Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The city - even if you include HABC, which you shouldn't - owns perhaps 10 vacant buildings in Res Hill. Obviously it sucks if you live next to one and are dealing with it, but in the scheme of ~150 vacants overall I'd say "not that many" is an accurate description.
If you look at what neighborhoods HCD has targeted with RFPs in the last several years, and I'm not talking about subsidized housing, it's clear there is no bias against black neighborhoods. Reservoir Hill, Upton, Johnston Square, Upper Broadway, etc etc. Now they haven't worked all that well because variously the market doesn't respond, the developers chosen don't complete projects, the predevelopment process takes too long, the neighborhoods targeted were too far gone, etc. But there were certainly attempts, probably even to the point of over-reaching. If you include neighborhood turnaround attempts that change the income mix and maybe remove some subsidized housing - and you should include these - then the results are still not there, but they're definitely in black neighborhoods. EBDI, Poppleton, Uplands, Barclay. And if you're talking about outright removing public housing units, that happened with HOPE VI and the demolition of high rises, and that happened in ... well I think you can figure it out.
Honestly it sounds like you're complaining both that subsidized housing got put in black neighborhoods, and complaining if it's now coming out. Or is there some other "they" you're referring to getting moved around? Progress gets made in these neighborhoods without moving anyone out, because there are so many vacant houses. Recent white folks coming in to Res Hill (concurrent with lots of middle class black folks coming in) weren't displacing anybody. I agree the city shouldn't be so eager to claim "success" with a redevelopment of existing low-income housing (like the Pennrose units) but those are often the stabilization that leads to the market coming in.
The biggest part of turnaround is going to be the city adding more good residents with choices and that means attracting them from the suburbs they're in now or keeping the ones who would move out to the suburbs. Not to say that some "people development" strategy won't have a place but you're being very vague on what that is or how to pay for it, and I don't think you have many examples of how it's led to the turnarounds you'd like to see.
i dont understand why u dont include HABC, thats housing authority of baltimore city, so yeah they own a lot of property in res hill, the black neighborhoods u mentioned like johnstonsquare, i just moved from there and lived in the 900 block of preston st, they fixed up 2 apartment buildings which have like 3 apartments and they overpriced them compared to what residents pay in the neighborhood and then gave the apts to section 8 residents, i grew up in poppleton in the 1100 block of fayette st and....they moved most of the law abiding residents out and are now redeveloping the homes for more "desirable" residents...my grandmother was one of those residents...the city did fix up some of the homes in reservoir hill on callow ave but they are mostly section 8...upper broadwway is just like the poppleton situation, johns hopkins is expanding just like univ of md, so they moved many of the residents out whom lived near the hospital and are fixing the place up for more desirable residents, as far as barclay i dont think the city is pushing for it its more like jhu since its so close and has always been a problem area for them, but upton and uplands are good starts to investing in the black neighborhoods...im not advocating for segregation or all black neighborhoods but i would definitely like to see the city try to preserve the character of some of the black neighborhoods, remember these neighborhoods werent always poor and law abiding long time residents of these neighborhoods adds a positive element to the neighborhoods because they know the history of the neighborhoods and have endured through the many battles with crime and drugs in these neighborhoods, i would suggest leaving the law abiding residents in these neighborhoods and developing around them if possible, also im an advocate for owner occupied tax breaks which i think could lure some folks back into the city
you guys are exactly right, the city needs to invest in the youth and the poor community because the city cant move forward and will continue to be dragged down by those whom have nearly no opportunities to improve their situation. working class people make up a huge percentage of the population of this city. all of the incentives and perks they offer the corporations and developers, they should devote the same energy towards the poverty stricken areas, i believe it will pay huge dividends for the city. when people feel they have a stake and an investment in the city then the whole city will improve and we can move forward. right now most just feel like there are two worlds one for those who have money and one for those who dont.
I think your heart is in the right place but let's face it, we spend a fortune on the poorer residents with subsidized living in the city as well as spending more money per student than Howard County which traditionally has very good schools.
Throwing more money onto a fire just keeps it burning. If anything, increase the perks to encourage more development and entice county residents to move back to the city. There are people literally terrified of coming to the city but make if it is financially beneficial and they'll come back.
If you want to say Baltimore doesn't do enough for the "Black Neighborhoods" I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I think you're mistaken how much in the nice neighborhoods is neglected, and how much is privately done.
Take a drive through Canton and Federal Hill and see how beat up the Streets and sidewalks are. It's amazing how bad of shape they are near the Ritz and Harbor View... maybe the two nicest communities in the City. If you walk by the welcome to Federal Hill sign you will see it was donated by a garden, residents had to raise their own money for a dog park, Under Armour is redoing a basketball court... not the City, and many organizations have worked tirelessly to make the parks as nice as they are.
Meanwhile they are putting millions into neighborhoods like Park Heights, Johnston Square and others. Just because stuff looks nice, doesn't mean it had anything to do with the City.
If you want to say Baltimore doesn't do enough for the "Black Neighborhoods" I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I think you're mistaken how much in the nice neighborhoods is neglected, and how much is privately done.
Take a drive through Canton and Federal Hill and see how beat up the Streets and sidewalks are. It's amazing how bad of shape they are near the Ritz and Harbor View... maybe the two nicest communities in the City. If you walk by the welcome to Federal Hill sign you will see it was donated by a garden, residents had to raise their own money for a dog park, Under Armour is redoing a basketball court... not the City, and many organizations have worked tirelessly to make the parks as nice as they are.
Meanwhile they are putting millions into neighborhoods like Park Heights, Johnston Square and others. Just because stuff looks nice, doesn't mean it had anything to do with the City.
I can agree with this to a certain extent.... Most City Politicos have "poor" sections in their district. Most politicians.. though they recognize that the more middle and upper income residents do vote.. are often fearful to invest even at a moderate level in a middle or upper income neighborhood. The fear is "I cant believe you are putting a new sidewalk in Roland Park when Park Heights looks like ****." Whether this is fair or not depends on your perspective. .but most people's perception IS reality. I read a copy of the Roland Park Master Plan that was adopted by the Baltimore City Planning Commission (disclaimer: I am NOT a resident of Roland Park).. They have major infrastructure issues like many areas of the City when it comes to roads, water, and sewer lines etc. They also have want amounts to an HOA that does take assessment to make some repairs and residents do pay for the repairs to their sidewalks where applicable.. But its interesting that you wont catch any politico on a soap box advocating for Roland Park for fear that they would be railroaded by the poorer neighborhoods. This is an extreme example there are dozens of other examples of less affluent neighborhoods that experience the same form of treatment.. If a politico did this for one of these other middle or upper income neighborhoods.. there would be someone running against them and using this against them in the next election by trying to whip the poorer neighborhoods into a frenzy. To me, many politicos have always pit one neighborhood against another rather than trying to work to improve ALL neighborhoods.
Yeah it's so screwed up. They take the tax $'s generated by the nice neighborhoods and never reinvest them. There is probably over 5,000 dogs in Fed Hill/Locust and the city wouldn't give the neighborhood the 10-20k needed to build one, they had to get the money from Bars and donations.
Look at it this way. Every Block in Federal Hill probably averages about 45 homes. Each of these homes has an average Tax # of 5k per year. That means every block in Federal Hill puts about 250k into the city's pocket a year. There are thousands of homes in Federal Hill. Yet Riverside Park has two defunct Basketball courts, a pool with the roof falling off, and no dog park, but a force of police fining you for not having your dog on a leash. Meanwhile you go down to Public Housing Sharp Leadenhall and there is tennis courts, basketball courts, a baseball field, and a play ground, all in pretty good shape.
It's just ridiculous that Politicians have to justify putting $$'s into neighborhoods that allow this city to succeed.
i dont understand why u dont include HABC, thats housing authority of baltimore city, so yeah they own a lot of property in res hill
I wouldn't look at city-owned and HABC-owned the same because, in general, there is some decent prospect of city houses getting sold if there is a market for them, while HABC houses have serious regulations and constraints that stop them from become owner-occupied (in addition to possibly lacking a market). You need HUD agreement, there are often requirements to replace units one-for-one, and HABC is always trying to protect the subsidy they take in just so that they can give their existing tenants a (deteriorating) roof over their head.
Reservoir Hill was unique in that it had a lot of scattered site public housing in the neighborhood (bad old policy) that had fallen apart and HABC agreed to transfer it all to a private developer/property manager with a slightly better income mix (better new policy). I'd say better because HABC would be called the worst landlord in the city, so most any profit-minded owner who has to maintain the place would be better. Of course they're still stuck with some of the worst tenants in the city. All of that on the rental side happened, and then Pennrose was supposed to rehab the final 11 as for sale but they never followed through. So now there are 8 vacants owned by HABC, and 3 they rehabbed and rent out again (despite what the neighborhood wanted). There is definitely pressure to get those 8 sold to a developer for owner-occupancy.
I looked at the latest numbers and there are 9 vacants owned by the city (5 on Lakeview) and 8 by HABC. Like I've been saying, even together, they aren't the biggest source of vacants in the neighborhood although they are frustrating.
On this other stuff you're still a bit all over the place and I'm wondering if you recognize how much it costs to rehab a vacant house. The "city" didn't develop squat on Callow Ave; they transferred 16 properties to a developer to do owner-occupied for sale, then let him get away despite community pressure with doing just four as rental and leaving the rest vacant. Pennrose rehabbed a lot of HABC houses there and elsewhere into subsidized rental, but Callow's still a mess.
I don't know enough to say WHAT WENT WRONG in the past over there but there's been public housing nearby, massively subsidized rehabs in three decades, ownership pushes, and now a recognition that it's next to some good areas. They sure as hell gave houses to some of those law abiding citizens you mention, and it kept falling apart. It's not clear it's ever had people able to buy a shell, complete a rehab, and sell on the open market without subsidy because the housing values have never been there. Ultimately that's what HCD is going to want to have and that means "priming the pump" until the market takes hold. No idea if/when it will work there.
Poppleton is a bit like EBDI junior, without the money to do it. But yes, in addition to tearing down all the vacant housing they are moving out some occupants. Upper Broadway was entirely vacant houses and is NOT the same as EBDI, though both are near Hopkins. The city is invested in Barclay, though it doesn't have much money. The city put a lot of effort into Upton and got a lot of vacant buildings offered for sale and it failed, because there wasn't a market.
I don't know what to tell you. The city is investing in black neighborhoods. Sometimes they do everything to keep existing residents in, sometimes they displace some. Sometimes preservation, sometimes demolition. Sometimes they do it on the cheap, sometimes they subsidize massively (actually the feds do). But almost all of it means nothing in the medium-to-long run if the market doesn't get interested. I think that's what you're missing. Reservoir Hill started turning around because the sales prices started to make sense for rehabbing 2500-3500 sf houses. Subsidy played a part in making some vacants cheap, and subsidy played a part in making some of the rental not be so blighting.
And when the market freaked out and prices crashed you were able to buy a house for 1/3rd the price it would have been. That's not the long term price and can't be the price in the future if more of the vacants are going to get fixed up, but it can be a great way for a little while longer to get some of the almost-fixed-up and REO stock into the hands of homeowners.
Yeah it's so screwed up. They take the tax $'s generated by the nice neighborhoods and never reinvest them. There is probably over 5,000 dogs in Fed Hill/Locust and the city wouldn't give the neighborhood the 10-20k needed to build one, they had to get the money from Bars and donations.
Look at it this way. Every Block in Federal Hill probably averages about 45 homes. Each of these homes has an average Tax # of 5k per year. That means every block in Federal Hill puts about 250k into the city's pocket a year. There are thousands of homes in Federal Hill. Yet Riverside Park has two defunct Basketball courts, a pool with the roof falling off, and no dog park, but a force of police fining you for not having your dog on a leash. Meanwhile you go down to Public Housing Sharp Leadenhall and there is tennis courts, basketball courts, a baseball field, and a play ground, all in pretty good shape.
It's just ridiculous that Politicians have to justify putting $$'s into neighborhoods that allow this city to succeed.
Yeah its a robin hood (take from one.. give to another) mentality that does no more than further divide the city. I dont think any neighborhood wants to stop another neighborhood from getting improvements or a better quality of life.. But the City has been built on this type of "us" and "them" philosophy where neighborhoods are fighting each other to get at the public teet. Rather than fight each other, we should be working together on collective improvements that are of mutual benefit. The president of our association has started to reach out to the neighborhoods that share our borders to get aquainted and to find out what types of project/issues that they are working on that may be of interest to us. Too many Baltimore neighborhoods behave like little townships and are not concerned about anything outside of their borders.. when they need to be just as concerned about the neighborhood next to them as their own. Not only does that increase your voice but I will support your project today.. you support mine tomorrow.. Its goodwill among neighborhoods that goes a long way to improving the entire community.
In your example.. Riverside Park seems it draws from Fed Hill, Locust Point, Riverside, etc. All three neighborhoods should get together and force the issue with the City. Not only would it potentially increase the likelihood that something may get done.. but it would be a nice initiative to build goodwill among the three neighborhoods if it is not there already. Getting the businesses/residents to raise money to "match" to whatever the City comes up with is another way to get the City to put their money where their mouth is...
Its funny I heard a candidate say (I wont mention their names since this isnt a political forum) that the City needs to stop giving tax breaks to developers and give them to residents. As a resident, emotionally this strikes a cord with me since I feel Im being taxed heavily and they are not..... However; if I take a step back for a moment I realize that we NEED developers to develop things in the City. Thats the only way it will improve. The challenge is striking a balance between incentive for development and incentive for residents to move in or remain in the City. its not either or but both... Politicos need to stop dividing to conquer and start getting people to work together for the common good..... (off soap box) lol
I wouldn't look at city-owned and HABC-owned the same because, in general, there is some decent prospect of city houses getting sold if there is a market for them, while HABC houses have serious regulations and constraints that stop them from become owner-occupied (in addition to possibly lacking a market). You need HUD agreement, there are often requirements to replace units one-for-one, and HABC is always trying to protect the subsidy they take in just so that they can give their existing tenants a (deteriorating) roof over their head.
Reservoir Hill was unique in that it had a lot of scattered site public housing in the neighborhood (bad old policy) that had fallen apart and HABC agreed to transfer it all to a private developer/property manager with a slightly better income mix (better new policy). I'd say better because HABC would be called the worst landlord in the city, so most any profit-minded owner who has to maintain the place would be better. Of course they're still stuck with some of the worst tenants in the city. All of that on the rental side happened, and then Pennrose was supposed to rehab the final 11 as for sale but they never followed through. So now there are 8 vacants owned by HABC, and 3 they rehabbed and rent out again (despite what the neighborhood wanted). There is definitely pressure to get those 8 sold to a developer for owner-occupancy.
I looked at the latest numbers and there are 9 vacants owned by the city (5 on Lakeview) and 8 by HABC. Like I've been saying, even together, they aren't the biggest source of vacants in the neighborhood although they are frustrating.
On this other stuff you're still a bit all over the place and I'm wondering if you recognize how much it costs to rehab a vacant house. The "city" didn't develop squat on Callow Ave; they transferred 16 properties to a developer to do owner-occupied for sale, then let him get away despite community pressure with doing just four as rental and leaving the rest vacant. Pennrose rehabbed a lot of HABC houses there and elsewhere into subsidized rental, but Callow's still a mess.
I don't know enough to say WHAT WENT WRONG in the past over there but there's been public housing nearby, massively subsidized rehabs in three decades, ownership pushes, and now a recognition that it's next to some good areas. They sure as hell gave houses to some of those law abiding citizens you mention, and it kept falling apart. It's not clear it's ever had people able to buy a shell, complete a rehab, and sell on the open market without subsidy because the housing values have never been there. Ultimately that's what HCD is going to want to have and that means "priming the pump" until the market takes hold. No idea if/when it will work there.
Poppleton is a bit like EBDI junior, without the money to do it. But yes, in addition to tearing down all the vacant housing they are moving out some occupants. Upper Broadway was entirely vacant houses and is NOT the same as EBDI, though both are near Hopkins. The city is invested in Barclay, though it doesn't have much money. The city put a lot of effort into Upton and got a lot of vacant buildings offered for sale and it failed, because there wasn't a market.
I don't know what to tell you. The city is investing in black neighborhoods. Sometimes they do everything to keep existing residents in, sometimes they displace some. Sometimes preservation, sometimes demolition. Sometimes they do it on the cheap, sometimes they subsidize massively (actually the feds do). But almost all of it means nothing in the medium-to-long run if the market doesn't get interested. I think that's what you're missing. Reservoir Hill started turning around because the sales prices started to make sense for rehabbing 2500-3500 sf houses. Subsidy played a part in making some vacants cheap, and subsidy played a part in making some of the rental not be so blighting.
And when the market freaked out and prices crashed you were able to buy a house for 1/3rd the price it would have been. That's not the long term price and can't be the price in the future if more of the vacants are going to get fixed up, but it can be a great way for a little while longer to get some of the almost-fixed-up and REO stock into the hands of homeowners.
Who or what is the driving force behind these projects? Residents? Developers? or just the City? Some of the developments you mentioned seemed ill conceived and short sighted.. thus increasing the chances that they will fail. My suspicion that there is either a greedy landowners who wants to get paid or some politico who wants to cut a ribbon and have a groundbreaking to make it look like they are doing something.. then they head for the hills once they get re-elected.. The project goes belly up and everybody walks away.. and they can blame it on the bank, the economy, the feds or whomever.. I know thats not the case all the time. .but some of these projects/development.. even Stevie Wonder can see them failing..
Who or what is the driving force behind these projects? Residents? Developers? or just the City? Some of the developments you mentioned seemed ill conceived and short sighted.. thus increasing the chances that they will fail. My suspicion that there is either a greedy landowners who wants to get paid or some politico who wants to cut a ribbon and have a groundbreaking to make it look like they are doing something.. then they head for the hills once they get re-elected.. The project goes belly up and everybody walks away.. and they can blame it on the bank, the economy, the feds or whomever.. I know thats not the case all the time. .but some of these projects/development.. even Stevie Wonder can see them failing..
By "these projects" you could mean any of 100 different projects at different times. Different national policies, subsidies available, market climate, historic concerns, size/scope, city and neighborhood leaders ...
Of the mid-size ones that are most misguided (especially with some years of hindsight) you could probably find that they were following the wishes of neighborhood leaders in some sense, those it's hard to really say what the sum of all residents' desires would be. But still there are several dozens of neighborhood "plans" at any given moment and it's often up to the mayor and housing officials to choose what to support at any point when the money shows up. So there will be some naked political calculations (presumed voter loyalty) and, at least more in recent years, noise made about how it will spur the market and build from strength. If the housing department is involved then usually you're starting from an already bad position, like mass vacancies and falling values.
I'm sure there's some amount of developers whispering in politicians' ears that leads to more projects getting done than otherwise would. But their influence is more to get development awards or to get a tax break on something they're taking the lead on. It may have been different in the past and in Reservoir Hill the example would be the scattered site Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects that happened in phases in the 80s and 90s. There might have been some neighborhood push for "more housing for people like us" as there often is, but also a politically-connected developer who would get city support and then get state-administered federal money to put in yet more low income housing. Which, at least at the start, should have been in good condition and maybe better than some other stuff around (which became vacant/abandoned some years later).
I don't know the history well enough but there is a large ring of subsidized housing complexes around Bolton Hill that was supposedly put in decades ago as that neighborhood sought to contain the encroaching blight around it. Exactly what the attitudes were of the neighborhoods receiving the housing complexes (Madison Park, Reservoir Hill) isn't known to me now but the presumption is leaders from Bolton Hill were in the drivers seat. Fast forward to today and Bolton Hill and the surrounding neighborhoods are working together to remove concentrated subsidized housing ... though some residents push back on that.
I guess I have more fondness for a project that reaches for the market and "fails" because they can't make the numbers work yet without subsidy, over the one that "succeeds" for a little while by over-subsidizing in an area that's doomed to fail. Middle East around Hopkins saw a ton of rehab activity in the 80s and 90s that was meaningless by the mid-2000s when the various powers decided that an EBDI-level approach was going to be needed. Johnston Square saw successive waves of subsidy (that I hadn't known about until recently) and couldn't turn the corner. Sandtown-Winchester was basically a pet project of James Rouse / Enterprise and the Nehemiah Corp that also sucked up lots of city and national subsidy - 600 units got done but 20 years later it's hard to tell.
Reservoir Hill looks like it's made it now after several failed (and in hindsight, counter-productive?) strategies going back to the 70s. The city talks a much better game now about building from strength and putting their limited resources in transitional neighborhoods that can be kept up with a little push, instead of the failing neighborhoods where it's easier to get a lot of properties. This is triage and some areas aren't going to make it.
Here's a novel idea: How about residents fix up their own homes rather than wait for a ****ing handout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
