Sonya Comes is a grandmother and a longtime resident of eastern Kentucky who never imagined owning her own home. She was divorced and renting a family member’s house when she learned about the Hope Building program. Run by the Housing Development Alliance (HDA), a nonprofit affordable housing developer in her area, Hope builds affordable homes and provides construction training for people in recovery. 

Today, Comes is a homeowner who “couldn’t be happier” with her house, which sits on land in Perry County, Kentucky, that has been transformed from an abandoned trailer park into a growing rural neighborhood outside of Hazard, the county seat. “I believe the Hope project has affected the community in a great way,” she adds. 

Launched in 2019, Hope Building is part of a broader effort by HDA to fix the broken local housing market in the four-county area it serves. Over the years, HDA has grown with support from key partners including Fahe, a regional community development financial institution (CDFI) with a focus on affordable housing; Mountain Association, a CDFI focused on Appalachian Kentucky; the Appalachian Impact Fund of the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky; and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), a state-federal economic development partnership created in the 1960s. Now HDA is poised to expand the Hope program, proving the viability of the model while addressing critical needs related to housing availability, workforce development, and substance abuse recovery. But the organization needs to line up flexible, creatively secured loan capital to supplement its existing funding. If all goes according to plan, a new venture called Invest Appalachia will help HDA do just that. 

A regional social investment fund that grew out of a series of convenings with funders, researchers, entrepreneurs, and others in 2016 and 2017, Invest Appalachia is designed to help fill critical investment gaps in Central Appalachia. In places like Perry County, where the median household income is $33,640, it intends to provide the kind of flexible, forgiving investments and blended capital that larger funders aren’t always able or willing to make, by partnering with regional networks and attracting new impact capital primarily from outside the region.  

The creation of an enabling environment for capital in Perry County, which has become something of a hub of community development, is no accident, says Sara Morgan, chief investment officer of Fahe and treasurer of the board of Invest Appalachia: “Good financing comes at the end of a long trajectory of work and planning.” 

Perry County hasn’t always been an obvious target for investors—then again, neither has most of Appalachia. The cross-sector projects and innovative capital stacks springing up around the region have been informed by the experience of regional community development actors and networks during the past three decades. Together, they have worked to establish a new investment ecosystem in Central Appalachia, one committed to the long-term vision of building an inclusive, sustainable economy after decades of disinvestment in this region and its people. 

The Roots of Resilience 

Appalachia reaches from southern New York into Mississippi and Alabama, largely following the contours of the mountain range that gives the region its name. Central Appalachia is the heart of the region, comprising sections of southeastern Ohio, eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, southwestern Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina. Significant swaths of its culture and economy have long been tied to the rise and fall of the coal industry. 

In 1964, when President Johnson declared a national War on Poverty, Appalachia was the campaign’s poster child, providing the backdrop for press footage of the “poverty tours” he undertook to drive home his message. Johnson wasn’t the first president to recognize and attempt to address the major economic disparities between Appalachian states and their neighbors, but he formalized investments in solutions ranging from housing to hot lunches with the creation of ARC in 1965. ARC was tasked with overseeing the economic development of 423 counties across 13 mountainous states.  

Since then, ARC has made 28,000 targeted investments and invested more than $4.5 billion. That funding has been matched by over $10 billion in other federal, state, and local funding. Those investments have made a significant difference on the ground, supporting projects like the Hope Building program, but the commission cannot singlehandedly support the region, nor was it designed to. 

With the collapse of major industries—coal, manufacturing, and natural gas—throughout the last three decades, Appalachians left with only remnants of extractive economies had no choice but to build internally to survive, restarting local economies nearly from scratch. The retreat of major industry coincided with the disappearance of community banks; more than 80 percent exited the market, mostly merging with larger banks. Reduction in local bank ownership, from 80 percent to 20 percent in rural areas, has led to larger government institutions, like ARC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), working with CDFIs to fill the gaps.  

Even when funding has been available, it hasn’t always been clear what to fund. In Appalachia, supply chain issues and investment logic devoid of social considerations have long hurt the people who live there. Since there are no buyers for high-end, healthy products, for instance, the local markets won’t sell any. There is no profitable consumer base for broadband, so why invest the time and resources into bringing it to rural, mountainous areas? This type of market calculation has long left the region in a vicious cycle of vulnerability. 

Andrew Crosson, founding CEO of Invest Appalachia, points to the region’s reputation as a “risky” place for investment and the lack of capital as “the end product of a series of decisions that investors, policy makers, and economic forces have made that result in those communities being disinvested.” Current efforts in the region, he says, “are making up for generations of lack of wealth-building opportunity, which will require more credit enhancements [and] more technical assistance . . . market-rate capital won’t solve the issue of broken or underdeveloped markets on its own.” 

In the 1990s, a group of regional nonprofits created the Central Appalachian Network (CAN) to develop common analysis, scale projects across the states, and work together on longstanding issues. Initially focused on the region’s food systems, the network expanded its scope to address a broader array of community development strategies, including clean energy, tourism, workforce development, and waste reduction. Twenty years after the creation of that network, the philanthropic community followed suit. The direct effects of the 2008 financial crisis meant funder investments were down, dipping as much as 10.5 percent nationally during the peak of the Great Recession. In Appalachia, funders began to collaborate more closely, cofund where possible, and share analysis to help shield the region from these economic impacts. Informal gatherings led to the formation of the Appalachia Funders Network (AFN), which aligned its investment efforts with CAN and its priorities.  

Crosson began working with CAN and the budding AFN in 2012. With support from the Ford Foundation, ARC, and the USDA, CAN managed a collaborative initiative with several regional nonprofits to create a robust local and regional food system. Over time, this regional alignment illustrated the impact of high-level collaboration: In 2018, nearly $3 million in value chain investments contributed to around $20 million in annual revenue and 1,608 jobs for local farms and food businesses. 

But after nearly a decade of collaboration between funders and practitioners, both networks realized that traditional philanthropy and government grants could not address the scale of Appalachia’s economic obstacles. Community lenders and the Federal Reserve banks were becoming increasingly involved in the funders network and working to develop a pipeline of investment-ready deals. Fahe alone claimed a “cumulative impact of over a billion dollars . . . serving more than 616,694 people,” and other CDFIs were working hard to provide loans and financial advisory services to businesses and nonprofits. But the Central Appalachian region needed more investment capital, and new types of capital, to achieve the scale of revitalization needed. 

This recognition sparked the years of stakeholder conversations that led to the creation of Invest Appalachia. That groundwork included participating in the Connect Capital program run by the Center for Community Investment at the Lincoln Institute (CCI), which set up the organization to be adaptable to regional needs and nationally competitive in fundraising (see sidebar). That experience was critical to Invest Appalachia’s design, Crosson says, and helped secure the $2.5 million ARC POWER grant that provided initial seed capital and operating funds. Due to the deep network organizing and collaboration that had been occurring in the region, Invest Appalachia had investment-worthy projects to pitch as it began the hard work of raising the flexible capital it needs to start making an impact on the ground. 

With a focus on the role of capital and the ability of individuals, businesses, and communities to access that capital, Invest Appalachia is “taking the pieces that work well and supercharging them, helping them reach further into underserved communities and helping the existing dollars go further,” Crosson said. 

INVEST APPALACHIA AND CONNECT CAPITAL 

In 2018, the Center for Community Investment at the Lincoln Institute (CCI) launched Connect Capital to help communities attract and deploy capital at scale to address their needs. The first cohort consisted of six teams, including a group of community development practitioners and other leaders from Central Appalachia. That team included Sara Morgan, chief investment officer of Fahe; Deb Markley, vice president of Locus Impact Investing; Andrew Crosson, who would become the founding CEO of Invest Appalachia; and several other CDFI and philanthropic leaders.  

Connect Capital provided training in CCI’s capital absorption framework—a set of organizing principles that helps groups identify shared priorities, create a pipeline of investable projects, and strengthen the enabling environment of policies and practices that makes investment possible. Morgan, Markley, and Crosson said the training on pipeline development—an approach that encourages moving away from a model of scarcity and competition for resources toward a collaborative model—was critical for the region, and for the development of Invest Appalachia. Participating in Connect Capital catalyzed the launch of the new entity and equipped it with the tools to succeed. 

As a multistate investment group tackling issues like economic development, the Central Appalachia team was unlike other participants, says Omar Carrillo Tinajero, director of innovation and learning at CCI, who ran the Connect Capital program. Tinajero was impressed with the team’s dedication to democratic decision making and to creating a partnership built on trust, he says, noting that the capacity communities need to be ready to absorb capital flows from the strength of relationships. Struck by how expansive the investment pipelines had to be, CCI supported the team as they identified the large-scale deals that now make up the majority of Invest Appalachia’s planned first round of investments. 

Capital Ideas 

Invest Appalachia launched with four major sectoral priorities: clean energy, creative placemaking, community health, and food and agriculture. These priorities were identified through a multiyear collaborative research and design phase involving a variety of regional stakeholders, including members of CAN and AFN, CDFIs, public agencies, and community development groups. The fund’s investment strategy will be guided by a board of 14 diverse stakeholders, and a Community Advisory Council and Investment Committee will oversee the deployment of funds, drive sector priorities, and define and measure goals and impact. 

The Hope Building program, which has provided a path to affordable homeownership for Sonya Comes and others, offers an example of how Invest Appalachia would add to capital stacks across the region in the area of community health. A potential investment in Hope could leverage millions in total investment from the Housing Development Alliance, ARC, Fahe, and the Appalachian Impact Fund housed at the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky. Invest Appalachia can support existing investors by helping to meet the need for flexible and subordinate loan capital in these types of innovative investments, “de-risking” partially secured debt through credit enhancements like loan loss reserves. This would make it possible for HDA to create more jobs, build more homes, and leverage more financing. 

Morgan, who noted that Fahe has invested in HDA for over 20 years, sees affordable housing as “a driver for economic recovery” and hopes Invest Appalachia can access resources that can bring this project, and others like it, to scale. Invest Appalachia aims to play this kind of role in projects ranging from downtown revitalization to solar energy installations. 

Crosson is currently conducting a capital drive with the backing of Richmond, Virginia-based Locus Impact Investing, the fund’s investment manager, and says the fund is on track to close its first round of capital raise by the end of the second quarter in 2022. The total target for the Invest Appalachia Fund, an LLC affiliate managed by the nonprofit, is $40 million by early 2023, which will be invested over a seven-year period. This repayable investment will be complemented by a catalytic capital pool of philanthropic funds that will support inclusive pipeline development and help investment-worthy projects become investment-ready. 

The catalytic capital pool will provide flexible, grant-like funds that help projects seeking investment to address capacity, collateral, or risk issues that are preventing them from accessing repayable capital. As Crosson wrote in a recent Nonprofit Quarterly article, “Without credit enhancements, subsidies, and other flexible non-extractive capital to accelerate and de-risk projects, large-scale investment will not reach the underserved residents of low-wealth places like Appalachia.” Meanwhile, the Invest Appalachia Fund, LLC, will be a source of repayable investment in the form of large, flexible loans deployed alongside and in support of other regional investment partners like CDFIs. This fund intentionally takes on more risk than most lenders, in order to leverage capital into difficult-to-invest projects. Due to its blended structure, it will be able to absorb this risk and still return capital and concessionary (below-market) returns to investors. 

Crosson says Locus Impact Investing was a natural fit to serve as the fund’s investment manager, because of its track record in creative financing and its roots in the region. Deb Markley, VP of Locus, has been working in the region for more than three decades. Markley characterized Invest Appalachia as an “essential, trusted partner” and said she believes Crosson has the right kinds of networks and trust to overcome the challenges inherent in a resource-scarce rural region, where new or ambitious community development efforts sometimes encounter historically informed skepticism or resistance. 

“For too long, Appalachia has been defined by what it lacks,” Markley wrote in an article on the Locus website. “By lifting up investment opportunities and supporting locally rooted practitioners and financial institutions, Invest Appalachia is reflecting a new narrative about the region to outside investors—presenting Central Appalachia as a place of opportunity and vision. As an innovator in the community capital space, Invest Appalachia is proof positive that rural regions can and do nurture creativity and provide lessons for other parts of the country.” 

Raising over $50 million in capital is no small task, but many regional stakeholders are hopeful that Invest Appalachia will succeed on the national stage. The fund is pitching a message of opportunity to investors and national foundations rather than reinforcing and uplifting stereotypical images of Appalachian poverty. As a result, Invest Appalachia is beginning to attract investors ready to make a long-term commitment to transform the region.  

A Culture of Collaboration 

National investors are consistently surprised at the diversity of projects and level of collaboration and trust among Appalachian lenders, Crosson says. They wonder how a persistently poor, economically marginalized, chronically underinvested region has built a community investment ecosystem with the capacity to absorb and deploy catalytic capital for transformative change. They’ve asked some version of that question so much, in fact, that the Appalachian Investment Ecosystem Initiative (AIEI), a coalition that includes Invest Appalachia, Locus, Fahe, regional CDFI partner Community Capital, and others, created an online resource called By Us For Us: The Appalachian Ecosystem Journey to chronicle the region’s movement and capacity building and to highlight regional success stories. 

Coauthored by former Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Deputy Director Sandra Mikush, this regional chronicle is designed to provide context and recommendations for funders as they seek to support under-resourced communities. It also provides a potential roadmap for other rural areas where regional networks and partnerships are coalescing, such as the Delta and rural Texas. 

While stakeholders in Central Appalachia have made significant progress in building a thriving, functional investment ecosystem, they still face obstacles to long-term economic success. Policy makers in many Appalachian states tend to favor tax cuts for corporations—a stance likely to attract more parasitic boom-and-bust industries—rather than seeking to make deep investments in and create incentives for local businesses. And that demeaning national narrative about the region’s people lingers: that they are uninvestable, and unwilling or unable to work hard to change their situations. Invest Appalachia’s messages to national investors and planned investments in the longtime work of communities will help combat these narratives and, in concert with many partners, pave the way for reimagining what is possible for the region. 

In Decolonizing Wealth, author and social justice philanthropy advocate Edgar Villanueva describes the need to fight a separation worldview and cultivate integration in order to achieve balance. That philosophy is guiding the effort to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient economy in Central Appalachia. “If we are going to turn the needle on Appalachia, we need to work together,” said Morgan of Fahe. “It is my hope that Invest Appalachia will raise resources that we are not able to access because it is a new type of vehicle, and I know Invest Appalachia will bring consistent capital that will help us develop a pipeline of deals to coinvest on. The resources will go farther together.” 

FROM SOLAR POWER TO SMALL FARMS: PRIORITY PROJECTS 

Invest Appalachia will focus on four key areas of investment: 

Clean Energy, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean manufacturing, abandoned mine land reclamation, energy democracy, and green buildings. Emerging priorities include a partnership with the Appalachian Solar Finance Fund, leveraging $1.5 million in SFF grants to provide over $500,000 in credit enhancements and $8 million in repayable financing for medium-scale solar development in the region. 

Community Health, including health care, housing, education and childcare, built environment, and behavioral health. Likely opportunities include affordable housing projects like HDA’s Hope Building, as well as flexible financing to help get community health facilities up and running to provide substance abuse recovery, primary care, and more. Many of these projects are capital-intensive, requiring loan amounts in the millions for construction and working capital. 

Creative Placemaking, including downtown revitalization, commercial real estate, public spaces, tourism and recreation, and arts and culture. Early priorities include leveraging investment for renovations and real estate projects that can anchor downtown revitalizations, as well as local infrastructure to help businesses capitalize on the rapidly expanding outdoor recreation tourism industry. Brick-and-mortar projects require a blend of capital, including subordinated loans of up to $2 million that Invest Appalachia is positioned to make. 

Food and Agriculture, including local food systems, small farms, healthy food access, nontimber forest products, and farmland conservation. Potential projects include support for food hubs and intermediaries in need of flexible working capital or infrastructure financing in the $200,000 to $1 million range, as well as subsidized loan funds to support beginning and disadvantaged farmers. 

Alena Klimas specializes in philanthropic engagement and writes about economic development and culture in Appalachia. She has collaborated with many organizations and initiatives in the region through her past work with the Appalachia Funders Network and Rural Support Partners, a mission-based management consulting firm. Klimas grew up in West Virginia and currently lives in Asheville, North Carolina. 

Lead image: Invest Appalachia will support a portfolio of projects including downtown revitalization efforts, working closely with the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky and other partners. Credit: Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky.

Reforming Detroit’s property tax system by taxing land at a higher rate than buildings would help to revive the local economy and reduce tax bills for nearly every homeowner, according to a new study from the nonprofit Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 
 
With the lowest property values of any large U.S. city and some of the highest property tax rates, Detroit is caught in a decades-long cycle of rising tax rates that still fail to generate enough revenue. In the absence of strong public services, high property taxes increase owner costs, reduce property values, and increase the costs of repair and redevelopment, creating a drag on economic recovery. 

Like many economically distressed cities, Detroit copes with this challenge by offering generous tax abatements for new development and for some homeowners. Abatements relieve excess costs and temporarily raise property values, but only a small set of residents and new businesses qualify. This leaves high—sometimes destabilizing—tax bills in place for long-term owners. While high taxes remain on most homes and businesses, inclusive and lasting incentives for reinvestment are absent. 

A higher tax rate for land than for structures—known as “split-rate” because there are two different tax rates—would address the problem more effectively and distribute the benefits more equitably.  

The new study, Split-Rate Property Taxation in Detroit: Findings and Recommendations, finds that taxing land at five times the rate for buildings would result in lower tax bills for 96 percent of homeowners, with an average savings of about 18 percent. Under a revenue-neutral reform, tax savings would be fully offset by tax increases on vacant and underutilized property. 

“By adopting a split-rate property tax, Detroit can make its tax system both more efficient and more equitable,” said John Anderson, an economist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and lead author of the study. “Efficiency is enhanced by removing the tax-related barriers to capital improvements and development. Equity is enhanced by a reduction in taxes for the vast majority of residential homeowners.” 
 
“Splitting the property tax provides long-time Detroiters with the tax relief that new businesses and residents already receive,” said co-author Nick Allen, former manager of strategy and policy for the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation and now a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Our study shows that it is an effective, immediate way to permanently reduce burdens on overtaxed households and restore property wealth. It’s not enough, but it is a required step towards racially equitable recovery.” 

In addition, a split-rate tax increases the cost of holding vacant land and reduces the cost of developing it, or of renovating deteriorated buildings. Reduced tax burdens and accelerated investment lead to an average 12 percent increase in residential property value and a 20 percent increase for commercial property. In a supporting technical paper, the project team also found that the proposed 18 percent reduction in residential taxes would reduce residential tax foreclosures by at least 9 percent. 

“Implementation of a split-rate tax in Detroit offers an opportunity to strengthen the property tax system by increasing efficiency, and reducing property tax inequities and tax foreclosure,” said Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore, a co-author of the study. 

Commissioned by Invest Detroit with support from The Kresge Foundation, the study analyzes data from municipalities in Pennsylvania that have implemented split-rate taxes, as well as real estate and property tax data from Detroit. In addition to Anderson, Allen, and Skidmore, the study’s co-authors include Fernanda Alfaro of Michigan State University, Andrew Hanson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Zackary Hawley of Texas Christian University, Dusan Paredes of Northern Catholic University in Chile, and Zhou Yang of Robert Morris University. 

“If we are to continue the momentum of Detroit’s positive, equitable growth, we must transform our property tax structure to alleviate the burden on majority Black homeowners and local developers,” said Dave Blaszkiewicz, president and CEO of Invest Detroit. “This report provides a solution that accomplishes that while also disincentivizing blighted and underutilized properties that hinder Detroit’s growth.” 

“With this analysis, Invest Detroit has elevated an equitable approach to taxation that can bring much-needed relief to tax-burdened Detroiters while encouraging investment and growth. This is a timely idea that addresses an urgent concern, and the highly regarded Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has now provided a solid framework for community discussions,” said Wendy Lewis Jackson, managing director of Kresge’s Detroit Program. 

The team also produced three technical papers to support the study: “Assessment of Property Tax Reductions on Tax Delinquency, Tax Foreclosure, and Home Ownership”; “Split-Rate Taxation and Business Establishment Location Evidence from the Pennsylvania Experience”; and “Split-Rate Taxation: Impacts on Tax Base,” all published by the Lincoln Institute. 

The study is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/split-rate-property-taxation-in-detroit 

Will Jason is the director of communications at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Image: Aerial view of Residential district in Detroit Michigan. Credit: pawel.gaul via Getty Images.

Stretching from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, the Northeast megaregion is a powerhouse of the knowledge economy. Yet it struggles with grinding congestion, escalating climate change risks, and skyrocketing housing costs—problems that too often fall to the region’s more than 1,500 individual cities, towns, villages, and boroughs to solve. 

The Northeast and a dozen other U.S. megaregions will shape the country’s future over the next century. Each one is a network of metropolitan areas united by history, culture, economics, and shared infrastructure and natural resource systems. They contain only 30 percent of the nation’s land, but most of its people. As a new book makes clear, they face complex challenges that require planning, policy, and governance that cross traditional political boundaries. 

Written by planning scholars Robert D. Yaro, Ming Zhang, and Frederick R. Steiner, Megaregions and America’s Future explains the concept of megaregions, provides updated economic, demographic, and environmental data, draws lessons from Europe and Asia, and shows how megaregions are an essential framework for governing the world’s largest economy. 

Far from being a substitute for a strong national government, megaregions are, in the authors’ view, the perfect geographic unit for channeling federal investment and managing large systems such as interstate rail, multistate natural resource systems, climate mitigation or adaptation, and major economic development initiatives. 

“Creating national, megaregional, and metropolitan governance systems will require a reinvention of the federal system and a nationwide program of innovation and experimentation unlike any that the country has undertaken since the New Deal almost a century ago,” the authors write. 

The book pays particular attention to defenses against sea-level rise and storm surges, calling for regional alternatives to the “go-it-alone approach” of cities like Boston and New York, and to high-speed rail, which could open access to opportunity as it has in other highly industrialized countries. Building better rail networks within cities and regions is critical to the success of high-speed rail, the authors write. 

Geared to urban and regional planners and policy analysts, staff and decision makers in transportation, environmental protection, and development agencies, faculty and students in related fields, as well as business leaders, Megaregions and America’s Future includes a case study of the Northeast—the nation’s oldest megaregion and the source of the concept—but delves deeply into every megaregion, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast to Southern California. 

The book builds on two decades of Lincoln Institute scholarship on megaregions, including several books on the European model and Regional Planning in America: Practice and Prospect, a foundational text in the field of regional planning.

“This ambitious book makes the case for recognizing American megaregions as a driver of policy, planning, and investment,” said Sara C. Bronin, a planning professor at Cornell University. “It provides a road map for breaking down jurisdictional boundaries to address urgent needs in affordable housing, ecosystem vulnerability, and transportation-system connectedness—and it is essential reading for anyone hoping to broaden their thinking about our national trajectory.” 

Will Jason is director of communications at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Image: DKosig/iStock.

Randall Woodfin, Birmingham’s “millennial mayor” and rising star in Alabama politics, has launched an urban mechanic’s agenda for revitalizing that post-industrial city: restoring basic infrastructure on a block-by-block basis, setting up a command center so federal funds are spent wisely, and providing guaranteed income for single mothers. 

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really supercharge infrastructure upgrades and investments we need to make in our city,” Woodfin said, referring to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan Act, which are bringing unparalleled amounts of funding to state and local governments. “This type of money probably hasn’t been on the ground since the New Deal.” 
 
Woodfin talked about neighborhood revitalization, housing, climate change and other topics in an interview for the Land Matters podcast. An edited version of the Q&A will appear in print and online as the Mayor’s Desk feature in the next issue of Land Lines magazine. 
 
When he was elected in 2017, Woodfin was the youngest mayor of Birmingham in over a century. Now 40 and nearly a year into his second term, he’s made revitalization of the city’s 99 neighborhoods a top priority, along with enhancing education, fostering a climate of economic opportunity, and leveraging public-private partnerships. 
 
In a city battered by population and manufacturing loss — including iron and steel industries that once thrived there — Woodfin looked to education and youth as keys to a better future. He set up Birmingham Promise, which provides apprenticeships and college tuition assistance to local high school graduates. He also established Pardons for Progress, a mayoral pardon of 15,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession charges dating back to 1990, that had been a barrier to employment. 

Woodfin is a graduate of Morehouse College and Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law. He was an assistant city attorney for eight years before running for mayor, and served as president of the Birmingham Board of Education as well. 
 
Too many Birmingham residents have been living in areas where they are constantly reminded of decline, Woodfin said — stepping out of their house and seeing a dilapidated house next door and a broken streetlight out front. Playground and park equipment is out of order, and many live in food deserts. The answer, he said, is to “triple down” on efforts to create new housing and other infrastructure and eradicate blight, to address “snaggletooth” blocks where “you have a house, empty lot, house, empty lot, empty lot.” 

Chipping away at concentrated poverty through physical improvements improves quality of life for thousands, and will help the entire city rebound, Woodfin says.  

More near-term, Woodfin said he embraced the concept of guaranteed income because as a practical matter, a few hundred dollars a month could help single mothers fend off “the monotony of concentrated poverty.” 
 
“I think we all would agree, no one can live off $375 a month,” he said. But if households had that additional money, “does that help keep food on the table? Does it help keep your utilities paid? Does it help keep clothing on your children’s back and shoes on their feet? Does it help you get from point A to B to keep your job to provide for your child? 

“This is why I believe this guaranteed income pilot program will be helpful. We only have 120 slots, so it’s not necessarily the largest amount of people, but I can tell you over 7,000 households applied for this,” he said. “The need is there.” 

The Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Initiative is developing a community of practice for the equitable regeneration of post-industrial cities, like Birmingham, that have been hit hard by manufacturing and population loss. Strategies to maintain good municipal fiscal health for these and all cities include one that Woodfin is making a priority: keeping better track of intergovernmental transfers, such as the billions in federal funding that is currently on the way. 

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Photograph courtesy of Anthony Flint. 

Further reading: 

Everything you need to know about Birmingham’s millennial mayor 

Seven Strategies for Equitable Development in Smaller Legacy Cities 

How Smarter State Policy Can Revitalize America’s Cities 

The Empty House Next Door: Understanding and Reducing Vacancy and Hypervacancy in the United States 

American cities need to pursue creative new strategies as they rebuild from the COVID-19 pandemic and work to address longstanding social and economic inequities. Too often, however, cities face stiff headwinds in the form of state laws and policies that hinder their efforts to build healthy neighborhoods, provide high-quality public services, and foster vibrant economies in which all residents have an opportunity to thrive, according to a new Policy Focus Report by Center for Community Progress Senior Fellow Alan Mallach from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Center for Community Progress.  

With a massive infusion of funds from the American Rescue Plan into cities and states, advocates for urban revitalization have an unprecedented opportunity to engage with state policy makers in creating a more prosperous, equitable future, Mallach writes in the report, From State Capitols to City Halls: Smarter State Policies for Stronger Cities. “If there’s one central message in this report, it’s that states matter—and that those who care about the future of our cities need to direct far greater attention to them,” he writes.  

Based on a detailed analysis of the complex yet critical relationship between states and their cities, the report illustrates how state policies and practices affect the course of urban revitalization, from the ways cities raise revenues to the conditions under which they can finance redevelopment. The report provides a rich picture of how state laws and practices can help or hinder equitable urban revitalization, drawing upon examples and strategies from across the country and highlighting the recurrent city–state tug-of-war that both must move beyond to work together for mutual benefit.  

The report also breaks down what goes into successful revitalization, and how leaders can use legal and policy tools to bring about more equitable outcomes. Mallach recommends five underlying principles that should ground state policy related to urban revitalization: target areas of greatest need, think regionally, break down silos, support cities’ own efforts, and build in equity and inclusivity.  

“This report is thorough, relevant, and timely—and it provides a critical perspective on the importance of building capacity to ensure stronger alignment between state and local policy makers to improve equity and inclusion,” said Sue Pechilio Polis, the director of health and wellness for the National League of Cities. “A detailed accounting of all of the ways state laws impact municipalities, this essential report will be a must read for state and local policy makers.”  

“As this Policy Focus Report details, state governments must be true partners with their cities in order to realize meaningful, equitable revitalization across the board,” said Jessie Grogan, associate director of reduced poverty and spatial inequality at the Lincoln Institute. “By deliberately incorporating equity into economic growth and community work across locations and sectors, leaders at every level can foster truly progressive change.”  

From State Capitols to City Halls offers specific state policy directions to help local governments build fiscal and service delivery capacity, foster a robust housing market, stimulate a competitive economy, cultivate healthy neighborhoods and quality of life, and build human capital, all with the goal of bringing about a more sustainable, inclusive revival in American cities and towns. The report’s recommendations offer a practical roadmap to help state policy makers take a fresh look at their own laws and further more effective advocacy for substantive change by local officials and non-governmental actors.  

“We all deserve access to stable jobs, affordable housing, and green spaces, but unfortunately our systems aren’t built to guarantee that for future and even current generations,” said Massachusetts State Senator Eric P. Lesser, who chairs the Gateway Cities Caucus and the Economic Development Committee. “This report takes a thoughtful look at how we as policy makers can have a direct impact on building inclusive cities for all. From State Capitols to City Halls: Smarter State Policies for Stronger Cities provides real tools to support our communities, break down policies that breed inequality, and give everyone a fair shot at a high quality of life.”  

While successful strategies will vary from state to state, Mallach stresses that all policy makers must remember that every state is fundamental to its cities’ futures as places of equity and inclusion. “In the final analysis,” he notes, “states play a central, even essential, role in making revitalization possible—or, conversely, frustrating local revitalization efforts. This report should encourage public officials and advocates for change to make states more supportive, engaged partners with local governments and other stakeholders in their efforts to make our cities stronger, healthier places for all.” 

The report is available for download on the Lincoln Institute’s website: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/state-capitols-city-halls
 

Image: USA/Alamy Stock Photo

At Capital City Farm, the first commercial urban farm in Trenton, New Jersey, more than 37 varieties of fruits, vegetables, and flowers grow on two formerly abandoned city-owned acres. The farm, run by the D&R Greenway Land Trust, is a financially self-sufficient operation that donates 30 percent of its produce to the Trenton Area Soup Kitchen and sells the rest to nearby markets. A local community development and environmental nonprofit runs a well-established youth gardening program at the farm, which has won several awards since its founding in 2016. 

There’s no question that Capital City Farm is a success story on many levels, from repurposing a trash-strewn lot to involving the local community in its development and operations. Now the city is hoping to emulate that success, working closely with local residents as it sets out to convert additional vacant lots into community gardens. The effort is part of a recently launched plan called Fight the Blight, which will include property demolition and redevelopment. 

Trenton, population 83,000, has a disproportionate number of neglected and vacant properties: 1,500 of them in a city that covers just 7.5 square miles. As the city embarks on addressing this issue, officials are sensitive to the fact that, for residents in neglected urban neighborhoods, municipal improvement efforts can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, fixing up vacant lots and tearing down condemned buildings yields major quality of life improvements, including improving public safety and increasing community morale. But on the other hand, the sudden arrival of plans and projects developed without local input can be an unwelcome signal to residents that the future of the neighborhood is out of their hands and might not include them. 

“Trenton . . . has historically been behind the eight ball” on securing local input in revitalization efforts, said the city’s principal planner, Stephani Register. “The way we’re approaching it now is this idea of ‘let’s give the people back their power.’ If we do that, we as an administration get better participation from residents. The question is, how do you do that for communities of color who have been disenfranchised for so long because they didn’t have the right information, and the tools that are out there have been used against them.” 

An interdisciplinary team from Trenton is exploring these issues through its participation in the Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Communities of Practice project. Over the past year, teams from three legacy cities (Trenton; Akron, Ohio; and Dearborn, Mich.) have met regularly to facilitate peer learning, gain insights from expert faculty on issues ranging from racial equity to fiscal health, and access resources and support to tackle entrenched citywide policy issues with place-based project approaches. Trenton’s team includes Register, mayoral aide Rick Kavin, Jamilah Harris, an analyst from the state Department of Environmental Protection, and Caitlin Fair, executive director of the nonprofit East Trenton Collaborative (ETC). 

Legacy cities like Trenton are places that have experienced population and economic decline that has left them with common infrastructure and demographic challenges. Many of them have vast areas once full of people and industry that have now been abandoned and neglected. Smaller legacy cities have many of the same challenges as larger legacy cities like Detroit or Baltimore, said Jessie Grogan, associate director of Reduced Poverty and Spatial Inequality at the Lincoln Institute. But they tend not to draw the same national attention from think tanks or large philanthropic funders, and they tend to have smaller municipal staffs and budgets. 

“These cities are kind of left to solve really complex problems on their own,” she said. “These smaller cities are in a tough spot where they have enough capacity to know what the problems are, but not enough to know what the potential solutions are or what their peer cities are doing that’s working.” The Legacy Cities Community of Practice gives them an opportunity to compare notes, get new ideas, and support each other’s work. 

Trenton, for example, is now working to engage the community in its Fight the Blight program using strategies employed in Syracuse, N.Y., and Flint, Mich., and detailed in the Lincoln Institute’s Policy Focus Report Revitalizing America’s Smaller Legacy Cities. Rather than the city taking the lead in projects like the effort to expand its community gardens, officials have turned to community organizations. Kavin said Capital City Farm has been advising the city on the youth apprenticeship aspect of the proposed community garden project. And Fair says the ETC would like to see community gardens become year-round, accessible neighborhood resources that support workforce development and a healthy community. 

“The idea is to marry [the gardens] with our youth employment program and for the city to create an opportunity for kids in the community to have a paid apprenticeship,” she said. “A goal of this initiative is to create a very public, community-oriented space that is open to everyone to use.” 

The vision is for Trenton’s new community gardens to be financially self-sustaining, providing a steady source of local jobs and local food thanks to greenhouses and hydroponic gardening that make cultivation possible during the winter months. Allowing year-round structures such as greenhouses on lots operated as community gardens required a zoning code change, which the Trenton team collaborated on and achieved by mid-2021. In the fall of 2021, the ETC began working on deciding which vacant lots in East Trenton they want to turn into community farms. 

Ultimately, the Trenton team sees the community farm project as just one way to start breaking down barriers between local government and residents and approach planning from a more holistic perspective. To that end, the city has also launched “how-to” informational sessions aimed at increasing small business owners’ access to capital and city contracts. Other sessions help homeowners figure out how to access grant money or loans to fix up their historic homes. And last year, Trenton launched an “Adopt a Lot” program that gives residents temporary access to vacant lots for their own gardens or other greenspace use. 

“With all of these programs, we’re trying to foster an environment where all local residents can have a say,” Kavin said. “Not just in their city’s planning, but also in their own future.” 

Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.

Image: Volunteers plant seeds at Capital City Farm in Trenton, New Jersey. Credit: Capital City Farm.

Two weeks after a U.S federal agency rejected affordable housing plans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a coalition of housing organizations has released a blueprint showing how the two government-sponsored enterprises can better reach underserved mortgage markets.

On January 5, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) rejected three-year plans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to comply with Duty to Serve, a federal regulation that requires the enterprises to prioritize and improve affordable housing finance opportunities in three historically neglected markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must substantially improve their plans in all three areas, and a new blueprint from the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition provides a path that would likely lead to approval.

The coalition consists of 20 leading U.S. affordable housing organizations seeking to hold Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accountable to their founding purpose: to bring housing finance opportunities to American families not traditionally served by the private market.

“I applaud FHFA for rejecting the proposed Duty to Serve plans,” said George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, one of the convenors of the coalition. “If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac adopt the modest consensus recommendations of the Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition, that would be a win for the enterprises, FHFA, and affordable housing in the United States.”

The coalition’s blueprint outlines key recommendations for the enterprises’ Duty to Serve plans for 2022–24. By recommending specific, prioritized action steps, the coalition hopes to expand and enhance the enterprises’ performance in underserved markets. The blueprint urges the enterprises to increase certain loan purchases in all three markets, improve loan products for rural low- and moderate-income borrowers, and allow for Low Income Housing Tax Credit-equity investment in non-rural markets.

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 Trust
• NeighborWorks America
• Next Step
• Novogradac
• Opportunity Finance Network
• Prosperity Now
• RMI
• ROC USA
• Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future

Photograph: vkyryl via iStock / Getty Images Plus.