cleveland’s neighborhood stabilization strategy 693 · 2014-10-15 · cleveland’s neighborhood...
TRANSCRIPT
Opportunity Homes
Cleveland’s Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy
693 Properties
Impacted:*
6 neighborhoods
253
homes developed (187 lease purchase/66 for sale)
90%
of for-sale homes sold (100% occupancy of lease purchase homes)
377 demolitions
63
repurposed land (e.g., community gardens, yard expansions)
Tre
mo
nt
12 h
om
es
31 d
em
os
4 land r
euse
Fa
mic
os
45 h
omes
51
dem
os
18 la
nd r
euse
Bu
ck
eye
-S
ha
ker
97 h
omes
58
dem
os
4 la
nd r
euse
Fa
irfa
x
17 h
omes
11
3 de
mos
10
land
reu
se
De
tro
it S
ho
re
wa
y
29 h
omes
31
dem
os
10 la
nd r
euse
Sla
vic
V
illag
e
53 h
omes
93
dem
os
17 la
nd r
euse
*a
s o
f 3
/4/1
3. D
evel
op
ed o
r fi
nan
ced
fo
r d
evel
op
men
t
216.574.7100 | www.chnnet.com 2999 Payne Avenue | Third Floor Cleveland, Oh 44114
Who made it happen?
Partners
◤ Buckeye-Shaker Square Development Corp.
◤ City of Cleveland
◤ Case Western Reserve University, Center on Urban Poverty & Community Dev.
◤ Cleveland Housing Network , Inc.
◤ Cleveland State University
◤ Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization Corp.
◤ Detroit Shoreway Community Development
◤ East Side Organizing Project (ESOP)
◤ Fairfax Renaissance Development Corp.
◤ Famicos Foundation
◤ Neighborhood Progress, Inc.
◤ Slavic Village Development
◤ Tremont West Development Corp.
Funders ◤ City of Cleveland
◤ Cleveland Foundation
◤ Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization Corp.
◤ Dollar Bank
◤ Enterprise Community Partners
◤ First Merit Bank
◤ George Gund Foundation
◤ Greater University Circle Living
◤ Huntington Bank
◤ Key Bank ◤ Living Cities Catalyst Fund
◤ Ohio Housing Finance Agency
◤ Third Federal
◤ Village Capital Corporation
How it Began In 2004 Neighborhood Progress, Inc. (NPI) launched a program to support a cohesive community development plan called the Strategic Investment Initiative, focusing on market recovery and long-term investments in 6 neighborhoods. With the advent of the foreclosure crisis, the program moved toward neighborhood stabilization in those same 6 areas. This new work, called Opportunity Homes, employed several proactive interventions—renovation of vacant properties into affordable, efficient homes; the demolition of blighted homes; and the prevention of at-risk homeowners from losing their homes. This highly targeted strategy is aimed at focusing limited resources on an incredibly large-scale problem—and making an impact.
Lessons Learned—Collaboration Key to Success
◤ To address the overwhelming task of selecting properties for renovation/
demolition, the team utilized Case Western Reserve University’s unique database called NEOCANDO to apply a data-driven analysis to the task.
◤ To address the slow nature of acquiring vacant homes from lenders, the
team worked with the newly formed county land bank to obtain properties.
◤ To overcome hesitant at-risk homeowners, the broader Cuyahoga County
Foreclosure Prevention Coalition was deployed.
◤ To increase the number of homes developed, a for-sale product was
coupled with a lease purchase product, offering homes for both low– and moderate-income families. Sales prices were based on 90-100th percentile of neighborhood micro-markets (averaging $85,000 across all homes sold.)
◤ Given the increased amount of vacant land, an initiative called Re-
imagining Cleveland was launched to repurpose land for community
benefit.
Opportunity Homes Production & Impact
Includes residential single family only. Excludes sheriff transfers. Source: NEO CANDO (http://neocando.case.edu), Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development, Case Western Reserve University
Opportunity Homes helped to stabilize markets in Cleveland’s six Strategic Investment Initiative areas, with property values in the
target zones far outpacing the city as a whole. Less impact was seen in two areas, but for vastly different reasons. Tremont re-mained relatively stable throughout the crisis because of its desirability for urban living and market demand. The area simply had few vacant homes to renovate. Fairfax began the crisis with extremely low values and an abundance of homes in extreme disre-pair. The large size and extremely poor condition of homes made it infeasible to tackle a high number of rehabs.
24%
168%
-20%
150%
80%
-9%
8%
0.00
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
140,000.00
Buckeye Detroit Fairfax Famicos Slavic Tremont City
Change in Median Homes Sales Prices within Opportunity Homes Target Areas (vs. City of
Cleveland) Pre- & Post-Opportunity Homes
2008
2012