<%BANNER%>

Equitable Development Tools to Mitigate Residential Displacement due to Gentrification

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024084/00001

Material Information

Title: Equitable Development Tools to Mitigate Residential Displacement due to Gentrification Case Studies of Three Atlanta Neighborhoods
Physical Description: 1 online resource (118 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mertz, Kaycee
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: atlanta, displacement, gentrification
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Gentrification, caused by cycles of disinvestment and reinvestment in urban neighborhoods, is characterized by significant demographic and socioeconomic changes in a community?s population often resulting in the displacement of longtime residents due to rising property taxes or rents or more forceful measures such as demolition or condominium conversion. In Atlanta neighborhoods, gentrification can be attributed to pre-Olympic infrastructure improvements and beautification, the HOPE IV housing program, and concern for urban sprawl as well as its resulting traffic congestion and poor air quality. The BeltLine, a planned transit and greenway loop around the city promises to revitalize and possibly gentrify Atlanta neighborhoods. Resident participation in local planning, grassroots advocates for anti-displacement policies, and planning documents in support of equitable development are all required to protect communities from negative consequences of gentrification. This study examines the City of Atlanta and three case study neighborhoods: the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District (MLKHD), Reynoldstown, and Inman Park. Survey, interview, and policy evaluation methodologies are employed to examine how residents and community groups shape planning and development in their neighborhoods to mitigate displacement and uncover local policies and neighborhood planning efforts aimed at retaining longtime residents. Surveys of active community group members demonstrate their awareness and concern for gentrification in their neighborhood and their level of participation in neighborhood planning. Interviews with community leaders and urban planners provide insight into the activities of community development corporations, advocacy groups, and local government agencies in preventing displacement through affordable housing programs and anti-displacement policies. Evaluation of the Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASAP) and various adopted neighborhood plans reveals the existing framework of equitable development tools and strategies at work in the case study neighborhoods. The presence of active community development corporations and adopted neighborhood plans offer proactive means to stabilize longtime residents in neighborhoods anticipating gentrification. Residents involved in the planning process and affordable housing advocacy promote anti-displacement policies. Based on analysis of plans and survey and interview findings, several recommendations are made to the City of Atlanta and the case study neighborhoods to more effectively mitigate displacement. Inclusionary zoning, community land trusts, and rent control policies should be strongly advocated to local government by community groups before the new transportation network, known as the BeltLine, is fully completed. CDCs should use caution when building market-rate housing and ownership units and focus on the goal of affordability and anti-displacement strategies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kaycee Mertz.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024084:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024084/00001

Material Information

Title: Equitable Development Tools to Mitigate Residential Displacement due to Gentrification Case Studies of Three Atlanta Neighborhoods
Physical Description: 1 online resource (118 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mertz, Kaycee
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: atlanta, displacement, gentrification
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Gentrification, caused by cycles of disinvestment and reinvestment in urban neighborhoods, is characterized by significant demographic and socioeconomic changes in a community?s population often resulting in the displacement of longtime residents due to rising property taxes or rents or more forceful measures such as demolition or condominium conversion. In Atlanta neighborhoods, gentrification can be attributed to pre-Olympic infrastructure improvements and beautification, the HOPE IV housing program, and concern for urban sprawl as well as its resulting traffic congestion and poor air quality. The BeltLine, a planned transit and greenway loop around the city promises to revitalize and possibly gentrify Atlanta neighborhoods. Resident participation in local planning, grassroots advocates for anti-displacement policies, and planning documents in support of equitable development are all required to protect communities from negative consequences of gentrification. This study examines the City of Atlanta and three case study neighborhoods: the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District (MLKHD), Reynoldstown, and Inman Park. Survey, interview, and policy evaluation methodologies are employed to examine how residents and community groups shape planning and development in their neighborhoods to mitigate displacement and uncover local policies and neighborhood planning efforts aimed at retaining longtime residents. Surveys of active community group members demonstrate their awareness and concern for gentrification in their neighborhood and their level of participation in neighborhood planning. Interviews with community leaders and urban planners provide insight into the activities of community development corporations, advocacy groups, and local government agencies in preventing displacement through affordable housing programs and anti-displacement policies. Evaluation of the Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASAP) and various adopted neighborhood plans reveals the existing framework of equitable development tools and strategies at work in the case study neighborhoods. The presence of active community development corporations and adopted neighborhood plans offer proactive means to stabilize longtime residents in neighborhoods anticipating gentrification. Residents involved in the planning process and affordable housing advocacy promote anti-displacement policies. Based on analysis of plans and survey and interview findings, several recommendations are made to the City of Atlanta and the case study neighborhoods to more effectively mitigate displacement. Inclusionary zoning, community land trusts, and rent control policies should be strongly advocated to local government by community groups before the new transportation network, known as the BeltLine, is fully completed. CDCs should use caution when building market-rate housing and ownership units and focus on the goal of affordability and anti-displacement strategies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kaycee Mertz.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0024084:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS TO MITIGATE RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT DUE TO GENTRIFICATION: CASE STUDIE S OF THREE ATLANTA NEIGHBORHOODS By KAYCEE ELIZABETH MERTZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Kaycee Elizabeth Mertz

PAGE 3

3 To Ryan, whose enthusiasm for life and dedi cation to academics continue to inspire me

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and forem ost, I thank my committee chair, Dr. Kristin Larsen for her dedication and valuable advisement during the development of th is thesis and for inspiring me to explore the topic of gentrification in her hous ing course. Her numerous rounds of edits have encouraged me to think about my research in new ways. I also thank committee member Dr. Ruth Steiner for providing her insight and unique perspective. This research would not be possible without th e participation of the residents of the MLK Historic District, Reynoldstown and Inman Park I thank the members of South Old Fourth Ward Neighbors, Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League, and Inman Park Neighborhood Association for welcoming me at their neighborh ood meetings and sharing their experiences with me. Joan Garner, Historic District Development Corporation President, and Natallie Keiser, Reynoldstown Revitalization Corpora tion Chief of Staff, as well as planning staff at the City of Atlanta deserve special thanks for their time and valuable insight. My fellow thesis group members deserve big tha nks for sharing the joy and stress of the thesis journey. I also thank Chad Granger for bei ng my official Atlanta to ur guide and for sitting with me through those long, evening planning mee tings. Finally, I woul d like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents and fam ily members for their continued support and encouragement throughout my academic career.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................10LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 11ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14Why Study Gentrification?..................................................................................................... 14Gentrification in Atlanta.........................................................................................................14Equitable Development as a Solution..................................................................................... 16Overview of Study..................................................................................................................172 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................19Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........19Historical Context............................................................................................................. ......19Definitions..............................................................................................................................21Causes of Gentrification.........................................................................................................24Supply-Side Causes.........................................................................................................24Demand-SideCauses.......................................................................................................26Consequences of Gentrification.............................................................................................. 26Management of Gentrification................................................................................................ 29Affordable Housing Policies and Programs.................................................................... 29Inclusionary Zoning.........................................................................................................30Urban Infill................................................................................................................... ...30Community Land Trusts.................................................................................................. 32Grassroots Activism and Co mmunity Organizations......................................................32Introduction to Atlanta............................................................................................................33Evidence of Gentrification..............................................................................................34Atlantas Reaction........................................................................................................... 34Anti-Displacement Struggles at the Local Level.................................................................... 353 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 37Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........37Research Question........................................................................................................... 37Assumptions.................................................................................................................... 38

PAGE 6

6 Methods and Case Study Protocol.......................................................................................... 38Research Design..............................................................................................................39Case Selection.................................................................................................................40Data Sources....................................................................................................................44Guidelines for Analysis........................................................................................................ ..454 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......50The City of Atlanta............................................................................................................ .....50Introduction................................................................................................................... ..50Interview Findings...........................................................................................................51NPU system and citizen planners............................................................................. 51Policy tools...............................................................................................................52Atlanta Strategic Action Plan.......................................................................................... 52Housing policies.......................................................................................................52Historic preservation policies...................................................................................53Transportation policies.............................................................................................53The Atlanta BeltLine and Affordable Housing............................................................... 54Other Findings.................................................................................................................55City of Atlanta Conclusions............................................................................................55The Martin Luther King Jr. Historic District.......................................................................... 56Introduction................................................................................................................... ..56Historic and cultural significance.............................................................................56Planning and community organizations...................................................................58Survey Findings...............................................................................................................59Neighborhood concern.............................................................................................59Response to concerns............................................................................................... 60Community participation.......................................................................................... 61Impact of new development.....................................................................................61Impact of community groups and government........................................................ 62Appreciative Inquiry................................................................................................ 62Concern for displacement......................................................................................... 62Comments about partic ipation in planning.............................................................. 63Interview Findings...........................................................................................................63HDDC-inspired revitalization.................................................................................. 63Active role in addressing displacement.................................................................... 63Advocacy and collaboration with other organizations............................................. 64Planning for the future..............................................................................................65Old Fourth Ward Master Plan......................................................................................... 65Housing and economic development recommendations..........................................66Land use recommendations...................................................................................... 67Butler-Auburn Redevelopment Plan............................................................................... 69Public involvement...................................................................................................69Goals and objectives.................................................................................................70Redevelopment and implementation........................................................................ 71MLKHD Conclusions...................................................................................................... 72

PAGE 7

7 Existing conditions................................................................................................... 72Community collaboration.........................................................................................72Equitable development tools.................................................................................... 73Reynoldstown.........................................................................................................................74Background......................................................................................................................74Neighborhood history...............................................................................................74Gentrification and displacement...............................................................................74Survey Findings...............................................................................................................75Neighborhood concern.............................................................................................75Reaction to concerns................................................................................................76Community participation.......................................................................................... 77Impact of new development.....................................................................................77Impact of community groups and government........................................................ 78Appreciative inquiry.................................................................................................78Concern for displacement......................................................................................... 78Participation in planning..........................................................................................79Interview Findings...........................................................................................................79Role of RRC as a CDC.............................................................................................79Planning and advocacy initiatives............................................................................ 80RCIL and community involvement.......................................................................... 82Reynoldstown Master Plan.............................................................................................. 83Goals and objectives.................................................................................................83Public involvement...................................................................................................84Reynoldstown Conclusion...............................................................................................84Inman Park..............................................................................................................................85Background Information................................................................................................. 85Survey Findings...............................................................................................................86Neighborhood concerns and reaction....................................................................... 86Community involvement.......................................................................................... 87Impact of new development.....................................................................................87Impact of community groups and government........................................................ 87Concern for displacement......................................................................................... 88Interview Findings...........................................................................................................88Inman Park Conclusion................................................................................................... 89Findings Conclusion............................................................................................................ ...895 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMME NDATIONS................................................................. 96Equitable Development Evaluation........................................................................................ 97Evaluation of Principles..................................................................................................97Evaluation of Tools.........................................................................................................99Equitable Development Recommendations............................................................................ 99Implications for Planning and O pportunities for Future Research....................................... 102

PAGE 8

8 APPENDIX INTERDISCIPLINARY REVI EW BOARD MATERIALS .............................. 110LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................115BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................118

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Preliminary indicators of gentrifying neighborhoods........................................................463-2 Candidate neighborhoods a nd neighborhood planning units............................................. 464-1 Summary of organizatio ns and planning documents......................................................... 925-1 PolicyLinks guiding principles for neighborhood equitable development and relevance to Atlanta......................................................................................................... 1055-2 PolicyLinks guiding principles for regiona l equitable development and relevance to Atlanta..............................................................................................................................1065-3 PolicyLinks tools for equitable development and application in Atlanta....................... 107

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Units............................................................................... 47 3-2 Neighborhood Planning Unit M......................................................................................... 48 3.3 Neighborhood Planning Unit N......................................................................................... 49 4-1 The Atlanta BeltLine....................................................................................................... ...93 4-2 Southeast Atlanta BeltLine................................................................................................ 94 4-3 Northeast Atlanta. BeltLine............................................................................................... 95

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADA Atlanta Development Authority AHA Atlanta Housing Authority AHAND Atlanta Housing Associati on of Neighborhood-based Developers AMI Area median income ASAP Atlanta Strategic Action Plan BAHAB BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board BAHTF BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund CDC Community development corporation CLT Community Land Trust CRP Community redevelopment plan GSTAND Georgia State Trade Association of Nonprofit Developers HDDC Historic District Development Corporation HOPE Home-ownership Opportunities for People Everywhere HUD Department of Housi ng and Urban Development IPNA Inman Park Neighborhood Association MLKHD Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District NPU Neighborhood planning unit OFW Old Fourth Ward RCIL Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League RRC Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation SEABA South East Atlanta Business Association SOFWN South Old Fourth Ward Neighbors

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS TO MITIGATE RESIDENTIAL DISPLACMENT DUE TO GENTRIFICATION: CASE STUDIE S OF THREE ATLANTA NEIGHBORHOODS By Kaycee E. Mertz December 2008 Chair: Kristin Larsen Cochair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning Gentrification, caused by cy cles of disinvestment a nd reinvestment in urban neighborhoods, is characterized by significant de mographic and socioeconomic changes in a communitys population often resulting in the di splacement of longtime residents due to rising property taxes or rents or more forceful measures such as demolition or condominium conversion. In Atlanta neighbor hoods, gentrification can be attributed to pre-Olympic infrastructure improvements and beautification, the HOPE IV housing program, and concern for urban sprawl as well as its resulting traffic congestion and poor air qu ality. The BeltLine, a planned transit and greenway loop around the city promises to revitalize and possibly gentrify Atlanta neighborhoods. Resident pa rticipation in local planning, grassroots advocates for antidisplacement policies, and planning documents in support of equitable development are all required to protect communities from ne gative consequences of gentrification. This study examines the City of Atlanta and three case study neighborhoods: the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic District (MLKHD), Reynoldstown, and In man Park. Survey, interview, and policy evaluation methodolog ies are employed to examine how residents and community groups shape planning and development in thei r neighborhoods to mitigate displacement and

PAGE 13

13 uncover local policies and neighborhood planning efforts aimed at retaining longtime residents. Surveys of active community group members demonstrate their awaren ess and concern for gentrification in their neighbor hood and their level of particip ation in neighborhood planning. Interviews with community lead ers and urban planners provide insight into the activities of community development corporations, advocac y groups, and local government agencies in preventing displacement through affordable housi ng programs and anti-displacement policies. Evaluation of the Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASAP) and various ad opted neighborhood plans reveals the existing framework of equitable devel opment tools and strategies at work in the case study neighborhoods. The presence of active community developm ent corporations and adopted neighborhood plans offer proactive means to stabilize l ongtime residents in neighborhoods anticipating gentrification. Residents involved in the pl anning process and affordable housing advocacy promote anti-displacement policies. Based on an alysis of plans and survey and interview findings, several recommendations are made to the City of Atlanta and the case study neighborhoods to more effectively mitigate disp lacement. Inclusionary zoning, community land trusts, and rent control policies should be str ongly advocated to loca l government by community groups before the new transportation network, know n as the BeltLine, is fully completed. CDCs should use caution when building market-rate ho using and ownership units and focus on the goal of affordability and anti-d isplacement strategies.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Why Study Gentrification? Central city neighborhoods across the count ry periodically expe rience trends of disinvestm ent and reinvestment by public and priv ate entities in response to various local and global economic trends. Such cycles often result in redevelopment, increasing property values, and consequently the displacement of long-term low-income households (Smith, 1996). Aside from displacing residents to isolat ed suburban areas, gent rification often alters the cultural fabric of communities and hurts small local businesses. While gentrification can not necessarily be stopped or reversed, the implementation of equitable development tools can promote development that is fair to all who are affected and mitigate the potential for residential displacement (PolicyLink, 2008). The study of gentrification and residential disp lacement mitigation strate gies is crucial to the field of urban and regional planning. Redevelopment efforts may be guided and regulated by local government planners to ensure that entire communities benefit from investment dollars and are not disproportionately affected by gentrification or displacement. Neighborhood planning provides an opportunity for commun ities to create a vision for their neighborhood and influence future redevelopment. The results of this case study research are rele vant to planners and community leaders in Atlanta, as well as other cities facing similar pressures, who are working to create economic and social equity across the metropolitan region. Gentrification in Atlanta This study uses Policy L inks Equitable De velopment Toolkit (2008) as a model for evaluating the City of Atlantas efforts to reduce resi dential displacement due to gentrification, as well as the efforts of three sp ecific neighborhoods: the Martin Lu ther King Jr. Hist oric District

PAGE 15

15 (MLKHD), Reynoldstown, and Inman Park. These three neighborhoods exhibit the typical characteristics of Atlantas gent rifying areas, including: significant historic resources, proximity to downtown, access to transit, old industrial sites, and residential areas historically home to African-Americans. As typica l with gentrifying neighborhoods across the nation, the case study neighborhoods have experienced trends of disinvestment, and reinvestment throughout their history. The 1996 Summer Olympics hosted by Atlanta, spurred extensive redevelopment and reinvestment efforts in order to meet the city s goals of building sporting facilities, expanding transportation infrastructure, and setting a global stage for the games. The city established initiatives to reduce crime, beautify public spaces and bring the middle-class back to the central city, all of which contributed to the displacemen t of some lower-income residents. The federal governments HOPE VI program replaced trad itional public housing with mixed-income developments, resulting in the di rect displacement of many low-inco me tenants. In addition, the citys overall economic development efforts to bring businesses, residents, and tourists downtown have resulted in furthering the ge ntrification process (Levy, 2006; Kennedy and Leonard, 2001; Von Hoffman, 2003). The relevant literature concludes that each of the three neighborhoods in this study is facing the pressures of gentrification, albeit at varying levels (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001; Levy, 2006). Additionally, there is some disa greement among researchers and community members as to the extent of gentrification in the selected neighborhoods. Kennedy and Leonard (2001) and Levy (2006) agree that In man Park is mostly gentrified, and is further along in the gentrification process than the other case study neighborhoods. The researchers further conclude that Reynoldstown and the MLKHD are in early to mid stages of gentrification, which is exhibited by lower income levels (U.S. Census, 2000; City of Atlanta, 2007) and several recent

PAGE 16

16 developments catering to middle and upper inco me households. The assessment of the case study neighborhoods provides a chance to compar e and contrast techniques to address displacement employed at different stages of ge ntrification and in communities with varying priorities. Equitable Development as a Solution The nonprofit research engine, Policy Link (200 8), advocates equitable developm ent tools to ensure that the benefits of public and pr ivate investments are realized by the entire community, and particularly low-income families and racial minorities. It also supports full public participation by all community members in th e planning process. Policy Links Equitable Development Toolkit is a resource for grassr oots community leaders and local government planners to further their pursu it of social and economic equity at the neighborhood and regional levels. In this study, the toolkit is applie d to address residential displacement due to gentrification. Many of the equitable development tools focus on the production and preservation of affordable housing, providing affordable housing financing, increasing ownership opportunities, and reducing the risk of displacement by promoti ng the following types of polices and programs: rent control and private market regulation, inclusionary zoning, impact fees to bolster housing trust funds, community land trusts, community development corporations, and limited-equity ownership. Other tools protect locally-owned businesses and en sure that existing residents benefit from new commercial development by pr oviding local jobs and fi nancial resources for affordable housing and community organizations. In addition, the toolkit includes strategies for preserving neighborhood cultural an d historic institutions whil e planning for newcomers and embracing diversity. Ultimately, Policy Link promotes community-ownership, grassroots action,

PAGE 17

17 and advocacy for anti-gentrification policies at the local, regional, and state levels of government (Policy Link, 2008). Overview of Study Each of the case study neighborhoods has an active neighborhood association and has resident representatives in their respectiv e neighborhood planning units (NPUs). The NPU system acts as a citizen advi sory board by establishing communication between neighborhoods and the city planning department and by providing an opportunity for residents to review development proposals and zoning amendments. Furthermore, Reynoldstown and the MLKHD each have a community development corporation th at serves as an affordable housing provider for their neighborhood. At the city level, Atlanta created the, now defunc t, Gentrification Task Force to recommend policies and strategies to re duce the negative consequences of gentrification while encouraging economic developmen t (Gentrification Task Force, 2001). The neighborhood associations, NPU system, community development corporations, and the Gentrification Task Force have played parts in promoting affordable housing and equitable development in Atlanta. However, the fu ture of longtime residents in the case study neighborhoods is uncertain due to renewed interest in inner-city living and the citys newest planning project, the Beltline. The Beltline is a plan to utilize an abandoned railroad to create a 22-mile loop of transit and tra ils around the city. This holistic transportation and economic development plan is gaining public support by promising to provide multi-modal connections between neighborhoods and to create livable, transit-oriented, activity centers. As the Beltline project progresses through the pl anning and implementation stages, equitable development tools will be critical in preserving existing neighborhoods and mitigating displacement. Atlantas antigentrification efforts will be tested as the Beltline encourages new, high-end condominiums and commercial development.

PAGE 18

18 The next chapter reviews the relevant literature on the s ubjects of gentrification, equitable development practices, and planning and develo pment in Atlanta. The consensus of the literature is that grassroots community groups mu st effectively involve re sidents in the planning process and advocate anti-gentrif ication policy to incorporate e quitable development approaches for revitalizing cities. The third chapter describes the studys methodology. Resident surveys and interviews with community leaders and pl anners reveal the type s of grassroots, antidisplacement efforts employed in each neighbor hood. The evaluation of neighborhood plans, Atlantas Strategic Action Plan reveal local polic es and strategies that shape redevelopment in the gentrifying communities. The results of th is assessment are summarized in the fourth chapter. The fifth and final chapter compares th ese results to Policy Links model for equitable development and makes recommendations for fu ture local policies to meet the needs of gentrifying communities as well as suggests actions for grassroots, anti-displacement advocates.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Several m ethods of minimizing displacement due to gentrification are documented in the academic literature. This chapter begins with an historical overview of occurrences of gentrification in cities due to local and global trends. Then, definitions of gentrification, displacement, equitable development, and relate d terms are provided. Th e causes and effects of gentrification are discussed, includ ing relevant debates about its relationship to displacement. Strategies to manage the nega tive effects of gentrification ar e addressed, with emphasis on the role of local governments and community organi zations. This chapter concludes with an introduction to the City of Atlant as experiences with gentrification and strategies that attempt to mitigate the process. Historical Context Sociologist, Ruth Glass, first used the term gentrification in the 1960s to describe changes in L ondon neighborhoods, in which weal thy newcomers (known as the gentry) were redeveloping low-income rental housing units resulting in the displacement of original residents. Several economic and social conditions lead to the gentrification process in central London. Post World War II London was characterized by incr eased consumerism, mass production of goods, more use of private automobiles, smaller households, and greater in comes. As incomes rose and household sizes shrank, competition for space in the central city caused increasing land values. Amendments to the 1947 Planning Act relaxed rent control and land value regulation, which furthered inflated housing costs. Wealthy newcomers bought and rehabilitated working class homes, eventually leaving only small pockets of homes affordable for the working class (Glass, 1989).

PAGE 20

20 Although some believe it is a modern phenom enon, gentrification has been occurring in cities across the globe for hundreds of years. Some of the early examples of gentrification occurred during the mid-19th century, particularly in Paris and London. These early examples were exceptions to the normal urban trends of the time and happened so sporadically that they were mostly unheard of (Smith, 1996). In Paris, the process was termed embourgeoisement, meaning the rise of the bourgeoisie, or middle and upper classes (Smith, 1996). George s-Eugene Haussmann, under the direction of Napoleon III, was responsible for Pariss modern transformation. In an effort to reduce congestion, Haussmann built wide boulevards lined with luxurious buildings for the purpose of uniting the city and opening flow between the many isolated neighborhoods, demolishing working-class areas along the way. He had hoped that the poor, displaced residents would leave the central city; however, the new boulevards actually resulted in th e persistent presence of the poor on the streets, as their nei ghborhoods were no longer isolated from the rest of the city. The grand boulevards lined with street lamps and shops gave birth to a culture of cafes, strolling, and window-shopping. Haussmanns Paris reflected the periods growing global trends of capitalism and consumerism (Rice, 1997). Similar events occurring in London became known as the improvements. New urban development cut through the working-class neigh borhoods of the central city, resulting in these areas becoming populated by the bourgeoisie. The purpose of the new development was to bring commerce back to the central cit y, improve the aesthetics of the city, improve public health, and manage traffic. However, they also resulted in residential displacement of the working class (Smith, 1996)

PAGE 21

21 In U.S. cities, cycles of disinvestment and re investment since the late nineteenth century can be identified as precursors of modern gentrification trends. In New York City, the industrial economy and a massive influx of immigrants re sulted in a building boom, followed by a decline in development due to stricter tenement design standards and tight ened immigration policies. In 1929, the New York Regional Plan proposed a ne w vision for Manhattans Lower East Side, which brought hope for reinvestment. Th e plan was soon abandoned and capital for development left the city due to a string of events including: the stock market crash of 1929, the Great Depression, World War II, and post-war suburbanization. Between the 1930s and 1970s, a combination of slum-clearance, low-income housing projects, redlining, extreme poverty, and the abandonment of capital led to the disenfranchisement of poor and racial minority residents, especially those in the Lowe r East Side. During the 1970s and 1980s young middle-class whites and artists began entering these areas, sparking reinvestment yet again. This reinvestment, including condominium renovation, se t the stage for the violent clas h in Tompkins Square Park between police and anti-gentrification advocates in 1988 (Smith, 1996). Definitions Multip le definitions of gentrification exist in academic literature and vary depending on the authors perspective and the specific situat ions being addressed. Based on an individuals perspective, the term may be pol itically charged and spur contr oversy, or the term may represent positive growth and development. One standard definition characterizes gentrification as a transfer of power to a higher-income group that colludes against a lower-income group. A property-based definition empha sizes physical improvements, including renovated housing and infrastructure upgrades. Alternatively, the peopl e-based definition focuses on class and racial tensions and competition. Kennedy and Leonard (2001) combine these ideas to define gentrification as the process by which highe r income households di splace lower income

PAGE 22

22 residents of a neighborhood, changing the essentia l character and flavor of that neighborhood (p. 5). Their definition of gent rification requires three conditi ons to be met: displacement, physical improvements, and change in character. While Kennedy and Leonard (2001) focus on racial differences and displacement, Freeman and Braconi (2004) include in their defin ition differences in educational attainment and do not specify displacement as a required compone nt. In their study of New York City, Freeman and Braconi (2004) define gentrification as a dramatic sh ift in their [the neighborhoods] demographic composition toward better educated and more affluent residents (p. 39). Freeman compares and contrasts the defini tions of displacement used by ot her researchers, including Grier (1978) and Lee and Hodge (1984). Grier (1978) declares displacement occurs when compelling conditions force a resident from his or her home. The resident loses the ability to occupy the home because of price or hazardous conditions Freeman (2004) describes Lee and Hodges (1984) definition of displacement as the move ment of people by private action including abandonment, demolition, eviction, condominium conversion, mortgage default, and the termination of a rental cont ract (Freeman, 2004, p.41). The Gentrification Task Force of Atlanta (Task Force), a group of volunteer residents who make recommendations to the City Council on the subject of gentrification, views the phenomenon as a residential renaissance that results in a more vibrant city and economy but also harms certain portions of the population (Gentrif ication Task Force, 2001). The Task Force (2001) uses the following as a working definition of gentrification: An increase in property values resulting from development that often increases economic tensions and displacement of low income home owners and renters of all age groups within the neighborhood as well as resu lts in a change in the char acter of the neighborhood (p. 4).

PAGE 23

23 Wright (1995) defines displacement as devel opment that forces people to move from their current residence (p. 3). There are gene rally two types of disp lacement, direct and indirect. Direct displacement results from th e change in ownership or physical removal of occupied housing. Indirect displacement results from changing conditions, such as increased rent or property taxes, which make it una ffordable for current residents (Wright, 1995). Kennedy and Leonard (2001) make distincti ons between gentrification, revitalization, and reinvestment. Revitalizati on consists of physica l improvements, businesses development, increased employment, and reduced crime. Reinvestment is simply the distribution of resources to a neighborhood for the purpose of upgrading the physical environment. According to these authors, revitalization and re investment do not necessarily result in gentrification. For gentrification to occur, displacement must result from higher-income residents moving into a neighborhood. Newcomers moving into previously vacant units or original residents moving for other reasons do not constitute displacement (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). The term equitable development describe s the process of in cluding all community members in local and regional planning and development activities to ensure that all people can benefit from economic growth happening in their community. The economic and social research institute, PolicyLink (2008), promotes policie s that encourage equitable development and focuses on the inclusion of low-income and racial minority communities. The idea of equity planning, derived in pa rt from advocacy planning, stems from the apparent failure of urban rene wal and other planning strategies to solve urban problems of poverty and disenfranchised citizens. Equity planners work within government to affect social justice and economic redistribution with the goal to increase the amount of choices for housing, transportation, and employment in communities a nd encourage participation of disadvantaged

PAGE 24

24 residents (Metzger, 1996). Krumholz (1990), who is an advocate of equity planning and known for his work in Cleveland, describes equity plan ning as the mobilization of planners to advocate for low-income residents instead of the busine ss community, to promote traditional democracy, and to create opportunities fo r the disadvantaged. Causes of Gentrification The literature contains many opposing argum ents about the causes of gentrification that can be categorized as supply-side and demand-si de arguments. Supply-side arguments are based on the idea that the conditions of a neighbor hood create an environment vulnerable to gentrification. Alternatively, de mand-side arguments suggest condi tions that create a class of gentrifiers are the leading cause s of gentrification (Martin, 2003). In these arguments, supply refers to the supply of housing ava ilable to gentrifiers and demand refers to the demand for this housing by the gentrifiers. Supply-Side Causes Supply-side conditions that m a y trigger gentrification includ e: prior disinvestment in neighborhoods, housing market and financing ch anges, housing redevelopment through public programs, major public or private investment s in the physical environment, anti-sprawl initiatives, and initiatives to deconcentrate poverty. In the 1990s, changes occurred in the housing finance industry, that increased the availa bility of mortgages and promoted fair lending practices. Inner-city neighborhoods which once witnessed white flight and abandonment due to suburbanization and redlining became a stage for gentrification due to new interest from investors. Lenders returned to these formerly redlined neighborhoods in search of untapped profit potential (Wyl y and Hammel, 1999). Wyly and Hammel (1999) suggest that the Home-ownership Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI, a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

PAGE 25

25 (HUD), has created conditions favoring gentri fication in urban ne ighborhoods. HOPE VI combines redevelopment and dispersal strategies to eliminate the ills of traditional public housing in inner-city neighborhoods. The program replaces older public housing units with lower-density, mixed-income housing and offers housing vouchers for people to use in other locations. HOPE VI presents opportunities for rede velopment that were not previously available, and creates an environment that accommodate s gentrification (Wyl y and Hammel, 1999; Kennedy and Leonard, 2001; Freeman 2004). Local governments often try to redirect new de velopment to central cities in order to reduce sprawl and spur economic growth. Attrac ting wealthier households to central cities can also deconcentrate poverty in ur ban neighborhoods. Tax incentiv es for homebuyers in centralcity areas and credits for historic preservation have resulted in more middle and higher income households in cities such as Atlanta, Clev eland, and Washington, D.C. Kennedy and Leonard (2001) note that Empowerment Zones have a simila r effect. Center-city job growth and local economic development initiatives in central -city neighborhoods may also contribute to gentrification. Physical improvement s such as public transit, c onvention centers, or other civic spaces attract attention to local businesses and th e amenities of urban living as well as cause land values to rise (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Cevero and Landis (1995) and Cevero and Duncan (2002) study the impacts of public transit improvements on commercial and residentia l land values. Rail stations can cause a 23% to 120% increase in land value and cause develo pment to cluster. In Atlanta, MARTA rail stations serve commercial propert ies with improved connectivity while the city tends to promote denser development in these areas (Nelson, 1999). In their study of Santa Clara California, Cevero and Duncan (2002) find that land values are positively impacted when located within a

PAGE 26

26 quarter of a mile of a transit station, are lo cated near a large empl oyed population, and contain service industry employment as well as a mix of office and retail land uses. Neighborhoods that have faced a long trend of disinvestment and low property values in the past, may feel the pressures of gentrificatio n in the future as capital moves back into the neighborhood. Disinvestment in central city neighborhoods is often considered an initial condition that creates a supply of inexpens ive property (Freeman, 2004), but additional conditions that create a demand for the neighborhood must be present for gentrification to occur. Demand-Side Causes Demand-side causes of gentrification include : desire for culture and urban amenities, increasing cost and length of commuting, and rise in income for middle and upper income households. Growth in information and creative industries also contributes to gentrification. These industries have a tendency to locate in cen tral business districts and employ people who share characteristics with gentri fiers (Freeman, 2004). Members of the creative class, successful, educated workers in technology a nd knowledge-based industries, are often drawn to urban life. Additionally, creative industries tend to locate in vibrant, urban areas that have public transit access, notable architecture, unique culture, diverse residents and businesses, and historic and civic landmarks. Young professionals, empty-nest ers, artists, and gay and lesbians are also attracted to urban lifestyles and amenities. Thes e groups tend to replace less wealthy residents in an on-going cycle (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Consequences of Gentrification Freeman (2004) discusses some consequences of gentrification that ma y be beneficial to the community. Gentrification spurs the return of middle income and professional households to the central city instead of furt hering suburbanization and sprawl, l ong-term trends that reflect the desire of professionals to escape congestion, i ndustrial pollution, and slums. Another positive

PAGE 27

27 outcome is increased tax revenue, a benefit to city governments for capital improvements. Central-city governments, in particular, may have fiscal problems due to the concentration of low-income residents who pay relatively less in taxes and consume relatively more public services. Also, new residents may stimulate reta il activity, may have more political influence, and may advocate for better public services. Gentrification can also offer an opport unity to encourage racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic integration in the community and in school districts. Al ternatively, some argue that the presence of gentrifiers who have different values and lifestyles can cause conflict between newcomers and original residents. Als o, as residents become displaced, the remaining community loses important networks and culture, leading to the destruction of social capital (Freeman, 2004). Residential displacement is the most discu ssed and debated result of gentrification. Urban residents may be displaced during gentri fication in several ways: increasing rents, increasing property taxes, harassment by landlo rds or developers, condominium conversion, or land use changes. As property va lues rise and the environment changes, landlords may decide to convert multi-family units to single-family residences, or may convert to commercial use. Homeowners and businesses may be displaced from their gentrifying neighborhood if they are unable to follow new building codes or land development regulations imposed on the area due to redevelopment initiatives. Also, the designation of a historic landm ark or historic district may result in additional regulations that homeowners and businesses cannot afford to meet (Wright, 1995). According to Freemans (2004) research of gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City, displacement may occur between neighborhoods or within the same neighborhood. However, as

PAGE 28

28 affordable units become less available during th e gentrification process, low-income residents have fewer options for staying in the neighborhood (Freeman, 2004; Newman 2006). As gentrifiers move into previously abandoned housing units, the re maining affordable stock for new low-income residents diminishes. This proc ess, called exclusionary displacement, does not directly displace existing residents, but it dimi nishes the potential affordable housing stock for new and existing low-income residents (Newma n, 2006). This finding supports the position that local governments should continue to maintain affordable units in gentrifying neighborhoods as well as seek new opportunities for affordability. Tenants of public housing may be able to en joy the benefits of gentrification without displacement since public housing reflects permanent affordability in the gentrifying community. Conversely, residents of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects may be displaced if the developer leaves the LIHTC program when the required time period expires, especially if land values are rising and the site becomes more pr ofitable (Freeman, 2004). Local business displacement is anothe r potentially negative consequence of gentrification. Small businesses that offer goods a nd services marketed towa rd original residents may be at risk if the new population does not support the business or brings in new competing businesses. As a result, business owners and workers may lose their jobs and leave the neighborhood or have to commute farther to a ne w job. New retail may be more specialized and not serve the original residents as much as the ge ntrifiers. Alternativel y, a change in the retail mix may be beneficial to the community. For in stance, newcomers may include banks or stores that offer healthier food options. A change in the mix of employers may also be beneficial, as it may create new job opportunities for long-time residents (PolicyLink, 2008).

PAGE 29

29 Management of Gentrification No measures can be taken to completely halt the gentrification process, as it is mostly a reaction to housing and employment markets (Policing Crowds, 2007). Additionally, efforts should not be focused on halting gentrification, but instead controlling the process and making it work for the community (PolicyLink, 2008). A ccording to Smith (2007), while gentrification results from global urban trends and the global movement of capi tal, it must be addressed by local action working to help orig inal residents benefit from the changes in their neighborhoods. In other words, local anti-gentrification advocates must manipulate the gentrification process to create opportunities for the existing residents to abate displacement, unemployment, and the loss of crucial social serv ices. According to PolicyLink (2008) the appropriate response by local governments should be to maximize the benefits of gentrification while minimizing the negative consequences to the communitys original resi dents. This process may be addressed using equitable development tools (PolicyLink, 2008). Affordable Housing Policies and Programs Many rightfully argue that a downside to public housing is that it traps low-income households in declining neighborhoods (Freeman, 2004). However, as gentrification occurs and housing costs rise, public housing may be viewed in a different light by allowing low-income households to remain in their neighborhood as it improves (Freeman, 2004). Several methods can protect original residents fr om being displaced due to risi ng housing costs in a gentrifying neighborhood. Preserving the existing afford able housing stock and ensuring that more affordable housing will be developed as the co mmunity grows is essential. Programs may be developed to allow homeowners to d eal with increasing property taxe s or pressures to sell. Also, as gentrification occurs, building code enforcemen t may be used as a tool to remove original residents in order to make way for new deve lopment. New programs assist low-income

PAGE 30

30 homeowners in renovating or updating their homes in accordance with zoning and building codes (Rose, 2001). Inclusionary Zoning The affordable housing stock can be mainta ined by implementing in clusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning requires that a share of all new housing devel opment is affordable to low or moderate income households. Developers may be required to reserve a portion of their projects housing for low to moderate income residents or contribute money to a housing trust fund that the city or responsible agency will use to build affordable uni ts (PolicyLink, 2008). According to Schwartz (2006), the small public cost make s inclusionary zoning an attractive method of affordable housing production. Schwartz (2006) asserts that inclusionary zoning results in producing a greater number of afford able units, especially when th e rate of new construction is high. Its dependency on the housing market de monstrates that incl usionary zoning can potentially manage gentrification in a neighborhood undergoing redevelopment. Urban Infill Offering incentives to developers to bu ild infill housing in central-city neighborhoods may result in more affordable housing, a more livab le urban environment essential to residents health, and the implementation of Smart Growth principles and good urban design (APA, 2005). The reuse of vacant lots may assist in reduci ng blight and in increasing the amount of housing units near employment centers, which also reli eves congestion. Also, urban infill development allows a communitys population to grow, which in turn attracts more local-serving retail (PolicyLink, 2008). Density bonuses may be granted as an incenti ve to develop on an infill site, by allowing the developer to build at a gr eater density than zoning and ot her land use regulations would normally permit. Consequently, the cost per un it of housing is lower, and the developer may

PAGE 31

31 pass along savings to consumers. Additionally, if a higher density allows more units to be built, and inclusionary zoning is in effect, the devel oper is required to rese rve a greater number of housing units for low to moderate income households. Furthermore, by combining urban infill, density bonuses, and inclusionary zoning strategies, more affordable housing units may be in close proximity to transit and employment centers. Residents proximity to essential services and commercial destinations reduces their transportati on costs and therefore cost of living, which in turn reduces their likelihood of displacement (PolicyLink, 2008). Newman and Wyly (2006) suggest that the benefits from density bonuses (or upzoning) should be captured by the public and used to finance affordable housing units. Value-Capture of Transit Improvements Cevero and Landis (1995) and Cevero and D uncan (2002) purport that governm ent should receive an equitable share of the increases in private propertys value arising from public sector investments. Value-capture programs allow government to fund tran sit construction and operation, finance transit-oriented development, or initiate infrastructu re efforts that make private development possible. Methods of va lue-capture include la nd acquisition and jointdevelopment projects in which public and privat e resources are used for a development that benefits both sectors. Some tran sit agencies acquire parcels near future station sites that they later lease to private businesses. In Wash ington, D.C., the Washi ngton Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) entered a joint de velopment partnership to build a passageway between a transit station and a shopping mall. Th e mall benefits from better connectivity and the transit authority benefits from increased riders hip and fares. WMATA collected about twenty million dollars from lease agreements.

PAGE 32

32 Community Land Trusts Community land trusts are nonprofit organizations that acqui re and organize parcels of land and develop or preserve them for a use that benefits a spec ific goal of the community, such as affordable housing, open space, recreation, or cultural activities. At the neighborhood level, a community land trust may secure parcels in a gent rifying area to use for affordable housing in order to prevent the displacement of residents. The non-profit organization may raise funds to build new units on the land or rehabilita te existing units (PolicyLink, 2008). Levy, Comey, and Padilla (2006) agree that a community land trust can be an effective tool for reducing displacement by gaining contro l over land and housing prices. However, from her case study research of multiple cities, Levy (2006) assert s that the land trust is more effective as a preventative tool in the ea rly stages of gentrification when prices are low and parcels are easy to acquire. Grassroots Activism and Community Organizations Smith (2007) asserts that tenant collectives and ne ighborhood councils should be mobilized against gentrification at the local level. The major role of these local organizations should be to take responsibility for neighborhood housing issues. They should also work to influence anti-gentrification legislation at the state and federal levels as well as local policy addressing rent-control and public housing. Since gentrification is linked to larger, global trends, local anti-gentrification groups s hould foster connections between activists at regional, national and even global levels. They s hould also partner with other soci al justice movements, since the right to affordable housing is an is sue of social justice (Smith, 2007).

PAGE 33

33 Introduction to Atlanta The City of Atlanta offers a prime example of a city facing gentri fication and vast urban infill and redevelopment. Severa l of Atlantas central city ne ighborhoods have felt the pressures of gentrification since the 1990s. These pressures followed a pe riod of time in which more housing and jobs were leaving the city for the subu rbs and the central city was in overall decline. Some of the factors triggering the gentrification process incl ude: the 1996 Summer Olympics, HOPE VI housing development, policy initiatives to encourage central city redevelopment, concern for urban sprawl, and overall economic prosperity in the metr opolitan region (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). More specifically, a tax abatement progr am initiated in the 1980s encouraged the development of new office space, some of which has recently been converted into residential loft space. One developer in particular, Post Propertie s, has been responsible for leading an increase in market-rate housing within the central city as opposed to th e suburbs. This trend reflects concern over Atlantans lengthening daily commute and its direct li nk to diminishing air quality. In the year prior to the Olympics, city and stat e officials made it a priority to reduce crime and beautify Atlantas streets and neighborhoods in anticipation of world-wide media coverage. Unfortunately, some residents of affordable hous ing units in the downtown area were displaced to make way for Olympic facilities (Levy, 2006) In addition, the Atlanta Renaissance Policy Boards initiatives to attract a larger middle-clas s contributed to gentrifi cation as the organization strived to better sustain the economy after the 1996 Summer Ol ympics (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). HOPE VI and Empowerment Zones also played a part in gentrifying Atlanta neighborhoods by spurring public investment in urban neighborhoods and displacing public housing tenants (NeighborWorks, 2004).

PAGE 34

34 Evidence of Gentrification Atlantas gentrifying nei ghborhoods are typically those su rrounding the capitol building and near Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Au thority (MARTA) stati ons. Specifically, the neighborhoods of Inman Park, Kirkwood, Reynolds town, Cabbagetown, and the Martin Luther King Historic District have experienced obvious gentrification. These neighborhoods attract gentrifiers because they are centrally locate d, have multi-modal transportation access, and contain historic bungalows and Victorian-er a homes (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Before gentrification began in these areas, housing prices were relatively low compared to the rest of the metropolitan region. Low prices paired with uni que architecture and redevelopment incentives caused a renewed interest in the central city by developers and newcomers. Since the year 2000, single-family home prices in the Kirkwood neighborhood have more than doubled due to rehabilitation, and the selling price of vacant lo ts have increased by as much as 600% (Levy, 2006). In Kirkwood and Reynoldstown, both histor ically African-American neighborhoods in east Atlanta, the newcomers consist of mostly whites and homosexuals. The differences between the lifestyles of the new and or iginal residents have caused some tension and consequently, some church leaders have spoken out against the presence of homosexuality in their neighborhoods (Levy, 2006). Although changes are obviously occu rring, no evidence exists that any forced displacement has occurred in Kirkwood, in part due to the high percentage of homeowners among original residents. Also, the abundance of vacant lots allows new development to occur without destroying existing homes (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Atlantas Reaction The City of Atlanta has long been aware of the gentrification pressu res on its historic neighborhoods. In the 1970s, the city establishe d neighborhood planning units (NPUs) that are

PAGE 35

35 responsible for gathering public opinion about planning and z oning amendments in order to better meet the needs of individual neighborhoods The NPUs link citizens to their city government and promote public participation; howe ver their effectiveness in actually inspiring local community development is unclear (NeighborWorks, 2005). Acting as citizen advisory boards, the NPUs make recommendations to Ci ty Council about development proposals, zoning changes, and plan amendments. Developers often present their pr oposals first to the neighborhood association, then to the larger NPU. Board member s have the opportunity to vote on these issues as well as dr aft conditions for approval (City of Atlanta, 2008). Community leaders in the Reynoldstown neighborhood created the Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation (RRC) to assist homeown ers in rehabilitating th eir properties and to produce more affordable housing units. They al so participate in other community building activities such as organizing an annual festival, working to reduce crime, and initiating beautification projects. The goal of these efforts is to reduce the chance of original residents being displaced while still encouraging new growth (Levy, 2006). In 2001, the City of Atlanta cr eated a Gentrification Task For ce, which advised the city to adopt additional policies to en courage the preservation and pr oduction of affordable housing units for very low and extremely low income hous eholds. The Affordable Housing Task Force, created the following year, adopted policies to promote workforce housing, or affordable housing for low to middle income households. The task force also promoted the use of inclusionary zoning in the city (Levy, 2006). Anti-Displacement Struggles at the Local Level According to the literature, gentrification results from local trends of disinvestment and reinvestment as well as the movement of globa l capital (Smith, 1996). The negative effects, particularly residential displacement, are most effectively tackled at the local level using

PAGE 36

36 neighborhood organizations to influence policy and address the need for affordable housing (Smith, 1996; Levy, 2006). Local governments s hould use the equitable development approach to evaluate redevelopment plans, specifically the distribution of the plans costs and benefits, and take public input into special consideration (PolicyLink, 2008; Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). This study explores the efforts and eff ectiveness of local government planners, neighborhood organizations, community developm ent corporations, and the NPU system in reducing residential displacement due to gentrifica tion. It also assesses the relationship between citizen groups and their city gove rnment as a method of encouragi ng anti-gentrifica tion policies. Based on this studys findings, recommendations for improving the efforts of Atlanta neighborhoods and for creating lo cal policies that pr otect neighborhoods from gentrification are made. The next chapter describes the sele ction of case study neighborhoods and research methods utilized in this study, including surveys, interviews, and policy evaluation, to determine existing, local, anti-displacement efforts.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Introduction Regarding the prevention of residential displa cem ent, key literature reveals the importance of local housing and development policies and the involvement of residents and community groups in the planning process. Therefore, th is study evaluates the existing policy framework and the grassroots activity aimed at mitigating gent rification in Atlanta. This chapter outlines the research questions, process of selecting neighborhood case studies, sources of information, and finally, guidelines for analyzing the collected information. Research Question This study focuses on lo cal efforts to mitigat e displacement, particularly adopted city policies and community initiatives. The following research questions address anti-displacement efforts in the case study neighborhoods: How do citizens, community organizations, and local government planners collaborate to promote equitable development in select Atlanta neighborhoods? Furthermore, how do local and neighborhood pl anning documents assist longtime residents experience the benefits of gentrification w ithout displacement? What kinds of local policies and programs are currently in place to prevent displacement? What types of local policies and strategies can be employed to increase their effectiveness in mitigating displacement? A case study research strategy is used in conjunction with interview and survey data collection methods to conduct this study. The units of analysis are three neighborhoods within the City of Atlanta, Georgia. The neighborhood se lection process is desc ribed later, along with further discussion about th e research strategy.

PAGE 38

38 Assumptions Posing these particular questi ons assumes that gentrification results in the displacement of long-term residents, and this displacement is an unfavorable event for the neighborhoods in this study. As discussed in the literature opposing arguments exist concerning whether residential displacement directly results from ge ntrification. However, fo r the purpose of this study, displacement is a defining characteristic of gentrification (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001; Smith, 1996; Wright, 1995). Further, Atlantas Gentrification Task Force (2001) identifies displacement due to gentrification as a critical issue for low-in come renters and homeowners in the city. The other major assumption associated with the research questio ns concerns equitable development as an effective strategy for abating residential displacement, an approach validated by PolicyLink (2008). PolicyLinks (2008) model for equitable development promotes policies and strategies that address economic hardships and social injustices that often arise from disinvestment and reinvestment in urban nei ghborhoods. This national think tank specifically addresses residential displacement due to gentrifi cation as a problem that is manageable using equitable development tools. Methods and Case Study Protocol This methodology involves surveys, interviews and plan and policy review to examine the anti-gentrification efforts of Atlanta nei ghborhoods compared to Policy Links Equitable Development Toolkit. Specifically, this review identifies methods of mitigating displacement including affordable housing innovations and pol icy positions for community advocates. The remainder of this chapter describes the research strategy used for this study, the case selection process, data sources, protocol for interviews and surveys, and guidelines for analyzing the findings.

PAGE 39

39 Research Design A multi-case study strategy is employed here because the findings from multiple cases will produce stronger evidence regarding the achievem ents of local anti-gentrification efforts. Studies with multiple cases are considered mo re robust and reliable, since one unique case cannot skew the findings. The findings from each cas e will either point to similar conclusions or contrasting conclusions due to different neighborhood conditions (Yin, 2003). An embedded case study design, which consider s multiple dimensions within each case, is utilized for this research instead of a ho listic design, which examines only one dimension and is less complex (Yin, 2003). For the purpose of this study, the unit of analysis is the neighborhood level. Additionally, multiple dimensions of the neighborhood are examined to provide a more advanced understanding of displ acement within the context of gentrification. These dimensions include: Grassroots anti-displacement awareness and activism; Public participation in the planning process; Successful community development efforts by community groups, nonprofit organizations, and local government; Community group, nonprofit organization, and local government e fforts to provide decent, affordable housing to resident s at risk of displacement; An established policy framework that facilitates or discourages gentrification; The implementation of neighborhood plans that shape new development for the benefit of existing residents as well as accommodating new growth; and Other planning efforts at the city or ne ighborhood level that demonstrate equitable development or that address residentia l displacement due to gentrification. Each of the aforementioned dimensions can provide valuable data a bout the gentrification process occurring within the neighborhood and local e fforts, or lack thereof, to retain original residents.

PAGE 40

40 Case Selection As mentioned previously, th e major unit of analysis is at the neighborhood level, specifically three neighborhoods within the City of Atlanta. Atlant a has been selected due to its history of disinvestment and re investment in its central ci ty, which, in conjunction with significant economic growth and urban sprawl, has created disparity between new and old residents and between neighborhoods (Kennedy a nd Leonard, 2001; Levy, 2006). As indicated in the literature review, the city has attempted to address gentrification issues by creating the Gentrification Task Force. The city has al so developed Neighborhood Planning Units (NPU) to promote citizen involvement and connections between community residents and the local government planners. The creation of the Task Force and NPUs suggest that some effort to manage gentrification has been initiated, maki ng Atlanta an ideal case study for evaluating displacement-reduction strategies. The Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASA P), which acts as the citys 20-year comprehensive plan, divides the city into tw enty-five NPUs, each of which contain multiple neighborhoods (Figure 3-1) (City of Atlanta, 2007). Yin (2003) suggests that when starting out with twenty to thirty candidates, the pool can be narrowed down by colle cting initial data or gathering information from a few people who are in formed about the cases. He advises that the data for the screening process be simple and easy to obtain. Theref ore, data already assembled in recent studies will provide guidance for case selec tion. Candidate cases are chosen based on the following three criteria: 1. Evidence of gentrification 2. Evidence of community concern about residential displacement 3. Presence of an active community organization, or some level of grassroots advocacy effort.

PAGE 41

41 To answer the question of how communities and planners work to solve displacement, the selected cases should demonstrat e all three criteria. The literature and planning documents provide substantial descriptions and data tables for the first two criteria. Case studies in the literature point to information about the third criterion. Data describing demographic, economic, and housing stock changes at the NPU level are available in the ASAP. The plan document also provides the Census tract numbers of each NPU, allowing access to a variety of time-series data. In their case study of gentrification in New York City neighborhoods, Freeman and Braconi (2004) select th eir neighborhoods using a simple quantita tive data analysis. They collect four measures of neighborhood change that indicate gent rification as the values increase. These indicators are: percentage of wh ite residents, percentage of college graduates, median household income, and median monthly rent (Freeman a nd Braconi, 2004). Freeman and Braconis (2004) indicators are used in this study to select case neighborhoods that exhi bit signs of gentrification. Census data between the years 1990 and 2000, th e two most recent Census years, provide the data for these four indicators. Table 3-1 show s the four highest values of each indicator. The highest value of percent change in the number of white resi dents occurs in NPU M (5%), followed by H (3%), N (2%), and W (2%). The highest value of percent change in residents with college degrees occurs in NPU D (22%), followed by N (9%), M (3%), and W (3%). The NPU with the greatest percent increase in median income is L (116%), followed by M (105%), D (74%), and W (76%). The NPU with the greatest percent increase in median rent is M (142%), followed by A (124%), C (104%), and N (103%). NPU M is ranked in the top four highest positions for each of the four indicators; N a nd W ranked in the top f our for three of the

PAGE 42

42 indicators, which suggests that th ey exhibit characteristics of gent rifying communities. The case neighborhoods should be selected from one or all of these top-ranked NPUs. Because they include case studies of ge ntrification in Atlanta, Kennedy and Leonard (2001) and Levy (2006) provide informed analysis that supplements my application of the process Freeman and Braconi (2004) use. In particular, the literature mentions the neighborhoods of Reynoldstown, Inman Park, Gran t Park, Candler Park, East Lake, Kirkwood, MLKHD, and Cabbagetown. Table 3-2 demons trates the relationship between these neighborhoods and the citys NPU designations. Most of the neighborhoods discussed in the literature are located east of Downtown, cl ustered between the M, N, and W NPUs. Each of these neighborhoods has experien ced varying levels of gentrification and residential displacement. Kennedy and Leonard ( 2006) state that Inman Park began gentrifying over twenty years ago; Levy (2006) describes the neighborhood as cons isting of mostly upperincome, white residents. Therefore, Inman Park appears to be in th e later stage of gentrification. Kennedy and Leonard (2001) note that Grant Park, Kirkwood, East Lake, and Candler Park have begun the process within the past few years (p. 52), meaning that they began the process about a decade ago. Additionally, Levy (2006) confirms that Cabbagetown has already completely gentrified. The city does not officially recognize the MLKHD as a neighborhood; however, it is consistently mentioned in the l iterature and has an active comm unity development corporation. The historic district is located in the southern part of the Old Fourth Ward (OFW) neighborhood, which is in NPU M. The histor ic district would be an ideal candidate for this study due its successful efforts in retaining control over re ntal units and assisti ng low-income, elderly residents so that they can remain in place (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Kennedy and Leonard

PAGE 43

43 describe the MLKHD as ripe for gentrificatio n (p. 52) and an example of controlled revitalization without displacement (p. 50) due to the efforts of th e Historic District Development Corporation (HDDC), a community development corporation dedicated to improving the housing stock and preven ting displacement in the MLKHD. Levy (2006) describes Reynoldstown as being in the early to mid-stages of gentrification, while Kennedy and Leonard (2001) consider it r ipe for gentrification (p. 52). Also, the Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation (RRC) is known for its efforts in affordable housing production initiatives and community development efforts focused on reducing displacement. Levy (2006) notes that due to recent devel opment activity, the neighborhood must balance investment with strategies for maintaining equity (Levy, 2003). Based on the neighborhood data and case study literature, the final selections are as follows: Martin Luther King Hist oric District, NPU M Reynoldstown, NPU N Inman Park, NPU N The three case study neighborhoods reflect various neighborhood conditions and stages of gentrification, but all are experiencing pressures of displacement. Although Inman Park is in the more advanced stages of gentri fication, it still promises to pr ovide significan t insight about citizen planning since it has a very active ne ighborhood zoning committee that works to protect its significant historic resour ces and influence developers to conform to the communitys character. Each community is active in local government planning and preserving their respective neighborhoods thr ough extensive development review procedures.

PAGE 44

44 Data Sources Two primary sources of data are intervie w and survey responses. Interviews are conducted with primary informants whose job title or community leadership position ensures that he or she has unique perspectives and valuable a ccess to information. Interviews are designed to be open-ended conversations, allowing for flui d flow of thoughts guided by the research questions (Yin, 2003). Intervie wees include NPU planners w ho are employed by the city and represent the case neigh borhoods and directors or presidents of community organizations active in development or preservation activities. These informants can provide specific information about programs, policies, and strategies used at the grassroots and city le vels. People in these leadership positions are also more likely to offer insight regarding the neighborhoods future, in terms of housing needs and displacement trends. Additional questions that require input fr om a larger pool of neighborhood stakeholders are included in the resident surveys. Surveys differ from interviews in that they are more structured; they may use open-ended questions in combination with multiple choice questions (Yin, 2003). Survey respondents include resident NPU representatives and residents who are active in their neighborhood associations and se rve on executive committees. These informants can provide residents perspectives of changing neighborhood conditions, such as housing affordability, and their desire and ability to re main, as well as their involvement and opinions about the success or failure of an ti-gentrification efforts. Interview and survey questions are found in the appendix of this document. Additional sources of information, including plans, documents, maps, and neighborhood statistical data, are used as secondary sources to substantiate, clarify, and elaborate on findings from the interviews and surveys. These source s uncover previous and exis ting anti-gentrification efforts at the neighborhood, city and state levels.

PAGE 45

45 Guidelines for Analysis All data collected for each case study is organized by neighborhood in order to easily compare and evaluate information. Findings fr om multiple sources of data and methods of collection should be triangulate d, in other words their meani ngs should converge to a common conclusion. Relating multiple theories from various relevant sources should also converge to similar conclusions. The triangulation of data a nd theories results in stronger, more reliable findings (Yin, 2003). Analysis of the case study neighborhoods is developed in two parts. To answer the research question (the extent to which equitable development is attempted), survey and interview findings are compared with Poli cyLinks (2008) principles and t ools for equitable development, including innovations in financ ing affordable housing, regulating the private market, reducing land speculation, and policy points for community advocates. Secondly, the evaluation of antidisplacement policies and planning documents are also compared to the equitable development model to determine the extent of Atlantas esta blished local anti-gentrifi cation policy framework. Survey results and statistical data are used to support and illustrate the descriptive evaluation of each case neighborhood. This chapter describes the process of case study selection, data coll ection, and guidelines for analyzing data to reach conclusions. Reynoldstown, MLKHD, and Inman Park are the chosen case studies based on the literature and socioeconomic changes over time. The three neighborhoods exemplify various stages of gent rification and various methods of responding to displacement pressures. Information about their anti-displacement efforts and involvement in the planning process are identified and evaluated using resident survey s, interviews with community leaders and planners, and evaluation of existi ng public policy and planning documents, all of which are explored in the following chapter.

PAGE 46

46 Table 3-1. Preliminary indicator s of gentrifying neighborhoods Percent Change 1990-2000 NPU White Residents Residents with College Degree Median Income Median Rent A -9% -1% 15% 124% B -7% 5% 60% 70% C -8% 5% 56% 104% D -4% 22% 74% 57% E -5% 6% 71% 59% F -1% 6% 65% 53% G 1% 1% 61% 29% H 3% 2% 33% -15% I 0% 3% 19% -43% J 1% 1% 51% -10% K 0% -1% 45% -4% L 1% 5% 116% 10% M 5% 8% 105% 142% N 2% 9% 71% 103% P -7% 3% 56% 66% R 0% -2% 18% -35% S -4% -1% 17% 11% T -1% -1% 34% -27% V 1% 1% 64% 17% W 2% 8% 76% 26% X -15% -2% 35% -18% Y -3% 2% 32% 36% Z 0% -1% 40% 7% Sources: US Census, 1990 and 2000; City of Atlanta, 2007 Table 3-2. Candidate neighborhoods and neighborhood planning units Neighborhood Name Neighborhood Planning Unit Inman Park N Grant Park W East Lake O Kirkwood O Candler Park N Cabbagetown N MLK Historic District M Reynoldstown N Source: City of Atlanta, 2007

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3-1. Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Un its. (Source: City of Atlanta, 2008)

PAGE 48

48 Figure 3-2. Neighborhood Planning Unit M. (Source: City of Atlanta).

PAGE 49

49 Figure 3.3. Neighborhood Planning Unit N. (Source: City of Atlanta).

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter discusses the findings based on an alysis of surveys, interviews, and policies and plans relevant to the case st udy neighborhoods and gentrification in the City of Atlanta. It begins with an evaluatio n of city-wide anti-displacement effort s and ways in which the local government is planning to address future gentrification. Next, each case study neighborhood is discussed, including findings a bout resident involvement, gr assroots activism, nonprofit groups, and neighborhood planning documents. All organi zations and planning documents evaluated in this study are listed in Table 4-1. In the follo wing chapter, these findings are compared to PolicyLinks equitable development model to ev aluate the successes and shortcomings of the city and each neighborhood in minimizing reside ntial displacement due to gentrification. The City of Atlanta Introduction This section contains findings from : an intervie w with a city staff planner, who is involved with the NPU system; goals, objectives, and policies of the Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASAP); and the BeltLine planning process. Atlant as NPU system allows residents to evaluate development proposals, plan amendments, and proposals for zoning changes then recommend that the City Council approve, de ny, or approve with specific c onditions. A city staff planner often assists the NPU board members during thei r meetings by providing technical advice about zoning and land use issues (City of Atlanta, 2008). The ASAP is Atlantas comprehensive plan, last updated in 2007, which directs the citys future growth and development. This research particularly focuses on ASAPs hou sing and historic preservation polic ies, as they are relevant to gentrification-related issues in the case study neighborhoods. The BeltLine is a long-range transit and greenway plan aimed at improving connectivity between in -town neighborhoods and

PAGE 51

51 promoting economic development (Figure 4-1). Th e future construction of 22 miles of light rail and greenways promises to impact development n ear transit stations, which may lead to further displacement of low-income households since major transit and trail improvements are planned for the case study neighborhoods (Figure 4-2 and Fi gure 4-3). BeltLine planning has encouraged an interest in preserving affordability in the neighborhoods adjacent to future stations, exemplified by the BeltLine Affordable Housi ng Trust Fund (BAHTF) and BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board (BAHAB), which are discussed later in this sec tion (BeltLine, 2008). Interview Findings NPU system and citiz en planners The City of Atlanta places a great deal of power in the hands of neighborhood residents through the NPU system. In addition to re viewing development proposals and rezoning proposals, these citizen planners have a chance to recommend that certain conditions be met in order for development requests to be approved. According to a city staff planner, these conditions drafted by NPUs are usually adopted as proposed. Sometimes planning staff assists NPU board members in drafting these conditions to improve clarity. For example, some NPUs establish limits on the am ount of electricity and water availa ble in new garages or accessory structures in order to prevent their use as dw ellings. The city provides zoning workshops for citizen planners to better unders tand their roles and the capabili ties of zoning (Principal Planner for the City of Atlanta, pers onal communication, September 19, 2008) Overall, the NPU system fosters community involvement in the planning process, increases awareness of development projects, and trains neighborhood leaders. A plan ner notes that, our NPUs can wield a lot of power when working with developers and getting the type of development they feel they should have in their neighborhoodOne of the [NPUs] greatest strengths is the dialog that [it] creates in the neighborhood [between] homeowners and developers and coming to a consensus [about

PAGE 52

52 development] (Principle Planner for the City of Atlanta, personal communication, September 19, 2008). Policy tools The citys Bureau of Housing and the Atlanta Developm ent Authority have recently worked on several pieces of legislation relevant to a ffordable housing and residential displacement including new supportive housing, and residential scal e policies. The city also uses affordable housing density bonuses to encourage below-market -rate units in new developments. Despite policy initiatives by the city to support affordable housing, the greatest challenge in mitigating displacement is simply the rising cost of land an d the burden of property ta xes (Principal Planner for the City of Atlanta, persona l communication, September 19, 2008). Atlanta Strategic Action Plan Housing policies ASAPs vision for housing in Atlanta is to encourage affordable, m ixed-income development, while preserving and enhanci ng existing neighborhoods with an emphasis on mixed-income housing in areas undergoing redevel opment. The vision also includes equitably distributed and priced housing th at meets the various needs of the city. The citys general housing policies promote rehabilitating existing dwellings and promoting new, mixed-income development near the BeltLine. More specifi cally, the plans low-income housing policies support financial assistance for re habilitating substandard homes, especially for low-income and special needs residents, helping them to a void displacement due to code enforcement. Conversely, the plan also promotes the aggressive demolition of substandard structures, which may unintentionally foster displacement.

PAGE 53

53 Historic preservation policies Historic preservation can also foster displacem ent by promoting property improvements and boosting property values. Increa sed values often mean increased taxes leading to residential displacement. The historic preservation section of ASAP reco mmends that several issues may need to be addressed in future plan updates, in cluding (1) guidelines for implementing policies in an equitable manner that does not adversely aff ect residents and (2) strategies for employing preservation to revitalize historic neighborhoods economies. The first recommendation demonstrates the citys unders tanding of the potentia l burden historic preservation may place on lower income households. Preservation polices should benefit the pub lic, but not create an undue burden on individuals, which is a cornerstone concept of equitable development. In the second recommendation, the city rec ognizes the powerful role that hi storic resources can play in revitalizing a neighborhoods ec onomy, such as the MLKHD, and encouraging business and tourism. However, this exploita tion of historic resources may cause property values to rise and lead to displacement. Transportation policies The transportation policies of ASAP stress the importance of MA RTA, the regional public transit provider, rail stations as centers of economic activity and multi-modal transportation, and therefore encourages projects th at improve the accessibili ty and visibility of these facilities as well as th e implementation of mixed-use zoning in adjacent areas. MARTA stations act as cornerstones of each of the case study neighborhoods, therefore physical improvements and public investments directly impact the neighborhood. Further, the Inman Park/Reynoldstown Station, located along the bo rder of these two neighborhoods, is surrounded by mostly single-family residences, which may be lost if the area were redeveloped to higher density and mixed-uses.

PAGE 54

54 The Atlanta BeltLine and Affordable Housing The Atlanta Developm ent Authority (ADA), the citys quasi-governmental economic development arm, has designated a 25-year tax allocation district (TAD) covering the BeltLine impact area. By 2031, the BeltLine TAD will have accumulated an estimated $1.7 billion for workforce housing, parks, trails, transit, public schools, and br ownfield remediation projects within the impact area. The City of Atlanta created the BAHTF, which collects 15% of TAD funds, for affordable housing development along the BeltLine (City of Atlanta Ordinance 05-O1733). Formed by ADA, BAHAB is charged with the task of making recommendations to ADA and the City of Atlanta for the use of trust fund dollars and coordina ting BeltLine affordable housing projects with other organizations through out the city (City of Atlanta Resolution 06O2699). According to BAHABs recommendations re port released in September 2008, trust fund money will be used for homeownership aid, th e purchase of land, and the construction and preservation of affordable housing units. Funds w ill be allocated to developers who apply to the ADA for proposed projects that m eet BAHAB guidelines. BAHT F will fund rental and owneroccupied units, as well as a mix of housing types and income targets, and a mix of new construction and rehabilitation to flexibly accommodate developers, housing options for residents, and balanced distribution of housi ng development. BAHFT projects will include rental housing for households earni ng up to 60% of area median income (AMI), but with a focus on households around 30% AMI, and a goal of 10% of all new units available to households earning below 30% AMI. Owner-occupied units will target households earning between 60% and 115% AMI. In compliance with state policy, rental units will remain affordable for thirty years. No clear requirements are in place to en sure affordability of owner-occupied units after resale by the original buyer (BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board, 2008).

PAGE 55

55 BAHAB recommends that the city and indi vidual communities form CLTs to ensure affordability is sustained beyond the BeltLine project s timeline. To show its commitment to this recommendation, the board promises priority to projects proposed within CLTs. A city ordinance to mandate inclusionary zoning throughout the city, not just within the BeltLine, is discussed in BAHABs report, although beyond th e scope of their recommendations for BAHTF use. Other supplementary recommendations incl ude: permanent state and city funding resources for affordable housing, mechanisms to extend affordability compliance terms, relief from property tax in gentrifying neighborhoods, and state and city polic ies to protect renters from unjust eviction (BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board, 2008). The final two recommendations are particularly relevant to the case study neighborhoods, as rising rents and property taxes become a financial burden leading to displacement. The remaining recommendations are relevant as well, but are more useful as l ong-term, proactive policy tools as opposed to measures for rescuing pote ntial victims of gentrification. Other Findings The State of Georgia imposes a real estate tr ansfer tax (RETT) on all real property sales at a rate based on the sale price. The revenues from these taxes are di stributed to the state government as well as to each city and county in wh ich the property is located (State of Georgia, 2005). Both the State of Georgia and the City of Atlanta direct these do llars to their general fund. In 1998, Georgia voters denied an increase in the RETT that would fund land acquisition for preservation of open space and wildlife. The r eal estate industry was a critical opponent to the bill (Saporta, 2008). City of Atlanta Conclusions Recent additions to th e citys policy fram ework relevant to affordable housing and displacement include supportive housing and residential scale legislat ion. The citys NPU

PAGE 56

56 system allows neighborhoods to in fluence the type of development they would like to see and create awareness among neighbors about planning issues. The ASAP expresses a vision of meeting the citys dynamic housing needs, eradicating blight, improving the value of historic properties, and enhancing the vitality of areas surrounding MA RTA rail stations. Policies supporting ASAPs vision may effectively preven t residential displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, but also encourag e revitalization and rising cost s of living. The BAHAB, which consists of local CDC staff and nonprofit develope rs among other city representatives, considers gentrification and displacement to be a critic al issue emerging from the BeltLine; their recommendations for policies and trust fund uses demonstrate thei r sensitivity to longtime, lowincome, urban dwellers and thei r dedication to local and statelevel housing advocacy. The next sections discuss the studys results pertaini ng to the MLKHD, Reynoldstown, and Inman Park neighborhoods. The Martin Luther King Jr. Historic District Introduction This section begins with background information about the MLKHD communitys history, its significance in African-American cultur e, and its role in the Civil Rights Movement, followed by an overview of current community or ganizations and planning initiatives in the neighborhood. Then, the results of resident su rveys and community leader interviews are revealed as well as a review of the relevant planning documents. Finally, conclusions about the planning efforts of various actor s in the MLKHD are presented. Historic and cultural significance The MLKHD is located in the southern por tion of Atlantas Old Fourth Ward (OFW) neighborhood and is adjacent to the Sweet A uburn neighborhood, and is most famously known as the birthplace and resting place of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. However, its historical and

PAGE 57

57 cultural significance is not limited to the work of one person; it represents one of the first African American business districts in the nation and is a reminder of the civ il rights activists who struggled for social change and created a vi brant community where Af rican-Americans had the opportunity to flourish economicall y, socially, and politically. Auburn Avenue, the districts principle east-west roadway, has a plethora of significant heritage sites, including the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King served as past or; clubs and entertainm ent venues that have hosted B.B. King and other great African-American entertainers; the home of the first AfricanAmerican radio station; and the Auburn Curb Ma rket, which dates back to 1924. These sites, and others, have been a magnet for tourists and th e focus of a recent heritage tourism initiative by the city. Despite the popular t ourist attractions in the district, many people still call Auburn Avenue and the MLKHD home (Urban Collage, In c, Huntley & Associates, Market & Main, 2005). During the mid-nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the area currently known and the Old Fourth Ward and the MLKHD attracted many African-Americans from various professions and socioeconomic statuses. Aubur n Avenue, in particular, became the center of Atlantas African-American community due to the number of religious and social institutions as well as African-American-owned businesses. Th e communitys spirit of entrepreneurship fostered many of todays successf ul institutions, including a na tional insurance company founded by a former slave. In the mid-twentieth centur y, the district began to function as a political center, as community leaders began informing and engaging other residents in political activism, particularly to gain voting and other civil rights. Unfortunately, at the time of the Civil Right Movement, the district began experiencing a de cline, similar to the decline of many urban neighborhoods in the U.S. at the time. The dist ricts decline occurred in part due to the

PAGE 58

58 movement of residents away from Auburn Avenue towards the Atlanta University Complex, and the construction of Interstate 75/85, which fragmented the east and west portions of the neighborhood. Additionally, as individuals mob ility options increased and suburbanization became common, more residents left the district for newly desegregat ed areas outside of the city (Urban Collage, Inc, et al., 2005). Planning and community organizations The communitys loss of population and co rresponding disinvestment resulted in a community plagued with blight by the late tw entieth century. To recognize its historic importance, the National Register of Historic Places designated the area as an historic district in 1974; since then, the historic district has been ex panded to include more of the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood and individual sites have received national and local designation. The Sweet Auburn Historic District MLKHDs neighbor to the west, received national designation in 1976. The National Park Service owns thirty-nine acres of open space and heritage landmarks in the MLKHD, which have attracted millions of visitors since 1980 (Urban Collage, Inc, et al., 2005). A group of volunteer residents began an or ganization called the Historic District Development Corporation (HDDC) in 1980 with a goal of revitalizi ng the MLKHD and Sweet Auburn neighborhoods. The HDDCs creation marked a turning point in the history of the community as a new phase of reinvestment began. Today, the HDDC is comprised of community leaders, professional business advi sors, and concerned residents who work to rehabilitate properties in the dist rict while preserving the historic character and diversity of the community (RRC Resources for Residents and Communities, n.d.). In preparation for the 1996 Olympics, the city showed a renewed interest in the revitalization of Auburn Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods, which materialized as the 1994 Butler-Auburn Community Redevelopment Plan. After little interest in implementing the

PAGE 59

59 plan, it was revisited for an upda te in 2005 due to market trends favoring in-town living (Urban Collage, Inc, et al., 2005). More recently, a planning project for th e entire OFW neighborhood was completed. Called the Old Fourth Ward Ma ster Plan, the City Council adopted it in September 2008. The master plan is the product of extensive public workshops and community visioning in response to new development pressure s and the anticipation of the BeltLine and its accompanying transportation-oriented developm ent (Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh & Associates, 2008). Survey Findings In order to examine resident perspectives of gentrification in th eir community, a survey invitation was delivered via ema il to fifty members of the South Old Fourth Ward Neighbors (SOFWN), a neighborhood associati on serving residents living in the southern section of the OFW, which includes the MLKHD. Of the fifty i nvited members, 18 (33.6%) participated in the survey. Some of the participants quit the survey early or skipped particular questions; therefore not all questions have 18 responses. Seventeen respondents are homeowners and one is a renter. The homeowners have lived in their current resi dences for an average of 4.7 years; three respondents have lived in their home for 10 years, which was the highest reported value. Of the 17 homeowners, only two have felt pressured to sell their homes; one because of high property taxes, and the other because of crime and drug activity. A third homeowner reported receiving offers for the sale of his home but plans on stayi ng. The single renter ha s lived in his home for three years and has not seen an increase in rent. Neighborhood concern When asked about concerns residents ha ve about their nei ghborhood, one respondent agrees that rents and ho me values are increasing too much; two agree that new or planned developments do not fit the existing community ch aracter; and two agree that new or planned

PAGE 60

60 developments do not serve the needs of the existing residents. When prompted for their greatest concern about the neighborhood, ten reported some aspect of public safety or criminal activity including the sale and use of drugs, which is the most popular answer. Three of these respondents also reported that they are concer ned about negligent or corrupt police. One respondent further commented that the physical improvements will not necessarily solve the neighborhoods crime problems but instead lead po lice to assume that conditions are improving, resulting in further negligence. Another popular response is concern a bout negligent landlords and abandoned properties that se rve as eye-sores and invite dr ug activity and ill egal squatters, again alluding to the public safety issue; one me ntioned a lack in code enforcement and another mentioned that property values are dropping. Thr ee other respondents feel that racial tensions, lack of cohesion among residents, and difficultly maintaining diversity in the neighborhood are significant problems. Two responde nts are concerned about the qua lity of education available for children, particularly at a nearby, underper forming elementary school. One respondent expresses concern for a lack of quality, affordab le housing that will result in few low-income residents being able to re main in the neighborhood. Response to concerns When asked what local governm ent and nei ghborhood organizations have done to solve problems that they are concerned with, four respondents referred to the recent OFW master planning process, which they feel addresses affordable housing preservation and some public safety issues as well as guides the design of fu ture development. The two respondents concerned with schools mentioned a new education committee in the NPU that, so far, has not had any visible impact, and a recent, failed attempt to open a new charter school. One respondent concerned with public safety mentioned that the formation of the Public Safety Committee has fostered relationships between residents and th e police. However, three respondents say that

PAGE 61

61 police are not doing anything to im prove the situation. Other respondents noted that they do not think city government has been effective in ad dressing their concerns, a nd despite the amount of neighborhood meetings, little is being accomplished. Community participation Seven respondents are involved with the NPU and nine are in volved with one or m ore of the OFW neighborhood associations. Other orga nizations represented by the respondents include the Freedom Park Conservancy (a nonprofit dedicated to maintaining the nearby Freedom Park), Score (a non-profit counseli ng service for businesses), neighborhood watch, Council of In-town Neighborhood Schools, a home owners association, and a public safety committee. Eleven of the respondents attend loca l neighborhood meetings or planning meetings and workshops at least once per month. Impact of new development In general, respondents f eel that recent de velopments in the neighborhood have a positive impact on the community, particularly new retail and restaurants, which received five mentions. Specifically, two respondents touted the walk ability of the new re tail and restaurant establishments; however, one noted that the ne w establishments are too expensive and do not include every-day necessities. Seven responde nts note that new apartments, condos, and high density residential development have had a positi ve effect on the community, particularly in cleaning up abandoned lots, lowering crime, and sparking interest in the neighborhood. However, one respondent disagrees with the desi gn of some of the new developments and feels the size of some single family homes is too larg e to conform to the exis ting character and scale of the neighborhood. Additionally, one respondent not ed that the existing, small, two-lane roads could not support new, high-density, apartments Finally, one responde nt notes that new development serves mostly singles and couples without children and feels that future

PAGE 62

62 development discussions should accommodate fam ilies by including parks, recreation facilities, and schools. Impact of community groups and government Four respon dents note that City Council re presentative, Kwanza Hall, has made a positive impact on the neighborhood due to his dedicatio n to the OFW planning process and support of the neighborhood associations. One respondent has witnessed positive impacts made by tax abatement programs that encourage infill development and the renovation of abandoned properties. Other notable responses incl ude: the non-profit Trees Atlanta planting and maintaining trees, the US Department of the Inte rior for maintaining the MLK National Historic District, and grant money for sidewalks. Appreciative Inquiry When asked about involvem ent in neighbor hood improvement projects about which the respondents were particularly proud, nine noted neighborhood clean up events. One particular respondent mentioned that ten years ago, unlike today, the neighbors were not concerned about the garbage that filled the streets. Two respondents are proud of their work in grant writing for the neighborhood, which contributed toward th e community garden, a neighborhood block party, and a beautification project. Another respondent is proud of his work in fostering relationships with the police department and other city depa rtments. Additional responses include helping with the OFW master planning process and various social events. Concern for displacement When asked for infor mation about apparent concern for the displacement of low-income individuals, a variety of responses were observe d. Two respondents report that those who are displaced are either criminals or individuals w ho pose a threat to public safety, in which case they believe that displacement has a positive impact on the community. Two others express

PAGE 63

63 concern about seniors and longtime residents who ar e unable to afford rising property taxes. One respondent reports that the OFW Master Plan addresses the issu e of displacement and promotes mixed-income developments. Comments about participation in planning Respondents showed split perceptions of resident participation in comm unity groups. One respondent notes that the neighbor hood association is highly participatory and boasts the banding together of residents against negligent propert y owners. Another res pondent notices that, although participation is limited, it is as diverse as the neighbor hood and represents various ages, races, as well as both renters and homeowners. Alternatively, three respondents report that neighborhood associations have been unsuccessful in achieving their goals because of discouraged neighbors and the fractur ed nature of the neighborhood. Interview Findings HDDC-inspired revitalization The HDDC credits itself for i gniting the revitalization of th e MLKHD by being the first to rehabilitate the blighted neighborhood, while main taining the communitys diverse character and historic significance. Accordi ng to Joan Garner, President an d CEO of HDDC, the organization, was the first to start revi talizing or redeveloping the ne ighborhood and from the beginning, we wanted to make sure that long-term resi dents were not displaced (Joan Garner, Personal communication, September, 23, 2008). Active role in addressing displacement The HDDC takes an active role in ad dressi ng residential displacement by building and preserving affordable housing through several met hods. Discussing the organizations strategies to prevent displacement, Garner said:

PAGE 64

64 The strategy weve used in the past to ma ke sure people are not displaced [is buying] homes from citizens in this community who could no longer afford to keep them up. We renovated them and rented then back to the orig inal owners. Many of them have passed on, but that was a way to ensure that people who were a part of this community before the redevelopment efforts had an opportunity to stay (Joan Garner, personal communication, September 23, 2008). Garner describes her organizations efforts as a block-by-block strategy, in which they purchase vacant and underutilized prope rties, then rebuild replicas of the original structures. HDDCs efforts are evidenced in the construction of over seventy new single-family homes, ten new modular homes consistent with historic desi gn guidelines, and 35 rehabilitated homes. The organizations proudest achievement is a re habilitated historic cotton warehouse called StudioPlex, an $18 million, live-work condominium development. Despite the tight housing market, StudioPlex is doing well financially (J oan Garner, personal communication, September 23, 2008). Advocacy and collaboration with other organizations The HDDC is actively involved in th e community, city plan ning functions, and larger, non-profit advocacy groups. At the neighborhoo d level, HDDC is active in NPU M, where Garner sits on the executive board and the la nd use committee. Her involvement in the NPU provides the HDDC with the opportunity to further influence the type of development occurring in the neighborhood. The HDDC has a number of state and regional partners in the affo rdable housing field, including: Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhood-based Develope rs (AHAND), the local trade association for affordable housing providers and the Georgia State Trade Association for Nonprofit Developers (GSTAND), which is the state-level equi valent. Both organizations advocate state and local government adopt afford able housing legislation and polices. Recently, AHAND has resurrected support for CLTs in the Atla nta area. Currently no CLTs exist in the

PAGE 65

65 city, although, according to Garner, several existed previously before going out of business in the 1970s. HDDCs collaboration with regional an d state housing advocacy groups, as well as neighborhood planning efforts, will help secure the legal framework required to continue their affordable housing production and community development work. Planning for the future Garnering f unding is the HDDCs biggest chal lenge. In the beginning, the group used land banking practices to purchase land at lower prices which has saved them money in the long-term and allowed the continuation of housing production af ter land values rose over time. Also, in an attempt to maintain an operating fund, the HDDC builds some market -rate housing at higher rates of return. The BeltLine presents many opportunities for future involvement in planning. Currently, the HDDC is involved in the BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board, which is discussed later in this chapter. Future BeltLine-initiated development has the potential to further gentrify the OFW and cause displacement. Garner is hopeful that HDDCs involvement in BeltLine planning will effectively prevent the pote ntially negative consequences of reinvestment (Joan Garner, personal communi cation, September 23, 2008). Old Fourth Ward Master Plan In response to recently renewed inte rest in the OFW neighborhood, City Council representative, Kwanza Hall, spea rheaded the initiative to create a neighborhood master plan to direct future growth and preserve the communitys identity, especially in areas along the planned Beltline. Part of the planning process was a review of the neighborhoods existing conditions; two of the plans findings ar e particularly relevant: Neighborhood residents are diverse in terms of age, race, income, and educational level, but unchecked growth could displace existing residents. Development pressure is changing the face of many parts of the ne ighborhood, particularly adjacent to the BeltLine (Tunnell-Spa ngler-Walsh & Associates, 2008).

PAGE 66

66 Housing and economic development recommendations Displacement: Since the plans goal is to prom ote a comm unity-based framework for future growth, the master planning process re lied heavily on public pa rticipation throughout a series of neighborhood workshops with city planne rs and consultants. Major concerns that surfaced during the workshops included the di splacement of lower income residents and curtailment of seniors ability to age in place (SOFWN community leader, personal communication, September 6, 2008). These concerns led to the master plans Housing and Economic Development Recommendations, which focus on preventing displacement and on increasing opportunities for affordable and mi xed-income housing, senior housing, and infill residential development. Regard ing displacement, the master plan directs the city government, community development corporat ions, developers, and others to ensure that involuntary displacement does not result from development in the neighborhood. The plan states that: Unlike many other Atlanta neighborhoods, where long-time residents are displaced by the very revitalization efforts intended to benefit them, this must not be allowed to happen in the Old Fourth Ward. Rather, a way of growth must be developed that allows all residents who want to remain in the neighborhood to do so. Failure to do so will destroy the very element that makes the Old Fourth Ward unique (Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh & Associates, 2008). Aging in place: A board member of SOFWN expressed concern about the future of seniors in the OFW since some senior housing faci lities have been demolished recently, and she speculates more demolition will occur in the future Seniors in the community are worried about being displaced from their home and rely on one se nior advocate in part icular who voices these concerns to her City Council representa tive (SOFWN community leader, personal communication, September 6, 2008). The Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) demolished Antoine Graves and Antoine Graves Annex, high-rise homes for seniors for future redevelopment. Residents were relocated in 2007; the SOFWN board member noted that all

PAGE 67

67 were able to relocate within the neighbor hood if they chose (SOFWN community leader, personal communication, September 6, 2008). However, the exact location of their new residences is uncertain, as is the AHAs timelin e and plans for redeveloping the demolished site. The master plan encourages new senior housing facilities to be located throughout the neighborhood and within walking dist ance to retail. The master plan also encourages a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all ages a nd household types, including college students, families, and the elderly. This mixed-housing strategy not only allows residents to age in place, but provides opportunities for families to grow, and attracts diverse residents. Affordability: The OFW master plan promotes afford ability by directing twenty percent of all new units to be subsidized or below-market rate. It also reinforces the recommendations of the BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board, wh ich are discussed earlier in this chapter. A new zoning district that allows accessory dwelling units, or granny flats, is recommended. Developing accessory dwelling units can effectively increase the density of a single-family neighborhood and result in new affordable hous ing options. A new community improvement district (CID) is also recommended. A CID co llects dues from businesses to be used for infrastructure improvements, security, pa rks, and other redevelopment initiatives. The plan does not mention using CID revenues, or other funds from businesses, for affordable housing production or preservation. The master plan concludes that fu rther research into the needs and provision of affordable housing in the OFW should be conducte d by specialists, possibly by a technical advisory committee consisting of various local members of the Urban Land Institute. Land use recommendations In addition to the Housing and Econom ic De velopment Recommendations section of the OFW master plan, some goals and recommendations from the Land Use and Historic Preservation sections are rele vant to displacement as well. Overall, the land use

PAGE 68

68 recommendations focus on smart growth, sustainabi lity and creating a safer, more pedestrianoriented physical environment, which implies some redevelopment and new development that may potentially change the social and economic fabric of the neighbor hood. Specifically, the plan directs the use of green bu ilding standards, which may increas e the cost of development and pose a barrier to affordable housing. Sim ilarly, the plans recommendation to increase enforcement of building codes may prove to be an obstacle for low-income homeowners who can not afford to make improvements to their pr operty. Increased code enforcement may also push landlords to sell their rental properties as maintenance costs rise, displacing their tenants. As Rose (2001) suggests, code enforcement is so metimes used to remove long-time residents in order to make way for new development. Alte rnatively, the land use section recommends the preservation of single-family areas and appropr iate infill housing, par ticularly in the MLKHD, one of six catalytic redevelopment areas in the OFW, in which th e plan encourages development on vacant lots and the rehabilita tion of industrial sites along the BeltLine and Decatur Street. Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh and Associates (2008), au thors of the OFW Master Plan, suggest that focusing efforts in these catalytic redevelopment areas will implement the plans vision and have greater impacts on the overall neighborhood. Infill development coupled with preserving singlefamily areas will allow growth while preventing the loss of existing homes. Additionally, the previously stated goal of desi gnating twenty percent of new units as below-market value will ensure that new infill is affordable. The literature also promotes the use of infill for affordable housing since infill increases density, which m eans more units and lower production costs per unit (PolicyLink, 2008). Historic preservation recommendations The purpose of the historic preservation section o f the OFW Master Plan is to retain the neighborhood character and quality of life by encouraging historic rehabilitation, especially in

PAGE 69

69 the MLKHD. Still, increased regulations pl aced on homeowners by historic preservation ordinances and initiatives may create a financ ial burden and result in their displacement or prevent developers from including more afford able units in a new development (Wright, 1995). The plans historic preservation recommendati ons for the MLKHD include the allowance of more commercial uses and the demolition of non-conforming structures. Additional commercial uses and increased demolition may potentially ca use harm to residences and conflict with the plans goal to preserve single-family areas. Butler-Auburn Redevelopment Plan The Butler-Auburn Redevelopment Plan was originally crafted in 1994 based on the citys pre-Olympics planning efforts for impr oving in-town neighborhoods. The plan was later updated in 2005 in response to new residen tial development pressures and the lack of implementation of the previous plan. Also, the lack of progress toward improving blighted areas identified in the original plan and the need for physical improvements to vacant and underutilized lots requires a renewed vision an d redevelopment plan. The study area is comprised of Sweet Auburn, the MLKHD, and some areas of the OFW just east of the historic district. Public involvement A steering committee comprised of a city pla nner, architect, representatives from NPU M, the National Park Service, and other privat e and public stakeholders headed the plan update process. HDDC staff members were heavily involved in the creati on of this plan and incorporated their organization s goals and principles (Joan Ga rner, personal communication, September 23, 2008). In addition to meeting with various stakeholders, a workshop was held with community members to ensure their concerns were addressed in the plan update. On the subject of housing, concerns were focused on affordability, the redevelopment of public housing,

PAGE 70

70 and preventing displacement. Public housing de velopments in the study area, including Grady Homes, Wheat Street Gardens, and the Overlook have either already been demolished or are planned for demolition in the near future. Stakeholders maintained that the redevelopment of these properties should provide an affordable home for all former residents who wish to return. The public workshop and stakeholder meetings resulted in a co mmon vision, goals, and objectives for the study area. Goals and objectives Housing improvements: Several goals and objectives in the plans hous ing section are relevant to displacem ent and equitable devel opment. Unfortunately, some of these goals seemingly promote gentrification and favor new economic development over assistance for the current population. First, the plan seeks to im prove the housing stock by rehabilitating existing units using financial assistance pr ograms for residents; however, th is rehabilitation goal includes the conversion of renter-occupied properties to owner-occupied units without any direction for assisting renters in purchasing their homes or otherwise preven ting displacement. Second, the plan supports the use of infill housing, a generally accepted method of increasing density and therefore affordability; however, it specifies infi ll for university students and hospital employees, but not necessarily families, seniors, and other long-time residents of the neighborhood. Third, two public housing developments are proposed for redevelopment into mixed-income communities, which, under the curr ent practices of th e Atlanta Housing Authority and U.S. HUD, ensures displacement for a majority of the tenants. Human services: The plan directs the city, county, a nd state to better coordinate their delivery of social, health, and tr ansportation services for the area s residents. Also, increased home care programs for elderly residents are sugg ested. These objectives have the potential to

PAGE 71

71 assist elderly, disabled, or disadvantaged residents to remain in their homes as their needs change. Community empowerment: The redevelopment plan reco gnizes that the communitys greatest resources are its people, their leadership, cooperation, and commitment to improving quality of life. Specifically, th e plan encourages community or ganizations and property owners to acquire and redevelop properties, independent of local government, to reach the goals of the redevelopment plan. Also, the plan contends that community development corporations should be strengthened to promote affordable housing a nd other community benefits. The plan suggests the creation of a community a dvocacy board with representa tives from NPU M and other neighborhood groups to voice the inte rests of the community and to improve relations with city agencies during redevelopment planning. Overall, community members are encouraged to take charge of revitalization efforts in their neighborhood, in other word s, residents are empowered to engage in community-based planning. Redevelopment and implementation Community -based: The plan directs that implementa tion of the goals and objectives must be community-based; the NPU should be utilized for reviewing projects, amending the plan, and monitoring government abuse of redevelopment tools. The NPUs involvement provides an opportunity for oversig ht of plan implementation and ensures that the communitys interests are met during redevelopment. Relocation and demolition: During implementation, the Bu tler-Auburn plan states that public acquisition or assemblage of properties may be used, but in moderation and only if necessary. The plan employs a preservation-based strategy, in which the demolition of existing structures is minimal, especially in the historic district. In the event occupied residential

PAGE 72

72 structures are demolished, the public or private part y responsible is directed to deal fairly with the occupants by providing ade quate relocation assistance. MLKHD Conclusions Existing conditions The MLKHD and its surrounding neighborhood s till contains a significant amount of blight and vacant or underutilized properties from pre-Olympic years. Due to recently increased interest in urban living in Atlanta, a demand exists for more residential use in the neighborhood. Two major neighborhood plans and the vision of community members promote redevelopment and revitalization of the neighborhood thr ough infill, reuse, and rehabilitation. Community collaboration Community awareness and concern for displ acement exists and has been reinforced by public involvement in planning and visioning projects. The ne ighborhood association and NPU foster grassroots community involvement in pla nning decisions, although no real action towards mitigating displacement is evident. The purpose of the HDDC, on the othe r hand, is to revitalize the neighborhood while preventing displacement of residents. The HDDC also is actively engaged in neighborhood planning efforts, includ ing membership in the NPU and participation in OFW Master Plan, Butler-Auburn Redevelopmen t Plan, and the BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board. The HDDCs local and state part ners further their affordable housing advocacy efforts. Overall, the HDDC fosters great coll aboration between commun ity members, planners, and advocates while influencing each group with its revitalization without displacement principles. In addition, both the OFW a nd Butler-Auburn plans promote community-based planning and empowering community members to ta ke charge of redevelopment activities in their neighborhood.

PAGE 73

73 Equitable development tools Planning and community development activities in the MLKHD and the OFW employ a variety of public participation, affordable housin g, and anti-displacement tools to preserve the unique, diverse characteristics of the ne ighborhood while accommodating new growth and opportunities. Intense public pa rticipation through meetings a nd workshops is evident in both the OFW Master Plan and the Butler-Auburn plan Additionally, survey respondents eagerness to share information about the OWF planning proce ss demonstrates a high level of engagement. The HDDC builds new and rehabilitates underu tilized housing units at subsidized and below-market rates. The OFW Master Plan prom otes several affordable housing tools, including accessory dwelling units, infill housing, and the requirement that all new residential development include an affordable housing component. Th e Butler-Auburn plan, which has some similar themes but is less strict regarding anti-displacement strategies, promotes infill, the redevelopment of public housing to mixed-inco me communities, and financial assistance for rehabilitating residential properties. In fact, the Butler-Auburn plan, notes that displacement will be inevitable during the implementation of redevelopment goals and incl udes a relocation assistance program but does not clarify where residents will be relocated. Interestingly, the cons ensus of Butler-Auburns stakeholder participants in the planning pro cess advocated for one-to-one replacement of affordable units within redeveloped residential sites. Anti-displacement is a major goal of the OFW Master Plan, which is evident in its pr ovision for more senior housing facilities and a variety of housing types and prices within new developments. The planning and equitable development tools discussed in the neighborhood plans and employed by community groups provide a ba sic framework for preventing residential displacement in the MLKHD. Ch anging market conditions and the future BeltLine will place

PAGE 74

74 additional pressures on the neighborhood; but negativ e development impacts will be mitigated by effectively implementing the neighborhood plans. Reynoldstown Background Neighborhood history Originally settled in the early nineteenth century by for mer slaves who sought job opportunities with the railroad and other industries in Atlanta, the Reynoldstown area grew and benefited from increased development when the A tlanta Street Rail Road extended its line into the community, providing direct access to downt own Atlanta jobs. After World War II, as streetcars became a less important form of transportation, and as suburbanization soared, Reynoldstown experienced declin e. Reynoldstown Civic Improve ment League (RCIL) formed in the 1950s to encourage political awareness and support for voting rights. After the Civil Rights Movement ended, the organization was dorman t for a number of years until resurgence in the 1970s. The reorganized RCIL fought the city for basic infrastructure improvements, police protection, and MARTA bus access. Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation (RRC) was born from members of RCIL who want ed a CDC for the purpose of re vitalizing the neighborhood and attracting newcomers who would strengthen th eir community (PEQ and MXP Collaborative, 2000). Gentrification and displacement The gentrification of Reynoldstown, currently in the early to middle stage (Levy, 2006), began in the late 1990s or early part of the current decade (Natallie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). In the late tw entieth century, neglig ent landlords and the inability of lower-income households to make necessary improvements to their historic bungalows resulted in the neighborhoods dete riorating housing stock. The 2000 Reynoldstown

PAGE 75

75 Master Plan notes that recent reinvestment in urban neighbor hoods presents the risk of gentrification and existing residents must secure affordability so they can benefit from future neighborhood improvements (PEQ a nd MXP Collaborative, 2000). RRC began its work rehabbing owner-occupied homes in the early 1990s, which assisted current residents by increasing the value of thei r homes and by meeting the standards of city building codes. Only later when the organiza tion began building new homes and after existing residents had already received he lp with home improvements from RRC did newcomers attracted by new development settle in the area (Levy, 200 6). However, according to the RRCs chief of staff, some renters have been di splaced by investors purchasing home s to rehabilitate and sell for profit, and, despite the overall increase in density and numbe r of housing units, the neighborhood has lost some low-income rental housing and te nants over the years (Natallie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). Survey Findings A survey in vitation was emailed to twenty-s ix members of RCIL, who volunteered their email addresses at the July 2008 meeting. Ten (3 8%) chose to participat e in the online survey, 100% of which are homeowners who have lived in their current residence for an average of 3 years and 2 months. Two of th e participants skipped various questions, so there are not ten responses for each question in the survey. Neighborhood concern None of the respondents have fe lt pressured to sell their hom e because of taxes, offers, or changes in the neighborhood. One respondent fe els the neighborhoods character is changing uncomfortably and one feels housing costs are rising too much. Two are concerned about development not serving existing residents and th ree are concerned about development not fitting in with the neighborhood. When asked about th eir greatest concern, two residents mentioned

PAGE 76

76 declining affordability; two mentioned vacant ho mes and blight; and two replied maintaining good relations between diverse neig hbors. Rising taxes, mortgage defaults and displacement due to increasing home values were also mentioned. Conversely, one resident cited recently declining property values due to national housing market trends and another expressed the need for accelerated gentrification to remove blight. A more optimistic respondent had this to say, My only current concerns about the future of the neighborhood are traffic issues. I am excited about all the development and I feel that the new residents and old residents are working well together to make sure that the character of the neighborhood remains as consistent as possible. This neighborhood embra ces diversity as far as I have experienced (Survey respondent, September 8, 2008). Regarding displacement specifically, one discourag ed resident notes th at gentrification is here to stay: [In the past] I was very concerned about the changing character of the neighborhood, in terms of the new people moving in (professional white people as opposed to the original working class black people) and the style of the new houses going up (McMansions, next to tiny, modest homes). But, I have resigned myself to the fact that it is happening and there is nothing that will be done about it. The [newer] neighborhood residents were ridiculously opposed to obtaining Historical Designation and setting guidelines for the housing development design. But I wouldn' t say I was overly concerned with [neighborhood change]. We've accepted it (Survey respondent, September 4, 2008) Later in the survey, this respondent continues his experience with negative reactions to the proposal of historic preservati on regulations by saying, . the neighborhood was paranoid that they would not be able to develop their proper ty how they wanted (these were the newcomers saying thisthe older residents were not as involved) (Surve y respondent, September 4, 2008). Reaction to concerns When asked how local governm ent or comm unity organizations have reacted to the concerns they outlined, three note that the NP U system helps by reviewing development to ensure appropriate uses and de sign; although, one notes that some developers have evaded the NPUs conditions by negotiating direc tly with the city. One menti ons that code enforcement has

PAGE 77

77 worked to remedy the physical appearance of and crime occurring in vacant structures. Other residents express the lack of action pertaining to property taxe s and crime. About historic designation, one mentions that the citys Ur ban Design Commission supports the idea and attempted to educate Reynoldstown neighbors about the program. Community participation Aside from RCIL and the NPU, respondents men tion a variety of community organizations they participate in, including: a volunteer-based bicy cle repair cooperative, Trees Atlanta, a softball team, a faith-based organization, and a nu mber of non-profit pres ervation organizations. Several of the respondents serve on RCIL co mmittees such as zoning, safety, cleanup, and community gardens. Nine respondents participat e in these groups at least once per month, and five participate more than once per month. Impact of new development Overall, the survey respo ndents are pleased with recen t dev elopments occurring in Reynoldstown. They mostly express satisfaction with the appearance of new homes and the new, younger neighbors who bring vitality and ci vic pride to the community. Despite their disdain for its suburban appearance, Edgew ood Retail, a large commercial development containing big-box stores and special ty restaurants, satisfies reside nts need for nearby, quality groceries and national retail establishments while providing jobs to locals Parkground Coffee is mentioned by multiple respondents as a pos itive addition to the neighborhood. On the negative side, one respondent scorns over-sized single-family homes that fail to contribute to the neighbor hoods existing character. He also fear s the BeltLine will spur mid-rise multi-family development, which is more approp riate adjacent to a larger thoroughfare, on his low-density local street. Anothe r respondent is displeased with new homes that remain vacant due to the current housing market. About RRC s housing developments, one respondent thinks

PAGE 78

78 the low-income units have an overall positive im pact on the community by providing affordable housing. Conversely, two other residents thi nk that RRC housing, especially Reynoldstown Commons, have negatively impacted the nei ghborhood due to poor property management and drug activity. Impact of community groups and government Five respondents tout RCIL and RRC for thei r comm unity building efforts, which make the neighborhood feel safer a nd encourage participation. A newly redesigned park, Reynoldstown Gateway Park, is mentioned as a positive addition sponsored by the RRC. One respondent notes that the fina ncially burdened city government and incompetent police have made no attempt to meet Reynoldstowns need s. An exception to the otherwise inactive government is the neighborhoods City Council repr esentative, who demonstrates dedication and genuine interest in the community. Appreciative inquiry When asked to share experiences regarding neighborhood improvem ent projects of which they are particularly proud, the most comm on responses include clean-up activit ies and a community festival. Other respondents men tion involvement in a community garden, the formation of a softball team, and raising public safety awareness via work with the safety committee. Another respondent is proud of his involvement in fundraising for RRC programming and collections for school s upplies and Thanksgiving Day food for needy neighbors. Concern for displacement Displacem ent concerns most of the respondents or their neighbors. Two feel that RRCs programming aimed at helping secure affordable housing has been helpful. Yet, two other respondents are more eager to see their home appreciate and exhibit an admittedly NIMBY

PAGE 79

79 attitude about affordable housing, which they associate with crime, so that they are unsympathetic to criminals being displaced. Ov erall, residents are aw are of the risk of displacement due to gentrification, especially due to investors buying property; their attitude is a mix of sympathy and self-interest. Participation in planning Regarding public participati on in planning at the neighborhoo d level, respondents exhibit an even split between tho se who show satisfact ion with the zoning comm ittee in dealing with developers and implementing the master plan and those who believe the neighborhood lacks participation and ignores the master plan. Al so, some consider RCIL a good representative of the neighborhood, offering an open environment for voicing concerns; others feel younger whites dominate the organization and longtime re sidents are not repres ented. One skeptical respondent views RRC as a secretiv e group that impedes lower-income residents involvement. Interview Findings Role of RRC as a CDC The RRC, a nonprofit CDC, e mploys comprehensive methods of community development that extend further than the typi cal role of a developer or affo rdable housing provider. Their unique approach is exemplified in the mission st atement, which is to create, sustainable communities through knowledge sharing, community building, housing, and economic opportunities with residents at the center of [their] efforts (RRC Resources for Residents and Communities n.d.). The organizations efforts are influenced by their strong regard for diversity, history, multigenerational incl usiveness, community collaboration, and most importantly, longtime residents (RRC Resources for Residents and Communities, n.d.). RRCs work falls into three categories: affordable housing production, homeownership education, and community building. The organiza tion rehabilitates substa ndard owner-occupied

PAGE 80

80 housing and develops various types of new rental and ownership hous ing including lofts, townhouses, single-family, and infill. Funds are raised through the sale of some market-rate units, which are used to finance the developm ent of affordable housing (RRC Organizational Background, n.d.). Overall, RRCs housing developm ent has resulted in greater density and availability of affordable housing. According to RRC Chief of Staff, Natallie Keiser, the organization focuses on obtaining and retaining as much property as it can when neighborhood changes first start to occur. In this way, th e organization already owns land for affordable housing development as property values increase. Also, according to Keiser, most of the new homes developed by the organization have been occupied by newcomers to Reynoldstown, with a few existing residents moving from the RRCmanaged apartment complex into a new RRCdeveloped home (Natallie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). Therefore, for the most part, existing residents do not directly benefit from new housing development. They do, however, benefit indirectly, in that RRCs new construction relieves displacement pressure by effectively increasing the to tal number of available housing units in the neighborhood. RRCs workshops and counseling efforts educate residents about home buying, preventing foreclosure, and overall financial wellness. In addition to housing and fi nancial awareness, the organization has a special interest in inspiring resi dents to become local leaders, targeting at-risk youth, and promoting the neighborhoods culture and arts with creative events featuring local performance-artists and quilters. These cultural programs foster multigenerational relationships and communication between longtim e neighbors and newcomers. Planning and advocacy initiatives RRC is an organizational member of Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhoodbased Developers (AHAND) and Ge orgia State Trade Associati on of Non-profit Developers (GSTAND), the local and state level advocates for nonprofit deve lopers and affordable housing

PAGE 81

81 providers. Their involvement in these organizations has given them the opportunity to recommend several policies to city and state government in order to obtain support for affordable housing and to block policies th at have adverse effects on affordable housing. They have not proposed displacement-specific items at the local le vel, but members do discuss the topic. At the state level, they proposed a bill that would have helped prevent displacement by abating residential property taxes. Overall, their policy efforts have been focused on advocating for affordable housing development, rather than the specific issue of displacement due to neighborhood change (Natallie Keiser, pe rsonal communication, October 3, 2008). Locally, RRC and its partners have worked towards inclusionary zoning policies. A voluntary inclusionary zoning ordinance was recently introduced to the City of Atlanta. In response, this consortium advocat ed that the city make it a manda tory ordinance, which resulted in withdrawing the proposed ordinance for rewrit ing. Its future is uncertain since it has not resurfaced yet. In the near future, AHAND a nd RRC hope to implement CLTs in Atlanta, which are becoming known as a viable option for dealing with gentrification (Nat allie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). Through AHAND membership, RRC pa rticipates in BeltLine pl anning and is represented on the BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Bo ard (BAHAB). As part of the BAHAB, they successfully advocated for a porti on of BeltLine funds to benefit affordable housing within the designated impact area. RRC is currently pushing the BAHAB to investigate policies that will account for displacement that occurs outside of the impact area since they foresee the BeltLines effects to extend beyond those bound aries. Involvement in BeltLin e planning is crucial because, due to new related amenities, private investment, and speculation, displacement will become a more crucial issue than ever. Reynoldstown residents have already witnessed developers rushing

PAGE 82

82 to acquire land to hold until the BeltLine s construction (Natallie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). Possibly the most important planning initia tive RRC has been involved in is the 2000 Reynoldstown Master Plan. Keiser touts the co mmunitys involvement in the planning process as unifying and powerful for the neighborhood (Natallie Keiser, personal communication, October 3, 2008). The adoption of the neighbor hood plan by the city into the ASAP has solidified the neighbors goals and objectives and protected the vision they voiced in 2000. Some of RRCs recent work would not have b een possible without the master plan due to opposition from newer residents. For example, the location for senior rental housing was identified in the plan and the RRC purchased it for development. The senior housing was supported by the master plan, despite the influx of residents since 2000 w ho do not share the goal of senior housing and who were not involved in the visioning sessions. RCIL and community involvement RCIL, RRCs sister organizati on, hosts m onthly meetings open to all residents, where all concerns can be voiced. The RCI L also operates a listserve, whic h is an efficient method of disseminating information to neighbors, but it is used mostly by the newer residents and is available exclusively to people who use email. An older method of communication is the calling post, which residents used for sending out information to neighbors via telephone. Reynoldstowns dynamic demographics are well -represented by RCILs leaders, as they demonstrate a mix of races, ages, professions, and new and longtime residents. However, the attendance at neighborhood mee tings is not as well-rounded as the longtime residents are becoming less involved in the discussions. As executive board elections near, newer residents are expected to become the dominate voices (N atallie Keiser, persona l communication, October 3, 2008).

PAGE 83

83 Reynoldstown Master Plan Goals and objectives The 2000 Reynoldstown Master Plan resulted from a series of ten neighborhood meetings, a socioeconomic study by Georgia St ate University, and collaborati on with planning consultants. The goals and objectives repres ent the residents vision and concerns for the neighborhood. Most of the goals and objectiv es address at basic physical improvements like recreation, open space, and walkable streets as well as community improvements like additional police, educational facilities, an d retail. The plans goals and objec tives more relevant to this study promote affordable housing development on vacan t and underutilized lots, improve substandard units, and provide a wider variet y of housing prices and unit types, especially for seniors and people with disabilities. The plan contains a list of proposed pr ojects to develop senior housing as well as single and multi-family units with specified locations, projected costs, and estimated time for completion (PEQ and MXD Collaborative, 2000). The plan objectives also reflect the resident s desire for improved grocery quality (PEQ and MXD Collaborative, 2000). This concern wa s also voiced at a ne ighborhood meeting in which a business proposed to reopen a vacant conve nience store. Several residents wanted to ensure that the business would not allow spoiled food to remain on th e shelves, as occurs in other neighborhood stores (RCIL Meeti ng, 2008). The availability of quality food products fosters revitalization efforts; it benef its both new and existing househol ds, but in particular, lowerincome residents who can gain convenient access to appropriately priced, healthy foods without the use of a car or transit. The communitys support for better food options demonstrates their desire to remain in their neighborhood a nd enjoy the benefits of revitalization.

PAGE 84

84 Public involvement The Reynoldstown Master Plans public m ee tings reflect the communitys concern for gentrification and their desire fo r developers and property owners to engage in discussions with the community about gentrificati on. The public also voiced concer ns about the need for senior housing and the possibility of using vacant lots for th is purpose. Businesses also participated in the planning process. Their major concerns incl uded a lack of social networks, crime and need for police, and difficulty in finding quality employees from within the neighborhood. They recommended the creation of a business associa tion and job training and placement assistance from RRC (PEQ and MXD Collaborative, 2000). The Reynoldstown Business Association was eventually formed; in 2006, it merged with th e Cabbagetown Businesses Association and the Grant Park Merchant Association resulting in the South East Atlanta Business Association (SEABA). SEABA facilitates networking among bus inesses, fosters business development, and promotes communication between employe rs and job seekers (SEABA, 2007). Reynoldstown Conclusion Reynoldstown is fortunate to have a neighborhood CDC dedicated to affordable housing production and preservation as well as displacement prevention. RRC ha s been credited with securing affordable rehabbed, housing for existing residents before new development attracted newcomers. Unfortunately, much of its newly constructed, affordable, ownership units have been purchased by newcomers. Overall, RRC has a positive impact on community building and lifting community members out of poverty. The Re ynoldstown Master Plan created an effective long-term vision of maintaining diversity and community character and meets the needs of longtime residents. The plans adoption into ASAP has solidified this vision and helped it become a reality despite opposition from newcomers. Survey findings show a lack of consensus about gentrification in Reynoldstown; some are content with it and benefit from rising land

PAGE 85

85 values, while others are concerned for the fu ture of lower-income neighbors. Reynoldstown residents represent a diverse mix of people, how ever waning representation of older AfricanAmericans in RCIL illustrates the neighborhoods recently increasing gentrification. Inman Park Background Information Inm an Park, just east of downtown Atlanta, was originally designed in the late 19th century as a planned suburban residential community containing large Victorian homes for the citys wealthy elite. In the early tw entieth century, development bega n extending further outward and changes in city ordinances permitted the nei ghborhoods oversized lots to be subdivided for smaller Arts and Crafts homes and multi-fam ily units, which attracted many working class families. Additionally, after World War II, public housing for veterans was developed and many of the old, grand, single-family homes were converte d to multi-family structur es (City of Atlanta, 2005). In the 1970s, so called urban pioneers return ed to the neighborhood, interested in the historic architecture and charac ter. This new wave of residents poured their efforts into revitalizing the community and fought a major ba ttle against a new highw ay that would have destroyed many historic homes and fragmente d the neighborhood (City of Atlanta, 2005). Residents formed Citizens Against Unnece ssary Thoroughfares in Older Neighborhoods (CAUTION) to oppose the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) eventually reaching a settlement that resulted in construction of Fr eedom Parkway, a more compatible road than what was previously planned. After this success, CAUTION became the present-day Freedom Park Conservancy; the neighborhoods current co mmunity organization is the Inman Park

PAGE 86

86 Neighborhood Association (IPNA) (Principle Planne r, City of Atlanta, personal communication, September 19, 2008). Survey Findings A survey in vitation was emailed to twenty-f ive members of IPNA, who volunteered their email address at the July 2008 m eeting. Eight (32%) chose to pa rticipate in the online survey, six (75%) of which are homeowners who have lived in their current residence for an average of 12.5 years. The remaining two (25%) are renters who have lived in their current residence for about 7.7 years. Some of the participants sk ipped various questions, so there are not eight responses for each question in the survey. Neighborhood concerns and reaction Of the hom eowners, two have felt pressured to sell their home because of rising property taxes; of the renters one has e xperienced rising rent. One responde nt feels that property values and rents are rising too much for their comfort, and one sees new developments that do not fit with the communitys character. When asked to explain their greate st concern about Inman Park, most respondents mention either rising property values, rents, taxe s, or other costs of living, which have led to less diversity overall. One mentions that maintaining the communitys character is difficult and others complain of traffic and safety. According to the respondents, neither local government nor community groups make adequate efforts to address concerns about rising housing costs or maintaining community character. Conversely, one neighbor notes, rising values are a direct result of the efforts of the residents ove r the past thirty or so years. They have created a neighborhood which has a ve ry attractive personal ity, and it has become more and more valuable. (Survey respondent September 4, 2008). Two respondents mention contacting city officials to express their concerns.

PAGE 87

87 Community involvement Aside from IPNA and the NPU system, reside nts are involved in various faith-based organizations, a cycling team, school groups, a nd others. About half of the respondents participate in these groups at least once per m onth and about half part icipate between 3 and 5 times a year. Proudest accomplishments include pa rticipating in park clean-up events, rewarding influential IPNA members, and helping report crime. One re spondent notices the lack of involvement from renters, despite the welcom ing nature of the IPNA. The organization maintains a website and an online community where members can network, share ideas, and schedule events. Impact of new development The m ost cited recent development among re spondents is the new high-end, mixed-use Inman Park Village, which is applauded for its attractive design and for providing nearby retail and popular restaurants. Also, the redevelopment of an i ndustrial site for commercial use is viewed as a positive change. Overall, respondent s are pleased with new commercial uses, higher density, the elimination of unattractive structures, and the collaboration between IPNA and developers. However, with new development, the neighbors are feeling the negative impacts of higher crime, traffic, and taxes; as for density, respondents feel that re cent developments along major roadways should be of higher density. Impact of community groups and government Respondents overwhelm ingly tout the succe ss of IPNA and the NPU in encouraging quality development in Inman Park, establishing a historic district, a nd changing industrial zoning to residential. Also, fes tivals and social events held by IPNA have fostered relationships among neighbors. No actions of city planni ng or local government beyond the NPU level are mentioned by survey respondents.

PAGE 88

88 Concern for displacement Most of the respondents are not aware of comm unity concern about gentrification in Inman Park, as they admit to not being affected by it, but know that it is an issu e in other parts of the city. One respondent expresses th at gentrification is a natural cycle that c ities experience and that there is nothing wrong with [this] happeni ng because, cities are not just for poor people[and] cit[y] parks are not the exclusive domain of the indigent homeless (survey respondent, October 5, 2008). Interview Findings According to a resident of 31 years, who is the chair of IPNAs festival comm ittee and is considered a community leader in Inman Park, ge ntrification and displacement are not currently top concerns, but gentrification has alrea dy occurred. The IPNA has actively shaped development by meeting with developers about their intentions and imparting to them the communitys vision. Looking forward, some believe the BeltLine will result in displacement and the need for affordable housing. Although not involved in developing or promoting affordab le housing in Inman Park, IPNA is involved with planning for affordable housing in neighboring communities, such as the Old Fourth Ward, through their involvement in the NPU system and participation in the OFW planning process. IPNA has also collaborated with Habitat for Humanity, rehabbing four affordable homes in adjacent, lower-income neighborhoods. IPNA has attempted to redevelop underutilized or vacant lots in Inman Park for parks and openspace. One of the neighborhoods greatest accomplishments is its historic designation by the city, for which it advocated, and the adoption of the historic design guidelines, which the neighbors helped create. IPNA has a successful track record negotiating with developers to find agreeable solutions. For example, when a real estate agent put a 20-ac re property on the market, representatives from

PAGE 89

89 the organization met with prospective buyers to convey Inman Parks in terests; the neighborhood supported the resulting project, Inman Park Village. The development consists of a mix of upscale apartments and townhouses, none of whic h are considered affordable. An active member of IPNAs planning committee notes that the community was interested in a development that would include se niors and possibly some affordable units, but these ideas were not expressed directly to the developer. Inman Park Conclusion Even though Inm an Park gentrified previous ly, residents are stil l experiencing rising property values. The desire to maintain th e neighborhoods historic ch aracter is strong. Currently, no master plan or ne ighborhood plan adopted by the city exists. The neighbors were involved in the creation of Inma n Parks historic guidelines, though the document only affects physical design. IPNA members are highly involved in their community and have successfully garnered the type of development they feel f its their neighborhood, although they rarely advocate for affordable or supportive housing. New, high-end residential and commercial uses are applauded, due to their attractive design and specia lty restaurants. Despit e the lack of concern for affordability in their own neighborhood, resident s of Inman Park have been involved in Habitat for Humanity and affordable housi ng planning in the Old Fourth Ward. Findings Conclusion This chapter reviews th e City of Atlantas policy fr amework relevant to gentrification and displacement and determines that a number of housing policies encourage various methods of producing and preserving affordable housing. Examination of CDCs in the case study neighborhoods discovers proactive affordable hou sing measures to secure longtime residents position in their homes. The NPU system appears to be an effective tool for allowing citizen planners to determine future development in their neighborhoods by negotiating with developers

PAGE 90

90 and involving themselves in the neighborhood ma ster planning process. Neighborhood plans, shaped by residents and adopted by City Council solidify a vision for th e community and abate potential opposition by future residents. Some neighborhood associations are more effective than others at engaging a di verse representation of comm unity members. Although many residents of gentrifying neighborhoods are aware of looming displacement, few use the neighborhood associations to express these concerns. This study examines three neighborhoods in diverse stages of gentrification, each of which approaches the subject differently. First, MLKHDs gentrification was spurred by HDDCs conscience efforts to rejuvena te the culturally important ne ighborhood while protecting existing residents. Their recent involvement in the OF W planning process exemplifies their ability to communicate displacement concerns to elected offi cials, which is a critical component of antidisplacement policy advocacy. The resulting OFW master plan promotes a solid set of planning tools to prevent displacement, allows ageing in place, and encourages equitable development. RRC, similar to HDDCs practices, sparked revita lization in its community by first stabilizing existing residents, then attract ing newcomers with new construction. However, RRCs holistic approach includes more than just housing, but the overall health of the neighborhood, physically, financially, and socially, and the promotion of good relations between new and old neighbors. Reynoldstowns master plan has been helpfu l in garnering senior housing within the neighborhood and continuing RRCs mission of a ffordability, despite opposition from some gentrifiers. Finally, Inman Pa rk represents a virtually, completely gentrified neighborhood, which lacked todays NPU system and local gover nment comprehensive plan during its critical time of change in the 1970s. Also, the ne ighborhood never had a CDC or other nonprofit body to fight for the loss of public housing during urban re newal. In fact, the ea rly gentrifiers formed

PAGE 91

91 IPNA, as opposed to RCILs formation by early an ti-segregationists. In conclusion, a strong neighborhood master plan, public participation in development review, the presence of a neighborhood CDC, and voicing ne ighborhood concerns to the city during visioning sessions has helped Reynoldstown and the MLKHD neighborhoods minimize displacement, while the absence of these activities led to significant ge ntrification in Inman Park. The next chapter compares these findings with PolicyLinks model for equitable development and makes recommendations to the city and neighborhoods fo r further mitigating residential displacement due to gentrification.

PAGE 92

92 Table 4-1. Summary of organizations and planning documents City of Atlanta Neighborhood Planning Units (NPU) Community boards advise City Council on development proposals in their neighborhoods BeltLine Affordable Housing Advisory Board (BAHAB) Board of housing and community development professionals that advises the city on its use of BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund (BAHTF) dollars Atlanta Strategic Action Plan (ASAP) The co mprehensive planning document for the city, updated in 2007 Martin Luther King Jr. Hi storic District (MLKHD) South Old Fourth Ward Neighbors (SOFWN) Neighborhood association for southern OFW, covers the MLKHD Historic District Development Corporation (HDDC) Community development corporation for the MLKHD Old Fourth Ward (OFW) Master Plan Adopt ed in September 2008, es tablishes vision and redevelopment without di splacement goals for OFW Butler-Auburn Redevelopment Plan Originally developed in 1994 to plan for the Olympics and updated in 2005 Reynoldstown Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League (RCIL) Neighborhood association for Reynoldstown, originally organized in 1950s to prom ote political awareness Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation (RRC) Community development corporation serving Reynoldstown, sister organization of RCIL Reynoldstown Master Plan Developed in 2000 with support from RRC Inman Park Inman Park Neighborhood Association (IPNA) Neighborhood association for Inman Park Source: Author

PAGE 93

93 Figure 4-1. The Atlanta BeltLine. (Source: BeltLine, Inc., 2008)

PAGE 94

94 Figure 4-2. Southeast Atlanta BeltLin e. (Source: BeltLine, Inc., 2008)

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4-3. Northeast Atlanta. BeltLin e. (Source: BeltLine, Inc., 2008)

PAGE 96

96 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Residential displa cement due to gentrifi cation is most effectively mitigated by neighborhood-level efforts to control developmen t and affordability (Smith, 1996; Levy, 2006). Equitable development tools, especially incl usive public participation, should be employed during redevelopment planning to ensure just di stribution of the plans costs and benefits (PolicyLink, 2008; Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). Grassroots community groups should be mobilized to advocate city government for anti -displacement policies and should partner with larger organizations to advocat e their positions at the regiona l and state levels (Smith, 2007). This chapter discusses the major themes of the studys findings then compares ideas from key literature to Atlanta neighborhoods. Effort s to mitigate gentrification in the case study neighborhoods are evaluated based on PolicyLin ks (2008) Equitable Development Toolkit and Neil Smiths (1996; 2007) recommendations for ne ighborhood control and gr assroots activism. Successes and shortcomings are described, followed by recommendations for improving Atlantas efforts to achieve equita ble development. Finally, overal l implications to the field of planning and opportunities for futu re research are discussed. Key Themes of this Study Seven key points are drawn from the survey, in terview, and plan review findings. First, several major anti-displacement policies and strategies are promoted by multiple neighborhood and city plans: protection for renters against unj ust eviction; property tax relief in gentrifying neighborhoods; one-for-one repl acement of below market-rate housing units; provision of adequate, affordable, senior housin g so residents may age in place; support for infill housing and accessory dwelling units; and encouragement of public involvement. Second, neighborhood plans in MLKHD and Reynoldstown were developed with in-depth partic ipation from longtime

PAGE 97

97 residents during the early states of gentrification. These plans have solidified the vision and interests of longtime residents a nd protect their interests from newcomers who have displayed a not-in-my-backyard attitude toward affordable housing and senior fa cilities. Third, the responsibilities of NPU board memb ers provide residents with the ab ility to shape the future of development in the neighborhood and ensure their interests are me t, and that neighborhood plans are implemented. Next, CDCs have proven to be cr ucial during the early stag es of gentrification. By stabilizing longtime residents in rehabilitate d, affordable homes before major revitalization occurred, residents risk of di splacement is reduced. They continue minimizing this risk by producing new affordable housing. CDCs also act as advocates fo r affordable housing and antidisplacement polices at the city and state levels through partne rships with larger advocacy groups. Recently, they have promoted CLTs a nd the implementation of mandatory inclusionary zoning for Atlanta. Next, a portion of the BeltLine TAD revenue will fund the construction of new affordable units and aid homeownership. Finally, this research suggests that Inman Park is already mostly gentrified and actually began gent rifying as early as the 1970s. Significantly, the neighborhood does not have a CDC or an offi cial neighborhood plan, which this study determines are proactive anti-displacement measures in the other two case studies. Equitable Development Evaluation Evaluation of Principles Guiding principles of the Equitable Developm ent Toolkit reflect pol icies and grassroots ef forts to maintain longtime residents in gent rifying communities and thus offer an effective evaluative tool for this study (Table 5-1 and Ta ble 5-2). Comprehending current events, issues, and socioeconomic and demographi c statistics allows assessment of the location and amount of gentrification in the city. The first two principl es can be better reali zed with access to updated Census tract-level data to inform statistical an alysis and maps to illustrate neighborhood change

PAGE 98

98 over time. The NPU system allows public involvement in neighborhood-level planning decisions. Responsible citizen pl anners ensure that new development is consistent with the needs and vision of the community and provides bene fits to all residents in the form of jobs, healthy retail, affordable housing, and financing for affordable housing. The HDDC and RRC began their affordable hou sing and land assemblage work before revitalization took off in their community. This proactive approach ensu res longtime residents ability to stay in their homes as land values rise. Community land trusts, proposed by the BAHAB, would provide long-term affordability a nd safeguard these units from the speculative, private market. RRC and HDDC both assist first-time homeowners as well as attract newcomers with market-rate units; BAHAB recommends ow nership opportunities to a wide range of household income levels. RRC offers various programs for small business assistance, personal finance education, and workforce development as part of their mission for holistic community development; other case study neighborhoods have not demonstrated dedication in this area. As for preserving community culture, RRC hosts local heritage events to foster performing arts and the culturally significant art of quilting. ML KHD is an obvious center of African-American history and culture, anchored by the national park. The OFW master planning process brought discussions about displacement and gentrification out in the open at workshops a nd planning meetings, which resulted in the adoption of anti-displacement obj ectives in the master plan document. Mixed-income housing, as well as mixed density and unit types, represen t major ASAP housing policies and objectives in all of the neighborhood plans and BAHAB recomm endations. Brownfield redevelopment, transit, housing, job creation, and parks and trails are all integrated into BeltLine plans, aiming for environmental, social, and economic equity across the region. Transit investments will

PAGE 99

99 generate TAD revenue for affordable housing to be equitably distributed throughout the BeltLine area. The ASAP and neighborhood plans support fair housing practices. CDCs and advocacy groups cooperate to gain support for inclusionary zoning and CLTs. Evaluation of Tools This section discusses the c itys and the neighborhoods effo rts that correlate with the equitable developm ent model and the application or potential applic ation of PolicyLinks equitable development tools (Table 5-3). Ma ny of the models tools are supported by one or multiple city and neighborhood planning documents. First, the city supports the redevelopment of MARTA rail stations in the case study neighborhoods using principles of Transit-Orie nted Development (TOD), which will require vigilance on the part of neighborhood activists to gain affordable housing and preserve existing single-family residences near these stations. Re ynoldstown has taken the first step in advocating for healthy retail by addressing it at neighborhood meetings. Re sident concerns about spoiled food for sale will encourage RCIL and the NPU to seek responsible businesses that will contribute positively to the community. Infill incentives are supported by ASAP, the BAHAB, and each of the neighborhood plans evaluated in this study. Additionally, evidence of infill implementation is visible throughout Reynoldsto wn and the MLKHD. The CDCs operating in Reynoldstown and the Historic District own and maintain n onprofit housing, promote opportunities for homeownership, an d use revenues from market-r ate housing units to finance their subsidized units. The following sect ion recommends measures needed to meet shortcomings of the models application in Atlanta. Equitable Development Recommendations As described in the previous section, m any of the equitable development models principles and tools are suppor ted by existing planning documents and grassroots community

PAGE 100

100 action, however some of these policies and efforts require a dditional modifications to be effective, and some of the models tools have not been employed at a ll. The following list describes recommendations for the City of Atla nta and the case study neighborhoods to better mitigate residential displacement via equitable development. Each of the recommendations refers to one of PolicyLinks previous ly mentioned principles or tools. 1. Data and mapping: Regularly updated socioeconomic and demographic data at the Census tract-level is needed to better understand the changing nature of Atlanta neighborhoods. The Atlanta Regional Comm ission, a governmental regional planning body serving the Atlanta metro area, should assi st with these tasks since they already regularly update population estimates at the Ce nsus tract-level and apparently have the technical capabilities to do so. The neighbor hood indicators used in this study, white residents, residents with a college degree, median income, and median rent, should be collected as well as other possibl e indicators of gentrification. 2. Building awareness: Advocacy for anti-displacement policy starts with grassroots community leaders who have influence over planning and development in their neighborhood. Gentrification and displacement is sues must be outlined on a regular basis at NPU meetings to remind citizen planners of possible unintended consequences of development and help the neighborhood encourage more equitable development. 3. TOD: Mixed-use, compact development shoul d include a mix of income levels and housing types and well as a variety of afford able retail. Neighbor hoods must proactively engage in the visioning and planning for the redevelopment of MARTA rail stations. During this redevelopment process, resident s must ensure their neighborhood plan is implemented if one exists. 4. Employer-assisted housing: This tool offers affordab le housing options and steady employment for workers which help stabi lize them in their neighborhood. RRC and the local business alliance, SEABA, should collaborate to create an employer-assisted housing program, which would meet residents needs for housing and jobs and the businesses needs for qualified, committed workers. Providing affordable housing, jobs, and support to local businesses would further the goals of RRC and strengthen the organization. Further, HDDC should conduct a survey of local businesses, similar to that by RRC in 2000, to explore the possibility for incorporation into SEABA or for developing its own businesses alliance and employer-assisted housing program. 5. Brownfield redevelopment: Reclaiming hazardous industrial sites promotes environmental and social justice and may be im plemented to increase residential density. Reynoldstowns Master Plan and ASAP already support this tool; it s hould be implemented in the form of industrial loft conversions for market-rate residential uni ts, artists studios, and live-work units. The development of market -rate residential lofts can leverage funds to

PAGE 101

101 subsidize artists studios and live-work units which will foster local entrepreneurship. The redevelopment of unused i ndustrial sites will not disp lace existing residents. 6. Real estate transfer taxes (RETT): These taxes, imposed on the sale of real estate, should be allocated to specific uses that will benefit the neighborhood and mitigate displacement, such as affordable housing. Georgia currently imposes an RETT on all property sales in the state, which it distributes to state, county, and municipal governments in which the property is located. Atlanta should allocate RETT revenues collected from property sales in gentrifying ne ighborhoods to an affordable housing trust fund or CDC that supports the production and pres ervation of affordable uni ts in that particular neighborhood, and possibly raise the rates for sales occurring within the city. PolicyLink contends that implementing RETTs in ge ntrifying neighborhoods may reduce property flipping and high turnover rates, which often lead to displacement and the loss of economic and racial diversity. 7. Rent control: Regulating the private market protects renters from drastic and unfair rent increases thereby reducing thei r risk of displacement. Neighborhood residents and CDCs operating within gentrifying neighborhoods should partner with AHAND and GSTAND to advocate for rent control legislation to city and state governments, especially for seniors and low-income families. Municipal rent control legislation should stabilize current rent levels or slow the rate at which rents increase. This legislation shoul d be adopted prior to BeltLine construction to prevent un just soaring rental rates and to maintain diversity in the BeltLine neighborhoods. Given the pro-business climate in Atlanta, this recommendation may be difficult to realize. 8. Homeownership opportunities: Providing homeownership opportunities and assistance to low-income families ensures long-term affo rdability and stabilizes residents in their neighborhood. RRC and HDDC currently employ this tool, but should refocus their homeownership efforts on helping existing re sidents purchase their current home from absentee landlords. 9. Leveraging market-rate development: The sale of market-r ate units by nonprofit organizations provide funds for subsidized uni ts and promotes a diverse community. This tool is widely used by HDDC and RRC, how ever the CDCs should use caution when leveraging market-rate development, especially during the current, tight housing market. Also, they should not rely solely on the sale of market-rate units for financing, as their goal of affordability may be lost. 10. Inclusionary zoning: This zoning ordinance would requ ire a percentage of all new housing units to be affordable. BAHAB should rally nonprofits and community groups interested in the adoption of mandatory inclusionary zoni ng to push City Council to pass this ordinance before BeltLine development begi ns in order to ensure the developm ent of affordable units in areas ad jacent to the impact area. 11. Community land trust: CLT is promoted as a strategy for achieving long-term affordability despite changing property values BAHAB, RRC, and HDDC have already

PAGE 102

102 sparked conversations about bringing CLTs back to Atlanta; they should mobilize other neighborhoods and CDCs facing similar displacement threats. A legislative proposal should be drafted collaboratively, and CLT succe sses in other states should be touted as examples. These eleven recommendations are based on ga ps discovered between research findings and PolicyLinks Equitable Development Toolkit and on possible displacement threats in the future due to the BeltLine. By addressing these recommendations and making a commitment to equitable development, the case study neighborhoods will benefit from reduced displacement risks while enjoying the benefits of gentrification and revitalization. The citizen planners can play their part by building aw areness among their neighbors; engaging in TOD redevelopment planning, in addition to other neighborhood planning activities; and joining CDCs in their advocacy efforts for rent control, inclusionary zoning, and CLTs. Implications for Planning and Opportunities for Future Research This study dem onstrates the potential strength citizen planners can exercise. The case study neighborhoods involvement in the NPU system, as well as their own neighborhood planning and zoning committees, allow residents to shape future construction and redevelopment via an extensive development review process, communication with developers and city staff, negotiations with applicants, and recommendations and conditions for approval. This hands-on development review gives the community cont rol over vacant and underu tilized properties and the ability to implement their own visions to avoi d displacement, or in the case of Inman Park, to profit from further gentrification. The CDCs operating in Reynoldstown a nd the MLKHD neighborhood have demonstrated proactive residential stabilizati on by providing rehabilitation assi stance to existing low-income residents before attracting newcomers with ne w market-rate housing. In effect, RRC and HDDC are responsible for beginning the revitalization (or gentrification) pro cess by sparking a renewed

PAGE 103

103 interest in their community. Although national trends do show people moving away from the suburbs and back into urban neighbor hoods, RRC and HDDC make their neighborhoods palatable to the latest wave of urban pioneers, while still k eeping their longtime residents interest in mind. These two neighborhoods st rive to reach a delicate balance between revitalization and maintaining community char acter and history. Em ploying this studys recommendations and equitable development tools, the CDCs will play a large role in advocating policy and building community. As the foundati on for grassroots activism, community members must remind planners and elected officials of the effect inappr opriate development has on their neighborhoods. Planners and policy makers must keep up with recent innovations in affordable housing production, preservation, and anti-displacem ent. They should also continue to study gentrification and the dynamics of urban neighborhood change. Looking back, Inman Park may have gentrified to its present stat e due to lack of comprehensive planning during the 1970s in A tlanta and the absence of a CDC serving the neighborhood. Researchers should st udy this further, to discover the reasons for Inman Parks early and quick gentrification. The findings of such research could be applied to other neighborhoods currently facing gent rification pressures. A similar study to this should be conducted in 25 years, which is the proposed time of completion for the BeltLine project. Planners should study how the BeltLine was impl emented and its effects on gentrification in urban neighborhoods. Further, these findings from the City of Atlanta should be compared to similar research in other cities In addition, research to iden tify characteristics of gentrifying communities will be helpful in proactively determin ing where to focus anti-displacement efforts. Alternative models for anti-displacement, ot her than PolicyLinks Equitable Development Toolkit, should be identified and analyzed relativ e to studies such as this one. Successful case

PAGE 104

104 studies of cities and neighborhoods that have implemented rent control, community land trusts, or supported community development corporations should be examined. The toolkit does not promote value-capture as a method for governments to leverage transit-related development. Value-capture programs promote the equitable di stribution of benefits from new development and therefore should be included in the Equita ble Development Toolkit. If implemented in Atlanta, value-capture could be used to fund affordable housing or other public amenities and could reduce land speculation due to the BeltLine project.

PAGE 105

105 Table 5-1. PolicyLinks guiding principles for neighborhood equitable development and relevance to Atlanta PolicyLink Comments about Atlanta Understand the economic, political, and social forces at work Need updated socioeconomic and demographic Census tract data to assess recent neighborhood change Assess, map, and analyze the potential for displacement Use data demonstrating neighborhood change to determine gentrifying communities Support resident partic ipation in land use planning that envisions community-wide economic improvement NPUs facilitate partic ipation in zoning and land development; members should work toward reaching developm ent that benefits all community members with new jobs, healthy retail, and affordable housing or affordable housing assistance generated by new commercial development Stabilize current residents in communities experiencing increases in property values The proactive efforts of CDCs have secured longtime residents place in their community before major changes occur Expand the range of housing not susceptible to the commercial market through permanent affordability mechanisms CLTs should be formed in neighborhoods during the early stages of gentrification, or prior to redevelopment efforts Promote diverse homeownership opportunities for existing residents RRC and HDDC assist first-time homebuyers as well as attract market-rate homebuyers from outside the neighborhood; BAHAB recommends targeting affordable ownership opportunities at a range of income levels Plan for newcomers to promote a diverse community mix and ensure affordability Target income and asset strategies to stabilize current residents Job security, home-ownership Anchor culturally-rooted commercial, nonprofit and arts organizations in mixed income communities RRC places strong value on local heritage through quilting events and a performing arts festival; MLKHD is a mecca for AfricanAmerican culture and arts, anchored by national park Adapted from PolicyLink, 2008

PAGE 106

106 Table 5-2. PolicyLinks guiding principles for re gional equitable development and relevance to Atlanta PolicyLink Comments about Atlanta Build public awareness of the issues and proposed solutions among key players The OFW master plan ning process brought displacement concerns to the attention of City Council Advocate mixed-income development at every turn and across jurisdictions Strongly supported in ASAP and all neighborhood master plans Make environmental justice and social equity central components of regional development Brownfield redevelopment is supported in ASAP and most neighborhood plans Integrate solutions to public transit, affordable housing, workforce development, and open space issues The BeltLine is a holistic development approach that addresses these issues as well as economic development and brownfield remediation Connect planning for transit investment and affordable housing development. Utilize equity criteria to guide new investment BAHTF dollars are to be equitably distributed throughout the BeltLine impact area Identify key incentives for jurisdictions to adopt mixed income housing practices Secure valuable anti-discrimination practices to ensure fair housing. ASAP strongly supports fair housing and antidiscrimination Tie affordable housing production to commercial growth Mixed-use developments Strengthen regional coop eration in community and economic development planning Urban neighborhoods throughout the city facing similar gentrification challenges should cooperate to find solutions Craft policies to engage local, regional, state, and federal governments in addressing gentrification pressures Start by drafting legislati on for rent control and CLTs Adapted from PolicyLink, 2008

PAGE 107

107 Table 5-3. PolicyLinks tools for equitable development and application in Atlanta Tool Description Application Transit Oriented Development Vibrant, walkable, compact designed development; can become equitable with the inclusion of mixed-income housing and access to jobs and services City has goals to redevelop MARTA rail stations using TOD principles; neighborhoods must engage in the planning process to ensure equitable development and reduce gentrification Employer-Assisted Housing Workers receive subsidized housing near job and businesses find and retain local employees May be used in Reynoldstown, where businesses express difficulty in finding and keeping qualified workers; would require collaboration with RRC and SEABA Healthy Food Retailing Access to fresh, quality, affordable, groceries, especially in lower-income, urban neighborhoods Gentrification usually brings new retail outlets, like Edgewood Retail in Reynoldstown; RCILs concern over spoiled food at convenience stores; NPUs should push for quality groceries at affordable prices Brownfield Redevelopment Hazardous, underutilized industrial or waste sites requiring sophisticated cleanup m easures before reuse Brownfield redevelopment is supported by ASAP, Reynoldstown Master Plan; may be used in gentrifying neighborhoods to increase residential density; industrial loft conversion is a popular use of this tool in Atlanta Local and Minority Hiring The em ployment of minorities and local or minority-owned businesses RRC and HDDC may choose to do business with neighborhood-based, minority developers, architects, planning consultants, and builders Real Estate Transfer Taxes (RETT) Taxing the sale of real property each time it is sold and designating the revenue for a specified use, such as affordable housing Gentrifying, Atlanta neighborhoods should use revenue from RETT to fund local affordable housing as a way to capture benefits from property flipping Rent Control Private market regula tion, Not currently employed in the

PAGE 108

108 restricts landlords from raising rents beyond certain percentage, may be limited by the income of the resident case study areas; if implemented, rent control would stabilize low-income renters in gentrifying neighborhoods Nonprofit-owned housing Nonprof its develop and rent or sell housing at rates affordable to the community RRC and HDDC own and manage affordable rental units Homeownership Opportunities New housing development or financial assistance to purchase existing housing; results in wealth creation, especially as property values rise RRC and HDDC assist firsttime homebuyers and produce for-sale housing Leverage market-rate development Profits from market-rate units in gentrifying neighborhoods can contribute to affordable housing needs RRC and HDDC use this tool to make up for financial losses from subsidized developments Retention of Expiring Housing Subsidies Developers m ay choose to opt-out of their subsidy agreements upon expiration, especially in gentrifying communities; retention of these subsidized units can be achieved with government incentives or purchase by nonprofits Recommended by OFW master plan and BAHAB Commercial Linkage Strategies Im pact fees imposed on commercial uses to support affordable housing; helps balance the jobs to housing ratio Recommended by OFW master plan and BAHAB Infill Incentives Financia l incentives and higher density allowed to develop on underutilized or vacant urban lots in an effort to create more an affordable development Supported and recommended by ASAP, Reynoldstown Master Plan, OFW Master Plan, the Butler-Auburn plan, and BAHAB CDC's with Resident Shareholders Residents investing in their neighborhoods CDC, reaps benefits for both parties Not currently used in RRC or HDDC Inclusionary Zoning Zoning ordinance requires all new residen tial development to include a minimum percentage of affordable units Currently, a mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance is under review by the city; it was pushed by members of BAHAB

PAGE 109

109 Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives Resident ow ns the unit or a share of the condo building, but in order to make it affordable, not the land it is built upon; the unit has some limitations on profit from resale or leasing; this tool may incorporate sweat-equity, in which one earns credit by contributing physical labor to the unit ASAP encourages cooperatives and mutual housing Community Land Trusts Resident ow ns the unit but nonprofit owns the land underneath, providing permanent affordability outside of the speculative market The BAHAB is bringing back the CLT concept to Atlanta, after failed attempts a couple of decades ago Adapted from PolicyLink, 2008

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX A INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD MATERIALS Informed C onsent Project Title: Local Efforts to Mitigate Resi dential Displacement due to Gentrification Dear Planner and/or Community Leader: I am a graduate student at the University of Florida, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. As part of my Masters thesis, I am conducting interviews to learn about neighborhood organizations and local government planners effo rts to reduce residentia l displacement due to gentrification in three Atlanta neighborhoods: Inman Park, Reynoldstown and Martin Luther King Jr. Historic District. I am asking you to part icipate in this interview because you have been identified as either an active community lead er in one of the case study neighborhoods or as a planning or community developmen t professional whose work is focused in one of the case study neighborhoods. Interviewees will be asked to pa rticipate in an interview lasti ng one hour or less. The list of questions is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Your interview will be conducted by phone or at your office after I have received a copy of this signed consent from you. With your permission I would like to audiotape this interview. Only I will have access to the tape wh ich I will personally transcribe. The tape will then be erased. Your identity may be revealed in the final manuscrip t unless you specifically request that I do not include your name in this thesis. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or ot her direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to par ticipate and may discontinue your participation in the in terview at any time w ithout consequence. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (706) 495-8593 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Kristin Larsen, at (352) 392-0997 ext. 433. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392-0433. Please sign and return this copy of the letter. A second copy is provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me pe rmission to report your responses in the final manuscript to be submitted to the Graduate School and Departme nt of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida. Your identity will only be indicated if check the appropriate box below. Kaycee Mertz ______________________________________________________________________________ I have read the procedure described above for the Interview Research on Local Efforts to Mitigate Residential Displacement due to Gentrificat ion. I voluntarily agree to participate in the interview and I have received a copy of this description.

PAGE 111

111 Please do include my identity in the thesis document. Please do not include my identity in the thesis document. ____________________________ ___________ Signature of participant Date I would like to receive a copy of the final interview manuscript submitted to the University of Florida. YES NO

PAGE 112

112 Interview Questions 1. Is residential displacement due to gent rification occurring in your neighborhood? 2. Does your organization take an active role in addressing residential displacement due to gentrification? If yes, what types of tools and strategi es does your organization use? 3. Does your organization collaborate with ot her neighborhood groups, planning organizations, or community development organizations? If so, please describe the organizations you collaborate with, the issues you address together, and how you collaborate to address these issues. 4. Does your organization advocate anti-gentrific ation policy to local or state government officials? If yes, how does your organization do this, what types of policy do you advocate, and what has resulted? 5. How does your organization encourage public involvement in the planning process? 6. Is your organization directly involved in solving housing affordability problems in your neighborhood? 7. Does your organization attempt to gain control of vacant or underutilized properties? If so, how and for what purposes? Can you share any examples of success? 8. What are the greatest strengths of your organization? Can you give examples of recent success stories or major accomplishments? 9. What do you consider to be the biggest cha llenges facing your neighborhoods ability to mitigate gentrification now and in the future? What is your organization doing to plan for or respond to these challenges? 10. Is there anything else you can share that dem onstrates your organizations efforts to reduce residential displacement due to gentrification or to promote equitable development in your neighborhood? 11. Does your neighborhood have a strategic plan that addresses community development, affordable housing, neighborhood preser vation, or other related issues?

PAGE 113

113 Survey Questions 1. Please select the neighborhood in which you liv e. In the remaining questions, your neighborhood refers to your answer to this question. ___ Inman Park ___ Reynoldstown ___ MLK Historic District 2. Are you a homeowner? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, how long have you been in your current residence? _______ If yes, have you considered or felt pressured to sell your home? ___ Yes, because of higher property taxes ___ Yes, because of offers from buyers or developers ___ Yes, because of the changing character of the neighborhood ___ No ___ Other, please explain. _________________________________ 3. Are you a renter? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, how long have you been in your current re sidence? ________ If yes, has your rent in creased since youve been at your current residence? ___ Yes ___ No 4. I have the following concerns about my neighborhood (check any that apply): ___ The character is rapidly changing to an uncomfortable degree. ___ Rents and home values are increasing too much. ___ Local businesses that I typi cally use are being replaced. ___ New or planned developments in my ne ighborhood do not fit the ex isting character of the community. ___ New or planned developments in my ne ighborhood do not serve the needs of existing residents. ___ None of the above 5. What are your greatest concerns about the future of your neighborhood? 6. What have local government planners and ne ighborhood organizations done to address the issues in your responses to questions 4 and 5? 7. Please list any local comm unity organizations that you are involved in. 8. On average, how often do you attend local pl anning meetings or workshops, including neighborhood planning unit (NPU) meetings? 9. Have you witnessed any new developments in your neighborhood that have significantly impacted the community, either positively or negatively? Please explain. 10. Have you witnessed any positive impacts in your neighborhood made by community organizations or local gove rnment? Please explain.

PAGE 114

114 11. Have you been involved in any neighborhood impr ovement projects or activities that you are particularly proud of? Please explain. 12. Is there anything you can share that describes resident concern or ac tion pertaining to the displacement of low-income households? 13. Is there anything else you can share that describe s the type of resident participation in local planning in your neighborhood?

PAGE 115

115 LIST OF REFERENCES Beltline Affordable Housing Advisory Board. (2008). Affordable housing trust fund recommendations. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Retrieved on Septem ber 10, 2008, from http://www.beltline.org/ResourceLibrary/CommunityEngagement/tabid/1822/Default.aspx Cervero, B., Landis, J. (1995). Development impacts of urban transport: A US perspective. In D. Banister (Ed.), Transport and urban development (pp. 136-156). London: E & FN Spon. Cervero, R., Duncan, M. (2002). Transits value-a dded effects: Light and commuter rail services and commercial land values. Transportation Research Record,1805 8-15. City of Atlanta. (2005). Inman Park design guidelines Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved on October 1, 2008, from http://www.inmanpark.org/about.html City of Atlanta. (2007). Atlanta Strategic Action Plan. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved on April 28, 2008, from http://www.atlantaga.gov/government/planning/asap.aspx City of Atlanta. (2008). Neighborhood Planning Units Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.atlantaga. gov/government/planning/npu_system.aspx BeltLine, Inc. (2008). Atlanta BeltLine Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.beltline.org Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement. Journal of the American Planning Association. 70(1), 39-52. Gentrification Task Force. (2001). A City for all: The report of the gentrification task force to Atlanta City Council, September 17, 2001. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved on October 1, 2007, from http://www.ahand.org/al bums/images/GTF_Report.pdf Georgia Public Revenue Code O.C.G.A. 48-6-1 (2008). Glass, Ruth. (1989). London: Aspects of change. In Glass, Ruth (Ed.), Clichs of Urban Doom (pp.133-158). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwe ll Ltd. (Original work published 1964). Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. (2001). Dealing with neighborhood change: A primer on gentrification and policy choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved on September 20, 2007, from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2001/04metropolitanpolicy.aspx Levy, D. K., Comey, J., Padilla, S. (2006). In the face of gentrificati on: Case studies of local efforts to mitigate displacement. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/publications/411294.html Metzger, John. (1996). The theory and practice of equity planning: An annotated bibliography Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 11, No. 1, 112-126.

PAGE 116

116 NeighborWorks America. (2004). Managing Neighborhood change: Best practices for communities undergoing gentrification. Atlant a, GA: Author. Retrieved on November 10, 2007, from http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies Nelson, A. (1999). Transit stations and commerc ial property values: A case study with policy and land use implications. Journal of Public Transportation, 2(3), 77-93. Newman, and Wyly. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrifica tion and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), p23-57. PEQ and MXP Collaborative. (2000). Reynoldstown: 2000 and beyond. Atlanta, GA: Reynolds Revitalization Corporation. Re trieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.atlantaga.gov/government/planning/plans_studies.aspx Policing Crowds. (2007) Interview with Neil Smith: Gentrification in Berlin and the revanchist state. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http ://www.policing-crowds.org/news/article/ neilsmith-gentrification-in-berlin-and-the-revanchist-state.html PolicyLink. (2008). Equitable development toolkit Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://policylink.org/ EDTK/default.html. Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation. (n.d.) Resources for resi dents and communities. [Brochure] Atlanta, GA: Author. Rice, Shelley. (1997). Parisian views. Cambridge, MIT Press. Rose, Kalima. (2001). Beyond gentrification: Tools for equitable development. Shelterforce. May/June 2001. Retrieved December 1, 2007, fr om http://www.nhi.org/online/issues.html Saporta, M. (2008, August 17). Perdue should steer state toward a fund for green space. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved October 14, 2008 from, http://www.ajc.com Schwartz, Alex. (2006). Housing policy in the United States: An introduction New York, Routledge. Smith, Neil. (1996). The New urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city London, Routledge. South East Atlanta Busi ness Association. (2008). SEABA: About us. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.seabaga.org Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh & Associates. (2008). Old Fourth Ward master plan. Atlanta, GA: City of Atlanta Department of Planning and Comm unity Development. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from, http://www.atlantaga.gov/gove rnment/planning/plans_studies.aspx Urban Collage, Inc, Huntley & A ssociates, Market + Main. (2005). Butler-Auburn redevelopment plan update. Atlanta, GA: City of Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved September 1, 2008 from http://www.atlantaga.gov/gove rnment/planning/plans_studies.aspx

PAGE 117

117 Von Hoffman, Alexander. (2003). House by house, block by blo ck: The rebirth of Americas urban neighborhoods New York, Oxford University Press. Wright, Patricia, et al. (1995). Development without displacement. The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://tigger.uic.edu/~pwright/dwd.html#definition. Yin, Robert, K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

PAGE 118

118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kaycee is cu rrently pursing her Master of Ar ts in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida. She earned her bachelor s degree in regional econ omic development with a minor in geographic information systems from Georgia Southern University. While at the University of Florida, she held a graduate assistantship with the Center for Building Better Communities and internships at the North Cent ral Florida Regional Planning Council and the Gainesville-Hall Metropolitan Pl anning Organization in Georgia. Kaycees specific planning interests include neighborhood planning, gentrification, public involvement, and community revitalization, all of which are illustrated in her thesis work. During her undergraduate years studying economic development, she was inspired to explore innovations in affordable housi ng and poverty alleviation, which eventually influenced her decision to join the planning profession. Upon comp letion of her masters degree, she aspires to use her planning career for empowering communities to achieve their potential. In her free time, Kaycee enjoys traveling to new places, camping, skiing with her family, and hiking with Chad and their dog, Cocoa.