Smart Communities

Immigration Reform Benefits Everyone

Health care is an extremely important component of community development. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, one of the leading community development foundations in the United States, considers health, poverty and community development to be “inseparable.” The reason is fairly obvious–– healthy children do better in school than unhealthy children and healthy adults are earn better incomes than unhealthy adults.

Undocumented immigrants have no access to health insurance. As result, undocumented families struggle to foster healthy communities. This contributes to crime and other community development problems. This also causes strain on hospitals. Under federal law, hospitals must provide care to anyone who seeks care in an Emergency Room regardless of immigration status. This kind of care is classified as indigent care, or charity care. To pay for indigent care, hospitals receive federal funding (taxpayers dollars) or make up for those costs with profits derived from seeing privately insured patients. Regardless, this health care ends up costing every American. However, lawmakers in California and elsewhere are beginning to realize that by offering basic health care to undocumented immigrants, they can save money when those patients do not put off care until it requires an Emergency Room.

 Immigration reform has the opportunity to alleviate the strain on health care in America and improve communities where undocumented immigrants live. Under the proposed reforms, The United States Congress will soon take up a bipartisan plan to overhaul immigration in this country. Lost on many Americans is how important immigration reform is for all communities––not just undocumented immigrants.

 Consider some the different components of community development that are often unattainable for undocumented immigrants–– health insurance, financing for houses and cars, public welfare programs, banking services, and in-state tuition (in most states). Lack of access to some of the key components of community development has a profound impact on undocumented immigrants and all Americans.

 Undocumented immigrants must provide proof of employment and consistent employment. This means that any immigrants seeking to become American citizens will be required to have health care like any other American in the United States. Their employer will provide this, or they may be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health care. In any case, the expected gains from insuring people and getting them the care they need before they seek the Emergency Room is expected to save a billions of dollars in uncompensated care.

By documenting and insuring undocumented immigrants, we can improve their lives and the lives of all Americans. Healthy immigrants with documentation will have the opportunity to contribute to society and have the opportunity to raise their children in healthy environments. 

Guest Contributor: Addie Bryant

Schools Remember the Past and Prepare for the Future

Schools, public schools in particular, often play a central role in communities. Many families consider the quality and reputation of schools a major factor in choosing where to live (if they have the means and mobility to make such a choice). Public schools also hold lasting memories and significant historic meaning. This is especially true for communities such as the one that rallied to preserve and reinvent the Jefferson School in Charlottesville, Virginia. The school, which has a much longer history than the extant building, embodies the struggles and accomplishments of Charlottesville’s African American community since the late nineteenth-century. Andrea Douglas, Executive Director of the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, in an interview with Andrea Copeland of Inside Nonprofits, says that the Jefferson School is “the only school in the city in which you can trace the change of the community in its physical structure.” The changes traced in the Jefferson school’s history include the introduction of educational opportunity for former slaves, school segregation, and the now-infamous destruction of the historic Vinegar Hill neighborhood, the western edge of which abuts the Jefferson School, as part of Charlottesville’s urban renewal program in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

Rudolph Goffney, alumnus of the Jefferson School and participant in the Jefferson School Oral History Project, describes the importance of preserving the school as a way of honoring an often painful history: “You’re going to need reminders of those things when you don’t have the people around to tell others what happened…if people don’t learn what happened, they’ll never know why or how, or how to prevent it from happening again“ (as quoted in Community Engagement at the Jefferson School). Jefferson School alumni were instrumental in revising the city’s plans to redevelop the school to ensure that the building and its tenants will honor and preserve local African American history and reestablish the cultural heart of the community.

 

The new Jefferson School City Center, which celebrated its grand opening on January 19, 2013, is now home to a renovated Carver Recreation Center and the new Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, along with the Jefferson Area Board for Aging’s intergenerational programming, Piedmont Virginia Community College’s new culinary program, and several other non-profits and social service organizations. While not the first school building to be adapted for new use in Charlottesville (the McGuffey Arts Center and the Albemarle County Office Building both occupy historic city schools), the Jefferson School City Center represents a unique and collaborative model that will commemorate the African American community’s history while providing a place for citizens to gather and engage in new cultural production.

 

Other cities around the country have adapted historic school buildings for community use: a former high school in Redmond, Washington is now the Old Redmond Schoolhouse Community Center, which according to the Project for Public Spaces “has provided the catalyst for revitalization of a diverse and economically challenged neighborhood and a focal point for renewed and expanded community development.” Indianapolis, Indiana’s new Martindale Brightwood Community Center, expected to be completed this year, will include renovation of former Hazel Hart Hendricks School 37 to a state-of-the-art community center preserving the original gymnasium and adding a community kitchen, town square area, and other amenities. Cities are also finding creative ways to keep operating schools at the center of communities, re-using other building types such as a movie theater-turned-charter-school in Brooklyn, New York and a former church slated to house the middle school campus of San Francisco’s Children’s Day School.

 

Keep an eye on what happens at the Jefferson School City Center; the Center’s story embodies the centrality of schools in defining the history and shaping the future of our communities.

Guest Contributor: Julia Triman

 

The Hidden Costs of Homelessness

 What are the “hidden” costs of homelessness and how do we begin to measure them?  Homelessness is difficult to quantify for several reasons:  (1) the homeless themselves tend to be “hidden”; (2) the root causes of homelessness are complex; and (3) the costs incurred by municipalities as a result of homelessness are often embedded in services spread across myriad agencies.  For all of these reasons, it is difficult to effectively address the issue of homelessness.  However, many organizations in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia have developed a Community Plan to End Homelessness and have begun to see the reduction of costs to public services and of those classified as chronically homeless.

A recent assessment entitled “The Hidden Costs of Homelessness in Nashville:  A Report to the Nashville Metro Homelessness Commission” conducted by students at Vanderbilt University of the chronically homeless in Nashville, TN revealed that service costs were sought for “addiction treatment, advocacy, case management/referrals, child care and education, clothing, communications, counseling, documents, education, emergency care/transport, financial services, food, health care, housing/shelter, incarceration, job training, laundry, legal/courts, mental/behavioral health, pastoral care, personal care items, and transportation.”  For Nashville, the average annual cost to provide permanent housing was estimated at $5,907-7,618 per person which was significantly less than the $11,500 of costs related to the temporary housing and care of average and chronically homeless.

The principle of Housing First echoes this reality.  By providing permanent housing as the first step in service provision there is a resulting reduction in the provision of existing services.  Charlottesville has already witnessed these benefits with regard to a new single room occupancy (SRO) facility managed by Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH).  Serving Richmond, Norfolk and Charlottesville, VSH has been providing permanent supportive housing to the homeless in addition to on-site case management, counseling and financial literacy programs, community building and guaranteed tenure.  On average, temporary housing in Richmond costs $9,500-13,500 per person.  Permanent housing saves the public up to $9,000 per individual served.  Of the residents in VSH programs, 96% obtain a stable income through work or entitlement programs and 98% of residents do not return to homelessness.

 The Crossings at 4^th & Preston opened March 2012 in Charlottesville and is managed by VSH.  It is a SRO facility with furnished studio apartments.  The facility also contains community spaces, laundry facilities, a fitness room and a computer room.  The Crossings is staffed 16 hours a day with an on-call evening manager.  There is extensive security, off-street parking, access to public transportation, proximity to downtown and business districts and supportive services to improve health, income and housing.  The new construction is also EarthCraft Virginia-certified for resource and energy efficiency. 

When we begin to understand the linkages between housing tenure, social services and stability, we begin to better recognize the hidden costs of homelessness.  It is only when we see that these “hidden” costs are costs to us, the taxpaying citizenry, that we feel compelled to make the initial investment in the creation of Housing First facilities and programs.  Let us hope that the homeless and the “true” costs to our society can find a way to daylight. 

Guest Contributor: Laura McGurn

 

 

 

 

Homeless to Homeowners

We have long moved past the ideology of homelessness as a choice, and the Reagan Administration’s declaration that “no one is living on the streets.” In fact, the United States in recent years has even gone beyond simply sheltering the homeless population.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development has made the Supportive Housing Program its focus on addressing the homelessness problem. The Supportive Housing Program has been designed to “develop supportive housing and services that will allow homeless persons to live as independently as possible.” And to a large extent, this program has been very successful coupled with state and local governments, housing authorities, and nonprofits. The successes of this program shows that we are ready to take the next step in aiding the homeless population, and to me, this means preparing them for homeownership.

A study conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2008 presented the average length of time spent by homeless persons in various types of housing across 26 cities. The results showed that the average stay for single men in permanent supportive housing was 556 days, and 571 days for single women. That creates an average time of about a year and a half that a homeless individual stays in this housing. This compares to some recent data from Virginia Supportive Housing, a permanent supportive housing nonprofit based out of Richmond, Virginia. VSH’s data shows that emergency room visits dropped from 200 prior to program entry, to less than 30 after 10-20 months after entry. Similarly, arrests went from more than 40 prior to entry, to less than 5 after entry. Furthermore, individuals who partake in VSH’s program saw an average income increase by 33%.

It is clear, then, that the permanent supportive housing approach has worked very well. Homeless individuals who participate in the programs no longer spend large quantities of their time in jail or the hospital, and see a significant increase in their incomes. The program also couples their permanent housing solution with skills improvements such as in math, reading and writing, and cooking. Meanwhile, success rates have been high. The Crossroads in Atlanta boasts of a 90% success rate of individuals who do not return to homelessness, and most supportive housing organizations show similar figures.

The next question we must ask is “what’s next?” Although the average stay in supportive housing is only a year and a half, most organizations do not have term limits. Therefore, by allowing individuals to stay permanently, it becomes difficult for permanent supportive housing to address all of the needs of every homeless person in a given city. Continually, those who do choose to move out, obviously move on to another form of housing. If this is the case, why shouldn’t the next logical step to supporting the homeless population be to prepare them for homeownership? There have been a number of successful programs to help low-income groups purchase a home that could easily be modified to address the homeless population.

Homeownership training programs have shown to be an effective way of preparing low-income and minority populations for homeownership, while increasing their access to better neighborhoods. Though these programs have neglected to fully prepare low-income groups for the costs of repairs and general upkeep of owning a home, the fact is that more low-income people are able to become homeowners as a result of these programs. The programs, then, could easily accommodate previously homeless individuals looking to move beyond rental housing. Despite being a very low-income group, even after significant increases in their income after moving into permanent supportive housing, homeownership training programs could start the process for homeless individuals to prepare themselves for homeownership. To begin this process, these programs should be incorporated into all permanent supportive housing programs, and be made accessible to any homeless individual who dreams of owning a home for the first time, or becoming a homeowner again.

Another option is adjusting the idea of social ownership to incorporate the homeless. Michael Stone defines social ownership as: “it is not owned and operated for profit, it cannot be sold for speculative gain; and it provides security of tenure for residents.” Social ownership therefore removes the asset accumulation side of homeownership, and focuses on security of tenure. Realistically, the goal for transitioning form homeless to homeowner is security of tenure. This is provided by permanent supportive housing, but is only available to a limited number of individuals. If the new goal is to then move homeless individuals into a social ownership situation, where they have the social benefits of homeownership, but not the financial aspects, that goal will have been achieved. Regardless of whether this social ownership comes in the form of ownership by a public agency, ownership by a nonprofit, or some sort of mutual housing association, it will provide us with this next step.

Finally, our mentality towards homelessness has to change. We may no longer see homelessness as nonexistent, or as a group of individuals who choose to live their life that way, but few Americans are able to see a path from homeless to homeownership. We must recognize that homelessness is a serious issue in this country, and it is not going away until we devote equally serious financial and social support to the problem. If for no other reason, we should be motivated to not pour taxpayer dollars into hospital trips and jail cell stays, but the moral obligation must be realized as well. These are our fellow humans and fellow citizens who need and want a change, and we have the resources to provide it.

Guest Contributor: Matt Morgan

Light Rail Can Work in Suburbia

Growing up in Virginia Beach, VA instilled a sense of pessimism in me about public transportation.  Virginia Beach is the largest city in the state, yet the only form of public transportation available to citizens is a rather substandard bus system that is unreliable, questionable in terms of security, and used only by citizens that have no other options for transporting themselves from place to place.  Even then, some prefer to simply walk or bike instead of riding the public busses. Furthermore, the bickering of local politicians and citizens in regard to the viability of alternative forms of public transportation in a suburban city led me to believe that any efforts directed at implementing such options would be hopeless. However, in the past two years I have witnessed an awesome change take place in the city of Norfolk, which borders Virginia Beach.  I now wholeheartedly believe that a suburban city such as my hometown can, in fact, construct and sustain a form of mass transit other than busses or trollies.

 Background: Virginia Beach is part of a larger regional network of cities and counties, referred to as Hampton Roads by locals and known as the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA according to the U.S. Census Bureau. As of 2010, the population of the MSA was 1.672 million, with approximately 681,000 residents concentrated in Norfolk and Virginia Beach.[1]  Having seven counties and eight independent cities has always rendered local leaders nearly helpless when it comes to an integrated approach to implementing viable mass transit options.  This is primarily due to competing interests and dissenting opinions amongst localities.  I would argue that no other region in the country has a situation quite as unique as Hampton Roads in this regard. Furthermore, the fact that the Chesapeake Bay separates localities on the southside (Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Suffolk) from those on the peninsula only makes matters worse.

The Tide: But it appears that a solution has been found: The Tide light rail system.  The Tide is a 7.4 mile light rail line in the city of Norfolk that opened on August 19, 2011.  The Tide is sponsored by Hampton Roads Transit and is currently the only light rail system in Virginia. The Tide currently has 11 stops extending from the western terminus located near Eastern Virginia Medical School to the eastern terminus at Newtown Road. Six months after The Tide opened to the public, daily ridership totals averaged 4,650 trips daily, exceeding the forecasted 2,900 trips predicted by experts. The CEO of HRT at the time, Philip Shucet, predicted that The Tide will hit its 20-year projection of 7,200 daily rides within three years. It is safe to say that The Tide has been nothing but a total success so far.

 One-way ridership fares are determined by age:

• Adults = $1.50
• Youth (those younger than 18) = $1.00
• Seniors and Persons with Disabilities = $0.75
• Children (height less than 38”) = free

1-Day Pass option:

• Adults = $3.50

• Youth; Seniors and Persons with Disabilities = $1.75

5-Day GoPass option:

• Adults = $16.50
• Youth; Seniors and Persons with Disabilities = $8.75

7-Day GoPass option:

• $17.00 flat fee

30-Day GoPass option:

• Adults = $50.00
• Youth; Seniors and Persons with Disabilities = $35.00

 As you can see, a plethora of options exist for riders that adjust fees after taking important ridership attributes into account.  This is a considerate and thoughtful way to accommodate a range of social demographics, which in turn increases the likelihood of a diverse ridership pool. Furthermore, tickets and passes can be purchased at numerous locations throughout the city such as retail outlets, public busses, mail order, and more.  This makes it even easier for a sizeable portion of local residents to ride The Tide.

Riding The Tide: Riders identify the station where they would like to board The Tide. Tickets and GoPasses can be purchased at vending machines located at every station.  Riders then board The Tide, show their tickets to fare inspectors (if requested), and proceed along their route.

On weekdays, The Tide operates from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; they system operates until midnight on Fridays. Trains dock at stations at fluctuating intervals ranging from every 10 minutes to 30 minutes depending on the hour.  On Saturdays, The Tide operates from 6:00 a.m. until midnight. Sundays have a more limited operation schedule from 10:55 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. In case riders are confused about the operating schedule, HRT provides a comprehensive listing of all arrival times for each station on their website.

It should be noted that HRT took into account the fact that some riders may be commuting by vehicle from distant neighborhoods and adjacent cities to the light rail stations, and then continuing their trip into Norfolk aboard The Tide.  Exactly 1,237 parking spots are located at five of the 11 stations, making up what HRT refers to as “Park and Ride” lots.  This is intelligent transportation design, because it accommodates individuals who may not live in close proximity to a light rail station, yet also desire to use The Tide to get into Norfolk.  This is another example of HRT going the extra mile to ensure that The Tide features many conveniences for its riders.  If the light rail were to be extended into Virginia Beach, placing Park and Ride lots at some of the new stations would surely entice individuals who would not otherwise use The Tide to at least test it out and see if this transit option suits their needs.

What happens next?

During the November 2012 elections, citizens in Virginia Beach voted on a referendum that asked “Should the Virginia Beach City Council adopt an ordinance approving the use of all reasonable efforts to support the financing and development of The Tide light rail into Virginia Beach?” Approximately 62% of voters approved the referendum, signaling majority public support for such a project.

In order for The Tide to be expanded, however, more change needs to happen.  For starters, citizens and local leaders opposed to forms of mass transit need to acknowledge that past transportation planning in South Hampton Roads has been inadequate. Road conditions along I-64 and I-264 are poor and constantly deteriorating. Funding for road maintenance has been insufficient and repairs occur at a sluggish rate. This is not necessarily the fault of HRT, because funding is usually dictated by state and federal agencies, but this still means that projects are not completed in a timely manner.  Therefore, it is time for a revolution in terms of thought and practice regarding the availability of alternative forms of mass transit. Light rail, as proven by the success of The Tide, is the most viable option for this sprawling suburban region.  It is incorrect to argue that the public would not use a light rail system if it were available, plain and simple.  Politicians need to push Richmond to allocate funding for the expansion of this rail system.  The bad news is that a landmark transportation bill which just passed the general assembly allocated $200 million in tax dollars to Hampton Roads- but it also stipulated that this money can only be used on fixing the roadways.[2]

I also argue that citizens need to abandon the idea that Hampton Roads cities are autonomous localities with distinct cultural and social differences, and that implementing a form of mass transit linking the cities would be detrimental to their welfare.  It is time for the cities of Hampton Roads to consolidate their transportation planning efforts into one united front.  The evidence provided by the success of the Tide makes it is increasingly difficult to argue that Hampton Roads would not benefit from such a move. An expansion of The Tide would be an extremely beneficial move for Virginia Beach, and on a larger scale, Hampton Roads. 

---

[1] U.S. Census Bureau. “Table 22. Metropolitan Statistical Areas With More Than 750,000 Persons in

2010—Population by Age: 2010.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0022.pdf.

[2] Dave Forster. “Hampton Roads can’t use regional tax for mass transit.”  Hampton Roads.com, February 26, 2013. http://www.gohrt.com/hampton-roads-cant-use-regional-tax-for-mass-transit/. 

Guest Commentator: Cameron Langille

Rental Housing + Net Worth: Investing in our Future

Part of the lure of the American Dream of homeownership is the freedom to personalize your house, making it your “home,” and the potential to build wealth over time.  However, without proper planning and consumer education, the American Dream can quickly become the American Nightmare. Rising utility costs and property taxes, as well as unexpected maintenance needs can render the once affordable home a housing burden.  The recent housing crisis illustrated to us how severe this burden can be.  And with the tightening of the credit markets and more people moving into the rental market, the American Dream seems to be slipping away for those of lower wealth. Given that one-third of the American population rent their home and are now finding rising rents due to this increase in rental demand, new and creative approaches to housing policies – including leasing opportunities – need to be pursued.

 The White House along with the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Treasury and Agriculture are pooling resources to explore this problem.  One of the key platforms of future policies being considered is “rental housing + children”. The 2011 Spring issue of HUD’s “Evidence Matters:  Informing the Next Generation of Rental Housing Policy” takes a look at policy reassessment and states that parental net worth is a key predictor of a child’s long-term educational attainment.  “Even when other factors are taken into account – parental involvement in children’s education, for example – net worth remains critical.”  Could it be that any new housing policy must think more broadly than just the provision of housing alone?  Is there a way to begin to address these critical issues of housing, net worth and education in the same policy?  As the major policy makers consider these critical questions, they identified the Cornerstone Corporation for Share Equity as an innovator in this area.

 Cornerstone Corporation for Shared Equity, a non-profit organization that finances, develops and manages affordable apartment housing, recognized this problem as early as 2000.  In response, they developed the Renter Equity program to provide renters with safe, decent and affordable housing as well as the opportunity to accumulate wealth.  Rewards for positive behaviors such as paying rent on time, attending monthly resident meetings and contributing to the upkeep of designated common areas are provided in the form of credits.  These credits have a cash value and over time are transferred to cash payments.  After five years, the cash payments can be withdrawn for expenses such as educational expenses, car repairs, home maintenance and housing down payments.

 The Renter Equity program’s success lies in the fact that it instills a sense of ownership and personal investment in the tenants, reduces maintenance and property costs, equips the renters with the knowledge and skills to maintain and upkeep a property, and provides a means to accumulate cash savings.  In addition to investing in the place (physical environment), the program invests in the people through capacity building.  The result is residents who are more stable and engaged in their community and housing that maintains its quality and value.

 What is promising about this approach is that it equips and empowers the residents to make a positive impact on their community while they reap the benefits of their efforts.  Additionally, it provides them with skills and knowledge that are transferable to any place they may live.  These positive outcomes foster a sense of ownership and investment in the neighborhood – outcomes which benefit the resident and the larger community.

Guest Contributor: Rosalyn Keesee