By Jim Bliesner
Civic San Diego (Civic SD) has recently been holding community dialogue sessions facilitated by Cheryl Phelps and its new Director Reese Jarrett, both veterans of community and economic development in San Diego.
The first session was inclusive and allowed input. The second event featured a panel of downtown experts with limited community engagement. The third will happen at the City Heights library (3795 Fairmount Ave) on January 8 at 5:30PM.
According to the announcement “On January 8, 2015, Civic San Diego will hold a third convening regarding its new initiative to create a broad-based collaborative network of stakeholders to inform the development of our Community Benefits goals. This convening will introduce the online engagement platform where, over the next several weeks, stakeholders will be able to share their interests, collaborate to evolve ideas, and identify and prioritize shared values for their neighborhoods.”
The process will result in some goals and values from the perspective of Civic SD. People in those neighborhoods might have a different idea in mind and see the need for some serious negotiations.
The community dialogue was prompted by a City Council directive to Civic SD to develop a “community benefits” agreement with the affected communities. The neighborhoods in question basically encompass the City Heights and the greater Encanto areas.
These areas were previously designated “redevelopment areas” under state law which based the designation on findings of “blight”. The primary strategy used by redevelopment agencies to correct blight has been traditionally “build new things”.
Under this strategy the Southeastern area got an industrial park and a new shopping center while City Heights got two six story office buildings, a shopping center along with community benefits like a library, recreation center covered by philanthropy (Price Charities).
A good deal of affordable housing was also subsidized by redevelopment funds. There were many, many smaller projects and improvements but fundamentally redevelopment meant structural enhancement. And then Governor Brown erased the law.
Of course the redevelopment agency, over time, had accumulated a large trove of contracts, properties, loans, etc. When the law was erased the State took over these assets and has been systematically picking through them and deciding which would be returned to the local agency designated by the City to manage those assets.
The State kept the revenue and largely erased its deficit with it. The cities scrambled to decide how to manage the trickle down assets and fund some form of ongoing community revitalization effort in the “blighted “communities”. San Diego turned it over to Civic San Diego and non-profit subsidiary governed by an appointed board.
Its purpose and function and funding have been a topic of conversation and discourse ever since. The latest has been the efforts to fashion a so called “community benefits agreement”.
The discussion, perhaps by habit, perhaps by design has centered on …..buildings. What do you (the neighborhoods) want built, where and how can it be funded? The agency functions largely on funds provided by the City which would otherwise be used for other things that the City does.
Those funds are fairly tight and a source of tension between ongoing City services and Civic SD. Only two council districts, maybe part of a third, are covered by the agency while other council districts (and the Mayor) look longingly at the use of those funds in their districts. The funds are not generally dedicated funds for this purpose but rather discretionary and therefore accessible throughout the City. Developers, of course, would like access with as few “benefits” required as possible including where the projects get built.
Civic San Diego is in a unique position to design the future of these neighborhoods. Its board is motivated and percolating with sometimes conflicting goals and visions.
Then there are the neighborhoods themselves and their own visions of the future. Many of those have already been documented and are part of a library of plans, visions, design guidelines, ordinances, sitting on shelves in living rooms and agencies for a good number of years now.
Each redevelopment area was guided by “plans” which involved a great deal of community thinking and focus groups etc. Each community is also guided by City approved community plans which govern land use as well as define aspirations for the future all assembled by inspiring charrettes, design focus groups and visioning exercises paid for with hundreds of thousands of consultant dollars.
Veteran community activists have been through countless intrigues between neighbors over the size of streets, park locations, density bonuses, street repairs, commercial district designs, etc. Many plaques hang on many walls from community efforts at design and planning.
One must ask, what has become of those in the benefits discussion? Are we starting from zero or can it be said…”do the things in those plans and tell us which will happen when”? If the plan is old, rewrite it.
Ideas don’t change much over decades on how to improve our neighborhoods and what constitutes livable. Of course most of those plans also equate community revitalization with new buildings. If you stay within that framework the details of a “benefits agreement” are available, just sift through them and summarize.
What about the people?
There is another way to think about “benefit” and it is based on the capacity of the agency to improve the stark economic conditions under which many residents of these neighborhoods exist in today’s economic environment.
Economic development is more than new buildings. It is about addressing conditions which create opportunity and potential for residents. For example in a recent study done by UCSD Urban Studies students the existence of a functioning, large, cross cultural informal economy exists and is part of the daily lives of about 80% of City Heights residents.
People need second jobs and need to shop outside of formal business structures to make ends meet. And of those people engaging the informal economy nearly half do it to access FOOD. Informal systems of food preparation and distribution are part of people’s everyday existence.
What is true in City Heights is probably true if not exaggerated in the Southeast area. One of the basic phenomena is how housing is part of this informal economy. What does that mean? It means people either rent out rooms or rent rooms to have a roof over their heads. Rents are high. The cost of buying has again risen just beyond average incomes. Building on the capacities of those with businesses on the side can grow the area economy and create a possible tenant for the building which in many cases with new development now goes vacant.
Or another consideration: there’s a new game in town. It’s called “global warming”. Our neighborhoods are not healthy. The air is bad and in many cases centered on new development, traffic and schools. The City has a new climate action plan designed to address that. But, it is not funded to any significant degree.
The state has set aside cap and trade funds for affordable housing in transit zones. They have set aside funds for urban forests in low income communities as well. The opportunity for Civic San Diego to jump-start the climate action plan, target and seed systematic plantings is large.
Even further there is the matter of food, healthy food. Walking through the new El Super grocery store in City Heights I noted how half the items being sold are sugar based, soda, candy, and chips. The whole cereal aisle is filled with sugar coated cereal.The fruits and vegetables stacked in bulging cardboard boxes are soft and brown and expensive.
Outside those walls people are engaged in building an alternative food system. Vacant lots are becoming community gardens, not from some esoteric back to nature effort, but rather from financial hardship, aka food disparity.
Civic San Diego has the mantle of addressing economic conditions and would do well to systematically look past new buildings to the economic architecture of people’s needs. Food systems should be examined, mapped and quantified and sources of equity to enhance those systems are needed.
Civic San Diego has the opportunity to redefine community benefit by developing an understanding and funding the emergence of the informal economy, designing and systematically funding he environmental resurgence of our neighborhoods and by addressing food disparity and food systems. The design of its new equity capital fund can include these efforts by balancing capital driven efforts with human oriented efforts (social capital).
Jim Bliesner
Latest posts by Jim Bliesner (see all)
- Ed Ruscha ‘Then and Now’ Opens at Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego - February 5, 2016
- Civic San Diego and Community Benefits Agreements: The Need for Project Specific Focus - January 28, 2015
- How Will Civic San Diego Serve Neighborhoods? - January 5, 2015
Hey, Jim, I was really glad to see this inasmuch as it seems to me that the areas known as “affected communities” within the community benefits program haven’t seen much affordable housing taking root. But… what ARE those affected communities? Are they basically City Heights and Encanto? When you say that community benefits awards from the State of California “are not generally dedicated funds for this purpose but rather discretionary and therefore accessible throughout the City” I’m made to wonder if so-called blighted areas are the program’s exclusive targets.
For instance, I’d like to see the upper corridor of Park Boulevard south of Washington get some attention. Considerable numbers of aging single-story and two-story lath and plaster structures could be replaced with affordable housing; the neighborhood even features a huge vacant lot used only for Christmas tree sales, once a year. AND it sits alongside the MTS Trolley. The neighborhood offers an opportunity to do some good for a population that already uses the neighborhood to bed down at night.
In a comment below, in response to Jim Bliesner’s article on Civic San Diego I made the mistake of calling a newly installed express busline on Park Boulevard a trolley line. It only appears to be one, but it does serve to illustrate how transportation improvements foster denser urban neighborhoods.
I believe the old redevelopment rules about areas selected based on the income of the residents ie. the majority of residents in a census tract must be low income. Not sure what the data is for the Park Blvd extension but sounds like it could use some activity for sure.
Jim, you are quite right in noting that redevelopment has concentrated on the built environment, the social environment not so much (if at all). This should come as no surprise to us- it is developers who wield the power of the redevelopment process. One of the ways they exercise that power is to create institutional (political) cover for doing end runs around the planning process. We are seeing that institutional cover firmly in place with the election of Kevin Faulconer.
Unless communities become engaged on a sustained basis, it will be this group- developers–who will ultimately define what “community benefit” means. They will say that 100’s of community leaders and residents attended their meetings, that CivicSD listened and made judicious decisions in our best interests as a result.
I am providing an English translation for CivicSD’s outreach effort…
CivicSD: “This convening will introduce the online engagement platform where, over the next several weeks, stakeholders will be able to share their interests, collaborate to evolve ideas, and identify and prioritize shared values for their neighborhoods.”
English translation: This is a Public Relations tour. This appointed body, freed from City Council (ie citizen) oversight has gotten wind that some of the “stakeholders” aren’t convinced that that CivicSD will function in the citizens’ interest and are concerned that it will operate with minimal transparency and accountability.
Civic San Diego just missed the deadline on December 31, 2014 to publish online the City of San Diego Successor Housing Entity’s to the former RDA, Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF) Annual Financial Report (AFR) including unencumbered Reserves and Excess Cash Surplus.
tinyurl.com/20141208c
As of June 30, 2014 there was $281 million in LMIHAF Assets that have yet to be disclosed.
THE POTENTIAL TO BUNDLE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF FINANCING TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY BENEFITS IS HUGE i.e.YOUR EXAMPLE. THE DESIRE AND THE IMPETUS MUST EMERGE FROM THESE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS TO REALLY ATTEMPT TO BUILD A MULTIFACETED REVENUE STREAM THAT CAN ADJUST TO UNIQUE AND EVOLVING COMMUNITY NEEDS.
After the setbacks suffered by Propositions B and C at the ballot box, and the removal of redevelopment funds from our community as well, why isn’t Barrio Logan included in the Community Benefits program by Civic San Diego?
Based upon US Census Tracks data, Barrio Logan is a Severely Distress Neighborhood therefore, Civic San Diego should include Barrio Logan for New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) funding and for a Community Benefits program.
The annual $180 million in Redevelopment cash is till coming into our communities, but instead of being used on Enforceable Obligation (EO), Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule ROPS-7 projects ,or to pay back the $78 + $144 million in HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) debt for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program income that could be used for infrastructure and homeless; the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) cash is being liquidated for the benefit of the City, County, and Schools General Funds. So far $382 million in Cash of the former Redevelopment Agency has been diverted to Pension Reserves and pay raises instead of neighborhood infrastructure. And will be for the next 20 years.
http://tinyurl.com/20141021a
http://tinyurl.com/20140728a
I am a founding board member and volunteer with Groundwork San Diego, a not for profit charged with the Chollas Creek Watershed; reclamation, restoration, community asset not cement trough understanding. I have little faith in any “vision” Civic San Diego has for Southeastern. Many of the staff and members seem pre-disposed to cramming in more affordable housing without regard for social or economic conditions, period. Anna’s comment about a public relations tour is so apt; community plan updates awaiting approval are not dynamic, reflective of community input and look like more paper on the shelf. In my view, what has been presented lacks imagination in design, finance, community benefit; nothing 21st century for sure. It is depressing as hell to think after all the years of community involvement at city hall and in the neighborhoods we seem destined for more of the same tired ideas, the same re-tread people/leadership types, and the same pretend “we’re listening” to the neighborhoods BS. Thanks, Jim, for a great article that illuminates the “process” of listening to the community. It needed to be said.
The old CCDC, now Civic San Diego, use to say it would be illegal to spend Redevelopment Property Tax Increment (TI) on infrastructure, job training, Homeless, and anything but their Administrative staff and “Brick and Mortar” projects. Of course this was a lie. Civic San Diego staff stated that since the downtown area already has streets, sidewalks, and underground utilities, it would be illegal to maintain or replace existing improvements, and TI money could only be used in areas that did not already have infrastructure.
Although Federal HUD New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) existing since the 1990, it was only in 2012 after the end of Redevelopment, that Civic San Diego applied to be a Community Development Entity (CDE), which requires the non-profit to use at least 51% of their Revenue for the poor in target low income eligible United States Census Tracks. Prior Civic San Diego spent money on luxury condominiums and hotels therefore could not apply to NMTC as a CDE.
Google NMTC map for area in San Diego where the Federal HUD funds can be used. Park Boulevard at University Avenue is the western boundary for eligible and severely distress neighborhoods, therefore NMTC could be used for public improvements in streets and sidewalks.
http://www.novoco.com/new_markets/resources/map2_popup.php
Job training, employment opportunities, access to good schools and education options, childcare options, housing financing availability across income spectrums, access to affordable quality healthy food choices, safe and secure neighborhoods, envionmentally safe neighborhoods, open space options, to name a few community benefits.
La Playa and Charles;
People tend to think of many of these things as social services and therefore not under the aegis of a reformed redevelopment agency. The task is to analyse methods and financing structures that generate revenue and therefore able to pay off debt such as bonds, loans, etc. The public uses of Community reinvestment Act funds from banks have shown how this can work for the overall community benefit. That sort of analysis would be very useful for CIVIC SD going forward and added to their already competent staff.
Being naive myself about also this financial doublespeak, so how does Civic San Diego expect feedback on community benefits? The social services are what is needed so how can infrastructure and buildings bring the services that the community wants and needs into existence? Given most folks don’t understand the financing language you and others discuss how can simple speak work in the community so that we can understand exactly what Civic SD wants from the community in terms of information?
Charles;
Perhaps you can get that question answered at the upcoming community event mentioned in the above article. Good question but only they can answer that one.
Excellent article, Jim. …well thought out, well researched, a CALL FOR ACTION in all respects.
About the “City Fathers” condoning all, including Civic San Diego’s choice of operations is simply, SAME OLD, SAME OLD!. The “haves” keep having and the rest of us “have-nots” get “atole con el dedo” mere diluted crumbs.
It is no wonder that Civic San Diego puts together a panel of downtown burrocrats who have always looked out to keep their jobs not serving our communities but for self-serving preservation to afford all the basic life needs that so many of our community members do not have. Give me a break….an online system for community input?!!! Whatever happened to community meetings?!
Some of you asked, why not Barrio Logan. I say that business is as usual. Why Encanto and City Heights only? City Heights because it has a live activists and its CDC. Encanto, because it has political advocates and it’s within a brand new City Council District (D9). Why was Encanto allowed to split away from the Southeast Community Planning Group to create its own planning group? The answer is Geroge Stevens, its councilman at the time. However when Barrio Logan and other communities tried to separate from the Southeast Community Planning group to become the Greater Logan Heights Community Planning Group, it was shot down. Do you know that Barrio logan does NOT have a community planning group nor belongs to the Southeast Community Planning Group. It has virtually no political voice. It used to be “controlled” as some people may say, by Rachel Ortiz from the Barrio Youth Station. One voice by one person! But guess what, the Barrio Youth Station is closing down.
Why Encanto again now? It’s because its political advocates again, “Cheryl Phelps and its new Director Reese Jarrett, both veterans of community and economic development in San Diego” and Councilperson. Let’s not forget that Jarrett made his “development” money from Redevelopment in eastern Southeast Sand Diego (east of I-15). Don’t get me wrong. Encanto deserves to be included. So do Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, Grant Hill, Memorial, Shelltown and all other communities between I-5 and I-15 , east of 805 and south of SR 94.
Back to what are buildings without people? Why would infrastructure be improved if not for the use of people? How are people lacking funds for basic life’s necessities be using buildings that do not serve their basic survival needs. How are our youths in these communities thrive in life when recreation services have been trumpt and the City charges an arm and a leg for youth to participate in organized City Rec leagues?
I ask again, “Do we need Civic San Diego to call the shots for our underserved communities, or do we need active, responsible advocates heading the City Council seats?”
Remy
Current Bilingual Education and Mild/Moderate Education Specialist and Community Activist
Former staff to 3 SD Mayors, CCDC, SEDC, City Planning Department, SANDAG SDCounty Board of Supervisors, Governor Office(Gov. Brown’s first term)
Barrio Logan finally has a planning group. First meeting is January 20 at 6pm at Woodbury School of Architecture.
Where did you hear that Barrio Station is closing down? I had not heard that.