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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tendencias de asequibilidad

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

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

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

La función del gobierno local

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

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

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

Acerca de los autores

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

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

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

Referencias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Equitable Development Imperative: How Greater Equity Can Support Growth 

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

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

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

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

Sidebar: What are equity and equitable development?

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

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

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

Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

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

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

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

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

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

Equitable Development in the COVID-19 Context 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing Concerns About Gentrification in Smaller Legacy Cities 

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

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

A Common Destiny 

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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