U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

The United States 

Report for Habitat II 

Beyond Shelter: 

Building Communities 

of Opportunity 
The National Preparatory Committee


To oversee America’s preparations for the City Summit (Habitat II), U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Henry G. Cisneros has named a National Preparatory 

Committee (NPC). Those serving on the NPC are: 

Henry G. Cisneros, Chair 

Secretary, HUD 

Michael Stegman, Alternate Chair 

Assistant Secretary, HUD 

James Johnson, Vice Chair 

Fannie Mae 

Vince Lane, Vice Chair 

American Community Housing 

Association 

Moises Loza, Vice Chair 

Housing Assistance Council 

Aurie A. Pennick, Vice Chair 

Leadership Council for Metropolitan 

Open Communities 

Camille Cates Barnett 

Center for International Development 

Research Triangle Institute 

Harvey Bernstein 

Civil Engineering Research Foundation 

Don Borut 

Nat’l League of Cities 

Joan Baggett Calambokidis 

International Masonry Institute 

Joan Brown Campbell 

Nat’l Council of Churches 

Gale Cincotta 

Nat’l Training and Information Center 

Stephen Coyle 

AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust 

Juanita Crabb 

Sister Cities International 

Cushing Dolbeare 

Nat’l Low-Income Housing Coalition 

Michael E. Doyle 

Cooperative Housing Foundation 

Terrance Duvernay 

Legg-Mason Wood Walter Incorporated 

Mencer Donahue Edwards 

U.S. Network for Habitat II 

Pablo Eisenberg 

Center for Community Change 

Jane Fortson 

The Progress and Freedom Foundation 

Maria Foscarinis 

Nat’l Law Center on Homelessness 

and Poverty 

Ester Fuchs 

Columbia University 

Millard Fuller 

Habitat for Humanity International 

Rose Garcia 

Tierra Del Sol Housing Corporation 

The Nat’l Rural Housing Coalition 

Christopher T. Gates 

Nat’l Civic League 

Robert Geddes, FAIA 

New York University 

Bertha Gilkey 

Urban Women Incorporated 

Arthur Godi 

Nat’l Association of Realtors 

William Gorham 

The Urban Institute 

Eugene Grigsby 

University of California/Los Angeles 

Paul Grogan 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

David Hales 

US Agency for International 

Development 

William Hansell 

International City/County Management 

Association 

F. Barton Harvey, III 

The Enterprise Foundation 

Glenda Hood 

Mayor of Orlando, FL 

John Kasarda 

University of North Carolina


Kenan Institute of Private Enterprises


George Knight 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 

Carole Lankford 

Confederate Salish & Kootenai Tribe 

Gregory S. Lashutka 

Mayor of Columbus, OH 

Warren Lasko 

Mortgage Bankers Association 

of America 

George Latimer 

Nat’l Equity Fund 

David Mammen 

Institute of Public Administration 

Gary D. McCaleb 

Mayor of Abilene, TX 

Cover photos taken by:


Jeffrey Kliman (Top left)


Gerald Dean (Top right and bottom)


William McDonough 

University of Virginia 

Robert McNulty 

Partners for Livable Communities 

Richard Nelson, Jr. 

Nat’l Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials 

Michael O’Brien 

GMAC Mortgage Corporation 

Molly Harriss Olson 

President’s Council on Sustainable 

Development 

Ting C. Pei 

The Pei Group 

Neal R. Peirce 

Syndicated Columnist 

Janice Perlman 

Mega-Cities Project Incorporated 

Tessa Martinez Pollack 

Glendale Community College 

William Reilly 

Stanford University 

Norman Rice 

Mayor of Seattle, WA 

Yolanda Rivera 

Banana Kelly Community 

Improvement Association 

Nan Roman 

Nat’l Alliance to End Homelessness 

David Rusk 

Urban Policy Consultant 

Kurt L. Schmoke 

Mayor of Baltimore, MD 

Randall Smith 

Nat’l Association of Home Builders 

Marta Sotomayor 

Nat’l Hispanic Council on Aging 

William C. Steere 

Pfizer Corporation 

Franklin Thomas 

The Ford Foundation 

Tanya Tull 

Beyond Shelter 

Chester A. Widom, FAIA 

American Institute of Architects 

Eddie Williams 

Joint Center for Political and 

Economic Studies 
Beyond Shelter: 

Building Communities 

of Opportunity 

The United States Report 

for Habitat II 

May 1996 
i 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction ............................................................................... 1 

II. Cities in America ....................................................................... 5 

The Foundation of Our Nation ..................................................... 5 

The Challenges of Our Urban Areas ............................................ 6 

The Future of Our Nation .......................................................... 15 

III. Cities in the 21st Century .......................................................... 17 

Promoting Locally-Crafted Solutions ............................................ 17 

Tapping Into a New Economic Frontier ....................................... 23 

Developing a Regional Approach .............................................. 30 

Sustaining the Urban Environment .............................................. 36 

Conclusion .............................................................................. 42 

Program Highlights 

Community Building Principles ..................................................... 4 

Beyond Shelter: 

Helping Homeless Families Help Themselves ............................ 19 

Transforming Neighborhoods Together ....................................... 20 

The Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety ........................... 21 

Empowerment in Detroit ............................................................ 24 

New Community Pathmark Supermarket ..................................... 25 

The Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association ................ 27 

Pfizer in Brooklyn ..................................................................... 28 

Neighborhood Development Center ........................................... 29 

Regional Solutions to Affordable Housing ................................... 31 

Sharing a Regional Tax Base ..................................................... 32 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 ........................................................... 33 

Recapturing the Promise ............................................................ 35 

Yard Waste Recycling in Lindsborg, Kansas ................................ 37 

Re-Using Building Materials for Affordable Housing ..................... 38 

Revitalizing Brownfield Sites ...................................................... 39 

Chattanooga: A City Remaking Itself .......................................... 41 

Appendix ..................................................................................... 43 
I. Introduction 

In June 1996, the United Nations will convene the Second Global 

Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, Turkey.

1 

Also known as the City Summit, Habitat II is the last of a series of 

global conferences that began with the United Nations Conference 

on Environment and Development in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The 

fundamental objective of the conference series has been to promote 

sustainable development—a paradigm that combines economic 

development, social prosperity, and environmental protection to meet 

the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability 

of future generations to meet their own needs. Habitat II focuses on 

the importance of sustainable urban development. 

Throughout history, cities across the globe have been the cornerstone 

of societies. Cities are a prism for the genius of civilizations, where 

entrepreneurs hatch their schemes and find the markets and financing 

to bring them to fruition; where the elites of technology, industry, and 

the arts meet to brainstorm; and where deep shifts in culture and 

politics might begin with an unexpected encounter. As Lewis 

Mumford put it, “cities are a symbol of the possible.” 

But today, cities around the world face daunting challenges in this 

era of rapid urbanization. From New York to New Delhi, from Milan 

to Nairobi, from Vancouver to Sao Paolo, cities across the globe face 

challenges of economic development, poverty alleviation, job creation, affordable housing, fiscal stability, and the environment. In 

recognition of the global nature of these issues, the international 

community is convening Habitat II to develop an international policy 

framework for promoting communities that are economically, socially, 

and environmentally viable for the 21st century. 

The City Summit comes at a time when many Americans have lost 

sight of the importance of our urban communities. Poor, largely 

minority, people have become concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods where education and job opportunities are severely limited. 

While many suburban areas are home to a thriving middle class, our 

1 The first Habitat conference took place in Vancouver, Canada, in July 1976. 

1

inner cities, and increasingly, older suburban areas as well, have become 

home to the poorest households in America. But as this report will indicate, this vicious cycle of poverty concentration, social despair, and fiscal 

distress that plagues much of urban America today affects us all, no matter 

where we live. 

The Clinton/Gore administration is committed to restoring opportunity for 

all Americans. All people should have access to decent, affordable housing in neighborhoods of their choice. All people should have access to the 

educational opportunities necessary to compete in rapidly changing job 

markets. All people should have an opportunity to take part in decisions 

that affect their lives. And all people should live in communities where 

businesses, households, and government make efficient use of land, 

energy, and other resources, allowing the area to achieve a high quality 

of life with minimal waste and environmental damage. 

In recent years, there has been a great increase of community-building 

activity at the local level, not just within government, but also among 

private businesses and particularly among grassroots organizations. 

Recognizing the significant contribution of these local organizations, Habitat 

II embraces the principle of community empowerment, whereby national 

governments work in partnership with local governments, private firms, and 

the growing network of community-based organizations to develop locally 

crafted solutions to help the homeless, build and renovate housing, create 

jobs, increase homeownership, and protect the environment. 

In the United States, the President’s Community Empowerment Agenda is 

working to help our Nation’s communities not with more bureaucracy, but 

with more opportunities. After years of overly prescriptive, top-down 

solutions from Washington, the Federal Government now recognizes the 

importance of local initiative consistent with standards of justice and equal 

opportunity for all citizens. Building strong communities is a national 

endeavor, requiring partnerships among the Federal, State, and local 

governments; community-based groups; private organizations; and individual citizens. Because localities know their own needs best, specific 

strategies for urban revitalization must reflect community-based planning 

and decisionmaking if they are to achieve lasting results. Better solutions 

will come when those who live the problem plan with others who have a 

common stake in its solution not because it is an abstract mission, but 

because it is a personal concern. 

As we work to empower communities and individuals, the administration’s 

commitment to help those most in need will remain steadfast and strong. 

The Federal Government always will have an essential and appropriate 

role in upholding national ideals that may be difficult to sustain locally, 

especially with regard to fighting discrimination and providing a voice for 

2 
the most vulnerable among us. The Federal Government always will 

have a fundamental responsibility to create a framework of supports, 

incentives, and clear rules so people can help themselves and lift 

themselves beyond governmental assistance. By targeting its resources, 

the Federal Government injects public capital to produce infrastructure 

and services that attract private investment. While fiscal constraints in 

Washington make the effort more difficult, the Federal Government 

always will play a leadership role in the national community-building 

endeavor. 

Participants at the Istanbul conference will develop the Habitat 

Agenda, which will establish an international framework for building 

strong cities in the 21st century by promoting policies that address 

critical issues, including discrimination in housing and credit markets; 

access to jobs and transportation; clean air and water; and protection 

of the urban environment. The plan also will focus on how governments 

can work in partnership with the private sector and the growing network of community-based organizations to develop locally crafted 

solutions that reflect local priorities and concerns. 

In the United States, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), in cooperation with other Federal agencies and 

the National Preparatory Committee for Habitat II, has developed this 

report to address many of these same issues but in a domestic context.2 

Beyond Shelter: Building Communities of Opportunity is intended to 

provoke thought, stimulate discourse, and inspire action among those 

who are or should be concerned about the future of America’s urban 

communities. The recommendations in this report apply not only to 

State and local governments, but also to citizens, community-based 

groups, colleges and universities, and the private sector, because 

government by itself cannot overcome apathy, spur innovation, or 

inspire renewed commitment to the values of family, work, responsibility, and civic engagement. 

Make no mistake about it, the problems facing our cities will not be 

solved overnight. Ending the isolation and despair of distressed urban 

communities and restoring our cities to their historic role as engines of 

opportunity are ambitious, long-term goals. In no way does the Federal 

Government purport to have all of the answers to the challenges facing 

urban America. Nor will the Istanbul conference provide a magic elixir 

for the challenges facing cities across the globe. Habitat II is the beginning of a new era of sharing ideas about how the public, private, and 

community-based sectors can work together to strengthen our cities. 

2	 Comprised of more than 50 leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, the 

National Preparatory Committee has advised HUD on domestic preparations for Habitat II. 

3 
Community Building Principles 

In the effort to restore hope and opportunity for all Americans, the Federal 

Government maintains the following core tenets of community building: 

• Our objective is to build not just housing units, but neighborhoods; not 

just construct schools, but educate children; not just raise income, but 

create beauty and end the poisoning of our environment. 

• To achieve our vision of developing strong, sustainable urban communities, some things must grow—jobs, productivity, wages, capital and 

savings, profits, information, knowledge, and education; others— 

pollution, waste, and poverty—must not. 

• The vicious cycle of poverty concentration, social despair, and fiscal 

distress that plagues much of urban America today weakens the ability 

of metropolitan regions to compete in the global economy. 

• Poor communities represent an untapped economic opportunity for the 

whole country, and while we work together to open foreign markets to 

American-made goods and services, we also need to work together to 

open the economic frontiers of poor communities here at home. 

• The role of social safety net programs is not to maintain individuals, 

families, or communities in perpetual dependence, but to create a 

framework of supports, incentives, and clear rules so people can help 

themselves and lift themselves beyond governmental assistance. 

• Better solutions will come when those who live the problem plan with 

others who have a common stake in its solution, not because it is an 

abstract mission but because it is a personal concern. 

• The job of strengthening communities will not be advanced measurably 

by replacing Washington bureaucracies with 50 State bureaucracies 

that can be equally rigid and unresponsive. Decentralization and 

devolution that are meaningful to the American people will give them 

tools in their communities, in the places where they live and where they 

can do something about their jobs, children, schools, and safety. 

• Using modern technology, it is now possible to bring national resources 

to communities in ways that are driven by goals, plans, and strategies 

of the communities themselves, and we can do this with greater efficiency, with less waste, and with a clear eye on taxpayer dollars. 

• The Federal Government has an essential and appropriate role in 

upholding national ideals that may be difficult to sustain locally, especially with regard to fighting discrimination and providing a voice for 

the most vulnerable among us. 

• America is not a developing country where the poor are many and the 

middle class are few. In America, the middle class are many and the 

poor are few. Our Nation has the capacity to end the isolation of the 

poor and to address the decline of our urban communities; now we 

must develop the will. 

4 
II. Cities in America 

The Foundation of Our Nation 

While the rest of the world is in the process of becoming more 

urbanized, the United States has already become an urban Nation. 

Between 1950 and 1990, the U.S. metropolitan population more 

than doubled to reach a total of 192.7 million. Today, 8 out of 10 

Americans live in 1 of 330 metropolitan areas, and more than half 

live in the 39 metropolitan areas with populations of 1 million or 

more.3

 At the core of these metropolitan regions are America’s cities, 

which serve as the lifeline of our society. 

America’s cities are the center of the social and cultural life of our 

Nation. Cities are where people of different cultures and languages 

meet, mix, and work together. America’s great cities harbor and 

nurture our innovative genius. Science and technology, art and 

fashion, entertainment, research, and higher education—all of these 

activities flourish in the creative ferment of urban America. 

America’s urban centers have also long been a primary source of the 

Nation’s economic wealth and progress. Cities are headquarters for 

many of the factories, laboratories, and offices that form the foundation of our economy. Moreover, they are centers of banking and 

commerce that generate investment for the future. Central cities are 

still home to more than 40 percent of the people and almost half of 

the jobs in America’s metropolitan regions.4 

Driven by their central cities, metropolitan regions that transcend 

municipal boundaries, and even State lines, have become the building blocks of the national economy. It is said that America is becoming a common market of regional economies where cities and suburbs are partners in an interregional competition to sell goods and 

services in national and global markets. In today’s global economy, 

competition is no longer among localities but among metropolitan 

3 Henry R. Richmond, “Rationale and Program Design,” National Land Policy Institute, 

June 1994, p. 3. 

4 Peter Mieszkowski and Edwin S. Mills, “The Causes of Metropolitan 

Suburbanization,” in Journal of Economic Perspectives (1993): 135–148. 

5

regions around the world; Detroit’s main competition is not suburban 

Macomb County but the regions of Baden-Wurtemburg in Germany and 

Kyushu in Japan. 

The Challenges of Our Urban Areas 

Despite the economic and social importance of cities, they face enormous 

challenges. All types of communities address issues related to crime, 

poverty alleviation, economic development, job training, public health, 

affordable housing, barriers to residential mobility, fiscal stress, and the 

environment. But many cities face these issues at an elevated level because 

of the intense concentration of poor households and an eroding tax base. 

What follows is not meant to be an exhaustive list of the challenges facing 

our urban communities, but a discussion of several fundamental issues that 

our Nation must address. 

Economic and Social Life in America’s Cities 

Fast moving, powerful forces worldwide have disrupted long-established 

patterns of economic activity and social organization in every country, 

including the United States. Global competition and technological innovation are restructuring the U.S. economy, and well paying jobs for those 

with less than a college education are vanishing, especially in cities. As 

manufacturing employment has left urban cores for suburban, rural, and 

even foreign locations, less-skilled workers in inner-city communities are 

without jobs and incomes. 

Manufacturing traditionally provided relatively good jobs for people with 

modest skills. These jobs carried with them middle-class wages and benefits that increased steadily from the 1940’s onward. But after World War 

II, more manufacturing jobs left the central cities, as Table 1 illustrates, and 

relocated in the suburbs because land was cheaper, transportation of 

goods was easier, skilled labor was available, and markets were growing. 

With the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the service sector, many 

middle-income workers found themselves in lower paying jobs in other 

industries and in other professions. Cities specializing in manufacturing— 

many in the Northeast and the Midwest—suffered serious employment loss 

as a result of this decline. 

Widespread migration to the suburbs has compounded the urban crisis. 

During the 1980’s, the growth rate of the suburban population was 16.1 

percent—triple the rate in central cities.5 The image of suburbs as a 

homogeneous set of bedroom communities with commuters leaving each 

morning for jobs in the central cities has been replaced by the reality that 

suburbs have transformed themselves into more diversified places. 

6 
As upwardly mobile families left central cities for the suburbs, poor, 

largely minority, people have become concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods where education and job opportunities are severely limited. Today, 

stark contrasts in income now exist between the central cities and their 

surrounding suburbs. In 1990, the overall poverty rate in America’s 

suburbs was slightly more than 8 percent, compared to 18 percent in 

central cities. Moreover, 26 percent of all urban children live in poverty, 

compared to 11 percent of suburban children6

 and, as Table 2 illustrates, 

conditions in America’s urban communities relating to job and income 

access have only gotten worse over time. 

Poverty is further concentrated in certain distressed inner-city neighborhoods, and each decade, the problem seems to be getting worse. In 

1990, 11 percent of the population of the 100 largest cities lived in 

extreme poverty census tracts—those with more than 40 percent poverty— 

compared with 8 percent in 1980 and 5 percent in 1970.7 Conditions for 

disadvantaged households living in these urban areas are bleak: 

•	 More than half of all adults have less than a high school education, 

compared to 20 percent of adults in other urban neighborhoods. 

•	 More than 40 percent of working age males, ages 16 to 64, were 

unemployed in 1993, compared with just over 19 percent in other 

urban neighborhoods. 

•	 One in three households receive welfare benefits, compared to only 

11 percent of all urban households. 

Cities cannot prosper under these conditions. The problems associated 

with urban poverty tend to increase per capita expenditures not just for 

welfare-related services, but for all services including health care, police, 

fire, education, and others. Resulting public sector costs and budget 

squeezes are forcing cutbacks in expenditures for the poor and the nonpoor alike. Reduced quality of life and increased tax burdens induce 

businesses and middle-income households to leave cities, generating a 

downward spiral in economic and social conditions. 

This downward spiral eventually overwhelms the ability of a community to 

deal with these mutually reinforcing problems. As a result, many distressed 

5	 Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, “State of the Nation’s Cities,” draft, 

January 1996, p. 31. 

6	 William H. Frey and Elaine L. Fielding, “Changing Urban Populations: Regional Restructuring, 

Racial Polarization, and Poverty Concentration,” Cityscape, 2, July 1995, p. 39–66. 

7	 John Kasarda, “Inner-City Concentrated Poverty and Neighborhood Distress: 1970 to 1990.” 

Housing Policy Debate, 4 (1993), p. 253–302. 

7 
Table 1


Changing Employment Patterns for U.S. and Three 

Large Cities 

Number of Jobs (Thousands) Percent of Total 

1953 1970 1980 1989 1953 1970 1980 1989 

U.S. Total 50,202 70,880 90,406 107,895 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Services 13,786 19,708 28,196 39,200 27.5 27.8 31.2 36.3 

Manufacturing 20,208 22,955 24,631 24,562 40.2 32.4 27.2 22.8 

New York 2,977 3,350 2,866 2,048 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Services 990 1,596 1,616 1,422 33.3 47.6 56.4 69.4 

Manufacturing 1,176 971 650 268 39.5 29.0 22.7 13.1 

Philadelphia 788 772 628 614 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Services 183 301 323 365 23.2 39.0 51.4 59.4 

Manufacturing 398 291 171 111 50.5 37.7 27.2 18.1 

Boston 402 465 437 520 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Services 138 249 278 382 34.3 53.5 63.6 73.5 

Manufacturing 130 105 77 53 32.3 22.6 17.6 10.2 

Sources: Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Report of the President, February 1995; and 

Keith R. Ihlanfeldt, The Importance of the Central City to the Regional and National Economy: A 

Review of the Arguments and Empirical Evidence, Unpublished Manuscript, U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, December 1994. 

Table 2 

Vital Statistics for 94 Large U.S. Cities, 1960, 1970, 

1980, and 1990 

Item 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Population as Percent of U.S. 26.1% 22.5% 20.9% 20.1% 

Percent Minority Population 18.9 24.1 37.1 40.1 

Unemployment Rate 5.5 4.7 7.3 8.1 

Percent Employed in Manufacturing 25.3 22.1 17.4 14.0 

Percent Did Not Graduate High School 58.7 48.8 42.2 27.9 

Dependent Ratioa 37.8 37.1 32.9 32.9 

Median Family Income as Percent of 

U.S. Median Family Income 106.7 100.4 92.6 87.5 

Family Poverty Rate 17.2 11.0 13.6 15.1 

Percent Population in Census 

Tracts With More than 40% Poverty 8.0 5.1 8.1 10.8 

Female Headed Families With Own 

Children as Percent of All Families 7.9 10.4 13.8 14.5 

a Ratio of population less than 15 and greater than 64 years of age to total population.


Source: U.S. Census data for 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, as compiled by John D. Kasarda,


Urban Underclass Database Machine Readable Files, Social Science Research Council,


New York, 1992 and 1993 (except as noted). Calculations by HUD.


8 
communities suffer from a depletion of social capital—the networks, 

norms, trust, and other features of social life—that enable citizens to act 

together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. According to the 

Committee for Economic Development, an independent research and 

policy organization of business leaders and educators, indications of the 

decline of social capital in distressed communities abound: 

•	 Poor urban parents disproportionately report that groups supporting 

youth development, such as scout troops, organized sports, religious activities, and special classes, are not readily available for 

their children. 

•	 People living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, including 

those who are not employed, single women heads of households, 

elderly persons, disabled individuals, immigrants, abandoned children, and homeless persons, are often socially isolated and generally 

have more limited social networks to rely on for practical advice. 

•	 In one study of inner-city Boston, fewer than 30 percent of inner-city 

teenagers reported that they “know well” persons in professional 

occupations, and 50 percent reported knowing of no such persons 

in their neighborhood.8 

Although civic engagement has declined among households of all income 

levels, people with lower incomes and those who feel financially strapped 

are somewhat less engaged in community life and somewhat less trusting 

than those who are better off.9 But resident participation in community 

institutions and services, robust informal and interpersonal relations, and 

strong personal and occupational role models are all important elements 

in building strong communities. Social capital in itself is not enough to 

build strong urban communities, but it is an essential prerequisite in the 

revitalization effort. 

Decent and Affordable Housing 

Most Americans are among the best housed persons in the world. This 

success results from an unparalleled orchestration of the private market, 

community-based efforts, and national economic and housing policies. 

There are federally insured mortgages, a federally supported home loan 

banking system, building codes, zoning and land use laws, water and 

sewer programs, housing codes, fair housing laws, mortgage interest 

deductions for homeowners, low-income housing assistance programs, 

eviction standards to guarantee security of tenure, and programs to 

rebuild and improve neighborhoods. However, the goal of a decent home 

8	 Committee for Economic Development, Rebuilding Inner-City Communities: A New Approach 

to the Nation’s Urban Crisis, New York, 1995, p. 15. 

9 Committee for Economic Development, p. 16. 

9 
in a suitable living environment for every American family, which was first 

articulated in the National Housing Act of 1949, has remained elusive for 

far too many Americans. 

The primary housing problem in the U.S. today is not an inadequate 

supply of decent housing, but lagging affordability due to stagnant incomes and rising housing costs. Decent quality housing is widely available 

but remains unaffordable for many households. For example: 

•	 Persistently high rents have made gross rent burden (gross rent as a

percent of household income) the most pressing problem for renters.

From 1970 to 1994, the median income of renter households fell by

16 percent to $15,814, while gross rents increased more than 11

percent to $403. This represents the third highest burden recorded 

in more than two decades.10 

•	 The rent burdens of low-income households are even more severe. 

Between 1991 and 1993, the number of households with acute 

housing needs—very low-income households that pay more than 50 

percent of income for rent or live in substandard housing—increased

by almost 400,000 households to 5.3 million. For more than four

out of five of these households, affordability was the only issue. As

Figure 1 illustrates, affordability is an especially serious problem for 

very low-income rental households with children.11 

•	 Because of their extremely low income, many people with disabilities

have special difficulty securing adequate and affordable housing.

Many disabled persons live with aging parents or in nursing homes,

while others are in institutions or even homeless. A fortunate minority 

receive rental subsidies that permit them to live in the housing and

community of their choice. But, in the U.S. in 1990 and 1991, 

people with disabilities were the most likely to live in severely inadequate housing and, according to 1995 HUD data, they have the 

lowest incomes of any group receiving Federal housing assistance.12 

•	 Homeownership has slipped increasingly out of reach for many

Americans, especially for low-income and minority households.

While 37 percent of very low-income families with children owned 

their home in 1979, only 29 percent of families in this income group 

were homeowners by 1989. Moreover, data from 1993 indicate 

that only 43 percent of all African-American households and 40

percent of all Hispanic households were homeowners, compared 

with 70 percent of all white non-Hispanic households.13 

10 State of the Nation’s Housing: 1995, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 

p. 18. 

11	 Rental Housing at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 1996, p. 9–11. 

12	 Rental Assistance at a Crossroads: A Report to Congress on Worst Case Housing Needs, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 1996. 

10 
Figure 1


Acute Needs Have Consistently Grown Much Faster 

for Very Low-Income Families With Children Than for 

Other Very Low-Income Renters Annualized Percent Growth in Worst Case 

4.9% 

5% 

3.1% 

1.0% 

2.2% 

Needs Over Specified Period 

4% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 1978–1989 1989–1993 

Families With Children Other Households 

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations from the Annual and American Housing Surveys 

Discrimination in housing markets further aggravates the problem of 

families trying to obtain decent, affordable shelter in America. Discrimination denies minority families full and free choice about where to live while 

starving many minority neighborhoods of the services and resources that 

they need to thrive and grow. It limits access to affordable housing for 

families with children, and it prevents disabled people from living independently and productively in our communities. 

More than a quarter century after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, 

minority homeseekers routinely face discrimination when they search for 

housing. They are told about fewer available units than comparable white 

homeseekers, provided with less information and assistance, and steered 

away from affluent white neighborhoods. In 1991, research found that 

African-American and Hispanic homebuyers were treated less favorably 

than non-Hispanic whites of comparable occupation and income one out of 

every two times they visited a real estate agent to inquire about houses 

advertised for sale in local newspapers.14 

13	 The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, May 1995, p. 1–7. 

14	 Margery Austin Turner, Raymond J. Struyk, and John Yinger, Housing Discrimination Study: 

Synthesis, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1991. 

11 
Finally, homelessness is one of the most serious housing-related problems in 

America. While estimates vary depending on the definition and method of 

measurement, some studies indicate that the number of homeless persons is 

greater now than at any time since the Great Depression. The demographics of the homeless are also changing: while there are fewer elderly homeless, women and children represent a higher proportion of the new homeless. 

There are two broad, sometimes overlapping, clusters of problems that 

cause homelessness: 1) crisis poverty, including devastating changes in the 

job and housing markets, or family situations that push people into the 

streets; and 2) chronic and often untreated disabilities. A recent study by 

the Urban Institute found that more than half of the homeless population 

suffers from a drug or alcohol problem, and at least one-third suffers from 

mental illness. In addition, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and crack cocaine 

addiction have complicated the effort to reduce homelessness.15 

The Urban Environment 

Thriving cities are those that not only enjoy economic prosperity and 

provide social opportunity, but also have clean air, safe drinking water, 

and green public spaces. Our Nation is blessed with an abundance of 

natural resources that provide both the foundation for its powerful and 

vibrant economy and serve as the source of aesthetic inspiration and 

spiritual sustenance for many. Continued prosperity depends on our ability 

to protect this natural heritage and learn to use it in ways that do not 

diminish it. 

America has seen significant improvements in air and water quality in 

recent years, while understanding of the challenges posed by contaminated land and solid waste has increased. Exposure to lead and lack of 

access to environmental amenities are major issues. In addition, 

policymakers are moving beyond looking at environmental protection in 

isolation and towards a more holistic approach that considers issues in the 

context of the community’s economic and social conditions. 

While these changes represent real progress, challenges remain. In their 

roles as engines of economic growth, urban areas are both consumers and 

producers. Not surprisingly, our urban areas use the most fuel, generate 

the most waste and air pollutants, and consume too much agricultural land 

and wetlands due to poor land use management. In general, cities are the 

main causes of ecological contamination and decline. 

15	 Martha Burt and Barbara Cohen, America’s Homeless, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute 

Report, 1993, 89-3. 

12 
Past and current development patterns are a primary factor in the current 

state of the urban environment. Metropolitan regions now extend across 

large areas of land; acreage in new development has been increasing 86 

to 100 times faster than the population in Chicago, New York, the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore region, Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, San Francisco, 

and other regions.16 Some of this uncontrolled growth resulted from wellintentioned Federal policies, including the development of the interstate 

highway system and historical underwriting guidelines set by the Federal 

Housing Administration. The expansion of metropolitan areas, conversion 

of farmland and natural areas to residential use, and heavy use of the 

automobile that accompanied traditional development patterns have 

imposed increased stress on the environment and natural resources. For 

example: 

•	 Automobile traffic and high energy consumption continue to 

threaten air quality in urban areas. Across the Nation, more than 

59 million people—almost 25 percent of the U.S. population—still 

live in areas where pollution levels exceed U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) standards (see Table 3). Although emissions 

per mile have decreased over the last 10 years, vehicle miles 

traveled continues to rise. 

•	 Untreated combined sewer and stormwater runoff pollute local 

waters and pose health risks for 43 million people in 1,100 communities across the Nation. There are roughly 50 to 80 overflow 

events per year causing an estimated 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, industrial wastes, and urban runoff annually. 

•	 Brownfields—contaminated, underused, or abandoned formerly 

industrial or commercial sites—pose serious problems for cities 

because they can further degrade the environment and represent 

precious lost opportunities to bring back jobs and a tax base to the 

inner city. While the exact scale of the brownfields problem is 

unknown, EPA estimates that the number of contaminated sites 

ranges from 100,000 to 500,000, of which 27 percent are located 

in urban areas.17 

The problems of the urban environment have a disproportionately large 

impact on residents of distressed urban communities. As poor people are 

becoming increasingly concentrated in inner cities and other isolated 

communities, these places have literally become dumping grounds for the 

waste of wealthier communities. For example, all of the hazardous waste 

16 Richmond, p. 7. 

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

13 
generated in eight southern States is disposed of in two landfills located in 

mostly African-American communities. All 3 of California’s commercial 

hazardous waste sites are located in mostly Latino communities, and more 

than 100 proposals have been made for locating garbage dumps, landfills, and low-level nuclear waste storage facilities on the reservations of 

Native Americans.18 

Table 3 

1993 Air Quality Statistics for 10 Selected Cities


Metro Area Carbon Lead Nitrogen Ozone Particulates Sulphur


Monoxide Dioxide (daily) Dioxide


(daily)


NAAQSa 9 1.5 0.053 0.12 150 0.14 

New York 7 0.16 0.043 0.12 86 0.052 

Los Angeles 14 0.11 0.05 0.25 102 0.014 

Chicago 6 0.65 0.031 0.11 147 0.065 

Philadelphia 7 11.2 0.035 0.14 531 0.044 

Detroit 6 0.05 0.022 0.12 113 0.045 

Washington 8 0.03 0.029 0.13 66 0.029 

Houston 7 0.02 0.024 0.2 89 0.036 

Boston 5 0.03 0.034 0.13 86 0.044 

Atlanta 5 0.02 0.025 0.16 77 0.044 

Dallas 5 0.99 0.017 0.14 74 0.011 

a NAAQS is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, used as a threshold for the hazardous


level.


Figures for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide reflect parts per million.


Figures for lead, ozone, and particulates reflect micrograms per cubic meter.


Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.


18	 Henry G. Cisneros, Urban Poverty and Urban Environment, Speech to the Second Annual 

World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development, September 1994. 

14 
The Future of Our Nation 

America cannot afford to ignore the challenges facing our cities. The 

vicious cycle of poverty concentration, social despair, and fiscal distress 

that challenges much of urban America today weakens our Nation’s 

economic health and undermines the ability of metropolitan regions to 

compete in the global economy. Moreover, the isolation of poor, largely 

minority, households in distressed, high-poverty neighborhoods saps 

America’s spirit, weakening the bonds of trust and common purpose. If 

these problems continue to go unaddressed, our Nation’s future could be 

severely compromised, both economically and socially, in ways that we 

are only beginning to understand. 

Metropolitan economies need strong central cities to prosper. Considerable research now documents strong statistical relationships between 

metropolitan economic performance and city-suburban disparities. For 

example, data on 56 large metropolitan regions show a strong correlation 

between metropolitanwide employment growth and the economic health 

of central cities relative to suburbs. More specifically, employment grew 

most where income disparities between central city and suburb were 

lowest. Although the evidence of a causal connection is not yet conclusive, 

there are strong reasons to believe that the social and fiscal distress of 

high-poverty central cities impedes the growth of the specialized producer 

service activities that drive metropolitan economies.19 

The distress and decline in high poverty areas does not confine itself to the 

central city but gradually spreads out to affect suburban areas as well. For 

example, in Lakewood, Ohio—one of Cleveland’s oldest suburbs— 

population declined dramatically from 70,000 in 1980 to 60,000 in 

1990. Today, nearly 10 percent of its residents receive welfare assistance 

of some kind, and the community is experiencing an increase in teen 

pregnancies and juvenile crime.20 Lakewood and other “inner-suburbs” 

illustrate how older suburbs and even some edge cities increasingly find 

themselves in competition with newer areas of development that attract 

more affluent families, retail centers, and jobs. 

Inner-city blight also undermines the fiscal and operational health of our 

Nation’s cities. Distressed neighborhoods contribute little to a city’s tax 

base yet impose heavy demands on public services. All of the Nation’s 

taxpayers pay for the problems of distressed inner cities through increased 

19	 For example, see Larry C. Ledebur and William R. Barnes: “Toward a New Political 

Economy of Metropolitan Regions,” Government and Policy, Vol. 9, 1993, p. 127–141; All 

In It Together: Cities, Suburbs, and Local Economic Regions, Washington, D.C.: National 

League of Cities, 1993. 

20	 Karen DeWitt, “Aging Towns Gains Cities’ Problems,” in New York Times, February 26, 

1995, p. A18. 

15 
government expenditures for welfare, law enforcement, social services, 

and remedial education. Additional costs accrue to all consumers in the 

form of higher costs for security, tuition for private schools, and higher 

prices for goods and services that reflect increased costs of doing business 

in these communities. One estimate of the damage to large urban economies from crime alone is $50 billion annually, and special Federal expenditures for inner cities add another $75 billion.21 

Inner-city abandonment also saps the Nation’s human resources. According to the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress, threequarters of first graders in disadvantaged areas were reading below basic 

skill levels, and less than 6 percent were rated as proficient or advanced. 

Many of these future adults emerge from inner-city schools with inadequate 

educational preparation, as reflected in staggering rates of functional 

illiteracy and school dropout rates of 80 percent. Considering that the 50 

largest inner-city school systems are now responsible for educating nearly 

40 percent of the Nation’s African-American children, 32 percent of its 

Latino children, and 36 percent of its students with limited English proficiency, the implications for a productive work force in the 21st century are 

alarming.22 

Finally, the isolation of distressed urban neighborhoods and de facto 

segregation conflict with our national ideals. Equal opportunity is a 

fundamental principle of American society and a right of all people. 

Extreme disparity in economic and social opportunity between persons in 

one segment of American society and another, or between one part of a 

metropolitan area and another, conflict harshly with this principle. 

The challenges of urban America today are severe and their potential 

consequences are frightening, but these problems are by no means insurmountable. America is not a developing Nation where the poor are many 

and the middle class are few. In America the middle class are many and 

the poor are few. This country has the capacity to end the isolation of the 

poor and to address the decline of central cities. Now we must develop 

the will. The future of our Nation depends on the future of our cities. 

21 Committee for Economic Development, p. 3. 

22 Committee for Economic Development, p. 2. 

16 
III. Cities in the 21st Century 

The Clinton administration is committed to the goal of achieving 

economically, socially, and environmentally thriving urban communities in the 21st century. All people should have access to decent, 

affordable housing in safe neighborhoods. All people should have 

access to the educational opportunities necessary to compete in 

rapidly changing job markets. All people should have an opportunity 

to take part in decisions that affect their lives. And all people should 

live in communities where businesses, households, and government 

make more efficient use of land, energy, and other resources, allowing the area to achieve a high quality of life with minimal waste and 

environmental damage. 

Because the problems of our cities affect us all no matter where we 

live, building sustainable urban communities is a shared responsibility. The information that follows reflects strategies that government at 

all levels, the private sector, and the growing network of communitybased organizations can adopt to strengthen America’s cities. 

Promoting Locally-Crafted Solutions 

“For a long time, the government really thought that if we just 

had a solution designed here in Washington that was properly 

funded, we could solve the problems of every community in the 

country...We learned that wasn’t true. There needs to be a new 

partnership between Washington and the communities and 

individuals of this country...There needs to be a way of doing 

business in which we try to create conditions in which people 

can seize opportunities for themselves.” 

President Bill Clinton 

July 1995 

For years, a proliferation of Federal programs, complex regulations, 

and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures has limited the ability of 

communities to solve their own problems. Federal efforts to renovate 

housing, control crime and drugs, and increase employment have 

treated residents as passive clients and failed to adequately involve 

17

them in these problem-solving efforts. Failure to enlist local institutions and 

citizens, especially the women who play a unique leadership role in these 

communities, as partners in the decision-making process has left essential 

resources untapped, ignored local priorities, and missed opportunities to 

strengthen communities’ own problem-solving capacities. 

But the days of national solutions from top-heavy bureaucracies are over. 

Better solutions will come when those who live the problem plan with 

others who have a common stake in its solution—not because it is an 

abstract mission, but because it is a personal concern. Because the Federal 

Government cannot possibly know what is best for each of America’s 

diverse regions and communities, it best serves as a catalyst and enabler 

of change, not as its planner and implementor. The role of the Federal 

Government is to support local actors in their efforts to design and implement locally-crafted solutions that reflect local circumstances and needs, 

but that are consistent with national ideals such as fairness and equity. 

The Federal Commitment 

Because local organizations have a first-hand understanding of the issues 

facing their communities, the President’s Community Empowerment Agenda 

aims to provide local decision-makers with maximum flexibility to use 

scarce Federal resources in a manner consistent with national priorities. 

The Federal Government is promoting comprehensive planning and collaboration at the local level in a number of ways. 

Local initiative is the cornerstone of President Clinton’s Empowerment Zone 

and Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program. The program, which is 

overseen by Vice President Gore and the Community Empowerment Board, 

is providing distressed communities with approximately $2.5 billion in tax 

incentives and another $1.3 billion in flexible grants to help bring capital 

back to the central city, create jobs within distressed neighborhoods, invest 

in education and training, and link residents to economic opportunity 

throughout the metropolitan region. Through this initiative, communities that 

plan comprehensively and strategically for real change will receive Federal 

waivers to reduce or eliminate burdensome regulations whenever possible 

and assistance to make Federal programs responsive to their strategic 

plans. By encouraging communities and individuals to participate in the 

democratic process and work together to solve problems, the EZ/EC 

initiative is breathing new life into struggling communities. 

The Federal Government also is strengthening the capacity and impact of 

community development corporations (CDCs) at the local level. Through 

the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI), HUD is working in 

partnership with 10 major national corporations and foundations to 

provide financial support to CDCs engaged in locally-driven efforts to turn 

18 
Beyond Shelter: Helping Homeless Families 

Help Themselves 

The Los Angeles based Beyond Shelter initiative is a dramatic new response to the problem of family homelessness that stresses immediate 

return of families to independent living. The project was founded in 1988 

as a response to the growing number of homeless families in Los Angeles 

County, California, and as an alternative to traditional practices that 

emphasize shelters and transitional housing. Estimates suggest that 35 

percent of the general homeless population consists of families with 

children. Declining wages, welfare cuts, and the loss of affordable housing threaten to push even more families out of housing and make them an 

increasingly larger proportion of the homeless. 

Beyond Shelter deals with the interrelated problems that homeless families 

face: poverty and unemployment, access to credit and job training, and 

housing. The services are provided in an integrative manner to place 

families, especially female-headed families, not only back into housing, 

but back into communities. Beyond Shelter provides women with economic 

and social services, such as job training, credit and banking seminars, 

parenting classes, and nutrition classes, after they are stabilized in permanent housing and are no longer traumatized by the experience of 

homelessness. 

Beyond Shelter packages existing systems in new ways, rather than 

creating and duplicating existing systems. The program works with more 

than 25 referring agencies across the county with funding from a variety 

of different government and non-government sources. Government support 

includes local and national entities including the Housing Authority of Los 

Angeles, the City’s Community Development Department, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Emergency Food and 

Shelter Program. Foundation and corporate grants come from a variety of 

sources, including the California Community Foundation, The James Irvine 

Foundation, the Times Mirror Foundation, The Roth Family Foundation, 

and the Better Homes Fund. 

Since 1989, Beyond Shelter has helped more than 750 high-risk homeless 

families secure permanent housing. One hundred percent of graduates 

demonstrate increased self-determination and more effective money 

management. Approximately 40 percent of program graduates enrolled in 

school and/or vocational training, 28 percent obtained training, and 32 

percent of graduates increased their income. It is through this collaborative and comprehensive approach to shelter delivery and community 

building that Beyond Shelter has made such impressive achievements. 

19 
20 

around physically and 

economically distressed 

inner-city neighborhoods. 

With core funding of nearly 

$90 million, NCDI will 

generate more than $750 

million in total funding for 

community revitalization 

when it is coupled with 

financial resources committed by more than 200 local 

partners, including State 

and local governments, 

foundations, banks, and 

other organizations. 

In 1995 the Clinton administration made it easier for 

communities to tap into 

Federal resources when 

HUD consolidated planning, application, and 

reporting requirements for 

12 separate community 

development programs into 

a single application and 

plan. This gives local 

officials more flexibility to 

forge creative, comprehensive, community-wide action 

plans that involve community-based groups and 

individual residents, and to 

integrate economic and 

housing development 

strategies with efforts for 

making neighborhoods 

safer, reducing homelessness, increasing mobility, expanding job opportunities, and strengthening families. 

In 1996 the Clinton administration signed a memorandum of understanding with the State of Connecticut establishing a new partnership for community empowerment through the creation of Neighborhood Revitalization 

Zones (NRZs). Under the agreement, the Federal Government has established a single point of contact to help communities by fielding and expeTransforming Neighborhoods Together 

Transforming Neighborhoods Together (TNT) is a comprehensive, 

resident-led neighborhood planning program that helps low-income 

neighborhoods establish visions for the future and develop the skills, 

networks, and strategies that enable residents to work together to make 

that vision a reality. 

Traditionally, urban planning has been the domain of professional 

planners working for government agencies, where the level of citizen 

participation varies with the political climate. But without active citizen 

input, top-down, professional plans are less likely to include strategic 

plans for implementation and rarely contain enough detail to reflect 

neighborhood concerns. Moreover, such plans generally fail to address factors such as business creation, neighborhood blight, or 

poverty and crime. 

TNT shifts the traditional urban planning process from a largely 

technical endeavor led by city agencies to a vision- and values-driven 

process led by neighborhood residents. Through public participation, 

neighborhood committees, and non-professional neighborhood-resident 

planners, TNT has helped Knoxville, Tennessee, neighborhoods 

organize themselves, decide what changes they want, and negotiate 

for improvements and resources. While TNT guides the neighborhoods 

through a set program with a timeline and general parameters concerning subjects to explore, neighborhoods are free to reject or add 

issues to fit their individual circumstances. By working closely with a 

Knoxville city planner, the process maintains the technical integrity that 

is critical to the planning process. 

To date, this relatively new program has benefited more than 15,000 

individuals living in 6 low-income, inner-city neighborhoods. Through 

direct working relationships with key staff members of the Department 

of Community Development, police department, and Metropolitan 

Planning Commission, the program has given neighborhood leaders 

valuable experience as paraprofessional planners. The process has 

also enhanced civic engagement: communication among neighborhoods is more frequent, direct, and constructive, and more residents 

are willing to take part in crime reporting and prevention activities. The 

housing picture also is improved through the demolition of dilapidated 

and unsafe structures, rehabilitation, and new construction of affordable homes. 
21 

diting requests for waivers through the Federal system. This partnership is 

designed to empower local communities to make decisions; provide local 

communities with relief from burdensome State and local regulations and 

systems barriers; and facilitate collaboration and coordination of governmental functions and personnel to support neighborhood revitalization. The 

Federal Government expects to forge similar agreements with other States 

across the Nation. 

Partnership Recommendations 

In recent years, local capacity to solve problems has grown as State and 

local governments, businesses, community-based groups, and individual 

citizens have formed creative partnerships to revitalize inner-city neighborhoods. This process must continue. Public, private, and nonprofit organizations all have an 

important role in the communitybuilding process—a process that 

empowers community residents 

and places them at the center of 

neighborhood revitalization 

efforts. There are a number of 

steps that these organizations can 

take to promote local communitybuilding efforts: 

• Building Local Capacity. 

Community empowerment is 

about helping individuals 

and communities help 

themselves. Because sustained community-building 

efforts rely on institutions 

such as community development corporations, schools, 

churches, and other local 

groups, both public and 

private organizations can 

invest in strengthening the 

capacity of communitybased organizations. These 

local organizations need 

help in the areas of staff 

development, implementation of efficient management 

The Chicago Alliance for 

Neighborhood Safety 

As an independent coalition of community organizations and 

residents united to fight crime in Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago 

Alliance for Neighborhood Safety (CANS) works in conjunction 

with the city police department to strengthen the capacity of 

community organizations and to create safer neighborhoods. By 

promoting community-police partnerships, CANS has helped to 

curb crime in many Chicago neighborhoods. 

In 1988, CANS released “Police Service in Chicago,” a report 

designed to introduce the idea of community policing to the city, 

which eventually led the city to embrace the concept. Under the 

Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy, the emphasis is on crime 

prevention and problem-solving. Patrol officers and community 

residents work together in partnership to solve and prevent ongoing crime problems. Through this process, the police and the 

community get to know each other and the police develop a 

deeper understanding of community crime problems. 

CANS also is working with the Youth Committee of the Community Policing Task Force to improve relations between Chicago 

youth and the police, and to encourage greater involvement by 

youth in improving the safety of their communities. 

provides technical assistance, research, and education to 

community organizations, and monitors the progress of the 

police department in maintaining its support for community 

policing. 

Since its inception in 1981, CANS has helped communities 

organize more than 1,500 block, apartment, and school 

watches. Because of CANS, residents in several high crime, lowincome districts have reported a decline in major crimes, and 

drug and gang activity. They also have reported an increase in 

trust between the community and the police as well as an 

increase in optimism about their neighborhoods and policing. 

CANS 
systems, and enhancement of organizational stability through multiyear funding not tied to specific projects. 

Building capacity within State and local government is also important. As the Federal Government provides States and localities with 

more autonomy in developing community revitalization strategies, 

employees in all government areas will need unprecedented motivation, perspective, and support to do business differently. Successful 

private sector businesses know all too well that employee training 

and retraining are among the key investments a company makes in 

its future. Government agencies should likewise examine ways to 

increase their employees’ abilities, effectiveness, and pride in their 

work. 

•	 Collaboration and Consultation. Given the importance of 

local input, State and local governments can make the partnership 

approach standard in addressing urban challenges. For example, 

they can consult community-based organizations on decisions 

affecting their neighborhoods; work with coalitions of community 

groups to implement and evaluate specific projects; participate in 

ongoing partnerships that bring together the public, business, and 

community sectors; and require collaborative planning and nongovernment matching funds for publicly-financed initiatives. 

In addition, State and local governments can expand their use of 

community-based organizations to implement programs and deliver 

services to inner-city communities. Community-based organizations 

are particularly effective at delivering services because of their 

relationships and standing in the community; understanding of 

community needs; ability to coordinate multiple programs into a 

single, comprehensive package; and employment of local residents. 

The revenues and experience community organizations gain can 

strengthen them as resources for addressing other community problems. 

•	 Corporate Leadership. As members of the boards of civic, 

educational, and human service organizations and as political 

opinion leaders, corporate executives can use their influence to 

enhance local community-building efforts. Historically, business 

leaders have played prominent roles in civic partnerships to boost 

downtown development, attract sports franchises, and support 

cultural institutions. Corporate executives can exercise the same 

leadership in inner-city programs and institutions, both locally and 

nationally. For example, businesses can join local and national 

networks to support urban revitalization, metropolitan-wide housing 

22 
partnerships, and community development banks. Moreover, business 

leaders can encourage public and non-profit institutions to allocate 

increased resources to distressed urban neighborhoods, to enhance 

the involvement of both local residents and community institutions in 

service delivery, to identify and train community leaders, and to 

encourage policy changes to remove impediments to community 

building. 

Tapping Into a New Economic Frontier 

“There are places in our country where the free enterprise system 

simply doesn’t reach. It simply isn’t working to provide jobs and 

opportunity...It has always amazed me that we have given incentives 

to our business people to help to develop poor economies in other 

parts of the world...but we ignore the biggest source of economic 

growth available to the American economy, the poor economies 

isolated within the United States of America.” 

President Bill Clinton 

July 1995 

The private sector is the key to the economic success of our cities. A sustainable economic base in inner cities will only come about through private, for-profit initiatives and investments based on economic value and 

true competitive advantage—not through artificial inducements, charity, or 

government mandates. No level of government subsidies can match the 

strength of a thriving private-sector driven local economy. 

It is unrealistic to expect cities to regain the manufacturing presence that 

they enjoyed decades ago. The reality is that many of these jobs will never 

return to the central cities, and one challenge is to link inner-city residents 

with job opportunities in outlying areas. Nevertheless, as Harvard Professor Michael Porter demonstrates in his work research on economic opportunities in the city, inner cities enjoy many economic advantages that must 

not go to waste. For example: 

•	 Physical Location. Inner-city areas are generally located near 

downtown centers and their attendant businesses, transportation, 

and communication nodes. Inner-city locations offer potential advantages for business that can benefit from proximity to downtown 

business districts, infrastructure, entertainment and tourist destinations, and concentrations of other companies. Moreover, proximity 

to highly competitive nearby industries can be a major competitive 

advantage in providing supplies, components, and supporting 

services to customers. 

23 
24 

• Human Resources. Contrary to the persistent myth that 

inner-city residents are not 

employable, even the most 

distressed urban communities 

enjoy human resource potential. Supply is one advantage; 

in central Harlem, for example, 14 people apply for 

every minimum wage job 

opening. Loyalty is another 

advantage; when a company’s 

work force comes from the 

surrounding community, work 

force stability and training 

investments are offset by 

employee loyalty and a lower 

turnover rate. 

• Demand Conditions. Inner 

cities represent an immense, 

growing, yet underserved 

market. Despite low incomes, 

inner cities may enjoy higher 

income per square mile than 

do suburbs because of higher 

population density. Furthermore, they present opportunities for developing specialized 

products and services for 

urban markets. 

The challenge of sustainable 

urban economic development is 

not just to bring jobs to the city, 

but to attract and promote businesses that complement and build upon the 

competitive advantage of metropolitan regions. For too long now, the term 

“economic development” has meant little more than fragmented efforts by 

communities to entice new industries to locate in their area. The objective 

has been to attract business—any kind of business—with little regard for 

the economic strengths inherent to the region. As a result, America’s cities 

have been embroiled in a game of stealing seemingly attractive industries 

from each other with costly subsidies and other techniques—a zero-sum 

game that has yielded little net gain in regional or national economic wellbeing. 

Empowerment in Detroit 

In Detroit, Michigan, community residents, local governments, 

churches, universities, and a range of private business and other 

community partners have come together to help revitalize the 18 

square miles of largely abandoned buildings and empty lots that 

the Federal Government has designated as 1 of 6 Empowerment 

Zones across the country. The results have been overwhelming. 

The city has announced more than 21 private developments in 

the Zone, including 10 industrial and 5 residential projects. The 

Zone has attracted commitments of $2 billion in local private 

investment, and already has created hundreds of new jobs. Not 

surprisingly, the city now has one of the fastest-growing housing 

markets in the country and is one of the top cities for entrepreneurial activity. 

Former Detroit Pistons basketball player Vinnie Johnson is one of 

the Detroit entrepreneurs taking advantage of the new opportunities afforded by Detroit’s Empowerment Zone. After the Zone was 

announced, Mr. Johnson led a group of partners in opening 

Piston Packaging—a manufacturing business in the heart of the 

Zone. He cleaned and renovated part of an abandoned General 

Motors plant for his facility and now employs 44 workers, many 

of whom live in the Zone. Over the next 18 months, he will be 

expanding his business and expects to hire an additional 250 

workers during that time. 

Mr. Johnson wants to give something back to the community, and 

he has done exactly that. Many of his employees were out of 

work for months, even years, before getting a job. One employee, Joann Crowder, spent more than 8 years unemployed 

and raising three children on welfare. As a Zone resident who 

lives a few blocks from Piston Packaging, she now looks down 

the road to achieving her next dream of buying her own home 

for the first time. Joann Crowder and Vinnie Johnson are both 

powerful evidence of the tremendous potential—both personally 

and for the Nation—for empowering poor communities and their 

residents. 
An emerging model of economic development emphasizes the need to 

harness the essential attributes that underpin the ability of firms to compete 

in a particular field. No Nation, State, or region is competitive in everything, nor can it succeed by emulating other areas. Competitiveness 

emerges out of unique local conditions, and occurs in businesses where a 

region can create areas of distinctive specialization. Economic development will ultimately fail unless it enjoys a competitive edge and occupies a 

niche that is hard to replicate elsewhere. 

According to Michael Porter, the competitive success of a location does not 

normally arise in isolated companies, but in clusters of firms in the same 

industry or those that are linked together through customer, supplier, or 

New Community Pathmark Supermarket 

In Newark, New Jersey, a local community development corporation and 

large supermarket chain have teamed up to create a 55,000 square-foot 

neighborhood shopping center. This joint venture between the New 

Community Corporation and Pathmark Supermarkets is based on a simple, 

common sense idea: the best way to stimulate economic activity is to 

capture and capitalize the basic economic transactions of the day. 

After the urban riots of 1967, middle-class families fled Newark’s Central 

Ward. When the major supermarkets followed suit, local residents 

struggled to find fresh, affordable groceries. A 1987 study found that local 

residents spent 50 percent of their income on food and that prices at 

small, local stores were 38 percent higher than the prices at large supermarkets. The study also showed that the Central Ward offered enormous 

opportunity for a supermarket—90 percent of the 93,000 people living 

within a half-mile radius already shopped in the lower-priced supermarkets 

in other parts of Newark. 

Against this backdrop, the New Community Corporation formed a partnership with Pathmark to open a supermarket-anchored shopping center in the 

Central Ward. Their objective was not just to capture those dollars leaving 

the community, but to create new jobs and new job training opportunities. 

In July 1990 the shopping center was completed at a total cost of $12 

million. New Community Corporation invested $2.3 million of its own 

funds, and Supermarkets General invested $400,000, mostly in inventory, 

with banks and block grants providing the remaining funding. 

This project has been an unqualified success. Weekly sales volume has 

exceeded the original projections, and sales per square-foot are above the 

industry average. The shopping center generated 343 jobs and more than 

50 percent of the store’s employees come from the surrounding community. 

For Pathmark, it turned out to be more than a socially responsible thing to 

do, it was a solid business investment. 

25 
other relationships.23 In the United States, examples of regional industrial 

clusters abound: in Massachusetts, there is a highly competitive cluster in 

information technology; the New York metropolitan area is regarded as the 

world’s financial capital; and the strength of the entertainment industry in 

Los Angeles is unparalleled. The concentration of these industries within 

these geographic areas is more than mere coincidence. 

The Federal Commitment 

The Clinton administration regards central cities as rich reservoirs of human 

and economic potential. Far from being obsolete, they offer a concentration of expertise and economic activity that is critical to the knowledgeintensive industries of the future, and to our increasing competitiveness in 

the global economy. Many of these distressed communities represent an 

untapped economic opportunity for the whole country. The President 

believes that while we work together to open foreign markets to Americanmade goods and services, we also need to work together to open the 

economic frontiers of poor communities here at home. 

The effort to create economically viable cities starts with creating national 

conditions for sustainable economic growth and expanding employment 

and entrepreneurial opportunity. At the national level, President Clinton’s 

economic policies have had a dramatic impact on the economy. Since 

January 1993, the economy expanded by more than 8.5 million jobs. In 

1994 alone, the U.S. economy saw an increase of 3.5 million jobs—the 

strongest job growth in a decade. This type of sustained national economic 

growth will help U.S. cities complete the restructuring needed to compete in 

the new global economy. 

Because one of the most critical impediments to business creation and job 

growth in central city areas is the lack of private investment capital, the 

Federal Government has placed high priority on initiatives that attract 

private capital back to our central cities. The Community Development 

Banks and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 will create a network of 

community development banks whose primary mission is to lend, invest, 

and provide basic banking services in low- and moderate-income communities. By catalyzing matching investments from local community development agencies and the private financial sector, this new funding can 

leverage billions of dollars in capital per year to build a nationwide 

network of self-sustaining local community development banks. In turn, 

these intermediaries will further multiply this amount in loans to entrepreneurs, growing businesses, homebuyers, and community redevelopment 

projects. 

23 Michael E. Porter, “The Competitive Advantages of the Inner City,” Harvard Business Review 

(May/June 1995). 

26 
27 

In conjunction with its efforts to return private financial capital to distressed 

inner-city communities, the Clinton administration is targeting Federal 

resources to place-based initiatives that will catalyze private investment. The 

Economic Development Administration (EDA), which works in partnership 

with States, local governments, and private and non-profit organizations to 

promote long-term recovery in economically distressed communities, helps 

fund community initiatives and infrastructure investments that generate jobs 

and support commercial and industrial growth. EDA’s Competitive Communities Initiative will support 

local strategies for bringing 

high-growth, globally 

competitive businesses to 

distressed inner-city communities. 

Education and job-training 

also are important elements 

in any effort to make cities 

more competitive. Because 

public education in 

America traditionally has 

not been effective in assisting most young people with 

the critical transition from 

school to work, the Schoolto-Work Opportunities Act 

addresses this often precipitous leap. Jointly administered by the U.S. Departments of Education and 

Labor, this initiative brings 

together local partnerships 

of employers, educators, 

and others to develop new 

programs of work-based 

learning, apprenticeships, 

and internships. These 

linkages between learning 

and work experience are 

particularly beneficial for 

students isolated in innercity schools, and will help 

prepare young people for 

decent wages and a 

lifetime of learning. 

The Banana Kelly Community 

Improvement Association 

In 1977, 30 South Bronx residents organized themselves to stop the 

demolition of their homes on Kelly Street, a curved block in the heart of 

the Longwood/Hunts Point neighborhood. Against great odds and 

without tools, money, or title to the properties, these residents renovated the buildings themselves and inspired the formation of the 

Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association. Guided by the 

motto, “Don’t move, improve,” Banana Kelly’s accomplishments have 

spread well beyond this first renovation. 

Continuing in their tradition of providing safe and affordable housing, 

Banana Kelly is leading an effort to help formerly homeless families, 

train youth for future employment and leadership, and encourage 

business expansion in their neighborhood. By providing family services, group training, and technical assistance to tenant associations, 

they develop support mechanism that keep formerly homeless families 

from ending up on the streets once again. Each year, Banana Kelly’s 

nationally recognized youth programs train hundreds of youth in 

construction and maintenance fields that lead to well-paying jobs. 

Current efforts to encourage business to locate and expand within their 

neighborhood and build an economic base for the community are part 

of Banana Kelly’s overall approach to community building. 

By using a bottom-up planning approach that builds on the creativity 

and leadership of tenant organizations, local small businesses, community groups, and individuals to map out the future of the South Bronx, 

New York, Banana Kelly has remained at the cutting edge of innovation with regard to community development. The community itself has 

designed, operated, evaluated, and refined the various programs and 

projects so that: 1) programs would be designed by residents; 2) 

residents could earn a substantial salary while being trained; and 3) 

ideas and experiences could be shared with other poor communities 

worldwide. 

The success of Banana Kelly is quite evident. Since 1978, Banana 

Kelly has raised more than $100 million in finance capital, built or 

rehabilitated more than 2,500 homes, and brought numerous other 

social and economic resources to their community. 
28 

Because cities cannot be places of economic opportunity without safe 

neighborhoods, the Federal Government is working to reclaim our city 

streets from crime, violence, and drugs. By the end of FY 1996, the 

administration’s Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS) 

will have funded almost 49,000 officers to help police and communities 

join together to solve and prevent ongoing problems. Moreover, the 1993 

Brady Bill already has stopped 60,000 people with criminal records from 

buying guns. To ensure the safety and well-being of public housing residents, the administration’s One Strike, You’re Out policy requires tougher 

screening of applicants, including criminal background checks, and eviction of any resident who commits a violent crime or sells drugs. 

Partnership Recommendations 

Although private entrepreneurs, not government, are the primary agents in 

creating economic growth, local governments and other public institutions 

play a large role in creating the context in which development occurs and 

in shaping the conditions that either attract or discourage private investment. Given the importance of a well-prepared work force in economic 

Pfizer in Brooklyn 

In the 1980’s, Pfizer confronted the question of whether to move its Brooklyn, New York, pharmaceutical manufacturing plant out of the city to a suburban location. In a move that it regards as good 

business sense, the company made the commitment to stay in the community that had been its home for 

150 years. 

In 1984, the company spearheaded the Broadway Triangle Project to create an industrial park and 

develop affordable housing adjacent to the Pfizer plant in Brooklyn. The centerpiece of the Broadway 

Triangle project is a recently refurbished, high-tech manufacturing plant that employs 800 people. 

Pfizer hires most of its work force from the community and provides training for entry-level positions 

and career advancement. 

According to Thomas J. Kline, Pfizer Vice President for Manufacturing Strategies, “What some businesses don’t know is that hiring from the surrounding community provides a very good work force. 

When a company provides good jobs, invests in employee training, and provides potential for growth, 

the people hired from the community will be overwhelmingly successful. And because the work force 

comes from the community, there is stability in the company’s work force, so the investment in training 

is offset by employee loyalty and low turn-over rate.” 

Because Pfizer employees are members of the community, the plant is a valuable neighborhood 

resource. The facility provides a meeting place for local crime watchers, classes, and the parentteachers association. Since placing video cameras in the local subway stop that feeds directly to its 

security office, Pfizer has also become a leader in local crime prevention. 

William C. Steere, Jr., Pfizer’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, recognizes the importance of 

public-private partnerships in dealing with the urgent social issues facing our cities. “The crisis of 

America’s cities is not only a problem for government. It is everybody’s concern. We cannot simply 

wish it away.” 
29 

development, local governments can increase investments in education and 

job training. Another option is to review and revamp the local regulatory 

environment—complicated and uncertain approval processes are among 

the most certain turnoffs to potential investors. Local governments can also 

initiate proactive efforts to clean up and market underutilized land in the 

central city. 

The private sector also can play an important role in linking inner-city 

areas to the economic mainstream of the metropolitan region. Private firms 

can employ more inner-city residents and take a leadership role in creating 

the necessary training programs. Moreover, outside firms can enter into 

joint ventures or customer-supplier relationships that will not only benefit the 

inner-city companies but, in the long run, the firms themselves. 

Private firms can move beyond philanthropic support of social service 

organizations to strategic, business-to-business support of inner-city 

Neighborhood Development Center 

In St. Paul, Minnesota, the Neighborhood Development Center (NDC) combines the micro-enterprise 

and village banking methods that are common in developing countries with the strengths of community 

development corporations (CDCs) that are prevalent in the United States to help emerging inner-city 

entrepreneurs develop successful businesses that serve the community. 

Many low-income urban areas see a tremendous drain of dollars in spite of a very high volume of 

activity that takes place in the area. While many local residents operate legal, tiny “beneath the 

surface” businesses from their homes, they rarely emerge into full-time operation because of inadequate 

capital and business training. 

these dollars in the community by strengthening community-based businesses. Very few groups with 

strong neighborhood ties and high levels of visibility and trust are involved in micro-enterprise, and 

many of those that do focus on business training and lending efforts, (even ones that focus on lowincome, minority, or women-owned businesses) do not reach people at the neighborhood level. 

By partnering with grassroots CDCs in lower-income neighborhoods throughout the Minneapolis-St. 

Paul region, NDC has designed a unique approach to micro-enterprise that combines the networks and 

the long-term commitment that CDCs enjoy in their neighborhoods with the peer identification and 

support that are common to the village banking of micro-enterprise development in Asia and Africa. 

NDC has contracts with 11 CDCs to inform residents of the training program via newsletters, door-todoor flyers, and word-of-mouth. With the assistance of a professional trainer, NDC provides instruction 

on developing a business plan in groups of 7 to 10 neighbors. After completing the 16-week training 

course, participants are eligible to apply to their CDC for a start-up loan. To ensure the long-term 

viability of these neighborhood-based businesses, participants receive ongoing technical assistance 

and form support groups after start-up. 

The program is clearly a success. By September 1995, NDC had trained more than 330 persons in 11 

neighborhoods throughout the Twin Cities; more than 90 participants are currently in business for 

themselves. Of the 50 loans that NDC has made, only 2 are in default. Most importantly, these entrepreneurs are emerging as new community leaders and are inspiring their neighbors to undertake 

similar activities that benefit themselves as well as the community. 

The challenge for St. Paul and other communities is to retain more of 
companies. Countless firms give many millions of dollars each year to 

worthy inner-city social service agencies. Yet very little effort and resources 

are devoted to assisting inner-city entrepreneurs or established businesses, 

which could actually contribute far more in the long run by reducing the 

need for social services. Philanthropic efforts by corporations will be more 

effective if they are focused on business-to-business efforts. 

Public-private partnerships to promote local economic development hold 

perhaps the greatest potential for positive change. In recent years, business 

leaders and other long-term stakeholders in many metropolitan regions— 

people who are totally opposed to “government planning”—have 

recognized that sensible forms of public-private collaboration in regional 

economic development can pay off. Public-private coalitions such as 

Cleveland Tomorrow and the Greater Baltimore Committee are studying 

shifting market forces and identify their own comparative advantages 

within those forces. 

Not too long ago, there was considerable debate about whether America 

should have an industrial policy. Such a policy never developed in an 

official way, possibly because the prospect of the Federal Government 

picking “winners” from our industrial mix and trying to develop policies to 

support them runs against the grain of our national traditions. But this 

debate was framed in terms of the Federal Government’s relationship to 

industrial sectors, not to the wisdom of voluntary strategic alliances forged 

to capitalize on local and regional competitive advantages. We may well 

be uneasy about the ability of the Federal Government to understand 

enough about the realities of individual industries to subsidize some but not 

others to become more competitive. However, the public-private coalitions 

that are forming to spur regional development are not Federal in nature. 

They are locally driven and involve voluntary strategic alliances between 

the business sector and State and/or localities. 

Developing a Regional Approach 

“While the great battles of the decades ahead are likely to be economic, the greatest challenge to our economic strength is certainly not 

competition from the Pacific Rim or Europe. No—the greatest challenge to our economic strength is here at home where the decaying 

cores of too many inner cities and the poverty stricken heartlands of 

rural America threaten to erode our dynamic regional economies. That 

is what we intend to change. I believe that we can do it.“ 

Vice President Al Gore 

December 1993 

30 
31 

The founders of every 

major U.S. city drew its 

initial boundaries to 

encompass what they 

thought would be 

enough land for expansion. But urban settlements last a long time, 

and many have grown 

well beyond their initial 

boundaries. In some 

metropolitan regions, 

such as San Antonio, 

Texas, and Charlotte, 

North Carolina, the 

original city responded 

by annexing surrounding areas because it 

had the legal power to 

do so. But in most U.S. 

metropolises, residents 

outside the original city 

boundaries have remained in separate, 

legally independent 

communities. 

Metropolitan regions 

are highly interconnected in terms of labor, 

housing, capital, and 

consumer markets, but 

many are politically 

fragmented. After 

decades of suburbanization, such political fragmentation has produced 

marked economic and social disparities among the jurisdictions within 

metropolitan areas. While many suburban areas are home to a thriving 

middle class, our inner cities have become home to a disproportionate 

share of the poorest households in America. 

Cities cannot go it alone. Cities with high poverty rates face high per capita 

expenditures for welfare, hospitals, police, fire, and education services. 

Rising public sector costs have clashed with declining tax bases as middleclass families, stores and shops, factories, and offices have relocated 

Regional Solutions to Affordable Housing 

For many low-income families, Connecticut has not been an easy place to 

find decent, affordable housing. In the decades preceding the State’s 

economic slump in the early 1990’s, Connecticut had the highest average 

housing costs of any State east of California. By the late 1980’s, the State 

ranked first in the Nation in terms of city/suburb income differential. The 

State also ranked ninth with regard to housing segregation. 

In an effort to increase the supply of affordable housing, the Connecticut 

General Assembly took a series of actions in the late 1980’s. Most notable 

is the Affordable Housing Appeals Act of 1989, which requires any of the 

169 municipalities in the State with less than 10 percent assisted housing 

to change their zoning practices to permit a more diverse housing supply. 

Under the law, a developer whose plans to build affordable housing are 

rejected by a town council can appeal to a special State court in Hartford. 

The burden of proof is on the town council, which must prove that the 

town’s reasons for rejecting the proposal should be deemed a higher 

priority that the State’s affordable housing requirement. 

But the effort to promote affordable housing in Connecticut went beyond 

State mandates. Previous legislative action in 1988 had spurred the 

creation of the Capitol Region Fair Housing Compact on Affordable 

Housing and the Greater Bridgeport Affordable Housing Compact. 

Through a framework of joint problem-solving and mediation, municipalities in Hartford and Bridgeport came together to pledge their commitment 

to expand the supply of affordable housing throughout these urban regions. According to the 1994 Connecticut Regional Council of Governments Report, more than 4,000 affordable housing units were constructed 

or approved over the life of these agreements. 

The voluntary compact approach to meeting regional housing needs marks 

the beginning of a change in Connecticut’s local housing policy. For many 

of these communities, entering into the compact was their first step in 

reconsidering regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Local needs and 

goals, not State mandates, served as the basis for their participation and 

implementation strategies. The State did not mandate results, regional 

coordination, nor the nature of the negotiations. 
32 

outside city limits. Trapped within existing boundaries by incorporated 

suburbs and bad annexation laws, cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Hartford, 

and Washington, D.C., no longer have the resources to support themselves. 

Because the destinies of our cities and our suburbs are inextricably linked, 

solutions must draw upon not only the strengths of the inner city, but also 

those of the entire metropolitan area. Traditional forms of regional cooperation among local governments have focused on the delivery of public 

services, but have avoided the more difficult issue of sharing the social 

burdens of our urban areas. Although areawide compacts on transportation planning, 

solid waste management, sewage treatment, and air quality management may 

be “good government,” many have not 

addressed the racial and economic segregation that plagues our cities. 

The Federal Commitment 

The Federal Government is committed to 

creating a level metropolitan playing field 

by breaking up deep concentrations of 

poverty and despair in our inner cities and 

reconnecting residents to the economic and 

social mainstream of our metropolitan 

regions. The well-being and service capabilities of metropolitan localities—central 

city or suburban—should not be hostage to 

their economic, social, or demographic 

profiles. 

Because free and fair housing choice is the 

first step in providing greater opportunity 

for all metropolitan residents, HUD is 

leading Federal efforts to reverse the legacy 

of housing discrimination. For example, 

HUD is working in partnership with the U.S. 

Department of Justice to enforce Federal fair 

housing laws and ensure that individuals 

and families who want to buy or rent a 

home are able to do so. Moreover, through 

the Fair Housing Initiatives Program and the 

Fair Housing Assistance Program, HUD 

supports State and local efforts to identify 

discriminatory practices. 

Sharing a Regional Tax Base 

The Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Law of 1971 enables all cities in the seven-county MinneapolisSt. Paul metropolitan area to receive a share of the 

growth in tax base in the area, irrespective of the 

physical location of the tax base. Under the law, all 

shared tax base bears a common tax rate, which is 

an average of all rates in the metropolitan area. The 

law provides that every city must make a contribution 

to the regional pool of valuations equal to 40 percent 

of its net growth in commercial-industrial valuations 

since 1971. In calendar year 1994, this regional 

pool amounted to $277 million. Local jurisdictions 

receive a share of the pool through a populationbased formula. 

With the law in effect, any jurisdiction within the 

region can have a tax-free regional park within its 

borders or a large number of lower-priced, lowertaxed residences. When the law was originally 

proposed, some communities in the metropolitan area 

with only half the tax rate of their neighbors were 

spending twice as much on providing local services. 

Even though a jurisdiction will gain tax base whether 

or not it uses fiscal zoning, the law has not dampened separate efforts to expand tax bases. 

By alleviating the effects of such disparities through a 

multi-jurisdictional cooperative effort to share a 

regional tax base, the law is functioning as intended. 

It is gradually reducing—albeit not eliminating—the 

differences in commercial-industrial tax base among 

cities in the metropolitan area. If the law were not in 

effect, the ratio between the highest and lowest in per 

capita commercial-industrial tax base among 48 

cities with a population of more than 9,000 would be 

almost 15 to 1. With the law, the difference has 

narrowed to four to one. 
33 

The Federal Government also has a special responsibility to ensure free 

and fair housing choice for families who benefit from subsidized housing. 

To prevent undue concentration of lower-income households that benefit 

from the Section 8 program, which provides assistance through the private 

housing market, HUD will propose a series of program reforms to attract a 

greater number of responsible landlords into the program and to increase 

community acceptance of program recipients. HUD is also working to 

ensure that these families make informed choices about where to live by 

funding regional providers of housing counseling, landlord outreach, and 

tenant screening. 

In addition, the Federally-sponsored Bridges to Work initiative, which 

began as a demonstration in early 1996, is testing the feasibility and 

impact of helping unemployed inner-city residents find jobs in suburban 

areas where employment opportunities are expanding. One component of 

Bridges to Work focuses on the job placement link while another 

focuses on access to 

transportation. The 

Bridges to Work initiative will address each 

of these barriers explicitly, tailoring a program 

for each participant to 

forge an effective and 

lasting link to suburban 

employment. 

Likewise, the Federal 

Government is promoting a regional approach to employment 

training. Currently, 

Federal job training 

programs are implemented by individual 

jurisdictions, with 

strong incentives for 

placing participants in 

jobs within the jurisdiction where they applied 

for assistance. The 

Federal Government is 

working to transfer this 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is an important building block toward greater regional interaction. Enacted in 1991, 

ISTEA authorizes $155 billion to develop an efficient, environmentally 

sound national transportation system that provides a strong foundation for 

the Nation to compete in the global economy. 

Since World War II, the creation of the Interstate Highway System and 

improvements in airports, pipelines, and regional transit systems transformed America’s transportation infrastructure. These improvements were 

financed in a “modal” framework, where highway organizations built 

highways, transit authorities built mass transit, and each mode tended to 

have its own categorical funds. This approach was well suited to building 

new infrastructure and establishing single “modal” networks. But over the 

last 25 years, this approach has show signs of wear, including increased 

cost and delayed transportation investment in urban areas. 

By promoting “multi-modalism” in all phases of transportation planning, 

ISTEA gives State and local governments more flexibility in determining 

transportation solutions while offering tools for enhanced planning and 

management systems to guide them in making the best choices. Under 

ISTEA, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in urbanized areas 

have broad discretion over the allocation of Federal funds among road, 

bridge, and transit projects. About half of all MPOs are regional councils 

or voluntary consortia of local governments. Others include regional 

economic development organizations, transportation planning agencies, or 

State highway departments. MPOs develop, in cooperation with State and 

affected transit operators, long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs that considers land use, air quality, interconnected transport modes, enhanced transit services, and management 

needs. 
fragmented array of employment and training programs into an integrated 

service delivery system for job-seekers and employers. The U.S. Department of Labor, in partnership with State and local organizations, is creating a network of One-Stop Career Centers to serve the entire labor market 

within each local region. By strengthening connections among schools, 

colleges, students, workers, and employers throughout the metropolitan 

area, these One-Stop Career Centers will offer the essential connection to 

link inner-city residents to available jobs and learning opportunities 

throughout the entire region. 

Partnership Recommendations 

Governments at all levels can pursue common policies to dismantle the 

barriers that separate poor and minority people from the rest of society. For 

example: 

•	 Fair-Share Affordable Housing. Municipalities have a legitimate objective in promulgating regulations to protect the health and 

welfare of their residents, but many suburban communities go much 

further. When communities reserve most of their residential districts 

for large houses on 2-acre lots, ban multifamily housing or commercial activity, set impossible environmental standards, or prevent any 

new development, they go too far. State and local governments 

should support planning and zoning policies that encourage the 

development of more affordable housing in all jurisdictions. 

•	 Portability of Assistance. Today, governments at all levels must 

do more to break the nexus between services to disadvantaged 

households and residence in a particular place. With regard to 

housing assistance, for example, local public housing authorities can 

provide counseling and supportive services, establish rent guidelines 

that allow for a full range of housing opportunity, and provide 

regulatory and administrative relief to make rental assistance programs more attractive to landlords. By promoting greater residential 

mobility, portability of assistance helps link families to social and 

economic opportunity while easing the onerous service and fiscal 

burdens facing many urban cores. 

•	 Intracommunity and Intraregional Mobility. In addition to 

the environmental damage brought about by urban sprawl, existing 

land use and transportation policies also impede intracommunity 

and intraregional mobility. Current practices 1) separate a region’s 

residents from metropolitan employment opportunities; 2) isolate 

those who, by reason of age, ability, or income, are unable to drive; 

and 3) impede the use of public transportation to ensure urban 

mobility. State and local governments should systematically reexamine current zoning and sub-division regulations, traffic codes, 

34 
35 

and transportation policies; adopt revisions that encourage compact, 

mixed-use development; and enable the use of public transportation 

to promote greater mobility throughout urban communities and 

metropolitan regions. 

Recapturing the Promise 

In its Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Region, the 

Regional Plan Association (RPA), a private urban planning research group, has developed a 

dynamic and feasible plan for revitalizing one of our Nation’s largest metropolitan regions. 

Recognizing that the economic, social, and environmental prosperity of the New York metropolitan area transcends political boundaries, the plan, entitled “Recapturing the Promise,” 

suggests a clear program of action for the future that requires the active participation of 

government, private business, and community-based organizations. 

Like other metropolises around the world, the New York metropolitan region faces daunting 

challenges as it heads into the next century. For New York, the challenge has shifted from 

managing growth to finding growth to manage: between 1982 and 1992, the tri-state region 

grew by the smallest percentage of any of the Nation’s 15 largest metropolitan areas. Without 

investments in training, education, and infrastructure, the region can expect a bleak landscape 

of crumbling urban cores, increasingly isolated wealthy enclaves, transportation paralysis, 

deteriorating air and water quality, and feeble economic growth. 

RPA sets forth an alternative vision: residents zip about in high-speed trains on a fully interconnected regional rail system patterned after the Paris Metro; the aging urban centers have been 

recaptured as places to live, work, and play; and lifelong adult education and job banks 

connect the population to new opportunities in the global economy. Five major initiatives 

anchor the plan: 

• Greensward encourages locally controlled, sub-regional commissions to manage the growth 

and conservation of open green spaces. 

• Centers focuses on a comprehensive strategy to “re-center” spread-out growth trends, including State growth management plans, focused investment in downtowns, neighborhood 

revitalization programs, and school finance reform. 

• Mobility deals with the necessity of restructuring regional mass transit systems, and proposes 

a reconfigured regional rail system only 25 miles longer than the present system to connect 

the currently disparate systems in the tri-state area. 

• The Workforce campaign outlines a strategy for “reconnecting work and education with a 

system of lifelong learning,” which would enable the region’s work force to manipulate a 

changing labor market. 

• Governance suggests a new tri-state Infrastructure Bank to finance this vision and a restructured tax policy and system of governance to encourage more coordinated planning and 

better management of the region’s schools and transportation network. 

In an era when some are determined to eliminate public institutions instead of adapting them, 

to cut budgets rather than focus spending creatively, and to divide people rather than unite 

them around broad visions that could benefit everyone, RPA has established a comprehensive, 

long-term strategy for strengthening the entire New York metropolitan region. 
•	 Revenue-Sharing Arrangements. The specialization of business and household locations driven by metropolitan-wide economic 

and other factors creates enormous disparities in local tax bases. 

Although these disparities have been recognized, and partially 

compensated for, by programs of formula-based, functionally-specific 

State and Federal aid, more must be done. While moving money is 

much less important than moving people, area-wide revenue sharing 

arrangements can help build strong cities by promoting equity in 

local revenues. States should adopt incentives to encourage regional 

cooperation and fiscal integration. 

Sustaining the Urban Environment 

“For all our differences, I think there is an overwhelming determination 

to change our course... to achieve things that are larger than ourselves 

and more lasting than the present moment. We seek to set our course 

by the star of age-old values, not short-term expediencies; to waste less 

in the present and to provide more for the future; to leave a legacy 

which keeps the faith with those who left the Earth to us.” 

President Bill Clinton 

Earth Day 1993 

Thriving cities are those that not only enjoy economic prosperity and social 

opportunity, but also clean air, safe drinking water, and green public 

spaces. Today, many inner-city communities that were once the anchors of 

America’s industrial and manufacturing base are now paying the price for 

years of environmental abuse. As this legacy of pollution perpetuates 

poverty in these communities, it works against their revitalization because 

they are no longer desirable places for economic, social, and cultural 

activities. 

Many communities are finding that conventional approaches to economic 

development, transportation planning, and development of the built environment—efforts that are intended to increase opportunity and quality of 

life—are in fact creating a variety of negatives that we would prefer to do 

without: congestion, sprawl, air pollution, overflowing landfills, resource 

stress, and other environmental and social problems. If we continue with 

the same approaches that created these problems, we will further degrade 

our own quality of life and leave future generations with increasingly 

insurmountable environmental problems. 

Because economic, social, and environmental issues are interconnected in 

daily life, approaching them one at a time does not work. Systemic thought 

is required so that these issues are recognized as integrated and actions to 

36 
37 

address them are coordinated. America must preserve, and where possible, restore the integrity of natural systems—soils, water, air, and biological diversity—that sustain both economic prosperity and life itself. 

The Federal Commitment 

The Federal Government recognizes the importance of the urban environment to long-term economic development and social prosperity. As a result, 

the Clinton administration is working to combine activities that have long 

been considered incompatible in an effort to build strong cities. It is doing 

this in a way that creates sustainable urban communities that will stand the 

test of time and will remain inviting places to live for generations to come. 

The Clinton administration is taking a new approach to environmental 

regulation—one that helps communities tackle environmental challenges 

constructively. 

With the assistance of HUD and other Federal agencies, the EPA has 

already begun to make common sense regulatory and policy changes that 

Yard Waste Recycling in Lindsborg, Kansas 

In this town of 3,300 that lies along the Smoky Hill River on the prairies of central Kansas, yard waste 

that a few years ago was burned or buried is now shredded and composted. The result is a large 

supply of finished compost and mulch that helps beautify public spaces and private homes while 

protecting the environment. 

Because landfill space is expensive and increasingly scarce, solid waste disposal is a serious problem 

in many communities. 

accounting for nearly 25 percent of the total. Tough environmental regulations have forced Kansas to 

close two-thirds of its landfills and to ban yard wastes from those remaining sites. The challenge has 

been for Lindsborg and other cities to save dwindling landfill space while disposing of yard waste in a 

cost-effective, environmentally sound manner. 

Under the plan, each household pays $1 per month to defray the cost of a large $180,000 commercial wood chipper/shredder that is shared by all communities in the county. But everyone benefits. The 

city uses finished compost and wood chip mulch for city flowerbeds and landscape plants, and 

citizens receive compost and mulch at no cost. The project is strictly voluntary; it is based on cooperation, teamwork, and goodwill. 

The Lindsborg project has been extremely successful. The program now recycles more than 60 percent 

of the town’s yard waste and prevents 1,200 tons per year of solid waste from reaching the landfill. 

Moreover, the project has spurred a communitywide volunteer effort and involvement, including 

elementary, secondary, and college-age youth. Most importantly, the Yard Waste Recycling Program 

has educated the public about the tangible, everyday benefits that result from environmentally conscious behavior. It has shifted old ways of thinking, made a good end use out of previous trash, and 

fostered a sense of environmental stewardship and shared responsibility among community residents. 

In Lindsborg, yard waste was the single largest component of solid waste, 
38 

speed the clean-up of brownfields and provide grants to cities to redevelop 

formerly-contaminated sites. Through its Brownfield Redevelopment Pilot 

Project, EPA is providing up to $200,000 for each of 50 cities across the 

country to facilitate the extensive planning and analysis necessary to forge 

local redevelopment strategies. This year, the President’s FY 1997 budget 

proposes to go further with a $2 billion brownfields cleanup initiative. 

Under the plan, new purchasers and other businesses that redevelop 

brownfields would receive a targeted tax incentive to recover the cost of 

cleanup in a shorter time period. 

The Clinton administration is committed to environmental justice for all. Too 

frequently, those who have been powerless, those who have been disenfranchised, and those who are economically disadvantaged are victims of 

those who dump waste materials in their neighborhood. In 1994, President 

Clinton moved to protect the environmental rights of all Americans by 

Re-Using Building Materials for Affordable Housing 

As the Nation’s first self-sufficient, successful nonprofit recycler of reusable building material, The 

Loading Dock (TLD) in Baltimore, Maryland, is expanding the supply of decent, affordable housing 

while protecting the environment. 

Like many older cities in the United States, Baltimore faces an aging supply of housing units. Much of 

the city’s housing stock is more than 100 years old and in need of repair, and about 10 percent of 

Baltimore’s housing is considered substandard. Housing quality is of particular concern to lower-income 

households who are more likely to live in older housing but are unable to finance repairs and maintenance. 

In 1984, a group of housing professionals with an interest in environmental issues recognized the 

potential of matching the need for low-cost building materials with the large amount of excess building 

materials that go to waste. With a $25,000 grant from the Morris Goldseker Foundation, TLD opened 

for business. Since then, the program has helped low-income households acquire affordable building 

supplies while educating public and private businesses on how to donate and reuse building material 

rather than dumping it into rapidly filling landfills. 

Today, TLD serves more than 6,000 low-income households in the greater Baltimore area. For a $5 

annual membership fee, members can purchase building supplies at prices up to 75 percent below 

retail price. The supplies that TLD redistributes are often unused materials, ranging from unpainted 

doors and windows, ceramic tiles from discontinued lines, or slightly damaged goods. Because these 

items cannot be sold for a profit, in the past they would be sent to landfills. “It’s the old story of one 

person’s trash is another’s treasure,” says Leslie Kirkland, Director. 

After 11 years of operation, TLD has saved nonprofit organizations and low-income individuals more 

than $5 million in repair and rehabilitation supplies. The project has rescued some 33,000 tons of 

building materials from landfills, while providing materials for the rehabilitation of more than 27,000 

homes. As word of its success has spread, TLD is now working to adapt this promising strategy in 40 

communities across the United States and abroad. 
39 

signing an Executive order barring Federal agencies and other federallyfunded institutions from engaging in practices that impose unfair environmental burdens on disadvantaged people and communities. 

Similarly, the Federal Government believes that communities with military 

installations should enjoy the same quality of life that the rest of America 

enjoys. Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Defense has pledged 

closer cooperation with local communities on environmental matters. The 

Department has established Restoration Advisory Boards to work with local 

communities to find commonsense solutions in cleanup efforts at base sites. 

The administration is also working to improve the environment through 

advances in the construction industry. The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology is helping the 

construction industry utilize the 

newest materials and latest technologies to realize energy and environmental improvement. This help 

includes the development of test 

methods for advanced insulation 

materials that offer superior performance, alternatives to chloro-fluorocarbon (a cause of ozone loss), 

techniques for measuring indoor air 

quality, and methods to quantify the 

environmental impact of buildings. 

Looking beyond the immediate 

problems, the President established 

a Council on Sustainable Development, which brought together 

representatives of government, 

industry, environment, labor, and 

civil rights organizations to develop 

new ways to integrate and balance 

environmental concerns with issues 

of economic opportunity and social 

equity. The Council examined the 

complex interplay of these issues in 

the context of communities, and 

explored how these concerns can be 

balanced to ensure that communities 

remain decent, healthy places to live 

as they evolve and grow. 

Revitalizing Brownfield Sites 

To make Cleveland, Ohio, the comeback city envisioned by 

civic boosters, urban revitalization has to overcome the 

barriers set up by brownfields—the contaminated and/or 

abandoned industrial sites found in many central cities. The 

percentage of land made up of vacant parcels in Cleveland 

increased from 9 percent in 1977 to 12.5 percent in 1987. 

Filling some of these parcels and redeveloping others in the 

face of such problems as increased liability, clean-up standards, and regulatory burdens has presented Cleveland with 

a strategic challenge. 

In Cleveland, a coalition comprised of businesses, community 

development corporations, Cuyahoga County officials, 

neighborhood groups, and other citizens is attacking the 

brownfield problem. In 1992, the Cuyahoga County Planning 

Commission convened a symposium to discuss brownfield 

redevelopment strategies as part of an effort to counteract 

sprawl in the metropolitan region. The following year, a multistakeholder Brownfields Working Group analyzed the 

problem of brownfields and made recommendations to the 

planning commission. Since then, the city of Cleveland has 

received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for two demonstration projects. The planning 

commission is using a $198,000 EPA grant to streamline the 

remediation and redevelopment of at least three brownfield 

sites. As part of the project, the commission is to identify 

financial and regulatory barriers and recommend ways to 

remedy them. 

The pilot project in Cleveland already has borne fruit. So far, 

the project has produced $3.2 million in new private investment, including a new distribution center that has generated 

more than 170 new jobs. 
Partnership Recommendations 

Government at all levels, private firms, and nonprofit organizations can 

undertake a number of activities to help maintain and regenerate the urban 

environment: 

•	 Land Use Planning and Design. State and local governments, 

in cooperation with private firms and community-based organizations, can promote community design that uses land efficiently, 

encourages mixed-use and mixed-income development, retains 

public open space, and provides diverse transportation options. 

For example, local jurisdictions can structure or revise local zoning 

regulations and permit approval processes to encourage development along transit corridors and near a range of transit alternatives. 

In addition, the public sector can work with community groups and 

the private sector by conducting periodic assessments to ensure that 

transportation and infrastructure investments do not inadvertently 

deliver greater benefits to wealthier communities at the expense of 

poorer ones. 

•	 Community Growth Management. By managing the geographical growth of existing communities and planning new ones, 

local organizations can help decrease sprawl, conserve open space, 

preserve watersheds, respect nature’s carrying capacity, and protect 

against natural hazards. For example, States and communities can 

evaluate the costs of infrastructure in greenfields to make sure that 

hidden government subsidies do not inadvertently make new development at the fringe less costly than economic development in the 

core. In addition, local governments can create community partnerships to develop regional open space networks and urban growth 

boundaries as part of a regional framework to discourage sprawl 

development that threatens a region’s environmental carrying capacity. 

•	 Building and Landscape Design and Rehabilitation. To 

enhance public health and the environment, local organizations can 

promote building design and rehabilitation that use energy and 

natural resources efficiently. Improved design tools can help conserve energy and minimize the emission of pollutants. These include 

models for building codes, zoning ordinances, and permit approval 

processes for residential and commercial buildings, public infrastructure, and landscapes. Model building codes can consider energy 

efficiency; durability; non-toxic materials; indoor air quality; recycled 

and recyclable materials; use of native plants that reduce the need 

for fertilizers, pesticides, and water for landscaping; urban forestry; 

and use of designs that promote human interaction. 

40 
41 

• Environmental Economic Development. To create jobs, local 

organizations can capitalize on economic opportunities provided by 

industries that target environmental technologies, recycling, and 

pollution prevention. State and local governments can help communities create eco-industrial parks that cluster business in the same area 

to create new models of industrial efficiency, cooperation, and 

environmental efficiency. In addition, local governments can adopt 

programs to collect and recycle secondary materials diverted from 

the municipal solid waste stream. 

• Brownfield Sites. Cleaning up brownfields entails investments 

and risks that make the uncontaminated greenfields in outlying areas 

much more attractive sites for industry and other businesses but, 

without the brownfields clean-up and redevelopment, there is little 

hope for a renewed and vibrant metropolitan core. Local governments can help revitalize brownfields by making them more attractive for redevelopment by providing regulatory flexibility. All levels of 

government can work in partnership with community residents, 

environmental organizations, community development corporations, 

Chattanooga: A City Remaking Itself 

Chattanooga’s story of the last 30 years is not unusual. After World War II, suburban sprawl drained 

the downtown area of much of its retail and almost all of its residential development. As traditional 

manufacturing jobs moved elsewhere and many local companies laid off workers or closed down, the 

city’s economic base collapsed. Racial conflicts, poor schools, and an eroding infrastructure all signaled urban decline. Further manifestation of this decline came in 1969, when Chattanooga, Tennessee, was dubbed the “worst polluted city” in America. 

The second part of the Chattanooga story is all too rare among American cities. In recent years, 

concerted efforts by government, business, community organizations, and citizens have resulted not 

only in cleaner air but also in a willingness to undertake bold initiatives conceived within a shared 

vision, integrating Chattanooga’s economic, environmental, and social aspirations. The Chattanooga 

community has undertaken an effort to become an environmental city, where everyone works together 

to generate a strong economic base, nurture social institutions, and enhance the natural and humanmade landscape. 

For more than a decade, the city has invited all members of the community to envision what they want 

for the future, and the process has paid off handsomely. In 1990, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized Chattanooga for meeting its clean air requirements, the city was designated the Nation’s best environmental turnaround story. An article in Sports Illustrated described 

Chattanooga as “not a miracle, but a nuts-and bolts model of how tough government, cooperative 

businesses, and a very alarmed public can make a dirty world clean again.” 

Chattanooga today sees itself as a living laboratory where ideas can be explored, learning is ongoing, 

and both people and nature can prosper. The Chattanooga story is not finished: it is only just beginning. As a new city slogan says, “It takes all of us. . . It takes forever.” 
industry, and businesses to redevelop or stabilize brownfield sites 

by eliminating barriers to and creating incentives for environmental 

cleanup, and reorienting existing State and Federal economic 

development funding and programs to include these sites. 

Conclusion 

The strategies and success stories described throughout this chapter 

remind us that there is much hope for American cities. Across the Nation, 

local efforts to help the homeless, build and renovate affordable housing, 

create decent-wage jobs, fight crime, and protect the environment are 

restoring hope to America’s urban communities. 

Collaboration is the most important key to success. Partnerships produce 

better results than what individual organizations—public or private—can 

do alone. When each partner, whether the Federal Government, a private 

business, or a grassroots organization, brings a unique strength or resource to the community-building effort, the results can be very impressive. 

Although the Habitat II conference marks the completion of our preparatory activities, it marks the beginning of a new era of information and idea 

sharing about how the public, private, and community-based sectors can 

work together to strengthen our cities. All of us—government, private, and 

nonprofit sectors, and individual citizens—can and must act to help build 

healthy and sustainable communities of opportunity in the 21st century. 

42 
Appendix 

The Voice of Urban America: 

Local Input From Habitat Town Meetings 

Overview 

Citizen participation is a critical element in promoting sustainable 

urban communities. The capacity of democratic institutions to solve 

problems and to create a better future depends on the knowledge 

and involvement of citizens in a decisionmaking process that encourages systemic thought and broad-based action. Lasting solutions are 

best identified when people from throughout a community—as 

individuals, elected officials, or members of the business community, 

environmental groups, or civic organizations—come together in a 

spirit of cooperation to identify solutions to community problems. 

As part of the national preparatory process for Habitat II, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development jointly sponsored a series of 

12 town meetings throughout the Nation. These sessions brought 

together neighbors, community groups, business leaders, advocacy 

organizations, and local government officials to examine the challenges facing America’s urban communities. Each town meeting was 

planned and implemented by a local organizing committee with 

planning support provided by the U.S. Network for Habitat II, a 

network of nongovernmental organizations dedicated to providing 

citizens with a voice in the decisions that affect their lives and communities. 

A primary function of the town meetings was to get local input on key 

documents being prepared for Habitat II—the Beyond Shelter: 

Building Communities of Opportunity and the Habitat Global Plan of 

Action. The focus of Habitat II is on community empowerment, 

whereby national governments work in partnership with State and 

local governments, private firms, and the growing network of community-based organizations to build strong cities. It is critical that these 

documents reflect partnership every step of the way. 

But more importantly, the meetings brought together local leaders 

and stakeholders to begin developing their own vision for economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable communities. Although town meetings addressed affordable housing, economic 

43

development, and other major issues that are frequently the focus of 

national policy debate, the discussion also emphasized the challenges that 

exist in these individual communities. For example, the town meeting in 

Los Angeles focused on disaster preparedness, residents of Brownsville 

were concerned about access to water as a limiting force in housing 

development, and Iowa residents were interested in rural development 

issues. This type of local discourse provides people with greater power 

over and responsibility for the decisions that shape their communities. 

Decent and Affordable Housing is Critical 

Because of its central role in the health and well-being of all families and 

neighborhoods, housing was an important focus at all town meetings. 

Participants identified a number of successful aspects of housing delivery 

systems. For example, the leadership of nongovernmental organizations, 

including community development corporations, faith-based groups, and 

civic organizations, has been instrumental in the effort to increase the 

supply of decent, affordable housing. Participants also cited various 

Federal initiatives, including the Community Reinvestment Act and Enterprise Zone/Empowerment Communities initiative, as important in supporting local housing strategies. 

But many participants indicated that much more could be done to expand 

the supply of decent and affordable housing in their communities. Some of 

the discussions focused on the impact of Federal budget cuts and the 

inability of the private market to supply housing at rents affordable to 

families most in need without some form of government assistance. Other 

areas of concern included the availability and condition of different types 

of housing, and open and fair access to the general housing market by 

different ethnic and racial groups. 

Citizens offered a number of constructive actions, which ranged from 

forging stronger working relationships between community residents and 

local governments to improving methods of disseminating information 

about housing issues and programs. Specific recommended actions 

included: 

•	 Expanding access to mortgage credit for lower income families and 

especially families headed by women. 

• Increasing funding for property improvement activities. 

• Improving enforcement of fair housing laws. 

•	 Reforming building codes and zoning regulations to better accommodate innovation. 

• Increasing homeownership counseling for residents. 

44 
•	 Improving relations between the business community and local 

residents to improve neighborhoods and attract more private investment into both commercial and residential development. 

•	 Speeding up response from the local government to complaints 

about property-related code violations. 

•	 Encouraging local housing authorities, public-private housing partnerships, and local governments to support and listen to the local 

women leaders. 

•	 Improving the design of multifamily housing for families, especially 

in public housing. 

Town meeting participants in some cities also offered recommendations on 

housing for special populations; the elderly and disabled. These recommendations included: 

•	 Recognizing special needs housing as relevant to the needs of 

community and economic sustainability. 

•	 Increasing public funding of rent subsidies and other forms of assistance, such as property rehabilitation and counseling, for residents 

with special needs. 

•	 Expanding the effort to integrate housing for people with special 

needs into the community. 

•	 Eliminating policies that promote the segregation of housing for 

people with special needs. 

Promoting Economic Development 

Like most Americans, town meeting participants were concerned about 

ways to safeguard existing jobs and to increase the number of new ones 

paying “livable” wages. Almost all of the town meetings mentioned economic development as a top priority for their community. 

Town meetings identified successful examples of initiatives to spur economic development. Several participants cited public-private business 

partnerships and supports for small businesses as beneficial to increasing 

economic development in urban communities. Tax incentives and access 

to capital through community banking were also cited as proven strategies 

that support economic development at the community level; one session 

emphasized the value of small business incubators and merchant 

associations. 

Many participants agreed that more could be done to promote decent 

wage jobs in urban communities. For example, participants cited the lack 

of support from banks for economic development in urban areas, and the 

45 
perception that investments in urban areas are too risky. All town meetings 

agreed on the need to forge more innovative working relationships among 

the public, private, and nonprofit sectors if sustained economic development is to take place in urban areas. Specific recommendations to attract 

private-sector investment in urban areas included: 

•	 Maintaining and expanding tax incentive programs such as Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities. 

•	 Creating new jobs in the burgeoning field of ”green technologies,“ 

such as those that are directed toward forming environmentally 

sustainable communities. 

• Reducing impediments to business expansion. 

• Providing pension fund incentives for socially responsible investing. 

•	 Improving job training programs by matching skills development to 

the current range of available job offerings. 

In addition, a number of town meetings emphasized the need to establish 

and nurture small businesses as an important mechanism for increasing 

economic development in urban areas. Specific recommendations 

included: 

•	 Facilitating employee ownership of companies that might leave their 

districts. 

•	 Increasing economic diversity through greater minority ownership of 

businesses. 

•	 Making credit available to women for small businesses and for home 

purchases. 

•	 Developing more effective reinvestment strategies in the community 

by local financial institutions. 

•	 Expanding access to financial and management counseling for 

inexperienced owners of small businesses. 

Protecting Our Environment 

A general theme of the town meetings was the need for society to assume 

greater responsibility for protecting the integrity of our fragile ecosystems, 

and in so doing, safeguarding the interests of future generations. 

The town meetings all emphasized the importance of involving the entire 

community in addressing local environmental issues. One town meeting set 

a goal of citizen integration into decisionmaking at all levels. Another 

46 
highlighted the effectiveness of accessing and using all community resources, even its trash. While recognizing individual rights to clean air, 

water, and soil, participants sought to encourage individual responsibility 

and action in realizing this right. 

In terms of further action, many town meeting participants emphasized the 

critical importance of education in reaching environmental goals, including 

encouraging holistic thinking or a comprehensive approach to the problems. Moreover, participants in one meeting called for the President and 

Congress to reaffirm and implement national commitments made at previous United Nations conferences. Specific recommendations included: 

•	 Developing and promoting new ways to reduce dependency on the 

automobile. 

• Promoting urban agriculture. 

• Encouraging more widespread recycling. 

•	 Re-designing urban areas in the direction of sustainability by increasing and protecting open space and urban wilderness within and 

around all cities. 

• Identifying and publicizing the real costs of air pollution. 

•	 Moving toward national energy self-sufficiency through the use of 

renewable and nonpolluting forms of energy. 

• Increasing awareness of urban residents’ connection to nature. 

•	 Promoting citizen involvement in the preservation of endangered 

species. 

•	 Factoring in the “true-costs” of environmental pollution in all costbenefit analyses of new development. 

Education for the Year 2000 

The quality and accessibility of educational opportunities over a person’s 

entire lifespan was an important issue for many town meeting participants. 

Reaction to the current state of education was mixed. Many participants 

clearly felt that programs such as Head Start, as well as local literacy and 

mentoring programs, were effective in providing disadvantaged students 

an extra boost to move onto greater challenges and opportunities. But 

meetings cited limited funding, violent crime, and racial tensions as serious 

obstacles in the effort to prepare students for employment in the global 

marketplace. 

47 
While most of the discussions focused on young people, town meeting 

participants stressed the need for educational programs that reach people 

of all ages. Specific recommendations included: 

•	 Educating all segments of the population to gain the skills to participate fully in the economic, social, and civic life of the community in 

a way that promotes sustainability. 

• Providing opportunities for lifelong learning and earning. 

•	 Making education a national priority and securing the funding 

to do so. 

• Increasing the number of child development centers. 

•	 Promoting girls and women in science, mathematics, and 

technology. 

•	 Collaborating with social agencies and police to end violence 

and sexual abuse, especially against girls and women. 

•	 Requiring students to pass a mandatory literacy test before 

graduating. 

•	 Building partnerships for funding, collaboration, and 

communication. 

• Utilizing voluntary services from members of the community. 

•	 Using the educational system as a catalyst for positive social change 

by providing a multicultural curriculum and emphasizing human 

relations, conflict resolution, and reduction of prejudice. 

• Teaching the importance of gender equality in the schools. 

Health Care Availability 

The quality, accessibility, and affordability of health care emerged as an 

important issue for communities at many of the town meetings. Participants 

discussed what was working well in their communities, such as programs 

that encourage wellness and prevention as a cost-effective approach to 

staying healthy; well baby programs, including early childhood immunizations; and health maintenance organizations, which have become a viable 

delivery mechanism for many urban residents. But in many communities, 

too many lower income households, especially female-headed households 

with children, lack regular access to affordable, quality health care. 

Participants had very specific recommendations for improving the quality 

and availability of health care services in their communities. At one town 

meeting, participants set a goal of ensuring that 90 percent of children are 

48 
fully immunized by their second birthday before the year 2000. At another 

town meeting, participants called for health education centers that would 

educate consumers in schools, workplaces, and other community access 

points. Some specific health recommendations included: 

•	 Establishing universal health insurance by the year 2000 as a goal 

for the United States. 

•	 Financing health insurance through insurance payments combined 

with general revenue taxes. 

• Addressing long delays at clinics for mothers with sick children. 

• Providing greater substance abuse treatment and prevention services. 

• Adopting strategies to stop violence against women. 

•	 Taking inventory of existing health services to move resources where 

they are most needed. 

Of Concern to Women 

In many urban communities, women play a number of important roles— 

entrepreneur and service provider, community organizer and coalition 

builder, caretaker and nurturer—just to name a few. Given the importance 

of women in these neighborhoods, town meetings examined communitybuilding issues from a gender perspective, not just with regard to the 

needs, but also the strengths of the women who live in these communities. 

Given current demographic trends, the feminization of poverty was an 

important concern to many participants. Discussions emphasized the 

importance of eradicating discrimination in access to employment, essential services, credit and financing, shelter, and ownership or leasing of 

property. Recommendations that specifically address women’s concerns 

include: 

•	 Coordinating family services for women and children so these 

services support one another and are available at a time convenient 

for working mothers. 

•	 Enhancing protective family services in response to the escalating 

incidence of child abuse. 

•	 Encouraging local housing authorities, public-private housing partnerships, and local governments to support and listen to the local 

women leaders. 

• Providing equal pay for equal work. 

49 
•	 Addressing the “ghettoization” of women in back office centers 

that offer only clerical, low-paying jobs with little opportunity for 

advancement. 

• Changing State divorce laws that discriminate against women. 

•	 Increasing the supply of battered women’s shelters and rape crisis 

centers. 

•	 Increasing affordable, quality health care for the disproportionately 

female and sick poor. 

Town Meetings: A Starting Point 

Although the town meetings were initiated to gather input into U.S. preparations for Habitat II, the community involvement and planning will not 

end with the Istanbul conference. Many communities immediately began 

planning followup activities. For example, Baltimore’s town meeting produced work groups focused on implementing the local recommendations. 

In Los Angeles, organizers have planned a postconference town meeting 

to bring home the lessons from Istanbul and, in Seattle, the Habitat town 

meeting is part of a larger effort to sustain an ongoing community 

conversation. 

This summary does not capture the wealth of information and recommendations generated from the town meetings, nor does it fully reflect the fervor 

and commitment of the individual citizens, elected officials, community 

groups, and business leaders who came together in a spirit of cooperation 

to identify solutions to community problems. It should, however, offer some 

insight into the concerns of the residents of America’s urban communities. 

Not all of the town meeting reports were available in time to be incorporated into this report. By July 1996, full reports from each of the town 

meetings will be available on the Habitat II Clearinghouse Web site: 

http://www.huduser.org/habitat.html 

50 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

HUD USER

P.O. Box 6091

Rockville, MD 20849

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

HUD 

Permit No. G–795 

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

ARTMENT OF HO

EP

U

D 

S

. 

IN

.S U

G 

AN 

T

D 

NE MP

URBAN DEVELO 

Equal Housing 

Opportunity