Laserfiche WebLink
Do Housing Rehabs Pay Their W a y? 4 5 3 <br />well-being of the city. This conversion of vacant units can be easily tracked and <br />calculated. and provides a visible improvement to the city and a neighbtwhoatl. <br />The creation of new homeowners and nmproveannent of the image of structures in <br />"ciullborhoods are other econonnic; benefits the CDCs should try to, imaxia-nize. The <br />benefits of increased homeownership rates are well documented and recognized <br />(Collins 1999; and Rohe, McCarthy and Van Zandt 2000). Neighborhoods with <br />high homeownership rates experience less decline and more neighborhood pride <br />and involvement. Additionally, investment in neighboring properties encourages <br />others to also invest in their homes. <br />Results fronn tine analysis of the et1ects of rehabs on nearby properly values <br />indicate that a concentration of investment (several rehabs on the same block) may <br />produce uce a higher off-site property impact than a highly dispersed paltemm. For <br />example, a strategy that spreads out rehabbed units 200-300 feet apart would be <br />expected to produce a higher property value impact in the neighborhood, <br />compared with a model -block neighborhood revitalization approach. The latter <br />strategy would be expected to produce a lower value impact because the value <br />influence of a given rehab unit would overlap with those other rehabs in its <br />proximity, thus encompassing a smaller number of nearby homes. There also may <br />be proportionately larger beneficial effects for larger scale projects and in higher <br />income neighborhoods. These findings are based on the Cleveland study (Ding, <br />Simons and Baku 2000) and may be generalizable to other areas: more research <br />is needed here. <br />CDCs siwul€11 be cognizant of the fact that when the rehab is limited to the interior <br />of a unit and if that unit is not sold to an outside party, very few persons will <br />become a%vare that the rehab has occurred. By investing more on the exterior of <br />tlw property for its visibility and "curb appeal," CDCs would have an enhanced <br />revitalization effect on neighborhood properties. Also, rehabbing units with high <br />visibility (e.g., at the corner of an intersection) should have a larger effect than a <br />unit that is hidden in mid -block. <br />Finally, job creation, especially in the area of capacity building as measured by <br />minority and woman owned business contractor participation, is another important <br />economic benefit the programs are providing to the cities. Increased minority <br />participation furthers the affirmative action policies of applicable cities. <br />Overall, housing rehabs by community development corporations have been <br />shown to have substantial fiscal benefits for public dollars invested. However, in <br />many cases benefits do not outweigh costs provided by local municipalities strictly <br />on a fiscal basis. In addition to these budgetary factors, substantial positive <br />economic benefits are provided by rehab activity, indicating that CDCs engaged <br />in housing rehabilitation provide an important service in strengthening the urban <br />fabric and enhancing the lives of present and future homeowners and are worthy <br />of continued support. <br />JRER I Vol. 251 No. 4 - 2003 <br />33 <br />