Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and ...

Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and Neighborhood EquityFunders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Cover Photos, clockwise from top left:1) The Hartford, Conn., skyline (© Stephen L. Roberts, www.ctcyber.com).2) A public market established by the Northeast Louisiana Delta CDC, attracting travelers from Highway 65 (Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).3) Rendering of the East Baltimore Development Initiative’s Ashland Common (Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).4) A resident admires a new mural in East Baltimore (Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).5) Market Creek Plaza, a 20-acre commercial and cultural center in the Diamond Neighborhoods of San Diego, an initiative of the Jacobs Centerfor Neighborhood Innovation (Source: Jacobs Family Foundation).6) A community design workshop hosted on May 18, 2002, by the Regional Plan Association’s East Harlem Community Link Initiative (Source:Regional Plan Association).

Signs of Promise:Stories of Philanthropic Leadershipin Advancing Regional and Neighborhood EquityFunders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities2005

This report was produced by the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities in association with its Regionaland Neighborhood Equity Project, which exists to ensure that the smart growth movement advances opportunity and justice inregions and communities across North America. The Funders’ Network gratefully acknowledges the support of the FordFoundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Charles Stewart Mott Foundationfor the Regional and Neighborhood Equity Project.Publication Produced and Distributed by:Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities1500 San Remo Avenue, Suite 249Coral Gables, FL 33146(305) 667-6350 phone(305) 667-6350 faxinfo@fundersnetwork.orgwww.fundersnetwork.orgAcknowledgmentsThis report is the product of a dedicated team of researchers, writers, and editors. Research and writing assistance was provided bySabine Awad, Charlene Crowell, James Espinas, Alan Hipolito, Jesus “Jesse” Leon, and Dwayne Marsh. Editorial assistance wasprovided by Sabine Awad, Maureen Lawless, Jesus “Jesse” Leon, and Ben Starrett.The Funders’ Network is deeply indebted to the representatives from the foundations and projects profiled in this report who gavewillingly of their time and talents to be interviewed for the profiles that are included here. Each offered a compelling story of aninnovative strategy that—when aggregated with the others profiled in this report—demonstrate that advancing regional andneighborhood equity is possible through pursuit of smarter growth decisionmaking.The Network thanks each of them for their involvement in this effort.Finally, the Network thanks PolicyLink for its help with this report and its partnership with the Funders’ Network.PolicyLink is a national nonprofit research, communications, capacity building, and advocacy organization dedicated toadvancing policies to achieve economic and social equity based on the wisdom, voice, and experience of local constituencies.For more information, visit www.policylink.org. The Network also acknowledges the Earth House Centerfor its assistance in documenting the work of many of the grantees profiled in this report.For more information, visit www.earthhousecenter.org.© 2005 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, Inc.Printed with soy ink on recycled stock.

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable CommunitiesThe mission of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities is to inspire, strengthen, and expandphilanthropic leadership and funders’ abilities to support organizations working to improve communities through betterdevelopment decisions and growth policies. The Network brings together foundations, nonprofit organizations, and other partnersto address the range of environmental, social, and economic problems caused by poor planning and development decisions.Members of the Funders’ Network include corporate, private, and community foundations and intermediaries. For moreinformation about the Network, visit www.fundersnetwork.org.Regional and Neighborhood Equity ProjectThe Regional and Neighborhood Equity Project (RNEP) is a project of the Network led by an action-oriented steeringcommittee of funders working to ensure that regional and neighborhood equity is advanced through the smart growthmovement. The project works to broaden outreach to new constituencies; frame the issues; network funders and practitionersto strengthen relationships; improve grantmaking practices to demonstrate progress; and build competencies among key actorsto sustain lasting progress.Just as environmental issues exist within bioregions, economic development extends beyond cities to regional economic clusters,and social issues cut across neighborhoods within regions. The future of residents of low-income neighborhoods is tied to regionalsocial, political, and economic factors and requires strategic analysis, engagement, and impact at the regional and neighborhood• Improving access to economic opportunity and qualityeducational resources regardless of age, race, class, gender,or geographic location;• Giving children and families of all races and classes the bestpossible environment in which to live;• Reducing social and economic disparities amongindividuals, social groups, neighborhoods, and localjurisdictions within a metropolitan area;• Building healthy, mixed-income neighborhoods with sufficientaffordable housing distributed throughout the region;• Fostering strong civic engagement and responsive institutionsto ensure that all residents have political power and a voice inthe major decisions that affect their lives; and/or• Providing low-income residents with the opportunity tobuild assets and become beneficiaries of reinvestment andpositive change in their communities.level. The project defines regional and neighborhood equity as strategies and efforts that focus on:Regional and Neighborhood Equity Project Steering CommitteeThe Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities gratefully acknowledges the members of the steeringcommittee that leads the Regional and Neighborhood Equity Project (RNEP) for their hard work and commitment to theseissues. Their guidance, input, and thoughtful comments helped turn this report from an idea to a reality. Without them, thisreport would not have been possible:Carl Anthony, Acting Director, Community and Resource Development Unit, Ford Foundation (RNEP Chair)Sharon Alpert, Associate Program Officer for Environment, Surdna FoundationDan Bartholomay, Program Director, The McKnight FoundationConsuella Brown, Program Officer, Grand Victoria FoundationMariano Diaz, Senior Vice President, Community Partnerships, The San Diego FoundationChristine Doby, Program Officer, Charles Stewart Mott FoundationDavid Harris, former Director, Regional Policy and Florida Philanthropy, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation (former RNEP Co-Chair)Earl Johnson, former Associate Director, Working Communities, Rockefeller FoundationRenu Karir, former Program Officer, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (former RNEP Co-Chair)Roger Kim, former Program Fellow, Environment, The San Francisco FoundationElizabeth Lynn, Senior Program Officer, McCune FoundationBrian Moore, Program Director for Foundation Initiatives, The Gifford FoundationAurie Pennick, Executive Director, The Field Foundation of IllinoisRebecca Riley, Consultant, Community and Resource Development Unit, Ford FoundationArlene Rodriguez, Program Officer, Environment, The San Francisco FoundationScot Spencer, Manager of Baltimore Relations, Annie E. Casey FoundationLorne Steedley, Program Associate, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Table of ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Part II: Perspectives on Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity—A Framework for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16(I. A.)(I. B.)(I. C.)(I. D.)(I. E.)(I. F.)(I. G.)(I. H.)Building Power and Giving Voice to Community Concerns: Community BenefitsAgreements—Ford Foundation, The New World Foundation, Unitarian UniversalistVeatch Program at Shelter Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Promoting Coalitions to Advance Equity: Gamaliel Foundation’s Cross-CoalitionBuilding—Catholic Campaign for Human Development, Ford Foundation,W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Filling the Void: The National Vacant Properties Campaign—Fannie Mae Foundation,Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Surdna Foundation,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Demonstrating the Struggle for Regional Equity: Learning from the Ford Foundation’sEngagement in Camden, N.J., and Richmond, Calif.—Ford Foundation,The San Francisco Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Building Coalition through Knowledge: CenterEdge Project—Catholic Campaignfor Human Development, Hartford Foundation for Public Giving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Confronting Racial Inequality and Land Reform: Detroit Branch NAACP & MichiganLand Use Institute Partnership—Ford Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation,Michigan Land Use Funders Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Revitalizing While Assuring Diversity and Social Responsibility: “Value Latching” inAlbuquerque, N.M.—Enterprise Foundation, Ford Foundation, Marshall L. andPerrine D. McCune Charitable Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44A Travez de la Frontera: Land Use Visioning—International Community Foundation,The San Diego Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48(I. I.) Mobilizing Action for Regional Equity—Barr Foundation, The Hyams Foundation . . . . . .52(I. J.) Fusing Issues, Making Change: Regional Advocacy in the San Francisco Bay Area—The California Endowment, Ford Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation,Surdna Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocksfor a Strong Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64(II. A.)Reaching Beyond Housing to Implement a Broader Community Vision: AlleghenyWest Foundation—William Penn Foundation, Philadelphia Neighborhood DevelopmentCollaborative, Wachovia Regional Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

(II. B.)(II. C.)Turning Neighborhoods Around: Annie E. Casey Foundation’s East BaltimoreDevelopment Initiative—Annie E. Casey Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Yielding Regional Benefits through Neighborhood Action: Bethel New Life—AnnieE. Casey Foundation, The Field Foundation of Illinois, Ford Foundation, Local InitiativesSupport Corporation (LISC), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,The Retirement Research Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74(II. D.) Blending Arts and History to Preserve and Revitalize Community: Project Row Houses—Ford Foundation, Houston Endowment Inc., The Meadows Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78(II. E.)Countering the Perfect Storm: Economic Self-Determination for San Diego’sNeighborhoods—Jacobs Family Foundation, Price Charities, The San Diego Foundation,San Diego Neighborhood Funders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90(III. A.) Making Housing an Opportunity for Local and Regional Equity: The Bay AreaInclusionary Zoning Housing Initiative—S.H. Cowell Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation,Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, Marin Community Foundation, Peninsula CommunityFoundation, The San Francisco Foundation, Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, . . . . .92(III. B.) Ensuring A Fair Fare: Transit Advocacy in Diverse Regions—Catholic Campaign forHuman Development, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95(III. C.) Connecting Transit, Development, and Community: The East Harlem CommunityLink Initiative and the Fruitvale Transit Village—Ford Foundation, Local InitiativesSupport Corporation (LISC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100(III. D.) Bridging Social, Economic, and Geographic Divides: Kentucky’s CommunityFarm Alliance—Ford Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107(III. E.) Uniting Three States for One Vision: The Mid South Delta Initiative—W.K. Kellogg Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110(III. F.) Advancing Opportunity through Metropolitan Equity: Leadership Council forMetropolitan Open Communities—Fannie Mae Foundation, The Field Foundationof Illinois, LaSalle Bank, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,Woods Fund of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115Part IV: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119Part V: Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122Part VI: Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125Part VII: Demonstration Project Map—A National Perspective of the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

ForewordAcross North America, recognition is growing thatcurrent public decisions guiding land use anddevelopment are putting at risk people, theenvironment, and the economy. Manifestations of thesedecisions include increasing social and economicinequity, accelerating concentrations of poverty,weakening of public schools, growing traffic congestion,worsening air quality, and jobs locating farther andfarther away from homes and apartments that familiescan afford. Regional growth and development patternsprofoundly impact the life circumstances of low-incomecommunities and people of color. Too many people areoften isolated in neighborhoods without living wagejobs or without the public transit needed to accessemployment in other parts of the region. Too manychildren struggle in poor quality, deteriorating schools.Too many live in communities plagued with poor airand water quality and toxic sites. Too manyneighborhoods lack important services and amenitieslike full-service grocery stores, banks, safe parks, andinviting public spaces.As a result of the growing awareness of and concernabout these problems, an increasing number of peopleand organizations have emerged to call for betterdecisionmaking about growth and development.While these emerging movements use various names—smart growth, regional equity, social justice, NewUrbanism—together they have the potential toprofoundly influence the future shape of communities.But this will only occur if they demand thatdecisionmakers look at the big picture, make choicesthat improve the entire community, consider all theoptions, make fairness a priority, and guaranteemeaningful citizen participation in public decisions.We believe strongly that these movements for a betterenvironment, stronger economy, and social justice canbe far more effective in reaching their potential byjoining together, rather than focusing on these separateissues in isolation from one another. A growingnumber of experiments, projects, and initiatives nowexist on the ground across North America that showhow funders and grantees are working acrossdisciplines to achieve significant and lasting progress—progress that will ensure that all people and familiescan participate in and benefit from economic growthand activity throughout regions. We are pleased tooffer to you this report to showcase some of theseexciting efforts and help you learn from them.Philanthropy has a critical role to play in leadingefforts to demonstrate how we can advance aregional and neighborhood equity framework. TheFunders’ Network seeks to help funders to fulfill thisrole by helping them learn from and advance bestpractices; lift up promising examples and projects;and work together to increase their leverage andimpact. This report by the Regional andNeighborhood Equity Project (RNEP) of theFunders’ Network is intended to contribute to theseoutcomes. The profiles highlighted in this reportrepresent years of work by the members of RNEP,the funders that have come before them, and theirhigh performing grantees and partners.The release of this report coincides with an importantevent—Advancing Regional Equity: The SecondNational Summit on Equitable Development,Social Justice, and Smart Growth—on May 23-25,2005, in Philadelphia. Since its founding, the Funders’Network has worked to develop a deeperunderstanding of smart growth and its potential forpromoting regional and neighborhood equity. Muchprogress has occurred but there is much more to bedone. The 2 nd National Summit provides a venue tocelebrate successes thus far and to share, learn, and setstrategic priorities for advancing better decisionmakingso that future growth and development will make ourregions and communities places of opportunity foreveryone. We hope this report and the 2 nd NationalSummit help build greater understanding in the fieldand move us forward to the next level of action.Carl AnthonyChair, Regional andNeighborhood Equity ProjectActing Director, Community andResource Development Unit,Ford FoundationL Benjamin StarrettExecutive DirectorFunders’ Network for SmartGrowth and Livable Communities1 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

PART I:IntroductionThe Purpose of this ReportThe Funders’ Network for Smart Growth andLivable Communities commissioned this report tohelp document the progress being made by fundersand their partner organizations to advance regionaland neighborhood equity on the ground in regionsand communities across North America. The storiesshared here highlight not only specific projects andorganizations, but also share lessons learned bygrantmakers who have been involved in and arecommitted to supporting them.Throughout North America, cities have sufferedfrom the migration of jobs, population, investmentcapital, and opportunity away from urban centersand into the fringes of metropolitan areas. Thispattern, commonly referred to as sprawl, has beenthe dominant shape of growth and development forover 50 years. It is the result of both public decisionsabout land use and the process by which thosedecisions are made.Low-income communities and people of color have beenforced to pay a terrible price by these public decisions.Too many neighborhoods are isolated, cut-off from theeconomic opportunities, services, and social networkscritical for full participation in society. The residents ofthese communities live with high crime rates, crumblinginfrastructure, poor services, and inadequate housing.Reinvestment, where it does occur, often fails to addressthe needs and aspirations of the residents of thesecommunities, which can lead to displacement andfurther isolation. Gentrification and disinvestment donot necessarily operate in isolation. In many instancesone community is struggling with the costs and benefitsof gentrification while a neighboring community in thesame region remains severely disinvested.Until relatively recently, the interplay betweenregional development patterns and inequality/inequityhas not been widely addressed by social justiceadvocates. As this report documents, this is beginningto change. Many foundations are developing andencouraging innovative approaches to link advocacyfor social justice to policy change focused on land useand regional planning. Recognizing that land usedecisions impact a broad range of issues that funderscare about (such as poverty alleviation, economicopportunity, the state of children and families, andmore), since its inception, the Funders’ Network forSmart Growth and Livable Communities haspartnered with organizations such as PolicyLink toadvance the objectivesof opportunity,justice, and equity byencouraging betterdecisions aboutgrowth anddevelopment.The intendedaudience for thisreport includesfunders, individuals,and organizations advocating for better planning anddecisionmaking to improve communities andregions. Several goals exist for this report. At onelevel, its purpose is to lift up the profiled projects asnational examples of foundation leadership in orderto encourage other funders to engage in this work.Second, its purpose is to demonstrate to keystakeholders that extend beyond philanthropy—public and private sector leaders, practitioners, andadvocates—that cross-sectoral collaborations cancreate sustained progress. Finally, this report isdesigned to inspire, catalyze, and strengthenphilanthropic leadership and expand funders’ abilitiesto support organizations working to build moreequitable and livable communities.The Movement for Smarter GrowthMany foundations aredeveloping and encouraginginnovative approaches to linkadvocacy for social justiceto policy change focused onland use and regionalplanning.Place-based strategies for improving communities andregions have coalesced into a movement based on a setof principles known as smart growth. The AmericanPlanning Association (APA) defines smart growth asusing comprehensive planning to guide, design,develop, revitalize, and build communities that:• Value long-range, regional considerations ofsustainability over short-term, incremental,geographically isolated actions;• Preserve and enhance valuable natural andcultural resources;• Equitably distribute the costs and benefits ofdevelopment;Part I: Introduction2

• Expand the range of transportation, employment,and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner;• Promote public health and healthy communities;and• Have a unique sense of community and place. 1In theory, smart growth principles represent a blueprintfor creating vibrant, livable communities by designingcommunities that incorporate mixed uses and mixedincomes, pedestrian-friendliness, and public spaces.Yet some advocates for communities of color believethat the smart growth movement is just another namefor urban renewal policies which not only have notbenefited low-income people or communities of color,but also have led directly to gentrification anddisplacement. The smart growth movement is viewedamong many low-income communities of color as awhite environmentalist-led movement that is notconcerned with the equity and social justice issues ofthese communities. For some, the term “smartgrowth” connotes a movement that does not representthe interests of communities of color, does not placeissues of social equity and social justice at theforefront, and instead addresses private sector interestsand/or aesthetic sensibilities.The Funders’ Network—and the members of itsRegional and Neighborhood Equity Project—believesthat racial, economic, and social justice need to be at thecore of the smart growth movement, otherwise it is not“smart” growth. Truesmart growth policiesaddress equity, theTrue smart growth policies economy, and theaddress equity, the economy, environment.and the environment. Achieving authentic,sustainable progressrequires that thosewho live in low-income communities and theiradvocates be fully engaged and in positions of leadershipin the movement for smarter growth. This can onlyhappen if African American, American Indian, Latino,immigrant, and low-income communities cometogether and take ownership of their place in the smartgrowth movement, defining the issues in terms thatmake sense to them and to the society at large. Themovement for smarter growth should ensure that lowincomecommunities and communities of color are truepartners in these efforts, not an afterthought.In recent years, regional equity has emerged as the termused by social justice advocates working on land use anddevelopment issues because it fuses the best thinkingaround smart growth with an emphasis on equity and adeliberate regional framing that levels the playing fieldfor communities traditionally disconnected from landuse decisionmaking. In theory, at least, the goals ofregional equity and the smart growth movement arealmost identical. The fundamental difference is thatregional equity leads with opportunity and justice. TheFunders’ Network uses the term “regional andneighborhood equity” to emphasize that healthy regionsmust be made up of healthy neighborhoods.In the 1990s, advocates for smart growth focused onregional perspectives, but only rarely did thesediscussions lead with race and equity. In 1999, theFunders’ Network and PolicyLink worked together toproduce the first paper in the Network’s series oftranslation papers, titled, Opportunities for SmarterGrowth: Social Equity and the Smart Growth Movement. 2The release of this translation paper marked a turningpoint for both smart growth and regional andneighborhood equity advocates. Since then, the pursuitof regional and neighborhood equity has become animportant and growing part of the work of advocates forsocial and economic justice and of proponents for bettergrowth management. A growing number of advocates areemploying a range of strategies to connect low-incomecommunities and people of color to resources andopportunities available throughout metropolitan areas.The Funders’ Network and PolicyLink continue to worktogether toward a broad, shared objective: for individualsand families in all communities to participate in andbenefit from economic growth, including access to highperformingschools, decent affordable housing located inattractive neighborhoods, living wage jobs, and proximityto public transit and important amenities, such as fullservice supermarkets, banks, and parks.The Concept of Regional andNeighborhood EquityRegional and neighborhood equity advocates such asCarl Anthony, Angela Glover Blackwell, Manuel Pastor,and john powell have led the fight for civil rights and1American Planning Association (APA). “What Exactly is SmartGrowth? Planners Endorse Policies for Tomorrow’s Communities”(2002).2The Network has now published 16 translation papers (each of whichexplains the impact of decisionmaking regarding growth anddevelopment on key community or environmental issues), as well as a2 nd edition of this first translation paper, now called, Regional Equity andSmart Growth: Opportunities for Advancing Social and Economic Justice inAmerica. Each translation paper may be downloaded fromwww.fundersnetwork.org.3 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

social justice issues as they relate to land use decisions. 3The regional and neighborhood equity movementstrives to connect people- and place-based strategies torevitalize the physical environment of distressedcommunities and improve the lives of the people wholive there. The movement is based on an analysis thatrecognizes that current development patterns are not thenatural result of the free market economy. Rather, theyflow from public policies that have provided powerfulincentives for suburban growth at the expense of centralcities, older suburbs, rural communities, and their lowincomeresidents. Access to quality education, decenthousing, jobs, and services can only be achieved bychanging the way resources, investments, andopportunities are allocated throughout regions.During the past five years, PolicyLink—working withthe Funders’ Network—has promoted equitabledevelopment as a framework for achieving regionaland neighborhood equity. Equitable development isguided by the following principles:• Integrate People- and Place-FocusedStrategies. Advance development andrevitalization policies and practices that integratepeople-focused strategies such as efforts thatsupport community residents and families withplace-focused strategies that stabilize and improvethe neighborhood environment.• Reduce Local and Regional Disparities. Craftsolutions that simultaneously improve outcomesfor low-income communities and build healthymetropolitan regions. Metropolitan areas that paysystematic attention to both regional growth andcentral city, suburban, and rural poverty issues aremore likely to be competitive for national andinternational economic opportunities. A successfulregion is comprised by successful neighborhoods.• Promote Double Bottom Line Investments.Seek public and private investments that offer fairfinancial returns for investors and communitybenefits for residents (e.g., jobs, homes, businesses).• Ensure Meaningful Community Participation,Leadership, and Ownership. For communityresidents and organizations to become fullyengaged in impacting development decisions,they must have access to the tools, knowledge,and resources that can guarantee meaningfulparticipation.Using these equitable development principles asguides, this report organizes stories about effectiveinitiatives into three cross-cutting themes:Promoting Equitable Public InvestmentPublic investment decisions ultimately determine thequality of transit systems, the condition of publicschools and facilities, and the presence of parks andopen space in communities. Too often, policymakers failto consider the impact of investment decisions on lowincomecommunities. Using public investments topromote regional and neighborhood equity is becomingan important strategy among social justice advocates.Advocates are taking a particular interest in a growingcommunity benefits movement and in promotingequitable infrastructure investments at the state level.Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy,and LivableThe movements for regional and neighborhoodequity and smarter growth believe that everyneighborhood should have a healthy quality of lifethat provides opportunities for each resident to beconnected to regional opportunities. This requiresthat each neighborhood have a minimum standard oflivability below which no community falls. Yetcreating opportunity-rich neighborhoods withamenities and services does not necessarily mean thatequity is achieved in a region. When a neighborhoodin a region experiences economic growth andbecomes more attractive to outsiders, it can threatenthe stability of low-income communities and thelivelihood of residents as the threat of displacementand increased cost of living become harsh realities.Advocates are working to connect neighborhoodresidents to opportunities that extend beyond theneighborhood’s geographic area, while avoidinggentrification and displacement.Connecting to Regional OpportunityIn addition to making each neighborhood healthy andlivable, residents need access to opportunities thatextend beyond the neighborhood’s geographicboundaries. People need to be able to live in housingthat provides a wealth of opportunities as well as haveequal access to regional opportunities such as jobs andhealth care through transportation options. Lowincomefamilies who reside in affordable housing close3Carl Anthony is acting director, Community and ResourceDevelopment Unit, Ford Foundation; Angela Glover Blackwell isfounder and CEO, PolicyLink; Manuel Pastor is director, Center forJustice, Tolerance, and Community at the University of California, SantaCruz; and john powell is director, Kirwin Institute on Race andEthnicity, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University (johnpowell does not use capital letters in his name).Part I: Introduction4

to good schools, employment centers, transportationsystems, parks, grocery stores, civic institutions, andservices are better positioned to succeed economicallyand socially. Because of the movement of jobs awayfrom cities, it is fundamental that transportationsystems be consciously designed to link low-incomecommunities to economic corridors and jobs.LeadershipAs the profiles in this report make clear, continuingengagement and leadership from the philanthropiccommunity are keys to effective change. The Funders’Network and its members continue to seed and promotephilanthropic and community initiatives that integratethe goals of equity and smart growth. To buildunderstanding of the importance of equity-centeredsmart growth, the Network convenes leaders from arange of sectors—philanthropy, nonprofit, academic,private, and public—at national meetings that serve asforums for developing common understandings aboutthe relationship between smart growth and equity.This report highlights stories drawn from the manyways in which foundations are supporting andinvesting in organizations working to better thequality of life of all residents by addressing land useissues. Some of the profiles highlight grassrootscommunity organizing strategies to address issuessuch as statewide land use policies. Other profilesillustrate creative ways to minimize the negativeimpacts of gentrification, while others focus onstrategies to merge various issues areas such astransportation, arts, social services, and housing toaddress social justice concerns in a more holistic way.For each story, this guide provides a short abstract, adescription of the project or organization involved, andthe results achieved. The profiles includes discussionabout why a foundation decided to fund the project andthe lessons learned from the foundation’s perspective,the regional and neighborhood equity impacts of thework, and contact people for readers seeking moreinformation. Taken together, the profiles in this reportare designed to illustrate how strategic grantmaking canhave a profound impact on policy, planning, and places.A Note on the Selection ProcessThe Funders’ Network’s Regional and NeighborhoodEquity Project (RNEP) undertook an extensive selectionprocess to identify the projects profiled in thispublication. The process began with a list of more than70 worthwhile projects throughout the United Statesand Mexico (outstanding examples of regional andneighborhood equitable development strategies).Although full descriptions of each of the 70 worthwhileprojects could not be included in this report, a sharplydesignedmap that identifies each of these promisingregional and neighborhood equity efforts is included atthe end of this report. The stories profiled in this reportprovide deeper information on 21 of these projects.The 70 original projects were identified by theFunders’ Network, PolicyLink, and members of theRNEP steering committee. In July 2004, thecommittee finalized selection criteria for the projectsto be included, as well as overall diversity criteria forthe full report. The project criteria were designed toensure that each project demonstrate one or more ofthe following strategies:• Encouraging collaboration across race, class, city,suburbs, and/or rural areas;• Ensuring resident/community participation,leadership, and ownership;• Reducing local/regional disparities;• Connecting people to regional opportunities;• Engaging a mix of organizations in theimplementation;• Leveraging government agencies;• Promoting double bottom line investments; and/or• Promoting equity in public investment.The projects were further analyzed to ensure diversityamong the profiles, according to the following criteria:• Type of project (i.e. planning, policy, capacitybuilding, etc.);• Geographic location;• Foundation strategies utilized (i.e. grantmaker,convener, investor, etc.);• Issues addressed; and• Scale.There were many more worthy projects than could beincluded. This report presents simply a sample of therange of innovative approaches that foundations acrossNorth America are taking to promote regional andneighborhood equity strategies that will create morelivable communities. The stories and resourcesdescribed in this report are designed to help inspireand inform new efforts to secure social, environmental,and economic justice in neighborhoods and regionsthroughout North America. Progress is possible, asthese creative stories illustrate.5 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

PART II:Perspectives on Advancing Regional and Neighborhood EquityJust years after emerging as a coherent concept for socialand economic transformation, the regional andneighborhood equity framework is rapidly gainingcurrency as the foundation of a burgeoning movement.None would know better what it has taken to bring thisevolving field to this point than those at its center.Seven leaders in the field contributed their perspectiveson the status of regional and neighborhood equity in aseries of interviews conducted for this report.The Current SituationManuel Pastor has seen evidence of the emergence ofthe regional equity movement in his work as thedirector of the Center for Justice, Tolerance, andCommunity at the University of California, SantaCruz. “The movement is starting to show signs ofmaturity. Ten years ago we saw a glimpse of policiesthat were connecting low-income communities toregional debates, with scattered cheerleaders for change.Now regional equity has really flowered.” AngelaGlover Blackwell, founder and CEO of PolicyLink,agrees. “During the past five to six years there has beena conscious focus on pursuing regional equity. Peoplehave begun to think of themselves as a field, broad andinterconnected. Confidence is growing that this can bemore than framing and aspirations.”Myron Orfield is recognized as one of the pioneers inthe use of data to demonstrate geographic inequities.As the founder and president of American Researchand Geographic Information Systems (Ameregis) andauthor of Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda forCommunity and Stability, he has had firsthand exposureto the growing applicability of the regional equityanalysis. “It’s becoming more of a broadly acceptedframe for people thinking about a variety ofdevelopment issues. It has put civil rights on more of aregional scale.” Carl Anthony, acting director of theCommunity and Resource Development Unit at theFord Foundation, cites more practical evidence that thefield is evolving. “The concept of regionalism is morepolitically viable than ever,” he notes. “Those elected inthe suburbs have more of a stake in the future of theirgeography and a broader political base from which todraw.” David Rusk, consultant on urban and suburbanpolicy, author of Inside Game/Outside Game, and one ofthe early advocates of equity through housing policy,draws an even starker example of its growingimportance. According to Rusk, “Some of the mosttangible evidence comes from the emergence of theGamaliel Foundation as a national network of faithbasedcoalitions committed to bringing about regionalchanges. They can raise the moral dimensions, andperhaps more importantly, they mobilize people by thehundreds and by the thousands on these issues. Whenthose committed members pour off the bus, thepoliticians pay attention. That is decisive.”Blackwell points out another importantdevelopment. “The past five years have witnessed areturn of well-educated planners and developers toequity work. They have been attracted by theregional frameworkand they have seenthat their skills andvalues are highlysought. There is realopportunity forleadership andmeaningful work.”The ChallengeAheadAs with any emergentmovement, myriadchallenges must befaced. Pastor observes,“To be effective,“The past five years havewitnessed a return of welleducatedplanners anddevelopers to equity work.They have been attractedby the regional frameworkand they have seen thattheir skills and values arehighly sought. There is realopportunity for leadershipand meaningful work.”—Angela Glover Blackwellcommunity-based organizations now have to understandcomplex transportation and affordable housing issues.Beyond making projects work politically, they have toknow how they pencil out. You have to understand youreconomic context.” Nor is the path to equitabledevelopment unimpeded. “This work is comingtogether in the face of some of the most entrenchedforces in society,” notes Blackwell. “Resistant developers,homeowners, local elected officials suspicious of anyregional agenda—even straight prejudice. Overcomingthose forces is the next push. We are not naïve about thechallenge this presents. It will take political will andauthentic alliances.”Ben Starrett agrees. As executive director of theFunders’ Network for Smart Growth and LivablePart II: Perspectives on Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity6

Communities, he has unique perspective on howequity issues are viewed in diverse arenas. “Thelanguage of regional equity is still a challenge toengaging business or others winning under thecurrent system. Can we demonstrate the win-winscenarios that will lead to the nontraditional allianceswe need to gain needed reforms?”john a. powell identifies the very essence of regionalequity as inherently challenging. In his role asdirector of the Kirwin Institute on Race andEthnicity, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio StateUniversity, he fully understands the complexitywhich a regional equity agenda can present. “Most ofour work relates to individual projects,” he observes.“This does not allow us to show the connectionbetween issues, which is in truth the beauty ofregional equity—it provides solutions that blend theissues and focuses on“Litigation. Organizing.Advocacy. When thesethree act together, the mostsignificant change occurs.They can really play eachother out in a very savvyway.”— Myron Orfieldfairness. But the casecan be hard to makefor such efforts.”Orfield sees thecombinations of skillsneeded to advanceregional equity as amajor challenge tobalance, but one wellworth the reward.“Litigation.Organizing. Advocacy. When these three act together,the most significant change occurs. They can really playeach other out in a very savvy way. Look at the 1964Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968Fair Housing Act. The environmental justicemovement, gay rights. When things happen that affectequity, all three are happening in concert. Right now,we have a lot of organizations utilizing a single tool,mainly because that is all they can manage.”While progress is spreading, the pace of its discoveryis modest. “Only a small group really understandsand effectively advocates for regional equity,”Anthony points out. “There are many challenges toachieving a more broad-based understanding.” Acritical element in building the awareness of themovement is increased leadership development forpolicy change. Pastor applauds organizationsstepping up to fill this need. “Some of the mosteffective groups working on regional equity haveleadership development programs. They areconscious about political and economic education.They place debates in the context of broader issues.”“In some ways, public space is probably one of themost important issues facing the world,” says powell.“The control of space is important in how wedistribute opportunity and burdens. So we have to becareful that regionalism is not seen simply as anurban American movement—it is going to becomemore important for everyone. We have to understandhow elements of regional equity play out in differentcontexts.”Blackwell raises a sensitive issue that faces themovement. “There is another major challenge: theleaders of this field need foundations to stick withthem. This change will not come in a day, sofoundations need to be with them, truly committed.Leaders need long-term, patient capital, skill,visibility, and clout. Some foundations arerecognizing the power of the regional framework.”Finally, Anthony succinctly states perhaps thegreatest challenge ahead. “At heart, regional equity isabout issues still difficult for people and institutionsto come to honest terms with: race and class.”Strengthening the MovementThere is clarity among leaders of the movementabout what it will take to advance regional equity inthe coming years. Blackwell sees promise in thedirection philanthropy has taken in its investment inequity, but knows it will take more than that alone.“We need foundations to support anchor institutionsin local communities and national intermediaries toweave the big story. Journalists who can begin tochange the conversation at the local level to alert thenation that something is afoot. Elected officials tobegin to build a new regional agenda. Academics toprovide intellectual underpinnings.” Orfield pointsto even more fundamental change that needs tooccur. “We have to weave the threads.Fundamentally, the movement has to continueembracing the objectives of civil rights. We neednothing less than the racial, social, and economicintegration of society. We have to influence thosewho change the rules of the game.”Pastor offers some concrete options for making thathappen. “By developing the capacity of themovement, by supporting leadership developmentprograms and institution building, through peer-to-7 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

peer work, we can reestablish a significant role forresearch—the often forgotten component of themovement as we move to action,” he says. “Part ofwhat drove the movement was some prettyinteresting studies on how inequity plays out incommunities. Research and organizing need to gohand in hand.” Anthony sees future success tied tothe people the movement can serve. The broadeninginterest of the middle class in improving regionalequity must be articulated and effectivelycommunicated, because the language used to discussregional equity concepts is not yet accessible enoughto wide audiences.A Role for Philanthropy and Other Partners“There really are these three kinds of basicregionalisms: economic, environmental, andregional equity, which positions itself to be able toaddress better social disparity,” Pastor postulates.“Foundations can be institutions that ensure there isa serious equity component. They can increaseengagement, build capacity, encourage investment,reach business groups. These are things foundationscan bring forward to the table; they can weavetogether institutions.”Starrett points to several steps that he has seenfoundations take in his organization’s role as aphilanthropic affinity group committed to smartergrowth policies and practices and equity issues. “Weknow foundations can provide direct, core operatingsupport for proactive organizing, effectiveintermediaries, and institutions that generatestrategic applied research. We know that this kind ofgrantmaking works. Now we need to see more of itthroughout philanthropy.”Anthony agrees that there is a specific role forphilanthropy in advancing regional equity. “Ageneration of regional equity demonstrations thatconnect a policy framework to outcomes and largerconstituencies is developing. These demonstrationscan be used to convene actors, build networks,encourage cross-issue collaboration, and take raceand class out of the closet.“The political climate of the day supports thedominance of narrow interests that underminecommunity,” notes powell. “Regional equity is sayingthat we have to have a collective shared communitythat exists consistently. Public education,intermediaries, and other organizations that connectequity to the greater public good can get crucialsupport from philanthropy.”Foundations are not the only critical partner as themovement goes forward. As Blackwell notes,“Regional equity must connect to the interest of theprivate sector inorder to besuccessful. Thereforeduring this nextperiod, we must bebuilding thoserelationships, findingthe language to speakto business …crafting win-winscenarios becomesessential.” Part ofthat process will bemaking a strongercase that the policiesand strategiesembraced by regionalequity actually work. “We have to demonstrate howwe measure regional equity statistically,” declaresRusk, an accomplished researcher in his own right.“We have to bring some real rigor to define what weare trying to do—are we getting there?” Pastoragrees. “This movement has made quite a lot ofprogress. A critical reflection now opens up the wayfor a lot of exciting work.”“Foundations can beinstitutions that ensurethere is a serious equitycomponent. They canincrease engagement,build capacity, encourageinvestment, reach businessgroups. These are thingsfoundations can bringforward to the table; they canweave together institutions.”—Manuel PastorBlackwell offers a caution as the work goes forward.“Issue-based agendas will not ultimately procure thegroundswell needed for transformation to a societywhere everyone can participate and prosper. Regionalequity has to catch fire the way the suburbanizationof America did, or the environmental movement. Weneed a vision that builds a society that focuses oncapturing the best everyone has to offer. That is astall an order as it gets. The intermediate steps comeout of our work today, but ultimately that is whatwill have to happen.”Part II: Perspectives on Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity8

PART III:Stories of Philanthropic Leadership inAdvancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity—A Framework for ActionThe 21 stories included in this report describe theprojects, nonprofit organizations, and philanthropicpartners involved in accomplishing work to achievebetter outcomes in neighborhoods and regions. In anattempt to encourage further investment bygrantmakers in innovative strategies to advance equitycenteredsmarter growth policies and practices in bothregions and neighborhoods, these stories are toldprimarily from the perspective of the foundations whohave provided financial (and other) support.Each profile employs the same structure and includesthe following sections: a brief abstract; backgroundinformation on the project; details regarding whatinterested the funders in the project; theregional/neighborhood equity impacts of the work;results achieved; and lessons learned thus far by thefoundations providing support. The profilesconclude with contact information for key leaderswho provided content for the stories. Please note thatfor the most part, direct quotes attributed in thestories are the result of interviews with these leaders.Using equitable development principles as a guide,this report organizes stories about effective initiativesto advance regional and neighborhood equity intothree cross-cutting themes.Section 1: Promoting Equitable PublicInvestmentPublic investment decisions ultimately determine thequality of transit systems, the condition of publicschools and facilities, and the presence of parks andopen space in communities. Too often, policymakers failto consider the impact of investment decisions on lowincomecommunities. Using public investments topromote regional and neighborhood equity is becomingan important strategy among social justice advocates.Advocates are taking a particular interest in a growingcommunity benefits movement and in promotingequitable infrastructure investments at the state level.Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable,Healthy, and Livableneighborhood should have a healthy quality of lifethat provides opportunities for each resident to beconnected to regional opportunities. This requiresthat each neighborhood have a minimum standardof livability below which no community falls. Yetcreating opportunity-rich neighborhoods withamenities and services does not necessarily meanthat equity is achieved in a region. When aneighborhood in a region experiences economicgrowth and becomes more attractive to outsiders,it can threaten the stability of low-incomecommunities and the livelihood of residents as thethreat of displacement and increased cost of livingbecome harsh realities. Advocates are working toconnect neighborhood residents to opportunitiesthat extend beyond the neighborhood’s geographicarea, while avoiding the negative impacts ofgentrification, such as displacement.Section 3: Connecting to Regional OpportunityIn addition to making each neighborhood healthyand livable, residents need access to opportunitiesthat extend beyond the neighborhood’s geographicboundaries. People need to be able to live in housingthat provides a wealth of opportunities as well ashave equal access to regional opportunities such asjobs and health through transportation options.Low-income families who reside in affordablehousing close to good schools, employment centers,transportation systems, parks, grocery stores, civicinstitutions, and services are better positioned tosucceed economically and socially. It is fundamentalthat transportation systems be consciously designedto link low-income communities to economiccorridors and jobs because of the movement of jobsaway from cities.Following is an alphabetical list of the grantmakerswhose stories are highlighted in the 21 profiles thatfollow, including the location of the foundation’sheadquarters, website address, and mission/visionstatement.The movements for regional and neighborhoodequity and smarter growth believe that every9 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Annie E. Casey FoundationBaltimore, Md.www.aecf.orgThe primary mission of the Annie E. CaseyFoundation is to foster public policies, human servicereforms, and community supports that moreeffectively meet the needs of today’s vulnerablechildren and families.Barr FoundationBoston, Mass.www.barrfoundation.orgThe Barr Foundation is a private foundationcommitted to enhancing the quality of life for all ofBoston’s citizens. While its primary areas of emphasisare education and the environment, the Foundationalso provides support to arts and cultural activities.The California EndowmentWoodland Hills, Calif.www.calendow.orgThe California Endowment’s mission is to expandaccess to affordable, quality health care forunderserved individuals and communities and topromote fundamental improvements in the healthstatus of all Californians.Catholic Campaign for Human DevelopmentWashington, D.C.www.usccb.org/cchd/The Catholic Campaign for Human Development(CCHD) is the domestic anti-poverty, social justiceprogram of the U.S. Catholic bishops. Its mission isto address the root causes of poverty in Americathrough promotion and support of communitycontrolled,self-help organizations and throughtransformative education.S.H. Cowell FoundationSan Francisco, Calif.www.shcowell.orgThe goal of the S.H. Cowell Foundation is toimprove the quality of life of children living inpoverty in Northern California by making grantsthat support and strengthen their families and theneighborhoods where they live.Enterprise FoundationColumbia, Md.www.enterprisefoundation.orgFor more than two decades, The EnterpriseFoundation has been working in neglectedcommunities nationwide to provide thoseopportunities that all Americans deserve, such as adecent home in a safe, thriving community; access tosteady employment; a good education; and qualitychild care. The Foundation has 17 offices in theUnited States, serving the particular needs ofdifferent cities, states, and populations.Fannie Mae FoundationWashington, D.C.www.fanniemaefoundation.orgThe Fannie Mae Foundation creates affordablehomeownership and housing opportunities throughinnovative partnerships and initiatives that buildhealthy, vibrant communities across the UnitedStates. The Foundation is specially committed toimproving the quality of life for the people of itshometown, Washington, D.C., and to enhancing thelivability of the city’s neighborhoods.The Field Foundation of IllinoisChicago, Ill.www.fieldfoundation.orgThe Field Foundation seeks to provide forcommunity, civic, and cultural organizations in theChicago area, enabling both new and establishedprograms to test innovations, to expand provenstrengths, or to address specific, time-limitedoperational needs.Ford FoundationNew York, N.Y.www.fordfound.orgThe Ford Foundation is an independent, nonprofitgrantmaking organization. For more than half acentury it has been a resource for innovative peopleand institutions worldwide, guided by its goals ofstrengthening democratic values, reducing povertyand injustice, promoting international cooperation,and advancing human achievement. Withheadquarters in New York, the Foundation hasoffices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, LatinAmerica, and Russia. The Community and ResourceDevelopment Unit of the Foundation embraces thenew regional equity approach to developmentbecause it supports community-driven regionalpolicies and practices that foster public and privateinvestments that are equitable, just, andenvironmentally sustainable.Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity10

Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. FundSan Francisco, Calif.www.haasjr.orgThe Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund is dedicated tocelebrating and building community. It seeks tocreate vibrant, safe neighborhoods that support thehealthy development of young people and the wellbeingof their families. The Fund also seeks tostrengthen the bonds of mutual respect amongpeople from all walks of life to pursue commoninterests and contribute to the larger community.Through its grantmaking, the Fund aspires to serveas a voice of hope and a positive, unifying force forsocial change.Hartford Foundation for Public GivingHartford, Conn.www.hfpg.orgAs greater Hartford’s community-wide charitableendowment, the Hartford Foundation for PublicGiving is permanently committed to improving thequality of life for residents throughout the region.To achieve this goal, it: provides financial andother support that enables people and institutionsto serve the community effectively; promotesinformed charitable giving in order to expand theregion’s philanthropic resources; and participatesactively in efforts to identify important communityneeds and opportunities, as well as the means toaddress them.Houston Endowment Inc. (HEI)Houston, Texaswww.houstonendowment.orgThe Houston Endowment is a privatephilanthropic foundation that improves life for thepeople of the greater Houston area through itscontributions to charitable organizations andeducational institutions.The Hyams FoundationBoston, Mass.www.hyamsfoundation.orgThe Hyams Foundation’s mission is to increaseeconomic and social justice and power within lowincomecommunities in Boston and Chelsea, Mass.International Community Foundation (ICF)San Diego, Calif.www.icfdn.orgThe International Community Foundation seeks toincrease charitable giving and volunteerism acrossU.S. borders to benefit overseas nonprofitorganizations and communities primarily in BajaCalifornia, Mexico.Jacobs Family FoundationSan Diego, Calif.www.jacobsfamilyfoundation.orgAs a partner in community change, the JacobsFamily Foundation’s vision is to be part of a caringcommunity where people are responsible to eachother, where cultures are embraced, wheresustaining resources are in place for vibranteconomic and philanthropic life, and whereresidents create the future they envision. Thisvision has led the Foundation to a mission ofexploring new philanthropic roles andrelationships for strengthening under-investedneighborhoods, making grants that supportinnovative, practical, and sustaining strategiesfor community change.W.K. Kellogg FoundationBattle Creek, Mich.www.wkkf.orgThe W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s mission is to helppeople help themselves through the practicalapplication of knowledge and resources to improvetheir quality of life and that of future generations.Since its beginning 75 years ago, the Foundation hascontinuously focused on building the capacity ofindividuals, communities, and institutions to solvetheir own problems.LaSalle BankChicago, Ill.www.lasallebank.comLaSalle Bank believes that to be a good corporatecitizen means being actively involved in thecommunity. Therefore, the Bank dedicates a fulltimestaff to community development and volunteerprograms and supports a wide range of nonprofitactivities including support for long-term plans forneighborhood economic growth.Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)New York, N.Y.www.lisc.orgLocal Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) helpsresident-led, community-based developmentorganizations transform distressed communities and11 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

neighborhoods into healthy ones—good places tolive, do business, work, and raise families. Byproviding capital, technical expertise, training, andinformation, LISC supports the development of localleadership and the creation of affordable housing,commercial, industrial, and community facilities,businesses, and jobs.The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundationChicago, Ill.www.macfound.orgThe John D. and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation is a private, independent grantmakinginstitution dedicated to helping groups andindividuals foster lasting improvement in the humancondition. Through the support it provides, theFoundation fosters the development of knowledge,nurtures individual creativity, helps strengtheninstitutions, helps improve public policy, andprovides information to the public, primarilythrough support for public interest media.Marin Community FoundationNovato, Calif.www.marincf.orgThe mission of Marin Community Foundation is toencourage and apply philanthropic contributions tohelp improve the human condition, embracediversity, promote a humane and democratic society,and enhance the community’s quality of life, nowand for future generations.Marshall L. and Perrine D. McCune CharitableFoundationSanta Fe, N.M.www.nmmccune.orgIt is the mission of the Marshall L. and Perrine D.McCune Charitable Foundation, Inc., tomemorialize its benefactors through grants whichenrich the cultural life, health, education,environment, and spiritual life of the citizens of NewMexico. The Foundation supports philanthropicprograms which are responsive, flexible, and may beproven effective by aiding the people of New Mexicoto reach their full human and spiritual potential.The Meadows FoundationDallas, Texaswww.mfi.orgThe Meadows Foundation exists to assist people andinstitutions of Texas improve the quality andcircumstances of life for themselves and futuregenerations. It strives to exemplify the principles ofits founder in addressing basic human needs byworking toward the elimination of ignorance,hopelessness, and suffering, protecting theenvironment, providing cultural enrichment,encouraging excellence, and promotingunderstanding and cooperation among people.Michigan Land Use Funders GroupGrand Haven, Mich.www.cmif.org/Government/LandUse_About.htmThe Michigan Land Use Funders Group is aninformal coalition that includes funders engagedin grantmaking on land use, farmland protection,and urban revitalization. This includes funderswho are involved in supporting innovative projectsthat encompass a range of cross-cutting issuesand interests, such as historic preservation,environmental protection, educational quality,land acquisition, job training, affordable housing,ecosystem management, and more. While thegrantmaking interests are varied, there is onebelief in common among those involved: currentland use trends and patterns are endangeringthe state of Michigan and the quality of lifeof its residents.Charles Stewart Mott FoundationFlint, Mich.www.mott.orgThe Charles Stewart Mott Foundation supportsefforts that promote a just, equitable, and sustainablesociety. It was established in 1926 because of a deepconcern about the welfare of the community ofFlint, Mich.The New World FoundationNew York, N.Y.www.newwf.orgSince 1954, The New World Foundation’sgrantmaking has supported organizations workingto strengthen and expand civil rights and the activeparticipation of citizens in American democracy.Its strategy is to support the building of socialmovements by supporting organizing, which buildsa sustainable mass base of activists in viableorganizations. The Foundation does this on arange of issues and among constituencies all overthe country.Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity12

Peninsula Community FoundationSan Mateo, Calif.www.pcf.orgThe mission of Peninsula Community Foundation isto connect people, ideas, and resources for thecommon good.William Penn FoundationPhiladelphia, Pa.www.williampennfoundation.orgThe William Penn Foundation’s mission is toimprove the quality of life in the greater Philadelphiaregion through efforts that fosterrich cultural expression, strengthen children’s futures,and deepen connections to nature and community.In partnership with others, the Foundation works toadvance a vital, just, and caring community.Philadelphia Neighborhood DevelopmentCollaborative (PNDC)Philadelphia, Pa.www.pndc.netFounded in 1991, the Philadelphia NeighborhoodDevelopment Collaborative (PNDC) is a jointeffort by foundations, corporations, andgovernment that are seeking to assist communitydevelopment corporations (CDCs) in their missionto stabilize and revitalize neighborhoods. As acollaborative, PNDC seeks to build organizationalcapacity of select community developmentorganizations by providing financial and technicalresources to assist in stabilizing and revitalizingtheir neighborhoods.Price CharitiesSan Diego, Calif.www.pricecharities.orgPrice Charities consists of three philanthropicentities inspired by San Diego’s Price Family: PriceFamily Charitable Fund and San DiegoRevitalization Corporation, both Californianonprofit public benefit corporations, andWeingart-Price Fund, an advised fund of The SanDiego Foundation. Price Charities concentrates itscharitable giving along three major lines: projectsaimed at revitalizing the community of CityHeights; projects focused on building bettercommunities in San Diego and Imperial Counties;and the Aaron Price Fellows program which istargeted at opening new doors for high schoolstudents in San Diego.The Retirement Research FoundationChicago, Ill.www.rrf.orgFor more than 20 years, The Retirement ResearchFoundation (RRF) has been at the forefront ofefforts to meet the ever-changing needs of olderAmericans. The Foundation invests to help build anetwork of innovative and skilled individuals andinstitutions committed to addressing aging andretirement issues by focusing on efforts that:enable older adults to live at home or in residentialsettings that facilitate independent living; improvethe quality of care at nursing homes; leverage thewisdom and experience of older adults andpromote community involvement; and increaseunderstanding of the aging process and ageassociateddiseases.The San Diego FoundationSan Diego, Calif.www.sdfoundation.orgThe San Diego Foundation’s purpose is to improvethe quality of life within all of its communities bypromoting and increasing responsible and effectivephilanthropy. The Foundation’s mission is to: assistdonors to build and preserve enduring assets forcharitable purposes in all of San Diego’scommunities; monitor and assess changing needs;meet those needs through financial awards andorganizational support; and convene members of thecommunity to promote creative dialogue and actionon issues affecting our communities.San Diego Neighborhood Funders (SDNF)San Diego, Calif.www.uwsd.org/matters/partners.aspBy working and learning together, San DiegoNeighborhood Funders (SDNF) helps deepenunderstanding and broadens the impact grantmakershave in neighborhood change. Its current focus is onthe ten neighborhoods in the Diamond area of SanDiego. United Way of San Diego County serves asthe fiscal agent for SDNF.The San Francisco FoundationSan Francisco, Calif.www.sff.orgThe San Francisco Foundation mobilizes resourcesand acts as a catalyst for change to build strongcommunities, foster civic leadership, and promotephilanthropy.13 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Charles and Helen Schwab FoundationSan Mateo, Calif.www.schwabfoundation.orgThe Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation is aprivate charitable organization that stewards aphilanthropic vision of building partnerships toimprove lives. Through direct service and partnershipin grantmaking initiatives, the Foundation seeks toimpact individual lives in a meaningful, lasting wayand work collaboratively to inform philanthropicpractices.Alfred P. Sloan FoundationNew York, N.Y.www.sloan.orgThe Sloan Foundation was established in 1934 andis based in New York City. Most Sloan Foundationgrants concern science and technology and totalabout $55 million per year. The Foundation’s“Performance Assessment of MunicipalGovernments” program area’s objective is to makethe use of performance measures which reflect citizenperspectives widespread and commonplace.Grantmaking in this program area includes grants toorganizations that measure municipal performanceper community-based priorities.Surdna FoundationNew York, N.Y.www.surdna.orgThe Surdna Foundation is a New York City-basedfamily foundation that focuses in five grantmakingareas: environment, community revitalization,effective citizenry, arts, and the nonprofit sector.Unitarian Universalist Veatch Programat Shelter RockManhasset, N.Y.www.uucsr.org/veatchThe Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at ShelterRock supports Unitarian Universalist organizationsthat foster the growth and development of thedenomination and that increase the involvement ofUnitarian Universalists in social action. The Programhas expanded to include nonprofit, nondenominationalorganizations whose goals also reflectUnitarian Universalism’s seven principles: 1) abelieve in the inherent worth and dignity of everyperson; 2) justice, equity, and compassion in humanrelations; 3) acceptance of one another andencouragement of spiritual growth; 4) a free andresponsible search for truth and meaning; 5) theright of conscience and the use of democraticprocess; 6) the goal of world community with peace,liberty, and justice for all; and 7) respect for theinterdependent web of all existence of which weare a part.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Washington, D.C.www.epa.gov/smartgrowthThe U.S. EPA provides federal resources and supportto encourage smart growth and development. TheEPA works with states and communities to find waysto grow while minimizing environmental and healthimpacts. To move the smart growth agenda forward,EPA works with federal agencies, state and localgovernments, communities, and the development,banking, and other private business sectors to:identify areas of new policy initiatives; facilitatecollaboration and communication between thesevaried interests; provide technical assistance; andcreate incentives for increasing the efficiency ofenvironmental protection.Wachovia Regional FoundationPhiladelphia, Pa.www.wachovia.com/regionalfoundationThe Wachovia Regional Foundation aims to improvethe quality of life for children and families living inlow-income neighborhoods in New Jersey, Delaware,and eastern Pennsylvania by concentrating itsresources on the creation and implementation ofresident-driven neighborhood plans.Woods Fund of ChicagoChicago, Ill.www.woodsfund.orgWoods Fund of Chicago is a grantmakingfoundation whose goal is to increase opportunitiesfor less advantaged people and communities in themetropolitan area, including the opportunity toshape decisions affecting them. The Foundationworks primarily as a funding partner with nonprofitorganizations. Woods supports nonprofits in theirimportant roles of engaging people in civic life,addressing the causes of poverty and other challengesfacing the region, promoting more effective publicpolicies, reducing barriers to equal opportunity, andbuilding a sense of community and common ground.Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity14

15 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Section 1:Promoting Equitable Public InvestmentPart text here16

17Funders’ Section Cover Network Photo: for Smart The Growth San Diego and Livable Trolley Communities runs through the city’s downtown corridor. (Source: Jon Jensen).

I. A. BUILDING POWER AND GIVINGVOICE TO COMMUNITYCONCERNS: COMMUNITYBENEFITS AGREEMENTSFoundations Highlighted:Ford FoundationThe New World FoundationUnitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock“When it comes to major developments, thepowerful and wealthy weigh in; but poor peoplehave no avenue to become engaged. CommunityBenefits Agreements create a voice to gainmeasurable benefits.”— Carl Anthony, Ford FoundationWhen executed before development agreements aresigned with governmental officials, a CommunityBenefits Agreement (CBA) brings to thedecisionmaking process vocal and visible communityadvocates instead of adversaries. With a CBA, thecommunity to be impacted by a developmentproposal and the developers stand united beforegovernmental officials in support of major proposeddevelopments. This profile demonstrates the benefitsof CBAs, which provide the legal means for projectfunders to ensure that prosperity doesn’t go past thedoors of residents, but provides them with animproved quality of life.Project ProfileA Community Benefits Agreement, or CBA, is thelegally enforceable and negotiated result ofagreements reached by community-basedorganizations and developers that often representwin-win solutions for the community and thedeveloper. In CBA negotiations, a developer agrees toprovide specific and measurable community benefitsthat the community has a role in identifying throughup-front dialogues. In return, residents andcommunity-based organizations agree to support aproposed project when it comes before governmentalbodies entrusted with authority to make decisions onzoning, infrastructure, or subsidies.In June 2004, the Ford Foundation convened aCommunity Benefits Roundtable, bringing togetherkey CBA leaders and public policy advocatesthroughout the country to share and learn from theircollective experiences. “Even with the bestintentions,” observes Carl Anthony, acting directorof the Ford Foundation’s Community and ResourceDevelopment Unit, “the table is unbalanced on largescaleprojects. When it comes to majordevelopments, the powerful and wealthy weigh in.But poor people have no avenue to become engaged.Community Benefits Agreements create a voice togain measurable benefits.”“Without CBAs,” continues Anthony, “electedofficials are in a dilemma. The poor have no say andtheir quality of life goes down while that of theregion goes up. But with them, we create a voice andtechnical competence to gain measurable benefits.”Adding his support to CBAs, Chad Jones, programassociate for The New World Foundation’s PhoenixFund, declares, “This is a major area of activismbased on our belief that organizations of the workingpoor should be led by leaders indigenous to theircommunities.”“We focus on two levels of democratic processes:democratic conditions and democratic practices,”explains Jones. “In the first area, we’re concernedwith racial and gender equality and leadershiptransmission. In thesecond area, we’reconcerned withstructures ofaccountability,indigenousleadership,participatoryplanning, politicaladvocacy, andcollaborative styles ofwork. The [CBA]process isparticipatory and soexpands the pool of beneficiaries of economicredevelopment projects that are heavily subsidized.”“Without CBAs electedofficials are in a dilemma.The poor have no say andtheir quality of life goesdown while that of the regiongoes up. But with them,we create a voice andtechnical competence togain measurable benefits.”— Carl AnthonyThe following examples highlight the capacity thatCBAs have to exert influence and forge inclusion indifferent locales, as demonstrated by the FigueroaCorridor Coalition for Economic Justice in LosAngeles, the Good Jobs and Livable NeighborhoodsCoalition in Milwaukee, Wis., and the Alliance forGood Jobs and Housing for Everyone in Seattle.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 18

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTLos AngelesThe 1999 completion of the Los Angeles sports andconvention venue—the Staples Center—represents amajor and multi-dimensional success. Researchersfrom the University of California, Los Angeles, locallabor unions, and community residents all workedwith Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE),Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE),and Los Angeles’ Figueroa Corridor Coalition forEconomic Justice to craft a CBA that is nowconsidered a model for economic justice.The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) convenes aneighborhood demonstration covered by the local media. (Source: LAANE).Organized under the banner of the FigueroaCorridor Coalition for Economic Justice (convenedand led by SAJE), neighborhood concerns forcongestion, child safety, and increased crime led to aprecedent-setting CBA that included:• A 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing;• 70 percent of new jobs guaranteed to offerworkers livable wages;• Hiring preferences that gave local and displacedresidents first opportunities for employment;• $1 million dedicated to community parks andrecreation; and• Community input on the project’s commercialtenants.Reflecting on the Staples Center experience,executive director of LAANE, Madeline Janis-Aparicio, observes, “We’re talking about changing theparadigm of economic development, changing thepower imbalance between the public and privatesectors.” The community’s successful role in theStaples Center CBA led to an even larger one,addressing expansion and modernization of the LosAngeles International Airport (LAX). An estimated$500 million CBA is attached to an $11 billionproject and will benefit low-income communities ofcolor located near the airport.On December 7, 2004, the Los Angeles CityCouncil approved—on a 14 to 1 vote—thedevelopment proposal and accompanying CBA thatrequire:• A five-year, $25 million job training programrequiring the involvement of every companydoing business at the airport or as part of itsconstruction—effective on the date of localgovernmental adoption;• $200 million for local school improvementsincluding emerging technologies and physicalimprovements such as windows and shelters;• Residential sound-proofing for an estimated300,000 residents in surrounding neighborhoods;• An anti-toxin and greening agenda that calls forgreen building practices, electrified gates tominimize plane fumes, and the scheduled phaseoutof diesel equipment;• A living wage of at least $9.00 an hour plusbenefits offered by all jobs generated by theproject; and• Training for local community residents byparticipating building trades through theirapprentice programs.With the City Council’s passage, the approval processnow advances to the federal level. By July 2005,LAANE’s Janis-Aparicio anticipatesthe negotiatedagreements will takeeffect. Between theStaples and LAXagreements, thesecoalition efforts alsonegotiated five otherCBAs, impactingapproximately 5,000jobs and creating hundreds of new affordablehousing units.Milwaukee, Wis.“We’re talking aboutchanging the paradigm ofeconomic development,changing the powerimbalance between thepublic and private sectors.”— Madeline Janis-AparicioWhile a major sports venue and airport expansiontriggered CBAs in Los Angeles, it was a newdowntown development project in Milwaukee, Wis.,that served as a catalyst for an alliance among poorpeople, faith-based organizations, unions, and public19Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

policy advocates. In 2002, Milwaukee’s municipalofficials were considering what would be the best newuse of a 60-acre tract of open land resulting from thedemolition of the Park East Freeway on the northedge of downtown. Despite the lack of an existingorganization, related statistics, or detailed research,Milwaukee residents sensed an urgency to act.According to Dr. Kathleen Mulligan-Hansel,former director of the Working Families Project atthe Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, in the earlyadvocacy days, “The hard part was keeping ustogether.” That alliance became the MilwaukeeGood Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition,comprised of 29 metro organizations pushingfor downtown redevelopment with anaccompanying CBA.After an 18-month effort to advance the group’sCBA, on a 9 to 6 vote in June 2004, Milwaukee’sCommon Council rejected the suggested reforms. Atthe heart of the controversy were measures to addprevailing wage standards and affordable housingthresholds to city-subsidized projects. Opponentssuccessfully argued to “let the marketplace decide.”As a result, the Milwaukee Council’s action limitedprevailing wage requirements to contractors with atleast a $500,000 city subsidy. Surprisingly, before theCouncil’s vote, many minority businesses expressedconcerns that by imposing prevailing wages, theiroperations would suffer.Reflecting on the experience, Mulligan-Hansel, theCoalition’s co-chair observes, “We tried to winagreement in a broad public policy overture. Wemight have won if that agreement goal had been withonly a developer.” Defeated but not discouraged ordisbanded, the Coalition shifted its advocacy effortstowards gaining support for their CBA from thecounty, because Milwaukee County held title to aportion of the acreage.On October 28, 2004, 11 members of MilwaukeeCounty’s Board of Supervisors introduced aresolution endorsing the CBA. By the time themeasure came to a vote on December 16, 2004, ithad gained both support and public attention. Beforea standing-room-only audience, the resolution passedon a 15 to 4 vote. Following the vote, Mulligan-Hansel celebrated, “This is a major victory forresidents in the city who need good jobs andhousing.” Rev. Joseph Jackson, pastor of EvergreenBaptist Church and president of MilwaukeeInnercity Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH),the Coalition’s faith-based partner, added, “We haveset a standard for all development in the city and thisstandard will benefit the entire Milwaukeecommunity in the long run.” Although theCoalition’s celebratory mood proved premature whenMilwaukee County’s Executive vetoed the action onJanuary 7, 2005, less than a month later, on February3, 2005, the Milwaukee County Board ofSupervisors overrode that veto with a second andfinal 15 to 4 vote.SeattleIn Seattle, named by Forbes magazine as the nation’sleast affordable city in 2004, the Seattle Alliance forGood Jobs and Housing for Everyone (SAGE) hasbeen working since 2000 to better support Seattle’slow-wage workers. A strategic, broad-basedpartnership of labor and community organizations,SAGE heavily focuses on improved working andliving conditions.Through early and successful advocacy, SAGE wonpublic policy victories before forming the Coalitionfor Healthy Communities in 2003. Affordablehousing advocates, environmental groups, low-wageunion workers, all came together to understand theircollective stake in redevelopment plans.In the spring 2004, SAGE began negotiating a CBAwith Vulcan, Inc., a Seattle developer. Vulcan’sproposed South Lake Union Development Projectsought to transform an area dominated by marinebasedbusinesses, warehousing, light manufacturing,and low-income housing into a biotech park. Asenvisioned, the project would also require substantialpublic support on infrastructure investments andzoning modifications. The SAGE alliance identifiedits goals of ensuring:• Livable wage jobs;• Transportation choices—advocating a mix ofpublic transit, bicycle paths, and pedestrianwalkways;• Improved environment and sustainability—parkspaces and upgrading of recreational amenities,green buildings, and reduced energy demandthrough better insulation and/or construction;• A housing preservation strategy that would mixold and new dwellings with particular emphasisto the usable life of buildings with historicsignificance; andEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 20

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENT• A dedicated 20 percent of new housing units thatprovide affordable housing for residents withincomes that are 50 percent or less of the medianand an additional 17 percent of housing forhouseholds with incomes that are under 80percent of the median.According to SAGE’s director, Alice Woldt, “Seattle’scircumstances presented a big opportunity.” Theproject’s 370-acre footprint included 125-acres ofpublic right-of-way. Additionally, in January 2004,Seattle’s median income for a single-personhousehold was $54,500; for a family of four, medianincome was $77,900. Furthermore, 23,610 jobs wereexpected to be created over a 16 to 20 year period.“We reviewed LAANE’s experience,” describesWoldt. “Right now our Coalition is partnering morewith the city than with the developer. [Thedeveloper] needs decisions and support from the citycouncil to make the“A significant factor infunding a CBA project is thedemocratic practicedemanded of participants.Not only does it require thata developer’s plans areagreeable to the largercommunity, but CBAsdemand that specificinterests and communitiescollaborate with others inorder to create a multifacetedcoalition.”— Chad Jonesproject a success. TheCoalition has askedfor the city to bringthe developer to thetable in hopes ofgaining communitysupport.”The comprehensiveset of issues thatSAGE advocates hasstalled on threespecific points. Thefirst is affordablehousing. To date, thedeveloper has yet toview affordablehousing standards asa project responsibility. Additionally, a Card-CheckNeutrality agreement is still outstanding (this simplerand quicker route to union organizing allows workerssign card agreements as opposed to a National LaborRelations Board vote). Finally, the ResponsibleContractor agreement is also in question (a practicewhereby businesses agree to utilize goods and servicesfrom a “union-friendly list” of businesses that alreadypay prevailing wages, benefits, and training for theirworkers).Due to the stalled negotiations, as of the end of2004, the Coalition is reviewing its original issuesand also assessing existing levels of support fromboth city departments and council members, lookingfor leverage with each.Funder InterestThe democratic practices that characterize CBAswere a deciding factor that encouraged the fundersmentioned here to lend financial support to theefforts described in this profile. The New WorldFoundation’s Jones remarks that, “A significant factorin funding a CBA project is the democratic practicedemanded of participants. Not only does it requirethat a developer’s plans are agreeable to the largercommunity, but CBAs demand that specific interestsand communities collaborate with others in order tocreate a multi-faceted coalition.” Beyond democracyin action, for Jones, CBAs demand that specificinterests and communities collaborate with other inorder to create a multi-faceted coalition. In NewWorld’s view, that collaborative process is central tobuilding community-based power.LAANE celebrates a victory. (Source: LAANE).Victor Quintana, senior program officer with theUnitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock,observes that, “At their core, the Living Wage andCommunity Benefits Agreement movements share acommon premise: namely that public dollars going tofor-profit companies and corporations should contributeto addressing public concerns, such as developingfamily-supporting jobs and affordable housing. It wasthis shared strategy and its proven success inempowering low-income communities and workers thatled the Veatch Program to identify CBAs as effectivevehicles for lifting low-income people out of poverty andbuilding the power of their institutions.”The Ford Foundation’s decision to support CBAstraverses community empowerment to elevating theimportance of leveraging public dollars to attractincreased private investment. Since the initial grant21Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

in Los Angeles, Ford’s Anthony now sees a maturingprocess in the number of foundations wanting tolearn about this “clearing house” of ideas.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsFor LAANE’s Janis-Aparicio, the impacts are directlyrelated to early decisions: “You have to decide whatthe carrot is, and what the stick is. For the [LosAngeles] airport project, the carrot is the eliminationof groups that would have mired the project inlitigation and the prospect of getting approval fromreticent council members. The stick is the potentialfor the project to fall apart if it does not develop awin-win approach.”Civic and political leaders, including Congresswoman Maxine Waters andRev. Jesse Jackson, join in a LAANE demonstration. (Source: LAANE).According to Greg LeRoy, executive director of GoodJobs First, a national resource center promotingcorporate and government accountability, “It isinevitable for the appeal of CBAs to grow a lot—particularly for the ‘back to city’ movement.” LeRoyfurther states that, “Eight of the ten largest cities areexperiencing growth, but creating growth also meanscreating friction, gentrification, and displacement; or,it can be a mechanism for people to organize anddetermine the best way to harness benefits ofthose who have hung in there with the dark yearsof the cities. CBAs are a great way to keep peoplepositively engaged.”“It is a losing strategy to just be againstdevelopment,” advises LeRoy. “The political lesson isthat if you only have a negative interest, you will bepainted as anti-economic development.”ResultsFor the Veatch Program, poverty, equity, andstrengthened democracy are key goals in its grantdecisions. “CBAs result in living wage jobs going tolow-income workers, affordable housing beingconstructed, training programs that lead to qualityjobs, and a host of other beneficial outcomes,” saysQuintana. “But equally as important,” he adds, “theyreaffirm that economic development—particularlywhen fueled or supported by public dollars orbenefits—must be coupled with democraticaccountability.”“The significance of this work is evident in its successacross the country,” observes New World’s Jones.“Coalitions are forming to come together and figureout how to harness the resources made available bytheir tax dollars to spur projects that meet their needs.”Lessons LearnedFor the Veatch Program, according to Quintana, “Akey lesson of the living wage movement was thatstrategic and broad-based coalitions of communitygroups, labor unions, and congregations couldeffectively address issues of equity and democraticdecisionmaking and win public policies that liftedlow-income people and communities out of poverty.”“Another lesson,” continues Quintana, “was thatpublic subsidies, tax benefits, contracts, and grantscould be used to address issues of poverty and socialequity.” Despite notable and impressive victories,Quintana believes the CBA movement is still “veryyoung.” He clarifiesthat, “The challengeis to grow thismovement, so thatmore developmentprojects across thecountry result incommunity benefits.In addition, there arepublic policies thatneed to be enacted atthe state level across the country to ensure thateconomic development that is driven or supportedby public dollars leads to community benefits.”“It is a losing strategy to justbe against development. Thepolitical lesson is that if youonly have a negative interest,you will be painted as antieconomicdevelopment.”— Greg LeRoyFor New World, local efforts are envisioned to leadto larger geographic scopes. “With local victories, thework expands towards state and regional impacts,”notes Jones. From Ford’s perspective, the lessons areEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 22

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTless about bricks and more about people and theirability to share in whatever occurs. For Anthony, thelessons derived are answered from a central question:“Has the quality of“Conflicts can be anticipated,communities organized, anda legal instrument createdthat is also enforceableamong city, community, anddeveloper perspectives—that’s smart.”— Carl Anthonylife for residentssignificantlyimproved?” Heobserves that theCBA negotiationprocess, “reduces theunknowns for thecommunity anddeveloper alike. Asthe process educatespeople, they speakwith one voice.”Continues Anthony, “These are complicated dealsthat require huge insights to understand. If there is apublic subsidy, the economic development processshould be beneficial and transparent.” The process ofnegotiation also brings the benefit of informationinstead of arguments, according to Anthony.“Conflicts can be anticipated, communitiesorganized, and a legal instrument created that is alsoenforceable among city, community, and developerperspectives—that’s smart.”Contact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Director, Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Madeline Janis-AparicioExecutive DirectorLAANEmjanis-aparicio@laane.org(213) 486-9880 ext. 108Chad JonesProgram AssociateThe New World Foundationcjones@newwf.org(212) 497-3477Greg LeRoyExecutive DirectorGood Jobs Firstinfo@goodjobsfirst.org(202) 737-4315 ext. 27Dr. Kathleen Mulligan-Hanselformer DirectorWorking Families Project at the Institute forWisconsin’s Futurekathleen.mulligan@mail.house.gov(414) 297-1140Jack NormanResearch DirectorInstitute for Wisconsin’s Futurejnorman@wisconsinsfuture.org(414) 384-9094Victor QuintanaSenior Program OfficerUnitarian Universalist Veatch Programat Shelter Rockvictor@veatch.org(516) 627-6576Alice WoldtDirectorSAGEawoldt@seattlegoodjobs.org(206) 441-0499 ext. 2323Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. B. PROMOTING COALITIONSTO ADVANCE EQUITY:GAMALIEL FOUNDATION’SCROSS-COALITION BUILDINGFunders Highlighted:Catholic Campaign for Human DevelopmentFord FoundationW.K. Kellogg FoundationCharles Stewart Mott Foundation“We are battling apartheid in America—thesegregation of opportunity. By creating anorganization that can bring all constituenciestogether, we’re saying let there be opportunity forall communities. Opportunity for all communitiesis the civil rights movement of the 21 st century.”— Michael Kruglick, Gamaliel FoundationCross-coalition building weaves together grassroots,interfaith, and multicultural community organizinggroups in order to solidify disparate efforts, leveragepower in numbers, and create a vehicle wheredisenfranchised communities claim their rights ascitizens in a more just and democratic society. Thisprofile demonstrates the significant impact offunders’ investments when channeled into faithbasednetworks that work at a regional scale and havethe capacity to unite their members and create votingblocks that demand both a voice in policymakingand accountability from public officials.Project ProfileThe empowerment and the expansion of democracyare the twin concerns of the Gamaliel Foundation. 4More importantly, Gamaliel’s efforts to serve the poorhave now led to the vocal advocacy of many beyondthe geographic confines of urban barrios and ghettos.Middle class residents, suburban congregations, andworking class unions have all become an integral partof a cross-coalition building movement over the pastdecade. Together, they champion metropolitan equityparticularly in the areas of transportation, housing, andcommunity development.“Rolling Thunder,” the idea of having large,community-based meetings in rapid sequence, is amajor thrust in Gamaliel’s cross-coalition buildingefforts. In communities across the country, the citiesand people may change but the agenda for change andthe dynamics of activism are the same. Before crowdsthat range in size from 1,000 to more than 5,000,“Rolling Thunder” defines its agenda, summonselected officials to the microphone, and extracts publicpromises in front of their constituents. Moreover, thosesame elected officials are asked to return in the futureand update affiliates on their earlier promises.In 2004, Rolling Thunder meetings were convenedin 26 communities across the United States,engaging more than 60,000 people. 5 Two such“Rolling Thunder” meetings occurred in Chicagoand Detroit. The Chicago meeting was organized bythe Metropolitan Alliance of Congregations (MAC)and the Detroit gathering was led by theMetropolitan Organizing Strategy for EnablingStrength (MOSES).Among the attendees at the Detroit “Rolling Thunder” meeting onSeptember 26, 2004, was Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.(Source: Detroit MOSES).Between 1998 and 2000, the Catholic Campaign forHuman Development (CCHD) supported MAC.Representing 132 institutional members in Illinois’Cook and Will Counties, MAC has sponsored twocampaigns for equity in public and private4Publisher’s Note: The Gamaliel Foundation is a network of grassroots,interfaith, interracial, and multi-issue organizations working together tocreate a more just and more democratic society. The GamalielFoundation is not a grantmaker. The Gamaliel network of affiliates totals41 in the United States and an additional four in South Africa. For moreinformation, visit www.gamaliel.org.5The 26 “Rolling Thunder” rallies were held in the followingcommunities: Oakland, Calif.; Gary, Ind.; Milwaukee, Wis.;Youngstown, Ohio; Buffalo, N.Y.; Detroit; Hartford, Conn.; Davenport,Iowa; Jersey City, N.J.; San Diego; Albany, N.Y.; Cincinnati; HamptonRoads, Va.; Saginaw, Mich.; Minneapolis; Syracuse, N.Y.; Erie, Pa.;Chicago; Baltimore; St. Louis; Wheeling, W.Va.; Madison, Ill.;Kalamazoo, Mich.; Cleveland; Pittsburgh; and Sharon, Pa.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 24

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTinvestments. The main activities of MAC are focusedon issues of education, public safety, transportation,and employment in the inner-city and inner-ringsouth suburbs of Chicago. Its primary constituentsare minorities and the working poor. Gamalielprovides consulting and leadership training in socialactivism for MAC members.Another successful affiliate of Gamaliel is MOSES.With 73 member congregations dispersed amongthree Michigan counties in the Detroit metropolitanarea, MOSES functions as a faith-based networkdedicated to identifying common interest andempowering its constituents to engage in publicpolicy. “Through MOSES, [the congregations] assert[their] religious principles in the public realm toimprove the quality of life in our communities andto create a more just and humane society.” 6Funder InterestOther funders beyond the CCHD have significantlysupported Gamaliel’s cross-coalition efforts. TheFord Foundation’s Asset Building and CommunityDevelopment program has served as a major funder,as has the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Ford’ssupport is in direct relation to the program’s ongoingefforts to strengthen and increase the effectiveness ofpeople and organizations working towards solutionsto problems of poverty and injustice. According toKatie Fitzgerald, program director at the W.K.Kellogg Foundation, local and regional faith-basedcommunity organizing through the GamalielFoundation is an important strategy for communitymobilization, change, and improvement. W.K.Kellogg’s interest in Gamaliel is not just the faithbasedmethodology, but also its efforts to fullyintegrate metro equity issues. According toFitzgerald, the Gamaliel approach—working withboth urban and suburban interests—provides avehicle to address a range of issues from concentratedpoverty to urban sprawl and racial segregation.According to CCHD’s former executive director,Father Robert Vitillo, its interest was due to severalfactors. First, there was CCHD’s earlier experiencewith Gamaliel’s organizing. Gamaliel’s ability toleverage power and relationships already built onneighborhood and local levels was a known factor.Yet there was also an expectation of Gamaliel’s abilityto address more widespread and complex issues. Aspart of Gamaliel’s ten-year strategic plan, adopted in2000, a diversification of its membership base willadd significant allies and institutions to currentmember congregations. Its national leadership willlink the regional groups into a national communityof committed activists. According to Vitillo, “Theprojects were able to demonstrate that theyconformed to CCHD funding guidelines and theypresented a comprehensive plan for what they wouldaccomplish and how they would accomplish it.”Funding from CCHD helps to enable Gamaliel toprovide training, consulting, technical support, andassistance to its affiliates. In regularly scheduledaffiliate meetings, insights, victories, and strategiesthat have actually overcome challenges further uniteand strengthen the network. The CCHD hasawarded a seven-year grant to MOSES.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsFor CCHD, project success is evidenced byrelationships that have formed which stretch acrossneighborhood and socioeconomic boundaries. Vitilloindicates that Gamaliel has been “able to demonstratehow the well-being of both urban areas and suburbanareas are inter-connected. They have openeddiscussion on redistribution of regional tax base anddevelopment of a regional mass transit system.”According to W.K. Kellogg’s Fitzgerald, the Michiganregional affiliates “have done an impressive job inmaintaining local focus and issues while at the sametime working together at the state level to advancekey issues that require a more coordinated andgeographically-spread approach.”The Detroit “Rolling Thunder” public rally, hosted by MOSES, attracted morethan 4,500 people. (Source: Detroit MOSES).6www.mosesmi.org.25Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Yet the interpersonal dynamics of cross-coalitionbuilding can be both complex and at times, tentative.“Just because we share a passion,” remarks MOSES’organizer Victoria Kovari, “it doesn’t mean it will bea smooth ride or that the relationships will deepen.The trust doesn’t come right away. It’s built whenyou have shared values, vision, and commitment—it’s built when you deliver for each other.” AddsMOSES’ executive director, Ponsella Hardaway,“Our coalitions can be fragile because they arecomplex due to diversity and various self-interests.But the payoff is powerful when we agree to enterinto the struggle for equity together.”ResultsChicagoSince 1998, the Metropolitan Alliance ofCongregations (MAC) has fought for and won thecreation of a partnership with ten banks, providingup to $1 billion in loans for 13,000 families through2005. To ensure that the set-aside funds would beutilized, over 100 MAC member churches and sisterorganizations based in Aurora, Hazel Crest, Joliet,and Chicago, Ill., agreed to recruit and train familiesin homeownership. More recently, following the fall2004 closure of a Chicago West Side Hospital and amove to the suburbs, more than 3,000 individuals(white, African American, Latino, and others) andunion leaders gathered in Chicago to challenge whatGamaliel’s director of metro equity, Mike Kruglik,terms, a “landscape of abandonment and neglect thatis morally wrong.”At that meeting, veterans of the civil rightsmovement openly supported civil rights forimmigrants. And together, they found commonground with the health care workers union, ServiceEmployees International Union (SEIU) and its 400rank-and-file in attendance. Together, their crosscoalitionagenda called for immigration reform,expanded health care, fair school funding, andtransportation equity.Invited and responding to MAC’s communityagenda were Illinois Congressmen Luis Gutierrez,Danny Davis, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. Also inattendance and speaking was then Illinois Senatenominee, now U.S. Senator, Barack Obama.Congressman Gutierrez’s participation also providedan opportunity to highlight federal immigrationlegislation he sponsored in 2004. The SOLVE Act,introduced in May 2004, is an acronym for “TheSafe, Orderly, Legal Visas and Enforcement Act.”Earned legalization, strengthened worker protections,and family reunification are key issues that the billaddresses.DetroitIn Detroit, from 1997 to 2003, regional mass transit,new housing construction, and high target drugenforcement areas termed “Safe Zones” were all apart of the MOSES agenda. In fall 2004, afterregistering over 11,000 new voters, MOSES drewnearly 4,000 people to the University of Detroitcampus on a Sunday afternoon for a “RollingThunder” gathering. Rev. Kevin Turman, MOSES’president, opened the session with a fiery messageakin to his sermons at Detroit’s historic SecondBaptist Church: “When it’s praying time, we’ll pray.When it’s marching time, we’ll march. When it’slearning time, we will study. When it is workingtime, we will work. And when it’s voting time, wewill register, educate, activate, participate and thenmake sure every vote gets counted … We aredetermined to either change current politics orchange the current politicians.”Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm addressed the “Rolling Thunder”meeting in Detroit, September 26, 2004. (Source: Detroit MOSES).Sitting among the crowd and its chorus of “Amens”were two of Michigan’s most powerful electedEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 26

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTofficials, Governor Jennifer Granholm and DetroitMayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Mayor Kilpatrick andDetroit City Council members together pledged tocreate a land bank authority by the end of the year(state legislation was already in place that set theframework for local communities to expediteclearance of titles of abandoned and vacantbuildings). Vacant“It may seem like we arewandering in the desertsometimes, but we arecounting on MOSES to leadus out of the desert. MOSES’agenda is my agenda.”— Governor JenniferGranholmproperties areDetroit’s secondhighest communityconcern behindviolent crime. MayorKilpatrick also agreedto partner withWayne CountyExecutive RobertFicano to ensure thatMOSES’ voices areheard in thedevelopment of a funding plan for regional masstransit. When it was time for the governor to speak,her remarks carried a deferential tone. “It may seemlike we are wandering in the desert sometimes,” saidGovernor Granholm, “but we are counting onMOSES to lead us out of the desert. MOSES’agenda is my agenda.”Despite an impressive array of elected and appointedofficials, the most poignant moment came when agroup of undocumented immigrants from MOSEScongregations in southwest Detroit, Pontiac, and ImlayCity stepped forward, challenging America’simmigration system—the same issue raised just daysearlier in Chicago. In a city where eight out of every tenresidents is African American, the broad display forimmigration rights was particularly significant. In reply,Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick gave suchpassionate support to the SOLVE Act that the crowdbegan a bilingual chant, “Si-se puede! Yes we can!” Alsoadding their personal support to the SOLVE Act wereU.S. Senator Carl Levin and Congressman JohnDingell, who publicly pledged to meet with MOSESregarding the legislation.Standing in support of MOSES’ new anti-redliningagenda were also State Senators Martha Scott andSamuel ‘Buzz’ Thomas. Meanwhile, a group of lawenforcement officials—Wayne County SheriffWarren Evans, Deputy Chief of Police HaroldCureton, and Michigan State Police LieutenantHarold Love—all pledged to attend MOSES’ 2005Regional Crime Action Summit. With the parade ofpublic pledges, MOSES will work to ensure that thepromises become real for Detroit’s people.While many funders measure success in terms ofquantifiable results, for CCHD those objectiveindicators do not constitute an effort’s entire value.“Results are impressive,” observes Vitillo. “However,one must take into account the complexity of thistype of organizing. Results may be harder to captureand to communicate than are those associated withmore local organizing.” Gamaliel’s Kruglick supportsthat same view: “When access is denied, opportunityis also denied. Our desire is to empower people.We’re uniting people.” This effort is not measurablein hard data but in a sense of increased hope,dialogue, andawareness acrossaffiliatedorganizations andregions.Lessons LearnedPerhaps the mostbasic lesson forCCHD is thesimilarity betweenthe objectivesestablished byGamaliel and somepoints of doctrineheld within theCatholic Church.Father Vitillo notesthat, “Metropolitanor regional organizingis very consistentwith the CatholicSocial Teachingprinciples that guideCCHD’s mandateand methodology—“We are working hard bothinternally and externally toraise the profile of faithbasedcommunity organizingin the broader philanthropiccommunity. While the lackof funding remains a centralchallenge for this work, it isencouraging that wecontinue to see movementand attention being given tothis field, both to faith-basedcommunity organizing ingeneral and also to theconcepts of metropolitanequity as it relates toexamining policies andpractices that help tostructurally dismantleconcentrated poverty.”— Katie Fitzgeraldincluding such principles as solidarity andsubsidiarity.” As a result, Vitillo envisions newopportunities that could further unite “urban andsuburban areas and from different racial, ethnic, andsocioeconomic backgrounds.”Even with such looming opportunities, other keylessons learned are the fundamental challengesbrought by CCHD’s own funding policies and27Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

guidelines. “Many of the member organizations ofthese projects already receive CCHD funding,” saysVitillo. “CCHD has not worked out at how manylevels it can fund certain organizations that in turnmay be members of larger regional or metropolitangroups. As larger numbers of middle- (and evenupper-) income congregations become involved inthese organizations, they are at risk of going out ofcompliance with CCHD’s funding criterion.”Presently, CCHD guidelines require at least 50percent of the decisionmaking group of an applicantorganization be poor.For the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, there is therealization that as a general proposition, communityorganizing is still not a well-funded area. “We areworking hard both internally and externally,”remarks Fitzgerald, “to raise the profile of faith-basedcommunity organizing in the broader philanthropiccommunity. While the lack of funding remains acentral challenge for this work, it is encouraging thatwe continue to see movement and attention beinggiven to this field, both to faith-based communityorganizing in general and also to the concepts ofmetropolitan equity as it relates to examining policiesand practices that help to structurally dismantleconcentrated poverty.”EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTContact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Director, Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Thomas Chabolla, Associate Director-ProgramsFather Robert Vitillo, former Executive DirectorCatholic Campaign forHuman Developmenttchabolla@usccb.org(202) 541-3367Christine A.W. DobyProgram OfficerCharles Stewart Mott Foundationcdoby@mott.org(810) 238-5651Ponsella HardawayExecutive DirectorMetropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength(MOSES)phardaway@sbcglobal.net(313) 962-5290David HatchDirectorMetropolitan Alliance of Congregations (MAC)Yahwehrevolution@aol.com(773) 538-8781Vicki KovariOrganizerMetropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strategy(MOSES)vkovari@aol.com(313) 962-5290 ext. 19Katie FitzgeraldProgram DirectorW.K. Kellogg FoundationKatie.Fitzgerald@wkkf.org(269) 968-1611Mike KruglikDirector of Metro EquityGamaliel Foundationmikekruglik@sbcglobal.net(312) 357-2639Rev. Kevin TurmanPresidentMetropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength (MOSES)kturman@flash.net(313) 962-5290Part III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 28

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTI. C. FILLING THE VOID: THENATIONAL VACANTPROPERTIES CAMPAIGNFunders Highlighted:Fannie Mae FoundationFord FoundationCharles Stewart Mott FoundationSurdna FoundationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)researchers, policymakers, practitioners, andcommunity developers to begin a dialogue amonglike-minded groups previously working in silos acrossthe country. Soon after, SGA, with local governmentplayer the International City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA) and affordable housing expert theLocal Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), forgeda joint proposal that leveraged their collectiveexpertise and experience. The National VacantProperties Campaign thus began.“There’s real interest in the field. It’s a sigh ofrelief that there might be some hope.”— Vanitha Venugopal, Surdna FoundationSmart Growth America’s National Vacant PropertiesCampaign brings to light the socioeconomic andenvironmental problems of vacant properties acrossthe nation. This profile describes the potential valueof a national campaign that connects practitioners,organizers, and residents around solutions to theissue of vacant properties. This coalition builds uponcollective learning for smart growth results, as well ascommunity and regional revitalizations.Project ProfileVacant properties have haunted communities acrossAmerica for decades. Smart Growth America (SGA)surveyed city planning departments and found thatmany cities cared but lacked both the capacity andexpertise to tackle the complex problems involved.Abandoned properties are plagued with tremendous legalaction, back taxes, rehabilitation permits, and ambiguousjurisdiction lines. According to Don Chen, executivedirector of Smart Growth America, “Washington, D.C.,had a huge number of abandoned housing, Baltimorehad 30,000 to 40,000 buildings, and even a small city,Albany, N.Y., had 800 abandoned properties.” WhenSGA recognized the opportunity to advance the issue ofvacant properties into a stand-alone campaign, funderslike the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Fannie MaeFoundation, Ford Foundation, Surdna Foundation, andU.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) steppedforward to help realize the idea.Starting in 2000, the Ford Foundation and FannieMae Foundation paved the road for universities,These before and after photos show the rehabilitation of The CanCompany in the Canton neighborhood of Baltimore. (Source: MarylandDepartment of Planning).The Campaign set out to build a network ofprofessionals in community development corporations(CDCs), government, law, business, and foundationsto: create a stand-alone identity for the vacantproperty issue and collect supporting evidence insafety, economics, and health; develop usable toolsand tracking systems that build upon the successes ofthe Center for Neighborhood Technology’sNeighborhood Early Warning System (NEWS) inChicago and the University of California, Los Angeles’geographic information systems (GIS) database inorder to track the condition, location, and ownershipof property; and provide technical assistance tocommunities seeking help.29Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Funder InterestThe EPA supported the Campaign as it aligned withEPAs “national environmental goals of encouragingclean-up and redevelopment of brownfields andother blighted properties including vacant andabandoned properties.” 7 In considering the scope ofthe Campaign, the foundations involved based theirgrant decisions on the vision to build on experience,share partnerships, and create momentum across thenation. The Charles Stewart Mott Foundationwanted to connect the work of the Genesee CountyLand Bank with the national vacant propertiesmovement by hosting the Campaign’s conference inFlint, Mich. “Our interest is in exposingpolicymakers and advocates in Michigan to otherexamples of innovative work from around thecountry and to expose others to the work of theGenesee County Land Bank,” explains Neal Hegarty,program officer with the Mott Foundation.The Surdna Foundation had worked with SGA on anenvironment program in the past and believed in thestrength of its partners. Vanitha Venugopal, programofficer for community revitalization at Surdna, explainsthat, “The Surdna Foundation prefers to fund largescaleprojects doing innovative work to make systemicchanges. We are all faced with vacant properties all overthe country with different ways of dealing with them.”Stephanie Jennings, former manager of nationalinitiatives at the Fannie Mae Foundation, highlightsthis same need for partnership and collaboration. Sherecalls that before the Campaign started, “Differentpeople in different places were all reinventing the wheeland were not sharing resources.” Fannie MaeFoundation wanted to see a true partnership take theenergy from the initial meetings and put a plan in placethat could affect change. The Foundation hadencouraged SGA, ICMA, and LISC to make acollaborative effort in approaching the issue so thegroups could inform each other and share skills.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe Campaign’s focus and technical assistance assistscommunities and related organizations in findingways to secure long-term stability for low-incomerenters and owners trying to keep up with expensiveproperty tax assessments. The Campaign also pointsto the health hazards brought upon the community byvacant properties. Vacant and abandoned propertiesinclude many brownfields with some level ofenvironmental contamination. Abandoned propertiesrepresent safety threats to nearby residents andbecome dumping grounds for everything from oldtires to hazardous chemicals. Yet the reuse of theproperties may result in remediation of more of thesesites making land available to support production ofaffordable housing and increase the value of theneighborhood. Additionally, the redevelopment couldconserve greenfield sites including wildlife habitat andfarmland. The Campaign addresses strategies for themore effective uses of infrastructure investments thatcommunities have already made, such as roads, power,and other utility services. The participants and leadersof the Campaign emphasize that early success ofremediation encourages local governments to enactpolicies and procedures that ease bureaucracy obstaclesand streamline processes for development.A Baltimore community worked for two years to encourage the city todemolish a vacant warehouse. A community development corporation isrehabilitating the houses that stand behind the now vacant lot. Residents areworking together with the city to determine the final use of the vacant lot,which will likely become a combination of greenspace and parking. (Source:Jennifer Leonard, Smart Growth America).ResultsTo date, the Campaign boasts two national conferences,stronger financial backing, and a growing network ofresources from a cross-section of government,nonprofits, and businesses. Jennings from the FannieMae Foundation cites a greater awareness of theCampaign across the nation. Individuals andorganizations committed to policy changes aroundvacant properties have a renewed optimism inspired bya greater coordination and collaboration for support,information, and resources as silos are breaking down.The technical assistance program is getting the rightpeople in the same room locally. To this extent, LISCexhibits a national presence while SGA puts its rhetoric7Remarks of Charles Kent, director of the Office of Business andCommunity Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at theVacant Property Press Breakfast, July 9, 2003.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 30

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTinto action on the local level. Due to the growingimportance of this timely topic, in September 2004, theFunders’ Network for Smart Growth and LivableCommunities released Vacant Properties and SmartGrowth: Creating Opportunity from Abandonment, thefourth issue in its Livable Communities @ Work series. 8Lessons LearnedThe creation of a national campaign has galvanized anew network ready toThe creation of a nationalcampaign has galvanized anew network ready to worktogether. A key lesson is thatlocal governments have acritical role to play and thatincorporating them into thework is key. Even though theefforts take time, it isimportant to bridge the toolscreated by the campaign tothe local needs.work together. A keylesson is that localgovernments have acritical role to playand thatincorporating theminto the work is key.Even though theefforts take time, it isimportant to bridgethe tools created bythe Campaign to thelocal needs.Customizing theapproach to adjust toContact Peoplefit local needs and the unique circumstances of eachlocale is important. Organizers and supporters of theCampaign believe the momentum is taking root andthat the work holds promise towards addressing thevacant properties issue.This Baltimore garden was created after the demolition of an abandoned rowhouse. It is stewarded by a resident of the block. (Source: Jennifer Leonard,Smart Growth America).8The Funders’ Network’s Livable Communities @ Work series focuses onthe practical aspects of how to create smarter, more livable communitiesfor all. The series highlights successful strategies, explores tensionscreated by competing issues, and generally helps spur informed debate oncritical issues. Vacant Properties and Smart Growth and other papers inthe Livable Communities @ Work series are available for download atwww.fundersnetwork.org.Carl AnthonyActing Director,Community and Resource Development UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Don ChenExecutive DirectorSmart Growth Americadchen@smartgrowthamerica.org(202) 207-3355Dan KildeeGenesee County Treasurer and PresidentGenesee County Land Bankdkildee@sbcglobal.net(810) 257-3024Sheila MaithManaging Director of Policyand Leadership DevelopmentFannie Mae Foundationsmaith@fanniemaefoundation.org(202) 274-8058Neal R. HegartyTim TormaProgram OfficerActing DirectorCharles Stewart Mott FoundationDevelopment, Community,nhegarty@mott.organd Environment Division(810) 766-1770U.S. Environmental Protection Agencytorma.tim@epa.gov(202) 566-2878Vanitha VenugopalProgram Officer for Community RevitalizationSurdna Foundationvvenugopal@surdna.org(212) 557-001031Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. D. DEMONSTRATING THESTRUGGLE FOR REGIONALEQUITY: LEARNING FROMTHE FORD FOUNDATION’SENGAGEMENT IN CAMDEN,N.J., AND RICHMOND, CALIF.Funders Highlighted:Ford FoundationThe San Francisco Foundation“Camden and Richmond are marginalizedcommunities in very different regions, facing verydifferent regional equity challenges andopportunities.”— Carl Anthony, Ford FoundationIn both Camden, N.J., and Richmond, Calif., theFord Foundation’s approach to advancing a regionalequity framework is to support efforts designed toreform policies and practices that perpetuate social,racial, economic, and environmental inequalitiesacross cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The ultimateobjective of these regional equity demonstrationprojects is to bridge the gap between marginalizedpeople and places and the region’s structures of socialand economic opportunity. Work is supported insidecities to revitalize neighborhoods and urban marketsas key building blocks of a healthy region; to educateand organize civic capacity throughout the regionwith the capacity to reform local and state policiesand to advance social and economic equity; and, tolink the needs of low-income, racially-segregatedresidents with expanded opportunities throughoutthe region. The Camden demonstration strives toimprove and strengthen the housing market,workforce opportunities, and public and civiccapacity. The Richmond initiative focuses ondeveloping the capacity of community groups toaddress their needs at the regional level. This profiledemonstrates funders’ experiences in creating newmodels of regional equity while developing replicablelearnings based on regional and market differences. Italso shows how foundations can work together acrossissues to pursue complementary, holisticgrantmaking strategies.Project ProfilesCamden, N.J.Camden, N.J., is a distressed city, a declining inner-ringsuburb of Philadelphia in an older Rust Belt area, wheremany original economic functions (e.g., shipyards) of theindustrial economyhave disappeared.Legally bankrupt since2002, and unable toperform its most basicgovernmentalfunctions, the city ofCamden is in statereceivership. As aresult, the city willreceive $175 million instate funds over a fiveyearperiod, allocatedto a new entity, theCamdenThe Ford Foundationdescribes the Camdenwork as “Project-BasedRegionalism,” a strategy thatplaces equal emphasis onthe need to create value inCamden by focusing on itsexisting assets andinstitutions with the need toleverage state and regionalpolicy change.Redevelopment Authority (CRA). Camden is also set toreceive another major infusion of public capital as a resultof the Abbott v. Burke case, a recent state court decisionconcerning equity in school funding. Per Abbott,Camden will receive more than $400 million for newschool renovation and construction.The Ford Foundation describes the Camden work as“Project-Based Regionalism,” a strategy that placesequal emphasis on the need to create value in Camdenby focusing on its existing assets and institutions withthe need to leverage state and regional policy change.Ford’s implementing partner in Camden is TheReinvestment Fund (TRF), its regional partner is theNew Jersey Regional Coalition, and its research partnerCamden, N.J., is a distressed city, a declining inner-ring suburb ofPhiladelphia in an older Rust Belt area. Considered a “weak market” city,Camden is in state receivership. The Ford Foundation is conducting a“project-based regionalism” demonstration in Camden. (© Camilo JoseVergara, www.camden.rutgers.edu/~hfcy/intro.html).EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 32

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTis MDRC (formerly known as ManpowerDemonstration Research Corporation).The Reinvestment Fund performed a market analysisof Camden’s neighborhoods, categorizing eachaccording to the following continuum: High Value;Strong Value; Steady; Transitional; Distressed PublicMarket; Reclamation. The analysis characterizedevery Camden neighborhood as Transitional,Distressed Public Market, or Reclamation. That is,no Camden neighborhood could be characterizedeven as Steady. Thus, TRF concluded that recreatingCamden’s housing market was a necessary first steptoward addressing the structural deficits in citygovernment revenues. Focusing on existing assets,TRF identified three neighborhoods with the bestchance for mixed-income housing development.These neighborhoods—Parkside, EastCamden/Cramer Hill, and DowntownCamden/Lanning Square—were selected becausethey were closest to existing stable markets. In thesethree neighborhoods, TRF anticipates that newmarket-rate housing, part of any mixed-incomedevelopment, would contribute new tax revenues andinfluence broader revitalization efforts. Importantly,a clear demand exists for a broader distribution ofaffordable housing, evidenced by a new mixedincomedevelopment in the Mt. Laurel, N.J., suburbof Camden, for which 30 percent of the applicantswere from Camden. Additionally, initial investmentsare being made to explore regional workforcedevelopment programs focused on Camdenresidents, which also link to transportation andhousing opportunities.Camden neighborhoods include both occupied and vacant row housesbordering one another, just one of many examples of living conditions inCamden, which has experienced a rapid decline in population, jobs, and qualityof life. (© Camilo Jose Vergara, www.camden.rutgers.edu/~hfcy/intro.html).In support of Camden’s financial health and localcapacity development, TRF has partnered with theCRA to identify staff development needs, especiallythose relevant to spurring new developments in thethree target neighborhoods. The Ford Foundationhas made a grant to the National Association ofHousing and Redevelopment Officials to plan andfacilitate a series of workshops on organizationaldevelopment for the CRA. A vibrant, equitableregion requires stable, accessible institutions throughwhich people share in the region’s decisions andbenefits. In support of efforts to build aninfrastructure of leaders and civic organizations thatcan engage with ongoing redevelopment efforts—and advance statewide policy reforms aroundtaxation, land use, housing, transportation, and theenvironment—the Ford Foundation has funded onestatewide organizing initiative and made grants tothree Camden-specific groups. The first is a grant tothe New Jersey Regional Coalition to implement astatewide organizing strategy focusing on state publicpolicies that would advance regional equity. A grantto the Concerned Black Clergy (CBC) is forconvening a dialogue in churches around issues ofimportance to Camden residents. Additionally, agrant to the Camden Churches Organized for People(CCOP) is for community organizing activities toensure citizen participation in the Camdenrevitalization process. Lastly, a grant to the Alliancefor the Revitalization of Camden City is to support acollaborative process to help build an effective civicorganization for Camden residents, offering theopportunity to shape an agenda for the city’srevitalization. Furthermore, cross-program grantshave been made to other Camden nonprofitsthrough the portfolios of other program officers inthe Foundation’s Community and ResourceDevelopment Unit. These include grants to the localRegional Association of Grantmakers to sponsorregional equity programs and to organizationsworking in education reform, open space andenvironmental justice, community/culturaldevelopment, and youth organizing.Through the work of MDRC, the critical activitiesundertaken to promote Camden’s economic revivalwill be documented and described. The informationgathered will be used to inform ongoingredevelopment activities and to equip public andprivate sector staff with “real-time” feedback.33Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Richmond, Calif.The second regional equity demonstration project isin Richmond, Calif. It is an area like Camden inmany ways. A Bay Area suburb, its residents—predominantly African American, Asian American,and Latino—sufferthe familiarRichmond is part of a challenges of racialdynamic, growing regional segregation andeconomic marketplace. For concentrated poverty.Richmond, the question There has beenbecomes whether somespeculation that thecity of Richmondof this regional growth cancould declarebe captured to expandbankruptcy and joinopportunities for low-income Camden in a stateresidents and to advance receivership. Fromregional equity goals. the FordFoundation’sperspective, however,there is one critical difference: Richmond is part of adynamic, growing regional economic marketplace.For Richmond, the question becomes whether someof this regional growth can be captured to expandopportunities for low-income residents and toadvance regional equity goals.In 2003, Ford partnered with The San FranciscoFoundation to launch the Richmond demonstrationproject. An initial, one-year, $450,000 grant wasgiven to The San Francisco Foundation. Some ofthis money was re-granted to three anchor groups:Urban Habitat, Contra Costa Faith Works!, and theRichmond Improvement Association. Theremainder was held by the Foundation to pay fortechnical assistance and/or consultants requested bythe three anchor groups, for their capacity buildingneeds, and to fund new partners identified as theproject evolved.The Richmond Regional Equity Demonstration hasvery different goals from the grants made underFord’s Camden initiative. Distinct from Camden’sasset- or project-based regionalism, Richmond’semphasis is on community-based regionalism. InRichmond, the focus is on the grassrootsinfrastructure, supporting organized communitygroups and people as they identify their own needsand develop a stronger ability to address those needsat the regional level, through the concept of anEquitable Development Zone.Richmond, Calif., is a San Francisco Bay Area inner-ring suburb where theFord Foundation is engaged in a community-based regionalism demonstrationproject. Connecting residents to a hot market region is one of the goals.(© Camilo Jose Vergara, www.camden.rutgers.edu/~hfcy/intro.html).According to The San Francisco Foundation’senvironment program officer, Arlene Rodriguez, theEquitable Development Zone “defines what thecommunity wants, in terms of housing, education,environment, transportation, and economicdevelopment, from any new investments in theirneighborhood.” This statement is echoed by MariaAlegria from ContraCosta Faith Works!:“The EquitableDevelopment Zone setsout the community’svision of what they wanttheir neighborhood tolook like and futureinvestments inRichmond will beguided by this vision,delivering benefits forRichmond’s existingresidents.” Over time,the participants haveidentified a need foradditional expertise inorder to best make informed decisions. Regionaldynamics and choices are complex and no one entityhas the in-house expertise for a comprehensiveapproach to decisionmaking. Thus, as the projectevolves, resources have been devoted to bring othertechnical service providers into the process, mostly inthe areas of housing and housing finance.Funder Interest“The Equitable DevelopmentZone sets out thecommunity’s vision ofwhat they want theirneighborhood to look likeand future investments inRichmond will be guided bythis vision, deliveringbenefits for Richmond’sexisting residents.”Through its Sustainable Metropolitan CommunitiesInitiative (SMCI), the Ford Foundation began an— Maria AlegriaEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 34

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTevolving focus on regionalism and equity, including anearly effort entitled “Conversations on Regional Equity.”The conversations—led by Manuel Pastor, professor ofLatin American and Latino Studies at the University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz, and drawing on the expertise ofother scholars and practitioners like Bruce Katz, johnpowell, and David Rusk—explore the challenges facedby low-income and people of color in urbancommunities grappling with regional challenges. 9 It isclear that these obstacles require engagement at theregional level, asserting that economic competitivenessand social well-being are co-equal values pursued inregional work. Importantly, the conversations contributeto a broader analysis of the community developmentcorporation, or CDC, model.The Ford Foundation has been a major investor inCDCs for over 40 years, building upon relationshipswhich supported real housing and economic benefitsfor low-income and minority communities. Yetaccording to a growing regional scholarship, the CDCmodel, acting alone, cannot address the regionaldrivers of concentrated poverty (e.g., tax, housing, andtransportation policies). Complementary approachesare required. In Camden and Richmond, Fordencountered communities where early isolated placebasedapproaches had been insufficient to liftindividuals and communities out of poverty.Furthermore, if the Foundation was to make asignificant and comprehensive investment in adepressed community, and—in doing so—hope togarner some replicable learning about regional equity,it felt it had to prioritize that kind of community,rather than a community that was already on its wayto improving. The Ford Foundation was interested inregional and market balance: regions on oppositecoasts, one within a weak market reality and the othera strong market environment.Originally, the Ford Foundation considered severalother cities and regions, including San Diego, SouthCarolina, and East St. Louis, Ill.. But several factorsinfluenced the Camden and Richmond decisions overall others. In the case of Camden, proximity played arole. Camden is relatively close to the FordFoundation’s New York City offices. According to CarlAnthony, acting director of the Community andResource Development Unit at the Ford Foundation,this was a very important consideration and may haveimplications for other funders. The receivership aspectwas also significant. It offered an opportunity torestructure the relationship between the communityand the state. The infusion of $175 million from thestate of New Jersey and the over $400 million for newschool construction from the Abbott case were alsodetermining factors. Even more, the state of NewJersey had a long history of struggle around fair sharehousing, specifically with the Mt. Laurel suburb. Thisdynamic provided a base from which to discuss theregional agenda.In the case of Richmond, Ford assessed that the city’sfinancial challenges made the city more receptive tothe Regional Equity Demonstration initiative andfacilitated a stronger partnership. Furthermore,Richmond had existing leadership strongly committedto the community, even though many groups weredisconnected from each other and lackedorganizational capacity around regional issues. FromThe San Francisco Foundation’s perspective, thesefactors created an opportunity to establish orstrengthen partnerships among local initiatives andcommunity interests and build local capacity throughtechnical assistance. Richmond was an early suburb ofSan Francisco, a so-called “inner-ring” suburb whichwas later leapfrogged by successive expansions ofsuburban development. Throughout the country,many inner-ring suburbs face familiar challenges ofdisinvestments. Therefore, a demonstration project inRichmond is an opportunity to create equitableinvestments that could provide lessons for otherregions. As previously mentioned, The San FranciscoFoundation was already focused on Richmond andhad invested and devoted resources from sevendifferent program areas in the area. For a nationalfunder, like the Ford Foundation, this localphilanthropic connection enhanced the potentialimpact of its grant support, building upon alreadyexisting networks, infrastructures, and knowledge ofthe local nuances. 10ResultsIn both Camden and Richmond, the FordFoundation’s ultimate objective is to address social,racial, economic, and environmental inequalities9Bruce Katz is vice president and director, Metropolitan Policy Program,The Brookings Institution; john powell is director, Kirwin Institute ofRace and Ethnicity, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University;and David Rusk is a consultant on urban and suburban policy andauthor of Inside Game/Outside Game.10Publisher’s Note: The East Bay Community Foundation is also workingon efforts in Richmond, Calif. For more information, visitwww.eastbaycf.org.35Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

through policy reform at the local and state levelsand advance a regional perspective as the lensthrough which to approach poverty and segregation.As the demonstrations progress, each site will havearticulated, pursued,In both Camden andRichmond, the FordFoundation’s ultimateobjective is to address social,racial, economic, andenvironmental inequalitiesthrough policy reform at thelocal and state levels andadvance a regionalperspective as the lensthrough which to approachpoverty and segregation.and documented aunique approach tolinking marginalizedplaces and people toregionalopportunities andwill have participatedin and contributed toa learning network ofpeers pursuingsimilar work in otherareas of the country.Ford anticipatesmeasurable andsignificant results willbe realized in Camden, made possible in part by theresources provided through the demonstrationproject. The vision is that the CRA will improve theprofessional staff, systems, and resources needed tofunction effectively on behalf of the continuingimprovement of the city. Redevelopedneighborhoods will have improved by attractingmixed-income residents, providing expanded choiceand opportunities for city residents, and increasingrevenues for the city budget. A cadre of invested andengaged citizens will have emerged. Affordablehousing throughout the Camden metropolitanregion will be operating in collaboration withmunicipalities and private developers. Furthermore,the restoration and redevelopment of Camden’s parkswill be ongoing, with increasing public and privatesupport for the value of open space to neighborhoodsand schools. On the employment development front,a network of workforce organizations are tappinginto the New Jersey and Philadelphia economies andproviding tangible opportunities for Camdenresidents to work productively throughout theregion. The state’s policy will also be impacted as aninfluential, statewide, multi-racial advocacyorganization will be in place in New Jersey carryingout a regional equity policy reform agenda. Funderswill continue to be involved in the region, as anetwork of private foundations and corporations willbe actively engaged in funding regional equity workin the Camden region.Both Ford and The San Francisco Foundationindicate that Richmond has a tremendous amount oflocal leadership, but are too often not workingtogether effectively. The Richmond demonstrationproject is an opportunity to bring diverse groupstogether around an inclusive agenda. According toThe San Francisco Foundation’s Rodriguez, theRichmond Initiative should help build a communitylevelunderstanding of community needs andsuccessfully link those issues to larger regional issuesand decisionmaking processes. A key goal for theproject is sustainability and local capacitydevelopment. The work in Richmond is not a shorttermeffort, and the anchor groups as well as otherfuture project partners need the internal capacity tocontinue and expand the work when the currentFord/San Francisco Foundation funding stream isreduced or ends.Lessons LearnedCamden and Richmond have provided very differentlessons, mostly the result of their differentcharacteristics (weak market versus strong market)and Ford’s different approaches (project/asset-basedregionalism versus need/community-basedregionalism).Camden has no functional city government andFord believes similar challenges will likely beencountered in other small cities located indeclining regions. In weak markets like Camden,governmental functions and supports are eitherinadequate or non-existent. Therefore, a fundershould anticipate devoting significant resourcestoward infrastructure and capacity building. Afunder’s investment in an older and weak marketcity requires a unique strategy to build on a city’sexisting strengths as opposed to investing based ona community’s needs. In Camden, this meansfocusing on the potential strengths in the realestate market. When lacking a meaningful civicinfrastructure—because of residents’ apathy,government corruption, and other factors—funderssupporting broader community revitalization needto devote their resources to the emergence of ahealthy civic infrastructure. Funders should alsoevaluate the negative/positive impact of the localpublic infrastructure. For example, in Camden, thebroader public infrastructure (other cities, stategovernment) actually inhibits Camden’sdevelopment. Camden is home to many projectsEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 36

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTrejected or resisted by other New Jersey cities, suchas a state-mandated prison, a sewage plant, publichousing—all while Camden residents carry thehighest local tax burden in the state. According toFord, Camden’s asset-or project-based regionalismapproach required a good understanding of thecommunity’s physical assets. Thus, the initiativebenefited from detailed GIS mapping, yieldinghigh quality information at the parcel level.On the other hand, Richmond had a strong,established leadership in community-basedorganizations. In developing communitydiscussions and community-based policy goals withan eye toward regional opportunities, these existingrelationships could be built upon. The FordFoundation’s Richmond Initiative invested ingrassroots-level education around regional issues inorder to enhance the participants’ ability to movebeyond narrow community interests and connectwith the systematic regional issues.Finally, the primarylesson forprospective fundersis to carefullyevaluate the politicaland economiclandscape and plantheir initiativesaccordingly. Bestpractice models arereplicable, butcustomization tolocal needs andnuances remainsnecessary.The primary lesson forprospective funders is tocarefully evaluate thepolitical and economiclandscape and plan theirinitiatives accordingly. Bestpractice models arereplicable, but customizationto local needs and nuancesremains necessary.Contact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Director, Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Graciela CavicchiaDirector of Neighborhood Development StrategiesThe Reinvestment Fundgraciela.cavicchia@trfund.com(215) 925-1130Juliet EllisExecutive DirectorUrban Habitatjre@urbanhabitat.org(510) 839-9510Craig HowardVice President and Director, Low-Wage Workersand Working Communities Policy AreaMDRCcraig.howard@mdrc.org(510) 663-6372Jeremy NowakPresident and CEOThe Reinvestment Fundnowakj@trfund.com(215) 574-5800Arlene RodriguezProgram Officer, EnvironmentThe San Francisco Foundationamr@sff.org(415) 733-8517Paul ScullyDirectorThe New Jersey Regional Coalitionpscully@njregionaequity.org(856) 663-1064Nandita VermaSenior AssociateMDRCnandita.verma@mdrc.org(212) 340-884937Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. E. BUILDING COALITIONTHROUGH KNOWLEDGE:CENTEREDGE PROJECTFunders Highlighted:Catholic Campaign for Human DevelopmentHartford Foundation for Public GivingEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENT“The project attempts to bridge the gap between‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in the state of Connecticut,while using a methodology that respects the inputand initiative of grassroots communitiesthroughout the state of Connecticut.”— Father Robert Vitillo, CatholicCampaign for Human DevelopmentEnsuring the active participation of all members ofthe community—regardless of race, age, religion,language spoken, or socioeconomic background—ina visioning process and increasing public awarenessmakes it easier to strengthen networks and createimproved living conditions and quality of life for allresidents. This profile highlights two differentfoundations’ involvement at different points in anorganization’s efforts seeking to create statewidechanges to development decisions by creating crossissue,cross-cultural, cross-sector collaborations. Itdemonstrates how a national funder is sometimesneeded to get the ball rolling to allow for morestrategic involvement of local funders who can carrythe torch as a process gains momentum towardbecoming sustainable.Project ProfileThe Office of Urban Affairs (OUA) of theArchdiocese of Hartford commissioned andpublished in March 2003 a report with thoroughquantitative data, analysis, and policyrecommendations addressing a range of issuesrelated to development patterns, includingseparation by income, race, and fiscal inequity.This report, Connecticut Metropatterns: A RegionalAgenda for Community and Prosperity inConnecticut, was developed with the technicalassistance of Ameregis and its partner organization,Metropolitan Area Research Corporation(MARC).” 11Hartford, Conn., a small Northeastern city, is home to a population of morethan 120,000 residents. (© Stephen L. Roberts, www.ctcyber.com).The Office of Urban Affairs took the lead in effortsto disseminate and debate the report by organizingthe CenterEdge Coalition. An impassioned andthoughtful quote from President Abraham Lincoln,posted on CenterEdge’s materials and website,represents the spirit that drives this organization:“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; withoutit, nothing can succeed. Consequently he whomolds public sentiment goes deeper than he whoenacts statutes or pronounces decisions.”— Abraham Lincoln (First Lincoln-DouglasDebate, August 21, 1858)Funder InterestThe CenterEdge Project’s vision, objectives, and corevalues align with the Catholic Campaign for HumanDevelopment (CCHD). According to Father RobertVitillo, former executive director of CCHD, theProject “attempts to bridge the gap between ‘haves’and ‘have-nots’ in the state of Connecticut, as it usesa methodology that respects the input and initiativeof grassroots communities throughout the state ofConnecticut.”The Catholic Campaign for Human Development issupported primarily by parish collections takennationwide on the weekend before Thanksgiving. Thesefunds then support local empowerment projects. TheCCHD also has an educational component whosepurpose, according to Vitillo, is, “To teach Catholics11Ameregis is a research and geographic information systems firm with aclient base that includes federal, state, and local governments as well asuniversities, foundations, nonprofit organizations, and advocacy groups.For more information, visit www.ameregis.com.Part III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 38

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTabout poverty in the United States and to help themunderstand that work for justice is an essential aspect ofexpressing their faith.” Sharing this common vision,CenterEdge’s Parish Education Project links faith andsocial justice and moves beyond parishioner awareness tocommunity activism across religious, race, and class lineswith the goal of improving regional and local equity.The Project is an “opportunityfor the Foundation to supportinformed public discussionamong people from differentbackgrounds about largersystemic issues, includingequity and access toopportunity that affect us allas citizens.”— Richard PorthThe HartfordFoundation for PublicGiving believes thatthe subjects and trendsin the OUA report areimportant to people ofall income levels andsocial backgrounds.The Foundation wasimpressed by thebreadth and diversityof the broad coalitionestablished by theCenterEdge Project,which has brought together respected civic leaders andinterested citizens from various walks of life. As a result,the Foundation awarded a grant to fund a series of townmeetings in its region to enable residents to discuss theOUA report. As Richard Porth, vice president forgrantmaking at the Hartford Foundation for PublicGiving describes, the Project is an “opportunity for theFoundation to support informed public discussionamong people from different backgrounds about largersystemic issues, including equity and access toopportunity that affect us all as citizens.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe CenterEdge Project’s vision is to inspire pocketsof hope and change so that ideas generated throughcoalitions, awareness campaigns, and educationalprograms become the catalysts for more equitable lawsand social policies. As the Connecticut Metropatternsreport claims: “Ideas serve as a starting point for alarger discussion on how Connecticut can retakecontrol of its future. A course correction is needed toput the state on the path to greater economic vitalityand enhanced quality of life. The costs of inaction areincalculable. A credible and effective system thatpromotes local, regional, and statewide cooperationwill pay dividends for Connecticut and its people forgenerations to come.” 12The CenterEdge Project began by convening CCHDfundedorganizing projects in Connecticut to planjointly for this effort. Although the local groups didnot have a regional base at that time, there wasinterest in the idea, but no local capacity to start thework. In the meantime, the Gamaliel Foundationcame to Connecticut with its mission to pull together“a powerful network of grassroots, interfaith,interracial, multi-issue organizations working togetherto create a more just and more democratic society.” 13Gamaliel established projects in Hartford, eastern, andcentral Connecticut. With similar focuses and goals,the CenterEdge Project and the Gamaliel Foundationestablished a close working alliance.CenterEdge assists local committees in the 169 townsof Connecticut to organize, advertise, and launch atleast one public education event about the informationprovided in the Connecticut Metropatterns report.Resources from organizer’s tool kits (includingtemplates for flyers, media contacts, videos,presentations, etc.) are provided to volunteers. In orderto reach as many individuals as possible, the projectworks to bridge the knowledge and language divide byoffering its public education events, presentations, andmaterials in Spanish as well as English.Furthermore, the OUA has provided 70 Catholicparishes with education about what the Catholic faithtradition has to say about the environment, water, andoverall care of the Earth. This CenterEdge ParishEducation Project also encourages the parishes todevelop partnerships with environmental groups, engagein social activism, and ensure community responsibility.CenterEdge works closely with another CCHD-fundedSome Hartford neighborhoods are in the midst of redevelopment thatemploys smart growth principles that ensure walkability and pedestrianfriendliness.(© Stephen L. Roberts, www.ctcyber.com).12Ameregis and Metropolitan Area Research Corporation. ConnecticutMetropatterns: A Regional Agenda for Community and Prosperity inConnecticut (2003).13www.gamaliel.org.39Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

organizing project, the Connecticut Coalition forEnvironmental Justice, which aims to “protect urbanenvironments primarily in Connecticut througheducating communities, promoting changes in local,state, and national policy, and promoting individual,corporate, and governmental responsibility towards ourenvironment.” 14 In its work with parishes and theCoalition for Environmental Justice, CenterEdge hasbrought attention to the high concentration of regionalwaste-processing facilities near low-income minorityneighborhoods in Hartford.ResultsDuring recent funder visits to Connecticut, CCHD haswitnessed first-hand the CenterEdge Project’s results.Individuals from various socioeconomic backgroundsoffered personal testimony demonstrating increasedknowledge and voicing a common vision and goalthanks to their participation in CenterEdge’s trainingsand discussions, analysis, and actions.For the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, themost beneficial outcome is the broad citizenengagement. According to Porth, as a result of theProject’s activities, individuals from various racial,ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds have theopportunity to learn about how patterns of growthand development can affect access, social equityissues, and a range of other quality of life factors.Lessons LearnedBoth CCHD and the Hartford Foundation for PublicGiving see a strong value in the regional organizingwork accomplished by the CenterEdge project. At thesame time, one of CCHD primary funding principlesis to give priority to projects initiated and led by lowincomeindividuals. Thus, for Vitillo, “The evolutionin the organizing process, from local to regional, willpresent challenges to CCHD in terms of how manylevels of organizing activity it will be able to fund andhow it will succeed in monitoring effectiveness inthese complex processes.”In order to ensure its sustainability and success, theProject needs to explore additional funding alternativesas well as new project activities to build upon theircurrent accomplishments. Today, the CenterEdgeProject finds itself at a critical turning point as it maturesfrom a catalyst of local pockets of activism to asustainable and systematic regional equity movement.14www.environmental-justice.org.Contact PeopleThomas Chabolla, Associate Director for ProgramsFather Robert Vitillo,former Executive DirectorCatholic Campaign for Human Developmenttchabolla@usccb.org(202) 541-3367Richard PorthVice President for GrantmakingHartford Foundation for Public Givingrporth@hfpg.org(860) 548-1888Patricia WallaceDirector of ProgramsThe Office of Urban Affairs of theArchdiocese of Hartfordpwallace@oua-adh.org(203) 777-7279EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTLiberty Commons is a supportive housing development in Middletown, Conn.Formerly the Arriwani Hotel, a rundown nest of drug dealing and prostitution,it was renovated and converted in the mid-1990s. After the conversion,businesses that had vacated the area returned and the neighborhood isrevitalizing. A bookstore and performing space, The Buttonwood Tree,occupies the bottom floor. (Source: Partnership for Strong Communities).Part III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 40

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTI. F. CONFRONTING RACIALINEQUALITY AND LANDREFORM: DETROIT BRANCHNAACP & MICHIGAN LANDUSE INSTITUTE PARTNERSHIPFunders Highlighted:Ford FoundationW.K. Kellogg FoundationMichigan Land Use Funders Group“A few years ago, one could not have imaginedDetroiters and suburbanites talking about theircommon concerns with loss of tax base anddeclining infrastructure. What a change!”— Karen Aldridge-Eason, Office of theGovernorThe belief that current land use trends and patterns areendangering the state of Michigan and the quality of lifeof all of its residents is a shared concern among agrowing number of both community leaders and stateofficials. As a result, an informal coalition—referred toas the Michigan Land Use Funders Group, includingprivate foundations, community foundations, and a keystate agency—formed several years ago to supportprojects that address matters of preservation andrevitalization. This profile brings to light the social andpolitical strides made in Michigan by funders andorganizers working towards land reform. By bringingtogether communities across different racial andsocioeconomic lines to build a common language andstrive towards a common goal of land reform, funders,organizers, and participants are also challenging historicpatterns of segregation and disempowerment.Project ProfileAn informal coalition known as the Michigan Land UseFunders Group has been working together since 1994and currently includes over 20 funders. 15 Oneparticipant, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, has createdLiving for the City, a project funded by the Foundation’sPeople and Land (PAL) Program, a historic first-steptowards engaging communities of color and broadurban perspectives in Michigan’s land use reform.Moreover, this innovative initiative brought together thepredominantly African American Detroit BranchNAACP, the nation’s largest chapter of the national civilrights organization, and the predominantly white andnorthern Michigan organization, the Michigan LandUse Institute (MLUI), to pursue common goals of landreform, dialogue creation, and information sharing.Focusing on three issues crucial to urbanrevitalization—affordable housing, public transit,and race relations—a series of communitystakeholder meetings, presentations, and discussionselevate and promote the relevance of land use reformfor the urban experience. These dialogues aim toadvance three goals to foster:• Citizen education that helps residents to draw theconnection between the adoption of a land usevision and positive changes in their own lives;• Leadership development that aids legislators andlocal leaders in learning more about land usepolicy; and• Informed change that identifies and supportslocal experts to advance best practices andprovide ongoing assistance in this still unfoldingpublic dialogue.Access to public transportation is an important element of a regional andneighborhood equity framework in Detroit, as in many other communities.(Source: Michigan Land Use Institute).Through the sum of these efforts, the issues andconcerns specifically identified by Detroit residents15Coordinated by the Council of Michigan Foundations, participants inthe Michigan Land Use Funders Group include: Americana Foundation,Beldon Fund, Carls Foundation, Charlevoix County CommunityFoundation, Community Foundation for Muskegon County,Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan, CommunityFoundation of Monroe County, Fremont Area Community Foundation,Frey Foundation, Hudson-Webber Foundation, W.K. KelloggFoundation, Keweenaw Community Foundation, Kresge Foundation,Michigan Department of Environmental Quality—Coastal ManagementProgram, McGregor Fund, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Petoskey-Harbor Springs Area Community Foundation, Rotary Charities ofTraverse City, and Wege Foundation.41Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

and businesses are quantified in a spring 2005report titled, Living for the City—Smart Growth inDetroit. The report’s recommendations are intendedto serve as a guide to further advance urban landuse reforms in the state’s largest city andmetropolitan region.Funder InterestIn early 2003, the bipartisan appointments byMichigan’s newly-elected governor and top legislativeleaders led to the appointment of an esteemed andindependent group of 26 advisors known as theMichigan Land Use Leadership Council. Theircharge was to offer a report to state government onhow best to protect and preserve Michigan’s land,communities, and economic vitality. Staff support forthe Leadership Council was provided by participantsin the Michigan Land Use Funders Group (which isin turn coordinated by the Council of MichiganFoundations). As a result, over six months in 2003,the intense and exhaustive deliberations of theCouncil drew upon both expert presentations andpublic comments. Still, in spite of the devotion of anentire chapter of the Council’s report to urbanrevitalization, the absence of urban and minorityvoices was all too obvious.The Council’s lack of urban and minority participationmirrors Michigan’s segregation patterns. As documentedby the U.S. Census Bureau, five of the country’s mostracially segregated metropolitan regions are Michigancities: Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Benton Harbor, andMuskegon. One of every seven residents in Michigan isAfrican American; yet in Detroit, eight of every tenresidents are African American. Furthermore, 96 percentof Michigan’s black residents live in just 11 metropolitanregions. Hence, 70 of the state’s 83 counties areoverwhelmingly white, with minority populations of lessthan 3 percent.It is against the backdrop of this disparity inrepresentation and exclusion from decisionmakingthat Bill Rustem, president and CEO of the LansingbasedPublic Sector Consultants and PAL’s programadministrator declares, “We have to find ways tobridge the gaps. The same issues exist for farms andcities. Ultimately, the goals must also be the same.”Linda W. Helstowski, consultant to the Council ofMichigan Foundations, agrees, adding that theproject’s goals were “at the heart of addressing theneed to bring different interests together. We have toget information about problems and solutions topolicy reformers. So when we get a diverse set ofpeople and leaders around the table—particularlyurban voices—we can work to increase the skills andcapacities of groups to be engaged.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity Impacts“People of color and urban dwellers are becomingmore engaged in these issues and are gainingmomentum throughprojects like theMLUI/DetroitNAACP initiative,”observes KarenAldridge-Eason, aCharles Stewart MottFoundation programdirector on loan tothe state of Michiganas FoundationLiaison to the Officeof the Governor.The Ford Foundation— Linda Helstowskigot involved insupporting thepartnership for precisely this reason. The Foundationwas interested in supporting a non-traditionalcollaboration between an African American organizationlike the NAACP and a traditionally whiteenvironmental organization like MLUI, in order bridgedialogues about social justice and smarter growth.Results“We have to get informationabout problems andsolutions to policy reformers.So when we get a diverseset of people and leadersaround the table—particularlyurban voices—we can work toincrease the skills andcapacities of groups to beengaged.”According to Helstowski, this effort has “seeded thegroundwork” for additional untraditional alliances. “Iwas enthused to learn of the project. This learningeffort can lay the groundwork for working together indifferent ways,” she adds. Helstowski continues, “Thisproject is just one example of the array of effortssupported by foundations involved in the MichiganLand Use Funders Group aimed at promoting urbanreinvestment and land preservation and engaging amore diverse set of informed voices in state policyreform. The funders meet regularly to share reflectionsand updates on projects underway across the state,lessons learned, and strategies and opportunities formoving this important work forward.”EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 42

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTLessons LearnedThe relationships borne from the Michigan LandUse Leadership Council made the Living for the Cityproject possible. Detroit Branch NAACP’s executivedirector Heaster Wheeler and MLUI’s managingdirector Hans Voss both served on the blue-ribboncouncil. “That association made it unique,” saysPAL’s Rustem. “The partnership formed during theCouncil made the project a next and natural step.Going in, both sides knew where common groundexisted. But it all starts with a relationship. Becauseof their shared service, there was a readiness on bothpartners and that was key.”The readiness to advance the Council’s work enabledthe new and non-traditional partners to step out oftheir respective comfort zones, crossing racial andgeographic boundaries. With contrastingorganizational cultures, histories, and memberships,the partners met and overcame obstacles along theway. And although the collaboration may not alwaysbe easy, they agree that it is well worth the effort.Contact PeopleKaren Aldridge-EasonFoundation LiaisonOffice of the Governor, State of Michiganaldridgeeasonk@michigan.gov(517) 241-1689Carl AnthonyActing Director, Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Rob CollierPresidentCouncil of Michigan Foundationsrcollier@cmif.org(616) 842-7080Linda W. HelstowskiConsultantMichigan Land Use Funders Group and the Councilof Michigan Foundationshelstowski@aol.com(734) 479-2042Bill RustemPresident and CEOPublic Sector Consultantspal@peopleandland.org(517) 484-495443Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. G. REVITALIZING WHILEASSURING DIVERSITY ANDSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:“VALUE LATCHING” INALBUQUERQUE, N.M.Funders Highlighted:Enterprise FoundationFord FoundationMarshall L. and Perrine D. McCune CharitableFoundation“Regional equity efforts cannot be top-down.Affected communities must be involvedproactively and we should take the process tothem.”— Ed Rosenthal, Enterprise Foundation,Santa FeValue latching is a strategy created as a response to theemerging gentrification forces being felt inAlbuquerque, N.M.’s, neighborhoods as a result ofrecent progressive downtown real estate development.It represents a strategy to provide early funding foraffordable housing, commercial, arts, and publicspaces with equity as the guiding principle. Thisprofile is an example of an approach to the regionalequity framework that extends beyond a single issuearea and strategically utilizes funder resources andprivate equity investments to support smarter growthdevelopment patterns in tandem with supporting theneeds of low-income and minority communities.Project ProfileAlbuquerque, N.M., like many cities, is attempting toattract investment and development to its downtown.Regionalism, in this case, calls for a revitalizeddowntown characterized by mixed-use,transit/pedestrian-oriented developments as a means tocounter sprawling patterns of development. Quotingextensively from two recent articles (“FinancingProgressive Development,” and “TamingGentrification”) by Chris Leinberger, a developer withArcadia Land Company, he explains that, “Downtownredevelopment seems to perform financially differentlythan conventional suburban development … which hasa built-in, short-term financial pay-back time horizon.”That is, according to Leinberger, conventionalsuburban development provides a return on investmentin five to seven years, a real estate industry response tothe financial underwriting standards of banks and WallStreet. “This short-term bias has forced the real estatedevelopment industry to rely upon a standard list of …product types … [and] has also forced real estatedevelopers to construct buildings that have an equallyshort-term life by slashing construction costs.” Incontrast, for Leinberger, downtown, mixed-use, andpedestrian-oriented developments “have a differentinvestment return curve,” a curve that, “does notperform as well as conventional development in theearly years, but accelerates during the mid- to longterm.”This timeline complicates financing for these“progressive developments,” but, in turn, can offersubstantially better mid- to long-term returns to morepatient investors. 16The Century Theater Block in downtown Albuquerque, an example ofprogressive development, “burys” a 50,000-square foot, 14-screen big boxtheater behind seven individually designed retail/office buildings thatsurround the theater, except for the two-story entrance on a full two-acrecity block that was formerly a surface parking lot. (Source: Arcadia LandCompany and HDIC).Experience demonstrates that progressivedevelopments face significant challenges, however,including access to mid- to long-term (“patient”)capital, and “ripple effect” displacements of lowincomeand minority communities as redevelopmentspurs a rise in land values and rents in adjacent areas.Gentrification and displacement are processes longfamiliar to low-income and minority urban residents,from older models of urban renewal to the morerecent “back to the city” movement resulting fromchanging demographics of homebuyers. This newurban demand is spurring a strategic procession ofpublic and private investment which is creating newdevelopment opportunities, purposefully attractingnew residents to previously disinvested16For more information on Chris Leinberger’s articles and other work,visit www.cleinberger.com.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 44

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTneighborhoods. This increased desirability feeds aquick run-up in land values and related costs (e.g.,rents, property taxes). Single-family rentals are soldand converted to homeownership and substandardproperties are razed or improved to meet thedemands of the new, higher-income residents.Existing residents are subjected to multiple displacingpressures and existing businesses and employers facerising operating expenses and the steady loss of theircustomer base. Affordable rental property, residentialor commercial, is harder to find—and harder todevelop—as local community developmentcorporations (CDCs) and other affordable housingproviders struggle to make projects pencil out in thisnew, high land value marketplace.Given these facts, regionalism and equity face thesetwo challenges. First, how to consistently financeprogressive development as a key strategy for centralcity revitalization? Second, assuming the financing issecured and the development moves forward, how toensure that adjacent neighborhoods have a land baseavailable for greater affordable housing demand? Thesolutions may not always connect, but inAlbuquerque—thanks to a multi-stakeholder,community-based business planning process—theymight with “value latching.” The value latchingproject in downtown Albuquerque is a combinedeffort of the Enterprise Foundation, Marshall L. andPerrine D. McCune Charitable Foundation, andFord Foundation that advances a critical aspect ofregional equity—housing affordability. This profilehighlights the Enterprise Foundation’s experience insupporting this project.Funder InterestThe Enterprise Foundation’s Albuquerque focus is toensure that the city’s low- and moderate-incomeneighborhoods avoid the fate of similar, nowdisplacedneighborhoods in Santa Fe, N.M. Knowingthat a revitalized downtown would overwhelmadjacent neighborhoods—neighborhoods alreadyexperiencing early instances of property speculation—Enterprise saw value latching as an opportunity to getin early and make a proactive difference. In an erawhere affordable housing and communitydevelopment require increasingly innovative ways tocreate local assets, the Enterprise Foundationrecognized the unique importance of creating afinancial model that did not rely exclusively ongovernment dollars. Enterprise got involved viewingthis as an opportunity to meaningfully addressgentrification anddisplacement.Throughout thecountry, Enterprisepersonnel had seen“so many terriblethings happen” tocommunities at riskof displacement,according to EdRosenthal, director ofthe Santa Fe office ofthe EnterpriseFoundation. So, inAlbuquerque,In an era where affordablehousing and communitydevelopment requireincreasingly innovative waysto create local assets, theEnterprise Foundationrecognized the uniqueimportance of creating afinancial model that didnot rely exclusively ongovernment dollars.Enterprise embraced the opportunity to get in aheadof the social and real estate value curve.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe Arcadia Land Company (Arcadia) is aprogressive developer active in downtownAlbuquerque. Arcadia knew that financing apotential new development would require more thanjust conventional capital, but also “patient” capital. Itfound this capital in the McCune CharitableFoundation, New Mexico’s largest foundation andalso one with a mission-driven commitment tosmarter growth policies and practices. With Arcadia,McCune formed the Historic District ImprovementCompany (HDIC), investing $7 million inFoundation assets. The HDIC would be a “catalyticdevelopment company, [building] the initial privatesector projects anchoring the revitalized downtown,”according to Leinberger.A daytime view rendering of the Gold Avenue Loft in downtownAlbuquerque, a new progressive real estate development that “burys” a180,000-square foot, 630-car parking structure. (Source: Arcadia LandCompany and HDIC).45Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

In the late 1990s, the city of Albuquerque establisheda strategy for downtown revitalization and hadalready made its own significant investments whenHDIC approached. The HDIC sought adevelopment agreement by which the city wouldsupport some of a proposed new mixed-usedevelopment’s up-front risk—a $12 millioninvestment of tax abatement, infrastructure, land,and future parking structures. In exchange, the city,like the McCune Charitable Foundation, receives apercentage of HDIC’s mid- to long-term cash flows(25 percent in years six to 12, 50 percent in years 13to 20), a projected $18 million return to the city (notincluding increased property tax revenues). Thus,two “patient” investors (McCune CharitableFoundation and the city) made a financialcommitment to the HDIC, evidencing a consensusbelief in the mid- to long-term financial performanceof a planned progressive development.Yet questions remained. Could these fairlypredictable future revenue streams be converted to apresent value (i.e., “latched on to”)? Could thatpresent value be made available to acquire a land basefor affordable housing? And what kind of entitywould be appropriate for such activities?In the City-HDIC Development Agreement, the citycommitted that its share of future cash flows wouldbe reinvested in downtown. The HDIC approachedthe Enterprise Foundation, looking for assistance inconvincing the city to pledge, as part of thatcommitment, these future cash flows to a neworganization that would then leverage these funds tosecure additional investments and then issue its ownloans and make its own investments in furtherance ofaffordable housing and other public purposes.The Enterprise Foundation supported the concept ofa new entity but, concerned about undue developerbenefit/control and a lack of involvement from theadjacent communities, insisted that a new operationcome from an inclusive, community-based planningprocess. With initial funding from McCune, latersupplemented by Enterprise and the FordFoundation, Enterprise convened a multi-stakeholderplanning process to determine whether a neworganization was appropriate, what types ofinvestments it might make, and which geographicareas such investments might target. In the end, thisfacilitator-led, Ford Foundation-documented, twoand-a-halfyear process yielded a consensus product,a business plan for a new entity named theDowntown Albuquerque Civic Trust.Now in its first year of operation, the Civic Trust is anot-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization. It recentlyhired an experienced community developmentprofessional, Joseph Montoya, as its first executivedirector. The Trust’s mission is, “To complementdowntown Albuquerque revitalization through loansand investments which assure the continuedavailability of convenient and affordable housing, aswell as affordable commercial, arts, and public spaceswhile maintaining diversity and social responsibility.”Its 26-member board of directors is composed of thesame stakeholder interests represented in theplanning process: lenders, large downtown and neardowntown employers, downtown business andproperty owners, adjacent neighborhoods, localgovernment, not-for-profit developers, for-profitdevelopers, commercial and residential realtors,foundations, public schools, arts organizations,architects, planners, urban designers, and impactedpopulations.The Trust’s market area includes the downtown coreof Albuquerque and those portions of theimmediately adjacent neighborhoods that couldimpact, or be impacted by, the revitalization ofdowntown. Per the business plan, potential lendingand investment projects include homeownership (30to 60 percent Area Median Income [AMI], 60 to 80percent AMI, 80 to 120 percent AMI—withdifferent investments associated with the differentranges); rental housing (below 30 percent AMI, 30 to60 percent AMI, 60 to 80 percent AMI, 80 to 120percent AMI—with different investments associatedwith the different ranges); and arts, commercial, ormixed-use projects.In this first year of operation, the Trust’s primary goalis securing the all-important current revenue streamwhich would allow it to pursue mission-driven loansand investments. Acquiring program-relatedinvestment, or PRI, is the focus of this goal.Revenues from Trust-funded projects would be thefirst source for PRI repayment and any programrelatedinvestor would also have some right againstthe projects themselves. Lastly, and most importantly,it is anticipated that the city of Albuquerque wouldoffer secondary support for any PRI, secured by itsright to future HDIC cash flows. The City Councilhas passed a resolution in support of this potentialEQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 46

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTarrangement. Any future city action committing itsfuture HDIC cash flows would occur in response tothe particular needs of any specific PRI opportunity.at a CDC, sometimes downtown—over the courseof dozens of meetings. Committing to this kind ofprocess, says Rosenthal, means committing to thetime it requires.Building aconsensus-drivenbusiness model withmany differentstakeholders, even if,as in this case, theyall like the basicconcept, requirestime and patiencefrom all concerned,including funders.Building a consensus-drivenbusiness model with manydifferent stakeholders, evenif, as in this case, they alllike the basic concept,requires time and patiencefrom all concerned, includingfunders.The Gold Avenue Loft in downtown Albuquerque is the most complex andhigh-density building in New Mexico, combining rental retail, for-sale office,and for-sale residential on 12,000-square feet (150 dwelling units to theacre). (Source: Arcadia Land Company and HDIC).ResultsTo date, the primary accomplishment has been theestablishment of the Civic Trust itself. The Trusthas a business plan that reflects the wishes ofgroups and individuals with previously verydifferent interests who have come together tosupport the effort, as represented by the diversestakeholders forming the board of directors. Thisbalance is important for several reasons. First, itincreases the likelihood that the Trust’s project andinvestment decisions will receive stakeholdersupport. Second, it makes the Civic Trust a moreappealing opportunity for any program-relatedinvestment. According to the McCune CharitableFoundation’s executive director, Owen Lopez, theFoundation hopes the Civic Trust secures the PRIby July 2006, the end of its current grant from theFoundation. Lastly, the PRI will affect localpolitical decisionmaking, enhancing the likelihoodof city support for the Trust’s activities.Lessons LearnedThe value latching endeavor has underscored theneed for a community-based process whendesigning any anti-displacement effort, saysEnterprise’s Rosenthal. The process cannot be topdownand must be overtly and purposely accessible.For example, the planning meetings for the CivicTrust rotated among the many stakeholders—sometimes held at a community center, sometimesContact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Director, Communityand Resource Development UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Chris LeinbergerDeveloperArcadia Land Companycleinberger@arcadialand.com(505) 244-9339Owen LopezExecutive DirectorMarshall L. and Perrine D. McCuneCharitable Foundationowenl@swcp.com(505) 983-8300Joseph MontoyaDirectorAlbuquerque Civic Trustjoseph@abqcivictrust.org(505) 848-8232Ed RosenthalDirectorEnterprise Foundation, Santa Feerosenthal@enterprisefoundation.org(505) 428-235247Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. H. A TRAVEZ DE LA FRONTERA:LAND USE VISIONING 17Funders Highlighted:International Community FoundationThe San Diego Foundation“Las Californias and Los Laureles Canyon areboth examples of smart growth challenges inbinational settings.”— Richard Kiy, International CommunityFoundationCollaboration across borders between the UnitedStates and Mexico is not always easy. Cross-bordercollaboration on issues that affect both sides, such aswater pollution, environmentally and ecologicallysensitive areas, and rapid housing developments canbe even tougher. But with hard work anddetermination, cross-border collaboration is possible.This profile demonstrates how a foundation has beenable to address the concerns of rapidly growing,poorly planned communities on both sides of theU.S./Mexico border.Project ProfileRecognized as the fastest growing urban areas in theUnited States and Mexico, respectively, the San Diegoand Tijuana metropolitan areas are showing signs ofunmanaged urban sprawl spreading into land reservedfor protected wildlife.With a combinedRecognized as the fastestpopulation of fourgrowing urban areas in themillion, the growthUnited States and Mexico, threatens therespectively, the San Diego biological integrity ofand Tijuana metropolitan the open spaceareas are showing signs of triangle betweenunmanaged urban sprawl Tijuana, Bajaspreading into land reserved California, Mexico,for protected wildlife. Tecate, BajaCalifornia, Mexico,and San Diego, Calif.,as well as the quality of life for residents in Los LaurelesCanyon, an urban canyon in western Tijuana thatdrains into the Tijuana estuary, a wetland ofinternational importance on the U.S. side.The two projects described in this profile addressdifferent types of smart growth challenges. The LasCalifornias Binational Conservation Initiative focuseson the area between San Diego, Tijuana, and Tecate,which is becoming rapidly urbanized, with boomingpopulation growth and little zoning and land useplanning at the municipal level. “If growth continuesat its current pace (12-acres per day), there will be a48-mile urban barrier between public lands that areunder conservation management on the U.S. side(39,527 acres) and intact ecosystems on the Mexicanside,” according to Anne McEnany, director ofsustainable communities at InternationalCommunity Foundation (ICF).A view of sprawling development in the Los Laureles Canyon from the U.S.side. (Source: International Community Foundation).Meanwhile, in the urban canyons of Tijuana,including Los Laureles Canyon, erosion andpollution problems have gotten worse as explosivepopulation growth in Tijuana has left many withoutaffordable housing. To find shelter, people areillegally moving onto Mexican federal lands in LosLaureles Canyon, where they dig into the steep sidesof the gorge and build homes out of found materials,17Loosely translated, “Blurred Borders: Land Use Visioning.”EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 48

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTsuch as tires and garage doors. 18 “The population hasgrown from 500 seven years ago to 54,000 today,”according to Oscar Romo, coastal training programcoordinator with Tijuana Estuary. In Los Laureles,ICF is working on an erosion control and stormwatermanagement feasibility project.and leveraged these efforts to find partners on both sidesof the border, explains TSDF’s Young.Residential development sprawls onto the hillsides in eastern Tijuana.(Source: International Community Foundation).Funder InterestRaising Las Californias’ visibility as a priority issuecame from early work by ICF and other funders whowanted to know more about this rapidly-developingarea. With an emphasis on Baja California, ICF is ina unique position to fund Mexico-basedorganizations to work with San Diego/U.S. efforts onLas Californias. According to Emily Young, associatevice president, community partnerships at The SanDiego Foundation (TSDF), it provides U.S.-centricresources and support while ICF has an internationalnetwork to develop and implement projects. TheInternational Community Foundation is leveragingits grants in Mexico by working with U.S-basedfunders, partners, and agencies. In Las Californias,ICF has been able to double its investment with inkinddonations from government, explains ICF’sMcEnany. Meanwhile in Los Laureles Canyon, oneICF grant has turned into two, and possibly three.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe Conservation Biology Group and ProNatura (anational conservation organization in Mexico with fiveoffices throughout the country whose Ensenada officefocuses on the border region) were commissioned byICF and TSDF to collaborate on a research process thathas resulted in better working relationships, harmonizeddata for the region, and a conservation vision for theborder region. 19 The International CommunityFoundation took on an overall project management roleThe Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative’s study area includes aToyota plant, nearby dam, and mountainous open space. This aerial imagereveals how a wildlife corridor that exists here could be easily lost. (Source:International Community Foundation).In Los Laureles Canyon, ICF and its partners areintervening at a critical time: ICF hired themunicipal planning agency of Tijuana (IMPlan) todo a baseline study of the Canyon, assess the risksfrom inadequate land use, and recommend possibleprojects to empower and educate. This diagnostic hasjust been completed. As an ICF report describes,“Phase II will focus on on-the-ground demonstrationprojects with the local community. ICF will selectthree to eight pilot projects that reflect therecommendations of the technical diagnostic.” 20The San Diego Foundation’s Young ideally wants tosee the collaborative work in Las Californias result inbinational protection of open space to protectwildlife linkages, quality of air and water resources,and ultimately the quality of life for bordercommunities. To this end, she hopes their effortswill help mobilize funding and other resources torealize change. Reaching these objectives wouldallow someone like Tijuana Estuary’s Romo torealize the possibility of turning Los LaurelesCanyon into a model for many other binationalurban areas faced with similar challenges, like thesister cities of Nogales, Ariz., and Nogales, Sonora,Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, and Cuidad Juarez,Chihuahua, Mexico.18“Coastal Managers Without Borders: Working on the Edge of America,”available at www.csc.noaa.gov/magazine/2004/01/mexico.html (2004).19www.consbio.org/cbi/about/pronatura.htm.20“Action item for the Tijuana River Watershed,” available atwww.icfdn.org/initiatives/llc/llc.htm.49Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

The International Community Foundation, Tijuana Estuary, and IMPlan hosteda November 2004 community meeting in the neighborhoods of Los LaurelesCanyon to disseminate the results of their diagnostic and discuss future pilotprojects. (Source: International Community Foundation).ResultsThe creation of a joint effort to study and act inconcert toward improving the environment andaddressing related social issues is a significant resultof the early development of the projects. “We’re justbeginning to raise awareness of the importance ofrescuing open space in this region. Our partnersand grantees are working on zoning reforms and alandowner contact program in Mexico, as well asland acquisitions in San Diego County,” explainsRichard Kiy, president and CEO of ICF. Kiycontinues, “We’re extremely pleased with theinitiative’s progress in just two years.” The SanDiego Foundation’s Young states, “ICF and TSDFare now moving forward to identify possiblefunding partners to advance the critical work thatlies ahead to protect our shared resources in air,land, and water.”Even before an official diagnostic of Los Laureles wascompleted, Romo from the Tijuana Estuary begandiscussions about solutions and held workshops forresidents on how to build with discarded materialusing proper techniques. The Tijuana authoritiesreacted positively with mayoral support and thepeople in the Canyon did not feel threatened.Moreover, according to Romo, active conversationswith local authorities have bypassed officialcommunication protocol between state departmentsbecause information never trickles down. This hasled to more direct communication betweennonprofits and government agency representatives,which can often cut through bureaucracy withpersonal relationships. In Mexico, this kind of oneon-onecontact is critical for on-the-ground success.Romo also notes that the Los Laureles work caughtthe attention of Tijuana-based non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) that were inspired by theinternational partnerships. The NGOs have used thepartnership as guidelines in their own endeavors tofurther progress with U.S. partners.A view of the storm drain that connects the United States and Mexico and theLos Laureles Canyon and Tijuana Estuary. (Source: International CommunityFoundation).Lessons LearnedRomo believes that ICF is good at supervisingprojects and supporting a dynamic process.However, Kiy admits that, “[international work]always takes longer then domestic work. Cultureand language coupled with barriers slow projects.”For example, Kiy references the fact that mayors inMexico can only hold one term of three years,which causes inconsistent municipal support and aconstant need to educate the incomingadministration. Viewing the San Diego/Tijuanageographic area as one region has helped theInternational Community Foundation play a keyrole in educating political officials,A view of sprawling development patterns in eastern Tijuana. (Source:International Community Foundation).EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 50

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTphilanthropists, and organizations across bordersfor a greater common vision.Contact PeopleRichard KiyPresident & CEOInternational Community Foundationrkiy@icfdn.org(858) 677-2912Anne McEnanyDirector of Sustainable CommunitiesInternational Community Foundationanne@icfdn.org(858) 677-2915Oscar RomoCoastal Training Program CoordinatorTijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserveoromo@tijuanaestuary.org(619) 575-3613Emily Young, Ph.D.Associate Vice President, Community PartnershipsThe San Diego Foundationeyoung@sdfoundation.org(619) 235-230051Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

I. I. MOBILIZING ACTION FORREGIONAL EQUITYFunders Highlighted:Barr FoundationThe Hyams Foundation“There is no question that interacting with Actionfor Regional Equity has significantly sharpenedmy thinking on equity issues that did not come upin some of the environmental circles where I wasfocused.”— Nancy Goodman, Environmental Leagueof MassachusettsAction for Regional Equity is comprised ofMassachusetts’ leading equity organizations andgrassroots advocates coming together to shape policyas well as engage in joint dialogue and advocacy. Thisprofile highlights the promises and obstacles ofjoining state and grassroots advocates together inorder to achieve greater collaboration, leveragecollective learning, and foster more effective advocacyfor regional equity.Project ProfileRegional equity advocacy achieved a turningpoint in March 2002, when advocates attendeda national conference in Kansas City, Mo.,sponsored by PolicyLink and the NationalCommunity Building Network (NCBN) thatfocused on equitable development in regionsacross the country. Such issues were of criticalimportance for the Boston region.The Census 2000 revealed metropolitan Boston’sStandard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)held 3.4 million residents. The increasing diversityof the region is highlighted by a surge in foreignbornimmigration that has directly shaped theregional demographic. 21 But the Census 2000 onlybegins to tell the story. Greater Boston hasundergone a profound transformation during thepast 20 years that has revitalized the economy,energized its considerable intellectual capital, andre-established it as one of the nation’s destinationmetropolitan regions. It has also challengedMassachusetts residents to rethink long-standingnotions of race, class, political autonomy, and localdetermination.For equity advocates, the 1990s were a difficultdecade. In the face of unprecedented economicgrowth, many low-income communities andpopulations of color found themselves left behind.Aggressive private development with insufficientpublic policy safeguards led to a particularly virulentwave of gentrification, with housing prices exceedingnearly every other metropolitan region in the UnitedStates. The future of the Boston region—the type,location, and cost of housing; the quality andaccessibility of jobs; the health, safety, and characterof communities—remains the subject of intensepublic debate. A new dimension in this discourse isthe notion of smart growth principles and policiesintended to counter the prevailing trend of sprawlingdevelopment. Smart growth is best known as astrategy for building more compactly in order toconserve open space, reduce automobile dependenceand energy consumption, and integrate land usesinto more mixed-use, pedestrian-accessibleneighborhoods. Yet for many equity advocates,because of a lack of serious attention to housingaffordability, smart growth represents yet another in aseries of public planning paradigms that could yieldharmful consequences for their constituents.The displacementwave only intensifiedthe impacts forBoston’s minorityneighborhoods suchas Roxbury andChinatown. Since the1950s, Chinatownhas lost two-thirds ofits residential land toother uses. “Smartgrowth does nothingThe future of the Bostonregion—the type, location,and cost of housing; thequality and accessibility ofjobs; the health, safety, andcharacter of communities—remains the subject ofintense public debate.to protect our residents,” notes Lydia Lowe, executivedirector of the Chinese Progressive Association, theneighborhood’s principal advocacy organization. “Tous, it means bringing wealthy residents in from thesuburbs that drive housing prices beyond the abilityof Chinatown residents to stay. There has to be abetter alternative.” Displacement from theseneighborhoods and the influx of new immigrants has21“Census 2000,” available at www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.In fact, without this immigration, the city would have continued a threedecadetrend of population loss.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 52

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENThad a spillover effect on industrial cities such asChelsea, Lawrence, Lowell, and Brockton.Growing pockets of struggling families incommunities much farther from Boston are aproduct of the same gentrification phenomenon. 22Low-wage workers in Boston and the surroundingformer industrial centers are finding that jobs areincreasingly located in less accessible exurbanlocations and that their housing and transportationcosts are taking an ever larger share of their paycheck,even in the midst of an economic boom.In the northern reaches of the greater Bostonmetropolitan area, environmental and open spaceadvocates are asking hard questions about how issuesof housing affordability in Boston impact theirefforts at habitat preservation. “There are entirecommunities that do not buy into the need,” says EdBecker, executive director of Essex County GreenbeltAssociation, a 3,000-member open space land trust.“We need to start seeing the connection and therehas to be political leadership to translate thatrecognition to policy change.”Staff from PolicyLink ventured to Boston in June2001 at the invitation of the board of the HyamsFoundation, due to considerable interest in hearingwhat lessons PolicyLink could share from itsemerging national work. 23 Just weeks earlier,PolicyLink had launched its Equitable DevelopmentToolKit as an online resource to identify strategiesthat address residential and small businessdisplacement and other negative consequencesassociated with gentrification. “We suspected that alot of our grantees would be interested in hearingabout what PolicyLink had learned, so we pulledtogether an afternoon session for the community,”recalls Cathy Cha, former program officer for theHyams Foundation. “It was assembled rather hastily,actually. We were concerned that no one wouldbe able to make it.” Yet 40 communityrepresentatives attended.By the time of the March 2002 national conveningin Kansas City, more than a dozen organizations ingreater Boston were thinking proactively aboutregional equity policy. To help further thisthinking, the Hyams Foundation decided toprovide scholarship support to several of theirgrantees to ensure that they could attend thenational convening. “It was pretty evident that ourgroups needed to be there,” recalls Cha. “Therewere lessons they could offer other regions, and alot they could learn.” At the end of theproceedings, the Boston caucus shared a final lunchand considered the implications for regional equityin greater Boston.It was clear that for a collaborative effort to beworthwhile, it would need to meet a range ofexisting needs and achieve a set of common goalsfor the local organizations. For Marvin Martin, itmeant getting outcomes relevant to his constituentswith less hassle. Martin directs the Greater FourCorners Action Coalition, a neighborhood-basedplanning and economic development nonprofitserving Dorchester, Mass. “We do not need to joinanother coalition,” he declares, repeating a themeresonant with other representatives, “but any effortthat can make policy impact easier in ourcommunities is worth talking about.”Even more, it meant ceasing the endless cycle ofskirmishes with individual landlords throughout thecity, explains Mark Pedulla, lead organizer for CityLife/Vida Urbana. Pedulla increasingly found himselfdrawn across a farbroader swath of thecity, defending“What will make this worthtenants frompursuing is if we couldevictions bynegotiating rent really think about policy instabilizationa way that cuts across allcollective bargaining of our primary missionsagreements—one and makes it worth stayingbuilding at a time. in that conversation“We are getting because of what results.”called on more and— Warren Goldstein-Gelbmore to provideservices citywide,despite being anorganization focused on Jamaica Plain. We needsolutions that can impact thousands, not dozens.”Finally, Warren Goldstein-Gelb, program director atAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE),surmises, “What will make this worth pursuing is ifwe could really think about policy in a way that cutsacross all of our primary missions and makes it worthstaying in that conversation because of what results.”22The William Monroe Trotter Institute at the University ofMassachusetts, Boston is conducting a study for the Annie E. CaseyFoundation that includes findings on displacement of the AfricanAmerican community.23PolicyLink was founded in 1999.53Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

To meet all of these objectives, the group committedunequivocally that its discussion must always leadwith equity. Too often, organizations representinglow-income communities and populations of colorwould engage in public processes only to find thatwhen the hard decisions had to be made, their needswere most readily compromised—or ignoredaltogether. Second, they agreed that those facing theproblem should be at the forefront of the solution,creating an opportunity for constituency to drive aprocess. Third, the regional equity framework forcedthe issue and connected the dots, because bydefinition it blurred traditional divisions that hadlimited the effectiveness of previous conversations.Geography, ethnicity, issue area, developmenttype—each of these characteristics could inhibitpublic discourse. A conversation solely abouthousing might not address the realities of workforcedevelopment and transportation that influence afamily’s ability to own a home. For many of thegroups, the regional equity framework represented arefinement of smart growth that was morefundamentally tied to their values. PolicyLinkcommited to facilitating the dialogue until a clearagenda for action emerged.Those committed toemerging smartFor many of the groups, the growth dialogues alsofound participationregional equity frameworkuseful. “There is norepresented a refinementquestion thatof smart growth that was interacting with thismore fundamentally tied to group hastheir values.significantlysharpened mythinking on equityissues that did not come up in some of theenvironmental circles where I was focused,” observesNancy Goodman of the Environmental League ofMassachusetts.Several meetings led to a decision to commission areport to explore the state of regional equity forgreater Boston. PolicyLink provided primaryresearch, interviewing 88 regional leaders in thenonprofit, academic, government, and philanthropicsectors to develop its assessment—relying heavily onwhat had become a 14-member steering committeefor guidance. A key part of that research requiredadherence to the principle of engagement; to thatend, the group held two Regional Equity Summitsin Boston as a way to share its evolving research andget substantive input into its refinement. More than160 community and organizational leaders attendedthe two events. At the second meeting, held on April11, 2003, the next-to-final draft of the regionalequity report was distributed and reviewed. Eightyrepresentatives from community-based, government,and philanthropic organizations discussed the policypriorities identified by the leadership group andrefined the ideas in the report for short-term actions.At the second meeting, half of the participants werebased in towns beyond Boston. The larger turnoutfrom other cities was the result of a priorityidentified by people at the first convening and theconcerted effort on the part of the committee.From these meetings, the final report emerged,Promise and Challenge: Achieving Regional Equity inGreater Boston, identifying troubling trends and richopportunities for the region. 24 The steeringcommittee participating in this process, now knownas Action for Regional Equity (Action!), set forth aseries of policy recommendations and began its ownpriority-setting process to determine what course itwould pursue. The steering committee ultimatelygrew to a leadership group of 20 of the state’s leadingequity organizations.Funder InterestOne crucial challenge lay in the complexity of themessage. Local foundations already supported therespective individual work of many of theorganizations involved in the effort. A challengeemerged as these groups sought additional support toextend their thinking, challenge the existing regionaldevelopment paradigm, bring new constituencies tothe public conversation, and engage in potentiallycontroversial work.The Barr Foundation’s interest in protectingenvironmental resources, promoting smart growth,ensuring environmental justice, and advancingeducational equity led them to take a closer look atAction! and its potential for policy impact. As Barr’ssenior program officer, Mariella Tan Puerto, explains,“Equity advocates who represent constituencies thathave been historically marginalized anddisempowered need the opportunity to takeleadership and set the equity agenda on their own24PolicyLink. Promise and Challenge: Achieving Regional Equity in GreaterBoston (2003). Available at www.policylink.org.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 54

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTterms. We saw the value in PolicyLink bringing thelessons they have learned from other regional equityefforts, as well as the skill to help knit a diverse,cohesive coalition that can bring about policy changein the region.”Two other foundations have played key roles in theemergence of Action! as an influence in regionalpolicy development. As part of its grant toPolicyLink, the Fannie Mae Foundation fundedregional conferences to share the findings of theEquitable Development Toolkit. These conversationsbrought groups together to recognize theopportunity. The Hyams Foundation supplied earlyseed funding and scholarship support to futureAction! members to attend key national events thatframed their subsequent thinking.Going forward, the evidence of home-grownleadership for policy initiatives and constituencydevelopment will ultimately determine thebreadth and scope of philanthropic supportfor Action!’s efforts.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsAlthough early in the process, there are signs thatAction! will be able to achieve policy impact. Thegroup currently has legislation before theMassachusetts State House that would document thedemographics of residents of state-subsidized housingdevelopments—a critical missing piece ofinformation in the work to eliminate housingsegregation in Massachusetts. The group is alsobringing new advocacy energy towards the effort toinvest increased resources into the state’s affordablehousing trust fund, targeting an infusion of $100million over the next five years.Action! is working through administrative advocacyto integrate equity principles into theimplementation of a $30 million transit-orienteddevelopment fund. Action! has mobilized allies toengage the state in the development of its 25-yearvision for transportation planning and investment inan area of historically significant disparities from theperspectives of local equity advocates. Tocomplement that advocacy, the group is providingtraining to grassroots and other organizations longconcerned with transit issues but that have not hadthe experience or technical expertise with which toengage in the discussion.ResultsThe Action! process has brought several hundredorganizations across greater Boston together todiscuss the real steps needed to advance regionalequity. In short order, the group began to shape thepolicy discourse for the region, infusing equity intoan arena formally devoid of the topic. Throughpublic meetings, op-ed placements, engagement ofacademic and business interests, and direct advocacywith lawmakers, Action! is demonstrating new waysfor philanthropy to invest in improved communityoutcomes that serve all populations in the region.“We would like to seestatewide policyadvocates workingwith grassrootsadvocates to craftpolicy,” states Barr’sPuerto, “but not in away of ‘we have thispolicy, why not signon?’ We would loveto see an equalpartnership emerge.”Lessons Learned“We would like to seestatewide policy advocatesworking with grassrootsadvocates to craft policy, butnot in a way of ‘we have thispolicy, why not sign on?’We would love to see anequal partnership emerge.”— Mariella Tan PuertoTo be sure, progress is deliberate, and does not comeeasily. But even in engaging the challenges that facethe work, foundations and their community partnersare learning valuable lessons.The first lesson is that suburban communities andurban centers have common causes. When asufficient concentration of suburban leadershipjoined discussions of regional issues, it quicklybecame clear that several preconceptions of suburbanperspectives needed re-evaluation. Mutual concernsabout equitable housing distribution, the regionwideimplications of environmental justice oncommunity health, and the connection betweentransportation equity and workforce developmentcreated a sense of possibility that concerted statewideadvocacy is possible.Second, inherent tension exists between the inertia ofpublic institutions and the capacity of communitybasedorganizations to endure the extensivetimeframes of regional planning processes. Mostnonprofit organizations cannot afford to invest thestaffing required for a multi-year planning processand exit with negligible products to show for their55Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

efforts. And with each public planning process thatends with minimal benefit for communities of colorand low-income populations, it becomes increasinglydifficult to solicit their engagement. Regional equityadvocates from both sectors need to find a way toreverse this cycle.Furthermore, public officials are still building theircapacity to effectively engage resident participationfor equitable development. The premise of equitabledevelopment—integrating people and place in adevelopment process with social benefits for existingresidents and financial returns for investors—actuallyresonates with many public officials nationally.Converting that interest into an effective reversal ofpolicy decisions that perpetuate inequities is anothermatter. In Boston, as elsewhere, there is stillsignificant work to be done in marshaling furthereffective action in the public sector.The value of facilitation in creating the space fordialogue on regional equity issues is an immediatelesson. While groups were quick to recognize thevalue of such a conversation, the availability ofimmediate and flexible staff energy to implementimportant next steps, focus conversations on realpriorities, and thread together key strategies isessential to ensure that such work endures. Action!has been the architect of this dialogue on regionalequity, with PolicyLink playing the willing roleof facilitator.Finally, identifying policy targets and creatingcommon language take time that cannot becircumvented. At first blush, the timeframes forseveral of the instrumental accomplishments ofAction! and its broader participation seem lengthy.Without the thorough discussions held by the groupand encouraged by the public meeting and researchprocess, however, there would be little chance foradvancing significant policies in the coming months.Coalitions that move complex agendas with multiplestakeholders, innumerable points of contention, andunending negotiation often collapse under their ownweight if the proper ‘homework’ has not beenperformed.“We understand that this type of work involves a lotprocess and takes a while,” clarifies Puerto. “Theremay not be tangible outcomes in the short run. Butwe like where the work is heading.”Contact PeopleHenri AllenSenior Program OfficerThe Hyams Foundationhallen@hyamsfoundation.org(617) 426-5600Philip Bronder-GirouxExecutive DirectorTri-City Community Action Programpbron@tri-cap.org(781) 322-4125Warren Goldstein-GelbProgram DirectorAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE)warren@ace-ej.org(617) 442-3343Marvin MartinDirectorGreater Four Corners Action Coalitiongfcac@hotmail.com(617) 436-0289Marc PedullaLead OrganizerCity Life/Vida Urbanampedulla@clvu.org(617) 524-3541Erica SchwarzCommunity OrganizerWaltham Alliance to Create HousingErica@watchcdc.org(781) 891-6689Mariella Tan PuertoSenior Program OfficerBarr Foundationmpuerto@pilothouse.com(617) 854-3500EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 56

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTI. J. FUSING ISSUES, MAKINGCHANGE: REGIONALADVOCACY IN THE SANFRANCISCO BAY AREAFunders Highlighted:The California EndowmentFord FoundationThe San Francisco FoundationSurdna Foundation“It isn’t hopeless. Funders can make a difference.”— Hooper Brooks, Surdna FoundationThe San Francisco Bay Area is an important nationalfocus point in the quest for more equitable regionaldevelopment. As highlighted in this profile,community, statewide, and national funders havebecome involved in supporting advocacy effortsaimed at making the region more equitable andlivable for all residents. This profile highlights that asa result of the collective efforts, the circle of supportfor achieving equity has broadened and a crosssectionof sectors, organizations, and communitymembers are involved in the regional decisionmakingprocess and the search for solutions.Project ProfilesThe Bay Area Social Equity Caucus (SEC) emergedin 1997 out of the Bay Area Alliance for SustainableCommunities, a group convened by the Bay AreaCouncil, the Association of Bay Area Governments,the Sierra Club, and Urban Habitat. 25 Concernedabout a historical pattern of exclusion, the SEC seeksto create access and opportunities for low-incomeminority communities and to ensure their voices areheard in shaping the regional equity agenda. TheSEC works to build strategic partnerships byconnecting member organizations’ local issues andpriorities to a broader regional equity agenda.Directed by Urban Habitat, SEC has taken the leadin shaping innovative strategies in the Bay Area, suchas a Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area, whichoutlines the principles for sustainable localdevelopment that was endorsed by many of theregion’s jurisdictions, and the Community CapitalInvestment Initiative, which promotes the concept ofdouble bottom line investments that provideeconomic returns to investors as well as social andeconomic benefits to communities. The SEC, anadvocate for equitable development, workscollaboratively with its member organizations andother Bay Area groups to create policy changes inareas such as housing, transportation, andenvironmental justice.The Transportation and Land Use Coalition(TALC) emerged around the same time as theSocial Equity Caucus. The Coalition was catalyzedby a 1997 grant from the William and FloraHewlett Foundation to the Surface TransportationPolicy Project (STPP) that was designed to fostercollaboration in select metropolitan areas. Access totransportation is central to connecting low-incomecommunities toregionalopportunities andresources in the BayArea, including jobs,schools, and healthcare facilities. TheBay Area ischallenged, however,by a history ofunder-fundingtransit investment inlow-incomecommunities. Everspreadingsprawlingdevelopment has leftinfrastructureplanners scramblingto keep up withtransportation needs,while the complexThe Bay Area is challengedby a history of underfundingtransit investmentin low-income communities.Ever-spreading sprawlingdevelopment has leftinfrastructure plannersscrambling to keep upwith transportation needs,while the complex decisionmakingprocesses and longplanning horizons havetypically deterred communityparticipation in decisionmakingprocesses.decisionmaking processes and long planninghorizons have typically deterred communityparticipation in decisionmaking processes. Thefocus of TALC is on creating a more sustainable andsocially just Bay Area by ensuring thatcommunities, particularly low-incomecommunities, have access to needed transportationservices. The Coalition’s work seeks to reverse a25The Bay Area Council represents 200 of the largest businesses in theregion (www.bayareacouncil.org). Urban Habitat is one of the oldestenvironmental justice organizations in the nation(www.urbanhabitat.org).57Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

pattern of disproportionate transportationinvestment in highway development at the expenseof transit services in low-income communities.Originally made up largely of regionalenvironmental and planning groups, TALC ispartnered with more than 90 organizations,including grassroots community groupsrepresenting the interests of low-incomecommunities of color. At times TALC joins forceswith the SEC through its Transportation JusticeWorking Group to achieve policy wins.Furthermore, the involvement of low-incomegrassroots groups has sharpened TALC’s equityperspective and strengthened its advocacyefforts, according to Stuart Cohen, TALC’sexecutive director.Adding to the advocacy base for regional equity inthe Bay Area, Regional Asthma Management &Prevention (RAMP), a project of the Public HealthInstitute, is focusing on asthma as an equity issuethat is related to broader issues of environmentaljustice, transportation, housing, and education.Asthma, a disease that disproportionately affects lowincomeminority neighborhoods, can be triggered bypoor quality indoor or outdoor air. Air pollutioncaused by factors like car exhaust, diesel fumes,toxins, poor indoor ventilation in crumbling schools,as well as molding and mildew in substandardhomes, is contributing to this growing problem.Created in 1996 to address the growing problem ofasthma, RAMP recognizes that asthma is a multidimensionalissue that requires a multi-facetedapproach. In the search for solutions, RAMP involvesa wide range of groups, such as health care providers,community-based organizations, managed careorganizations, individual county health departments,and environmental health as well as environmentaljustice advocates. A key player in health advocacyand contributing to legislative victories, RAMPcollaborates with other initiatives to campaign forbetter environmental, housing, and school policies.For example, RAMP has collaborated with UrbanHabitat and the SEC, among others, to articulatethematic and strategic connections between asthmaand environmental justice. It has emerged as aregional health intermediary and as a clearinghouseof best practices and innovative ideas. Theorganization facilitates information sharing andprovides technical assistance in areas such ascoalition-building, capacity-building, policy andadvocacy, and strategic planning. Exemplified as areplicable model, RAMP shows how limited localresources can be optimized at the regional level toserve a region’s public health needs.Funder InterestA variety of factors have attracted funders to thesegrantees, but one common theme emerges. Eachfunder acknowledges that they were attracted to theregion and the organizations profiled here becausethe Bay Area is a center of innovative advocacy work.Carl Anthony, acting director of the Community andResource Development Unit at the Ford Foundation,calls the Bay Area “the epicenter of discourse aboutsustainable development and regional equity in thecountry.” He explainsthat the FordFoundation wantedto pursue theopportunity tocontribute to thelocal change effortsthrough the SEC.Additionally, Fordwanted to drawparallels and lessonsThe Bay Area is “theepicenter of discourse aboutsustainable developmentand regional equity in thecountry.”— Carl Anthonylearned between their demonstration projects inRichmond, Calif., and Camden, N.J. On one hand,Richmond faces a host of socioeconomic problemsbut has a strong surrounding economy, whileCamden is similarly plagued with socioeconomicbarriers but is operating in an environment where thesurrounding economy is weak. 26Innovation, the potential to share learning, and theability to replicate the models are the factors behindfunders’ interest in TALC and RAMP, as they arewith SEC. Hooper Brooks, program director forenvironment at the Surdna Foundation, was attractedto TALC because it was doing “some of the best workin the country” on transportation reform. Brooksdescribes the organization as having considerablestrengths due to its ability to build coalitions, involvemultiple parties, and its “skillful understanding ofhow the transportation funding world works.”Furthermore, senior program officer DianneYamashiro-Omi from the Bay Area office of The26A more detailed profile of the Ford Foundation’s regional equitydemonstration projects in Camden, N.J., and Richmond, Calif., beginson page 32.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 58

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTCalifornia Endowment explains that TALC was“taking a different perspective on barriers to healthcare.” The Endowment was looking for opportunitiesto support efforts focused on health in Contra CostaCounty and saw that TALC was such an opportunity.Marion Standish, program director of the Bay Areaoffice of The California Endowment, explains thatRAMP’s vision that it “could provide tremendousleverage by lifting up best practices that are takingplace across the region and bringing together thelocal health departments in the health field to learnfrom each other” motivated and intrigued TheCalifornia Endowment to support it in this “verycreative approach to a serious health problem.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsIn assessing impacts, funders note that thecommunities have benefited from the work of theirgrantees and point out that the grantees themselveshave also benefited. For example, TALC has helpedthe Bay Area clarify the connections between healthcare needs and transportation justice, indicatesBrooks from Surdna. The Coalition’s work hasengaged health institutions in the search for solutionstowards reducing transportation barriers to healthcare, adds Yamashiro-Omi from The CaliforniaEndowment. The Endowment adds that as a result ofTALC’s work, communities are now more activelyengaged in transportation issues. At the same time,the work has required policy-type organizations likeTALC to become more inclusive and further its levelof engagement with communities, notes Yamashiro-Omi. The Endowment, for instance, funded TALCto extend its public education campaign intoSpanish-language communities, an important groupin the Bay Area which organizations like TALCmight normally miss.Ford’s Anthony credits the SEC with expanding therange of collaborations that have taken place in theBay Area and making the goal of regional equitymore obtainable. Standish from The CaliforniaEndowment indicates that, “RAMP has given us away of thinking about sustainability and of howprogress can be accelerated by working regionally.”She adds that RAMP’s “way of doing work holds alot of promise especially in a state as big asCalifornia. We don’t have regional structures just tohave them. Because of the size of California, there isvalue in these regional structures.” Anne KelseyLamb, director of RAMP, explains that through itswork, newly created types of networks that often relyupon low-cost mechanisms such as listservs wouldhave a lasting impact on policy.ResultsIn its efforts to advance transportation justice, in2000 TALC released, World Class Transit for the BayArea, a blueprint for creating a sustainable andequitable transportation system building on anearlier campaign victory in which it successfullyadvocated for shifting $375 million towardmaintaining Bay Area transit systems. The reportgarnered significant attention, became a leadingadvocacy tool in the policy debate abouttransportation spending, and served to unifyCoalition members behind a common regionalagenda with specific proposals. In 2004, the report’sinfluence was still felt through a campaign led byTALC to raise over $100 million per year, inperpetuity, in order to build and operate publictransit, drawing from ideas presented in World ClassTransit. The grassroots campaign led by TALC, aswell as media outreach, ensured that the measuresuccessfully passed.The Coalitioncontinues to bringnew public transitinvestments in thearea. In the process,TALC has opened upaccess to a broaderrange of regionalresources andopportunities for low-income groups, includingaccess to jobs and health care facilities, and engagedlow-income communities in shaping thetransportation policies that affect their lives.“We don’t have regionalstructures just to have them.Because of the size ofCalifornia, there is value inthese regional structures.”— Marion StandishTransportation barriers can also affect one’s health. A2002 TALC report, Roadblocks to Health, reveals thatonly one-third of the residents of the poorestneighborhoods in Contra Costa County can easilyreach health clinics by walking or by riding transit.The California Endowment, which funded thereport, is now funding a three-year TALC effort toidentify solutions and improve access by linking lowincomeresidents with health care and transitproviders. In the Monument Corridor neighborhoodof Concord, Calif., TALC’s analysis and GIS mapsshowed that only 250 people in this community hadtransit access to a clinic. This analysis helped La59Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Clinica de la Raza identify this critical need and usethe maps to garner funding to open a new healthclinic. Now over 12,000 community members havetransit or pedestrian access to a full-service clinic.In early 2005, TALC launched a comprehensiveeffort to ensure that low-income and minoritycommunities have a strong voice in transportationdecisions through the distribution to more than1,500 community groups of a new guide in Spanishand English entitled, Access Now!. With a grant fromThe San Francisco Foundation, TALC is offering freetraining and technical assistance to help thesecommunities prepare effective local efforts.Recognizing that transportation is an issue, theSocial Equity Caucus created a TransportationJustice Working Group (TJWG) to document theunequal benefits andburdens of theWith many formerlyregion’sdisinvested communitiestransportationundergoing revitalization system and to workand gentrification, deliberate towards buildingstrategies are needed to capacity withinensure that low-income minorityresidents participate in communities toand benefit from the defend their transiteconomic resurgence in their rights. For example,TJWG helped tocommunities.mobilize a broad,committed grassrootscoalition to reduce toxic emissions from dieselexhaust in low-income communities and to stop a$20 million cut in Alameda-Contra Costa Transit.Transportation is but one of many factors to beaddressed to ensure that regional developmentbenefits all Bay Area residents, including low-incomecommunities. With many formerly disinvestedcommunities undergoing revitalization andgentrification, deliberate strategies are needed toensure that low-income residents participate in andbenefit from the economic resurgence in theircommunities. The SEC is seeking to makedevelopment in the Bay Area region more equitableby encouraging socially responsible economicinvestment in impoverished Bay Area communities.The SEC has collaborated with other Bay Areapartners on the Community Capital InvestmentInitiative (CCII), an effort to raise private sectorfunds to address issues in impoverished communities.To date, CCII has raised more than $150 million fordouble bottom line investments in businesses,brownfield cleanup, and smart growth. The SEC,working with two other Bay Area groups, PolicyLinkand the National Economic Development and LawCenter, seeks to ensure that the investments in thethree areas not only produce returns for the investorsbut also benefits for the communities. The SEC isalso working with a Ford Foundation-fundedinitiative in Richmond, Calif., to apply the principlesof equitable development in a community setting. 27The hope is for all neighborhoods in the Bay Area tobe stable, healthy, and livable. Unfortunately, manylow-income people reside or go to schools where theyare exposed to the environmental triggers that cancause asthma. Big steps forward have been madethrough the advocacy efforts of RAMP. In the fall of2002, RAMP decided to place a greater emphasis onadvocacy, creating two active work groups, theRAMP Environment Committee and the RAMPSchools Committee.The Schools Committee has developed a frameworkto reach its goal of creating asthma-friendly schoolsin the Bay Area. The Committee has hosted tworegional roundtable discussions on addressing asthmain schools, bringing together school nurses,administrators, parents, and asthma advocates. Theroundtables exchanged strategies and resources toimprove staff and student education, establishmanagement and support systems for students withasthma, and promote healthy indoor air quality. TheCommittee has also been involved in state-leveladvocacy for policies to improve indoor air qualityand for access to asthma medications in schools.The Environment Committee broke new ground byfocusing on not only education and capacitybuilding,but also increasing involvement inadvocacy and by moving towards the development ofa political movement. In the fall of 2002, RAMPhosted a “Diesel and Asthma” conference, which setinto motion RAMP’s extensive involvement in thisissue. A series of planning meetings, led by RAMP,SEC, SEC’s Transportation Justice Working Group,the Pacific Institute, and the West OaklandEnvironmental Indicators Project, resulted in a majorconvening in the fall of 2003. Over 100 participants27This specific effort is the subject of another profile in this report thatbegins on page 32.EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTPart III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 60

EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTfrom the asthma, environmental health, andenvironmental justice fields came together andcollectively outlined a draft policy agenda to reducediesel pollution in the Bay Area. Furthermore, in thesummer of 2004, RAMP and Urban Habitat cohosteda workshop on the connection betweenhousing and asthma. This meeting, too, attractedover 100 participants—including asthma advocates,public health officials, nonprofit housing developers,and tenants’ rights groups—who came to learn moreabout the relationship between these issues and thespecific strategies used in the Bay Area. Yet moreimportantly, participants were connecting with eachother and developing collaborative opportunities thatcould benefit from a regional approach.Lessons Learned“At a time when needs are enormous and funds arecontinuously being cut, the [TALC] grant made usthink about how to do grantmaking in a differentway. There is no way that our funding can ever meetthe need. We thought what was best was to use ourresources in a way that supported systems change andcapacity building,” shares Yamashiro-Omi from TheCalifornia Endowment.Echoing the same thoughts around the need to investin system changes and capacity building, TheEndowment’s Standish explains that, “RAMP hasincreased the capacity of local coalitions across theBay Area to address policy and systems change.” Shenotes that RAMP has created a sophisticated networkof advocates, made asthma an issue in the legislature,and found ways to lift up innovative ideas and bestpractices, all steps geared to improving the work ofcoalitions in the Bay Area.This capacity building needs to start from “from thebottom up,” states Anthony at the Ford Foundation.Through the efforts of the SEC, there is now acommitment to building the communityinfrastructure that understands “from the bottomup” how regional issues play out and how lowincomepeople and people of color are affected. Healso points to some concrete results, such as theacquisition of properties to build mixed-incomecommunities in Richmond, a developer forum thatbrought together developers from across the countryto plan for the development of mixed-incomecommunities, and the development of a “first sourcehiring” ordinance which will need to be approved bythe City Council and will ensure that local residentsbenefit from job creation in Richmond. Anthonynotes that people of color must be able to participatein these policy processes to achieve regional equity.According to Anthony, “People have been talkingabout regional planning for many years but little ofthese conversations took place in poor communities.It is important to engage people in vulnerablecommunities in these conversations and to engagethem early in the process.”Funders have also learned from their involvement inthese Bay Area efforts. For Surdna’s Brooks, onelesson has been recognizing that transportationreform addresses “systemic problems that are verycomplicated and inter-connected” and that the work“is a long-term effort.” But, he adds, “It isn’thopeless. Funders can make a difference.” Yamashiro-Omi at The California Endowment finds, “Thebiggest lesson is the critical importance of taking arisk and stepping outside of the box and remainingopen to newopportunities.” TheEndowment’s “The biggest lesson is theStandish finds that critical importance of takingthe lessons boil down a risk and stepping outsideto what makesof the box and remainingRAMP so successful.open to new opportunities.”She cites RAMP’sknowledge, its ability — Dianne Yamashiro-Omito inspire confidenceand trust, itsreliability as a resource on health issues, and itsability “to stay ahead of the curve. They feel outwhere there are opportunities for change and try toengage their partners in thinking through them.They are continually scanning the field to look forinformation, resources, and opportunities.”Innovation, collaboration, growth, learning,inclusiveness, and the connection of varioussocioeconomic issues are the key success factorsbehind these projects involved in creating significantregional equity changes within the Bay Area.61Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Contact PeopleCarl AnthonyActing Director, Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Hooper BrooksProgram Director for EnvironmentSurdna Foundationhbrooks@surdna.org(212) 557-0010EQUITABLE PUBLIC INVESTMENTStuart CohenExecutive DirectorTransportation and Land Use Coalitionstuart@transcoalition.org(510) 740-3150 ext. 11Juliet EllisExecutive DirectorUrban Habitat/Social Equity Caucusjre@urbanhabitat.org(510) 839-9512Anne Kelsey LambDirectorRegional Asthma Management & Prevention(RAMP)anne@rampasthma.org(510) 622-5091Marion StandishProgram Director, The Greater Bay Area RegionalOfficeThe California Endowmentmstandish@calendow.org(415) 343-0222 ext. 4309Dianne Yamashiro-OmiSenior Program Officer, The Greater Bay AreaRegional OfficeThe California Endowmentdomi@calendow.org(415) 343-0222 ext. 4305Part III: Section 1: Promoting Equitable Public Investment 62

63 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Section 2:Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable asBuilding Blocks for a Strong RegionPRIS64

PRIS65Section Cover Photo: A rendering of the residential Rutland Square in East Baltimore. (Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).

II. A. REACHING BEYONDHOUSING TO IMPLEMENTA BROADER COMMUNITYVISION: ALLEGHENY WESTFOUNDATIONFunders Highlighted:William Penn FoundationPhiladelphia Neighborhood DevelopmentCollaborativeWachovia Regional Foundation“Allegheny West Foundation shines because it hasan improved understanding of itself and its futurestrategy.”— Kelly Woodland, William PennFoundationPhiladelphia’s Allegheny West neighborhood iscontinuing to resist decline and striving to rechargeits local economy by retaining and revitalizing itsbusinesses and residents. This profile highlightsfunder support to assist in the evolution of anorganization from a housing rehabilitation project toa comprehensive community developmentcorporation with a mission to address social andeconomic community revitalization as well as youthdevelopment.Project ProfileThe Allegheny West neighborhood, located in northPhiladelphia, was once bustling with manufacturingcompanies. During the 1960s, shifts in businessstrategies and subsequent riots destroyed theconfidence of businesses, which later uprooted toother neighborhoods. At that time, the CEO of theTasty Baking Company felt the company’s 45-yearhistory in Allegheny West gave it a sense ofresponsibility to stay and rebuild the community,according to the company’s corporate treasurer,Eugene P. Malinowski.As jobs grew scarce and houses became vacant, TastyBaking founded Allegheny West Foundation (AWF)to find ways to revitalize the community. 28 TastyBaking took on the role of nurturing AWF’sdevelopment by providing financial and in-kindsupport that exceeded any formal partnership. Infact, the relationship is one of the earliest models ofthe private/public sector working together toward acommunity development goal.Allegheny West Foundation, with Tasty Baking,has “fostered rehabilitation of more than 400homes,” states Malinowski. Many of Tasty BakingCompany’s employees come from the AlleghenyWest neighborhood and live in AWF homes.Over time, AWF realized that rehabilitatinghousing was not enough to revitalize the localeconomy so it became a comprehensive communitydevelopment corporation with a focus on housingrehabilitation, social and economic communitybuilding, education, employment, and youthdevelopment.A map of the Allegheny West neighborhood in north Philadelphia. (Source:Allegheny West Foundation).Funder InterestThe support of three funders, PhiladelphiaNeighborhood Development Collaborative,Wachovia Regional Foundation, and WilliamPenn Foundation is based on a similar assessmentthat Allegheny West Foundation’s strength is itsability to consider community development on abroader scale.Thirty-six years of steady growth in Allegheny WestFoundation’s service offerings and a stabilizing28Publisher’s Note: The Allegheny West Foundation is a nonprofitcommunity development corporation actively engaged in therevitalization of north Philadelphia’s Allegheny West neighborhood. Forover 35 years it has worked to rehabilitate housing and commercial realestate, attract new residents, improve quality of life, and restore pride inthe neighborhood. The Allegheny West Foundation is not a grantmaker.For more information, visit www.awest.org.LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 66

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSneighborhood caught the attention of WachoviaRegional Foundation. For Wachovia, AWF wasattractive due to the business involvement and also thehigh level of engagement from the local residents inrevitalizing aOver time, AWF realized thatrehabilitating housing wasnot enough to revitalizethe local economy so itbecame a comprehensivecommunity developmentcorporation with a focuson housing rehabilitation,social and economiccommunity building,education, employment,and youth development.distressedneighborhood.Denise McGregorArmbrister, executivedirector of WachoviaRegionalFoundation,estimates that adiverse 1 percent ofthe local population(or 190 residents),young and old,participated in thedevelopment AWF’scomprehensive planas part of WachoviaRegional Foundation’s Neighborhood Planning Grant.Wachovia Regional Foundation believes AWF scoreshigh on all components, from its board andpartnerships to implementation in the neighborhood.Capitalizing on Wachovia Regional Foundation’splanning grant, the William Penn Foundation steeredits youth employment development work with AWFto focus on a larger outlook in youth development.Allegheny West Foundation’s president, Ron Hinton,“started looking at a holistic approach to understandyouth barriers and resources,” observes KellyWoodland, program officer with William PennFoundation. Woodland adds, “Ron [Hinton] knowshow to engage residents around key issues ofemployment and training. He understandscommunity development in a broader sense.”Until recently, Allegheny West Foundation focusedmost of its attention on improving the value of theproperties in the neighborhood, an era Hinton refersto as “Phase 1.” With Wachovia RegionalFoundation and William Penn Foundation’sassistance, AWF is moving to “Phase 2,” a strategythat leverages the work of the past three decades toenable a higher quality of life.According to AWF’s Hinton, a quality of life strategymeans investing in the neighborhood of the future bygrooming young people for careers in the neighborhood,encouraging civic engagement, and improving openspaces, safety, education, and retail access. “There’s abroad connection to improve society, not just bybringing in businesses to solve short-term problems. Weneed to cure the problem,” declares Hinton.The Allegheny West Foundation offers computer and job training toneighborhood residents. (Source: Allegheny West Foundation).Beverly Coleman, program director of thePhiladelphia Neighborhood DevelopmentCollaborative (PNDC), describes that duringPNDC’s nine-year relationship with AWF as agrantee in PNDC’s core operating support program,AWF has diversified its real estate developmentactivities and begun to focus on market-drivenstrategies to achieve change.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsIn formulating a strategy with a wider scope ofcommunity development, a diversity of positiveequity impacts are possible. William PennFoundation hopes the development of technicalassistance and job training for youth will improve thevalue of the neighborhood. “CDCs realize peoplemove to where youth services are located,” statesWilliam Penn’s Woodland.On the other hand, PNDC sees transit-orienteddevelopment as a promising approach for advancingregional equity. According to PNDC’s Coleman, bypursuing a transit-oriented development strategy thatlinks new housing and retail investments to theexisting regional transit station and developingpartnerships with employers that increase access toneighborhood employers and regional job clusters,AWF should be able to improve outcomes for itscommunity and residents.67Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

A local resident receives the keys to her new home, a result of Allegheny WestFoundation’s housing rehabilitation work. (Source: Allegheny West Foundation).ResultsWachovia Regional Foundation’s NeighborhoodPlanning Grant afforded Allegheny West Foundationtime to develop a vision and implementation planbased on resident participation in subcommittees onsafety, health care, and development, among others.As a result, AWF has a strategy to leverage whenpursuing partnerships and fundraising opportunities.William Penn Foundation sees AWF now as a viablepartner for “what’s next” because the WachoviaRegional Foundation grant allowed the organizationto develop an improved understanding of theneighborhood and to define the next steps. Colemanfrom PNDC summarizes that Allegheny WestFoundation is taking on bigger challenges with astronger focus on the future.Lessons LearnedFrom their perspectives, the foundationsinvolved have learned different lessons from theirindividual experiences with Allegheny WestFoundation. Philadelphia NeighborhoodDevelopment Collaborative sees AWF shifting itsfocus to become the facilitator of varied partnershipsdesigned to change their neighborhood. Through theNeighborhood Plan process, Wachovia RegionalFoundation understands that community-levelinvolvement requires assistance, services, andsuccesses. Wachovia’s McGregor Armbrister stressesthe importance of visible short-term successes inareas such as neighborhood building that will createmomentum and enthusiasm for residents during theplanning stage.Rehabilitated row houses in Philadelphia’s Allegheny West neighborhood(Source: Allegheny West Foundation).Contact PeopleBeverly ColemanProgram DirectorPhiladelphia Neighborhood DevelopmentCollaborative (PNDC)bcoleman@uwsepa.org(215) 665-2644Ron HintonPresidentAllegheny West Foundationrehintonjr@hotmail.com(215) 221-8833Eugene P. MalinowskiCorporate TreasurerTasty Baking Companygene.malinowski@tastykake.com(215) 221-8571Denise McGregor ArmbristerExecutive DirectorWachovia Regional Foundationdenise.m.armbrister@wachovia.com(215) 670-4300Kelly WoodlandProgram OfficerWilliam Penn Foundationkwoodland@williampennfoundation.org(215) 988-1830LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 68

II. B. TURNING NEIGHBORHOODSAROUND: ANNIE E. CASEYFOUNDATION’S EASTBALTIMORE DEVELOPMENTINITIATIVEFunder Highlighted:Annie E. Casey FoundationO’Malley sought support for a study. The proposedstudy was envisioned to become a blueprint for ablighted area only a 20-minute walk away from thecity’s Inner Harbor, where 25 percent of its adultslacked either a high school diploma or GED, andnearly 35 percent of all of its residents lived inpoverty (a level twice that of the city and four timesthat of the state of Maryland). Dotted amongabandoned row houses circa 1870 were nearly 800families, many of them senior citizens, but almost allof them low-income, who had lived in theneighborhood for 35 years or longer.LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONS“This project is our biggest example of puttingmission into action.”— Scot Spencer, Annie E. Casey FoundationThe East Baltimore Development Initiative is aunique economic development project that buildsupon the community’s assets and needs in order tocreate opportunities for current residents as well asnewcomers. Local community organizations,business leaders, city officials, and a leadinginstitution of higher learning are collaborating with amajor national foundation to plan and implementthis 80-acre redevelopment initiative. This profilehighlights that urban redevelopment can besuccessful, profitable, inclusive, and equitable topublic, private, and community stakeholders when afoundation’s primary mission of human servicesreform and community support fosters the initiative.Progress and redevelopment need not meandisempowerment and displacement. With an eyetowards environmental integrity and socioeconomicrevitalization, true partnerships can be built betweenlocal employers, institutions, organizations, officials,and residents.Project ProfileThe East Baltimore Development Initiative (EBDI)represents a long-term, comprehensive andcollaborative commitment to transform an 80-acrearea near Johns Hopkins Hospital. Over the next tento 15 years, new facilities, community alliances,careers, housing, and hopes will all be nurtured,achieved, and eventually celebrated.According to Scot Spencer, manager of Baltimorerelations with the Annie E. Casey Foundation(AECF), its initial interest in this massive project firstoccurred in 1999 when Baltimore’s Mayor MartinA rendering of the East Baltimore Development Initiative’s AshlandCommon (Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).Joining AECF’s partnership team were the JohnsHopkins Institutions (with their emphasis onlearning and research), the Greater BaltimoreCommittee (bringing together prominent businessleaders dedicated to strengthening the region’sbusiness climate), Baltimore Housing (which ensuresthat all citizens have access to affordable housingopportunities), the Coalition to End ChildhoodLead Poisoning (which serves as the project’s FamilyAdvocacy service provider), and the city ofBaltimore. The six major partners share vital roles ina multi-billion dollar development that will beanchored by a two-million-square foot life sciencesand technology park that will eventually house 30 to50 companies. In addition, the project is envisionedto attract 630 primary researchers and 2,000postdoctoral students and other scientists; build1,200 mixed-income, new, and rehabilitatedresidential units; provide up to 6,000 new jobsbetween construction and new or expandedbusinesses; and include dedicated greenspaces.Governed by a quasi-public entity, the nonprofitinitiative is overseen by an 11-member, jointlyappointed board (which includes three at-largemembers, two representatives each appointed by the69Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

East Baltimore community and the Johns HopkinsInstitutions, three members assigned by Baltimore’sMayor, and one representative appointed byMaryland’s Governor). Guiding EDBI’s day-tooperationsis a chief executive officer and president,Jack Shannon, as well as an Economic InclusionMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) with thecity of Baltimore. The MOU details the project’scommitment to inclusion in every aspect, fromprocurement contracts to equity ownership,outreach, and more.A rendering of the residential Rutland Square in East Baltimore.(Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).In Phase I of the project, an estimated 275households will be affected. Relocations that beganin March 2004 are expected to be completed by theend of 2005. Residents, homeowners, and rentersreceive standard benefits afforded by the UniformRelocation Act and a unique set of supplementalbenefits and supports that were made available by$10 million in benefits equally funded by AECF andthe Johns Hopkins Institutions. The block-by-blockmovement of families also has specific benchmarks,according to EBDI’s Shannon. Beyond formalnotification to affected families, each householdgains a relocation counselor, family advocatemeetings, a new home inspection, and up to threeyears of follow-up and supportive services. Of themore than 100 families assisted, as of this writing, allbut seven chose to remain in the city of Baltimore.As construction is completed, relocated EastBaltimore families will be given the option to returnto their “old” neighborhood as either renters orhomeowners.Addressing the educational needs of the community,Johns Hopkins announced in June 2004 a freetuition program designed to provide Baltimore’s bestpublic school students with an opportunity to staynear home and study at one of America’s premieruniversities. Known as the Baltimore ScholarsProgram, this scholarship will begin with the classentering in the fall of 2005 and is open to studentswho attend Baltimore City public schools for at leasttheir last three years of high school, reside inBaltimore City for at least the three previous years,and gain admission as first-year, full-timeundergraduates in either the Krieger School of Artsand Sciences, Whiting School of Engineering, orPeabody Conservatory of Music at Johns HopkinsUniversity (JHU).Additionally, up to three part-time BaltimoreScholars will also be selected. The University willreach out to students, families, teachers, counselors,and principals to encourage application to the newprogram. In announcing the new scholarshipprogram, JHU president William R. Brody declared,“Baltimore is Johns Hopkins’ home, and Baltimore’sfuture is our future. The Baltimore Scholars Programis one more step the University can take to supportour city and especially our public schools.”Funder InterestThe Annie E. Casey Foundation’s president, DouglasW. Nelson, shares perhaps the most poignantexplanation for a commitment to underservedpopulations and communities:Americans want better outcomes. But to act onthat desire—to convert a public wish for publicgood into action—we must deepen awareness ofthe crisis affecting an unacceptably high percentageof this nation’s families. We must foster fair andaccurate understanding of the causes of thoseproblems, and we must awaken the confidencethat something can be done that makes adifference. Over the next decade we must combineour knowledge of particular ideas into a coherentvision for change that is commensurate with thescope of the child and family crisis that exists inthis richest of nations. No one understands theneed for this effort more than the families andchildren living in the downward spiral of despairthat defines too many of our neighborhoods. Intoday’s America, there is simply no justification fordenying any child a legitimate hope for the futureand a reasonable expectation of a successfulentrance to adulthood. In fact, with sufficientpublic will, political resolve, and imagination weLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 70

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSThe master plan created for the East Baltimore Development, as of November 10, 2004. (Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).have a real chance to extend to all our children afair share of the promise of American life. TheCasey Foundation intends to do its part to ensurethat we embrace that opportunity. 29According to Casey’s Spencer, the EBDI project is“the most unique thing the Foundation has done.More importantly, the decision was reached withsenior leadership of both the Foundation staff and itsboard. For Casey, the two bottom line factors inevaluating the request were the population impactedand the need to demonstrate that the mission wouldwork on the ground.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsAs the planning process drew the attention andinterest of a number of groups, the process alsoenlisted their participation, according to JeffThompson, deputy director of the Historic EastBaltimore Community Action Coalition. Moreimportantly, improving conditions meant a reasonand an opportunity to stay. “The relocationpolicies,” comments Thompson, “were incentives forpeople to stay.” A pervasive sense of neighborhoodequity led to a climate of inclusion. “The projectscale, the number of stakeholders, the selection ofmaster developers will all incorporate communityconcerns. The community’s comfort level will affectselections, investments, and enhancements,”explains Thompson.Beyond community participation, the project’seducation and workforce development componentswill measurably assist both unemployed and undereducatedadults to build technical skills for the 21 stcentury economy. Literacy and GED instruction willbe offered to residents in cooperation with theBaltimore Public Schools. Additionally, customizedjob training in construction trades and health careare expected to create promising career paths forresidents. As AECF’s Spencer explains, the educationand training component recognizes the “industryshift and drift” from manufacturing to life sciencesand bio-tech. Therefore, students at the nearbyDunbar Senior High School, a science andtechnology magnet school, will also benefit.The community development changes in theneighborhood go beyond EBDI’s efforts. For29“Message from the President,” available at www.aecf.org/about/.71Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

example, adjacent to the EBDI area, the expandedJohns Hopkins East Baltimore campus will includefive new buildings. Of these facilities, the largest isa 2.3-acre site for a seven-story, 515,000 squarefoot state-of-the-art cancer center, representing anestimated investment of $97.7 million. In additionto in-patient care, the facility will also offer cancerscreening, education, and community outreach.Johns Hopkins’ rehabilitation and investment in itsown campuses account for an additional $1.2billion. Approximately 30 percent of the fundsraised through theBeyond communityparticipation, the project’seducation and workforcedevelopment componentswill measurably assist bothunemployed and undereducatedadults to buildtechnical skills for the 21 stcentury economy.University’s capitalcampaign—knownas “Knowledge forthe World”—willdirectly benefit theEast Baltimorecampus. For theresidentialcomponent, mixedincomehousingwill blend newconstruction,historicpreservation, and rehabilitation. The plannedhousing balance will have one-third each of marketrate, affordable, and low-income dwellings.This capital-intensive project is viewed as aninvestment and not a cost. Initial public investmenthas now leveraged over $15 million in privateinvestments. Environmentally, all phases ofconstruction in this historic neighborhood willobserve “responsible demolition protocol” thatexceeds state, federal, and city standards for leadbasedpaint removal. This environmentally-friendlyapproach is intended to minimize potential hazardsto the community.ResultsThe major impact that AECF hoped for is now beingrealized. “This project may very well have cityplanners re-thinking how to go about communityredevelopment,” observes AECF’s Spencer. He adds,“We need to think about how to re-establish peoplein place.”The sum of these EBDI and other communityimprovement projects have now contributed toimproved and independent quality of lifeindicators for Baltimore. In October 2004, boththe FBI’s 2004 Preliminary Uniform Crime Reportand the U.S. Census Bureau noted positivedevelopments in Baltimore. According to the FBI’s2004 Preliminary Uniform Crime Report,Baltimore leads thenation’s 25 largestcities in the “This project may very wellreduction of have city planners re-thinkingviolent crime. 30how to go about communityViolent crime andredevelopment. We needtotal crime into think about how to reestablishpeople in place.”Baltimore fell to itslowest levels since1970. Since 1999,— Scot Spencerthe cumulativecrime drop is down40 percent—more than New York, Detroit,Phoenix, Philadelphia, or Indianapolis.Furthermore, for the first time since 1950,Baltimore’s populationis now holding steady. By contrast, in 1996,Baltimore was losing residents at the rate of 1,100per month. By 2003, the monthly population lossdwindled to only 33 residents. As a result of thecity’s successful challenge to previously posted U.S.Census Bureau figures, the now official increaseAn East Baltimore resident admires a new neighborhood mural project.(Source: East Baltimore Development Initiative).of 14,634 residents will translate into $2 millionmore per year in federal funds that the citywill receive. 31When Mayor O’Malley recently shared both of thesedevelopments publicly, his remarks wereunderstandably proud: “Baltimore’s comeback isabout private citizens looking at our city and saying,‘This is where I want to live … this is where I want toinvest my hard earned dollars.’ It’s about privateinvestment and development. It’s about nonprofitscommitted to change. It’s about government being aLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 72

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSgood partner, encouraging larger private investmentswith smart investment of limited public dollars—andbetter services.”Lessons LearnedThe East Baltimore community’s participation in thedevelopment process is a true hallmark. The familiarfast-track developer approach of “decide, announce,defend” was adapted to a slower pace that allowedample opportunity to air—and in turn,incorporate—community concerns. Through thatprocess, the community itself became valued andequal partners. Because the planning processaddressed and answered community skepticism,EBDI’s Shannon believes an “equitable set ofbenefits” was developed.Baltimore’s Mayor O’Malley eloquently summarizesthe vision and lesson of EBDI: “We need to realizethat if we are to move forward, we have to start over,while protecting historically significant buildings.A few scattered site rehabs in the middle of acres ofvacant blocks are not going to cut it. We aremoving opportunity to people, not moving peopleto opportunity.”30“2004 Preliminary Uniform Crime Report,” available atwww.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf.31Eric Siegel, “City Gains 15,000 in Census Revision.” The BaltimoreSun, October 27, 2004.Contact PeopleDeidra N. BishopDirector, East Baltimore Community AffairsJohns Hopkins Institutionsdbishop2@jhu.edu(443) 287-9900Raquel GuilloryPress SecretaryCity of BaltimoreRaquel.Guillory@baltimorecity.org(410) 545-0153Dennis O’SheaOffice of News & InformationJohns Hopkins Universitydro@jhu.edu(443) 287-9960Jack ShannonPresident & CEOEast Baltimore Development Initiativejack.shannon@ebdi.org(410) 234-0660Scot SpencerManager of Baltimore RelationsAnnie E. Casey Foundationsspencer@aecf.org(410) 223-2904Jeff ThompsonDeputy DirectorHistoric East Baltimore CommunityAction Coalitionjthompson@hebcac.org(443) 524-280073Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

II. C. YIELDING REGIONALBENEFITS THROUGHNEIGHBORHOOD ACTION:BETHEL NEW LIFEFunders Highlighted:Annie E. Casey FoundationThe Field Foundation of IllinoisFord FoundationLocal Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationThe Retirement Research Foundation“Bethel is iconic—impact is tangible in theneighborhood.”— Andrew Mooney, Local InitiativesSupport CorporationThe creation of Bethel New Life came inresponse to disinvestments in the West Garfield Parkneighborhood of Chicago by the previousresidents—homeowners, landlords, investors, andbusinesses. In their absence, unemployment andpoverty spread, plaguing the neighborhood withcrime and hopelessness. By listening closely to thecommunity, Bethel New Life realized it would notwork on housing alone but focus holistically onparticipatory decisionmaking, the community’squality of life, and environmental integrity. Thisprofile highlights grants that foster an organization’sdevelopment of smarter growth strategies based oncommunity input, creative financing, faith,determination, and tireless innovation.Project ProfileLocated in the Chicago neighborhood of WestGarfield Park, Bethel New Life (Bethel) is a multiproperty,multi-service community developmentcorporation (CDC) that provides services in housingand economic development, employment, culturalarts, community building, seniors, and familysupport. Through changing community needs andfoundation priorities, Bethel relies on faith-basedvalues, asset-based approaches, and collaborationswith community and partner organizations to offerinnovative, adaptive solutions.Starting with modest bricks-and-mortar housingissues, Bethel has consistently overcome naysayers,government red-tape, and impossible economicenvironments to create a safe haven in this poor,disenfranchised neighborhood. Mary Nelson,Bethel’s president and CEO, recalls that it becameclear that most, “Affordable housing isn’t affordableto people who don’t have jobs, and living-wagejobs, so that got us into jobs. Then we saw thatpeople can’t keep jobs if they’re sick and don’t havehealth care, and young people can’t get jobs if theschools don’t teach them.” Bethel’s goals are topromote, “a healthier, sustainable community witheconomic viability, environmental integrity, highquality of life for all, and public participation indecisionmaking.” 32 The organization has evolvedinto a fully functional community developmentcorporation with an annual operating budget ofmore than $13.5 million and a smart growthproperty portfolio that includes a campus (Beth-Anne campus), numerous affordable housing sites,and a transit-oriented development—the BethelCommercial Center.A view of the lobby, child care center, and senior residence at the newBeth-Anne Life Center. (Source: Bethel New Life).During its 25-year history, Bethel New Life hasreceived funding from diverse grantmakingorganizations that contribute to its sustainability andinnovation. This profile examines Bethel’srelationship with six organizations: Annie E. CaseyFoundation, Field Foundation of Illinois, FordFoundation, Local Initiatives Support Corporation(LISC/Chicago), The John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation, and The RetirementResearch Foundation.32Mary Nelson. “We Build the Road as We Travel,” available atwww.nhi.org/online/issues/110/nelson.html (March/April 2000).LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 74

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSFunder InterestBethel’s scope of social services and 25-year historywith the foundation community blur specific reasonswhy foundations have been and continue to beinterested. Each foundation interviewed for this profileagrees that Bethel’s persistence, constant evolution inprograms, tirelessness, and faith-based vision make itdifficult not to support its proposals and initiatives.For example, in 1979, the Field Foundation wasinterested in providing $15,000 to $20,000 in seedmoney and name credibility to smaller emergingorganizations. According to Aurie Pennick, executivedirector of the Field Foundation, it fundedorganizations with diversity on the board, strongstaff, and vision. Bethel weathered volatile times byremaining focused on action in the community. Overtime, the Field Foundation granted support forBethel’s housing development and school reforminitiatives. “Bethel understood the needs of thepeople and approached issues with morecomprehensive services than other organizations,”cites Pennick.Meanwhile, LISC/Chicago has also had a 20-yearrelationship with Bethel. Together, they partnered onhousing programs, the St. Anne Hospitalredevelopment, and an employment center, amongother initiatives. 33 With West Garfield’s reputation asa high risk area and Bethel’s cutting-edge programs,“There were ups and downs but overall Bethelenjoyed a success rate of 80 percent [of the attemptedprograms],” according to Andrew Mooney, seniorprogram director with LISC. Bethel was thusshowing results, leadership, and vision.The MacArthur Foundation had resolved to makegeneral operating grants to organizations with atrack record of providing effective services for acommunity. Bethel’s Nelson had paid closeattention to the smart growth and regionalequity conversations and adapted the principlesto her neighborhood. So, working throughLISC, MacArthur funded general operating grantsto Bethel.Bethel—as the only organization in theneighborhood that enabled seniors to stay rooted inthe community as independent people, keeping themfrom nursing homes—peaked the interest of TheRetirement Research Foundation (RRF). WhileRRF’s first grant to Bethel (aimed at replicating asenior health program) was not as successful asinitially hoped, RRF continued to assist Bethel’ssenior programs, such as adult day care and aninformation management system, because Bethel’swork aligns with RRF’s mission to use innovativeapproaches when providing assistance for seniorswho desired independent lifestyles, according toMarilyn Hennessy, president of RRF.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsAfter the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and theresulting uprising, Russian Jews, Italian, and Polishoccupants fled to the suburbs and vacated the localeconomy of West Garfield Park. After years ofdecay and neglect,African Americanfamilies slowlypopulated the area,but without the sameluxuries of accessibletransportation,housing, oremployment. Feelingdistressed byvanishing resources in“Bethel understood theneeds of the people andapproached issues withmore comprehensiveservices than otherorganizations.”— Aurie Pennickthe neighborhood, Mary Nelson and her pastoralbrother and the small Bethel Lutheran Churchcongregation collected $9,000 and began torebuild. Based on Nelson’s notion of “buildingcommunity from the inside out,” Bethel New Lifewas founded following the congregation’s collectivepurchase of a three-story building for low-incomehousing. Over the years, Nelson and her staffadmittedly made mistakes, changed business plans,and grew in bits and pieces but never got distractedfrom their principle that nothing is impossiblewhen you work with faith because, in Nelson’swords, “faith is gas for the long haul.” Bethel’s corecomponent of housing reached far beyond theimaginable. Since 1979, Bethel has built andrenovated over 1,000 affordable homes for families,seniors, and other tenant groups, and redevelopedthe formerly abandoned St. Anne’s Hospital into anine-acre mixed-use complex containing affordablehousing and services for seniors, children’s day care,health care, and performing arts space. Now, Bethel33Bethel New Life purchased the closed St. Anne’s Hospital in 1989. It isnow known as Beth-Anne Place and includes Beth-Anne Residences,Bethel New Life’s office, Cultural and Performing Arts Center, AdultDay Services Facility, Assisted (Supportive) Living for Seniors, andentrepreneurial opportunities open to seniors and local residents (coffeeshop, sundries shop, beauty salon/barber shop).75Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

is using transit-oriented development and locationefficient mortgages to create another focal pointfor the community that will ensure pedestrianfriendlyaccess to the neighborhood and to theChicago region. 34Children at play at the Beth-Anne Life Center child care center in Chicago’sWest Garfield Park neighborhood. (Source: Bethel New Life).The funding community understands the arduoustask Bethel New Life has undertaken in changing theface of a deteriorating neighborhood. Grant supportover the years has allowed Bethel to make measurableimpacts on the community. The Field Foundation’sPennick feels that West Garfield has benefited fromincremental changes with neighborhood pockets ofstability, banks, businesses, and new signs of life. Andas LISC’s Mooney sums up, “Bethel is iconic—impact is tangible in the neighborhood.”In 2000, Bethel examined the regional dynamics andmade a strategic shift to embrace smart growthprinciples. “Smart growth in an urban communitycontext includes a focused-area housing developmentwith traffic calming, parks, and defensible spaces;transit-oriented development that features commercialdevelopment with housing in walking distance oftransit; brownfield development through anenvironmental triage process that identifies the mostdevelopable sites; and new job creation. Energyefficiency, air quality, and greenspaces are included aspart of all efforts.” 35Bethel employed simple criteria to evaluate proposedsolutions: Is it mission appropriate? Is there financialpromise? And is it wanted by the community? Fromthere, Bethel launched into comprehensive housingstrategies for sustainable living requiring smartgrowth principles like participatory planning, focuson area development (rather than a single building),energy efficiency for all buildings, incorporation ofgreenspace through parks and play areas, brownfieldredevelopment, and traffic-calming techniques. 36ResultsFor individual foundations, Bethel’s projects andevolution into employing smarter growth has earnedit high marks and a spotlight on the national stageas a role model for comprehensive CDCs. Throughlong-term partnerships, Bethel can guaranteeenergy-efficienthomes that do notexceed $200 peryear in heatingbills. Together, thefunders, partners,and staff at Bethelcan halt the effectsof gentrification,apply smartergrowth principlesin transit andbrownfieldredevelopments,and work to achieveneighborhoodequity. Accordingto Bethel’s Nelson,“The issue is ofequitable growth;Bethel launched intocomprehensive housingstrategies for sustainableliving requiring smartgrowth principles likeparticipatory planning, focuson area development (ratherthan a single building),energy efficiency for allbuildings, incorporation ofgreenspace through parksand play areas, brownfieldredevelopment, and trafficcalmingtechniques.we have to be at the table (when development isdecided) in order to get our equitable share.” 37The Bethel Commercial Center is the newest starin Bethel’s move into transit-oriented developmentand a flagship effort of Bethel’s 25-year successpattern with community-informed, smart growthinnovations. A larger advocacy effort to saveChicago Transit Authority’s Green Line, which wascritical to Bethel’s West Garfield Park community,opened Bethel’s eyes to the “asset” of a transit stop.Bethel’s Commercial Center is a 22,000-square-34“Information, Models and Trends for Community Developers-April2002,” available atwww.lisc.org/resources/2002/06/neighborhoods_810.shtml?Planning+&+Land+Use (June 12, 2002).35Mary Nelson, “We Build the Road as We Travel,” available atwww.nhi.org/online/issues/110/nelson.html (March/April 2000).36Campaign for Sensible Growth, “Latest Innovations for AchievingAffordable Housing: Case Studies from Chicago,” available atwww.growingsensibly.org/news/articleDetail.asp?objectID=1280(March 5, 2003).37IbidLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 76

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSfoot, two-story “green building” with a rooftopgarden and solar energy modules that houses retailspace, employment offices, a day care center, and abridge that connects it all to the elevated trainstation. It will allow local residents to be eligiblefor low-interest location efficient mortgages andwill reduce their need to use a car on a regularbasis. Rebecca Riley, a consultant to theCommunity and Resource Development Unit atthe Ford Foundation, believes the success behindBethel lies in asking good questions. Says Riley,“Mary Nelson began to wonder if a big box storewith acres of parking did not make sense in asuburb, then why would it make sense for an urbanneighborhood?”The Bethel Commercial Center connects by bridge to the Chicago TransitAuthority’s Green Line. (Source: Bethel New Life).In 2002, Bethel received the “Families Count”Award of $500,000 in unrestricted funds from theAnnie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) because Bethelpromotes stronger family situations for children.Bethel was recognized for the totality of its workbecause, “The whole was greater than the sum ofits parts of helping families get on a path tosuccess,” according to Miriam Shark, seniorassociate with AECF. “You can’t do work in [thearena of] CDCs without noticing Bethel.” Shecontinues, “The award is a seal of approval” forBethel. Funds were used as the glue for theongoing work of the commercial center.Bethel’s other site—the comprehensive Beth-Annecampus—has met the expectations of TheRetirement Research Foundation, “because itimproved the quality of life for seniors wishing toremain in the community by focusing onindependent and assisting living options oncampus, a range of center-based and home servicesfor community elderly, job training for home careworkers, and exploring policy innovations,”according to RRF’s Hennessy.Bethel New Life is also a grantee of the FordFoundation. In its summer 2004 report, Fordhighlighted Bethel’s success and stated that, “BethelNew Life is transforming Chicago’s West GarfieldPark neighborhood through a combination ofstaying power, persistence, and infinite hope. Bytaking advantage of under-utilized communityresources and emphasizing environmentallyconsciouspolicies and practices, Bethel New Life isa national model for the way communitydevelopment groups can promote healthyneighborhoods while effectively linking them totheir larger regional context.” 38A rendering of the future look of the Bethel Commercial Center. (Source:Bethel New Life).Lessons LearnedAccording to the foundations interviewed for thisreport—partners familiar with the faith-basedleadership of Bethel New Life—funders interestedin funding highly effective communitydevelopment corporations should demand, andexpect to, experience: risk taking in creative38“Ford Foundation Summer 2004 Report,” available atwww.fordfound.org (2004).77Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

financing and innovative, forward-thinkingsolutions; constant refining of strategies to meetthe needs of the changing community; andrelentless and strong-willed work from staff.Contact PeopleMarilyn HennessyPresidentThe Retirement Research Foundationhennessy@rrf.org(773) 714-8080II. D. BLENDING ARTS ANDHISTORY TO PRESERVE ANDREVITALIZE COMMUNITY:PROJECT ROW HOUSESFunders Highlighted:Ford FoundationHouston Endowment Inc.The Meadows FoundationAndrew MooneySenior Program DirectorLISC/Chicagoamooney@lisc.org(312) 360-0800Mary NelsonPresident & CEOBethel New Lifemnelson@bethelnewlife.org(773) 473-7870Aurie PennickExecutive DirectorThe Field Foundation of Illinoisapennick@fieldfoundation.org(312) 831-1269Rebecca RileyConsultant to the Community and ResourceDevelopment Unit, Ford Foundation(former Vice President, The John D. and CatherineT. MacArthur Foundation)r.riley@fordfound.org(212) 573-4890Miriam SharkSenior AssociateAnnie E. Casey Foundationmshark@aecf.org(410) 547-6600“Project Row Houses is able to maintain integritybetween cultural tourism, social services, and racerelations, with a simple but powerful elegance inmerging people and place-based strategies.”—Miguel Garcia, Ford FoundationCapitalizing on a community’s cultural legacythrough the arts and history can prove to be effectivefor redevelopment, especially when it brings inmembers of the community as part of the process, asdemonstrated in Houston’s Third Wardneighborhood. At the same time, trying to protectthe historic feel of the community and keepingcurrent residents from being displaced once thecommunity becomes attractive to outsiders andprices of land begin to escalate can be challenging—but not impossible. This profile describes why threedistinct foundations were willing to invest in anorganization’s non-traditional approach, blendingeconomic development, social justice, education, andarts and culture. It explains how an organization wasable to use a community’s historic African Americanheritage as a catalyst to create benefits for residents ofthe neighborhood as well others from thesurrounding communities in the region.Project ProfileProject Row Houses’ (PRH) mission is to createcommunity through the celebration of the arts andAfrican American history and culture. Its work isfounded in public art and education programs thatencompass neighborhood revitalization, historicpreservation, and community service. Its programsare designed to identify and cultivate a new vision ofopportunity in Houston’s Third Ward community. 39LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONS39Neighborhoods in Houston are known as “wards.”Part III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 78

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSThe organization has dedicated seven houses to theYoung Mothers Residential Program (YMRP),providing free housing to mothers as they strive toachieve self-sufficiency and independence. Meanwhile,its arts education programs (after-school, art-lifepractices, and general art program) are interdisciplinaryand focus on creativity, resourcefulness, and real-lifeapplications for children and teenagers.Project Row Houses’ converted site has been a catalyst toneighborhood revitalization and as a result of PRH’sefforts and the Third Ward’s proximity to downtown,the Third WardProject Row Houses’ work isfounded in public art andeducation programs thatencompass neighborhoodrevitalization, historicpreservation, and communityservice. Its programs aredesigned to identify andcultivate a new vision ofopportunity in Houston’sThird Ward community.struggles againstgentrification.Project Row Houseshas established asister organization,the Row HouseCommunityDevelopmentCorporation (RowHouse CDC), toprotect theneighborhood’shistoric and culturallegacy in the AfricanAmerican community. The original compound hasgrown with the construction of 13 units of low-incomehousing, four residential duplexes, as well as two unitsdedicated to long-term artists’ residencies. Project RowHouses also includes the Eldorado Ballroom withbusinesses on the ground floor, visionary and worldrenownedfolk artist Cleveland Turner’s home—knownas the Flowerman’s House—a sculpture park, the XShouse (Rice University’s Extra Small House), and threeshotgun houses (circa 1870) relocated from theneighboring Fourth Ward.Funder InterestThree PRH funders—Ford Foundation, HoustonEndowment Inc., and The Meadows Foundation—point to the successful and visionary blend of art,community development, and historic preservationas a source of their interest in Project Row Houses.Created by African American artists, PRH combinesefforts to awaken a historical presence of and for localAfrican American art and culture with an awarenessof community struggles and an effort to address themwith educational, social, and practical programs.Today, PRH maintains its African American focusand voice, as over 90 percent of its board directorsand staff members are African American. It is theunusual formula of the organization’s mission and itscharismatic leadership that continues to demonstrateits success and inspire supporters.The Ford Foundation was first inspired by PRH’sfounder’s effective communication with a wide regionalaudience. Throughout the years, the founder, RickLowe, has been able to illustrate how social justice andneighborhood revitalization can be combined.According to Miguel Garcia, acting deputy director ofthe Community and Resource Development Unit atthe Ford Foundation, Lowe has demonstrated that “anabandoned shotgun home, a simple architectural form,can be adapted to send a message that you canredevelop blighted properties into opportunities forlocal low-income African American families whilestimulating the imagination and creativity of regionalactors comprised ofthe creative class thatare typically white, “The project is like anmiddle class, and in amoeba; it grows organicallysearch ofbut stays true to its DNA.”fulfillment.” The— Miguel GarciaFord Foundationidentifies the organicand rooted nature of the organization and its ability todiversify and grow as deciding factors in its support.Explains Garcia, “The project is like an amoeba; itgrows organically but stays true to its DNA.”Houston Endowment Inc. (HEI) supports many ofHouston’s arts, social service, education, andcommunity development programs. The Endowmentconsiders Project Row Houses’ unusual approach ofuniting these areas as one of Houston’s great assets.Since 1994, HEI has awarded PRH with grants forhousing restoration and renovation, general programsupport, and land acquisition. The organization’s roleas a community player and leader and its wide rangeof services to the residents of the Third Ward appealto the board and staff of HEI. In 2004, HEI made itsfirst grant to the Row House CDC for operatingsupport and community development initiatives.The Meadows Foundation provides grants in fiveareas: arts and culture, civic and public affairs,education, health, and human services. ThroughProject Row Houses, Meadows can supportsystematic and integrated work that addresses79Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

The Row House Community Development Corporation completedconstruction of four new low-income duplexes designed by the RiceBuilding Workshop. (Source: Project Row Houses).community problems, preserves history, andenhances arts and culture. The organization’s holisticapproach touches upon all of the Foundation’s areasof focus. As a result, it has awarded two grants toProject Row Houses and a third grant to its sisteragency, Row House CDC. All three grants wereopportunities to combine historic preservation,neighborhood development, and the arts withtransitional housing and social services.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsCommunity members from different races, ages,and socioeconomic backgrounds are regularly onthe Project Row Houses campus enjoying thefacilities and programs. Emily Todd, a grant officerat the Houston Endowment, describes Project RowHouses as, “A catalyst for conversations about andsolutions for some of our community’s mosttroubling questions.” The Ford Foundation’sGarcia explains that PRH “teaches regional actorsto adapt and adjust and not to throw awaymaterials, houses, or most importantly, people.”For example, from the 1930s until the early 1970s,the Eldorado Ballroom was the center of one of themost remarkable jazz and blues musicalcommunities in the nation. Due to Project RowHouses’ restoration efforts, the Eldorado Ballroomre-opened its doors for a gala on May 17, 2003, thefirst major event held there in over 30 years.Project Row Houses has restored and revitalized 22row houses and has extended its reach further intothe neighborhood through the development of newprograms and construction of affordable housing.Through the Row House CDC, Project Row Houseswill continue neighborhood development activities.Developers are now attempting to move into theThird Ward, attracted by the neighborhood’sproximity to downtown. Project Row Houses andlocal civic leaders responded with town meetings anddistributed posters and flyers around theneighborhood with the poignant message of, “ThirdWard is Our Home and It Is Not For Sale.” Signsthat read the same message are posted in front yardsas a sign of resistance by homeowners. Theorganization’s approach is not necessarily to affectchange by ownership, but by informing andeducating residents about their rights as homeownersand responsibilities as community members.Project Row Houses is also turning to a visualizationtool that will allow it to track density, land, traffic,employment, income, and race data (among others)in the Third Ward. The organization is aiming tocase manage families and assist them in their selfimprovementefforts. The organization’s activities andgoals are not limited to preserving history, but arefocused on how to address poverty and develop acommunity with a responsible and equitable plan.Project Row Houses hosts a community fashion show in Houston’s ThirdWard. (Source: Project Row Houses).ResultsThe grantmakers surveyed for this profilerecognize that PRH’s vision, social programs, andreal estate development are all integrated and haveresulted in comprehensive local changes in and forHouston’s Third Ward. The Ford Foundation’sGarcia speaks of the project’s role in the community“as the curator of the neighborhood’s identity andsoul. [The project] does not subscribe to purehistorical preservation but rather it seeks to blendthe yesterday and today to formulate tomorrow.”Furthermore, The Meadows Foundation indicatesthat Project Row Houses’ residences for teenmothers have been producing meaningful results,with most teens successfully completing school,acquiring employment, and securing permanentLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 80

housing. Additionally, the renovation of a historicbuilding to house administrative and communitymeeting space was successfully completed. TheHouston Endowment’s Todd also adds that“Houston and its residents are at better places,”thanks to the existence of Project Row Houses.be more fully in place through expandedprogramming and the continued development of abroad and sustainable funding base. Project RowHouses boasts much media and public attention, astrong leadership at the staff and board level, with acharismatic founder as an enabling agent.LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSLessons LearnedAccording to the Ford Foundation, a key lessonwhen working with arts and historical preservationprojects is not to impose too strongly and too soon aparadigm that mandates change and movementbefore the organization is ready. Organizationssimilar to PRH have not been able to develop acommunity development corporation withoutabandoning their human and social justice mission.It is this human development focus that allowsprojects like PRH to go beyond developing aconventional neighborhood plan and address socialequity issues like poverty alleviation.The three foundations interviewed for this profileagree that the organization is maturing and anticipatethat the tremendous potential, partially realized, willMiguel GarciaActing Deputy Director,Community and ResourceDevelopment UnitFord Foundationm.garcia@fordfound.org(212) 573-4618Rick LoweFounding DirectorProject Row Housesrlowe@projectrowhouses.org(713) 526-7662Contact PeopleMichael PeranteauActing Executive DirectorProject Row Housesmichaelp@projectrowhouses.org(713) 526-7662Kathy SmithSenior Program OfficerThe Meadows Foundationksmith@mfi.org(214) 826-9431The project has transcended expectations andboundaries. The organization has grown beyond anAfrican American cultural preservation effort to abroad-based social justice organization. It hascarefully negotiated opportunities brought by mediaand has been successful in maintaining its core valuesand image. The project has shown that linking arts,community development, and social services can be apowerful beacon. It has proven that an organizationfocusing on teaching, as well as maintaining itselasticity and openness, can expand and growsuccessfully. The hope is that PRH will inspiresothers to learn from its experiences of connecting thearts with community development and socialservices, and move towards adjusting as well asincorporating elements of the PRH model into theirunique setting and approach.Emily ToddGrant OfficerHouston Endowment Inc.etodd@houstonendowment.org(713) 238-810081Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

II. E. COUNTERING THE PERFECTSTORM: ECONOMICSELF-DETERMINATIONFOR SAN DIEGO’SNEIGHBORHOODSFunders Highlighted:Jacobs Family FoundationPrice CharitiesThe San Diego FoundationSan Diego Neighborhood Funders“What happens to service workers when theiraccess to housing is compromised by thesuperheated housing market, or public transit thatdoes not connect them to employmentopportunities? How do you get a community toself-determine its future role in the economy? Thatis what philanthropy can assist in clarifying.”— Mariano Diaz, Senior Vice President ofCommunity Partnerships, The San DiegoFoundation“If the clear-cut objective of philanthropy is tohelp people to be independent, to have selfesteem—inshort, to recognize and accept thatthey are deserving of human dignity—there mustbe a radical change in methodology.”— Joe Jacobs, Jacobs Engineering Groupand Jacobs Family Foundation 40During the last several years, a broad spectrum ofcommunity building institutions in greater SanDiego have worked diligently to address issues relatedto inequities in the region’s rapid development.Connected to this action has been a growingawareness on the part of philanthropy of itsresponsibility to build the assets of low-wealthfamilies in the San Diego region. This profilehighlights three projects catalyzed by philanthropicactivity that epitomize the kind of grantmaking andinitiative work that is poised to advance regionalequity throughout the San Diego area. Each effortaddresses a different aspect of effective communitydevelopment, but shares a common theme:innovative philanthropic partnership withcommunity residents and institutions to advancemeaningful community change.Project ProfilesSeveral factors, including the continuing housingprice boom, intensifying gentrification, and serioustransportation access issues, converge to make thisone of the most challenging times in recentmemory for low-income families and communitiesof color in greater San Diego. “In some ways, whatyou have brewing in the region is the perfectstorm,” notes Mariano Diaz, senior vice presidentof community partnerships for The San DiegoFoundation. “What happens to service workerswhen their access to housing is compromised by thesuperheated housing market, or public transit thatdoes not connect them to employmentopportunities? How do you get a community toself-determine its future role in the economy? Thatis what philanthropy can assist in clarifying.”The San Diego Trolley runs through the city’s downtown corridor.(Source: Jon Jensen).Yet signs of progress are growing. For example, Cityof Villages, an innovative planning effort to balancenatural resources and neighborhood character, bringstogether the city of San Diego, communitydevelopment corporations, and other communitybasedorganizations. 41 Also, the regional planningagency, the San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG), has worked with local governments tobring $40 million in new transit investment into the40Publisher’s Note: The Funders’ Network mourns the passing of JoeJacobs, innovative philanthropist and founder of Jacobs EngineeringGroup and the Jacobs Family Foundation. More information on theJacobs Family Foundation can be found atwww.jacobsfamilyfoundation.org.41City of Villages is a strategy for updating the city of San Diego’sGeneral Plan. For more information, visitwww.sandiego.gov/cityofvillages/.LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 82

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSarea. Even more, San Diego Neighborhood Fundersis investigating new ways to partner with bankinginstitutions for investment in emerging markets. Atthe same time, the International CommunityFoundation (ICF) has been leading cutting-edgework to understand and address cross-border issuesof regional planning, sprawl, and environmentaljustice between the United States and Mexico. 42 Allof these efforts speak to increasing sophistication onthe part of community development corporations(CDCs), organizers, and other advocates inconfronting the challenging realities of uncheckedgrowth and inequitable development.On the other hand, it is not just institutions that arecoming forward to create change and advance equityissues. In the“Philosophically, philanthropyneeds to determine its rolein answering the question:how do you fundamentallyimprove poor communities?”— Mariano DiazBronze Triangleneighborhood, localactivist GayleWalker has spawneda grassrootsmovement ofAfrican Americanparents committedto child care policyissues. Roger Cazares, former CEO of the MAACProject, has brought issues as diverse as housing codeviolations, social services provision, and charterschools into an emerging policy agenda for inner-cityLatino families. 43 Other foundations are starting torecognize the value of resident engagement forneighborhood transformation.“What we are beginning to see is significant datadriven public policy discourse and advocacy,”declares The San Diego Foundation’s Diaz.“Philosophically, philanthropy needs to determine itsrole in answering the question: how do youfundamentally improve poor communities?”Understanding the San Diego RegionAs a regional community foundation, The San DiegoFoundation plays a crucial role in addressingemerging issues in key subject areas. Its initiative,Understanding the San Diego Region, embodies thesimple premise: We must understand. Then we canact. Through focused research, working gatherings,site visits and relationships with diverse leadershipthroughout the region, the Foundation keeps abreastof the critical needs of the county and developssolution-based initiatives.A critical component of Understanding is thecommunity impact made possible by the grantmakingof the Foundation’s Community PartnershipsWorking Groups comprised of community leaderswho commit to the considerable tasks associated withparticipation. Each year, guided by the CommunityPartnerships Committee (a standing committee of theboard), six Working Groups study the criticalcommunity need, develop grantmaking priorities, setfunding guidelines, review applications, conduct sitevisits, and make recommendations to the board ofgovernors in the award of the discretionary funds tononprofit organizations. More than $2 millionannually flows directly to community organizationsservicing San Diego through this process. TheFoundation’s staff members perform thecommunications responsibilities associated with thegrants and work with the donor base to direct theirinterest to emerging opportunities identified by theWorking Groups.Building an Urban VillageAnother successful community development initiativeis the City Heights Initiative supported by PriceCharities. Price has committed to allocate asubstantial portion of its charitable dollars to revitalizeCity Heights, a low-income community. Since 1994,Price Charities has worked with the community ofCity Heights, public, and nonprofit agencies to buildan “Urban Village” in the core of the community.Believing that a strong urban core of facilities andservices is essential to a healthy community, PriceCharities leveraged funds from public sources to buildthe Village which spans eight-square-blocks coveringalmost 30-acres and includes a state-of-the-art library,swimming pool, tennis courts, performance annex,community service center, Head Start facility, policesubstation, elementary school, and ContinuingEducation Center.The City Heights Initiative consists of three majorcomponents: Educational Programs, CommunityDevelopment Programs, and Housing andCommunity Development. Thus, in addition toproviding seed money for the Urban Villageinfrastructure, Price Charities and its partners have42A more detailed profile of the International Community Foundation’scross-border work begins on page 48 of this report.43The MAAC Project, formerly known as the Metropolitan AreaAdvisory Council, is a multi-purpose social service agency with a 39-yearhistory of serving various communities throughout San Diego county.For more information, visit www.maacproject.org.83Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

funded community programs, including a jointventure educational project with San Diego StateUniversity (SDSU), a community policing program,an innovative low-interest home loan program, and acommunity service program.The Village Townhomes, completed in September 2003, are located in theheart of the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego. The townhomesrepresent the first major housing development by Price Charities in CityHeights. (Source: Price Charities).Developing Market Creek PlazaThe third project highlighted in this profile is SanDiego’s Market Creek Plaza project, which hasthoughtfully and deliberately involved residents asleaders and partners in neighborhoodtransformation. Market Creek Plaza is the first phaseof a larger 45-acre mixed-use “Village” that will bedeveloped through a partnership with localneighborhood planning groups and in coordinationwith the city of San Diego’s new redevelopmentprogram, the City of Villages. Market Creek Plaza islocated in the area sometimes referred to as theDiamond neighborhoods: ten contiguousneighborhoods named for the city-designatedDiamond Business Improvement District. Some88,000 residents live in the Diamond and speakmore than 15 languages. While the majority of thepopulation is African American and Latino, theDiamond is home to many groups: among them,Laotian, Samoan, Filipino, and Somali. The area hasa median family income lower than the citywideaverage. Nearly a quarter of the population surviveson less than $15,000 annually.Like many urban neighborhoods and communities ofcolor, the Diamond has experienced decades of underinvestment.A 1998 market study showed the area wasunderserved by over 400,000 square feet of retail spaceand was experiencing over $60 million in retail“leakage.” Nonetheless, the community possessessignificant assets. Community institutions include theMalcolm X Library and Performing Arts Center,Tubman-Chavez Multicultural Center, andElementary Institute of Science. The Diamondfeatures a strong faith community, a strategic regionallocation, a high percentage of homeownership, and atradition of resident involvement in community issues.The first phase in the development of Market CreekPlaza extends over ten-acres on a property that oncehoused an aerospace factory. Both a commercial andcultural center, this phase of the developmentincludes a large grocery store, ethnic restaurants, afitness center, and an open-air amphitheater. Anoutdoor public art collection comprised of mosaics,totems, and murals in combination with thearchitecture of the surrounding buildings reflects theartistic traditions of the neighborhood’s diverseethnic and cultural mix. This resident-led work hasbeen supported by the Jacobs Family Foundation andSan Diego Neighborhood Funders (SDNF).These before and after images show the development of Market CreekPlaza, a 20-acre commercial and cultural center in the DiamondNeighborhoods of San Diego (Source: Jacobs Family Foundation).Funder InterestEstablished in 1975, The San Diego Foundation wasintended to be a charitable resource for the entireregion. Currently, the Foundation awards more than$47 million in competitive and donor-advised grantsannually. In response to rapid demographic andeconomic changes in the region, the Foundation hassought to align its priorities for grantmaking withorganizations making substantive contributions toimprove communities for the long-term. The boardof governors undertook an extensive communityLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 84

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSengagement process resulting in six priority areas seenas central to addressing a range of regional andcommunity development issues: arts and culture,civil society, environment, health and human services,science and technology, and organizational success.“The board of governors fundamentally understandslong-term community improvement,” theFoundation’s Diaz explains. He continues, “We needto understand two things. What are the regionalneeds? And how do you grow the assets of thisinstitution to support the groups that can addressthem?” In the last several years, the Foundation hasbeen able to attract significant resources from theFord Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundationfor its financial literacy work and The James IrvineFoundation in support of its arts and cultureinitiatives. To some, leveraging additional resourcesthat benefit local communities is the most importantcontribution a community foundation can make. TheFoundation strives to build a clear understanding ofthe region’s largest issues, using data and engaging thecommunity in collaborative planning and executionof grantmaking that produces viable solutions.Through its Understanding the San Diego Regioneffort, the long-term goal of the Foundation is todevelop publicly supported, results-oriented plans ofaction to improve the quality of life in San Diego.The San Diego Foundation’s goal is shared by manyof its partners, as seen with Price Charities’ CityHeights Initiative. In 1976, Sol Price and his son,Robert Price, founded the Price Company, whichintroduced Price Clubs, the forerunner of thewarehouse club industry. Today, the Prices spend themajority of their time on philanthropic matters,including the operation of foundation programspromoting the charity’s philosophy of “proactivegiving.” Price Charities consists of threephilanthropic entities inspired by San Diego’s PriceFamily, including an advised fund of The San DiegoFoundation. “The Price staff is outstanding in whatthey do. They made a choice to connect to the backoffice and staff expertise here at The San DiegoFoundation. It is a good match,” the Foundation’sDiaz notes in highlighting the increasing cooperationwithin philanthropy in addressing regional issues.Similarly, the Jacobs Center for NeighborhoodInnovation (JCNI) follows a neighborhoodstrengtheningmission, although more deeply focusedon broad-based resident participation processes. TheJacobs Family Foundation established JCNI in 1995in the belief that the key to making deep and lastingcommunity change is to partner with nonprofits andcommunity stakeholders. In 1998, JCNI made thedecision to locate and focus its work exclusively inthe Diamond neighborhoods to underscore itsoverriding principle behind Market Creek Plaza: inorder to sustain neighborhood revitalization,residents must own the planning, implementation,and,ultimately,the assetsresultingfromrevitalizationefforts.Through thebroad experience of ownership, residents can buildthe skills, networks, and leverage necessary to createand sustain broad community change that fulfills thecommunity’s desires for growth as a regionaleconomic center. In partnership with the localcommunity residents, this regional philanthropiccommunity is collaborating for local change in asensitive and strategic manner.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsAs a consequence of Understanding the San DiegoRegion, The San Diego Foundation is well-poised tothink about long-term issues with some confidence.Its median grant size has grown, as the Foundation isable to invest more deeply in institutionsinstrumental to community change. Volunteersidentify and highlight innovation from the field.Each Working Group contributes to a coordinatedstrategy through a committee that has representativesfrom all of the working groups. This capturesimportant synergies, such as when the EnvironmentalWorking Group lent its support to conclusions of theHousing Working Group, easing historical tensionsbetween the two arenas of allies. “There is muchmore going on in San Diego than people realize,”The San Diego Foundation’s Diaz adds. “Thisprocess allows us to identify people getting it done,addressing regional and neighborhood equity,and to invest in their commitment.”In the case of the City Heights Initiative, the bulk ofPrice Charities’ investment is focused on majordevelopment projects on the main thoroughfares.Price Charities is attempting to bring various fundingsources and agencies together to seed both large-scale85Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

housing developments and commercial projects. CityHeights Center, a six-story office building onUniversity Avenue, houses primarily nonprofit andpublic agencies providing services to the CityHeights community.The City Heights Center is envisioned as a one-stop service center for CityHeights residents. Accordingly, the Center is seeking to attract publicagencies and nonprofit organizations that will provide services to the CityHeights community. (Source: Price Charities).Price has supported several other development effortsin the neighborhood as well. The Model SchoolProject is collaboration between Price Charities,SDSU, the San Diego Unified School District, the SanDiego Housing Commission, and the city of SanDiego to build a “smarter” urban school throughcreative land use and by integrating housing into thedesign. Another example is the Metro Career Center, anew 86,000-square foot office building housing aregional job-training center operated by WorkforcePartnership. The office building houses the San DiegoWorkforce Partnership, bringing essential job trainingand job placement services to City Heights. TheMetro Career Center has almost 500 off-street parkingspaces, two “tot lot” playgrounds, and anticipates theThe Metro Center was completed in November 2004. The project consistsof 120 rental units (Metro Villas) developed by the City Heights CommunityDevelopment Corporation and an 82,000-square foot office building(Metro Career Center) developed by San Diego Revitalization Corporation.The office building houses the San Diego Workforce Partnership, whichbrings essential job training and job placement services to City Heights.(Source: Price Charities).addition of a day care center in 2005. Price Charitieshas also assisted the City Heights CommunityDevelopment Corporation with the acquisition ofland and entitlements to build 120 affordable housingunits on the remainder of the block.Additionally, the Community Service Programencourages the engagement of City Heights residentsby providing service opportunities in localnonprofits. Participants can reduce a portion of theirmortgage or rent payments by providing communityservice. The Home Loan Program, developed withthe San Diego Revitalization Corporation, provides$50,000 down-payment assistance to first-timehomebuyers who reside in City Heights and purchasewithin specified boundaries. Borrowers can pay offthe accumulated interest of the loan by performingcommunity service.Furthermore, the Price Community BuilderFellowship Program builds local capacity by annuallysponsoring six recent graduates from the SDSUSchool of Social Work to work as staff in sixnonprofit agencies in City Heights for 11 months.Both the students and the nonprofits arecompetitively selected based on an applicationprocess. Even more, Price funds the differencebetween what the nonprofit can afford and the costof the position. While in the program, theCommunity Builder also attends bimonthly trainingseminars and works collectively to address anidentified community issue facing City Heights. Inexchange for their service, the Community Buildersreceive scholarships to the Master’s in Social WorkProgram at SDSU from Price Charities.The community-building field is grappling across theboard with key questions on how to best strengthenand sustain comprehensive community initiatives.The Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovationdetermined that making resident ownership a realityrequires not only forging a new role for residents, butalso a fundamental reevaluation of the role ofphilanthropy in supporting such efforts. It alsodetermined that several values were core to achievingthe transformation it envisioned. The first of suchvalues is “community listening,” defined in the wordsof one JCNI staff member as “asking residents whatthey want before you know what you want.” Itmeans eliciting information about residentaspirations and works in the community, in order tobuild on those strengths. Underlying Market CreekLIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 86

LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSPlaza is an effort to empower residents as activepartners and decisionmakers in the project. Projectimplementation is characterized by a commitment tolearn by doing. It even means that at times theimplementation may take the project inunanticipated directions. Furthermore, JCNI plansto remain in the neighborhood until a sunset clauseputs the center out of business in about 20 years.Freedom from the pressures of conducting shorterterminitiatives has enabled JCNI to engage in apatient process of building trust and relationshipswith residents, while building lasting communityinstitutions. Finally, to support communitycontrolledasset development, JCNI is pioneeringnew ways of using the Jacobs Family Foundation’sown assets and borrowing capacity in support ofcommunity goals. New program-related investmentstrategies that fuse neighborhood loans, loanguarantees, and working lines of credit are oneoutcome of this effort.Community listening, in which resident responses are recorded and thencategorized, is key to the planning process of each team involved in theMarket Creek Plaza development. (Source: Jacobs Center forNeighborhood Innovation).ResultsAfter four to five years of pursuing the CommunityPartnership Working Group process, The San DiegoFoundation’s representatives are starting to seeprogress. The product from the Working Groups iscomprehensive. It is well-framed from residentinput. It uses data to identify emergingopportunities. Detailed grantmaking iscomplemented by meta-level activities that advancegoals like creating a new regional consensus forhousing. The flurry of activity stimulates a new kindof discourse at the board level that addresses regionalequity in a framing that members can embrace. Asone Working Group member puts it, “How do wetalk about moving to the future in the region whenour children cannot afford to live here?” More than250 volunteers are critical to making this processwork, assisted by nearly all of the Foundation’s 42staff. “How do you include those who never get toparticipate into planning for their communities?”asks Diaz. “There is your regional equity issue.”Donors increasingly look to create agencyendowments to sustain the more innovativeorganizations. “This is the long term goal,” notesDiaz. “We need to tap the passion of the donors.”The Foundation and community groups create atriad for addressing regional equity concerns, withthe donor being the primary investor who lives inthe area and values it as their home.Progress in the case of City Heights can also be seen.One hundred-sixteen housing units adjacent to theUrban Village were recently completed, as well as anoffice building specifically devoted to housingnonprofit organizations that provide communityservices. In 2001, Price Charities convened a series ofcommunity workshops to develop a new Vision Planfor upcoming development efforts. Recognizing thatrevitalizing City Heights requires addressing all thefactors that contribute to urban poverty, the Initiativeis committed to employing holistic strategies ofredevelopment. Moreover, the Initiative is committedto making the redevelopment effort communitydrivenand to improving City Heights for its currentresidents. “Price is tearing down all the barriers,” saysone observer. “University, teachers’ union, financialinstitutions—they bring them all to the table. If weare going to achieve neighborhood or regional equity,we will need that kind of bridging power.”Meanwhile, Market Creek Plaza has already resultedin important breakthroughs in minoritycontracting, local hiring, civic participation,community equity, local business interest andownership, and neighborhood reinvestment eventhough implementation is not yet complete. Sixtytwopercent of the construction contracts forMarket Creek Plaza were awarded to local minority-87Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

owned enterprises, totaling $8.5 million.Additionally, 91 percent of the initial employees atFood 4 Less (the anchor grocery store) were hiredfrom the community. All these jobs are unionizedand include living wages, health care, and pensionplans. The Jacobs Center for NeighborhoodImprovement indicates that 3,000 adults and morethan 1,000 youth to date have participated in landplanning, leasing, marketing, research, advocacy,and ownership design. Extensive cross-culturalteams have played an ongoing role in projectimplementation. Furthermore, a plan to enable upto 450 community residents to invest in the projectis currently before the California Department ofCorporations. As the nation’s first communitydevelopment initial public offering (IPO), ifapproved it will enable residents to “own a piece ofthe block” (as their campaign is called) through thepurchase of units (similar to stock) in Market CreekPartners, LLC. Residents have also designed alocally controlled foundation, which is alreadychartered and will soon apply for its 501(c)(3)status. As an owner, this community foundationwill receive portion of the profits from thedevelopment of Market Creek Plaza for grantingback into the neighborhood.the projects’ complexities and tough decisions inorder to forge ownership of the implementation andthe results. Community ownership of change alsorequires anticipating and dealing effectively withequity issues. Funders and organizers also see manyopportunities from partnering with residents indevelopment activity. These partnerships expandresidents’ conception of their own capacities and spurthem to undertake further organizing, policyadvocacy, and community change work. Theexperiences of the projects and their funders willcontinue to provide an important perspective fromthe field regarding strategies and approaches forsustainable neighborhood change.Contact PeopleMariano DiazSenior Vice President, Community PartnershipsThe San Diego Foundationmariano@sdfoundation.org(619) 235-2300Matthew HerveyCommunity Development DirectorPrice Charitiesmhervey@pricecharities.com(619) 795-2004Jennifer VanicaPresident and CEOJacobs Family Foundation & Jacobs Center forNeighborhood Innovationjvanica@jacobscenter.org(619) 527-6161LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS/STRONG REGIONSArtists from the Diamond Neighborhoods community, including VictorOchoa, Jose Morales, Jean Cornwell, and Mario Torero, participated on theArt & Design Team to design the look and feel of Market Creek Plaza.(Source: Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation).Lessons LearnedOrganizations are learning valuable lessons from theirregional investments in the San Diego area. First andforemost, involving residents as ongoing partnersrequires a commitment to pursuing multipleengagement approaches, continuing outreach, andasking questions rather than providing answers. It isalso clear that it is necessary to engage residents inPart III: Section 2: Making All Neighborhoods Stable, Healthy, and Livable as Building Blocks for a Strong Region 88

89Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

LOAN GUARANTEESSection 3:Connecting to Regional Opportunity90

LOAN GUARANTEES91Section Cover Photo: A Saturday morning at the Community Farm Alliance’s member-initiated Portland Farmer’s Market in Louisville, Ky.(Source: Community Farm Alliance).

III. A. MAKING HOUSING ANOPPORTUNITY FOR LOCALAND REGIONAL EQUITY:THE BAY AREA INCLUSIONARYHOUSING INITIATIVEFunders Highlighted:S.H. Cowell FoundationFannie Mae FoundationEvelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. FundMarin Community FoundationPeninsula Community FoundationThe San Francisco FoundationCharles and Helen Schwab Foundation“This collaborative project provides anopportunity for foundations, nonprofits, andgovernment to work in partnership to improveland use planning throughout the Bay Area.”— Cassandra Benjamin, Charles and HelenSchwab Foundation“This is a multi-year advocacy and organizingprogram designed to increase the number ofjurisdictions around the region with stronginclusionary housing programs.”— Sterling Speirn, Peninsula CommunityFoundationThrough a combination of training, technical assistance,grassroots organizing, and legal assistance, foundationsand community organizations are collaborating forgreater affordable housing through increased inclusionaryzoning programs. The profile showcases regional- andcommunity-level strategies designed to build andstrengthen alliances among a wide range of interests andcombined, direct efforts towards both housingdevelopment and sustained community-based activities.Project ProfileAs communities grapple with the need to provideaffordable housing for low- and moderate-incomehouseholds, the state of California now has the mostinclusionary zoning (IZ) programs of any state. Some116 inclusionary housing programs—operating in morethan 20 percent of the state’s local jurisdictions—haveadded more than 34,000 affordable homes. Despite thismeasurable progress, the San Francisco Bay Area, one ofthe country’s most costly housing markets, still has anacute need for more housing for low- and moderateincomefamilies. In response to this unmet need, aninnovative campaign known as the Bay AreaInclusionary Housing Initiative was launched in June2004 by seven foundations. 44 The campaign seeks theadoption of inclusionary housing guidelines by eachmunicipality throughout the region. The effort iscurrently envisioned to last for two years, but mayextend beyond that time period.Just as the Bay Area’s foundation community iscollaborating, so are its community organizations. Theinitiative’s parallel community partners include thefollowing organizations: Non-Profit HousingAssociation of Northern California, the Institute forLocal Self-Government, Greenbelt Alliance, CaliforniaAffordable Housing Law project, Nine-CountyHousing Advocacy Network, and Western Center onLaw and Poverty. As a team, these six organizations areworking to double the rate of inclusionary housingproduction in the first phase of the initiative. Thespecific objectives guiding the effort are to:• Educate local government staff and electedofficials;• Organize local support for new or improvedpolicies in targeted jurisdictions;• Provide technical assistance to local governments,advocates, and philanthropic communities;• Publicize the need for strong inclusionaryhousing programs (20 percent goal) viaphilanthropic organizations and the media;• Create an inclusionary housing tool kit andupdate the existing Community Acceptance toolkit; and• Strengthen the network of housing organizations,environmental groups, social justice, and businessorganizations engaged in affordable housingadvocacy.Commenting on the urgency of the mission, DianneSpaulding, executive director of the Non-ProfitHousing Association of Northern California (NPH),notes: “I can’t remember a time in the history of44The seven Bay Area Inclusionary Housing Initiative FoundationPartners are: S.H. Cowell Foundation, Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr.Fund, Fannie Mae Foundation, Marin Community Foundation,Peninsula Community Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, andCharles and Helen Schwab Foundation.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 92

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYCalifornia when we’ve had an opportunity of thisscale. If the 80 percent of jurisdictions without aninclusionary policy adopted even a moderateinclusionary requirement, California couldpotentially increase its production of affordablehousing by as much as 35 to 50 percent. That meanshomes for Bay Area working families, our firefightersand nurses, and seniors on fixed incomes.”Doug Shoemaker, NPH’s deputy director agrees,adding, “Many social equity groups struggle to find aregional campaign hook that works around land useand affordable housing because these decisions arealmost always made“Many social equity groupsstruggle to find a regionalcampaign hook that worksaround land use andaffordable housing becausethese decisions are almostalways made at the locallevel. The key for policygroups is to recognize thatthese types of advocacynetworks can’t start and endwith one campaign. Theyneed to be thought of ascentral to the long-terminfrastructure of theaffordable housing andsocial justice movement.”— Doug Shoemakerat the local level.The key for policygroups is torecognize that thesetypes of advocacynetworks can’t startand end with onecampaign. Theyneed to be thoughtof as central to thelong-terminfrastructure of theaffordable housingand social justicemovement.”At the regional level,the Bay AreaInclusionaryHousing Initiativewill focus onproviding training,peer support, policy analysis, and communications tolocal governmental officials and communityadvocates. Efforts on the local level will focus ongrassroots organizing, technical assistance, andadvocacy targeted to key jurisdictions.Funder InterestAt a fall 2003 regional meeting of Bay Area fundersinterested in housing, participants voiced a sharedconcern to examine smarter growth strategies andhousing more closely. According to CassandraBenjamin, senior program officer with the Charlesand Helen Schwab Foundation, a number of fundersreadily agreed that policy work and IZ were projectprospects. Rather than follow the traditional approachin which funders identify priority areas, set criteria,and then review competitive proposals, this Initiativelaunched a collaborative process that engaged bothfunders and community groups in its conception.“We can see a real benefit to this approach,”observes Benjamin. “Our collaborative process andclear objectives have established a model for regionalcollaboration on a project with tangible goals.Hopefully, this is only the first project and otherswill follow.”For the Fannie Mae Foundation, the nation’s largestfoundation dedicated to affordable housing, therewas an early recognition of the need to connectsmarter growth strategies and housing more closely.“We understood concentrated support,” observesVera de Vera, director of Fannie Mae Foundation’sWestern Regional Office. “The question was what isthe best way we could come together to make afunding impact. The key was to work withcommunity groups to refine issues and concerns.When we reconvened in the spring of 2004, weidentified IZ. But we were also offered a plan thatwas outcome-driven.”The collaborative conceptualization among fundersand community organizations was also supportedby research and statistics from NPH and the Leagueof California Cities. According to Schwab’sBenjamin, “The really bad economic times made iteasier for government to buy-in to the project. Butthe initial success was to take advantage ofrelationships. This project happened more as apartnership than as something hierarchical.”Speaking for the Peninsula CommunityFoundation, its president, Sterling Speirn, explains,“Our foundations chose to support inclusionaryhousing because it is an affordable housing strategywith demonstrated success in providing muchneeded low- and moderate-income housing.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsAccording to NPH’s Shoemaker, “California citiesand counties are at the forefront of an innovativeaffordable housing practice that is benefitingthousands of households. Compelling trends revealthat over the next few years, the number ofCalifornia communities adopting inclusionaryzoning practices for affordable housing is likely tocontinue at a rapid pace.”93Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

A new report from the National HousingConference entitled, Inclusionary Zoning: TheCalifornia Experience, bolsters Shoemaker’s views.From 1994 to 2003, there was a 67 percentincrease in communities that adopted inclusionaryzoning policies, from 64 to 107 communities. Inthe Bay Area, 60 of the area’s 109 jurisdictionscurrently have an existing IZ policy. Shoemakeradds, “Ultimately focusing on the possibility forand benefits of inclusionary housing is morecritical than ever since the funding of otheraffordable housing programs is being threatened bya tightening federal budget. In particular, withinthe FY 2005 budget proposal, funding for Section8 housing vouchers is much lower than what isneeded to fund all contract renewals under currentprogram rules. The budget proposal also eliminatesthe successful HOPE VI program, which helps toreplace distressed public housing with mixedincome communities.”A former East Palo Alto City Council Member,Duane Bay, also notes the current fiscal climate.“Inclusionary zoning is a commonsense answer tocreating housing that actually meets certain needs ofthe community,” says Bay. “One of its primaryadvantages is that it does not require a largeinvestment—or in some instances, any financialinvestment at all—by local governments. Anotheradvantage is that it helps to integrate those withdifferent ethnic and financial backgrounds. Thecommunities themselves benefit from this integrationbecause of the need for both a low- and moderateincomeworkforce.”cities adopt or revise IZ programs, working with ourcampaign partners and governmental officials, wecan take thoseexamples and sharewith communitiesacross the country.”Lessons LearnedFrom the FannieMae Foundation’sperspective, one ofthe greatest lessonswas learning to be“not tooprescriptive,”“If cities adopt or revise IZprograms, working with ourcampaign partners andgovernmental officials, wecan take those examplesand share with communitiesacross the country.”— Vera de Veraaccording to de Vera. “It was most beneficial to firstlisten to our community partners and then ask themto prioritize their concerns. Also, some fundersthought the campaign was too much advocacy. Animprovement would be to specifically define ‘policywork’ as awareness and education. Everyone wantedpolicymakers to be better educated on these issues.”From the community partner perspective,recognizing the independent nature of its membersalso meant a range of prior interests. And thatrecognition translated into policy negotiations. “Ourgoal,” said Shoemaker, “was getting inclusionaryhousing outcomes and base-building outcomes. Thatkind of regionalism worked—speaking and learningfrom one another. As individual groups we had atremendous capacity.”ResultsFor the Schwab Foundation, this collaborativeapproach had to first recognize that each funderbrought to the discussion its own set of limitations.“We had silo targets,” expresses Benjamin. “Some ofus had silos of target populations or geography. Butour goal of broad impact was respectful of eachfunder. And we knew we were hoping to leverageorganizational names and status to elevate policyreform.” Benjamin adds, “If more citizens adoptreforms, IZ will be seen as the norm. It won’t be apanacea; but it will result in more integratedopportunities for low- and moderate-incomehouseholds.” The Fannie Mae Foundation furtherexpands that same view with de Vera stating that, “IfREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 94

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYContact PeopleCassandra BenjaminSenior Program OfficerCharles and Helen Schwab Foundationcbenjamin@schwabfoundation.org(650) 655-2211Vera de VeraDirector, Western Regional OfficeFannie Mae Foundationvdevera@fanniemaefoundation.org(626) 396-5370Radhika K. FoxSenior Program AssociatePolicyLinkradhika@policylink.org(510) 663-4324Doug ShoemakerDeputy DirectorNon-Profit Housing Association of NorthernCalifornia (NPH)doug@nonprofithousing.org(415) 989-8160Dianne SpauldingExecutive DirectorNon-Profit Housing Association of NorthernCalifornia (NPH)dianne@nonprofithousing.org(415) 989-8160III. B. ENSURING A FAIR FARE:TRANSIT ADVOCACY INDIVERSE REGIONSFunders Highlighted:Catholic Campaign for Human DevelopmentAlfred P. Sloan Foundation“People are generally understanding of the needfor increased revenues. They are not looking for afree ride—just a fair one.”— Beat the Fare Increase Campaign, BostonFaced with budget shortfalls, transit agencies acrossthe nation have raised fares, reduced the frequency ofservice, eliminated routes, delayed capital projects,and implemented hiring freezes and staff reductions. 45The transit agencies of New York City, Boston, andBaltimore have pursued some of these options. Thesemeasures have disparate, negative impacts on transitdependentriders, particularly low-income andminority communities. This profile looks at fundersand community organizations who have addressedthis increasingly common regional transit equity issuein New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland.Project ProfileNew York CityThe Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), anagency of the state of New York, is the parentorganization of New York City Transit. MTA NewYork City Transit is the largest agency in the MTAregional transportation network, which also includesMTA Staten Island Railway (part of NYC Transit’sDepartment of Subways), MTA Long Island RailRoad, MTA Long Island Bus, MTA Metro-NorthRailroad, MTA Bridges and Tunnels, and MTACapital Construction. In 2002, the MTA proposedraising its base fare from $1.50 to $2.00, raising theprice of its “unlimited ride” passes, and reducingservices. The MTA proposed this increase, its firstsince 1995, because of a claimed $2 billion operatingdeficit. This fare increase was opposed by theStraphangers Campaign.45A recent annual survey by the American Public TransportationAssociation showed that 90 percent of large transit agencies hadimplemented fare increases and 35 percent of all agencies were reducingfrequency of service.95Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

The Straphangers Campaign was founded in 1979 bythe New York Public Interest Research Group(NYPIRG), which serves as an advocate for the almostseven million daily users of the New York City transitsystem (buses, subways). Previous Straphanger effortsresulted in free subway-bus transfers and the abovementioned“unlimited ride” passes. Importantly, theStraphangers had a strong record of analyzing MTAdata and using that data to produce numerous reportson the quality of the New York City transit system.Straphangers’ personnel (some of whom have workedfor the group for over 20 years) have significantexperience reviewing MTA budgets, but could notidentify exactly where the claimed shortfall originated.Doubting the accuracy of the MTA’s projections, inlate 2002, the Straphangers wrote the Comptroller forthe state of New York and the Comptroller for NewYork City to express the group’s concerns and torequest that each office audit the MTA.In April 2003, the audits were released, finding thatthe MTA exaggerated its 2003 operating deficit byshifting $500 million in revenue forward to 2004. Inresponse, the Straphangers and other groups filed suitagainst the MTA. After an initial victory at the NewYork State Supreme Court, the Straphangers groupwas defeated in two subsequent appeals—the lattertaking place in August 2003. This loss, combinedwith the MTA’s May 2003 approval of the proposedfare increase, effectively ended the Straphangers’effort to block the 2003 fare increase. Still, theStraphangers achieved a number of successes, mostlyby way of enhancing access to the MTA’s budgetingprocess. Whereas the MTA ordinarily released anannual budget in November and voted on it inDecember, budgets are now more regularly releasedand five-year projections are now available.This new, greater transparency proved important as itenabled the Straphangers to anticipate and respond toanother proposed fare increase in mid-2004. Then,the MTA proposed to raise fares on passes andinitially proposed some significant service reductions.Since that proposal, Straphangers’ efforts have focusedon stopping the increase, as well as turning attentionto state level decisions which impact transit funding.BostonMeanwhile, in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA) operates thecountry’s oldest subway system and servesapproximately 600,000 customers with 1.2 milliontrips a day. In 2004, the MBTA proposed to increasebus fares from $0.75 to $1.00 and to increase subwayfares from $1.00 to $1.25. This followed a similarincrease in 2001-2002. Before 2001-2002, theMBTA had not increased fares since 1990-1991.In response, a campaign known as Beat the FareIncrease was formed by two Boston-area groups: theTransit Riders Union (TRU) and On the Move:Greater Boston Transportation Justice Coalition(Coalition). A strategy committee—composed ofAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE, afounding memberof the Coalition),Bowdoin StreetHealth Center,Conservation LawFoundation,Egleston SquareNeighborhoodAssociation, FourCorners ActionCoalition,MassachusettsPublic InterestResearch Group(MASSPIRG), Sierra Club, TRU, and the“As fares increase, ridershipdecreases because morepeople with cars will chooseto drive … [leaving] theremaining transit riders toshoulder the cost of a moreexpensive system.”— Beat the Fare IncreaseWashington Street Corridor Coalition—reached outto the community and planned and implemented thecampaign. The campaign divided its goals into fourareas: Public Review, Clean Air, Revenue, andStopping the Fare Increase.Beat the Fare Increase literature noted that, “As faresincrease, ridership decreases because more peoplewith cars will choose to drive … [leaving] theremaining transit riders to shoulder the cost of amore expensive system.” In effect, it argued, “Thisfare increase represents another tax on workingpeople, and an unfair tax,” because the fare increasegreatly exceeded broader increases in the cost ofliving and gasoline (approximately 40 percent since1990). This led the campaign to charge anotherinequity, a “continued policy of subsidizing drivers ata much higher rate than public transit riders.”The Beat the Fare Increase campaign demanded:• The MBTA to take all steps to increase non-farerevenues before raising fares;• An Automated Fare Collection system that willprovide accurate ridership counts, a basis forsound accounting, fiscal planning, and systemREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 96

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYexpansion/service improvements, and a basis fordeveloping a fair fare policy; and• A fair fare policy that considers, among otherfactors, distance traveled, peak and off-peak use,and special discounts for seniors, students andthe disabled (that should maintain and improvethe existing bus-to-bus transfer policy andinclude free subway-to-bus and reduced-cost busto-subwaytransfers and expanded hours and useof student passes for public school students).Campaign activities focused on accessing theinformation that the MBTA had used to support itsfare increase decision through a public recordsrequest. Its main community organizing and advocacyactivities were petitions, a position paper, andparticipating in MBTA board hearings and otherpublic hearing opportunities. Combined, these effortsled the campaign into direct negotiations with theMBTA’s general manager, its chief financial officer,and the state Secretary of Transportation (who alsoserved as chair of the MBTA’s board of directors).In the end, the campaign achieved many of its goals,including:• A reduction in the proposed increase in bus fares(the rate was changed from $0.75 to $0.90, not$1.00 as originally proposed);• The creation of a Rider Oversight Committee(ROC) that will meet monthly with MBTA staffand quarterly with the state Secretary ofTransportation, as well as the MBTA’s generalmanager and its chief financial officer;• The inclusion of fare policy, fare structure, serviceimprovements, quality standards, and alternativefunding sources in the ROC’s mandate;• A fare freeze until at least January 2006;• The consultation and creation of a new farepolicy before Automated Fare Collection isimplemented;• A reduced price for bus-subway and subway-bustransfers with the Automated Fare Collectionimplementation; and• A better public process for future fare increases.BaltimoreSimilar to New York and Boston, Baltimore’s transitriders dealt with a transit agency’s proposed fareincreases. “Farebox Recovery,” refers to the percentageof a transit agency’s expenses generated by fares. PerMaryland law, the Maryland Transit Authority couldrecover 40 percent of its expenses from fares. But thispercentage was to sunset in 2004, increasing to a 50percent farebox recovery rate, forcing the MarylandTransit Agency to raise its fares.Based on its equity mission and extensive experience,the Citizens Planning and Housing Association(CPHA) spearheaded the community response. Forover 60 years, CPHA has dedicated itself to the beliefthat the united action of informed citizens is essentialto improve the quality of life for the people of theBaltimore region. In the past several years, more andmore informed citizens have made it clear that thequality of life must be addressed on both aneighborhood and a regional scale.The organization envisions a well-planned Baltimoreregion with equity among jurisdictions, wherecitizens respect diversity and have access toresponsive government and quality housing invibrant neighborhoods. Its vision is to mobilizeinformed citizen action by training and organizingcitizens and neighborhood leaders to be advocates onissues consistent with the vision, advocating forpolicies and actions that prevent sprawl and improvethe livability of existing neighborhoods, andconvening partners to address policy and planningissues of common interest to Baltimore City and itssurrounding counties.Due to the 2003 fare increase, the CPHA formed theMaryland Transit Coalition. The Coalition is a mixof transportation advocates like the ActionCommittee for Transit and the Transit Riders League;environmental groups such as the Chesapeake BayFoundation; social justice groups such as MarylandPublic Interest Research Group (MaryPIRG); andsmart growth advocates represented by theWashington Regional Network for LivableCommunities and Solutions Not Sprawl, amongothers. The Coalition worked to advance statelegislation—Senate Bill 282 and House Bill 282—tofreeze farebox recovery at 40 percent until 2008.With the Transit Riders League in the lead, Coalitionmembers wrote letters, sent e-mail, called theirrepresentatives, and testified at hearings, whichresulted in the near-unanimous approval of each Bill.On May 26, 2004, Maryland Governor Robert L.Erlich, Jr., signed the legislation, which extended the40 percent farebox recovery requirement forBaltimore-area transit riders until 2008.97Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Funder InterestThe Straphangers Campaign receives funding from avariety of sources (local foundations, dues,fundraisers), but their largest source of fundingcomes from the Alfred E. Sloan Foundation.According to the Sloan Foundation’s programdirector, Ted Greenwood, the Foundation wasinterested in the Straphangers’ focus on theperformance of the New York City Transit System.The Straphangers had demonstrated an ability toobtain, analyze, and review the data produced by theMTA, using this data to produce reports on theperformance of different subway lines. Also, theStraphangers would couple MTA data with their owndata collection efforts (e.g., rider surveys), andproduce yearly reports which allowed for informedadvocacy concerning the transit system and itsresponsiveness to community needs.The Sloan Foundation made its initial grant to theStraphangers in 1996. At that time, the Straphangerswere the only kind of transit advocacy group doingthis kind of analytical work on a meaningful scale. TheStraphangers organization was well-established andwas ready to take its work to a more comprehensivelevel. The Sloan Foundation was impressed with staffskills, the volunteers’ commitment, the organizationaltrack record, and its future agenda. These future plansled the Foundation to conclude that the Straphangerscould be an exemplar organization.Supporting the Transit Riders Union in Boston andthe Transit Riders League in Baltimore is theCatholic Campaign for Human Development(CCHD), among other funding sources. Accordingto Andy Slettebak, Baltimore field representative, andRandy Keesler, Boston field representative, CCHD’sinterest in these efforts is based upon supporting anyactivity that brings low-income, disempoweredpeople together where they may establishrelationships with each other and together find theirown voice to participate in decisionmaking thataffects their daily lives.The Catholic Campaign for Human Development’sgrant decisions are made at the local diocese levelwhere diocese members are regularly involved inissues affecting low-income people and are familiarwith groups which are consistently doing meaningfulwork. For the Baltimore diocese, there existed a goodfit between the Transit Riders League and theCommunity Organizing Grant program criteria,which was further reinforced by the well-establishedreputation of the Citizens Planning and HousingAssociation. In Boston, the Beat the Fare Increasecampaign application met CCHD’s grant criteria andfurthermore, CCHD was attracted to the TransitRiders Union’s participation in the broader On theMove Coalition.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsA comprehensive transit system is a basic part ofregionalism—whether it uses buses, streetcars,subways, light rail, shuttles, or a combination ofsome or all of thesemodes. Increasingthe system’s reach,accessibility, andridership supportsregional goals likereducingautomobileimpacts, combatingsprawl, andestablishingcompact,pedestrian/transitorienteddevelopments.These goals dependon successfullyencouragingautomobile driversto make a differenttransportationA comprehensive transitsystem is a basic part ofregionalism—whether it usesbuses, streetcars, subways,light rail, shuttles, or acombination of some or allof these modes. Increasingthe system’s reach,accessibility, and ridershipsupports regional goalslike reducing automobileimpacts, combating sprawl,and establishing compact,pedestrian/transit-orienteddevelopments.choice: to get out of their cars and trucks fromtime-to-time and use transit for theirtransportation needs.Equity issues can arise when low-incomecommunities and people of color in urban areasreceive less than their fair share of a regional transitsystem’s benefits and receive a greater share of aregional transit system’s negative impacts. Theseinequities take many forms, such as:• Disproportionate investments—Nearly allregions spend comparatively more money onhighways than transit. Plus, they typically spendmore transit money to construct light rail lines,new stations, and bus shelters in suburban areasthan they do on buses and shelters in transitdependentinner-city communities. Further, theseinner-city riders contribute more revenue to theREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 98

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYsystem than suburban riders, in effect subsidizingsuburban transit;• Regressive pricing structures—Many transitagencies offer discounts for bulk purchases in theform of cost savings for customers that buymonthly or annual passes or books that containmultiple tickets. But these discounts areinequitable because they favor those who canafford the more expensive, one-time expenditure,and result in greater out-of-pocket transit costsfor low-income people;• Decisionmaking—Often, low-income and peopleof color in urban communities do not haveconsistent and meaningful opportunities toinfluence a region’s transit decisions; and• Fare increases—Many city residents do not own acar, some of out of choice, others because theycannot afford car ownership’s many expenses(purchase, maintenance, repair, insurance, gas,and parking). For these individuals, public transitis an integral part of daily life and for low-incometransit riders, form a significant part of theirmonthly budget.A focus on equity in the region was not a drivingforce for the grant decision or an impact concern forthe coalitions’ funders in any of the abovementionedcities. Yet most major metropolitanurban public transit systems connect communitiessignificantly beyond the urban center. If atransportation situation impacts the accessibility oflow-income transit riders, it can catapult the localequity issue into a regional struggle.ResultsAccording to Greenwood, the Sloan Foundationhopes that the Straphangers work will be replicatedin other places. This goal has already been met inseveral other municipalities, some where theFoundation specifically encouraged its replicationthrough grantmaking (e.g., Chicago, Philadelphia),and some where groups saw a potential local valuein Straphangers’ work (e.g., Los Angeles, Toronto).The Foundation also anticipates that theStraphangers will be able to build on its existingtrack record and by so doing have a clear impact onthe quality of the New York City Transit System.Finally, the Foundation believes that Straphangersshould institutionalize their work so that theorganization can sustain its efforts absent theFoundation’s support.The CCHD’s respective grants to the Boston andBaltimore coalitions are in their first year of a threeyeargrant cycle, so results are fairly preliminary. Eachgroup has seen initial successes in empowering transitriders to engage their region’s transit policymakersand build a more inclusive decisionmaking structure.Additionally, each coalition has developed and begunto advance specific policy proposals and has hadsuccess in minimizing the impact or extent of aproposed fair increase.Lessons LearnedAccording to the Sloan Foundation, the capacity toanalyze data and use it to inform policy andadvocacy is a key to success for transportationadvocates. But these skills are not yet widespread.Additionally, data collecting and analysis from bothtransit agencies andtransit riders is notwidely available.Demonstrating If a transportation situationmeasurable results,impacts the accessibility ofevaluating policylow-income transit riders, itimpacts,formulating can catapult the local equityalternativeissue into a regional struggle.methodologies andoptions, andsurveyingstakeholders gives advocates the tools to effectivelyparticipate in policymaking and articulate theirconstituents’ needs and demands.Field representatives from CCHD state that their mostimportant lesson is that community organizing has apersistent, proven ability to influence public policydecisions. It is the relationship-building aspect amongdifferent community organizations and constituentsthat demonstrates the potential of communityorganizing. Currently, CCHD is revising its grantapplication format and its grant reporting requirementsin order to collect more information from applicants orgrantees so as to better evaluate the impact of theirfunding and monitor the field, ultimately providing amethod to share the progress and growth of theirgrantees through the funding cycles.Though at different stages of their growth and withdifferent funders, all three community-based coalitionspursued varied strategies in order to develop theiradvocacy capacity, eliminate transit access barriers, andensure that transit policy decisions do not perpetuate99Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

or increase poverty. Whether directly pursued or as anadditional unintended benefit, the coalitions are todayexamples of regional transit equity initiatives.Contact PeopleSusan AcetiTransportation DirectorCitizens Planning and Housing Associationsusana@cphabaltimore.org(410) 539-1369 ext. 225Ted GreenwoodProgram DirectorAlfred P. Sloan Foundationgreenwood@sloan.org(212) 649-1649Randy KeeslerField RepresentativeCatholic Campaign for Human Development(CCHD)rkeesler@usccb.org(202) 541-3369Neysa PrangerCampaign CoordinatorThe Straphangers Campaignnpranger@nypirg.org(202) 349-6460Andy SlettebakField RepresentativeCatholic Campaign for Human Development(CCHD)aslettebak@usccb.org(202) 541-3363Jodi Sugerman BrozanProgram DirectorAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE)jodi@ace-ej.org(617) 442-3343III. C. CONNECTING TRANSIT,DEVELOPMENT, ANDCOMMUNITY: THE EASTHARLEM COMMUNITY LINKINITIATIVE AND THEFRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGEFunders Highlighted:Ford FoundationLocal Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)“Infrastructure investments in low-incomecommunities can connect the region to the block.”— Nicolas Ronderos, Regional PlanAssociationThe Regional Plan Association’s East HarlemCommunity Link Initiative in New York City focuseson the East Harlem community to design andimplement a strategy for maximizing the benefits of aproposed Second Avenue Subway for existingresidents and businesses. The Unity Council’sFruitvale Transit Village is a transit-oriented, mixedusedevelopment effort located in the heart ofOakland, Calif.’s, Fruitvale neighborhood at the BayArea Rapid Transit Station. This profile highlightsfunder investments in two notable transit-orienteddevelopment (TOD) projects that concern their owndiverse communities facing an opportunity forsignificant public and private investment,establishing community-based decisionmakingprocesses regarding those investments, anddeveloping specific efforts to anticipate and avoidpotential displacements.Project ProfileTransit-oriented development (TOD) is a criticalpart of the broader regional development paradigm.Characterized by higher-density, mixed-use,pedestrian-friendly projects, TOD can supportregional environmental and economic objectives.TriMet, the regional transit agency in Portland, Ore.,defines TOD as “multiple-unit housing and mixeduseprojects that support the public investment in …transit service because they preserve, enhance, orcontribute to creating active pedestrian districtsREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 100

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYwithin walking distance of transit. TOD projectsincrease the density of people near transit, includingresidents, employees, visitors, and customers, in abuilt environment that is pedestrian-friendly andconnected to transit. Mixed-use buildings, projects,or areas with a mix of uses are active from early in themorning to late in the evening, making theenvironment safer for pedestrians and providing peakand off-peak customers for transit service. A TODmay be a single building, a group of buildings, or amultiple block district.”Transit-oriented development is not exceptional,either today or in the past. In a certain era, it was acommon development pattern, as neighborhoodsclustered around subway stations, streetcar lines, andthe like. After a period of decline which coincidedwith the growth in auto use and suburban sprawl,TOD experienced a 1990s revival in response toadvocacy for smarter growth policies, expandedtransit systems, and the drive for central cityrevitalization. What remains exceptional are TODprojects that meaningfully anticipate their potentialgentrifying impacts and, therefore, develop antidisplacementmechanisms in an inclusive andcommunity-based process.Historically, new developments (transit-oriented orotherwise)—particularly subsidized developmentsin inner-city communities—spur a familiar patternof displacement and gentrification. Publicinvestment canmotivate a greaterWhat remains exceptional investment fromare TOD projects that the private sectormeaningfully anticipate their and attract newpotential gentrifying impactsresidents to apreviouslyand, therefore, develop antidisplacementmechanisms neighborhood. Thisdisinvestedin an inclusive and increasedcommunity-based process. desirability feeds aquick run-up inland values andrelated costs (e.g., rents, property taxes). Singlefamilyrentals are sold and converted tohomeownership and substandard properties arerazed or improved so as to meet the demands of thenew, higher-income residents. Existing residents aresubjected to multiple displacing pressures andexisting businesses/employers face rising operatingexpenses and the loss of their customer base.Affordable rental property, residential orcommercial, becomes harder to find. To somedegree, displacement and gentrification result fromexclusive decisionmaking. It is more likely and moreextensive where potentially affected communityresidents, particularly those most at risk ofdisplacement (low-income people, people of color,the elderly, the disabled, and small businesses) lackmeaningful opportunities to access and influencedevelopment decisions. In their absence, suchdecisionmaking is less likely to prioritize an antidisplacementagenda.The East Harlem Community Link InitiativeIt is against this backdrop that the Regional PlanAssociation (RPA), an independent, not-for-profitregional planning organization, strives to improve thequality of life and economic competitiveness in the31-county New York-New Jersey-ConnecticutRegion through research, planning, and advocacy.Released in 1996, RPA’s Third Regional Plan, “ARegion at Risk,” called for building a seamless 21 stcentury mass transit system, creating a three millionacreGreensward network of protected naturalresource systems, maintaining half of the region’semployment in urban centers, and assisting minorityand immigrant communities to fully participate inthe economic mainstream.A key recommendation of RPA’s plan was the revivalof the long-dormant Second Avenue Subway projectin the East Harlem neighborhood of New York City.Proposals to build a north-south subway line alongSecond Avenue date back to 1929, with several plansand false starts in the following decades. Fastforward to 1995, the Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (MTA) began the Manhattan East SideAlternatives (MESA) Study. The MESA study teamcompiled a list of more than 20 alternatives toresolve existing and future transportation issuesidentified within the study area, but proposed ashortened version that would fail to connect manylow-income communities to job opportunities indowntown Manhattan. The Regional PlanAssociation and its allies commenced acomprehensive, successful campaign involvingadvertising and local elected officials, and the MTAboard eventually allocated $1.05 billion in its 2000-2004 Capital Program to complete the planning anddesign and initiate construction of a full-lengthSecond Avenue Subway.101Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

The Regional Plan Association then launched its EastHarlem Community Link Initiative. Supported bythe Ford Foundation, it began working then with theEast Harlem community to design and implement astrategy aimed at countering potential exclusion anddisplacement. This part of Harlem, also known as“El Barrio,” is the traditional heart of New YorkCity’s Puerto Rican community. It is now home to adiverse mix of Puerto Ricans, more recent Latinoimmigrants, and African Americans, and hasexperienced increasing gentrification pressures sincethe late 1990s. The East Harlem Community LinkInitiative is designed to strengthen the community’svoice in planning for subway construction and toensure that resulting development benefits localresidents and businesses.An early success was winning approval for a station atthe crossroads of East Harlem. The MTA’s plansoriginally called for Second Avenue Subway stationsat 96 th Avenue, 106 thAvenue, and 125 thThe East Harlem Community Avenue. In thisLink Initiative is designed to configuration, therestrengthen the community’s would be no stationvoice in planning for subway for almost 20blocks, a stretchconstruction and to ensurewhich includedthat resulting development116 th Avenue,benefits local residents and historically thebusinesses.main commercialstrip for EastHarlem. Again, theEast Harlem Community Link Initiative, led byRPA, was at the center of a successful campaigninvolving elected officials, community interests, andmedia to add a station at 116 th Avenue.Fruitvale Transit VillageThe second project in this profile is The UnityCouncil’s Fruitvale Transit Village (Fruitvale Village).Fruitvale is a highly diverse, inner-city neighborhoodin Oakland, Calif. Though predominantly Latino,people of many nationalities reside there (Chinese,Laotian, Pakistani, Filipino, Eastern European) and47 percent of neighborhood residents were bornoutside of the United States. It is also aneighborhood that has struggled under the weightsof segregation and concentrated poverty. In 1990,Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officials developed aplan for a parking garage adjacent to an existingBART station without meaningful communityinvolvement. Fruitvale community membersobjected to the garage’s location and set thefoundation for an ongoing community-basedrevitalization effort centered around the BARTstation and transit-oriented development, whichevolved into the Fruitvale Village Project.Since its inception in 1993, the Fruitvale VillageProject has evolved into an exciting model for innercityredevelopment which will support a number ofamenities: commercial/retail shopping area, largepedestrian plaza, and comprehensive communityservices ranging from health care to child care. It hasbecome a national model of smarter growthpractices, transit-oriented development, andcommunity-based planning. With the assistance ofthe Fruitvale Development Corporation, a supportcorporation of The Unity Council, the Village willalso house The Unity Council’s headquarters, apublic library, several community organizations, acomputer technology center, a senior center, and 47units of housing. The goal of the Village is to work incoordination with the Fruitvale Main Street Program(an effort to make the Fruitvale district safer, clean,attractive, and economically successful) to revitalizethe Fruitvale commercial corridor. The effort is tolink this diverse community and thousands of dailycommuters to the services, businesses, and variousmodes of transportation offered by the Fruitvaleneighborhood.The mission of The Unity Council is to help buildthe assets of families and low-income communitiesthrough a comprehensive program of sustainablephysical, economic, and social development. TheCouncil, formerly called The Spanish Speaking UnityCouncil, was founded in 1964, incorporated in1967, and received 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in1968. Since that time, the Council has been anonprofit community development organizationcommitted to enriching the quality of life of familiesprimarily in the Fruitvale District of Oakland. Itsprimary focus has been to create a healthier and safercommunity for families and residents.Funder InterestAccording to the Ford Foundation’s acting director ofthe Community and Resource Development Unit,Carl Anthony, the Foundation recognized that theRegional Plan Association was one of the nation’sREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 102

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYoldest regional advocacy groups. This provided anopportunity to support the building of a moreproactive regional agenda regarding social andeconomic justice. In the RPA, Ford saw an experiencedgroup well-suited to conceive and implement a modelproject for advancing equitable developmentthroughout a metropolitan region, with a particularfocus on jobs, housing, and a just transportationnetwork. Through this model, the RPA could provideexperiences and lessons learned for replication by lessexperienced regional advocacy groups.Meanwhile in the Bay Area, the Local InitiativesSupport Corporation’s (LISC) interest in The UnityCouncil predates the Main Street Program to the timewhen the organization was known as The SpanishSpeaking UnityThe Unity Council has been anonprofit communitydevelopment organizationcommitted to enriching thequality of life of familiesprimarily in the FruitvaleDistrict of Oakland. Itsprimary focus has been tocreate a healthier and safercommunity for families andresidents.Council, explainsStephanie Forbes,Bay Area directorwith LISC. In theCouncil, LISC sawan organizationcommitted tohelping low-incomepeople, initiallyfocusing onFruitvale’s Latinocommunity, andlater taking a moreholistic approach tothe increasinglydiverse Fruitvale neighborhood. Much of The UnityCouncil’s appeal came from its understanding of howphysical revitalization helps improve the quality of life(social, economic, environmental) for existingresidents. As a result, the Council pursued acomprehensive strategy that combined services withneighborhood improvements.According to LISC’s Forbes, The Unity Council sawcommercial revitalization as a way to promote notsimply economic opportunity, but to foster astronger sense of community pride for communityresidents. Quality of life and how the Bay Area wasgrowing were concerns for LISC. Big box stores wereincreasing in number, making their economicpresence felt. Concerned about impacts on smaller,local merchants, LISC saw The Unity Council’sMain Street Program as way to supportneighborhood economic vitality and support aneighborhood economy where businesses servinglow-income residents could survive and grow. TheMain Street Program was a key way to ensure thatlocal businesses would benefit from the FruitvaleStation and the Fruitvale Transit Village. Forbes addsthat this early funding “would set the stage for agood relationship between the Business District, theBART Station, and the Transit Village.”Finally, the Council was a known presence, anexperienced organization that already operatedmultiple and integrated programs to meet theFruitvale community varied needs. Informed by thesemultiple experiences, the Council well understoodthe Main Street pilot’s potential value to complementthe Council’s existing program and future plans.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsEast HarlemIn 2001, the RPA approached many differentcommunity-based organizations to identify an on theground partner for the East Harlem CommunityLink Initiative. After discussions with communitydevelopment corporations (CDCs), healthorganizations, service organizations, tenantassociations, and many other groups, the RPA optedto work with a local government entity, CommunityBoard 11, because doing so would give acommunity-based planning process clear access tothe city’s political structure (New York City is dividedinto boroughs, which are further divided intocommunity boards). The East Harlem CommunityLink Initiative (the Initiative) became a partnershipbetween the Ford Foundation (the funder), RPA (thetechnical assistance provider), and CommunityBoard 11 (the client).On May 18, 2002, 50 Harlem community residentsled a team of urban design consultants and RPA staffin a visioning session on the future of the communitywith a subway line along Second Avenue. The goals ofthe workshop were to envision East Harlem with theSecond Avenue Subway by identifying potentialimprovements near proposed subway stations, creatingvisual images, and presenting ideas to each other,public officials, and city agencies. The outcomesincluded ideas, proposals, and maps and drawings thatrepresented concepts developed by the participants.Based on the workshop’s outcomes, the RPA began todevelop an implementation structure. It convened agroup that came to be called the East Harlem SecondAvenue Corridor Working Group (Working Group), a103Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

multi-stakeholder effort composed of communityinterests and government agencies. According to RPA’sassociate planner for community development,Nicolas Ronderos, the Working Group represented atransition from a strict TOD perspective (thinkingabout and planning for the subway), to a greater focuson the Second Avenue Corridor with its physicaldesign and traffic flow, specifically as a means tomaximize economic opportunity while limitinggentrification and displacement.A community design workshop hosted by the Regional Plan Association’sEast Harlem Community Link Initiative on May 18, 2002. (Source: RegionalPlan Association).The Initiative then focused on two research efforts: ALand Use Field Survey and a Zoning Analysis. TheZoning Analysis dealt with mid-2003 zoning changes,where much of the East Harlem community wasrezoned for buildings of greater height (12-stories, ascompared to the four-stories permitted by the earlierzoning) to increase density opportunities. In response,the analysis forecast the types of buildings whichmight be possible under the new zoning. Thevisualizations triggered concerns among WorkingGroup members of displacement, gentrification, andother negative changes on the existing community.They requested that RPA identify alternatives whichmight diminish the negative impacts of the zoningchanges on existing residents and businesses. Thesealternatives would address affordable housing, urbandesign, and streetscape.Upon review of alternatives developed by RPA asrequested, the Working Group decided to prioritizenew streetscape opportunities, requesting aStreetscape Plan for Second Avenue. A strategy fordeveloping and implementing a Streetscape Plan,based on Working Group suggestions and the 2002Community Design Workshop, was approved inMarch 2004. Next, RPA conducted an inclusivesurvey of 100 Harlem business owners andemployees (45 were Spanish-speakers and weresurveyed in Spanish) to help identify whichstreetscape elements would be most beneficial to theeconomic health of these businesses. The surveyedbusinesses and the Working Group viewed thestreetscape improvements specifically as a means toanticipate and avoid displacement, improve businessopportunities and business revenues, and spur localjob creation.As a result, Community Board 11 has proposed tofund some of the Streetscape Plan’s proposedimprovements in its Fiscal Year 2006 budget. Aproposal for longer-term investments has beendrafted and will be presented to city and stateagencies in 2005. The Regional Plan Associationplans to build on these successes to developcommunity consensus for higher-density housingthat includes a greatly expanded stock of affordablehousing for community residents.OaklandIn Oakland, The Unity Council has pursued twoapproaches to avoid displacement and ensure thatpopulations at risk have the opportunity and choiceto remain in a gentrifying neighborhood. The first issubsidy, using government and foundation dollars tomake up the gap between resident or small businessincomes and growing market rate expenses (e.g.,affordable housing). The second is economicopportunity, where residents and businesses are giventhe means to see their incomes rise with the value ofthe area. This profile focuses on the economicopportunity approach.Fruitvale Transit Village’s pedestrian plaza was anearly community priority. Community memberswanted a safe and easy connection from InternationalBoulevard to the BART station. First, with enhancedlocal access to the station, Fruitvale residents wouldhave better access to jobs outside of theirneighborhood resulting in a greater number andrange of job opportunities and increased personalincomes. Local businesses would also benefit fromthe connection, as commuters could be drawn totheir shops and increase their revenue potential.Furthermore, local businesses can now access publicand private dollars to improve the appearance oftheir buildings through the Fruitvale Main StreetProgram. The program is a comprehensivecommercial district revitalization project focused onInternational Boulevard and the area surrounding theFruitvale Village.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 104

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYIn 2001, thanks to Fruitvale Main Streets’ leadership,the district’s commercial property owners adopted aBusiness Improvement District (BID), throughwhich property owners pay an assessment for TheUnity Council to provide enhanced safety andcleanliness services. According to the Council’sexecutive director, Marsha Murrington, the BIDgenerates about $220,000 per year, paying for dailycleanup and for graffiti abatement. These activitiesimprove local businesses’ ability to attract customers.The Unity Council saw the BID as a greatopportunity to create jobs for its workforcedevelopment clients. It hired several clients to cleanthe Fruitvale commercial district and to serve asAmbassadors (a community based, uniformedpatrol). This later grew into a public spacemaintenance business, with 12 full-time cleaningstaff and two Ambassadors, that has successfully bidon other contracting opportunities.ResultsAccording to the Ford Foundation’s Anthony,regional equity involves connecting marginalizedcommunities to regional opportunities. Byconvincing the MTA to extend the Second AvenueSubway through East Harlem, RPA and its allies arehelping establish anew regionalRegional equity involves connection for EastHarlem residents.connecting marginalizedThis connectivitycommunities to regionalwas furtheropportunities.enhanced by RPA’ssuccessful advocacyfor a station at 116 thAvenue. Through the workshops and the WorkingGroup, RPA has worked with the community todesign stations that would serve and support the EastHarlem community with increased housing andeconomic opportunities. Through the WorkingGroup and its streetscape planning activities, RPAhelped to build the capacity of community intereststo have and build a long-term vision for EastHarlem. In addition, the RPA linked thesecommunity interests with regional agencies. Inpartnership with the East Harlem community, RPAhas built a model for community-based planningthat can be replicated as future transportationinvestments occur throughout the New York Cityregion, ensuring that commitments to jobs, housing,and transportation access persist.Similarly, positive results of the Fruitvale Main StreetProgram were identified by LISC’s Forbes. Since theinception of Fruitvale Main Street Program, 268 netnew jobs and 76 net new businesses have been createdin the Fruitvale commercial district. Over 115 façadeimprovements have occurred. The BusinessImprovement District (BID) was described as asignificant result in itself—LISC provided thetechnical assistance on how to start a BID, andprovided funding for a consultant to actually establishthe BID. Even more, the Main Street program andthe BID had dramatic impacts on InternationalBoulevard and the surrounding Fruitvale community.For example, International Boulevard saw doubledigit commercial vacancy rates in the 1990s andtoday the rates stand at effectively zero.Lessons LearnedAccording to Ford’s Anthony, “Communitymembers, particularly those most at risk ofdisplacement, must have specific, consistent, andculturally appropriate opportunities to access andinfluence the planning of any specific TOD.Affordable housing should be integrated into anynew transit-oriented development, paying particularattention to income levels in the surroundingneighborhoods. Business and economic developmentopportunities for local residents and entrepreneursshould be incorporated into the planning,construction, and operation of any new TOD.Again, community involvement is fundamental, butnot only at the project-specific level.” Anthonypoints out that the East Harlem Community LinkInitiative demonstrates that community interestsmust engage the regional decisionmaking processesand its practitioners to best ensure that any newTOD becomes a true community asset.The lessons for LISC and other funders of The UnityCouncil’s Fruitvale Transit Village are thatcommercial corridor revitalization programs arecomplex and each urban community has its ownchallenges and opportunities. Thus, a commercialcorridor revitalization program needs to be developedslowly, specifically based on the local community’sneeds. Because each community is different,providing technical assistance toward commercialcorridor revitalization “requires a toolkit with manydifferent tools,” explains Sheila Daniels, program105Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

director with LISC. No one set of solutions will workfor every community, so funders and technicalassistance providers need to have a variety ofsolutions to choose from and to offer. It is importantthat commercial corridor revitalization is part of acomprehensive local strategy. The Unity Council,like the other initial participants in the Main StreetProgram across the nation, was already pursuingmultiple, related community development strategiesand wanted to add a commercial corridorrevitalization strategy to complement their existingefforts. 46 Explains LISC’s Forbes, it is clear from thisproject that, “Neighborhood commercial districts arecommunity gathering places and have a great impacton a community’s perception and self-image”When planned and impacted properly, TODprojects such as these can serve as an inclusiveengine of a community’s economic revitalization.Absent a meaningful commitment to communityinvolvement and benefit, TOD projects can haveserious negative consequences on a community’sexisting residents. The Ford Foundation’s Anthonyexplains that “Transit-oriented development canbe an asset for the community, or it can be aliability. For it tobe an asset, certainsteps towardcommunityinvolvement,affordable housing,economicdevelopment, andcapacity buildingmust be taken.”Both the Regional“Neighborhood commercialdistricts are communitygathering places and havea great impact on acommunity’s perception andself-image.”— Stephanie ForbesPlan Association’s East Harlem Community LinkInitiative and The Unity Council’s FruitvaleTransit Village affirm Anthony’s assessment andformula for success.46Other initial participants in the Main Street Program includeorganizations from Tacoma, Wash., Lansing, Mich., Philadelphia,Richmond, Va., and Providence, R.I. For more information, seewww.mainstreet.org.Carl AnthonyActing Director, Community andResource Development UnitFord Foundationc.anthony@fordfound.org(212) 573-4802Sheila DanielsProgram DirectorLocal Initiatives SupportCorporation (LISC)sdaniels@lisc.org(212) 455-9803Contact PeopleStephanie ForbesBay Area DirectorLocal Initiatives SupportCorporation (LISC)sforbes@lisc.org(415) 397-7322 ext. 17Chris JonesVice President for ResearchRegional Plan Associationchris@rpa.org(212) 253-2727 ext. 321Marsha MurringtonExecutive DirectorThe Unity CouncilFruitvale Villagemgm@unitycouncil.org(510) 535-6913Nicolas RonderosAssociate Planner, CommunityDevelopmentRegional Plan Associationnicolas@rpa.org(212) 253-2727 ext. 318REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 106

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYIII. D. BRIDGING SOCIAL,ECONOMIC, ANDGEOGRAPHIC DIVIDES:KENTUCKY’S COMMUNITYFARM ALLIANCEFunder Highlighted:Ford Foundation“Public markets can serve as engines of economicgrowth for urban and rural communities andtherefore as regional bridges crossing over theurban-rural divide.”— Miguel Garcia, Ford FoundationIt is an unfortunate fact that in a nation such as theUnited States, the lack of food security and accessremains a common struggle for low-incomecommunities. The struggles of disenfranchisedminorities and the working poor are reflected by highrates of disease that could decrease with educationand improved access to nutritious foods. This profileillustrates the successful redefinition of a farmers’market into a vehicle for community revitalizationand organizing where urban-rural and racial dividesare confronted and increased equity is pursued.Project ProfileIn 2000, the state of Kentucky received $3.4 billionin tobacco settlement dollars. Given directly to thestate, and under the control of the Governor’s Office,these funds inspired considerable debate regardingtheir use and the potential recipients. TheCommunity Farm Alliance, a group with a history oforganizing and policy work, advocated for makingdollars available to help family farmers transition outof the tobacco economy that accounts for roughlyone-third of a typical farm’s income. At the sametime, the Alliance successfully proposed that fundgovernance happen at the local level, with localcommunities setting their own goals for their fundallocations. This proposal provided an initial fundingbase to change the way family farms did business.Located in Kentucky, the Community Farm Alliance(CFA) is, “A statewide grassroots organization ofpersons committed to family-scale farming as themost efficient and sustainable form of producing thebest quality food, while protecting the environmentand strengthening rural community life.” 47Family farmers needed to become entrepreneurs inorder to survive. Agricultural markets were changing,and family farms needed to follow suit by identifyingnew customers/markets and developing products tomeet those customers’ needs. The Community FarmAlliance began working with its membership toidentify these new market opportunities. One keyopportunity was the city of Louisville, Ky., home toone million people—almost one-quarter of the state’stotal population.Community Farm Alliance members speak-out against tax incentives for outof-statecorporations and confined animal feeding operations. (Source:Community Farm Alliance).Thus, in 2002, longtime CFA staff member andfamily farmer Ivor Chodkowski applied for a sixmonthCFA fellowship, an internally-offered sixmonthleadership development opportunity.Chodkowski’s fellowship proposal focused onidentifying connections through conversations inLouisville and with farmers in adjacent ruralcommunities for joint economic opportunities. Thiseffort led him to the Portland neighborhood.Western Louisville’s 12 neighborhoods, whichinclude Portland, are disproportionately low-income,with 38 percent of the residents living in poverty, andhome to disproportionately high numbers of AfricanAmericans. One major equity issue that became clearto Chodkowski was that the residents of westernLouisville lack access to healthy and nutritious foods.For example, there are 105 grocery stores inLouisville, a ratio of one grocery for every 6,100Louisville residents. But the circumstances in these47www.communityfarmalliance.org/about.htm/.107Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

12 western Louisville neighborhoods are verydifferent: there are four grocery stores total in theseneighborhoods, a ratio of one grocery for every19,431 residents. Thus, residents must either travellong distances for quality foods, or must purchasemore expensive food at one of 24 local conveniencestores. Furthermore, of these 24 stores, only six soldall five basic food groups and the only vegetablesoffered were potatoes and onions. With diets low inhealthy and nutritious foods, these 12 neighborhoodssee excessive rates of heart disease and cancer. In2002, there was not a single farmers’ market in anyof these 12 neighborhoods. As a result, Chodkowskibegan dialogues with Portland residents aboutstarting a farmers’ market in their neighborhood.In 2003, the Ford Foundation awarded a one-year$300,000 grant to the Community Farm Alliance inorder to plan the Portland Farmers’ Market and todevelop a long-term strategy around food securityand new markets for farm products. On June 21,2003, the Portland Farmers’ Market opened in theparking lot of a local printing business. Today, freshproduce, grown by local family farmers, is offered,such as fruits, vegetables, plants, as well as naturalfree-range eggs and meats. In keeping with the goalof providing Portland neighborhood residents withaccess to healthy and nutritious foods, the Market’svendors accept Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)cards (food stamps). Additionally, the Market’svendors also accept coupons from the Rowan StreetCo-op, another CFA effort to make nutritious foodsavailable to seniors on fixed-incomes.Funder InterestThe Ford Foundation’s Active Public Space Initiativeattempts to forge common community institutionswithin emerging mixed-income and mixed-racecommunities by supporting four categories ofgrantees: neighborhood arts and cultureorganizations, community technology centers, openspace and recreation programs, and public markets.The Initiative wanted to allocate some of its fundingtoward economic development activities and wastrying to identify a public spaces-focused economicdevelopment effort. Through such an effort, theFoundation would strengthen the case that publicmarkets could become economic engines supportingadjacent community revitalization.Ultimately, social justice considerations convincedthe Ford Foundation to provide a grant to theCommunity Farm Alliance. According to MiguelGarcia, acting deputy director of the Communityand ResourceDevelopment Unitat the FordFoundation, CFAprovided anopportunity tocreate practical,mutually beneficiallinkages amongrural/largely whitecommunities andurban/largely black communities, and also offered astrong opportunity for collaborative learning for theproject’s participants and for the Foundation.Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe Ford Foundation recognizes that any oneneighborhood (urban or rural) is linked with manyother neighborhoods as a part of a regional economicand social justice system. When these linkages arerecognized and supported, a neighborhood’s residentsand institutions start looking beyond theirneighborhood and make broader policy decisions.Mutual opportunities and partnerships can becreated, overcoming a rural versus urban mindsetwhich pits these communities against one another tocompete over finite resources.ResultsBuilding practical connectionsbetween rural and urbanconstituencies, which sooften entail connectingwhites with people of colorcommunities, is fundamentalto regional equity.According to Ford’s Garcia, several results emergedfrom the Community Farm Alliance and itsinvolvement in the Portland Farmers’ Market.Building practical connections between rural andurban constituencies, which so often entailconnecting whites with people of color communities,is fundamental to regional equity. Ford saw anopportunity to build such linkages with CFA and thePortland Farmers’ Market.Many inner-city communities lack access toaffordably priced fresh and healthy foods. Thus, thesecommunities must often resort to unhealthy andhigh-cost foods offered at fast food outlets andconvenience stores. These dietary habits contributeto high rates of diabetes, obesity, and other negativeREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 108

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYCommunity Farm Alliance members meet with members of the Federation ofSouthern Cooperatives and the Coalition of Immokolee Workers on the Smithfarm in Trimble County, Ky., to discuss common struggles and successes.(Source: Community Farm Alliance).health consequences. The Portland Farmers’ Marketbrought a new source of health and nutritious foodinto the neighborhood, and made it even moreaccessible by accepting EBT cards (food stamps) andRowan Street Co-op vouchers.Transcending the barriers of race and class, thePortland Farmers’ Market became a point ofcommunity cohesion, a new gathering place for widevariety ofcommunityPrimarily, farmers’ markets members. Peopleare complex, with lessons frequent the Marketnot just to purchaseemerging around issues offood, but also topublic space, functionality,socialize before orand community development. after making theirpurchases.Consequently, othercommunity-based organizations and service providersare accessing the Market as a public space forgathering. For example, the Market offers informationabout lead poisoning and free testing of soil for leadcontamination, back-to-school programs giving awayschool supplies, cooking and nutrition classes, voterregistration, and nutrition programs focusing on kidsand youth (some of whom became interns at the CFAoffice in the winter).Lessons LearnedThe Ford Foundation’s experiences in Louisville andother public markets can inform similar efforts byother foundations, suggests Garcia. Primarily,farmers’ markets are complex, with lessons emergingCommunity Farm Alliance vice president, Beth Tillery, sells her flowersand produce at a farmers’ market in Lexington, Ky. (Source: CommunityFarm Alliance).around issues of public space, functionality, andcommunity development.Garcia recommends that efforts to create a farmers’market be viewed as place-making efforts, withsignificant attention geared to issues like location,complementary activities, and entertainment. Notonly must a farmers’ market make bottom linebusiness sense, but it also should have clear potentialto support adjacent business opportunities. Strongmanagement skills are required to make decisionslike allotting space and selecting a healthy mix ofvendors—providing benefits both to the customersand the vendors. Finally, funders and organizersshould consider the projected and potentialcommunity development impacts and whether themarket can affect or integrate with existingcommunity development efforts in adjacentneighborhoods.Contact PeopleMiguel GarciaActing Deputy Director,Community and Resource Development UnitFord Foundationm.garcia@fordfound.org(212) 573-4618Deborah WebbExecutive DirectorCommunity Farm Alliancedwebbcfa@bellsouth.net(502) 223-3655109Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

III. E. UNITING THREE STATESFOR ONE VISION: THE MIDSOUTH DELTA INITIATIVEFunder Highlighted:W.K. Kellogg Foundation“We spent a great deal of time networking theteams with each other across the region andbuilding a web of relationships and learning.There are so many similarities across state lines inthe Delta that it made sense to connect the dots.”— Frank Taylor, W.K. Kellogg FoundationThe Mid South Delta Initiative, supported by theW.K. Kellogg Foundation, is a regional partnershipjoining organizations and communities in the Deltato enhance regional economic opportunities for allresidents. 48 This profile demonstrates a foundation’srole as a powerful catalyst and the far-reaching resultsthat can generate when a funder takes a place-basedregional approach with an economic developmentfocus to select and disburse resources. This fundingapproach enables a new regional perspective inproblem-solving and creates opportunities to buildbridges and partnerships among diversecommunities, shift paradigms, and generate a host ofequity-based initiatives that cut across stateboundaries.Project ProfileThe Mid South Delta Initiative (MSDI) wasestablished by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in 1997Bridges over the Mississippi River between Vidalia, La., and Natchez, Miss.(Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).to strengthen communities in the Mississippi Deltaand create positive social and economic change forvulnerable populations. Spanning the states ofMississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Initiative—a long-term economic, community, and leadershipdevelopment effort—impacts 1.4 million residentslocated in 55 contiguous counties and parishes alongthe Mississippi River. The MSDI connectsindividuals with job opportunities, nurtures anddevelops local community leaders, creates andstrengthens businesses, builds regional networks, andrevitalizes neighborhoods.The Initiative seeks to overcome race and genderobstacles in the region and build a new spirit ofinclusiveness and diversity into the entire spectrumof leadership and development in the region. 49 Thecore principles of capacity building, civicparticipation, collaboration, shared leadership, andsustainability guide MSDI. The Initiative hascompleted its planning phase and is currently in itsimplementation phase, with a planned completiondate of August 2006. Subsequently, the goal for thenext phase is to focus on further developing theregional economic agenda. The Initiative’s efforts andaccomplishments are linked to a range of regionalpartnerships such as Emerging Market Partnerships(EMP) managed by the Enterprise Corporation ofthe Delta (ECD), Good Faith Fund (GFF), MidSouth Delta LISC, Foundation for the Mid South(FMS), Delta Regional Authority (DRA), andPeople’s Institute.Funder InterestThe development of MSDI marked a programmingshift for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, according toFrank Taylor, program director in Food Systems andRural Development and the lead program directorfor the Initiative. Prior to MSDI, W.K. Kellogg hadnot engaged in economic development grantmaking.A change in leadership, however, precipitated a newdirection for W.K. Kellogg. “There was a growingsense that [the Foundation] wanted to have someimpact in a specific geographic area,” Taylor explains.Numerous possibilities were explored, and the Delta48The Mississippi Delta region of the United States includes portions ofthe states of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi along the MississippiRiver.49“Ripples of Change in the Delta 2003-2004,” available atwww.msdi.org/documents/ripplesofchange.pdf.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 110

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYwas finally selected as the region where W.K. Kelloggwould develop its new grantmaking approach.The Delta had a number of assets that appealed tothe Foundation. It had identified factors that wouldcontribute to the success of its new effort andevaluated that its resources would be well invested.W.K. Kellogg also had previously granted support toa number of organizations in the Delta and so “[it]had a sense of the possibilities,” according to Taylor.Furthermore, the history of the civil rightsmovement continues to inspire and inform today’slocal organizations as they grow, expand, and explorenew ways to cooperate and create partnerships. Thiseffort is rooted in the local and regional values ofcommunity, faith, and family and is a driving forcebehind these organizations’ activities. Operating inthe Delta region of western Mississippi, easternArkansas, and northeastern Louisiana, W.K. Kelloggsaw the opportunity to build on the region’s sharedhistory and culture and create change by leveragingthe expertise of strong regional organizations. Yetmost importantly, according to Taylor, theFoundation’s decision to fund MSDI was based on“the sense of hope and positive vision” that bothW.K. Kellogg staff and board members saw in “somehumble and yet very inspiring human beings.”Regional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsThe Initiative’s planning phase focused on thedevelopment of community and regional leadership.At the community level, the Initiative broughttogether community teams to participate in a planningand capacity-building process that resulted inimplementation grants for community economicdevelopment projects. These communities have sharedtheir evaluation reports and other documentation on aquarterly basis. Through the Delta Citizens Alliance, anew venture, they will work to transfer the knowledgethey have gained to other groups in the Delta,according to Bishop Alvin Walker, a member of theMSDI community team working in Monroe, La., anda participant in the Delta Citizens Alliance. BishopWalker believes that MSDI has greatly contributed toa climate of change in the Delta, noting that MSDIhas helped transform negative mindsets and worktowards breaking the “poverty mentality.” W.K.Kellogg representatives indicate that MSDI has hadfundamental impact in Delta communities. “Theparticipating communities are not going to be thesame anymore,” clarifies Taylor, pointing to the factthat residents have gained access to a broader circle ofstakeholders, resources, and ideas.Public markets like this one, established by the Northeast Louisiana DeltaCDC, help local producers and artisans earn income from travelers andtourists driving along busy Highway 65. (Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).At the regional level, in order to launch the regionalleadership coalition, W.K. Kellogg invited a diversegroup of stakeholders from the region to participateon an advisory coalition for MSDI, known as theDelta Initiative Advisory Coalition (DIAC). Thiseffort led MSDI’s communication, priority setting,activity, and outreach efforts. It dissolved in 2001 asthe Regional Leadership Initiative developed.Community groups credit MSDI’s regionalcollaborative approach with bringing positive changeto the Delta, indicating that the Initiative has helpedto reduce isolation, change mindsets, break downbarriers, and strengthen community. GloriaDickerson, regional program coordinator for theInitiative who is based in the Delta, adds that byemphasizing a regional approach, MSDI hasfundamentally changed the region’s approach toproblem-solving. As she explains, “Once you startlooking at the region, then you have to start thinkingabout systems change and policy change.”ResultsDescribed as “a learning laboratory for place-basedchange,” MSDI has achieved a number of tangibleresults in economic development, buildingleadership, involving youth, and breaking downhistorical barriers. 50 The Initiative’s grantee partnershave helped more than 1,400 families secure newhomes, launched 148 new businesses, saved orcreated 2,975 jobs, built or expanded 16 child-carefacilities, and involved 6,215 youth in MSDIprograms. 51 Furthermore, 400 Delta residents50“What We’ve Learned,” available at www.msdi.org/learned/.51www.msdi.org.111Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

increased their personal wealth by opening individualdevelopment accounts (IDAs) and 73 used themoney to purchase their first homes, according to thelatest evaluation of the Initiative.The Regional Leadership Initiative previouslymentioned was launched in 2003 and is known asthe Mid South Delta Leaders Program. This programrepresents a tri-state collaboration of Delta StateUniversity in Mississippi, Arkansas State University,and Grambling State University in Louisiana. Theprogram will offer three 18-month classes for 45Delta residents of diverse backgrounds, 15 per state,in order to nurture and encourage a new cadre ofleaders that are able to analyze systems, understandnational and global trends, and formulate policies.youth involvement, 20 young people participated ina 2003 symposium to develop a YouthEmpowerment Summit in Coahoma County, Miss.Working in parallel, the Emerging MarketsPartnership has been instrumental in achievingeconomic development results. The Partnership is acomprehensive economic development effortmanaged by Enterprise Corporation of the Delta, aleading community development financialinstitution, underwritten by the W.K. KelloggFoundation and the Fannie Mae Foundation. Itfocuses on three areas: enterprise development,workforce development, and communityinfrastructure (such as child care, health care, andhousing). Organizations involved in the Partnershipinclude Good Faith Fund (which works to increasethe incomes and assets of low-skilled and low-incomeindividuals in Arkansas and Mississippi), as well asMid South Delta LISC (which provides training,technical assistance, and financial resources tocommunity development corporations (CDCs) inthe Delta), and the Foundation for the Mid South (anonprofit organization working to enhance thequality of life in the Delta).Katherine Crump from Mississippi and Joe Guy from Arkansas collaborateduring a diversity prioritization exercise at a Mid South Delta Leadersretreat focusing on the role of diversity in leadership. (Source: Mid SouthDelta Initiative).Working to empower youth and begin honing solidand relevant skills, youth representatives from over adozen MSDI partner communities participated in a2003 retreat where they learned new concepts, skillsand methods of promoting economic and socialdevelopment. 52 Participants identified needs in theircommunities and developed projects to respond tothese needs. Planning grants were issued to eachgroup at the retreat to develop proposals to fundtheir projects through a Mid South Delta YouthInitiative (MSDYI). In January 2004, MSDIofficially launched its new MSDYI by funding itsfirst youth-led, community building projects inArkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The YouthInitiative reaches out to individuals between the agesof 15 and 30 and engages them in the regional andlocal change process. This program encourages youngpeople to develop leadership skills and allows for reallife application of their newly acquired skills byplacing them in key roles. In one local example ofDorothy Gilbert established Big Momma’s Fine Food, a restaurant inMonroe, La., with loans and business assistance from EnterpriseCorporation of the Delta. (Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).Recognizing that economic development isnegatively impacted by inadequate infrastructure andaccess hurdles, one MSDI community has worked tosolve transportation access problems. Thecommunity’s efforts have contributed to thedevelopment of a successful transportation programin Washington County, Miss., that addresses accesslimitations for residents who previously had difficultygetting to jobs, schools, and health care facilities.52“Ripples of Change in the Delta 2003-2004,” available atwww.msdi.org/documents/ripplesofchange.pdf.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 112

Economic development initiatives sparked policyefforts such as the mobilization of 3,000 residents inJefferson County, Ark., to demand a living wagehigher than the minimum wage to help families meetliving costs in Pine Bluff, Ark. The issue was placedon the November 2004 election ballot. Even thoughthe proposal was narrowly defeated, organizedactivism has clearly been stirred and a base now existsupon which future policy efforts can be built.People’s Institute to address the challenge of workingacross racial lines. Dickerson, based at W.K. Kellogg’soffice in the Delta, acknowledges that race continuesto be a difficult issue to bridge, noting that somecommunities declined to participate in the seminars.But progress has been made, she says, adding thatMSDI remains steadfast in its belief that unlockingthe full potential of the Delta depends on breakingdown such historical divides. The latest summaryevaluation of MSDI, conducted by the Academy forEducational Development, points to some promisingexamples of such collaborations across race, rangingfrom black and white church congregations inJonesboro, Ark., uniting to create more affordablehousing, to a team of black and white communitymembers coming together to focus on education andhealth care in Belzoni and Humphreys counties inMississippi.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYYoung people working in the West Holmes, Miss., Community DevelopmentOrganization’s Vegetable Garden. The Vegetable Garden Project placesemphasis on youth development and employment opportunities and keepsyoung adults from leaving the county to look for employment by creatingpartnerships that will work as an incentive to keep them in West Holmes.Through the organization’s Senior Voucher Program, elderly people receivefresh produce from the Garden. (Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).Recognizing that collaboration across historicaldivides—such as race, religion, class, or geography—would be crucial to achieving lasting change in theDelta, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation has deliberatelysought to create opportunities that would bringDelta residents of all backgrounds together to worktoward change. With race an obvious and oftendifficult barrier, special seminars were offered by theLessons LearnedStaff members of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation havecome to appreciate that MSDI is still in a learningphase, and its place-based regional approach is stillevolving. They recognize the importance of shapingthe initiative based on input of those who wouldbenefit. Before launching the initiative, W.K. Kelloggembarked on “listening visits” for 18 months to getfeedback about what residents would like to seehappen in their communities. Taylor validates that“the value of the listening exercise was so importantand cannot be overestimated, [as W.K. Kelloggrepresentatives] still hear how much the granteesrespected” that effort.W.K. Kellogg believes that another critical elementwas having an office based in the Delta and staffedby a program officer with deep roots in the area. Bymaintaining a local presence, the Foundation sent aclear message that it wanted to be a “true partner,”explains Taylor. In addition, having a local officeprovided W.K. Kellogg with “an invaluable vantagepoint from which to observe and experience firsthandsome of the challenges faced in the Delta.” 53To ensure regional impact, W.K. Kellogg “spent agreat deal of time networking the teams with eachother across the region and building a web ofrelationships and learning. There are so manysimilarities across state lines in the Delta that it madesense to connect the dots,” clarifies Taylor. The latest53“What We’ve Learned,” available at www.msdi.org/learned/.113Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

summary evaluation of MSDI found that networkingoccurred at different levels: between communities,between communities and intermediaries, as wellbetween donors and grantees. Many cross-sitemeetings that have been held in the region have beenattended not only by grantees but also bypolicymakers, community leaders, and other donors.In retrospect, W.K. Kellogg realizes that a key factorin MSDI’s success has been ensuring thatopportunities were created for all stakeholders tonetwork, interact, and share ideas.Furthermore, the Foundation also realizes thatcoaching “is an indispensable part of the MSDImodel.” 54 It invested resources in creating a cadre of15 community change coaches, one for each of the15 community teams working in 27 of the 55counties and parishes in the region. The coacheswork with individual grantees and guide them“through the challenges of strategic planning,coalition-building, program implementation, andevaluation.” 55 The coaches themselves work with eachother as a group and learn from each other. Thecoaching model has in effect created a resourcenetwork for the region that did not previously exist.care about you, then that provides inspiration and afeeling that we can move forward.”54“What We’ve Learned,” available at www.msdi.org/learned/.55“Ripples of Change in the Delta 2003-4,” available atwww.msdi.org/documents/ripplesofchange.pdf.Contact PeopleGloria DickersonRegional Program CoordinatorW.K. Kellogg Foundationgloria.dickerson@wkkf.org(601) 944-4170Frank TaylorProgram Director, Food Systems & RuralDevelopmentW.K. Kellogg Foundationfct@wkkf.org(269) 968-1611Bishop Alvin B. WalkerExecutive DirectorRENEWAL, Inc.bishop.walker@renewalinc.org(318) 387-0686Oak wetlands in the Arkansas Delta, at the Louisiana Purchase State Parknear Brinkley. (Source: Mid South Delta Initiative).The Foundation recognizes that to move towardsbuilding a successful regional equity movement, ithas to work with and through community andregional networks in order to connect pockets ofactivism, advocacy, resistance, and hope. Dickerson,W.K. Kellogg’s key staff person in the Delta,summarizes that the Foundation’s presence in aregion pervaded by a sense of hopelessness has beeninstrumental in lifting people’s spirits. As sheexplains, “People in the area need to know that thereis someone out there that can offer some hope, andonce you have a national organization saying that weREGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 114

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYIII. F. ADVANCING OPPORTUNITYTHROUGH METROPOLITANEQUITY: LEADERSHIPCOUNCIL FOR METROPOLITANOPEN COMMUNITIESFunders Highlighted:Fannie Mae FoundationThe Field Foundation of IllinoisLaSalle BankThe John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationWoods Fund of Chicago“We still need to hear that race matters eventhough the audience is less aroused by race talk.”— Spruiell White, The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur FoundationOver the past 38 years, the Leadership Council forMetropolitan Open Communities in Chicago hasbuilt a national reputation among foundations as anorganization uniquely focused on race segregationand discrimination in housing. This profilehighlights strategic grants invested in an organizationthat aims to generate more in-depth sharing ofknowledge and data to create opportunities for lowincomefamilies through better housing choices,better equip advocates, and support legal as well asvoluntary action to stop housing discrimination.Project ProfileSince the early part of the 20 th century, racesegregation and housing discrimination havedistorted metropolitan areas of the United States. Inthe 1920s, redlining implemented by the real estateindustry and enforced through restrictive covenantsas well as other tactics tainted the growth anddevelopment of Chicago, as well as othermetropolitan regions. In the early 1960s, Chicagoleaders joined with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., toimplement the Chicago Freedom Movement, aneffort to use nonviolent social protest to transformhousing in Chicago. Throughout 1965 and 1966,Movement leaders led protests to assert that fair andaffordable housing was the right of any individualand that in fact, white and black residents sharedsimilar aspirations for decent housing and access toeducational opportunities.In the summer of 1966, leaders secured an agreementfrom elected officials, real estate officials, and othersto end discrimination in housing. The LeadershipCouncil forMetropolitan OpenCommunities(LeadershipCouncil) wasformed to overseethe implementationof that agreement.According to BrianWhite, theLeadershipCouncil’s director ofdevelopment, implicit in the work of the agency wasthe need to reduce disparities in all manner ofeconomic and social opportunity for minorities inthe Chicago region through work on housingdiscrimination and segregation. Since its inception,the Leadership Council has led the commitment to acomprehensive approach to equalize housingopportunities for underserved communities. “TheLeadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities works through planning, advocacy,and voluntary action where possible, and legal actionwhere necessary to end racial and ethnicdiscrimination in the six-county area of themetropolitan Chicago housing market.” 56 Backed bybanks, businesses, and foundations, the LeadershipCouncil works to empower disenfranchised minorityhomeseekers and equip them with tools to reachhigher standards of living for their families.The Council offers “comprehensive, innovative, andintegrated programs focusing on education, advocacy,and legal action. The programs are designed toexpand housing opportunities for clients, and toencourage support for and the existence ofcommunities that are racially, economically, andculturally diverse throughout the Chicago region andthe country.” 57 In order to affect the housing marketand support disenfranchised homeseekers, theLeadership Council uses a “carrot and stick” approachthat coordinates direct assistance and education withlegal action and policy. “They found that no one56www.lcmoc.org.57The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities. “FY2004 Draft Report.”Since the early part ofthe 20 th century, racesegregation and housingdiscrimination have distortedmetropolitan areas of theUnited States.115Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

method alone was strong enough to make change in adeeply segregated region,” states Pam Daniels-Halisi,vice president with LaSalle Bank.A 2001 study entitled, Envisioning Racially Just,Opportunity-Based Housing for the Chicago Region,found that, “Whites and people of color are not onlymoving in different geographical directions, they areexperiencing different levels of access to and benefitsfrom important opportunities such as publiceducation, employment, and wealth accumulation.” 58Furthermore, the Leadership Council’s recentlycompleted “Community of Opportunity” Index 59highlights these disparities through itsmultidimensional measure of opportunity structures(quality municipal services, education, commerce,housing, employment) that determine the extent towhich any given community provides primeamenities to people across the socioeconomicspectrum. 60 Both the 2001 study and the Indexsupport the Leadership Council’s mobility programsto undo the myths created by decades of racism andhousing discrimination. All Leadership programs“operate on the principle that every person shouldhave theopportunity to buy“They found that no onemethod alone was strongenough to make change in adeeply segregated region.”— Pam Daniels-Halisior rent a home in acommunity thatprovides a full rangeof economic, social,cultural, andenvironmentalopportunities,without restrictiondue todiscrimination.” 61 For example, The LeadershipCouncil’s Gautreaux II Assisted Housing RelocationProgram is the latest version of a 25-year oldprogram that assists families relocating out ofsegregated public housing into areas of opportunity.Funder InterestAs an organization focused on race equity issues, theLeadership Council had difficulty attracting fundersfor support. Yet the MacArthur Foundation, FieldFoundation, and LaSalle Bank provided generaloperating funds because they understood the difficultyet important role Leadership Council was playing.Aurie Pennick, executive director of the FieldFoundation cites that, “No other regionalorganization was working on race equity and fairhousing in Chicago and, although the issue hasimproved over years, it was not going away.”The MacArthur Foundation started to providegeneral operating funds in the early 1990s. AsMacArthur was developing its strategy in providingaccess to housing, the Leadership Council wasmaking affordable housing a centerpiece in its efforts.In 1999, MacArthur supported the transformation ofpublic housing by funding Gautreaux I and II, aswell as community relations and public policyprograms, recalls Spruiell White, senior programofficer with the MacArthur Foundation. 62LaSalle Bank’s Daniels-Halisi explains that the Bankinvested in low- and medium-income neighborhoodsbecause whole areas of town were segregated andtotally disinvested, with some blighted plotsspanning four to five miles. The Bank continues togrant general operating funds because landlords andtenants operate in silos, unaware of issues thattrouble the real estate market.According to Dawn Stockmo, senior director for theMidwest Region, the Fannie Mae Foundation wasinterested in the “Community of Opportunity”Index as a way to put metrics around the quality oflife for communities. The Index made it easier to talkto constituencies about the value of the LeadershipCouncil’s mobility program, freedom of choice, andthe impact it would have on a family.For Ricardo Millett, president of the Woods Fund ofChicago, the Index is an innovative use ofinformation for public housing and policy advocatesbecause it is a quantitative measurement of the costto low-income people seeking affordable housing andeducation opportunities. Millett believes that theLeadership Council must keep race segregation anddiscrimination in the center of its housing activitiesand continue to make race equity a part of thenational dialogue. “They are the only organizationdealing with issues of race in a comprehensivemanner,” adds Pennick from the Field Foundation.58john a. powell, “Envisioning Racially Just, Opportunity-BasedHousing for the Chicago Region,” (Executive Summary), available atwww1.umn.edu/irp/publications/leadershippaper.pdf (June 13, 2001).59The Leadership Council’s Community of Opportunity Index, releasedin May 2005, is accessible at www.lcmoc.org.60The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities. “FY2004 Draft Report.”61Ibid.62Gautreaux I & II are programs that work only with families comingout of public housing into communities of opportunity.REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 116

REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYRegional/Neighborhood Equity ImpactsOver the 38-year development of LeadershipCouncil, the funding community has seen a numberof impacts affecting the region. The Woods Fund ofChicago indicates that the analytic metric tool,“Community of Opportunity” Index, can betterequip the field ofactivists working inFor Ricardo Millett, president the city andof the Woods Fund of suburbs. With theChicago, the “Community of knowledge providedOpportunity” Index is an by the Index, theinnovative use of information Leadership Councilcan become a morefor public housing and policyaggressive advocateadvocates because it is aand build on itsquantitative measurement community. Thisof the cost to low-income could enable thepeople seeking affordable community to feelhousing and education confident enough toopportunities.address its ownwelfare issues.According toMillett, the Leadership Council believes that thecommunity, not policy professionals, knows what’sbest for its area.The Leadership Council is a consistent advocate andkey figure that partners with regional planninggroups, councils of governments, and others toencourage affirmative support for policies that willexpand fair and affordable housing in the region.These groups have in turn adopted diversity andinclusion in specific frameworks for regional andcommunity planning. The MacArthur Foundation’sWhite hopes that “the entire region becomes lesssegregated, that policies decrease segregation andincrease affordable housing. Already the LeadershipCouncil has been successful in helping minorityfamilies relocate to low-poverty areas through itsdirect service programs. Its continued advocacysupports those efforts.”At the state level, the Leadership Council initiated acollaborative effort with the organization, Businessand Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI),in order to convene regional groups to develop acoordinated state housing policy agenda. Known asthe Illinois Housing Roundtable, the effort has madea real impact on state housing policy through publiceducation, outreach, and organizing. It provided anexcellent opportunity for groups to discuss effectiveprograms and future initiatives around statewidehousing policy. As a result, various organizationsstrengthened relationships, built stronger coalitions,and began prioritizing opportunities that led to somevery successful outcomes.By 2003, positive changes were seen in the area ofhousing policy in Illinois. The Builders Planning andAppeal Act requires 49 communities in the Chicagoregion to create individual plans for increasing theirsupply of affordable housing by 2009. Other lawsinclude a tax incentive to expand support for housingchoice vouchers in high-growth areas and a lawagainst predatory lending.Nationally, the Leadership Council is working withgroups like Fund for an Open Society to enhancesupport for race equity, including co-conveningnational conferences in 2002 and 2004 with agendasfocusing on strategies to build and maintaincommunity diversity. In addition, Pennick of theField Foundation cites an increased visibility ofhousing discrimination cases as a result of theLeadership Council’s work.ResultsToday, the Leadership Council has made significantprogress in overcoming segregation anddiscrimination. For example, in 2004, the LeadershipCouncil’s three centers: handled 2,944 inquiriescovering a range of fair housing needs; helped morethan 92 families locate apartments through itsGautreaux II program in areas that are low in povertyand high in economic opportunities in the city andsuburbs; filed 52 legal actions, including 29 familialstatus complaints stemming from work withGautreaux II families and 15 complaints against theVillage of Franklin Park over discriminatory codeenforcement practices; trained 120 low- andmoderate-income residents in 16 Chicago areacommunities and Rockford, Ill., to advocate for fairhousing and improved human relations at the locallevel through its Fair Housing Advocate TrainingProgram; and provided technical assistance to over30 municipalities in the Chicago region through itsCommunity Relations Program. 63Overall, the Leadership Council demonstrates a trackrecord that makes it a credible resource with a63The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities. “FY2004 Draft Report.”117Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

consistent body of work. The Council’s education,legal action, and policy approaches show asophisticated strategy, as its constituents responddifferently. Notes the Field Foundation’s Pennick,“Some will only listen to lawsuits.” In the end, theLeadership Council’s programs are a positive forcetowards race equity in fair housing and improvedopportunity to jobs, education, and health care.Lessons LearnedRace equity is a subtly complex issue, particularly asthe nature of segregation and discrimination evolves.In 1999, theLeadership Council“It helps to be smarter bydoing work a different way.”— Dawn Stockmoformed theImmigrants’ FairHousingRoundtable, acoalition oforganizationsfocused on Latino and other ethnic minority groupfair housing needs. In 2001, the Leadership Councildeveloped a community-based training program thathas successfully trained more than 200 residents asfair housing advocates, with emphasis on Latinoimmigrants in the Chicago suburbs that wereotherwise disconnected from specific advocacyresources. These efforts address the self-segregationand isolation of growing Latino communities in theChicago region. With the growing Latinocommunity presence, it is easy to lose sight of thecontinued disparities faced by other minority groups.The challenge facing the Leadership Council is torefine its methods to meet the challenges of today’srace equity struggle within the context of changingfunding priorities.There has been a “shift nationwide,” according toWhite from the MacArthur Foundation. Heexplains, “We lost the war on poverty but we stillneed to hear that race matters even though theaudience is less aroused by race talk.” He believesfoundations should be prepared to support theLeadership Council in its ongoing endeavors bymaking larger investments over a long period of time,not just annually. Yet with fewer grants available anda general trend to retreat from fair housingenforcement, the Leadership Council will need tokeep the civil rights struggle interesting by setting anew strategy. Fannie Mae Foundation’s Stockmosimplifies the concern by adding, “It helps to besmarter by doing work a different way.”Contact PeoplePam Daniels-HalisiVice President, CommunityDevelopment LendingLaSalle Bank(former board member,Leadership Council)pam.daniels-halisi@abnamro.com(312) 904-5360Ricardo A. Millett, Ph.D.PresidentWoods Fund of Chicagoricardo@woodsfund.org(312) 782-2698 ext. 104Aurie A. PennickExecutive DirectorThe Field Foundation of Illinois(former President & CEO,Leadership Council)apennick@fieldfoundation.org(312) 831-0910Dawn StockmoSenior Director, Midwest RegionFannie Mae Foundationdstockmo@fanniemaefoundation.org(312) 368-6270Brian WhiteDirector, DevelopmentLeadership Council forMetropolitan Open Communitiesbwhite@lcmoc.org(312) 341-5678 ext. 247Spruiell WhiteSenior Program OfficerThe John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundationswhite@macfound.org(312) 917-3671REGIONAL OPPORTUNITYPart III: Section 3: Connecting to Regional Opportunity 118

PART IV:ConclusionAs Peter Bahouth, a founder of the Funders’Network and former executive director of theTurner Foundation, likes to say, “There is no hope,but we may be wrong.” The innovative strategiesillustrated by the stories in this report reveal that, infact, we are wrong—there is hope. The complex yetvitally important issues addressed by theorganizations and foundations highlighted in thisreport are inspiring, thought-provoking, andexciting. Hope lives.The projects in this publication were chosen todemonstrate how the combination of advocacy,community organizing, and land use developmentwork can help to achieve community and regionaltransformation. More and more, the Funders’Network is seeing traditional advocates for lowincomecommunities and communities of colorbecome engaged in land use issues by takingdevelopment training courses or learning thelanguage of zoning ordinances. Advocates whoacknowledge development realities and can balancelegal, organizing, and legislative tactics are craftingmore sound policies and having greater impacts onthose they serve.Having over 70 projects to choose from forinclusion in this report shows the increasingimportance and momentum of the movement forregional and neighborhood equity. The storiesinclude many examples of the philanthropiccommunity capitalizing on its ability to beinnovative, flexible, and use a longer-termperspective. Foundations are recognizing that oneyeargrants with multiple conditions often do notget the job done. The stories in this reportdemonstrate what can happen when philanthropythinks and acts differently in partnership withleading advocates, developers, academic institutions,and public sector leaders.These projects demonstrate an evolving frameworkregarding equitable development strategies. Next, itis important for the framework to becomewidespread common knowledge, so that the promisesof regional and neighborhood equity can be realizedon a larger scale.Foundations are recognizing the value of using anequitable development framework in theirgrantmaking to help them think of new ways thattheir individual grants can have a broader impact. Byensuring that grants help to integrate people- andplace-focused strategies, reduce local and regionaldisparities, promote double bottom line investments,and ensure meaningful community participation,foundations may see greater social and economicreturns on their investments.While the stories in this report includedescriptions of what foundations have done, theFunders’ Network hopes it will also serve as aguide for what still needs to be done, many moretimes in many more places. As each of these storiesillustrates, it is possible for a foundation tocontribute to smarter growth strategies that worktowards creating more equitable regions. Threeclear themes are revealed in this report that areintegral to efforts to advance a framework forregional and neighborhood equity.1) The Region MattersEven funders focused on neighborhood quality of lifeunderstand that regional demographics—includingtransportation investments, population growth anddecline, etc.—are important to consider in order forgrantmaking in neighborhoods to be effective. Thefoundations profiled in this report find that aregional lens is an important one to employ in theirgrantmaking, even if they are only funding locally.Having knowledge of the region helps to ensuremore targeted and potentially effective work on theneighborhood or local level.2) Public Policy is a Lever for ChangeMany grantmakers are finding that they can furtherleverage their grant dollars by supporting policy work(such as CBAs, inclusionary zoning policies,community organizing, etc.). Grants to buildaffordable housing are enhanced by policy work thatencourages a more receptive federal, state, or localpolicy framework (or financial investment) forhousing. Foundations have the legal right to supportvarious types of policy work. For more information,visit the Alliance for Justice’s Foundation AdvocacyProject (www.allianceforjustice.org) or the Center forLobbying in the Public Interest (www.clpi.org).119 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

3) Issues Need to be ConnectedThe foundations and organizations profiled in thisreport recognize the connections among issues theycare about and the effects of land use decisionmaking.Land use policies and practices have implications onwork to alleviate poverty, ensure access to jobs andeducation, and encourage healthy, active lifestyles. Forexample, the movement of jobs to the suburbs requiresthat organizations pay attention to transportationaccess, so that potential employees can reachappropriate opportunities. By recognizing links andconnections between issues, the foundations profiledhere find that the means to accomplish the outcomesthey desire may change once they realize the underlyingfactors that affect the surface problem or challenge.Having a strong impact requires a commitment ofpatience and time. Beyond the three broad themeshighlighted previously, the stories in this report alsoreveal a series of common general factors thatcontribute to the success of these projects from thefunder’s perspective. The following recommendationsbuild on these success factors and are designed toencourage and inspire grantmakers in their work.Pay attention to race and class: Race and classissues need to be addressed at the forefront. Theregional and neighborhood equity framework is morereadily welcomed among low-income communitiesand communities of color because it addresses raceand class issues up front. The fundamentaldifferences between the movements for smartergrowth and regional equity have been their respectivehistories as well as the faces of those at the forefront.Advocates for a regional equity framework, such asCarl Anthony, Angela Blackwell, Manuel Pastor, andjohn powell, are people of color who have fought forcivil rights and social justice issues, especially as theyrelate to land use decisions. In the 1990s, many ofthe conversations about regionalism were drivenfrom a smart growth perspective, but rarely did thesediscussions lead with race and equity. Today, due tothe efforts of leading socially-conscious advocates forsmarter growth, one sees increasing participation ofpeople of color in the movement for smart growth.As a result, development and growth patterns areslowly, but surely, being viewed through a racial lens.Addressing issues of race and class is not easy, but thehard work pays off when strong cross-cultural, crossissue,and cross-class coalitions are created.Use all the tools available: A diverse array of toolsare available for foundations to employ in theirwork. Beyond that of grantmaker, foundations canplay roles including convener, educator, advocate,and initiator. The stories in this report highlightexamples of foundations that are using all of thetools available to them and all of the assets at theirdisposal. For instance, in the story of theCenterEdge Project, although one of thefoundations was not able to fund the regionaldisparities research, it was able to fund thecommunity dialogues that were necessary to achievea broad-based coalition. Foundations can thinkbeyond a grant request and about how they canfurther the work. A foundation may not be able toenter a project in the initial phases, but may getinvolved more strategically at a later time to helpcarry the torch.Commit to long-term investment: The mostcommon lesson offered in these stories is that longterminvestment is needed in order to change longstandingdevelopment principles. Yet even smallamounts of money can make a big difference, as seenthrough these stories, if allocated strategically alongwith fact-finding, convening, and leadership.Committing to the long-term also increases theopportunity for organizations and foundations toevaluate outcomes. As these stories show, there is adifference between building houses andincorporating residents into the larger community.Although equally important, one requires a longerterminvestment, yet may ultimately lead to theoutcomes desired by both the project and thegrantmaker.Partner with grantees and take risks: In each ofthe stories, one or more individuals—a programofficer, CEO, or trustee—was willing to lead afoundation to take a risk and think outside of thebox. In some cases, inspiring board members andtrustees by using convenings and site visits, helpedpush an agenda forward. In addition, these storiesrarely involve reactive grantmaking. Most of theseexamples involve funders partnering with grantees todevelop and implement strategies, going beyond thetypical arms-length relationships that characterizefunder/grantee interaction.Tell stories: Sharing information about what isworking represents a powerful source of ideas for thephilanthropic community. The Funders’ Network isbecoming a repository of information aboutfoundation activity in this area. Visitwww.fundersnetwork.org for more information.Part IV: Conclusion120

As demonstrated in these pages, it is possible to workat the neighborhood level and connect to the region,in order to unite diverse interests and improve thequality of life for all residents. The Funders’ Networkis pleased to share the stories included in thispublication—Signs of Promise: Stories of PhilanthropicLeadership in Advancing Regional and NeighborhoodEquity—and hopes that they are inspiring.Conducting this research has demonstrated that thereis a need to develop a more comprehensive picture ofthe ongoing work in various regions that featureequitable development projects and strategies toaddress regional equity concerns. The Funders’Network recommends that efforts to track and gatherthese stories and others continue in the coming year,perhaps enabling the publication of a second volumein coming years. The Network welcomes andencourages your participation in this effort.121 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

PART V:Glossary of TermsThe terms defined here include specific language fromthe report, as well as some common terms used in themovements for smarter growth and more equitableregions.501(c)(3). The tax status of a nonprofit organizationobtained from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).This status allows gifts to the organization to be taxexemptand exempts the organization from all taxes.Affordable housing. Safe and sanitary shelter whosemonthly rent or mortgage payment, including taxes,insurance, and utilities, does not exceed 30 percentof a household’s gross annual income.Big box retail. Characterized by stores thattypically occupy more than 50,000 square feet;derive their profits from high sales volumes ratherthan price mark-up; are large, windowless,rectangular, single-story buildings; havestandardized façades; rely on auto-borne shoppers;and include acres of parking.Brownfield. An industrial or commercial parcel thatis abandoned or underused and oftenenvironmentally contaminated, especially oneconsidered as a potential site for redevelopment.Business Improvement District (BID). A businessimprovement district (BID)—also known as a specialimprovement district or a business improvementarea—is a public/private sector partnership in whichproperty and business owners of a defined area electto make a collective contribution to themaintenance, development, andmarketing/promotion of their commercial district.Charrette. An intensive process involving a series ofcollaborative design and public input cycles formultiple, consecutive days. A central element of thecharrette is the “design team,” a multidisciplinarygroup of professionals that provide the necessaryexpertise to create a feasible plan that considers allrelevant input.Density. The average number of people, housingunits, or structures per unit of land.Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). An electronicsystem that allows recipients to authorize transfer oftheir government benefits from a federal account to aretailer account to pay for products received. It iscurrently being used in many states to issue foodstamp and other benefits (through the use of EBTcards). Nearly 100 percent of food stamp benefits arecurrently being issued by EBT.Equitable development. As defined by PolicyLink,equitable development connects the quest for fullracial inclusion and participation to local,metropolitan, and regional planning anddevelopment. It is grounded in four guidingprinciples: integration of people and placestrategies; reduction of local and regional disparities;promotion of “double bottom line” investments; andinclusion of meaningful community voice,participation, and leadership.Exurban. A region or settlement that lies outside acity and usually beyond its suburbs that often isinhabited chiefly by well-to-do families and/orfarmers.Fair share housing. Fair share housing is a policythat encourages proportionate and equitabledistribution of a range of housing choices and types,including low-income housing.Gentrification. The impact of steadily rising housingprices as a result of neighborhood improvements,which can result in displacement of lower-incomehouseholds.Geographic Information System (GIS). A systemfor capturing and manipulating data relating to theEarth. A common use of GIS is to overlay severaltypes of maps (for example, train routes, elevationdata, street maps) to determine useful data about agiven geographic area.Green building. Used to describe practices related tothe construction and development of buildings thatare environmentally responsible, profitable, andhealthy places to live and work.Greenbelt. A ring of connected parks, farmland,and/or uncultivated land surrounding a community.Greenfield. Undeveloped property, sometimes inagricultural use, that can be used for suburbandevelopment on the edges of or outside of existingurban areas.Greenspace. A term used to describe public parksand open spaces.Part V: Glossary of Terms122

Greyfield. An obsolete or abandoned retail orcommercial site, usually a shopping mall.Hope VI. Also known as the Urban RevitalizationDemonstration, a grant program created in 1992 byCongress and the Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD) to revitalize the nation’smost severely distressed public housing. Provides aflexible source of support (either revitalization grantsor demolition grants) for investment in publichousing developments and their residents.Inclusionary zoning. A land use concept in whichlocal ordinances require builders to include a certainamount of housing for low- and moderate-incomehouseholds. In contrast, exclusionary zoning is atechnique that effectively drives up the cost ofhousing, excluding lower-income households fromthe community.Indicators. A series of measured communityattributes—such as school dropout rates, air quality,acres of urbanized land, and health insurancecoverage—that are used to identify and monitorprogress on various aspects of the health of acommunity.Individual Development Account (IDA). A tooldesigned to enable low-income and low-wealthAmerican families to save, build assets, and enter thefinancial mainstream. IDAs encourage savings effortsamong the poor by offering them 1:1, 2:1, or moregenerous matches for their own deposits. Thesematched savings accounts are similar to 401(k) plansand other matched savings accounts but can serve abroad range of purposes. IDA programs areimplemented by community-based organizations inpartnership with a financial institution that holds thedeposits and funded by public and private sources.Infill. The use of vacant land and property within abuilt-up area for new construction or redevelopment.Inner-ring suburb. Those communities in betweenthe inner city and outer-ring suburbs. An emergingliterature defines inner-ring suburbs in terms of theirspecific time of development, such as post WorldWar II communities constructed between 1945 and1965 and middle-aged neighborhoods that werebuilt from 1945 to 1970. Key to these definitions isthe idea of inner-ring suburbs as post-WWIIdevelopedareas where the automobile was theprimary means of transportation.Livability. Quality of an area as perceived byresidents, employers, and visitors, including safetyand health, environmental conditions, quality ofsocial interactions, opportunities for recreation andentertainment, aesthetics, and existence of culturaland environmental resources.Location efficient mortgage (LEM). A mortgagethat helps people become homeowners in locationefficient communities (convenient neighborhoods inwhich residents can walk from their homes to stores,schools, recreation, and public transportation).Because people who live in location efficientcommunities have less need to drive, which allowsthem to save money and improve the environmentfor everyone, LEMs combine a low down payment,competitive interest rates, and flexible criteria forfinancial qualification.Metropolitan equity. Similar to regional equity,metropolitan equity uses a greater than local lens forguiding strategy and policy.Median income. Median income divides the incomedistribution into two equal groups, one havingincomes above the median and the other havingincomes below the median.Mixed-use. Multiple land uses, such as residential,retail, and office, combined in a structure, on a singleparcel of land, or built adjacent to one another onmultiple parcels.New Urbanism. International movement to restoreexisting urban centers and towns, reconfiguresprawling suburbs into communities of realneighborhoods and diverse districts, conserve naturalenvironments, preserve historic structures, and createcompact new towns and villages.Open space. Undeveloped land or land that is usedfor recreation, including farmland and naturalhabitats (e.g., forests, fields, wetlands).Receivership. A form of bankruptcy in which acompany can avoid liquidation by reorganizing withthe help of a court-appointed trustee. In a localgovernment context, a form of bankruptcy where thestate assumes responsibility for a city’s financialmanagement.Redlining. The illegal practice of a lendinginstitution denying loans or restricting their numberfor certain areas of a community.123 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Regional and neighborhood equity. A learningand action framework designed to: reduce socialand economic disparities among individuals, socialgroups, neighborhoods, and local jurisdictionswithin a metropolitan area; connect neighborhoodsto regional and state public policy decisionmaking;and harness private markets opportunities forcommunity benefits.Remediation. In environmental protection work, theact or process of correcting a fault or deficiency.Retail leakage. The amount of money residents andworkers spend outside a neighborhood because of alack of stores inside it.Section 8. A federal rent subsidy program thatprovides monthly assistance to low-incomeindividuals residing in privately owned units. Rentsmust be within Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) limits and the units must meetHUD Housing Quality Standards. Section 8 can beused in cooperatives to help lower-incomehouseholds pay their monthly carrying charges.Smart growth. A series of policies and practices toensure that decisions about growth result in wellplanneddevelopment that protects open space andfarmland, revitalizes communities, keeps housingaffordable, and provides transportation choices.Sprawl. The unplanned spread of urbandevelopment into areas beyond the edges of a city.Sprawl defines patterns of urban growth that includelarge acreage of low-density residential development,rigid separation between residential and commercialuses, development in rural areas away from urbancenters, strip commercial development alonghighways, and minimal support for non-motorizedor alternative transportation.Sustainable development. Development with thegoal of preserving environmental quality, naturalresources, and livability for present and futuregenerations. Sustainable initiatives work to ensureefficient use of resources.Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Refers toresidential and commercial areas designed tomaximize access by transit and non-motorizedtransportation and with other features to encouragetransit ridership. A TOD neighborhood has a centerwith a rail or bus station, surrounded by relativelyhigh-density development, with progressively lowerdensitydevelopment spreading outwards.Uniform Relocation Act. The Uniform RelocationAssistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Actof 1970 (Uniform Act) provides importantprotections and assistance for people affected by theacquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of realproperty for federal or federally-funded projects. Thislaw was enacted by Congress to ensure that peoplewhose real property is acquired, or who move as adirect result of projects receiving federal funds, aretreated fairly and equitably and receive assistance inmoving from the property they occupy.Urban village. A place where people live, work,and play in harmony with each other and theenvironment. Often a neighborhood within alarger city.Value latching. The concept of value latching is thatas downtown values rise—both rents and salesprices—a system of dedicated cash flow sources foraffordable housing and affordable commercial rentscould be negotiated. This process wouldsystematically latch onto rising property values andrents in order to provide a permanent source offunding for affordable housing/commercial rents.Weak market cities. A term characterizing urbancenters that saw declines in home values from 1990 to2000 and are considered places where tax bases andpublic services have eroded. There are more than 100“weak market cities” nationally, including 55 percentof those with populations of 100,000 or more.Part V: Glossary of Terms124

PART VI:ResourcesThis section offers links to additional resources and materials for more information about efforts to advance aregional and neighborhood equity framework. Please note that contact information for the foundations profiled inthis report appears in the introduction to “Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership in Advancing Regional andNeighborhood Equity—A Framework for Action,” which begins on page 9.Part I: IntroductionFunders’ Network for Smart Growth and LivableCommunities: www.fundersnetwork.orgPolicyLink: www.policylink.orgPart II: Perspectives on Advancing Regionaland Neighborhood EquityOrfield, Myron. 1997. Metropolitics: A RegionalAgenda for Community and Stability (Revised Edition).Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Rusk, David. 1999. Inside Game/Outside Game:Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America.Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Part III: Stories of Philanthropic Leadership inAdvancing Regional and Neighborhood Equity—A Framework for ActionI. A. Building Power and Giving Voice toCommunity Concerns: Community BenefitsAgreementsDenver Area Labor Federation: www.denverlabor.orgJobs with Justice: www.jwj.orgLos Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE):www.laane.orgMilwaukee Innercity Congregations Allied for Hope(MICAH): www.micahempowers.orgSeattle Alliance for Good Jobs and Housing forEveryone (SAGE):www.wacitizenaction.org/economic/lwsage.htmStrategic Alliance for a Just Economy (SAJE):www.saje.netWorking Families Project, Institute for Wisconsin’sFuture: www.wisconsinsfuture.org/workingfamilies/index.htmWorking Partnerships USA: www.wpusa.orgI. B. Promoting Coalitions to Advance Equity:Gamaliel Foundation’s Cross-CoalitionBuildingMetropolitan Alliance of Congregations (MAC):www.arc.org/gripp/aboutGripp/mac.htmlMetropolitan Organizing Strategy for EnablingStrength (MOSES): www.mosesmi.orgI. C. Filling the Void: The National VacantProperties CampaignSmart Growth America:www.smartgrowthamerica.orgU.S. Environmental Protection Agency:www.epa.gov/smartgrowthI. E. Building Coalition through Knowledge:CenterEdge ProjectCenterEdge Project: www.oua-adh.org/centerEdge_project.htmI. F. Confronting Racial Inequality and LandReform: Detroit Branch NAACP & MichiganLand Use Institute PartnershipDetroit Branch NAACP:www.detroitbranchnaacp.orgMichigan Land Use Institute: www.mlui.orgMichigan Land Use Leadership Council FinalReport: www.michiganlanduse.org/MLULC_FINAL_REPORT_0803.pdfI. H. A Travez de la Frontera: Land Use VisioningConservation Biology Institute: www.consbio.orgProNatura: www.pronatura.org.mxTijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve:www.tijuanaestuary.org125 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Tijuana River Reserve, California:http://nerrs.noaa.gov/TijuanaRiver/welcome.htmlConservation Biology Institute. 2004. “LasCalifornias Binational Conservation Initiative:A Vision for Habitat Conservation in the BorderRegion of California and Baja California”(www.consbio.org/cbi/pdf/lcbi/lcbi_part1.pdf[September]).International Community Foundation. 2003. “ICF/California Coastal Conservancy Project to AddressBinational Environmental Solutions.” Connections(www.icfdn.org/enewsletter/4thqtr2003.pdf).International Community Foundation. “LasCalifornias Binational Conservation Initiative.”Overview.International Community Foundation. “BlurredBorders: Transboundary Impacts and Solutions in theSan Diego-Tijuana Region.” Executive Summary(www.icfdn.org/aboutus/publications/blurrborders/01execsummary.htm).KPBS. 2005. Various radio and television stories onLos Laureles (www.kpbs.org and “Preserving SanDiego’s Wildlife”;www.kpbs.org/fullfocus/index_120204.php[January]).Louv, Richard. 2005. “Our Region’s Lost World isFound.” The San Diego Union Tribune. March 1.Siciliano, Stephen. 2004. “San Diego, Tijuana Saidto Face Challenges Related to Growing Border-AreaEconomy.” Daily Environment Report. March 30,p. A3.I. I. Mobilizing Action for Regional EquityAlternatives for Community & Environment (ACE):www.ace-ej.orgCity Life/Vida Urbana: www.clvu.orgTri-City Community Action Program:www.tri-cap.orgWaltham Alliance to Create Housing:www.watchcdc.orgI. J. Fusing Issues, Making Change: RegionalAdvocacy in the San Francisco Bay AreaRegional Asthma Management & Prevention(RAMP): www.rampasthma.orgTransportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC):www.transcoalition.orgUrban Habitat: www.urbanhabitat.orgII. A. Reaching Beyond Housing to Implement aBroader Community Vision: Allegheny WestFoundationTasty Baking Company: www.tastykake.comPhiladelphia Neighborhood Collaborative. 2004.“Case Study: TBC and AWF.” September 7.The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2001. “PNDCAnnounces 2001-2004 Grantees.” Press Release.August 3.II. C. Yielding Regional Benefits throughNeighborhood Action: Bethel New LifeBethel New Life: www.bethelnewlife.orgLISC/Chicago: www.lisc-chicago.orgDelta Institute. “Bethel New Life Plans Transit-Oriented, Green Development.”(www.chicagoredi.org/bethel.php).Wintroub Calmenson, Diane. 2004. “UrbanistCowboys.” Interiors & Sources. June.(www.isdesignet.com/Magazine/2004/jun/cover.html).U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children & Families. 1996.“Summaries of Joli Projects, FY 1996.”(www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/dcdp/joli/revised/sum96.htm).III. A. Making Housing an Opportunity for Localand Regional Equity: The Bay AreaInclusionary Housing InitiativeCalifornia Affordable Housing Law Project:www.housingadvocates.orgThe Campaign for Affordable Housing:www.tcah.orgThe Greenbelt Alliance: www.greenbelt.orgLeague of California Cities’ Institute for Local SelfGovernance: www.cacities.org/index.jsp?zone=ilsgNational Housing Conference: www.nhc.orgNine-County Housing Advocacy Network:www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter/campaigns/ninecountynetwork/index.atomicPart VI: Resources126

Non-Profit Housing Association of NorthernCalifornia: www.nonprofithousing.orgPratt Institute Center for Community andEnvironmental Development: www.pratt.eduWestern Center on Law and Poverty: www.wclp.orgD.C. Campaign for Inclusionary Zoning: FromJanuary 1999 to March 2003, the sale prices ofhomes in the District of Columbia rose four timesfaster than incomes. The price of D.C. rentals grewthree times faster than incomes. As a result, morethan 35 percent of renters and 24 percent ofhomeowners are paying more than they can affordfor housing, meaning other family needs are beingignored. For mandatory inclusionary zoning to beadopted in D.C., zoning and land use laws must bechanged. The Campaign for Inclusionary Zoningproposes a detailed policy that is now before the localzoning commission. As of mid-November 2004, 48organizations in the District of Columbia had lentsupport and voice in support of mandatoryInclusionary Zoning. For more information,www.policylink.org/DCIZ/.New York City’s Campaign for InclusionaryZoning: The fall 2004 publication of a report coauthoredby PolicyLink and the Pratt InstituteCenter for Community and EnvironmentalDevelopment helped to launch a citywide rezoningand development proposal. The publication,Increasing Housing Opportunity in New York City:The Case for Inclusionary Zoning, finds that NewYork’s housing construction market was unable tokeep pace with consumer demand, which had theeffect of forcing up housing prices throughout thecity as evidenced by extremely low vacancy rates,growing waiting lists for subsidized housing, andrecord-high homelessness. The Pratt Center issupporting a new citywide coalition of housing andsocial justice groups under the New York CityCampaign for Inclusionary Zoning (includingACORN, Habitat for Humanity, communityorganizations, and religious congregations). Afterstrong organizing by the campaign and the supportof more than 25 City Council members, the MayorBloomberg’s administration agreed to shift itspolicy. In the rezoning of the Hudson Yards on thewest side of Manhattan, the administration and theCity Council agreed to inclusionary zoning andother affordable housing provisions that will lead tothe creation or preservation of nearly 3,400affordable apartments (about 28 percent of the totalunits to be developed in the area). The Campaign isnow pressing the administration and the CityCouncil to commit to inclusionary zoningprovisions in every future rezoning that createsroom for more housing. For more information,www.izny.org.III. E. Uniting Three States for One Vision: TheMid South Delta InitiativeMid South Delta Initiative: www.msdi.orgIII. F. Advancing Opportunity throughMetropolitan Equity: Leadership Councilfor Metropolitan Open CommunitiesLeadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities: www.lcmoc.orgAppelhans, Bill, and Black, Carolyn. 2002. “TheChicago Freedom Movement: Summer 1966.”People's Weekly World Newspaper.(www.pww.org/article/view/439/1/44/).Civilrights.org. “Leadership Council forMetropolitan Open Communities, BuildingCommunity Region Wide.”(www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/c2k_report/metro_open_comm.html).The Leadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities. “Fact Sheet.”McClellan, Dr. 1999. “A Century of Diversity Southof Chicago.” Governors State University. February28. (www.lincolnnet.net/users/lxmcclel/afam006.htm).Pennick, Aurie. 1998. “The Transformation of PublicHousing.” The Chicago Reporter. March.(http://chicagoreporter.com/1998/03-98/0398penn.htm).Center for Community Change: The Center forCommunity Change is a progressive social justiceorganization whose central project is to support theemergence of one or more movements for social andeconomic justice in the United States. For moreinformation, www.communitychange.org.NAACP: The NAACP ensures the political,educational, social, and economic equality ofminority groups and citizens; achieves equality ofrights and eliminates race prejudice among thecitizens of the United States. For more information,www.naacp.org.127 Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law:The Sargent Shriver National Center on PovertyLaw, a national resource, champions law and policypromoting equal opportunity and support for lowincomeindividuals, families, and communities sothat they can escape poverty permanently. For moreinformation, www.povertylaw.org.The Urban League: The Urban League is thenation’s oldest and largest community-basedmovement empowering African Americans to enterthe economic and social mainstream. For moreinformation, visit www.nul.org/about/index.htm, orChicago affiliate www.cul-chicago.org.Part VI: Resources128

Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities2005-2006 Board of DirectorsJon Jensen, Senior Program Officer, The George Gund Foundation (Board Chair)Carl Anthony, Acting Director, Community and Resource Development Unit, Ford FoundationDan Bartholomay, Program Director, The McKnight FoundationHooper Brooks, Program Director for Environment, Surdna FoundationTony Coombes, Executive Director, Neptis FoundationNancy Fishman, Executive Director, Grand Victoria FoundationMarlene Fluharty, Executive Director, Americana Foundation, (Secretary)Stephanie Jennings, former Manager, National Initiatives, Fannie Mae FoundationPatricia Jenny, Program Director, Community Development & the Environment, New York Community TrustM. Katherine Kraft, Senior Program Officer, Robert Wood Johnson FoundationKevin Murphy, President, Berks County Community Foundation, (Treasurer)Arlene Rodriguez, Program Officer, Environment, The San Francisco Foundation, (Vice Chair)William Shutkin, President, Orton Family FoundationScot Spencer, Manager of Baltimore Relations, Annie E. Casey FoundationMauro Vescera, Program Director, Vancouver Foundation2005 StaffL. Benjamin Starrett, Executive DirectorAna Colls, Program AssociateMaureen Lawless, Program ManagerJesus “Jesse” Leon, Program ManagerKimberly Ogren, Senior Program ManagerAnn Fowler Wallace, Senior ConsultantMark Valentine, Senior ConsultantThe board and staff of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities,at its April 2005 board meeting in San Diego, at the offices of The California Endowment.(Source: Jon Jensen).

1500 San Remo Avenue • Suite 249 • Coral Gables, FL 33146(305) 667-6350 phone • (305) 667-6355 faxinfo@fundersnetwork.org • www.fundersnetwork.org