The need for a "national" neighborhood stabilization program comparable to the Main Street program for commercial districts: Part I (Overall)

-- "The need for a "national" neighborhood stabilization program comparable to the Main Street program for commercial districts: Part I (Overall)"
-- "To be successful, local neighborhood stabilization programs need a packaged set of robust remedies: Part 2"
-- "Creating 'community safety partnership neighborhood management programs as a management and mitigation strategy for public nuisance programs: Part 3 (like homeless shelters)"
-- "A case in Gloucester, Massachusetts as an illustration of the need for systematic neighborhood monitoring and stabilization initiatives: Part 4 (the Curcuru Family)"
-- "Local neighborhood stabilization programs: Part 5 | Adding energy conservation programs, with the PUSH Buffalo Green Development Zone as a model," 2021

---

Earlier in the week I replied to a journalist's questions on how to address vacant, abandoned, and nuisance properties, especially in the context of the pandemic and how it will challenge lower income neighborhoods ("New study shows Glendale and Rose Park hit hardest by COVID-19," Salt Lake Tribune).

It gave me the chance to codify my thinking around structured and organized but resident-citizen led neighborhood improvement initiatives.

Social infrastructure is essential to successful neighborhoods.  Especially since a few weeks ago I finally read Palaces of the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life by Eric Klinenberg, which discusses the importance of "social infrastructure" on community success and resilience.

His research finds that communities with more social infrastructure--community associations, outwardly focused churches, civic assets like libraries, functioning commercial districts, etc.--function better overall and in times of stress (heat waves, storms and hurricanes, etc.) and this is true regardless of overall economic status of particular neighborhoods.

Main Street program for commercial district improvement.  One of the keys to my earliest focused involvement in community improvement was when DC launched a commercial district revitalization initiative, called "Main Street"--which was created by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as a way to save traditional commercial districts in towns and cities as a historic preservation strategy--you can't save buildings if the local economy is broken.

The program has since spun off into a separate nonprofit, called Main Street America.  But there isn't a comparable ground up "national program" and approach for neighborhood stabilization.

What this approach does is bring together not just business and property owners, but residents too, and other stakeholders, and organizes their participation through four committees, or "points."

Which are Organization (internal operations, pr and fundraising); Design (the built environment outside and the design and organization of spaces inside buildings); Economic Vitality (supporting existing businesses and recruiting and developing new businesses); and Promotion (marketing the business district in general and through special events and programming).

The difference between this type of effort and a "Business Improvement District" is that BIDs typically are led by property owners, serve larger districts, are funded through a surcharge on property value, don't engage with residents (citizens) all that much, and are much more focused on providing daily maintenance of the streets, sidewalks, and spaces in the district.  Most are also pretty focused on marketing and less so on the success of individual businesses.

A "national" program supporting neighborhood improvement doesn't really exist.  Although there are plenty of approaches to neighborhood improvement, in particular historic preservation as a stabilization strategy and "community development" usually at the behest of a nonprofit development corporation, there is a need for an national approach to neighborhood stabilization and improvement, comparable to the Main Street or BID (through the International Downtown Association) approaches for commercial districts.

More specifically for equity and social infrastructure reasons, this is especially important for distressed, emerging and transitioning neighborhoods, especially in weaker real estate markets at the metropolitan, county, city and town, and neighborhood scales.

Pennsylvania's Elm Street Program can be the model.  I think the answer is obvious, create a version of Main Street but for neighborhoods.  And the reality is that it has been done.

Sayre Pennsylvania is developing neighborhood and commercial district revitalization programs.

The State of Pennsylvania created a program called "Elm Street," modified from the Main Street model, which is based on historic preservation (fix and maintain buildings and spaces) and economics (improve the economic standing of the businesses and the commercial district).

The Elm Street model, taking a lesson from Business Improvement Districts, recognizes the importance of keeping a district clean and safe (from the "Broken Windows" idea) and separates out the maintenance function from "Design," making it a fifth point in the model.

Litter in Philadelphia, from Philadelphia 3.0.

They renamed the points but they are set up like Main Street:

• Clean, Safe and Green (Maintenance)
• Neighbors and Economy (Economic Restructuring)
• Design 
• Image & Identity (Promotion)
• Sustainable Organization (Organization)

But unlike the Main Street model--which was taken up by the National Trust in the late 1970s, based on an independent effort in Corning, New York that started in the 1960s, the National Trust never "adopted" the Elm Street model, maybe because it isn't exclusively focused on historic preservation.  So the concept never really got codified, developed and "propagated" nationally.  (For awhile they were pursuing something similar, called the Preservation Development Initiative, but it never made it outside of its pilot phase.)

Rebuilding Community: A Best Practices Toolkit for Historic Preservation and Redevelopment, National Trust for Historic Preservation

In the case of the Elm Street Approach--not only was there not a national organization to backstop the development of process, procedures, and publications, but as is all too often common for such programs created by state and local governments, as new administrations came into office, the program waxes and wanes as newly elected and appointed officials want and decide to create and promote "their own programs."

Elm Street still exists, managed by the Pennsylvania Downtown Center, the statewide support organization for Main Street programs.

But there are almost 2,000 Main Street programs across the US, but just a handful of Elm Street programs in Pennsylvania.

-- Elm Street Managers Handbook
-- Chambersburg Elm Street Neighborhood Plan

For example, in Chambersburg, the Elm Street program is focused on:

... residential neighborhoods adjacent to Chambersburg’s downtown, according to Phil Wolgemuth, assistant to the Chambersburg borough manager.

The program has tackled improvements to low- and moderate-income homes, renovations to Mike Waters Park, curb and sidewalk improvements throughout the Third Ward, community programs and code enforcement and public safety activities throughout the neighborhood.

A local partnership has administered $1.4 million in state grants for redevelopment since December 2007 when the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development designated Chambersburg as an Elm Street Community, according to Council President Allen Coffman.

Grant funds assisted 168 properties located on the 324 acres covered by the Elm Street Neighborhood Program. Projects include rehabilitating façades, replacing sidewalks and sewer lines and planting shade trees along street corridors.

Main Street and neighborhood historic preservation based strategies are a good start.  Plus "community development" that is truly community focused and centered--many community development corporations can be problematic as has been the case in DC.

Nonetheless, there are many resources out there to draw upon, that go beyond historic preservation approaches.

Tools.  In "Basic planning building blocks for "community" revitalization programs that most cities haven't packaged," in four parts I list various tools to be used in such efforts, starting with a property audit to identify properties in need of assistance.

One tool is the Problem Property Audit developed by the now sadly defunct Center for Community Building and Neighborhood Action at the University of Memphis.

It would be easy to convert this paper tool to a smartphone app and database.

The PPA was developed within the efforts of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership.  I haven't kept up with their work, but work to provide data and evidence based approaches to monitoring and improving neighborhoods.

NNIP was started in response to the housing crisis generated by predatory loans and foreclosures and has a lot of good resources.

How to do it?  Individual groups or a city-wide effort.  One problem with having separate organizations for every neighborhood is the duplication of efforts, the difficulty of building scale, not having enough resources, etc.

Baltimore's Healthy Neighborhoods program serves multiple neighborhoods.  The trick is to do this while still engaging residents as part of the solution and providing the opportunity for substantive engagement and the ability to shape the organization's agenda.

Overarching support organization at national and local scales.  A key element in the Main Street model is that the national organization develops materials, (theoretically conducts research to improve the approach), provides training, sponsors a national conference, and designates groups at the state level to provide similar support to local programs within a state.

Neighbor Power: Building Community the Seattle Way is a book by Jim Diers, the creator of Seattle's Department of Neighborhoods.

A big problem in community development is that few cities, counties, or states have developed a similar kind of capacity building and support infrastructure.

Sure, there are organizations like LISC and others that provide support, but the groups are more top-down, and their members aren't usually focused on harnessing the power of residents to participate in the process.

Of course, there are exceptions, notably the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Boston, which was written up in the book Streets of Hope (there is also an educational film).  The board and its officers are elected annually, in a community-wide meeting.

To make this work a lot better, a similar overarching structure, providing support, capacity building and technical assistance needs to be provided at the state, national and local/regional scales, based on various best practice models, which beside Main Street and neighborhood historic preservation programs, include:

-- Calgary Federation of Calgary Communities provides technical assistance to the city's sanction community improvement associations, which among other responsibilities run local community-recreation centers. FCC even has urban planners on staff to provide support to the neighborhood groups ("Community association planning committees a hidden gem?," Calgary Herald).

-- Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program ("Empowered Participation in Urban
Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research; case study)
-- Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
-- Asset Based Community Development Institute, focuses on capacities within a community rather than "needs" and has an extensive publication program and network of practitioners committed to the approach
-- Dallas Library Urban Information Center (a specialized collection of materials relevant to urban affairs)

-- Community Design Centers provide planning technical support to community groups ("A New Voice in Town: Urban Design Centers," Urban Land Magazine) independent of city or county agencies. Sometimes they are training grounds for planning and architecture students. For example, Baltimore's Neighborhood Design Center is independent, while Cleveland's Urban Design Center is a unit of Kent State University.  There is a national association for these groups, the Association for Community Design.

Don't forget an annual conference and a field training workshop.  The Main Street program is awesome in terms of the training opportunities, for them, organized within the four point model.  Most state programs provide conferences and trainings too.

The community development programs in Calgary, Minneapolis, and Seattle are known for offering a large array of training sessions and other technical assistance.  I also think an annual conference is important (one great model is the Annual Parks and Greenspace Conference of Atlanta's Park Pride "friends of the parks" group).

And at least one "all city" or "all county" training workshop every year to help a particular neighborhood, while also serving as a training opportunity for people from other neighborhoods, government agencies, and nonprofits.  One model for this is the "How to Turn A Place Around" training program by the Project for Public Spaces.  While they don't seem to offer the workshop anymore, PPS updated that manual into a second edition.

Tours, Open Houses, and Festivals as marketing devices.  House, history, bicycle and/or garden tours are great for at least three reasons: (1) community building; (2) marketing and promotion and identity; and (3) fundraising.  Typically these events are organized by local preservation and/or gardening groups.

School, park, library and church open houses are another opportunity.

Another option is "Doors Open" events ("DC should create an annual city-wide Doors Open event").

And "Arts Walks," although for smaller places, I'm inclined to think this should be a once a year or seasonal event, not monthly ("This Friday: DC's Art All Night Event | Once again, too much of a good thing").

And community festivals ("Street Festivals Revisited").

These kinds of events should be built into the marketing/promotion action plan.

Systematic funding mechanisms.  One of the problems of Main Street programs versus BIDs is that BIDs have a regular funding base raised through a property tax surcharge, while MS programs forage from various sources.

Smartly, San Diego separates the funding mechanism from the type of organization, both BIDs and Main Street programs are funded through a property tax surcharge, while the business district can choose either approach to organize its program.  BIDs tend to organize in larger districts, while Main Street programs tend to be more focused on smaller neighborhood districts.

A few cities including Baltimore and San Francisco have districts that include both commercial and residential property in the service model.  These "special service districts" are called "community benefits" or "neighborhood benefits" districts and are funded by a BID like surcharge on both commercial and residential property.

SF has another variant, a "Green Benefits District" that funds improvements to public space.  Colorado authorizes a "historic preservation" surcharge on sales taxes in certain districts.  The monies are used for building and public space improvements.

Minneapolis.  The Minneapolis NRP was funded through a 30-year multi-decade tax increment funding bond issue on property development in Downtown Minneapolis, and raised $400 million.  It's a rare example of "Downtown" improvements used in a direct way to provide improvements to "the neighborhoods" ("Origins of neighborhood funding debate extend back to the early 1990s: An ambitious 20-year plan gave Minneapolis neighborhoods control over a major city revenue source" and "Putting Neighborhoods 2020 in context: Neighborhoods 2020 represents the most recent effort by city officials to rein in the independent neighborhood groups and make them more responsive to the will of City Hall," MinnPost; "No to engagement, yes to shared power," Southside Pride).

With money in hand, neighborhood associations had leverage they could use to develop projects with the School system, Parks Board, and other entities.  With money in hand, they had a lot more leverage.  This was controversial and made politicians nervous, and likely contributed to the end of the program in 2011--although the TIF funding element was always seen as time-limited.

An NRP Policy Board oversaw the individual programs including funding disbursements.  Groups were required to create resident-engaged action plans that identified goals, strategies, priorities and projects.

I think all neighborhoods should have the option of creating community associations focused on neighborhood improvements funded through a property tax surcharge.  Like with BIDs, this authority would require hardcore improvement and operational plans.

Conclusion.  (1) Repattern the Pennsylvania Elm Street Program into a national approach for the delivery of neighborhood stabilization and improvement.  (2) Develop a national parent for the program.  (3) Develop complementary programs at the state level.  (4) To support the development of individual programs at the neighborhood or multi-neighborhood scale in cities and counties throughout a state.  (5) Provide a regularized funding mechanism, including TIF and property tax surcharges.  (6) Provide an additional set of regulatory supports -- "remedies" -- to facilitate neighborhood improvement.

---

The Layman approach to best practice development and diffusion: Indicate; Duplicate; Replicate; Communicate; Accelerate. From "Revitalization planning vs. positive thinking* as planning" (2018) and "Helping Government Learn," (2009). My own take on innovation theory and the development, replication, and the diffusion of innovation is along these lines.

First develop a new practice and figure out if it works. Duplicate it to see if it is more than a one-off thing. Continue to scale it up and figure out all the elements. Once you've done that, communicate out so it can be and is successfully diffused.

1. Indicate -- identity the particulars of processes and structures of success and failure.
2. Duplicate -- figure out how to duplicate (repeat) success.
3. Replicate -- develop the systems, structures, frameworks to apply programs to different situations and communicate them
4. Communicate-- push out the final product to communities of practice for more widespread adoption, recognizing that other places will bring new elements to the model, which will led to further refinement.
5. Accelerate -- figure out how to speed up successful innovation and programs.