How would you gather people together for this if you were new to the area? How would you advertise to organize this?

Thanks Wil for the link. I think this is a great idea, but must really follow the principal of trying to keep the block/neighborhood economically diverse. Otherwise, what happens is gentrification: the poor are displaced to another area, which in time will be bought cheaply by young people, displacing the poor again and the cycle never ends. I would advocate getting together a group of about 10-20 investors, pooling money, purchasing and rehabilitating the homes. That group would then set aside a number of homes to be rented/resold and a number of homes for themselves to occupy. The group, since they own the block, could negotiate with the City for zoning to create some multi-family homes. The group could then interview potential inhabitants, keeping in mind the need for economic diversity. After the block is fully rented/resold/inhabited, then a block council could be formed. All renters/owners/etc. must agree to abide by the rules of the council, and all council members get an equal vote, whether one owns or rents. If people don’t abide by the rules, they have signed a contract saying that they can be voted off the block.

If homes are really selling for cheap, getting investors shouldn't be a problem. They just also have to be civic minded, realizing that this is more than just for money-making purposes; they will not make as much money as the traditional real-estate market. But some return has to be offered. I also think that it might be difficult to find whole blocks that are empty, so deals with current residents would have to be made, getting some of them to sell their homes, and letting others stay if they agree to join the council. They should after they are convinced of the benefits of such a program. Saftey would be an issue in the beginning, but as people with money begin to move onto the block, political clout will begin to increase, making sure the City pays attention to the needs of the block.

I would be very willing to get involved in such a project. It would take a lot of research and work, but is definitely worth it. Detroit is another city getting involved in a project like this, though I haven’t been convinced that it isn’t just another gentrification project.

(snip)
and letting others stay if they agree to join the council. They should after they are convinced of the benefits of such a program. Saftey would be an issue in the beginning, but as people with money begin to move onto the block, political clout will begin to increase, making sure the City pays attention to the needs of the block.
(snip)

In areas with a real concern about safety, you'd have to add "watchman" to the hired handyman's list of things to do. Basically a smaller version of the special services district people. Once you have a enough owners on the blocks, you can afford private security, a block watchman - perhaps better termed a block concierge.

It wouldn't be that different from a downtown doorman. Ballpark estimate, 50 homes on a contigious block contribute $10 per week for security, thats $26,000 per year available for security- not a bad part time job for a retired policeman, or security guard. You'd probably want a pair of people, so you'd expand out to adjacent areas, 100 homes hiring 2 part time guards isn't unworkable.

Even with a larger area, if you're only checking 50 to 100 homes, you'd really have over protection. That's not a huge area to patrol, and you can only walk around the block and down the back alley so many times- so with the extra time you'd throw in the low impact jobs that years ago the neighborhood 'handyman' would have done- fixing loose doorknobs, replacing lightbulbs, pruning the bushes in the local lots back, screwing the access plates back onto the street lights, repainting the areas that get tagged. You could also do the true 'concierge' items - meeting the plumber, cable guy, carpenter when the owner can't take off from work, keeping a lid on the block kids when they get back from school- basically doing all the local jobs that the corner grocery store owner used to do for the neighobors a hundred years ago.

Hal

there is something to neighborhood diversity but you cant force people to live together and you shouldn't. the key is for the poor to own. if you own you benefit form rising home prices and can cash out and move elsewhere. it's natural for neighborhoods to change thoughit can be sad.
wil-I think center city is def important. Manayunk has thrived on its "culture" and accessibility to the burbs, as well as its reputation for safety. However, it is only now starting to benefit neighboring areas such as East Falls. CC is providign stimulus to many surrounding neighborhoods and this only b/c of a new burts in "culture." with a growing job base you would see interest in areas like north philly and others that are accessible not only by transit but short drives. time is worth money. this is also not to mention that the city's budget is rather meager without cc.

I think it seems an interesting idea, but unworkable, at least in Philly, in the end. The problem is that areas where it would be feasible, both financially and also in terms of available housing, are in far too bad of shape. Philly is a much larger city then Baltimore and Philly has huge expanses of poverty and dangerous areas. The only way it would be possible would be to move into a terrible area next to an up-and-coming one. Let's use the example of Fishtown which is up-and-coming (if not just up) because it borders the Northern Liberties. So the idea would call for buying a block in Kensington. That would most likely be feasible as Kensingtons property value is low and there are alot of vacant buildings, but how could you convince people to move there? Especially if they are white, as is my case, because they would stand out as targets immediately. It also presupposes that one would get along with the majority of neighbors, which I don't believe is true. I don't think there would be any racial bases for friction, but a survival issue: most people who live in poor areas do so because they can't afford to live elsewhere, while the people living in bad areas may want their neighborhoods to improve, they don't want that to mean they will no longer be able to afford it. The article even said that it would be an instant improvement to the neighborhood, which to the neighbors might just signal an approaching end to their ability to live in the neighborhood. This might make the neighbors angry, intransigent, or just indifferent and unwilling. Also, areas like Kensington are extremely drug ridden, could one not also expect retaliation from the criminal aspects for bringing more police around and therefor greater scrutiny upon themselves? It's not that there is no way to do it, but that there is no way to do it without forcing out the neighbors who can't afford it and essentially making alot of enemies. Maybe that's what's required for Philly to be fixed up.....

(snip)
The key is for the poor to own. if you own you benefit form rising home prices and can cash out and move elsewhere.
(snip)

I'm afraid I think that's dead wrong.

The economics of renting in a depressed area are almost exactly the same as the economics of owning. You pay money for 30 years and you get nothing back.

In depressed neighborhoods in Philly, a rundown 3 or 4 up to 6 bedroom homes can costs about $20,000, sometimes as little as $9,000. If you spend $40,000 improving it, it's still only worth about $30,000, mabey $50,000, but it's still a loosing investment.

You aren't going to transform neighborhoods by having people move to the neighborhood with the idea of making money off real estate.
To transform a neighborhood, you have to get people who are interested in living in the neighborhood.

Buy and hold, or buy and fix up doesn't work for low income families when applied to the 100 year old housing stock- and there's even some evidence from academics studying blight to explain why. Ann Whiston Spirn, West Philadelphia Landscape Project & "Language of Landscape" has a great paragraph about how good natured church and city programs to help first time homebuyers purchase homes can lead to the new owners sinking all their money into their homes, then never getting any money back- I.E. people go broke BECAUSE they own an old home, they have to pay for L&I permits, they have to pad some ridiculous wage scale to have any work done, and Philly keeps pro-plumbers "make work" rules like requiring 200 year old technology like cast iron sewer pipes because they cost more and increase the plumber's profit margin - comparable to the Convention Center guys who charged $70,000 to setup highschool girls volleyball nets- when the girls themselves could do it for free, and 3 times as fast.

Owning old homes that need constant attention is a great way to become poor- people don't call old homes "money pits" for nothing. That being said, I love old houses, old architecture, but I know that it's basically impossible financially for somebody on the margin of financial stability to buy their way out of poverty.

For most neighborhoods, homes don't rise in value untill every last house on the block is occupied.

You often have unoccupied homes, because the best way to make money is to assemble several homes- and the cheapest way to do that is to get vacant or run down homes, keep them vacant so you pay almost no taxes, and wait for the annual 10 year "redevelopment"

So, the BEST way to make money in urban housing if you're poor is to buy a cheap home, wait for the entire block to appreciate when the whole block is purchased.

However, it's an urban example of "the tragedyof the commons".

Hal

hal, IMO you haven't shown how it's dead wrong. if anything, you have given reason why these neighborhoods are "depressed" in the first place. no, buying in a growing city where work can be found can make even poor homeowners money. buying in an area before it empties out will make no one money. there are greater problems at hand than just homeownership. why shoudl any of us have to pay for old ass plumbing, exorbitant L & I, etc?

(snip)
Hal, IMO you haven't shown how it's dead wrong. if anything, you have given reason why these neighborhoods are "depressed" in the first place.
(snip)

Quite true - this is "what I think"- and I probably haven't shown why it's dead wrong. If I've given the reasons why the neighborhoods are depressed in the first place, aren't those the same reasons the neighborhoods will stay depressed for the forseable future?

Better to ask - what is needed to transform the neighborhoods from depressed!

The other, unstated but still interesting reason for lessened investment in the Real Estate you find in neighborhoods is simple- stocks, bonds and mutual funds now provide an alternative location for investing. During the 1900 when these homes were built, you had limited choices on investing-
bank accounts at 1%, in an ear when people earned a few cents an hour, you still had to buy $2 stocks in lots of 100, putting stocks well beyond the reach of average investors- and all your savings were in one basket.
Treasury notes and bills cost a minimum of $1,000 BACK THEN, well above what the average individual could afford.

Put simply, people cared more about their homes back then because that' where all their money was. No IRA, no 401k, no profit sharing no IPO and no mutual funds. All of the average person's money was in their home. People didn't protect their investment by watching the stock market, they protected their main investment, their house, by watching out for their neighborhood, and their street, and their home.

(snip)
no, buying in a growing city where work can be found can make even poor homeowners money.
(snip)

True, but it's primarily at the level of the individual neighborhood that growth occurs - The first rule of real estate is location, location, location.
And that location is primarily based on a specific neighborhood, not a generalized city. 90% of Philadelphians don't actually live in Phialdelphia. Just ask them! They'll say they live in Manayunk, North Philly Kingsessing, or they live in Queen Village- it's rare to find someone who lives in Philadelphia, who actually says they live in Philadephia. Philadelpha is an amorphous concept, big companies might say their location is Philadelphia, but homeowners think on a finer grained scale.

(snip)
there are greater problems at hand than just homeownership. why shoudl any of us have to pay for old ass plumbing, exorbitant L & I, etc?[/quote]
(snip)

Because installing new cast iron sewer pipes is incredibly expensive and the plumbers union wants it that way.

Because retrofitting old homes with central air is expensive, and the head of the Philly air conditioning installers union also happened to be the chairman of the Philly Democratic machine- so everyone has to put in airconditing.

******
Zoning board puts chill on efforts to build houses in Phila.

Source: Tom Ferrick Jr.
Published on December 9, 2001, Page B01, Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
- What a big surprise Bob Busser had waiting for him when he went before the city's Zoning Board of Adjustment this spring with a humdrum case.Busser is a good-guy engineer who volunteers for Habitat for Humanity. His group wanted to build a house at the corner of Priscilla and Penn Streets in Germantown. But the lot was too small to include an off-street parking space, as required by the city zoning code.Busser ended up before the Zoning Board of Adjustment because only it can
*******

And you really don't want to cross the Philly Democratic Party or the Sheetmetal Workers Union. As recently as 1996, if you challenge the union or the party, you're likely to spend a night in jail on trumped up charges, and then have all the files disappear.

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/07...eat.cov1.shtml

Do you really think that this could cause conflicts between new residents who are investing in the communities and the current residents?

i didn't say poor people shouldn't make smart decisions. you wouldn't want to buy a house in many areas but you might have wanted to on nolibs/bella vista. increased homeownership has done wonders for kensington so far. it would be even better if the city made it possible to build affordable housing.
i don't agree with this. maybe if it were 1998 but housing is a huge portion of a person's investment. moreover, with the mortgage debt that most people carry it is extremely important. perhaps the death of the neighborhood in the suburbs helped. or the killing of business and life in the city by said unfriendly forces.
i didn't actually expect an answer to my question on plumbing but right on. street passed over the plumbing code not too long ago.