By: David Craft, Community Development Clinic Fellow
Inner-city neighborhoods have the capacity to collectively take ownership of development within their own communities. Community members, with facilitation by local government officials, spend extensive time and money creating comprehensive plans to shape the development goals for their neighborhoods. However, the actual development efforts are traditionally handled by developers who are not rooted within the community. The same process that traditional developers/investors use to conduct development or rehab projects within inner-city neighborhoods can be accomplished by the residents and groups already living in those communities. Through organizational structures such as real estate investment cooperatives, real estate investment trusts or community land trusts, a community can implement the goals from their comprehensive plans and have ownership of their own community assets. Additionally, community-owned development can slow down some of the issues (gentrification, flipping, real estate speculation, loss of community identity) that grow exponentially with the increased development from the “back-to-city movement”. Some examples of community-owned real estate structures include:
- NYCREIC-a New York Not-for-Profit Corporation, based in NYC, that invests in real estate to create long-term affordable community-controlled space for cooperative enterprise, art, culture, and organizing. Individuals can become members by contributing a one-time fee of $10.00 which provides them with full voting rights. The purpose of using this organizational form is not to create wealth for community members but rather give them the opportunity to stabilize their neighborhoods and ensure there’s affordable space for civic, cultural and cooperative uses in their communities.
- Pros: Very low buy-in (one-time contribution of at least $10). Members all have one vote regardless of initial contribution. Ran by a board which means no single individual can control the organization and nobody can use the organization to solely benefit themselves.
- Con: Organized under state Not-for-Profit law which requires the profits made by the organization to stay within the nonprofit and cannot pass to the members.
- Northeast Investment Cooperative-a real estate development cooperative in Minnesota that allows community members to become owners and investors in a cooperative that buys and rehab properties in their community. The purpose of using this organizational form is to give every member a vote on the types of amenities and service options within their community and provide a return on their investment.
- Pros: All members have one vote regardless of their investment. Operates as a for-profit entity which allows the members to get a return through dividends and selling their shares.
- Cons: High buy-in (minimum buy-in $1,000).
- Community Investment Trust Program-provides a low-dollar investment opportunity in commercial property to local residents. Residents must complete a financial literacy course before becoming a member. Annual dividends are paid from profits of the building and the shares change value as the value of the property appreciates and the loan on the property is paid down. The purpose of this model is to provide residents an opportunity to invest in the commercial real estate (already purchased and operating by a community-based institution) within their own communities.
- Pros: Minimum investment ($10, $25, $50, or $100 every month). Members profit from annual dividends and changes in shares value when property appreciates and loan on the property is paid down. Restricted only to individuals living in a specific zip-code.
- Cons: Requires an institution to make a large up-front investment in purchasing the property.
Lack of financial resources does not have to be a hindrance to communities when deciding to take on development or rehab project. Many developers/investors will tap “OPM” (other people’s money) when taking on a real estate project. With the political power that a community can collectively harness, many funding resources will become available for projects. For example, Miracle on Craig Street, a group of community residents from the Hamilton Hill neighborhood of Schenectady, NY want to re-open a community center that was foreclosed by the City of Schenectady. Miracle on Craig Street is a client of the Albany Law Community Development Clinic. Initially, they raised $30K through community donations. Since then, the group has learned about other potential funding sources (i.e., government, private foundations, etc.) that are available for the group’s project. Communities have the opportunities to collectively bring the amenities and services to their areas. However, time will play an issue when it comes to community-led development efforts.
The longer it takes for decisions to be made in real estate, the more expensive it becomes to complete the project or the more likely the property ends up in another developer/investor’s possession. With a community-led development effort, time could become an issue when more people are required to approve issues that could arise during a real estate project. However, community-led development can avoid the political issues that traditional developers face when pursuing a development project. Depending on the government approvals needed for a project, traditional developers have to spend time obtaining community support and support from elected officials when seeking approvals for their projects. A community-led development project would have the community-backing from the beginning and elected officials would be more inclined to support the projects of its constituents compared to out-of-town developer/investor.
Too often, the focus of community and economic development in low-income communities is to bring developers from outside the community and give them every single subsidy possible to develop within the community. However, we have seen of how these same developers will abandon those communities when it does not fit their bottom line. Why not flip the script and give the resilient residents and groups a bigger share of the resources to bring their own plans to fruition?