cleveland’s neighborhood stabilization strategy 693 · 2014-10-15 · cleveland’s neighborhood...

2
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) Tremont 12 homes 31 demos 4 land reuse Famicos 45 homes 51 demos 18 land reuse Buckeye-Shaker 97 homes 58 demos 4 land reuse Fairfax 17 homes 113 demos 10 land reuse Detroit Shoreway 29 homes 31 demos 10 land reuse Slavic Village 53 homes 93 demos 17 land reuse *as of 3/4/13. Developed or financed for development 216.574.7100 | www.chnnet.com 2999 Payne Avenue | Third Floor Cleveland, Oh 44114

Upload: others

Post on 21-Apr-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Cleveland’s Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy 693 · 2014-10-15 · Cleveland’s Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy 693 Properties Impacted:* 6 neighborhoods 253 homes developed

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

Page 2: Cleveland’s Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy 693 · 2014-10-15 · Cleveland’s Neighborhood Stabilization Strategy 693 Properties Impacted:* 6 neighborhoods 253 homes developed

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