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

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

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

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

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

The Equitable Development Imperative: How Greater Equity Can Support Growth 

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

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

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

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

Sidebar: What are equity and equitable development?

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

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

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

Unique Challenges and Opportunities for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

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

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

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

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

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

Equitable Development in the COVID-19 Context 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing Concerns About Gentrification in Smaller Legacy Cities 

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

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

A Common Destiny 

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

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

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

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

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

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

References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The members of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition include: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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