Equity at PDC and the need for an Anti-Displacement Policy

Katie Currid/The Oregonian

“Gentrification, what does that mean anyway?”

The dismissive tone of these words, uttered by Patricia Weekley, Social, Business and Workforce Equity Professional at PDC, seemed all-too appropriate, given the history, mission and culture of the PDC.

The agency’s primary purpose is to invest public funds in capital projects in chosen areas of the city, to in turn attract private investment, increase property values (and rents), and to then pay off the initial bonds with the additional tax revenue, thus completing the circle of TIF (Tax Increment Financing). This form of debt-financed urban renewal has been utilized in different forms throughout the US, to spur economic growth and improve “blighted” neighborhoods, for over a generation.

Regardless of where one stands on the gentrification debate, even if one believes that the term itself is toxic, generalizing, or polarizing, it would seem appropriate for the PDC to have a working definition of the term, if only so that folks like Ms. Weekley, whose position is to increase inclusion and reduce disparities, don’t come across as sounding insensitive or blind to the severe negative impacts that Urban Renewal can unleash, even if the eventual positive aspects of the investments far outweigh the negative.

To be clear, Economic Development is not my primary gig, so if I am missing some key literature or concepts here, let me know. My primary experience and knowledge of gentrification and place-based economic revitalization comes from the community development and housing perspective, so I am admittedly biased.

To quote fellow PhD student, Jamaal Green, aka Surly Urbanist, “Gentrification is  a dirty word…as it should be,” and we should not turn away from subjects or concepts that may expose ugly truths in which we are complicit. It would benefit the PDC, and the city as a whole, to examine its equity impacts, not only on how it chooses to hire contractors and sub-contractors for its projects as it does now, but how an existing population and community is impacted when such a great amount of capital is driven into an urban area in such a short period of time.

While I imagine (and hope), the PDC does make efforts to track and mitigate these negative impacts, I am unaware of how successful they are in assessing and limiting commercial displacement – businesses having to re-locate or shutter because of all the changes. PDC should ensure  that existing businesses have access to the capital, support, and technical assistance they may need in order to stay viable, despite rising rents and dramatic demographic changes in the surrounding customer base. I have heard many critiques that the PDC prioritizes supporting new, emerging small businesses, rather than the existing businesses that may be struggling, but have a strong existing customer base, and could benefit from the new investments and residents that it brings. These existing businesses are more likely to be minority-owned, whereas the new, emerging small businesses, are more likely to be owned by white men and women, who already have greater access to resources and capital, and are the “gentry” of gentrification.

Would a robust Anti-Displacement policy be feasible in new Urban Renewal Areas? Such a policy would survey existing businesses and collect data regarding rent, revenue, wages, and employee and customer demographics, before the URA is officially designated. Existing businesses that experience hardship due to the rapid changes could then apply to grants, rent assistance, technical support, and other forms of support so that they might adapt and survive, until the area finds it’s new economic and demographic equilibrium. PDC would track the number of businesses that had to move or close despite these efforts, and analyze what kinds of equity effects these closures had, based on the demographics of ownership, employment, and customer base.

Most local businesses believe that substantial public investment in their neighborhood can have long-run growth and business opportunities, but there is often lag between the increased rents and loss of current customer base (through residential displacement, I won’t even get into this right now), and the later business opportunities and growth. Given the millions of dollars the PDC invests, and Anti-Displacement policy would seem to be a cost-effective method to ensure that these public investments have a net-positive effect on the agency’s, and the city’s equity goals.

How is a city’s history of inequality represented in plans to promote equity? The 2012 Portland Plan briefly describes the city’s history from a birds-eye-view perspective, addressing nature and land use: “Portland’s districts have distinct issues based on 1) unique topographies, 2) natural features and 3) when and how each area developed and became a part of the city. Some areas have been part of the city for 160 years and others for just 30 years” (p4). The word “racism” appears just twice in the entire document, both in regards to training city and partner staff on institutionalized racism (Element 4 of “A Framework for Equity” on p22). Is this enough historical substance for such a plan? How does a plan “address institutional racism” without providing historical context and defining key terms?

Seattle’s Race & Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) explicitly defines individual and structural racism in the context of the city. In a 2-page brief explaining RSJI, the bottom of the first page has a heading (“Why Focus on Institutional Racism”) under which this history is outlined: “Until the Civil Rights Movement, housing and employment policies in Seattle, like elsewhere in the U.S., were explicitly racist. We have made progress in addressing individual discrimination, but the effects of institutional racism still shape public policies and create race-based inequity across our community.” This is a nice dose self-reflection.

Similar to Seattle’s RSJI, the Cleveland Policy Plan of 1975[1] is rife with statistics on racial inequality and historical descriptions of structural racism in housing policies. “Black residents constitute almost 40% of the City’s population, but receive only 30% of the City’s total income.” This plan also recognizes the history of institutional racism: “In Cleveland, as in most other communities, racial segregation persists as a deplorable fact of life. Segregated housing patterns severely restrict housing choices for members of minority groups. The Commission reaffirms the constitutional right of each person to live where he chooses without regard to his race. Furthermore, the Planning Commission recognizes its responsibility to seek ways to insure this right.”

Is it unfair to compare the 2012 Portland Plan to the Cleveland Plan of 1975 or even a specific initiative like Seattle’s RSJI? The Cleveland Plan of 1975 is self-described as “…not a plan, at least not in the traditional sense. It is not a series of colored maps and designs describing an ideal future in terms of land uses, public facilities and transportation routes.” This is much different from the rather totalizing and top-down approach of the Portland Plan. The Seattle RSJI is also a specific initiative. It can be viewed as a “plan for racial justice” or equity but is not exactly a “plan” in the comprehensive or roadmap sense.

We must also acknowledge the particular histories of each locale. Seattle has had a more diverse history and is located in a county named after MLK. Cleveland has an even richer history of racial diversity. Portland is known as white, but this is a broad generalization that does not help equity efforts. The Portland Plan addresses the city’s longstanding issue with undercounting minority populations (a data collection issue). How could the Portland Plan improve the historical framing of Portland’s inequality? It could start by defining institutional racism and somehow acknowledging the tendency to overlook the non-white, no matter how small the size of the population is/was.

[1] http://pdx.edu/usp/planpdxorg-cleveland-policy-plan

Education and Equity : Taking a lesson from Seattle

Out of the work done by Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative has emerged the RSJ Community Roundtable. This partnership of twenty-five community organizations and public institutions is committed to addressing racial inequity within the communities of Seattle. After careful consideration, the Roundtable has decided to make education its primary focus. This includes focusing on the large racial disparities in high school graduation rates for students of color and the rates of discipline within this demographic.

 

While 79% of white students in Seattle graduate on time from high school, the rates are only 48% for African American and 50% for Latino students. The long-term repercussions of these figures are staggering. According to U.S. census data, a bachelor’s degree earns an average of $51,554, a high school diploma earns $28,645, and a high school dropout earns $19,169.

 

The RSJ Community Roundtable has established four key action areas for achieving greater equity within the education system.

 

1.Promoting a statewide agenda on racial equity in education.

2. Proposing policy to eliminate racial inequity in school discipline rates.

3. Adopting the use of a Racial Equity Toolkit to conduct review of organizational programs and policies for all members of the Roundtable.

4. Promoting community accountability and engagement.

 

Some of the greatest examples of work being done on the ground today are small-scale interventions that require little to no financial investment from the school or city. This includes changing the inequitable disciple policies, such as out of school suspensions that result in students missing valuable classroom time and coming up with disciplinary actions on a per incident basis.

 

Another example is a voter passed Families and Education Levy, which was approved in November 2011 and targets schools with the greatest financial need. The funding is being used for programs aimed at closing achievement gaps within the Seattle school district.

 

These practical solutions to complex problems seem to be working already. According to the Seattle Times, high school graduation rates among students of color have improved, but are still below the national average of 70%. What can Portland learn from the lessons of Seattle and the RSJI’s Community Roundtable’s work on equity within the public education system? Are a series of small scale interventions enough to create a change among minority students?

 

Sources

http://www.seattle.gov/rsji/roundtable.htm

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017786245_dropout19.html