New Neighborhood Finance Program Introduced
A potential neighborhood-financing program was introduced at a city council work session last week. The session provided council members an opportunity to hold a preliminary discussion on a program that would spark re-investment in Davenport neighborhoods.
The financing program would be open to individuals of all income brackets and would offer forgivable loans for renovation work at properties. The program could create sustainable economic diversity by increasing homeownership in neighborhoods. The method would support home purchase and rehabilitation in selected areas of the city. A number of action items were proposed for the initial review.
The main idea is to save our older central city neighborhoods. Davenport's older neighborhoods have a great deal of character and are some of the most significant historic areas in the state. These neighborhoods are at a crossroads.
We can take action and save a decaying asset, where infrastructure is already in place or we can stand on the sidelines and hope for the best. I prefer a proactive approach. The program is similar to the NFC in Des Moines. The NFC features a partnership with local lending institutions, Polk County, and the City of DM.
I initially began researching this idea following a visit to the Neighborhoods USA Conference in May. In the ensuing months I have recruited staff to help introduce this idea to neighborhood leaders, the NHS, the Scott Co. Housing Board, local banks, and the county. It is my hope that the council moves forward with this program and that the bankers and county comes along with the concept.
In Des Moines over $120-million has been invested and over 2000 homes have benefited from some much needed renovation since the early 1990's. The entities in DM each commit $1-million per year. DM bonds this out on an annual basis. The NFC is a 501(c)3 and features a board made up of lenders, housing officials, neighborhood leaders, and city/county staff.
In Davenport, a smaller city, an amount around $500,000 each should come close to having a similar impact. It is my belief that people belong to their neighborhoods first, before they belong to their city/state, etc. With a little extra support, maybe we can turn a corner and make some significant change.
Of course, the obvious question is the crime in our city. In order to truly make this program work, we would need to turn the tide on crime concurrently. Adding more NETS officers (a proactive approach to community policing that is working) would be key. Chief Bladel's new juvenile program would help as well. It is early in the process and I welcome any comments, ideas, or suggestions.
I have more information on my website with links to staff documents and the DM program: click here.
Thanks to Bruce Berger, Clayton Lloyd, and Craig Malin for their initial assistance and for others in the community for considering support for this proposal.
Ian
posted by Ian Frink @ 10:24 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
Ian: You need to stay away from the Housing council in this proposal because most likley this plan will turn into a low income housing program - that will not make an economic impact on our neighborhoods. These agencies will continue to exploit our older areas for low income residents which is one of the reasons we can't bounce back economically. Think private money - not public money. Think neighbors -not not for profits. Look at what has worked and what hasn't worked. For example, the GoldCoast has progressed due to private neighbors, not beauracrats. The strong (but vulnerable) areas solo have survived by warding off low income housing and bad rentals. Even if they are new or rehabbed.
Part of thsi needs to be the council and the staff holding bad landlords accountable. What is in the works Ian to do this?
Anon. 5:15/5:16,
Thanks for the posts. The mix is from public and private investments. The proposal is for all income levels to support economic diversity and is the main distinguishing factor of this proposal compared to anything that exists in the city today.
I agree with holding bad landlords accountable. The nuisance abatements have been moving forward through legal and progress has been made.
The NFC model in Des Moines has worked; it is my hope that similar success would come forward here. Ian
Also,
I have been meeting with DFD, our city IT department, and the DAI sub committee to review some other possible ideas with regard to landlord/tenant accountability. Ideas include a central registry and tracking system for landlords/tenants to keep tabs on folks. The system would be heavy on the information side of things and our IT department is looking into programs to continue making the process more effective and efficient. I would say the process is in the middle stages at this juncture. More to come on this front in coming months.
Also, the sub committee is generating some possible new ordinances to help the process -- these are being reviewed by city legal. Ian
Many people have attended that DAi adn the presentation and I tell you that their odeas are not realistic. The IT is great, but the process cannot work for the worst of the worst. Plus, the committee is manned by the QCRPA and they are an organization that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the residents of the central city who care. The proposal cannot be adequately staffed = it will fail. We need for you to take the proposals out of the DAI group and bring them to the people. The DAI group is NOT getting the support fo the residents of the central city watch groups and other groups. Be mindful of that and ask questions.
The Action plans are a waste of time and will be grandstanding. These bad landlords need to be threatened and held accountable for violating the code of Davenprot.
Again - please don't assume the DAI group has support of the people - it absolutely does not. The leadership of that group has withheld information from people, denied them access to the decision making process and are acting for the QCRPA, not the tax payers.
Please listen.
Ian: I undestand the plan to be mixed income and private and public partnership, but saying it is is not enough. What I mean is that programs like that are great on paper, but naturally they turn into low income projects due to the area, the risk, the alck of simultaniously addressing crime and slum landlords. Naturally, the private investors will be turned off and not develop, so then we are going to get more of the same. LOW INCOME HOUSING. Concentrated in one area. I suggest excluding the low income component to help jump start the economics of the area.
What happens in Davenport with low income homeownership programs is that the people arent' being screened adequately and cannot really afford a mortgage long term. It is easy to get a loan, but these people are a furnace repair away from losing it all. This is so bad for neighborhoods. There are high foreclosures on these properties, lack of maintenance and this is bad for the poor areas. I am not criticizing, just informing you. Think through all of this before you commit this central city area.
Anon. 1:09,
Please review the DM model and the staff files I have provided with the links.
This is not a low-income proposal. The whole reason this is being brought forward is due to the fact that it is open to folks from any income bracket.
When individuals from middle and high-income brackets are able to renovate a home, they usually are able to do more than the initial $10,000 forgivable loan. This is what DM has found with the program they have implemented.
To Anon. 1:01,
The DAI concept is really another discussion for another day. It is in the middle stages of development and the DFD have ideas for us to discuss as well. We all agree that additional support needs to be placed in the areas of battling crime and landlord/tenant accountability. The program we are looking at first is the financing concept to increase economic diversity in our neighborhoods.
Thanks, Ian
You didn't hear me. You can say all you want that it will be a mixed income, but unless you foirce it to be, it won't. You need to really talk with the people who live solo, not the staff or not for profit housing people. Look at the missions an focus of these agencies. While noble, the reality is that the housing clusters main objective is not revitalization, it is low income housing development. Low incomehousing is not economic development and is not revitalization. Don;t confuse the two as Lloyds department continues to do. People like Rick Schlomer shoudl not be running is revitalization effort. He has been quoted as believing neighborhood people have little to offer the city. You cannot allow him to take this thing and run with it, you will get no support from those who live SOLO.
Again, Ian - take it to the people. Not the agencies or it will be another failed program.
Programs to renovate fail in Daveport because they are developed by people who wouldn't be caught dead buying a home in teh cetnral city and then the peopel who live there(no matter how smart they are) are told after the program is developed. Enough of that noise.
Ian - I am sorry but the answer of the dAI question is for right now. The decisions made are real and will mean either the success or failure of yet ANOTHER landlord accountability action. The group is missing the mark and I suggest you as our alderman start to talk about the proposals to the community plesae. The group is the QCRPA and they are making the decisions. Boom is letting them. It is fluff and foof. We need a landlord accountability ordinance not whimpy action plans. What are you going to do about this?
Anon. 3:02, 3:12,
The landlord accountability ordinances are in the works, this is part of what the DAI has brought forward to city legal. The DFD/NEO is also reviewing, we will meet on this again before the end of the month. I will review each component as it comes forward and will be happy to discuss, once specifics are ironed out and formal proposals are brought forward.
As for the neighborhood finance program, it would be forced to be open to all incomes. I would be happy to explain this program to you, it is difficult to continue exchanging comments on a blog to do this. The DM model is a 501(c)3 and has received national recognition for the successes of increasing economic diversity in their neighborhoods for over 2000 properties.
Here are the links, once again, that explain the model:
http://www.ianfrink.com/nhoodfinanpgm.html
Or call me, 508-2842. Thanks.
While the Des Moines NFC program is open to all incomes the majority of homeowners and dollars loaned are to those who are considered low and moderate income. I'm not surprised as it takes more than a little free money to entice settlement by those who have money, decent credit and access to more credit. More than an interest point or two to entice those who have decent jobs, and who have enjoyed schools with fewer discipline issues and more caring parents. People with the options that a middle and upper income provide will not come to the central city in sufficient numbers until the area's crime rate and severity of crimes is proved to lessen, and until the people currently living SOLO see and feel it enough to brag openly and proudly about how great it is to live here. Crime reduction is number one, put your energy there Ian, then warmly invite people to resettle the area residential and business.
The NFC is advantageous to the banks. The NFC is set up to take all the risk away from the lenders while continuing to bring loan opportunities to their doors. Very nice for the lenders. So ask yourself why the lenders aren't making the loans now to borrowers with decent incomes, who aren't asking to borrow squat compared to the loans made on homes old or new NOLO? Why aren't they making high loan to value loans when the after rehab values support the loan amount -- Loan to value is blind to the source of money -- all the buyer needs is enough money to buy and begin rehabbing the home so they can live in it. The money can come from the lender as well as from Davenport taxpayers. One serious truth to why is that lenders don't wish to make small loans, don't wish to mess with rehab, and don't wish to have a loan product that Davenport needs when it's an aberation to their usual loan products. Shelly identified a very important barrier to getting more loans made in the central city and that is the lender's shots are called outside this community -- Davenport is just another franchise. THe local discussions have already revealed that the lenders don't want to really buy into a new day and new way for the central city; they just want the borrower to come in per usual with the additional of a second mortgage already in hand. Very nice for the banks. Maybe the city should start building relationships with the credit unions in the area; they are definitly into making mortage loans and more than banks are locally owned and controlled. Maybe Miss Valley NHS can make more loans without income restrictions (just something to look into, I don't know if they are in a position to do it)
Anon. 8:38,
Thanks for the post. I agree. We must address the crime problem concurrently. In the upcoming budget process we will look at a juvenile offender program and more support for NETS. Both of these approaches are proactive efforts to turn the tide on crime in the central city. The NFC model is a long-term approach, which will take a number of years to ramp up. It offers an opportunity for more investment -- high, middle, and lower incomes. Most in the NFC model are in the middle-income range, which is good - in my view. These are people that would not qualify otherwise for an existing finance program in Davenport. We have some great neighborhoods that are already established (i.e. Gold Coast). Perhaps we could look at these first and build upon what momentum has already been generated by the existing homeowners.
This program certainly wouldn't solve all of our problems, but if we do this - address the crime issue and add a new neighborhood resource specialist at city hall, at least we will be trying to solve problems versus identifying problems - something many in this city are good at. I ran for office to try and be proactive and search for solutions - I believe this would be a positive step for the neighborhoods.
Anon. 8:56,
When I met with board members from NHS they informed that they currently aren't able to make loans without income restrictions. One thought might be to have this 501(c)3 as some sort of subsidiary (for lack of a better word) to NHS and actually house this office with them. An individual could walk through the door, fill out an application, and find out what the best program for them might be. The NFC model could be one tool in the toolbox.
As for the banks, I agree they have been reluctant to offer similar packages in SOLO compared to NOLO. This might be a step in the right direction to open up traditional loan opportunities in SOLO. Also, I like the idea of trying to cultivate the relationships with credit unions, thanks for the suggestion.
Ian: The NETS program is nt in the SOLO area the way it could be to be effective. Are you going to suggest that it be implimented here? Also, do you see a correlation bewteen badly managed rentals and crime? If so, don;t you see an opportunity for the city to enforce our rental codes and hold the bad landlords accopuntable? If so, how?
Before putting all our eggs in a davenport NFC concept consider other alternatives, other program designs. But mostly consider understanding the problems first, not the solutions. Is it the banks, the buyers, or the market? By market don't limit yourself to the banker and real estate points of view. Consider the buyers' point of view. Ask why a buyer with some means, and a reasonable desire for an older home (not just a historic rehab fan) decent credit and a steady job is not flocking to the centeral city where housing prices are very affordable, lots sizes are varied, and entertainment can be found downtown.
$500,000 a year for taxpayers to bond an NFC program is a lot of money. Direct that kind of cash to law enforcement, youth programs, rental licensing oversight, neighborhood enhancement, ordinance enforcement on properties, and a few of our unique central city infrastructure needs. The buyers will come. Those that are already here will stay. The banks will still be there. The primary barrier for a higher income buyer is not access to mortgage financing but rather quality of life. Why would any buyer with a shred of choice move SOLO knowing once the loan is in hand they are still on their own. Show us the city gives a damn about public safety and code enforcement for those who are SOLO now and others will be willing to invest in the full sense of the word. Reduce crime concurrent, no. Reduce crime first, yes. A few more unoccupied residences will be a small price to pay and neighborhoods are willing to pay it. Take the hours you are spending on NFC and put them into rental propery and code enforcement concerns.
Past three posts,
11:59. Answers to all three questions - yes. We have ordinances on the books that need to be enforced on a regular basis, we need to look at more nuisance abatements through city legal, and we need to craft additional language that allows for joint accountability for landlords and tenants. These actions, coupled with the proposed central registry for landlords and tenants will go along way towards: tracking who these individuals are, if they are current on their licensing, if they have passed the landlord course, etc .... IT is working hard on answers and I spoke to the DFD chief today. The DFD hasn't completed four-months of managing NEO - transitions take time. I would rather spend a little extra time on the front end of this transition, versus implementing something that is not going to be effective and efficient in the long run.
1:00. We can look at alternatives to NFC/Davenport. This is an idea at this point. We will be holding a series of meetings with neighborhood folks, others, in the coming weeks/months.
1:22. I believe we need a multi-tiered approach on a long-range basis. Transitioning a neighborhood takes time, eradicating crime takes time, and cleaning up bad landlords/tenants takes time. By running an increased central city NETS program, a juvenile offender program, a neighborhood finance program, and introducing new laws to hold landlords/tenants accountable all at the same time -- increases our chances for success. This way we are hammering home on multiple fronts, each will help the other, in time (years) maybe we can make a difference. The other option is to stand by the way side and take small steps, a little at a time, and hope for the best.
Ian - tell us all who live SOLO why and how excatly that model needs to be joint accountablity when it should be landlord accountabilty. You are appaently falling under the QCRPA's spell Ian. Really ta;lk with people who have trouble with bad landlords. I have studied to plan and it give too many chances to a landlord who has the ability to just simply follow the code and maintain a nice rental with nice tenants. Actionplans will do nothing to rid us of bad landlords and tenants it will just take more time to rid ourselves of them. Unless you ahve a plan to increase staff, this will not work.
May I suggest you plan a meeting with the residents in the more challenged areas to proesent the DAI plan and get feedback.
To 1:22 - You don't bond for operations. It isn't legal in Iowa.
to post 1:22. You may be reading something into the 1:22 post that wasn't there. The suggetion is to direct taxpayers cash to operations for things that will make a difference, not direct taxpayers cash to bonding this program so banks can make a few more loans.
To 7:29,
A public meeting will be set soon, I'm fairly certain, on the DAI front.
As for the finance program, the next meeting is tentatively set for Nov. 8th at 7 pm (United Neighbor) - open to public. I will confirm this time/date in the coming days.
Thanks, Ian
This is Brook from Neighborhood Housing Services. I had some thoughts that might add to your discussion and possibly firm up some of the questions regarding the "low income program" questions. As I see it the proposal by Alderman Frink is similar to NFC but not identical. In Des Moines the NFC has been charged to provide services to low and moderate and over income. In Davenport there are already existing programs for low and moderate income, the proposal I believe was more intended to work with the existing programs and add some incentivized programs to encourage over income investment and home purchase within some of our low to moderate income areas. As I believe that we can all agree true reinvestment involves varying socioeconomic homeowners, neighborhood groups, community organizations, public partnerships, and government working together. This proposal encourages all of those partnerships. I don't think that this proposal includes additional funding for low income homeowners but instead working with the programs that currently exist and providing incentives for over income individuals. We will be attending the meeting on the 8th and look forward to participating in the continuation of discussion. This is probably the most positive move toward a true "revitilization" program that has been proposed in the 6 years that I have been with NHS. Even the discussion and consideration of it is a step forward.
One additional comment, NHS has programs for over income homeowners. These programs have been successful but the funding available has historically been much less than that available for low income programs. These projects have been completed with local bank support not grants, and creative partnerships that have developed over 25 years of our history. We continue to use the funds available to impact as much as we can, but this proposal provides concepts for far more impact in the community either in partnership with NHS, as a city program, or through another venue of administration. I would however say that generally administration costs for programs are much less for nonprofits. Generally nonprofits are better at keeping admin cost down for inceased impacts.
I am new to your blog, Ian. I find it disturbing that you are even listening to the DAI and the QCRPA. I am a resident and friend of the NEO officer that once worked in Goose Creek, I have watched with a heavy heart the demise of the NEO Department. This guy is a hard worker and took his job seriously. He had partnered himself with the NETS Team that worked on the many problems in that area. I believe that a portion of the success of the Goose Creek area was because of his hard work. It was a dark day when the partnership failed to exist and sad one for the people in that turned to him for help. If you really do care about the city, you must bring back those who worked hard for a better Davenport. We need more people like him.
Anon. 1:24,
I have not meet with the QCRPA on this program, as it deals with single-family homes. The DAI was one meeting out of 10 (or so) we have had on this program. I believe a strong NEO program and strong support for NETS will play integral roles in the support of this proposed neighborhood finance program.
What is your relation with Ray Cornielson, landlord of several properties in SOLO?
Ian,
What is the name of this NEO guy from Goose Creek? Is he still with the city or has he found another job! I hate to see this guy get away.
My guess he is Mike Loos. Ian - this was a good guyw ho was lied about by Dan Lubell and Tony Lahood and his crew. Seriously, Loos was doing a fine job and then he was force out.
What can you do to get this guy his job back?
Last three comments,
- No relation to Ray Cornielson
- I think Tony Haut and Mike Loos worked on the NEO front, in conjucntion with NETS officers
- I'm not sure what the status is of Mike Loos - other than the fact he resigned. I expect he certainly could apply for a new position with the city - if he so desired. He resigned, but his position/department was also destined for elimination at the time.
Ian,
Would you support the rehiring of Mike Loos back to the housing department under fire? And what about Tony Haut? Where's he at and how do you plan to get him envolved with the housing inspections program? I have heard nothing but good things about this guy.
Anon. 7:13,
I think both deserve consideration, we will have to see if opportunities exist during the budget process for NEO additions.
We know more on this in the coming weeks. Thanks for the post.
To Whom It May Concern:
We think your problem with Tony Lahood will be rampant if he isn't contained. Someone do a public record search on him. Spend the dough to find out how many lives and businesses he has destroyed in Peoria, Illinois. Do not take him lightly. He is corrupt, and will bring any organization down with his rhetoric. Walk up and ask him why he isn't in Peoria anymore. Do not let this man damage your public offices or your community.
Post a Comment
<< Home