THE CHICAGO REHAB NETWORK

DEVELOPMENT WITHOUTDISPLACEMENT TASK FORCE BACKGROUND PAPER

The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement June, 1995

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement

The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center is an applied research and professional assistance unitof the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois atChicago. Its mission is to improve the quality of life for all residents of the metropolitanarea through assisting organizations and local governments in efforts to revitalize themany and varied neighborhoods and communities in the City of Chicago and its suburbs.

Project Manager: Patricia A. Wright (pwright@uic.edu)Project Authors:

John J. BetancurMichael Leachman, Loyola UniversityAnne MillerDavid WalkerPatricia A. Wright

Production: Patricia A. Wright

We would like to thank the many people who agreed to be interviewed for this report. Wewould also like to thank the following people for reviewing and commenting on earlier drafts:David Ranney, Sheila Radford-Hill, Maureen Hellwig, Raul Raymundo, David Hunt and DougGills.

Support for this project was provided by The Chicago Rehab Network and the Nathalie P.Voohrees Fund. This report was also funded by the University of Illinois at ChicagoNeighborhoods Initiatives Community Outreach Partnership Center Grant of the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AcknowledgmentsExecutive SummarySection One: Background (Page 1)

IntroductionOutline of PaperRationaleDefinitionCausesOptions for InterventionDisplacement in ChicagoProcess and Mechanisms of Displacement

Section Two: Development Without Displacement Strategies (Page 6)Federal StrategiesCity of Chicago StrategiesStrategies from Other Cities

Section Three: Case Studies (Page 27)West TownSouth ArmourPilsenSouth LoopNear West SideWoodlawn

Section Four: Concluding Remarks (Page 47)Appendix

List of Contacts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chicago Rehab Network (CRN) requested the University of Illinois at Chicago Center forUrban Economic Development (UICUED) and the Nathalie P. Voorhees Neighborhood Centerto participate in their Development Without Displacement Task Force.

The CRN organized a task force of representatives from communities undergoinggentrification and displacement, government officials, business interests and researchers. Thetask force had as its goal to develop a series of policies for the City of Chicago to guidecommunity development without displacing the existing residents and businesses who reside in

communities that need reinvestment.

Staff from UICUED, VNC and a Policy and Research Action Group (PRAG) intern assigned to CRN, formed a research team and did background research on how other cities havealleviated or prevented displacement and gentrification. The research team also looked at thepolicies and programs at the federal level and City of Chicago programs that were beingimplemented. In addition, the research team analyzed the background research available onthis topic. The following report summarizes the work of the research team for the task forcemembers and others interested in this important issue.

In this paper, we have outlined approaches, policies, strategies, or programs addressing theissue of development without displacement. Can we find ways to redevelop communities fortheir current low-income residents? Can we find ways to include the costs of displacement inredevelopment? To answer these questions we have compiled a list of programs and strategiesthat have been used in Chicago and other cities. In addition, we have included a section oncase studies of Chicago communities that have been fighting displacement. In these casestudies, we have put the strategies in a context to show how different communities andsituations call for different strategies. In the last section, Concluding Remarks, we try to showa way forward by discussing how a combination of strategies are needed with an overridingpolicy that views development without displacement of low income residents as a seriousurban issue.

Back to Table of Contents

Section One: Background

Introduction

The Chicago Rehab Network (CRN) requested the University of Illinois at Chicago Center forUrban Economic Development (UICUED) and the Nathalie P. Voorhees Neighborhood Centerto participate in their Development Without Displacement Task Force.

The CRN organized a task force of representatives from communities undergoinggentrification and displacement, government officials, business interests and researchers. Thetask force had as its goal to develop a series of policies for the City of Chicago to guidecommunity development without displacing the existing residents and businesses who reside incommunities that need reinvestment.

Staff from UICUED, VNC and a Policy and Research Action Group (PRAG) intern assignedto CRN, formed a research team and did background research on how other cities havealleviated or prevented displacement and gentrification. The research team also looked at thepolicies and programs at the federal level and City of Chicago programs that were beingimplemented. In addition, the research team analyzed the background research available onthis topic. The following report summarizes the work of the research team for the task force

members and others interested in this important issue.

Back to Table of Contents

Outline of Paper

In this paper, we have outlined approaches, policies, strategies, or programs addressing theissue of development without displacement. Can we find ways to redevelop communities fortheir current low-income residents? Can we find ways to include the costs of displacement inredevelopment? To answer these questions we have compiled a list of anti-displacementstrategies that have been used in Chicago and other cities. In addition, we have included asection on case studies of Chicago communities that have been fighting displacement. In thesecase studies, we have put the strategies in a context to show how different communities andsituations call for different strategies. In the last section, Concluding Remarks, we try to showa way forward by discussing how a combination of strategies are needed with an overridingpolicy that views development without displacement of low income residents as a seriousurban issue.

Back to Table of Contents

Rationale

Redevelopment of residential areas is often synonymous with the replacement of its lowincome tenants and uses with higher income ones. As real estate, businesses, institutions, andother elements in the community are upgraded, property values increase, real estate taxes areassessed at a higher value, codes are enforced, and infrastructure is improved. Other multiplierimpacts and ensuing waves of investment further increase the cost of living in that area. Thecosts of redevelopment are recovered via higher rents or sale prices for property; speculation isattracted; previous businesses tied to lower income residents cannot afford the new rents.Desirability of the area as a place to live attracts higher income residents who not only demandbetter accommodations but also require other retail. The result of the process is the out-pricingof former residents.

Displacement is usually not considered an issue in the re-development process. Most peoplesee the need for development. In a market society, place of residence is dictated by what isavailable and what households can afford. Neither the public sector has included this matter inthe public debate and the search for policies, nor do developers feel the responsibility toaddress it. Displacement is either viewed as an unintended impact, a necessary evil, or a resultof the natural dynamics of the market--the allocation of each parcel of land to its best possibleuse. Households are on their own. They have to play the market: win, loss, weigh their options,and make their choices according to what they can afford. Developers are acting to maximizereturns within the terms of the law. For this, they cut costs, minimize or control risks, and goafter "the right tenants." Responsibility for the social impact of their actions is not a concern.As long as the law does not demand this, they are not obligated to do anything. Besides, theyhave the lobbying power to fight against changes and for better conditions. In a competitive

economy and society, they can always hold society hostage by claiming that they will takedevelopment to places where they can best maximize returns and away from those addingclaims and costs on them.

Meanwhile, households have to absorb the costs and hardships associated with relocation.Housing markets in low-income areas are often tight. As a result, either people have to settlefor worse conditions--smaller spaces, worse locations, or incur higher permanent expenses inhousing. There are many other expenses associated with relocation such as the search and thecost of moving. And there are extreme social costs and hardships: loss of support institutions,disintegration of survival networks, friendship and family networks, changing schools, andpolitical linkages. Low-income households are particularly sensitive to such costs because oftheir lower mobility and their more limited ability to participate in the market.

Efforts to deal with displacement have been limited. They have been generally restricted todevelopment projects that had direct public funding. Even in these cases, their success ishighly questionable. Assistance in urban renewal projects was largely limited to placing peoplein public housing. In other cases, financial assistance was absorbed by higher rental costselsewhere. Cases such as Lake Meadows-Prairie Shores, Presidential Towers, and others inChicago suggest that the benefits of these projects accrue in large proportion to the middleclass whose attraction is a function of the project's success. The record of publicly subsidizedprojects in providing low-income housing has been dismal.

At the same time, development produces many hidden and indirect costs for thepublic--infrastructure, tax abatements, land write-downs. These costs are not included indiscussions between government and the private sector. Certainly, there is no requirement thatsuch projects provide low-income housing or include the costs of relocation of low-incomepopulations. Instead, the public has to assume these costs either through assistance to displacedhouseholds or through the problems associated with their relocation--increasing disinvestmentand crowding in low-income communities, among others. Loopholes in the law, poorsupervision by public agencies, and other factors have helped developers escape requirementsand avoid compliance.

The bottom line is that, no matter how private, redevelopment always requires public approvaland assistance. It may include land condemnation, zoning changes, building permits, changesin density, capital improvements, new infrastructure, tax re-assessments, land write offs,planning, etc. In this sense, the public sector has the ability to pre-empt it, slow it down, limitits scope, intensity, and displacing impact; promote it, accelerate it, support it, or facilitate it.

Back to Table of Contents

Definition

For the purpose of this paper, displacement refers to development that forces people to movefrom their current residence. Examples of this include land clearance or investment that makeshousing unaffordable for current residents. It can be direct or indirect. Displacement is direct

when it requires the move of current residents (vacating buildings, land clearance). Indirectdisplacement refers to actions that displace people through their impacts (raising taxes andrents). The most typical form of displacement affects low-income people when their residencesare torn down or when improvements make their current locations unaffordable.

Back to Table of Contents

Causes

Displacement can be caused in many ways. We want to emphasize here public or privatedevelopment that results in the displacement of current residents. Such is the case of thedecision to build a stadium in a residential area or the decision to tear down low-incomehousing for construction of a university. Similarly, it may be caused by redevelopment activitythat leads to the replacement of current low-income residents in a neighborhoods for higherincome ones in the same space. Lastly, redevelopment of an area may cause displacement inanother via price increases.

One of the leading forms of redevelopment today is gentrification. Gentrification results fromtransformation of a community from a lower to a higher income. Current residents areout-priced via tax or rental increases, speculation, higher property values, pressure,comparatively sizeable offers for their homes, historical designation, or inability to bring theirproperties up to code.

Back to Table of Contents

Options for Intervention

Intervention may seek the relocation of those displaced in a comparable, if not betterresidential area. It may include compensation. It may give people a choice as to where theywish to move and the means to do it. Alternatively, it may try to stop or prevent displacingforms of development.

Back to Table of Contents

Displacement in Chicago

In Chicago, redevelopment of the central area and of other selected communities often underthe leadership of institutions such as universities and hospitals, operating with the full supportof the public sector, has replaced many low income areas for higher income ones. By intentand definition, urban renewal and conservation achieved this in places such as the Near NorthSide, Lincoln Park, Hyde Park, the Hull House, and the Near South (Lake Meadows, PrairieShores, Chicago Commons, Michael Reese and IIT). Other projects including extensive landclearance such as highway construction, the White Sox Park and the United Center haveproduced the same result. Most recently, gentrification has transformed traditional workingclass communities such as Lake View and Wicker Park into areas for upwardly mobile

households.

The extent and intensity of displacement has not been measured. Those affected have beenforced to absorb the costs. Communities have often mobilized to oppose displacement or todemand compensation. However, every community has had to wage its own struggle againstformidable obstacles. Recently, community coalitions have been formed to tackle these issuescomprehensively, to develop policies, and to form common fronts. City Hall has never madethis into a central issue, has addressed each case separately, and has lacked the will to dealwith this problem in any meaningful way. The challenge of communities and the public is toraise this from a local matter affecting a group at a time, into a comprehensive interest andgoal.

Perhaps the most important factor to mention here is that these development efforts haveignored low-income residents. Their presence is viewed as a nuisance and their removal as ablessing. Meanwhile, redevelopment was facilitated by the low acquisition price oflow-income areas and the large profits that came with their replacement with higher incometenants and uses.

Back to Table of Contents

Process and Mechanisms of Displacement

Displacement is carried out in many ways. The simplest one is when the area is scheduled forclearance and residents are asked to move. This is often done on short notice. In this way,residents do not have time to organize, mobilize, and resist the move.

Displacement takes many other forms. People are charged higher rents. Buildings arescheduled for gut rehabilitation. Taxes are increased substantially and owners cannot affordthem. Code violations are enforced, owners lack the means to fix them, and have to sell.Disinvestment deteriorates buildings to the point that they are no longer livable. Buildingschange ownership and the new owner decides to replace the current tenants. Units areconverted into smaller spaces or into larger ones and rents are raised. Current owners orresidents are pressured to sell through constant calls, threats, offers they can not easily turndown. Arson and other mechanisms are used to scare people away, and to clear land forredevelopment.

Gentrification is the most recent case. Displacement here is long term and assumes many openand hidden forms. Some of them are mentioned above. Others include assistance fromaldermanic offices and public entities and individuals, zoning changes, housing conversions,historic landmark status, speculation, recruitment of higher income groups, formation oforganizations among gentrifiers to push low-income people and uses out and to increase thevalue of their investment, and substantial capital improvements.

Many efforts have been developed to address some of these issues. They are listed below.Many of them are piecemeal or limited. They often address only one of the elements of

displacement, leaving others untouched. What is generally lacking, is a comprehensive policyframework. Strong and concerted actions on the part of communities and their representativescertainly could make a difference as everybody is pursuing the same goals, is including thisissue in every development efforts and is looking to build a comprehensive framework toattack the problem. This requires political will, consistent pressure, and synchronization ofactions under a single goal.

Back to Table of Contents

Section Two: Development Without Displacement Strategies

In this section we discuss a variety of strategies that have been used at the federal, state andcity levels of government. In addition, we have a section on strategies used in other citieswhich includes not only strategies used by city governments but also by community groups inother cities and in Chicago. From the start, we should be clear that almost all of the strategiesthat are now federal, state or local laws were only passed and implemented because ofcommunity struggles, protests or lobbying. Whenever possible, we give the history of thestrategy so we can all understand how these strategies have been developed over time.

Back to Table of Contents

Federal Strategies

The following section outlines the federal programs and regulations which can be used asstrategies or tools to alleviate or minimize the displacement of residents due to federallyfunded initiatives.

One-for-One Replacement

This federal mandate states that for every federally subsidized housing unit that will bedestroyed, a new housing unit must first be built to replace it. This regulation was passedduring the Reagan administration. It was pushed by public housing activists to preservepublic housing and prevent public housing authorities around the country from selling ortearing down units. Currently, the Chicago Housing Authority has developed a policy totear down many of the high rise developments and replace them with scattered site units.According to existing federal regulations for one-for-one replacement, they must firstbuild replacement scattered site units before they can destroy the high-rises. (Contact:HUD & CHA)

1.

The Uniform Relocation Act2.

The Uniform Relocation Act provides aid to those individuals being displaced byfederally funded initiatives. It requires that displaced families be given services whichinclude referrals to comparable and suitable replacement homes; payment for movingexpenses; and replacement housing assistance which enables the family to either rentwith rental assistance payments (based on the difference between what they are presentlypaying and the market rate for a similar unit; it last approximately 42 months) or buy asuitable replacement home with down payment assistance. This Act was a direct resultof community protests against Urban Renewal in the sixties. Initially, Urban Renewalprograms did not require any relocation benefits. Only after community groups inseveral cities protested the unfair displacement of residents, did the Relocation Actbecome part of federal law and procedures.(Contact: HUD)

(CDBG) Community Development Block Grant Laws

There are laws working within CDBG funding proposals that work in conjunction withthe Uniform Relocation Act. These laws were introduced by Congressman Barney Frankin 1988 and 1989 in an effort to strengthen the guidelines for CDBG funding. The lawsmandate that every CDBG proposal should have an anti-displacement plan.(Contact:Larry Yates and Rikki Spears of the Low Income Housing Information Service/Washington D.C.)

3.

"Section 8"

While Section 8 is a rental assistance program for low income families it also has beenused as a tool to assist families displaced as a result of federal initiatives and also as atool to preserve affordable housing units in areas experiencing reinvestment. Certificateswhich are given directly to the family or individual allow them to find another housingunit, to replace the unit that they are losing due to the reorganization of the publichousing authority or to development funded by federal programs. Families beingdisplaced by federal initiatives are usually put at the top of the list for this benefit. Forthe family who qualifies for this program but is not being affected by a federal fundeddisplacement scheme it is usually a wait of several years before a certificate is obtained.An official at the City of Chicago's Department of Housing states that there is a 65,000to 75,000 backlog of those who want Section 8 Certificates. Project-based Section 8housing development was a tool used by many not for profit developers to preserveaffordable housing in their communities. This program attached the rental subsidy to aspecific housing unit. The family who occupied this unit had to qualify as low incomeaccording to the federal guidelines. This program has been cut back drastically over theyears and presently is being threatened with elimination by the Congress. (Contact: CHA/ HUD)

4.

Housing Tax Credits

With the reduction over the years in Project-based Section 8 and the 1986 changes in thetax laws related to housing syndications, more and more developers have had to rely ontax credits to rehabilitate or build low income housing. Low income housing tax creditswere established by Section 252 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to replace traditional taxincentives for investment in low income housing which were eliminated by the samelaw. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 permits taxpayers to claim taxcredit on their federal income tax returns for qualified expenditures for low- incomehousing units placed in service after December 31, 1986. There are two approaches:either 70 percent for non-federally subsidized new construction or substantialrehabilitation, and acquisition cost; or 30 percent for federally subsidized newconstruction or substantial rehab. Both require a set-aside requirement of at least 20percent. A project's units must be rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with annualincomes of 50 percent or less of the area's median gross income with some variations.Tax credits also require an Allocation Plan which should be developed by state agenciessuch as Illinois Housing Development Authority. The Plan provides a blueprint for theprocess the agency will use to accept applications from potential applications and howthey will be evaluated. This must all be approved as part of a public hearing process.Pressure could be applied to groups to provide anti-displacement measures within theirselection process of potential applications. However, we found no examples of this kindof selection process in other cities or states. (Contact:Illinois Housing DevelopmentAuthority)

5.

HOME Program

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 created the HOME Program.The HOME program and funds have a number of rules and regulations which can effectthe anti displacement of low-income residents. "A proposed Final Rule" is one suchregulation which requires that the affordability of HOME funded projects be preservedfor the remaining useful life of the property, or a lesser period consistent with soundeconomic principles. As it stands now affordability for the rehabilitation of rental units isrequired for only five years if less than $15,000 in HOME funds is invested per unit; foronly ten years if the amount is between $15,000 and $40,000 per unit; and for only 15years if the amount is more than $40,000 per unit. For those projects which involve newconstruction, affordability must be maintained for only 20 years. Presently, there ispolitical action which is attempting to increase the time periods and have the existingtimes be minimums. (Contact: HUD and information provided by Federal Register)

6.

Low Income Housing Preservation Act 1995 7.

This act amends the 1986 Internal Revenue Code by providing tax incentives toencourage the preservation of low income housing. The focus of the act is to save theapproximately 240,000 subsidized Sect. 221 D and Sect. 236 projects which arecurrently coming to the end of their term. In the next five years another 900,000 unitswill also be ending their term. It is an attempt to stop the private owners of thesedevelopments from prepaying their mortgages to get from underneath the federalrequirements. As a strategy, this act provides for the maintenance of existing affordableunits which, if not preserved, could mean a significant displacement of people unable toafford the increased rents of these units without the federal subsidies. (Contact: LarryYates and Rikki Spears of the Low Income Housing Information Service/ WashingtonD.C. also see the Federal Register)

Community Reinvestment Act 1977

This act requires federal agencies that supervise financial institutions to encourage themto help meet the credit needs of their communities, including the needs of low andmoderate income families and individuals. It requires the supervising federal agencies toassess a financial institution's record of community service especially when the financialinstitution is filing for an expansion. The act requires that the bank and savingsinstitutions prepare a CRA statement for each of the communities it serves. The CRAhas been used as an anti-displacement strategy by community groups when they haveorganized and negotiated a CRA agreement with the banks or savings institutions intheir community. Many of these agreements have provided more affordable andaccessible financing for investments in their community.

The Joint Planning Council (JPC), a coalition of low-income housing groups in NewYork City, is currently developing an organizing drive that would fight for importantchanges in CRA. As currently written, The CRA gives credit to banks whenever theyprovide loans in low and moderate income communities. So, banks get CRA credit evenwhen they provide a loan which benefits high-income residents, as long as the propertyis located in an area which qualifies as low and moderate income. Obviously, these sortsof loans only encourage gentrification to occur. JPC will be fighting to change CRA sothat banks are judged on the effect that their loans have on low and moderate incomepeople. Now, they are judged solely on the fact that they made a loan, even if it causeddisplacement or gentrification. (Contact: Woodstock Institute, Chicago)

8.

Empowerment Zones

The Empowerment Zone concept is a Clinton Program which is attempting to rebuild theurban environment with the combination of economic development and social programs.

9.

The idea of Empowerment Zones grows from the enterprise zone concepts of theRepublican Party. The Clinton Administration has developed the concept of enterprisezones a step further with the inclusion of social programs. Empowerment zones work ina similar fashion to the enterprise zone where firms would get wage tax credits for anyworker who lives in the zone boundaries. Firms would also get other tax incentives aswell as the ability to float bonds. Residents within the zone as well as businesses wouldhave the opportunity to seek waivers of different state, local, and federal regulations.

Nine (six urban and three rural) empowerment zones have been chosen. Eachempowerment zone will receive $100 million in funding and an estimated $250 millionin wage tax credits over a ten year period. Chicago was chosen as one of the cities toreceive an empowerment zone. The zone includes the neighborhoods of Kenwood,Pilsen, Near West Side, West Garfield, Austin and Little Village. The empowermentzone could potentially aid these communities with economic development, socialprograms and other incentives. All of these amenities should aid in the development ofthese areas without displacing the indigenous residents.

Back to Table of Contents

City of Chicago Strategies

Based on our interviews with present and past City of Chicago officials in the Department ofHousing and the Department of Planning and Development, the City of Chicago has nopolicies outside of the federal regulations and policies we have already discussed to alleviatedisplacement when development occurs. This is particularly true when the displacement iscaused by market driven forces. We have included below a description of how the cityimplements federal policies, City programs that could be viewed as preventing displacement,and other City strategies which were mentioned in our interviews as anti-displacement.

Uniform Relocation Act (City)

The City of Chicago implements the federal Uniform Relocation Act. The City enforcesit on CDBG funded projects and also on projects that are funded with City dollarsoutside of CDBG funding. The city is in charge of providing the necessary servicesinvolved in the relocation. According to Department of Housing records, the departmenthas assisted in 712 relocations between 1990-95. These relocations have beenpredominantly residential (606). Low income households have been 89% of thehouseholds needing relocation assistance. In addition, 53%(319) of the relocatedhouseholds have been low income female headed households and 192 have been femaleheaded households with children. The Relocation Unit has 8 staff members.(Contact:City of Chicago Department of Housing, Household Services Division)

1.

Low-Income Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 2.

According to the 1994 annual report of the City of Chicago's Department of Housing,the city created its first Tax Increment Financing district for the development ofaffordable housing. This project located at 45th and South Martin Luther King Drivecreated 96 units as part of the Phase V development of the Paul G. Stewart Homes. TheTIF allows the city to use the money generated from the tax increment on the vacant lotsfor development within the ( TIF) district. They are then able to use this money to dosuch things as write down the bonds or provide additional financing for the project.(Contact: Department of Housing)

"Hands Off" Approach

This strategy describes a one time "hands off" approach the city took during thenegotiations between the United Center developers and the Interfaith Organizing Projectcommunity organization. It is the opinion of one city official that this strategy worked onthe Near West Side. The City backed away and essentially informed the stadiumdevelopers that nothing would get built unless some type of agreement could behammered out between the stadium developers and the community. This enabled thecommunity to deal directly with the private developers to negotiate a plan to alleviate thedisplacement of residents and have the developers provide other benefits (ie.jobs,improvements) to the community.

3.

Community Development Corporations

This strategy has not been supported strongly by the present City administration.According to the Chicago Rehab Network's analysis of Department of Housing's (DOH)fourth quarterly report, the City does not support CDCs as much as it supports for profitdevelopers in the production and preservation of housing units. With more support, suchas more funding for operating expenses, land conveyance, and improving thedevelopment financing and approval process, CDCs would be in a better position toimprove neighborhood conditions and alleviate possible displacement of residents.

DOH recently changed the manner in which it provides money to CDCs for generaloperating funds. Money for general operation is no longer available through CDBGfunding. All CDCs are eligible for the Capacity Building Program. This DOH programprovides grants for CDCs to improve their organizational capacity by hiring consultantsor attending conferences, retreats, or training sessions. Funds for general operation areavailable only through HOME monies to CDCs that are certified by HUD as CommunityHousing Development Organizations (CHODOS). (Contact: The Chicago RehabNetwork)

4.

The Creation of "Redevelopment Areas"

After the demise of the Urban Renewal programs of the past, the CommunityDevelopment Commission was created to maintain many of the same powers. TheCommunity Development Commission has the ability to name an area a Redevelopmentarea or a Conservation Area. The difference between the two is that a Conservation Areadoes not require that the area be found to be slum and blighted. Both these designationsrequire City Council approval. For both these designations, there must be an approvedredevelopment plan. Once the plan is approved, land can be purchased and sold by theCity below market rates. This land then comes under the control of the City, and thusgives them the ability to create affordable housing and monitor for displacement.(Contact:Department of Planning and Development)

5.

Chicago Plan Commission

In its 87th year,the Chicago Plan Commission plays a principal role in the initiation andreview of the City's long range planning goals. The Plan Commission exercises finalauthority, subject to judicial review, with respect to all public and private improvementsalong the lakefront and within the immediately adjacent neighborhoods and commercialareas. The Commission has nine members appointed by the Mayor and nine ex-officiomembers including the City Commissioner of Planning and Development and theZoning Administrator. The Plan Commission reviews all major development projects inthe City, major zoning or land use changes, the industrial corridor planning and theConservation or Redevelopment Area designation. All of their recommendations arereviewed by the City Council who has final approval. Although the Commission playsan advisory role, it could have considerable power if it adopted policies which weresensitive to development without displacement. (Contact: Department of Planning andDevelopment/ Chicago Plan Commission)

6.

Chicago Abandoned Property Program (CAPP)

CAPP is a program created due to the outcry of community residents concerned with theabandoned buildings in their neighborhood. The program was initially run by theDepartment of Buildings but then was transferred to the Department of Housing. ThisProgram outlines a process whereby abandoned buildings can be acquired andtransferred to individuals, private and non profit developers interested in rehabilitationfor affordable housing. The program focuses on vacant 1-6 unit buildings and requiresthat the buildings be tax delinquent, open and unsecured to qualify for the program. A

7.

list of CAPP eligible buildings is published each quarter and interested developers fillout applications requesting the buildings.. The applications are reviewed by amayor-appointed sub-committee who makes recommendations to the City Council fortheir approval. The process from application to receiving clear title from the City takes12-18 months. Community groups who have used CAPP are concerned about the lengthof time it takes to obtain ownership of these buildings. Since 1991, 133 CAPP buildingshave been acquired and transferred to an owner who plans to rehab the property. Thereare another 220 properties in the process of being transferred. There has been 49 vacantlots transferred from City ownership to an eligible buyer. (Contact: Department ofHousing; Developer Services Division)

Heat Receivership Program

The Heat Receivership Program is designed to preserve affordable housing that mayotherwise become vacant if a building is not sufficiently heated. The Program allows theCity to intervene in housing court cases where multi-family buildings are insufficientlyheated during the winter months (November - April). The Court then appoints a receiverto make the needed improvements and restore heat to the building. They act as aninterim property management company for the multi-family building. During thisprocess they collect rents and make the necessary improvements. The receiver's costs inmaking these improvements are reimbursed by the Department of Housing in exchangefor a lien in the full amount of the improvements. This program works well inpreventing displacement due to poor upkeep of many multi-family buildings. It providesresidents with legal action to deal with those landlords who do not maintain theirproperty. It enables residents to stay in these units rather than relocate. (Contact:Department of Housing, Real Estate Services Division)

8.

Housing Abandonment Prevention Program (HAPP)

HAPP is another program established to preserve multi-family buildings in danger ofabandonment. This program has more flexibility than the Heat Receivership Programbecause it allows for a court-appointed receiver to make emergency repairs to a numberof code violations and deteriorating conditions, such as; replacing the roofs, electricalsystems, and porches. The department of Housing, through the Community InvestmentCorporation, provides the funds needed to make the emergency repairs and stabilizethose building until permanent improvements can be made. A lien is placed on thebuilding by the City for the costs of the repairs. The lien can then be foreclosed by theCity, thus making the building available for transfer to a developer for furtherrehabilitation and management. This developer can be either a for profit or a not forprofit as long as they have the means and the know how to take responsibility. Theprogram simply puts buildings in the hands of those who want to maintain them and who

9.

are committed to preserving housing. (Contact:The Department of Housing; Real EstateServices Division).

Tax Reactivation Program and Special Sales

The Tax Reactivation Program provides a mechanism for the City of Chicago and CookCounty to return tax-delinquent buildings and vacant land to the tax rolls and provideaffordable housing. In this program, the City makes a non-cash bid to the County for taxdelinquent property on behalf of a developer who is applying for the building and/or thevacant land. The County issues the City a Certificate of Purchase which can beconverted to a tax deed once the owner's period of redemption has expired. The deed isthen transferred to the pre-identified developer for rehabilitation or new construction onthe vacant site. The Tax Reactivation Program has a formal application that developersmust complete before being selected and the process generally takes between 18-24months. It is up to the developer to investigate and find those vacant parcels orbuildings, usually with 7 units or more, which are tax delinquent. Once this task iscompleted they can then begin the formal application process. Since 1989, 161properties have been transferred through the Tax Reactivation Program and another 35properties are still in process. In addition, there have been 81 vacant lots transferredthrough this process. (Contact: Department of Housing, Real Estate Services Division).

10.

Court-Ordered Relocation Unit in Department of Human Services

This unit will assist tenants who have been evicted to apply for CHA housing or to findshelter space. The unit will also refer tenants to other city programs, which may benefitthem. Finally, according to administrators at the Department of Human Services, a "verysmall budget" is available to cover the costs of relocation for tenants who are severelydestitute. The small relocation budget is not documented or advertised because of fearthat the department will be overwhelmed with requests. (Contact: Department of HumanServices)

11.

Back to Table of Contents

Strategies from Other Cities

In this section we list the strategies we found being implemented and discussed in other cities.We compiled this listing from existing research and information, plus, whenever possible, wedid telephone interviews with activists and government officials in other cities to find out whatadditional strategies were being implemented. If we found an example of the strategy beingused by a Chicago community group, it is discussed in a separate Chicago section.

Community Land Trust

A community land trust is a private non-profit corporation created to acquire and holdland for the benefit of a community. It also provides secure affordable access to land andhousing for community residents. Community Land Trusts essentially take land off themarket by restricting speculation, absentee ownership of land and housing, andpreserving the affordability of housing. The first option, if residents choose to sell at acontrolled appreciation price, goes to the Community Land Trust Board. Ownership ofthe land enables the CLT to develop policies which must be agreed upon by thoseinterested in the area before a long term land lease can be signed.

Burlington, Vermont offers a good example with the Burlington Community Land Trustwhich has made 102 housing units in Chittenden County.(Burlington Free Press 6/90,Contact: Burlington Community Land Trust.) Another example exists in Atlanta wherethe South Atlanta Land Trust(SALT) bought nine house sites in its minorityneighborhood which was experiencing deterioration. Using various funding sourcesfrom both public and private sector, SALT homes were renovated and sold tolow-income single women. Title to the homes is held by SALT and the sales agreementlimits equity appreciation which eliminates speculation. (Contact: CommunityInformation Exchange, South Atlanta Land Trust, Atlanta, GA)

Chicago Examples: The Chicago Acorn (Association of Community Organizations forReform Now) chapter has used the land trust strategy. Acorn bought foreclosed homesfrom HUD, hired local contractors to rehab them, and either sold or leased with theoption to buy to families in primarily the south side Englewood neighborhood. For someof the homes, the families also participated in the rehab with sweat equity which furtherreduced the rehab costs. The Acorn Land Association was established whereby the landassociation held the deed to the land and leased the house for 99 years. The lease isrenewable and the land association has the first option to buy back the house. The buyerwill receive what they paid for the house plus compensation for any improvements madeon the house. There is a no appreciation clause in the land contract. There are 50 homesparticipating in the Acorn Land Association. Acorn combined the land trust strategywith the lease with option to buy strategy which gives the lessee 3 years to decidewhether to buy the house. All of the payments during this 3 year period go toward thepayment of the house at a preset price.

The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and several large Chicago banksparticipated in the financing for the homes. These funders ended up liking the land truststrategy because it was another interested "party" which would care if the ownerdefaulted on the mortgage. In addition, the land association's first option to buy alsogave more assurance to the financing institutions that an organization was standing by toeither assist the owner or buy the property in case of default. Two other groups inChicago have used this strategy or are in the midst of organizing a land trust. They arePeople's Housing in Rogers Park and Erie House in West Town.

1.

Non-Profit Ownership

According to the National Congress for Community Economic Development there are atleast 2,000 Community Development Corporations (CDCs) across the country that havedeveloped and own 320,000 units of affordable housing. These CDCs , many of whichare in Chicago, use non-profit ownership to control housing and other property in theircommunities. By putting housing units in non-profit ownership it is essentially takingthese units out of the market and preserving them as affordable units. One CDC inRichmond, Virginia, adopted a strategy where they went about buying property on everyblock in their community. The non-profit then had some control over speculation anddevelopment since they own property on every single block. The CDC can then decide ifthey would like to sell the property or hold on if they believe a proposed developmentcould displace residents. This could also be described as a land banking strategy.(Contact: Larry Yates of the Low Income Housing Information Service WashingtonD.C.)

Chicago Examples: The Chicago Rehab Network represents 32 CDCs in Chicago thatown and manage over 10,000 units of affordable housing.

2.

Community Land Banks

Land banks work in a similar fashion to community land trust, but it is a strategy thatcan be short or long term. It is different than the Community Land Trust which is only along term community ownership strategy. For example, in Baltimore, residents werefaced with the potential of a superhighway going through the Fells Point neighborhood.The Southeast Community Organization organized residents in an effort to stop thedeterioration of absentee owned buildings. The group formed a land bank which wasfinanced by foundation funding. Through the land bank, they purchased the homes ofthese absentee owners, rehabbed the buildings and sold them outright to members in thecommunity or they offered a lease-purchase arrangement. The city also provided lowcost loans for renovations. Eventually 110 properties were land-banked throughout FellsPoint. (Contact:Community Information Exchange, South East CommunityOrganization/ Baltimore, MD)

3.

"Squatting" as a Political Action

In an effort to obtain more money from the city to build affordable housing , themembers of the Boston/ HUD Tenant Alliance decided to using squatting as a strategy.They used the Copley Square Development as their target and set up white sheet tents on

4.

the exact sites where they felt housing was needed. The city eventually gave in becauseof the negative pressure from the press and provided the group with a multi unitsubsidized building. This aided in obtaining affordable housing and also directedattention to a specific area where the grassroots agency felt there should be affordablehousing. (Contact: Boston HUD Tenant Alliance, Michael Caine)

Committees of Social Self-Management in Moscow, Russia, have also used squatting,picketing, and blockading of luxury housing developments to call attention to theshortage of affordable family housing. Likewise, in cities around the world, squatting isone of the most popular strategies to force reallocation of land and housing to the needy.

Chicago Examples: A group called the Mad Housers assisted homeless people bybuilding small huts with a heater, cooking and sleeping accommodations. These hutswere then placed on railroad property. The City of Chicago at first tolerated the huts andthe squatting on railroad property. But then, the City decided to evict the dwellers anddestroyed their huts. The City insisted that the dwellers either seek shelter in publichousing or in overnight and transitional shelters.

Eminent Domain Powers for Non-Profits

This strategy gives community organizations eminent domain power to acquire vacantland and buildings in their neighborhood. The Boston group, the Dudley StreetNeighborhood Initiative (DSNI), is the most famous and only example of a group in theU.S. acquiring this local power. Like many urban communities the residents of theDudley Street area found themselves surrounded by many vacant buildings and land.They banded together to do something about the redevelopment of their area. As part ofa comprehensive planning process, DSNI wanted land stewardship over time for theircommunity. DSNI formed a separate corporation, Dudley Neighbors, Inc. which is anonprofit community land trust that will acquire land and build affordable housing,commercial, parks, and other needed community facilities. Dudley Neighbors, Inc. alsobecame the corporation which was designated with the eminent domain powers. It has aboard with a majority of residents along with representatives from the City of Boston,their State representative and City Councilor. Since receiving the power of eminentdomain in 1988, DSNI has received financial help from the Ford Foundation to buymuch of the land needed to do their housing development. Thus far, 300 housing unitshave been built because the community has planned and organized to get eminentdomain powers. (Contact:Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, Boston, Mass .)

5.

Class Action Law Suits

In Addison, Illinois, a group of residents have filed a class action suit against the City of

6.

Addison. The suit claims that the City of Addison is using the designation of a TaxIncrement Financing District (TIF) to displace most of the Latino families of the area.The court case is still pending.

Chicago Examples: There are two recent examples in Chicago of community groupsusing class action law suits to fight displacement in their community. First of all, theSouth Armour Square Neighborhood Coalition has filed a class action civil rights suitagainst the White Sox, City of Chicago, State of Illinois, and the Illinois Sports FacilityAuthority which claims that the choice of the location of the new White Sox Park wasracially motivated. The court case is based on evidence that the ball park could moreeasily have been located to the north and west of its present location and displaced lesspeople. However, the people living to the north and west were white families. In thiscase, the remaining community residents are asking for the rebuilding of theircommunity which was lost due to the relocation. This would involve 178 homes and 12businesses.

In another case the Henry Horner Mother's Guild has a class action suit pending againstthe Chicago Housing Authority which claims that the CHA intentionally allowedresidents of Henry Horner to live in unsafe and dangerous housing. This court case hasbeen an important leverage for Henry Horner residents to have a say in theredevelopment plans for Henry Horner and also a say in whether each resident or familywants to stay in the area or take the option of moving to another CHA development or begiven a Section 8 certificate.

Limited-Equity Housing Cooperatives/ Leasehold Cooperatives

A limited-equity housing cooperative is owned by the residents, with resale restrictionsbuilt into the deed or other government documents to limit the value or the potential forinflation in the value of each member's share. The tenants of a privately owned building,when faced with the prospect of its sale or conversion to higher-income cooperatives orcondominiums, will often form an association to purchase the building. They can thenturn it into a limited-equity or leasehold cooperative. In a limited-equity housingcooperative, each member owns a share in the value of the building and land. Leaseholdcoops generally own and hold title to the land but give the developer ownership of thebuilding through a long-term lease. The terms of the coops allow the leaseholdcooperative to control management and future use of the building.

In Minneapolis, West Bank Homes, developed jointly by a for-profit developer and theWest Bank Community Development Corporation, is a leasehold cooperativecomprising 65 homes. The $4.5 million project is financed through a number of privateand public funding sources. The project grew out of the protests of renters when the citywas planning extensive demolition to make way for a high-rise housing development.The new development would have destroyed the nature of the neighborhood.. The West

7.

Bank Community Development Corporation will receive a 40 percent share of theresiduals from the eventual sale of the property and has a right of first refusal at time ofsale. These benefits will be transferred to the residents' cooperative to help thempurchase the buildings.(Contact:Community Information Exchange, West Bank CDC,Minneapolis, MN)

Limited equity cooperatives are a form of ownership and control that has been used inmany cities in the United States and Europe. In Oslo, Norway, more households are incooperatives than are home owners or renters in the private market. Since 1988, manyOslo cooperatives have converted to individual ownerships with less restrictions on thedeeds. (Contact: Norwegian Building Research Institute)

Chicago Examples: Chicago has the second highest number of cooperatives in theUnited States with over 4,000 units, which is second only to New York. Chicago hasdealt for many years with cooperatives especially those concerned with equity or limitedequity housing cooperatives. One good example is the London Town Homes, 700 unitsof housing on the south side.

Leasehold Cooperatives have been much harder to obtain for the Chicago area. One ofthe primary reasons behind this is that Mayor Daley's administration has refused to makeany loan commitments for cooperatives, which eliminates the ability to receive TaxCredits. Other states, such as Minnesota, have been successful with leaseholdcooperatives because they have specific laws that enable them to receive loans for thisparticular type of endeavor. The closest Chicago example would be the St. Clair Homeswhich is managed by the Covenant Development Corporation. In this example the CDCis the owner and the residents of St. Clair Homes have a lease on the property.(Contact:Mutual Housing Network)

Lease-Purchase Home Ownership Arrangement

Under a lease purchase-arrangement, a house needing rehabilitation is purchased andrepaired by a non-profit organization or other organization. It is then leased to a lowerincome family or individual at an affordable rent. This family is given the first option tobuy the home after an arranged period. During this entire process, the renter is puttingmoney aside and rebuilding credit in hopes of having a down payment for the home andsecuring their own mortgage. This strategy allows families who would otherwise beunable to afford or qualify for a mortgage to become homeowners and also stay in thearea. It helps local residents remain in the community since the residents of the areawould be given the first option to apply for the arrangement. This could also work fornew construction.

In Cleveland, Ohio, the Cleveland Housing Network was founded in 1981 by the

8.

Famicos Foundation to renovate deteriorated housing throughout Cleveland. Thefoundation has helped to keep acquisition and rehab cost low. CHN receives donationsof property, acquires abandoned buildings and then repairs them to meet city codes. Thefamilies are carefully screened and are usually picked from the area or an adjacentcommunity. To date CHN has produced housing for more than 600 families, with a totalproperty value of more than $20 million.(Contact:Community Information Exchange1988, Famicos Foundation/ Cleveland Housing Network, Cleveland , Ohio)

Chicago Examples: The Lawndale Christian Development Corporation has been usingthe Lease-Purchase Home Ownership arrangement. In addition, Acorn HousingCorporation has also used lease-purchase along with the land trust to facilitate morefamilies being able to become home owners.

Equal Development or Balanced Growth Ordinance

In San Francisco, Boston, and Santa Monica, progressive coalitions have successfullycreated and implemented laws which links downtown development to the support ofneighborhood economic development.

In San Francisco, the Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO)successfully lobbied for the passage of the Office Affordable Housing ProductionProgram Ordinance in the mid-1980's. This ordinance required developers who builtdowntown office space to place money in an affordable housing pool. The exact amountrequired was determined by a formula based on the square footage of office space beingdeveloped. During the high-rise construction boom, this pool generated $27 million foraffordable housing in the city. In the last few years, though, downtown officeconstruction has ceased due to economic downturn and no new money has beengenerated.

CCHO also succeeded in winning passage of a similar ordinance which requireddowntown developers to pay into a funding pool for child care and another for jobs. Therationale it used in winning these ordinances was similar as that used to win onaffordable housing. Downtown developers were building office space which wasattracting higher income people to the area. In a tight real estate market, lower incomepeople were forced to move by both rising prices and direct displacement. Lightindustries that employed lower income people were also being forced to leave. Theordinances were necessary compensation to those people whose lives were negativelyaffected by downtown development. Both these ordinances are asking developers to payimpact fees for their developments. This is an approach used more commonly insuburban areas. When a developer wants to do a major development the localmunicipality does an impact analysis on how this development is going to affect publicservices including such things as schools and parks. The developer is asked to includesome of these costs in his overall development.

9.

Chicago Example: There was an effort under the Harold Washington Administration todo a similar thing here in Chicago. It was called Linked Development and theWashington Administration set up a task force to study how it could be implemented.Similar to the SanFrancisco ordinance, downtown developers would be assessed by thesquare foot to provide funding for neighborhood development efforts. There was strongopposition by the downtown development community and the idea was abandoned as astrategy by the Washington administration.

Local "one-for-one replacement" Ordinance

These ordinances are modeled after the federal mandate but are used in a variety offorms at the local level. In New York City, an umbrella community organization calledthe Joint Planning Council (JPC) won a one-for-one replacement agreement from thecity which affected only their particular neighborhood on the lower east side ofManhattan. This agreement required any developer who purchases city-owned land orproperty and develops it for higher-end use must fund the creation of the same amountof low-income housing units in the same neighborhood. Since this law went into affect,no luxury development has occurred in the area. JPC says that the real estate market ingeneral collapsed in the city at the time they won passage of the agreement. Marketdecline, they argue, has caused the dearth of upscale development in the area.

In Seattle, local community organizations including The Tenants Union won passage ofthe Housing Preservation Ordinance. This required any landlord in the city whodemolished low-income housing to replace the same number of units or make acontribution to the State Housing Trust Fund. This ordinance was struck down by thestate supreme court three years ago as unconstitutional.

According to John Huerta of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, California'sMellow Act requires that any time affordable housing located along the Coastal Zone (astrip of land running the length of the state's coast) is destroyed, it must be replaced onefor one. New affordable housing may be built within three miles of its original location.

10.

Local measures which pay costs of tenant relocation

In Seattle, the city implemented a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance in 1990. Thisordinance applies to tenants of any property which undergoes any of the following: (1)demolition, (2) substantial rehab, (3) change of use, and (4) removal of governmentrestrictions. Only low-income households, defined as 50% of the county's medianincome, can receive benefits. Under the ordinance, the city provides $1071 to eachtenant for relocation. Until June 1993, landlords were required to match this amount. Apending court challenge by a landlord coalition, though, caused the local Department ofHousing and Human Services to suspend this requirement. If a tenant can document thatthey had to pay more than $1,071 to relocate, however, the city will pay them up to $500

11.

extra. Landlords are also required under the ordinance to provide 90-day notice of thepending eviction to tenants.

Staff at the city housing department say that the ordinance, as initially written, was aburden on small-time owners. Also, they complain that tenants often don't fill out thenecessary forms correctly or at all. In 1993, there were 339 units in Seattle deemed tofall under the ordinance. Half of these were income-eligible. In 1992, 320 units wereaffected, but only 25 were eligible. Finally, in 1991, 491 units were affected and 154were eligible. (See also federal guidelines established under the Uniform Relocation Actwhich require tenant relocation payments in the federal programs section of this report)

Rent Control

Rent control laws restrict rent increases, either city-wide or particularly in gentrifyingneighborhoods. Some allow rent increases only in certain circumstances, such as whenownership of the building is transferred. Many of the laws also limit the size of theincrease. Regulations in New York City, for example, restrict landlords' ability to raiserents. Last year, for example, rents could only be raised 2%. The law in New York City,though, allows landlords to raise rents higher if they've made a significant capitalimprovement to the building. Activists in NYC also complain that tenants whose rent israised beyond the legal limit wait for long periods as their case is passed through thebureaucracy. The law applies only to buildings larger than three units.

The Rent Stabilization Ordinance in San Francisco provides for a similar level of rentcontrol. While activists feel that its passage has played a significant role in limitingdisplacement, significant loopholes allow for abuse of the ordinance. For example,homeowners can evict existing tenants if a relative moves in. Many owners arrange for arelative to live with them for a short period, thereby evicting the tenant and, after therelative moves out, legally jacking up the rents.

12.

Zoning and Land Use Controls

Just as some suburbs limit the influx of lower income and minority people throughrestrictive zoning regulations, some activists have fought for zoning and land usecontrols which limit the influx of development associated with gentrification. In SanFrancisco, activists won passage of Proposition M, which put a lid on officedevelopment in the city and mandated over-riding guidelines for the Master Plan (SanFrancisco's overall land use and zoning plan). [Note that in Chicago we don't even havean equivalent of the Master Plan.] Proposition M mandated zoning and land use changeswhich encouraged the preservation of affordable housing, neighborhood-serving retailand service, and blue collar intensive industrial uses. The proposition passed its thirdtime on the ballot.

13.

The passage of Proposition M was followed in September 1990 by a rewriting of theMaster Plan Residence Element in accordance with the demands of the activistcommunity. In addition, community organizations in several San Francisconeighborhoods fought for specific zoning and land use changes in their neighborhoodswhich implemented the planning principles laid out in Proposition M. The local CHASwas written to encourage the creation of affordable housing which benefitted householdsearning less than 25% of the PMSA median income.

San Francisco activists also won passage of the Residential Hotel Conversion Ordinance,which prohibits most conversions and, for those that are allowed, mandates one for onereplacement housing.

In Seattle, the city passed the Downtown Housing Maintenance Ordinance. Thisordinance restricts the ability of speculators to leave residential rental housing in "goodshape" sitting empty.

Limit Condominium Conversions

Condominium conversions directly reduce the supply of rental housing and often signalthe full-scale introduction of gentrification into neighborhoods. Restrictions oncondominium conversions, then, attempt to directly forestall the process. The Council ofCommunity Housing Organizations in San Francisco fought successfully for suchlimitations, which were written into the city's Master Plan for zoning and land use andimplemented in several neighborhood zoning changes. The changes were fought, ofcourse, by development lobbies throughout the city.

The Pennsylvania Economy League (PEL), a state-wide housing and economicdevelopment research group, counsels against the use of anti-displacement strategies thatrestrict the development market. The PEL, after conducting a national survey ofanti-displacement strategies, found that those strategies which restricted the market oftendiscouraged any development at all from occurring in deteriorated neighborhoods. PELurges the use of strategies which encourage low-income development without restrictingthe flow of the open market. Examples of strategies which PEL encouraged are supportfor Community Development Corporations and the creation of low-income cooperativesand other home ownership opportunities.

Chicago Examples: In Chicago, current law requires that property owners who wish toturn their rental apartment into condominiums must provide at least 120 days notice totenants. If a given tenant's lease expires within the 120 day notice period, the tenant hasthe right to stay through the 120 days. If their current lease runs longer than the 120days, tenants may stay until the lease expires. Tenants who are over 65 years old, blind,or unable to walk without assistance must be given a 180 days notice. In addition, theproperty owner must offer the tenant the option to purchase their unit. That is, the tenanthas the right of first refusal. They also have the right to match any offer the property

14.

owner receives for their unit, up until the time that the unit is actually sold. (Contact:Metropolitan Tenants Organization)

"Security of Tenure" Laws

These laws provide assurances to lower income and long-term residents that landlordscannot evict them easily, often by providing a minimum period of notification beforeeviction and by giving tenants an appeal process. In Seattle, landlords are required bythe Tenant Relocation Ordinance to provide low-income tenants 90-day notice if theyare going to be evicted.

Chicago Examples: In Chicago, the Metropolitan Tenants Organization (MTO) iscurrently organizing to change current law regarding this issue. At present, landlords donot have to give any reason for refusing not to renew a tenant's lease. The burden toprove that the landlord's refusal to renew is illegal falls completely on the tenant. MTOwants landlords to be forced to disclose their reasons for not renewing a lease. Onlycertain reasons would be acceptable.

15.

Increase taxes on vacant buildings, vacant lots, and parking lots to discouragespeculators

The Tenant Union in Seattle submitted a proposal to the City's Mayor which, in part,called for taxes to be increased on vacant land and buildings and parking lots. All threeof which are held by speculators. This idea originally arose when a local CDC wanted topurchase a vacant building located in the downtown area. In researching the building,the CDC found that the assessed valuation of the property was approximately one-fourthof the asking price. Had the assessed value, and hence the property taxes, been higherover the years, then the building's owner would have been less likely to let the propertysit vacant and deteriorate. The CDC argued that the City would not have been burdenedwith a vacant property and the housing units would have been available to tenants in thecity. The Mayor refused to adopt this policy, claiming that speculators would not bediscouraged by higher property taxes. Arlen Olsen, an organizer with The Tenant Union,thinks that the general mood against raising taxes influenced the Mayor's decision. Olsenand other organizers plan to continue working on this strategy.

16.

Property Tax Relief

These programs, often known as "circuit breakers" were especially popular in the late1970's and early 1980's. They set ceilings on the amount of property taxes that certainpeople, usually the elderly and homeowners have to pay.

Chicago Examples: The State of Illinois Department of Revenue administers a programwhich provides grants to individuals over 65 years old and disabled persons. Program

17.

applicants are eligible if their income is under $14,000 annually per householdregardless of family size. The amount of the grant is calculated based on the household'sincome and the amount of the property taxes paid. Renters eligible under the criterialisted above also may receive grants.

The Cook County Assessor's office runs programs which help senior citizens withproperty tax relief. The Senior Homestead Exemption provides an exemption based onthe value of the property which directly reduces the senior's property tax by $200 to$250 annually. All people over 65 years are eligible. Secondly, the Senior Citizen TaxFreeze Homestead Exemption freezes senior property taxes at the 1993 level. Onlyhouseholds earning less than $35,000 annually are eligible. This income level applies tothe household who the senior lives with not just the income of the senior. In addition, theAssessor has a homeowner's exemption for owner-occupied 1-6 unit buildings. There isa $450 cap on this exemption.

Rent Subsidies

Rent subsidies take a variety of forms, from Section 8 certificates to direct subsidies torenters in selected apartment buildings. They seek to put money in the pocket of lowerincome renters, which will allow them to compete in the housing marketplace. In somegentrifying neighborhoods, though, rents have increased to a point that undercuts thecompetitive advantage of the subsidies. Landlords, in addition, often avoid tenants withvouchers.

18.

Low-Income Tax Increment Financing Districts in other Cities

Tax Increment Financing districts have been used for many years in California to createlow-income housing. Once an area is designated "blighted," then property tax increasesare caught by a Redevelopment Agency which must spend at least 20% of the money onlow-income housing creation. In Chicago, when the city names an area "blighted," theDepartment of Planning and Development then has authority to (1) acquire land andproperty in the area, using the power of eminent domain if necessary, and (2) sell offland and property in accordance with its redevelopment vision for the area. There are noguarantees written into the law that assure a certain percentage of the development willbenefit indigenous or low-income people.

In San Francisco, low-income TIFs have generated $40-45 million in affordable housingproduction in the last five years. Only not-for-profit CDCs are eligible to use this sourceof financing.

Chicago Examples: Last year, the City of Chicago used, for the first time, a low-incomeTIF to create 96 units of low-income housing. Other TIFs, such as the $104 million oneimplemented in the South Loop contain no guarantees that existing or low-income

19.

residents will benefit.

Right of First Refusal

Through these policies, property owners who plan to sell their property must first offerto sell it to tenants or community development corporations. A "right of first refusal"policy that would cover all private market buildings in gentrifying neighborhoods hasnot been implemented anywhere in the country. Even in Seattle, where activists suggestthe use of these policies to fight displacement, private market interests are likely to blockany attempt to create ordinances along these lines.

Some government-supported mortgages, though, provide an important opportunity toimplement "right of first refusal" plans. Many properties, for example, were providedlow-interest mortgages by HUD in the 1970's. The mortgages are now eligible undertheir original terms to be payed off, which would free the owners to gentrify theproperties if they wish. The Organization of the Northeast led a fight in Chicago whichassured that tenants of an Uptown apartment building received the right of first refusal.The tenants now manage the building.

Mortgages held by Freddie Mac may provide a similar opportunity. Northwest BronxCommittee and Clergy (NBCC) in New York is currently fighting Freddie Mac to forcethe mortgager to more carefully review the mortgages it provides to discouragespeculation. NBCC argues that many of the mortgages Freddie Mac provided in theirneighborhood were over-priced and therefore encouraged both speculation and mortgagedefault. NBCC is not fighting for Freddie Mac to implement "right of first refusal"policies in properties that default, but the experience of community organizations on theHUD properties suggests the use of these policies as a potentially effective solution.

Chicago Examples: Property owners who choose to convert a rental building into acondominium must grant tenants the right of first refusal to purchase their units. (Seestrategy # 14 on Condominium Conversions.) Chicago's Bickerdike RedevelopmentCorporation, a nonprofit corporation, uses a version of right of first refusal to assure thatproperties they develop do not facilitate gentrification in the neighborhood. Individualswho purchase a single family home developed by BRC must sign a re-purchaseagreement which requires them to sell the property back to BRC if they wish to sell inthe first 10-15 years. If they chose to sell within this time frame, they must accept anannual appreciation rate of no more than 5% annually.

20.

Support Planning processes which empower local residents to determine course ofdevelopment.

In all major cities surveyed, residents and local community organizations have had to

21.

fight to assure that their concerns would be considered before development progressed.In Atlanta, the only anti-displacement strategy local activists can report are settlementsthat developers have negotiated with community residents when a large project causessignificant, direct displacement. The building of the Olympic stadium, for example,caused 50 homes to be destroyed. The local community negotiated for 75 replacementhomes to be built. Clearly, though, such settlements hardly constitute ananti-displacement policy. Some activists argue that when major developments such asstadiums or university expansions are proposed, city government should refuse anysupport until the developer reaches an agreement with the community.

Effective organizing is clearly needed if such planning is to become reality. The Councilof Community Housing Organizations in San Francisco, whose member groups nowown as many rental housing units as the local housing authority, see the organization oftenants as key to their overall efforts to place neighborhood planning in the control oflocal residents. CCHO was able to gain enough control of the local planning anddevelopment agency, so that their members had oversight on planning decisions inparticular neighborhoods. Community groups in all other cities surveyed do not havesuch power.

Planning decisions in Redevelopment Areas in Chicago are currently overseen by amayor-appointed board of commissioners, none of whom are low-income residents ofneighborhoods burdened by displacement. There is no formalized process whichprovides local neighborhoods with the power to determine the course of planning in theirarea.

Subsidize Home ownership Programs

These programs, currently popular, provide education and economic support whichhelps lower income families to purchase their own homes. Subsidies are providedthrough a variety of means, including directly subsidizing purchase prices, waivingcertain development fees, and limiting down payments. Some for-profit banks, inaddition to city administrations and not-for-profits, have initiated programs along theselines.

Chicago Examples: The New Homes for Chicago Program operated by the City'sDepartment of Housing provides $20,000 purchase subsidies and fee waivers to buyerswho earn up to 115% of the city's median income. Nonprofit CDCs which develop NewHomes for Chicago may choose to lower the income standard. In 1994, the programfunded the construction of 92 new units.

22.

Registration of Homeless Populations 23.

In the city of St. Petersburg, Russia, the city administration has set up a registration ofall homeless people so that it can have a better idea of the housing shortages for allindividuals and families in need.

Renter Advocates and Advisors

In the city of Berlin, Germany, a non profit group called S.T.E.R.N. which stands forCareful Urban Planning is one of the main contractors of the Berlin Senate to work withtenants in districts which are experiencing reinvestment and displacement. The BerlinSenate pays S.T.ER.N. to hire advocates and advisors to work with the tenants. Theseadvisors inform the tenants of their rights and assist them in negotiations with thedevelopers and owners of buildings in the area.

24.

Tenant Modernization Program

Also in Berlin, there is a program which S.T.E.R.N. developed with tenants whichallows tenants to make their own improvements to their apartments. The tenant isinvolved in the assessment of what he/she wants improved in their apartments. Theprogram first requires the approval of the owner of the building.

Chicago Examples: Tenants are allowed under the law to make repairs in theirapartment and then deduct the cost of these repairs from their next month's rent. To doso, a tenant must first provide written notice of their intention to their landlord and allowthe landlord 14 days to complete the repair. Also, there is an expense cap which limitsthe amount which can be deducted in this manner. Until recently, the cap was $200 permonth. Thanks to the efforts of local tenants groups the cap has been extended to $500per month.

25.

Back to Table of Contents

Section Three: Case Studies

To illustrate how some of the strategies in the previous section have been used by differentcommunity groups in Chicago to fight displacement, we offer the following case studies.

West Town

Description

1.

West Town is a community on Chicago's northwest side which is 62% Latino,28% White and 9% African-American. There are 34,368 total units and 65% ofthe units are renter-occupied. There are 44% of the renters paying more than 35%of their income for housing. The 1989 household median income is $19,236. Thismeans that half of the households make less than this amount. West Town'smedian value for single family owner-occupied homes increased 211% from 1980to 1990. This is in the top five of Chicago community areas which experiencedincreased value over 200%. These escalating home prices are due to a number offactors. First of all, West Town is in close proximity to the downtown area withexcellent public transportation and high way access. Rising housing prices to theeast in areas like Lincoln Park and the Near North have driven many buyersfurther west. The housing stock in West Town is very sound with attractiveVictorian features and there is enough racial and economic diversity to makemany investors feel comfortable.

In addition, West Town has a history of being a well organized community whichhas curtailed deterioration in the area. Association House and Erie House are twosocial service agencies that have been part of the neighborhood since the turn ofthe century. Community residents came together and formed the NorthwestCommunity Organization (NCO) in 1962 which operated strongly until a fewyears ago. A number of churches in the area also formed the Center forCommunity Development and Leadership. Several community developmentcorporations are established in the area including the Bickerdike RedevelopmentCorporation, LUCHA, and Hispanic Housing. For the most part, these CDCsdevelop and manage affordable housing units in the area. All of these mentionedorganizations are committed to improving and developing the area withoutdisplacing the current residents. In contrast, there is also an organization ofresidents who are committed to improving the area but without this concern forexisting residents. This organization, The Old Wicker Park Committee (OWPC),has been very aggressive about opposing publicly subsidized affordable housingin the area. According to the most recent numbers compiled by Latinos United,UIC Voorhees Neighborhood Center and the Statewide Housing Action Coalition,there are presently 3,447 units of publicly subsidized housing in the West Towncommunity. This is 10% of the total housing units.

Strategies Used

Over the years the West Town residents and its organizations have used a varietyof strategies to improve the area without displacement. First and foremost, theWest Town residents have maintained a number of organizations which facilitatedbringing residents together to discuss the future of the neighborhood. Being a well

organized community has helped residents resist the many threats of displacementdespite the rising home values. The following are a listing of the strategies used inWest Town.

Increased home ownership

In the sixties, NCO worked with community residents to use federallysubsidized mortgages to buy single family homes in the area. NCO workedwith 100 families to become home owners. More recently, local CDCs areworking with the City of Chicago's New Homes for Chicago program tobuild new single family homes in the area and market them to localresidents.

1.

Established CDCs and promoted non-profit ownership

There are several CDCs working to provide affordable rental units forresidents. These CDCs have boards controlled by community residents.These CDCs have used a number of federal financing strategies like Section8 project based developments, tax credits, Community Development BlockGrant (CDBG) and HOME dollars to develop quality units and rent them atlevels affordable to the local residents. Through several decades of doingdevelopment in the community the CDCs have accumulated severalthousand units of housing. This housing is controlled by the communitythrough the CDCs and is using federal dollars to preserve and keep theseunits out of the private market. Many of these developments consequentlyare providing rent subsidies to residents.

2.

Limited Equity Cooperatives and Land Trust

There is a limited equity cooperative, Noble Square, in the area which wasconverted by the residents from a federally subsidized rental development toa cooperative . It is 482 units. In 1991, Bickerdike RedevelopmentCorporation worked with the residents in one of their 51 unit developmentsto establish a limited equity cooperative. More recently, Erie House hasorganized a group of residents interested in working together to develop alimited equity scattered site cooperative development. It is being plannedfor 40 units on scattered sites throughout the community. The land targetedfor this development is a combination of city owned and privately owned

3.

property. Erie House would like the city to donate the land or discount theprice so that the cost of the development can be kept as low as possible. ErieHouse is working with BRC to accomplish this cooperative development.They have met with some resistance from new investor residents. In theFebruary, 1995, primary elections a referendum was put on the ballot tostop the development. Erie House and its supporters worked hard topromote and educate the voters as to the purpose of their development. Thereferendum was lost by the opponents of the cooperative development.

Community Planning

As part of its organizing efforts over the years, the residents andorganizations of West Town have also seen the importance of having a planand vision for their community. Over the years they have completednumerous plans and studies to assist them in their efforts to improve theircommunity. Most notably, in 1973-75, NCO sponsored a comprehensiveplan for the area which is still used to measure success and progress. Anewly formed community coalition is currently undertaking anothercomprehensive planning effort.

4.

Conflicts and Problems

Despite the efforts of residents and organizations, West Town continues to havehousing and other problems. As many as 40% of the households are making lessthan $15,000 a year which makes it difficult for households to afford decenthousing and address their other needs. There are still over 3,000 vacant lots in theneighborhood and over 700 buildings in housing court for city code violations.The age of the housing stock also creates problems with lead poisoning caseswhich is shown in the over 1,200 reported cases in children under 5 years.

But at the same time that many of the residents are struggling to afford the areathere are a number of households moving into the area which have the income andresources to fix up the housing. There are 10.9% of the households making morethan $50,000 a year. The presence of these higher income households has createdconflicts about West Town's future. Clearly, through the actions of the OWPC andthe groups who supported the referendum against the cooperative there are manyresidents who want the area to have less poor people. Even many housing activistsare saying that West Town is "saturated" with subsidized housing. What is thissaturation point? As the numbers show, approximately 10% of the housing units inWest Town have some sort of government subsidy.

Other Strategies for Consideration

It is important for West Town residents to continue to organize and plan forthe future of the neighborhood. Since NCO has discontinued, there needs tobe some discussion of what new or old organization should take its place tobring people together to discuss important community issues.

1.

As part of this community discussion, there needs to be a betterunderstanding about how much subsidized housing should be maintainedand increased in the community. An important question is who will controland manage this subsidized housing so that it is integrated and part of thecommunity.

2.

The City of Chicago land policy should be revised so that areas of the citythat are trying to maintain an affordable housing stock amidst escalatingland values should be allowed to buy city land at below market prices.

3.

There needs to be a renewed commitment to rent subsidies, especially,project-based as well as tenant based at the federal level.

4.

South Armour

Description

South Armour is a community located just south of the new Comiskey Park, homeof the Chicago White Sox. It is a small community of 1,500 residents, allAfrican-American, who either live in the Wentworth Gardens public housingdevelopment or the TE Brown Senior Citizen building. TE Brown is a federallysubsidized 202 development owned and operated by the Progressive BaptistChurch. The median 1989 income is very low, less than $7,000, because most ofthe households receive public aid or social security. 82% of the households areheaded by women. Many of these households are older women living alone; 43%of the population are over 55 years old and more than a quarter are over 65 yearsold.

Back in 1987, residents of South Armour formed an organization to fight therelocation of Comiskey Park. For two years the residents organized and attemptedto negotiate with the City of Chicago, White Sox and the Illinois Sports FacilityAuthority to modify their plans for the new stadium so that housing and stores inthe South Armour community would not be destroyed. Despite their efforts,Comiskey Park was relocated directly south of its previous location and the South

2.

Armour community lost 178 privately owned housing units and a 12 communitybusinesses. As a result of community action, the homeowners and businesses wereoffered an agreement to select among three options. This offer was made andnegotiated by the Illinois Sports Facility Authority (ISFA) which is a governmentbody set up to own and operate the new Comiskey Park. Appointments to ISFAare made by the governor and the mayor.

The ISFA offered a settlement to owners and renters based on a supplementalappropriation from the State whose original appropriation contained no provisionsfor resident relocation. The homeowners negotiated a settlement plan with ISFA.The first option consisted of a cash settlement for the house amounting to theappraised market value plus a $25,000 incentive payment. The second optioninvolved the relocation of the house to another site and a $2,500 cash settlement.The third option provided a new house or two flat, paid for by ISFA, that wouldcost the homeowner no more than his or her old mortgage payment or nothing ifthe mortgage had already been paid off. Renters were offered a cash settlement of$4,500, relocation assistance, and a moving allowance of $500. Under the "quicktake" powers given to ISFA, the homeowners, renters and businesses had to enterinto a contractual agreement with ISFA by September 15, 1988 in order to receiverelocation assistance. If agreements were not reached by October 15, 1988, ISFAhad the authority to take title to the property and negotiate compensation later.Most of the homeowners and renters settled before September 15th but a numberof the businesses went to court to fight for additional compensation for theirproperties. All of the properties were vacated by March of 1989 to make way forthe bulldozers.

When the leadership of the homeowners and businesses decided to settle with theISFA, this split the community. Most of the homeowners formed another group tonegotiate with the ISFA while other residents, mostly from Wentworth Gardensand TE Brown continued to fight the relocation of the stadium. After two years oforganizing and attempting to negotiate with ISFA to modify the site plan andrespond to the demands of the residents who were going to have to live with thestadium on their doorstep, the residents filed a federal lawsuit on February 9,1989. The law suit has 49 plaintiffs from the neighborhood and charges that thestadium site was selected in violation of the civil rights of the members of thecommunity. The court case is still pending.

Strategies Used

In this uphill battle to save their neighborhood the South Armour residents usedseveral strategies.

Organizing and Mobilization of residents and supporters from across thecity to take a stand against displacement

The South Armour residents had numerous demonstrations at the oldstadium during the baseball season, at City Hall, and at the offices of theISFA. They also testified at the Chicago Plan Commission hearings and atISFA Board meetings. One memorable community meeting was when theresidents held a mock funeral for the community at the local school. Manyresidents testified at the mock funeral and told their stories about growingup, raising families and making friends over the years in the South Armourcommunity. A letter campaign was also organized to build support fromother community groups from across the city to stop the relocation.

1.

Negotiating relocation benefits from a quasi-public authority

Due to the efforts of the South Armour residents organizing to bringattention to the unfairness of the "quick take" powers delegated to the ISFAand the lack of notice and due process to the residents who were going to bedisplaced, an additional $10 million was added to the ISFA budget forrelocation benefits.

2.

Filing a Civil Rights Class Action Suit

When it was clear that the organizing and demonstrations were not going tochange the minds of the Mayor, White Sox, Governor and ISFA Boardmembers, the residents decided to file a law suit. The suit was filed initiallyto stop the destruction of the houses and businesses. Once the demolitionwas completed, however, the suit was about reparations and the rebuildingof the community.

The case presents the argument that the relocation of the stadium to thenorth would have caused less displacement of homes and businesses.However, relocating the stadium to the north would have meant thedisplacement of white families. The case is still pending in federal court.The community residents filed the law suit to protect their rights asresidents of a community under attack from government and the privatesector. For many community organizers filing a lawsuit is a strategy of lastresort. It was also here. However, it is hoped by the residents to use thisstrategy to call attention to the injustice of what happened to them and to

3.

use the court case as a way to keep the community together in a rebuildingeffort. The pending law suit undertaken by the South Armour communityhighlights the importance of community residents to have some control overthe physical development of their community. Despite the formidableopponents of the White Sox Corporation, City of Chicago, and the State ofIllinois, the residents of South Armour are fighting for their right and theright of all community residents to have a say over their physicalenvironment.

Community Planning

Throughout the organizing efforts to save the community , South Armourresidents did a number of planning projects to help them strategize about thefuture of the area. In 1988, the community residents worked with the UICVoorhees Neighborhood Center to do a strategy plan for the area given allthe possible scenarios of change. This strategy plan led the residents to adecision to apply for a community planning grant from the City of Chicagoto prepare a study for a commercial shopping center for the area. Thisproposed shopping center is meant to replace the stores that were displacedby the new stadium. The feasibility study was completed in December,1994, and the residents are now preparing to assemble a development teamto assist them in the implementation of this development.

4.

Conflicts and Problems

When the South Armour community found out that their area was targeted fordisplacement for the new White Sox Comiskey Park, it was a community ofworking class African-American families, public housing residents, and SeniorCitizens. It was a community in which for many years, the residents had createdan atmosphere of security and trust among these different income and age groups.When the seniors found out that the homes adjacent to their senior housingdevelopment would be torn down many of them worried about who would watchout for them as they made their way to the bus stop to go shopping downtown orto the doctor. It was a close knit community that unraveled under the pressures ofthe many powerful interests in government and the private sector who wantedtheir land. There is only so long that a community can stay together whengovernment uses its powers like "quick take" and eminent domain to take over acommunity. In addition, offering the property owners the options under a verytight deadline split the community. The property owners became frightened thatthey would lose everything if they did not negotiate within the designated time

frame.

This case illustrates the divisions in our society that exist among property owners,renters, public and subsidized housing residents. Eventually, ISFA realized it hadto offer some deal to the owners in respect for their property rights. Renters weretreated as lesser citizens and the rights of the public housing and residents ofsubsidized senior housing were ignored. It is these latter two groups, however,who have had to deal with the traffic jams, parking and exploding scoreboard ofthe new stadium.

Other Strategies for Consideration

Quick take and eminent domain powers of the state should be more strictlylimited to projects for the common good of all citizens. These projectswould include public transportation, affordable housing, education,government and public health facilities. Sports stadiums and otherenterprises whose benefits and wealth go primarily to privately controlledcorporations and enterprises should be excluded.

1.

When private developers displace residents, businesses and othercommunity facilities they should be held financially accountable for the fullcost of the displacement. Criteria and standards of compensation should beestablished and enforced by the government.

2.

Pilsen

Description

Pilsen is located on the lower west side of Chicago, just south of the University ofIllinois at Chicago campus. The population is 45,654, with 88% Latino,predominantly of Mexican heritage. There are 12,340 households and 35% ofthese households make less than $15,000 a year. The median income is $20,571compared to the city's median, $26,301. 8.4% of the households make over$50,000 a year. Pilsen is home to some of the oldest housing in the city. Many ofthe buildings are over 100 years old and date back to before the Chicago 1877Fire. The area suffers from overcrowding. There is 28% of the units that havemore than one person per room compared to the City's, 8.8%. Also, 65% of theunits are renter-occupied. Pilsen has a large network of community organizations,social service agencies, churches and schools. Pilsen is a well organizedcommunity which has taken the lead in many community improvement efforts.Such as, parents in Pilsen were leaders in the School Reform movement and alsoplayed a role in instituting Community Policing in Chicago.

3.

There are two CDCs operating in Pilsen. Eighteenth Street DevelopmentCorporation specializes in commercial and industrial development but also hasdone some housing development. Up to a few years ago, it had the oldest and mosthighly respected construction training program in the city. The ResurrectionProject (TRP) is a church based development group which has built nearly 100units of new housing in the area. This housing was built through the New Homesfor Chicago program which is a home ownership program. TRP is involved inother issues besides housing development. In 1994, it opened up a family centerwhich provides 180 children with day care. Residents from the community weretrained to be the day care workers for this new center.

Pilsen is located within one mile of the downtown area and also within a fewblocks of the University of Illinois at Chicago campus. This has created somedevelopment pressures on the area. In addition, there is a local private developerin the area who owns large numbers of housing units mostly in the east side of theneighborhood. This developer rehabs the buildings and markets the units to artistsand professionals. With the escalating cost of lofts and apartments on the northside, Pilsen has been seen as a more attractive area to many urban professionalsand artists. Development pressures have also increased in the last year because theuniversity bought and cleared the Maxwell Street area which previously had beena buffer area between Pilsen and the university. Now, the university owns andcontrols the property right up to 16th Street. This is Pilsen's northern boundary.The South Loop development of upscale housing has also reached 16th Street atPilsen's eastern boundary.. There is also speculation that if Chicago is givenpermission from the state legislature to have a casino development, one of themost likely casino sites will be directly east of Pilsen along the Chicago River.

Strategies Used

Since the seventies, Pilsen has been under development pressures from the northfrom the University of Illinois at Chicago's expansion plans and on the east fromthe South Loop development. As a consequence community groups in Pilsen havetried a number of strategies to preserve the neighborhood as an affordable anddecent place to live for the present residents.

Community Organizing

Pilsen residents and organizations have often been active participants incoalitions to resist displacement and redevelopment schemes from outsidethe area. In the sixties, Pilsen Neighbors Community Council resisted Pilsenbeing designated an urban renewal area. In the seventies, Pilsen groups like

1.

Casa Aztlan and El Centro de la Causa played an active role in the Coalitionof Central Area Communities to demand citizen participation in the Chicago21 Plan. This was a master plan co-sponsored by the City of Chicago andthe Central Area Committee of downtown corporations. In the eighties,Pilsen groups were part of the Chicago 1992 Committee which stopped theplans for the 1992 World's Fair because there was no communityparticipation in its planning. So, going back to the sixties, Pilsen hasdeveloped a reputation as a community which will organize quickly toprotect the rights of its residents.

Planning

In 1975, in response to the Chicago 21 Master Plan, Pilsen groupscoordinated by Pilsen Neighbors Community Council, prepared acomprehensive plan for the area. Eighteenth Street DevelopmentCorporation (ESDC) was one of the many results of this planning process.Since that time, ESDC has sponsored several planning efforts to improvethe industrial, commercial and residential areas. Most recently, the manygroups in Pilsen came together to plan and put together a proposal for the1994 Empowerment Zone designation. Pilsen has been designated part ofthe Empowerment Zone in Chicago and the successful planning efforts ofthe groups made this happen.

2.

Home ownership

The CDCs in Pilsen have been aggressively pursuing this strategy for thelast few years. The Resurrection Project (TRP) has built nearly 100 singlefamily and two flats in Pilsen through the New Homes for Chicagoprogram. Likewise, ESDC and Pilsen Neighbors have also used thisprogram to develop new townhouses and single family homes for purchase.All of the CDCs have targeted their marketing of these units to localresidents. TRP offers housing services to residents interested in becominghome owners and assists residents in this process.

3.

Strong Cultural Identity of Community

In the early seventies, the Brown Berets, a Chicano Nationalist group, tookover one of the settlement houses in the community and renamed it CasaAztlan. Casa Aztlan became a cultural center which housed the muralist

4.

movement through the seventies and eighties. Artists based at Casa Aztlanpainted many murals depicting the cultural and historical significance of theMexican people that are found throughout the community. In 1987, theMexican Fine Arts Museum was established on the west side of theneighborhood. This museum has gained a national reputation for its exhibitsand cultural events. The museum has become a important part of thecommunity's identity.

Conflicts and Problems

Despite the strong community identity, presence of community organizations andother institutions, there are a number of conflicts and problems that still need to beaddressed. The age of the housing stock is a serious problem which means thatmany of the residents live in substandard conditions. While the yearly loss ofhousing stock is smaller compared to other communities, any loss exacerbates thealready overcrowded conditions in the area. Unemployment andunderemployment are pervasive, especially among the youth. The high schooldrop-out rate at the local high school is near 50%. There is a great deal ofcompetition for land in the neighborhood. Most of the city owned empty lots havebeen designated for the New Homes for Chicago program. There is a need for landto be used for recreational purposes because the park land is very inadequatecompared to other neighborhoods and national standards. This competition forland puts pressure on the industrial area where there is large vacant properties.However, there is a need to preserve the industrial area for job-producing uses.

Other Strategies for Consideration

A loan program similar to the federal 312 Program needs to be aggressivelymarketed to property owners in Pilsen. This would be a program with lowinterest rates (1-3%) and long term (30-50 years) to insure affordablity tothe present residents. This program would be marketed as a program tobring buildings up to code, especially emphasizing health issues like leadpaint abatement, upgraded plumbing, safety issues like electrical wiring andadequate fire exit and sustainabililty related to energy conservation.

1.

An affordable housing conservation district should be established in Pilsen.This district would require that whenever a building transferred from oneowner to another there would be a code assessment whereby the new ownerwould have to correct all code violations. This would be accompanied withan offering of the low interest, long term loan described above.

2.

Home ownership should continue to be supported with the addition ofalternative ideas like limited equity cooperatives which might openopportunities to families with more limited incomes.

3.

Pilsen CDCs should also increase their ownership in the area to secure morelong term affordable rental units in the market.

4.

South Loop

Description

The South Loop was one of the first areas of Chicago to experience the urbancycle of prosperity, decline and renewal. The historical landscape of the area isbeing transformed, shaped by Chicago's transition from an industrial to apost-industrial, service oriented economy. Abandoned warehouses that servicedthe Loop are being converted to upscale condominiums and vacant railroad yards,once the lifeline of the city, have been transformed into secluded upscaleresidential communities. This recent surge of private development has exacerbatedexisting racial and income segregation patterns, with public housing concentratedto the south (Hilliard Homes and Ickes) and upscale homes concentrated to thenorth. For example, the population of the census tract that includes HilliardHomes at Cermak and State Street, is 93% African American with 65% of thehouseholds with incomes below the poverty line according to the 1990 census.While the median family income in the Loop was $71,525 (an increase of 54%since 1980), the median income in the Near South Side was only $7,576 (adecrease of 41% since 1980).

City politicians, planners and developers, motivated by revitalizing the central cityand increasing the tax base of the city, first envisioned the development of aresidential community geared toward middle and upper income professionalsworking downtown on vacant railroad land in the Central Area Plan in 1958 and the Chicago 21 Plan in 1973. Beginning in the early 1980's private developersaided by public subsidies for infrastructure improvement have realized theseplans. Over 1,400 single family homes and town homes make up thesuburban-like enclaves of Dearborn Park Phase I and II.

To further stimulate the redevelopment of the South Loop, the City of Chicago inApril of 1990 passed a tax-increment financing ordinance to aid the privatedevelopment of Central Station. Burnham Place, now home to Mayor Daley, wasthe first residential phase of this 72-acre mixed-use development plan, addingnearly 200 homes and infrastructure to this former railroad land. Again in Augustof 1994, this TIF district was expanded to stretch west to State Street, north toCongress and south to Cermak, making up to $105 million in city-guaranteed

4.

bonds available for area improvements.

Strategies Used

Currently a community struggle is taking place over the development of the SouthLoop. Since the late 1980's the Chicago Affordable Housing Coalition (CAHC)and the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless (CCH) have targeted the area todemand that scarce public resources be directed to low-income communities asopposed to subsidizing the profits of private developers. CAHC through a directaction campaign did apply pressure so that the city in its first TIF agreementrequired the developer of Central Station to develop 20 percent of the housingunits for low and moderate income residents. However, no affordable units havebeen developed to date.

Since the expansion of the Central Station tax increment financing district in 1994,this community struggle has evolved into the "South Loop Campaign forDevelopment without Displacement" spearheaded by the CCH and CAHC. Thecampaign is focussed on ensuring that the public resources are directed towardpreserving the area as a mixed-income community so that current low andmoderate-income residents and businesses share in the benefits of theredevelopment and are not forced out of the community due to rising land costs.The campaign includes the following economic development and housing goals:

set aside of 20 percent of all new housing for low and very low-incomefamilies,

preserve and improve existing low-income housing in the South Loop, withan opportunity for non-profit developers to rehab and manage single roomoccupancy hotels,

mandate that the developers of Central Station act on the mandate to setaside 20 percent of the units for low and moderate-income tenants,

support and preserve South Loop small businesses, and

set aside 50 percent of all jobs created by South Loop development forwomen, minorities and homeless Chicagoans.

The campaign has employed many strategies in order to pursuit the above goals:

Direct Action and Public Relations 1.

The Campaign has consistently and successfully used direct actions such asrallies, and marches targeting the Mayor's office with strategic use of mediato communicate their demands to a larger audience and raise the politicalstakes. Leading up to the 1995 mayoral elections, weekly vigils outside theMayor's home in the Central Station development and a rally at City Hallinitiated a series of negotiation meetings with City officials, which arecurrently underway.

Community Planning

In response to the lack of community input into the planning of the TIFdistrict, the South Loop Campaign initiated a community planning processin the fall of 1994 to counter the one-sided private development forces nowdominating the area. A series of outreach activities to community groupsincluding tenant organizations, churches, the South Loop School, andbusinesses culminated in a community planning forum in January 1995attended by over 70 people. Working groups who focused on housing, jobsand economic development, community services, and schools came up withrecommendations that supported maintaining and preserving the ethnic,economic, social and physical diversity of the area. One of therecommendations was to develop a democratic community organization toprovide the basis to implement and expand upon the ideas from the day.

2.

Preservation of SRO's/Community Development

One of the focal points of the campaign has been the struggle over thedestiny of the existing Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels. Over the lastthree decades there has been a dramatic loss in the number of SRO hotelunits, which have traditionally provided permanent housing for low wageworkers and pensioners. Currently over 700 SRO units remain in the area,down from 4,000 units in 1961.

Recently, a local development corporation made up of local churchessubmitted a proposal for funding to the city to rehab one of these SRO's, theSt. James Hotel, located between the upscale developments of CentralStation and Dearborn Park at Wabash and Roosevelt. Despite the project'swide community support which even included the Near South PlanningBoard, the city rejected the proposal and plans to raze the building to make

3.

way for commercial development as part of the TIF redevelopment plans,motivated by the "highest and best use" of the land.

Although the struggle over the future of the existing SRO continues,Lakefront SRO is making plans for new construction of a SRO Hotel in theSouth Loop, with the support of City financing.

Conflicts and Problems

The turf battle waging in the South Loop raises tensions between class interestsand familiar debates of urban renewal or urban removal. The city's planningefforts dating back to the 1957 development plan have been directed andimplemented by business and real estate interests with the financial backing ofgovernment and have done little or nothing to protect the interests of current smallbusinesses and low-income residents. The strong market forces of gentrificationraging in the South Loop, the City's lack of commitment to affordable housing inthe area, and the opposition of the many middle and upper income residents ofDearborn Park and Central Station to low-income housing present manychallenges to preserving a mixed economic and racial community. Due to thesechallenges, it will continue to be important for the Campaign to build broad-basedsupport locally and city-wide and to continue a direct action campaign.

Other Strategies for Consideration

City should provide city-owned land and resources to non-profit developersin South Loop and city-wide. Non-profit developers should be encouragedto target the South Loop to explore developing mixed-use andmixed-income development, following up on the alternative communityplan. Organizing pressure should continue to be targeted to leveraging cityresources and land to support these efforts.

1.

TIF legislation should require a) the creation of community planning boardsto oversee and make decisions regarding the use of TIF dollars and b) a planfor 20% set aside for affordable housing and community jobs.

2.

The city should have a policy of prohibiting the conversion or demolition ofSRO hotels unless there is a one for one replacement either throughlegislation or land use and zoning plans.

3.

The South Loop Campaign should work toward building a strongcommunity based organization to represent the interests of existing small

4.

businesses, low-income residents and community institutions such as thechurches and schools. This organization would provide a constituency fororganizing, monitoring agreements with the city resulting from negotiations,and implementing the community plan.

The South Loop Campaign should be strategically linked to and supportedby a broad-based campaign (i.e. the city-wide Development withoutDisplacement Campaign) to pressure the City to commit public resourcesand city land to ensure permanent affordable housing and mixed-incomedevelopments.

5.

Near West Side

Description

The Near West Side is located directly west of the downtown area. The smallerarea we are focusing on for this case study is the neighborhood surrounding thenew United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks. Its boundariesare Kinzie to the north, Ashland to the east, VanBuren to the south, and WesternAvenue to the west. The population of the area is 8,937, 99% African-American.This part of the Near West Side has not yet recovered from the 1968 uprisingsfollowing the assassination of Martin Luther King. Much of the community isblocks and blocks of vacant land. There are, however, blocks of very solid bricktwo and three flats throughout the community. The residents who have remainedare long time residents who are very committed to staying in the area. 60% of theresidents have lived in the area for more than 10 years.

The Henry Horner Homes, a large public housing development, is part of the NearWest Side community. There are 1,761 housing units in Henry Horner but only899 units are leased. The rest of the units are boarded up and vacant. The 899occupied units are 27% of the households in the area. In addition, there are twoSection 8 housing developments that were built in the late seventies and earlyeighties which are on the southern edge of the community. These twodevelopments house 800 families and senior citizens. The median income of thearea is very low, $5,484 due to the fact that many of the families are on publicassistance or social security.

The largest landmark is the Chicago Stadium. The stadium has played animportant part in efforts to rebuild the community. When the owners of theChicago Stadium made plans to build a new stadium in the community, thechurches in the area led an organizing effort which resulted in an agreement withthe owners to not only build a new stadium but to assist the community in its totalrenewal.

The Interfaith Organizing Project led the organizing and successful negotiations

5.

with the owners of the Chicago Stadium. They supported the homeowners in theirnegotiations to have replacement homes rebuilt in the community and they workedto make sure residents got jobs during the construction of the stadium. IOP alsoformed a community development corporation to spearhead the redevelopment.The CDC, The Near West Development Corporation was incorporated in 1993.The CDC assisted in the building of the replacement units for residents displacedby the stadium, recently completed a 16 unit rental apartment building, and isplanning to build 75 new two flats in the next few years. The NWSDC is alsomaking plans to do commercial development along Madison Avenue. Members ofthe NWSDC worked to locate Argo Bank in a temporary building on MadisonAvenue and are planning to have the bank anchor a shopping center developmentin the next few years.

While the residents who live in the privately owned buildings in the area havebeen negotiating with the owners of the Chicago Stadium for redevelopment ofthe area, the residents of Henry Horner have also been organizing and negotiatingwith the Chicago Housing Authority about the future improvement andredevelopment of Henry Horner. In 1991, a group of Henry Horner residents fileda law suit against CHA and the federal department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment to call attention to and remedy the poor conditions andmismanagement of the Horner buildings. This law suit has played an importantrole in giving the tenants leverage with CHA in their redevelopment of thebuildings. CHA has applied for federal monies to tear down two of the Hornerbuildings and rehab units in two other buildings. Because of the law suit, Hornerresidents have been able to negotiate with the CHA to have each resident polled asto whether they want to stay in the area, move to another CHA development orreceive a Section 8 voucher. As part of the negotiations, the CHA is planning tobuild 280 new housing units within the Near West Side to replace some of theunits being torn down. A resident oversight committee will be established toinsure CHA residents will have input into decisions that affect their lives.According to the Legal Assistance Foundation attorney, William Wilen, whorepresented the tenants in the law suit, "Residents will have veto power over eachand every phase of the plan."

In addition to all these changes and redevelopment, the new stadium, the UnitedCenter, is going to be the site for the Democratic Party convention in 1996. TheCity has set up several task forces to work on improving the area before theconvention. These efforts have concentrated public resources but also increasedevelopment pressures on the area.

Strategies Used

Organizing and direct action 1.

The Interfaith Organizing Project with other community groups in the areaorganized and led a very successful campaign of demonstrations,community meetings, and negotiations to make sure residents had a say inthe future of the area and were given the option to have their homes rebuiltin the area.

Community Planning

When the Near West Side residents began negotiating first with the ChicagoBears and later with the Wirtz family who owned the Chicago Stadium, theyrealized that they needed a community plan to counteract any plans orprojects that these outside interests had in mind for their community.Consequently, the Near West Side went to the City of Chicago as part of itsorganizing efforts and asked for and received a planning grant to do acomprehensive plan. This plan has been updated and is used by the CDCand other community groups as a blueprint to assess programs and projectsas they are presented to the community by the City or other developers.

2.

Class Action Lawsuit

The Henry Horner Mother's Guild, a group of women who lived in theHenry Horner Annex, filed a law suit in 1991 with the assistance of theLegal Assistance Foundation. This law suit was initially filed to bringattention to the fact that the CHA was the worst slum landlord in Chicago.But, as things developed since 1991, the law suit has given the Hornerresidents leverage in deciding the future of the whole Horner redevelopmentunder the leadership of CHA President Vince Lane.

3.

CDC ownership of land and rental property

The Near West Side Development Corporation has developed a 16 unitrental property near Adams and Hamilton. The area is 31% vacant land.Most of this land is city owned. The NWSDC is negotiating with the City totransfer ownership of much of the city owned property to the CDC in orderfor the CDC to have more control over the area's development.

4.

Problems and Conflicts

For the last few years the Near West Side has been under a great deal ofdevelopment pressure. First starting with the failed attempt of the Bears to build astadium there, later with the relocation of the Chicago Stadium and more recentlywith the plans to redevelop the Henry Horner Homes and the coming of theDemocratic Convention in 1996. Thus far, community residents have heldtogether. But any community under this much development pressure over timewill experience some divisions within the community. Recent meetingsconcerning the redevelopment of Henry Horner and the possibility of as many as280 new scattered site units being located within the Near West Side area haveraised concerns among some property owners in the area. The planning andmanagement of these scattered site units with community participation and controlwill be very important to the success of this effort.

Other Strategies for Consideration

Establish mechanisms for community control of Near West Sidedevelopment

The City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development should workwith the NWSDC and other area community groups to develop a model inthe Near West Side for community participation and control in planning anddevelopment. The history of the Near West Side's efforts in organizing andplanning is most similar to the experiences and work of the Dudley StreetInitiative in Boston. In Boston, the local community group shares eminentdomain power with the City of Boston and the state government. It isrecommended that the Near West Side as it was the first StrategicNeighborhood Action Project (SNAP) continue to be the area where newideas and programs are initiated to foster neighborhood improvement andcommunity participation and control to maximize success.

1.

Integrate economic development initiatives into the housing developmentand planning of area

Support the efforts of Near West Side groups to integrate economicdevelopment and job training into the redevelopment of the area. TheUnited Center has established an economic development fund to help localresidents and businesses start or expand their businesses. Other initiativeswhich promote educational and training programs to improve the jobreadiness of residents should be promoted and established.

2.

Woodlawn

Description

Woodlawn is located on Chicago's lakefront, just south of the University ofChicago campus. The population is 27,473, a drop of 40% from the 1970population of 53,814. Racially, the community breaks down as follows: 96%African-American and 3.2% white. A full 53% of the 10,456 households inWoodlawn earn less than $15,000 annually. The median income in the area is$13,680, only slightly more than half of the $26,301 that is the city's median. 46%of the population are children under 18 and 16% are seniors. 46% of thehouseholds are paying over 35% of their income on rent.

Woodlawn has undergone significant disinvestment over the last twenty years.Between 1970 and 1980 the community lost 6,437 units of housing to demolition,abandonment, and arson. From 1980 to 1990, another 2,638 units were lost. Of theremaining 13,109 units, 55% is considered deteriorated. In 1973, there were 777units of SRO housing in Woodlawn. In 1993, only 160 were left. According to the1990 census, 25.4% of all the properties in the community are vacant lots and halfof these are owned by the city. In 1991, private lenders provided 96 loans totaling$3.8 million to Woodlawn project. In the same year, Lincoln Park received 1,697loans totaling $306.6 million in investment.

There are four major community development organizations in Woodlawn: TheWoodlawn Organization (TWO), a community organization known especially forits work with Saul Alinsky in the 1960's to halt local Urban Renewal efforts;Woodlawn East Community and Neighbors (WECAN), an organizing grouprecently involved in a variety of development efforts; Covenant DevelopmentCorporation, a CDC; and the Fund for Community Redevelopment andRevitalization (a.k.a. The Fund).

The Fund has generated both enthusiasm and controversy in Woodlawn. Createdlargely through a three-year, $1.2 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation,the Fund operates in both Woodlawn and Kenwood/Oakland, the community justnorth of Hyde Park and the University of Chicago. The Fund has launched amassive redevelopment effort designed to attract middle-income people to theneighborhood. In Woodlawn, the project focuses upon an eighteen-block areafrom Cottage Grove to Dorchester, and from 61st to 63rd Streets. In total, theFund plans to construct 265 single-family homes and 65 townhouses as part of aten-year, $45 million effort. The homes will include three bedrooms and anattached garage and will sell for between $110,000 and $140,000. The first set ofeight townhomes were sold in a cluster on contiguous lots and were built througha partnership of the Fund's development arm, the Woodlawn Preservation and

6.

Investment Corporation (WPIC), and for-profit Thrush Development. TheChicago Tribune claims that these were "the first eight non-subsidized privatehomes built in Woodlawn in the last forty years." The lots were purchased for$500 from the city.

Much of the impetus for the project derives from Bishop Arthur Brazier, whoheads the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn. Brazier chairs the Fund andWPIC. In a recent article in N'digo, Brazier claims, "I have almost as manymembers in my congregation as there are people in Woodlawn. There are 14,000people in Woodlawn, and I have more than 10,000 members in my church."According to Mattie Butler, the Executive Director of WECAN, however, only asmall number of the congregation actually live in Woodlawn.

The Fund's redevelopment efforts also include plans for 250 low-incomeapartment units in nineteen buildings. Six buildings housing 117 units affordableto a low-income population have already been completed. The Fund points tothese projects as proof of their interest in the long-term economic integration ofWoodlawn. WECAN activists and others worry, however, that the large-scaledisplacements of low-income residents is imminent, given the scope of thereinvestment efforts aimed at middle-income people, compared to the Fund'srelatively minor focus on current low-income residents.

The Fund also seeks to improve the local schools and youth recreationopportunities and to increase public safety in the neighborhood. A former Chicagopoliceman works full-time for the Fund on public safety issues. He works incooperation with the University of Chicago's private security force, which is largerthan the city's district police department.

The city established the Woodlawn Redevelopment Area in June, 1992. It isbounded by Dorchester and Cottage Grove, from 61st to 64th streets. TheRedevelopment Area designation allows the city to design a rehabilitation plan forthe area and provides important tools that allow for the implementation of thatplan. As stated in the plan itself, "The City of Chicago shall employ acomprehensive program of land clearance, redevelopment and rehabilitation asdescribed under Redevelopment Plan' in chapter 2-123-010 of the Municipal Codein the project area. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, acquisition ofreal property and vacant land, relocation of occupants, demolition of dilapidatedstructures, site preparation, site improvements, vacation and/or dedication ofstreets and alleys, assemblage of land." Using these powers, the city acquires landin Woodlawn and seeks its redevelopment, usually by selling it to a developerwho intends to develop the parcel in a manner in accordance with city goals.

Provisions in the plan require new developments to provide one parking space perunit created. They also require that the property not exceed four stories and hold amaximum of fifty units. These provisions may ward against the creation of

low-income rental housing. The plan aims, though, "to provide against the rentalunits for low- and moderate-income households," and "to provide relocationassistance to those households and businesses displaced by redevelopmentactivities."

Two other Redevelopment Areas established in the 1960s, one located between67th and 71st streets and Blackstone and East End Avenues and the other locatedbetween 62nd and 64th Streets and Kenwood and Dorchester, remain in effecttoday.

Recently, First Chicago and Cole-Taylor have opened branch banks in Woodlawn.

Strategies Used

Woodlawn activists have struggled against many development forces in recenthistory. Local community organizations have fought the encroachment of theUniversity of Chicago. They have sought to counteract the public and privatedisinvestment in their community, but now, struggle with the specter of potentialgentrification. In defending their community, Woodlawn activists have employeda variety of strategies, the most prominent of which are listed below.

Organizing and direct action

TWO is famous for its organizing efforts to halt the massive Urban Renewalplans of the sixties. Reknowed community organizer Saul Alinsky workedfor TWO at the time. More recently, WECAN fought for an increase in thenumber of firefighters assigned to the area and organized against negligentlandlords in Housing Court.

1.

CDC rehabilitation of rental housing

The Fund's development arm, WPIC, has created 117 units of rental housingaffordable to working class people, as mentioned above. WECAN iscurrently developing a 64 unit Single Room Occupancy Hotel building,which will house formerly homeless along with tenants paying market rents.TWO has also been involved in housing development. Finally, the CovenantDevelopment Corporation is a CDC primarily devoted to the developmentof affordable housing.

2.

Programs aimed at improving the general quality of life

The Fund is active promoting youth recreational activities, improving publicsafety, and advocating for the improvement of public schools. TWO sits ona board with representatives from the Fund and other local groups whichoversees after-school recreational programs.

3.

Self-help Programs

WECAN developed and runs a food cooperative and a job training program.WECAN also assists existing residents to form housing cooperatives in theneighborhood.

4.

Conflicts and Problems

The creation of the Fund, with its well-funded plans to attract middle incomeresidents to Woodlawn, has generated significant controversy in theneighborhood. WECAN and other Woodlawn activists are particularly concernedthat the middle income investment being generated by the Fund's projects willcause displacement over time. WECAN argues that development efforts shouldfocus on improving the quality of life for existing residents. If this occurred,WECAN argues, additional investment would be spurred with less threat ofdisplacement of existing residents. Fund supporters argue that middle incomeinvestment will spur the area's revitalization in a way that low income investmentwill not. "No community can survive for any length of time with any acceptableliving standards if it is populated by nothing but poor people," says BishopBrazier.

The disinvestment of Woodlawn since 1970 has generated a good deal of mistrustamongst the remaining residents. They witnessed the destruction of theirneighborhood as private and city funds dwindled to a trickle and building afterbuilding fell into disrepair and was torn down. Recent evidence of a renewedinterest by private lenders and the City, as a result, is often viewed with a measureof cynicism.

Other Strategies for Consideration

Use city owned properties in neighborhood to develop housing that serves1.

the income range of Woodlawn residents in need of affordable housing

The city should use its considerable control and ownership of land inWoodlawn to assure that development proceeds without the displacement ofcurrent low income residents. Under current city law, the city is notobligated to assure that a certain percentage of the units created in the mostrecently created Redevelopment Area are affordable to area residents. InWoodlawn, the city could set a limit whereby a certain percentage of theunits created will be affordable to people in the area.

Establish local planning board

The City should support the creation of a local planning board which wouldoversee all of the redevelopment efforts currently under construction andthose planned for the future. WECAN recently initiated the creation of alocal board, including representatives from TWO, the aldermanic office, anda resident from every block in the Redevelopment area. This board willreview any new development projects. The city should support therepresentative nature of this board and its authority.

2.

Back to Table of Contents

Section Four: Concluding Remarks

Redevelopment in Chicago has been synonymous with displacement. City Hall hasfollowed the lead of downtown corporate interests and the real estate industry in aredevelopment drive that produced one of the biggest construction booms in the nationbetween 1950 and 1980. Residential communities along the lake front and around theCBD have been part and parcel of this work. As a result, low-income pockets orcommunities standing in the way were and continue to be removed.

City Hall has not taken the initiative to protect the interests of low-income residents.Had it not been for the organized efforts of communities and displaced groups, policymakers would have paid no attention to displacement. As our case studies demonstrate,the work of these groups has proven that displacement can be effectively addressed. Thesuccess of such efforts, however, has been limited by piecemeal strategies and weak ornon-existent policies and the lack of a strong, unified public voice. Three main elementsare crucial to remedy the present situation.

Public pressure is needed to develop a City of Chicago Development WithoutDisplacement Policy.

1.

There is no indication that the City government will make this into a priority. Onlystrong community pressure will get the City government to respond. Communitygroups and others interested in the fair development of our city should urge theCity government to adopt a policy that requires that each and every redevelopmentproposal in the city include a plan addressing displacement.

An assessment of current City Programs should be done to determine howthese programs can be best utilized to stabilize communities and minimizedisplacement.

There is a need to review existing policies and pay special attention to theirimplementation. One-for-one replacement clauses should be built into everypublicly subsidized project. In each case, mechanisms including strongcommunity participation should be established to monitor implementation.

Relocation assistance should be considered a redevelopment cost. Public andprivate developers should guarantee those displaced comparable units incomparable locations. Publicly assisted developments such as the South Loop TaxIncrement Financing District should have minimum requirements of low-incomehousing. The South Loop Campaign suggests 20% as a figure that would not bethreatening to the community.

Special attention needs to be paid to using city owned land to develop mixedincome communities. Tax reactivation and receivership should be moreextensively used to preserve affordable units. Aldermanic offices should find waysto work with community-based organizations and use existing City programs todevelop plans for anti-speculative use of vacant lots, abandoned properties, andbuildings undergoing disinvestment.

The Community Development Commission and the process for establishment ofRedevelopment Areas should be reformed. In each case, a strong local voiceshould be included. Only as far as impacted citizens are made part of the decisionmaking process can their interests be fairly represented. In short, the developmentprocess should be democratized so as to give everyone the opportunity to be partof the process. Only in this way can we guarantee a process of redevelopment thatis fair to everybody.

2.

New strategies should be adopted to further the City's efforts in itsDevelopment without Displacement Policy, particularly in low-incomecommunities.

The many strategies we found in our research should be thoroughly discussed andconsidered for usage in Chicago. We would suggest that these new strategies

3.

include the monitoring for a fair distribution of capital investment to all cityneighborhoods. Adequate public services should be given to all areas, regardlessof income. Loans and investment to keep property in low-income neighborhoodsin decent shape are needed to address the cycles of disinvestment that devastatecommunities. Incentives for development and upkeep of affordable housing andincreased home ownership efforts are needed. All of these actions depend on theability of communities to organize themselves and garner the support of localnot-for-profit organizations for implementation and local control.

The WWW version of this paper was created in early 1997, and placed on the VoorheesWWW page on 22 February 1997. Please inform Patricia Wright of any corrections thatare needed for this version.

Back to Table of Contents

Appendix

Contact List

ACORN, Chicago 117 West Harrison Room 200 Chicago, Illinois 60605 312-939-7488

City of Chicago Department of Housing 318 South Michigan Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-747-9601

Department of Planning and Development City Hall, room 1000 121 North Lasalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 312-744-4190

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless 1325 South Wabash, room 205 Chicago, Illinois 60605

312-435-4548

Chicago Housing Authority 22 West Madison Chicago, Illinois 312-791-8500

Chicago Local Initiatives Support Corporation 547 West Jackson, 6th floor Chicago, Illinois 60661 312-360-0800

Chicago Rehab Network 53 West Jackson, room 742 Chicago, Illlinois 60604 312-663-3936

Community Information Exchange 1120 G. Street NW, suite 900 Washington, DC. 20005 202-628-2982

Cook County Assessor Office 118 North Clark Chicago, Illinois 312-443-7550

Council of Community Housing Organizations 409 Clayton Street SanFrancisco, California 94117 415-863-6566

Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative 385 Dudley Street Roxbury, Massachusetts 02119 617-442-9670

Erie House 1347 West Erie Chicago, Illinois 312-666-3430

Famicos Foundation/Cleveland Housing Network 7049 Superior Street

Cleveland, Ohio 44103 216-431-3461

Illinois Housing Development Authority 401 North Michigan, suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60611 312-836-5200

Interfaith Organizing Project 1617 W. Washington Chicago, Illlinois 60612 312-243-3328

Joint Planning Council 61 East 4th Street New York, New York 10003 212-228-8210

Lawndale Christian Development Corporation 3825 West Ogden Chicago, Illinois 312-762-6389

Low Income Housing Information Service 1012 14th Street, NW, suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Metropolitan Tenants Organization 2125 West North Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60647 312-292-4980

Mutual Housing Network 2125 West North Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60647 312-278-4800

National Congress For Community Economic Development 1875 Connecticut Avenue,NW, suite 524 Washington DC 20009 202-234-5009

Near West Development Corporation 216 South Hoyne Chicago, Illinois 60612

312-738-2280

Organization of the Northeast 5249 North Kenmore Chicago, Illinois 60640 312-769-3232

People's Housing 7510 North Ashland Chicago, Illinois 60626 312-262-5900

South Armour Square Neighborhood Coalition 237 West Pershing Road Chicago, Illinois 60609 312-548-8453

South Atlanta Land Trust 87 Thayer Avenue,SE Atlanta, Georgia 30315 404-577-6017

South East Community Organization 10 South Wolfe Street Baltimore, Maryland 21231 301-327-1627

Statewide Housing Action Coalition 202 South State Street, room 1414 Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-939-6074

S.T.E.R.N. Koepenickerstr.154a 12437 Berlin,Germany Fax 49 30 61000331

Tenants Union 3902 S. Ferdinand Seattle, Washington 98118 206-723-0500 Contact: Arlen Olson

The Resurrection Project

1818 South Paulina Chicago, Illinois 60608 312-666-1323

United Way of America 701 North Fairfax Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2045 703-836-7100

US Department of Housing and Urban Development Region 5, Chicago Office 77 West Jackson Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-353-6236

Western Center on Law and Poverty 3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 208 LosAngeles, California 90010 213-487-7211

Woodstock Institute 407 South Dearborn, suite 550 Chicago, Illinois 60605 312-427-8070

Back to Table of Contents