprehensive community development • Communicating broadly the best there is in practice and theory in the field of community development The Journal advances the mission of the Institute by communicating outstanding theory and practice in the field, sharing the lessons of research and evaluation, providing a forum for robust debate about the model itself and the challenges and opportunities faced by its practi- tioners, exploring policy implications, and, through reflection and debate, building the community of those engaged in this work. Publisher Andrew Mooney, Managing Director, Institute for Comprehensive Community Development Editorial BoArD Tom Kingsley, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan housing and Communities Policy Center, Urban Institute Anne C. Kubisch, Director, roundtable on Community Change, Aspen Institute Oramenta Newsome, executive Director, LISC/Washington D.C. Chris Walker, Director of research, LISC Institute DIrector Eileen Figel Editor Mary O’Connell Design Tuan P. Do The views expressed represent those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the editorial board, the Institute for Comprehensive Community Development, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), or their affiliates or funders. Material herein may be reprinted or abstracted upon notification to The Institute for Comprehensive Community Development and provided appropriate credit is given. 1 north LaSalle Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602 • Tel. 773-407-6336 • www.instituteccd.org Letter FroM The Publisher ore than a decade ago, LISC began approaching community development in a way that’s different, both from what came before, and from what Mmany theorists advocate today. Unlike traditional community development, which focuses largely on real estate development, we run the gamut from housing and commercial development to sports and health care. Unlike traditional federal government programs, with carefully tended (and jealously defended) resources for housing, transportation, job training, etc., we believe in a comprehensive approach where programs and activities are place-based, strategic, and integrated. And unlike many of today’s policy discussants who preach the gospel of metropolitan and regional development but fail to articulate the need to integrate neighborhoods in regional devel- opment strategies, we believe that the metropolis is only as strong as its neighborhoods, and that one ignores neighborhood development at the peril of the regional economy. The idea of creating the Institute for Comprehensive Community Development grew from a notion that our colleague Jim Capraro had a few years ago. Its purpose is to share, and to debate, the lessons we and others are learning as we pursue this community-based, comprehensive approach, and to explore the policy implications. our thinking is based on our experience, and on the thousands of different relationships that form the web of community development in cities that pursue the same approach. This new Journal advances the work of the Institute by: • communicating outstanding theory and practice in the field • sharing the lessons of research and evaluation • providing a forum for robust debate about the model itself and the challenges and opportunities faced by its practitioners • exploring policy implications, with a goal to building stronger public policies to support comprehensive community devel- opment • building the community of those engaged in this work The Journal will, we hope, position the Institute as the thought-leader in our field and as the go-to place to learn about and think about what it takes to transform neighborhoods in America. It’s an exciting if not daunting new venture for all of us, but it’s never been more important to our field. As I remark in the essay on page 15, even with a friendly administration in Washington, it’s still really up to us to make development happen in ways that genuinely empower people and transform neighborhoods. I hope that some of our experience and especially our current thinking on these matters will stimulate your own thinking, and that you will respond to what you read here. We all have much to learn from each other. And we have much to do. Andrew Mooney Managing Director, The Institute for Comprehensive Community Development Chicago December 2010 T h e J o U r n al o F T h e I n stitut e F o r C o mp r e h e n si v e C o mmu n it y D e v e L o pm e n T • www . I n stitut e ccd . o r g 1 Author InTerv IeW 21st Century Community Development and Federal Policy In the paper that follows, Bob Weissbourd outlines how a new, more dynamic understanding of neighborhoods should in turn lead to new, more nuanced and integrated federal strategies for strengthening neighborhoods and regions. As a member of the Obama- Biden Transition Team, Weissbourd helped review the work of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and develop recommendations for the incoming administration. Promising new programs and approaches are emerging at the federal level, he says, but progress is difficult, in part because of entrenched interests in the economic development field and in Congress. Weissbourd recently sat down for a conversation about neighborhood development and federal policy. Q: Your paper lays out some pretty significant ideas. and then most of them move away — often to a starter home What do you think is its most important contribution? community — and other young people replace them. nothing wrong with that. It tries to offer a much different, more dynamic understanding of neighborhoods. Understanding the neighborhood as part of larger dynamic systems helps shape strategies for both neighborhood and neighborhoods, in this view, are complex systems that arise regional development. We can identify what characteristics from the interaction between larger systems (labor markets, appeal to the residents it wants to serve and, in turn, how the supply chains, real estate markets, etc.) and neighborhood neighborhood connects residents to jobs, education, and so characteristics like building stock, location, transportation forth beyond the neighborhood. infrastructure, and so on. These dynamics give rise to different types of neighborhoods with different functions. Q: But aren’t some communities more stable than the ones you’re describing? My Chicago neighborhood, for neighborhoods are also constantly in motion — people and example, has many families who have been there 30 years businesses are moving in and out — or they are dying. This is or more. different from the traditional view of a static and fairly self- contained neighborhood to be organized and preserved. of course, some community types serve residents for much longer periods — retirement communities, for example. But Let me give you an example. For several years, I worked with even retirement communities, if they’re not renewing a team doing comprehensive neighborhood development in themselves, are dying. And a starter home community can be Town Fork Creek, in Kansas City. At one point we realized quite stable, and serve the same functions for the same types that this is a “starter home” community. The housing was of residents and businesses, for a long time. The players affordable and the neighborhood was reasonably safe with change, but the play stays the same. decent amenities for small children, so young families with small kids would move in. They would stay for a while, but Whether you want to be stable or to change types, you always then as the kids grew older and the families were doing better, have to think about who you want to attract and what they they would move away — and new, young families would want. And to do that you’re looking to the regional context: take their place. what will attract certain types of residents, developers, businesses, what neighborhoods are you competing against, I’m simplifying, of course.