I have worked in a number of communities that have attempted to revitalize their downtown, and faced obstacles because of poor housing stock surrounding the downtown. The commonwealth attempted to address this problem with the Elm Street program. If the housing stock around the downtown is deteriorating, in many cases it deters people from entering the area.

When housing deteriorates, how can the neighborhood turn it around? The government cannot make the only effort toward revitalization. There is a need for a public private partnership to effectuate change. Citizens have to be an active part of the process.

People usually get involved in the process by complaining about the conditions of their neighborhood and seemingly become involved in the public sector merry-go round. Of course, it is just the process at work as there are rules and regulations. It is an understanding of the process by the residents that make the process effective. If there is mistrust or misunderstandings between the groups, a public private partnership will never work.

If a public private partnership can be forged, real estate becomes the issue. Housing is real estate, and real estate normally has some value. If properties on a block are not kept in good repair or have a problematic concentration of tenants, the reputation of the housing stock can be damaged. When the reputation of the area is questionable, housing values fall and the area spins into decline.

One way to turn around a neighborhood is to have a plan for the revitalization. The plan should be based on a five-year, goals and objectives strategy, outlining what the public private partnership seeks to accomplish. The issues relating to a neighborhood cannot be given to a group as a cookie cutter study, but needs to be locally tailored through the input of citizens. A series of group citizen meetings can provide great insight into what are the real problems behind disinvestment. 

I have directed programs like the revitalization in Phoenixville, where the assessed value increased by $149 million over eight years. The price of housing doubled in most of the depressed areas. Neighbors identified community watch activities to get a reign in on aberrant behavior. That prompted a supportive Borough Council that placed a special priority on having the Police Department work closely with the neighbors. 

I have been in the Patterson Park Neighborhood in Baltimore, where homeownership was the goal. The housing stock had so many vacants and burnouts; I also administered a program to create a neighborhood rental corporation where the residents control 100 project-based Section 8 rentals in the area. The area was so deserted that the Section 8 program was used to stabilize the housing stock.

I have worked in the Kensington Area of Philadelphia, where the strategy was to conduct leveraged vacant rehabilitation (LVR) to fix up houses by putting $60,000 in rehabilitation and sell them for $30,000 to lower income persons. The problem with the LVR in Kensington was that other people on the block were walking away from their equity and creating more vacants.  The blocks were that bad.

Any combination of programs and strategies will help provide a blueprint for success.  I have always thought that the first thing to do is make sure that the nonsense in the community needs to be minimized. When I talk about nonsense, I think of the aberrant behavior that makes the area unattractive to investors and potential homeowners. This involves active interaction with neighbors and the community groups.

Now, how does a neighborhood arrive at being so bad that it is good? When the property values fall enough the area becomes ripe for revitalization. People starting out are always looking for affordable homes to buy. There will be a period in the revitalization when the work of the community to deal with aberrant behavior and exiting housing stock will make the low home values make sense to potential buyers. The existing homeowner becomes the pioneer and the community actions will appear to lessen the risk by virtue of their revitalization activities.

Strategy could include a homeowner revitalization program, like those offered through the Elm Street program, community clean ups, code enforcement or community watch activities. Taking back a neighborhood park can be difficult and a long-term goal but there could be efforts to clean up the park and call in the people conducting illicit business in the park. 

In Phoenixville, there were streetscape improvements that led to better lighting, homeowner improvements and an increased ease of opportunity to identify those not conducting their personal affairs in a reasonable way. Creating an alternate sense of place is essential. A strategy has to possess building blocks with one action building upon another action. The public/private partnership makes a difference in the process.  Committed people in both the public and private sectors taking note of events and attempting to make a difference are the key to revitalization.

Arguing about identifying the problem does not help revitalize, and only results in a prolonged period of inaction.

Barry Cassidy is a freelance grant and economic development consultant. He can be reached at barrycassidy@comcast.net.