& Community Input

What are the redevelopment options for vacant lots?  Several types of redevelopment can occur on vacant land. The Planning Department should begin by considering the land uses in the vicinity of the vacant land. Map 5, Land Uses in South Providence, highlights land use and vacant lots in South Providence. There are many possible approaches to redeveloping this land taking into consideration existing, surrounding land uses and community needs. The following is a list of redevelopment options for vacant properties:

  · Commercial development

  · New housing units (Rental & Owner Occupied)

  · Off-street Parking

  · Tot-lots

  · Community Gardens 

  · Parks

 

 

 

What are Providence’s redevelopment goals?  The Providence Comprehensive Plan created by the City’s Department of Planning and Development in1993 is supposed to serve as, "a guide for future growth and change in the City. It sets the City’s policies for public and private actions in the coming years". The Comprehensive Plan states the following in regard to vacant lots:

The Comprehensive plan itself does not distinguish or prioritize the various types of redevelopment that can occur on vacant lots. The Plan includes goals that encourage affordable housing programs (both owner-occupied and rental) as well as recreational and green spaces in neighborhoods with an abundance of vacant, unused land.

Besides the Comprehensive Plan, each neighborhood has a Redevelopment Plan that outlines very broadly the goals of redevelopment in each neighborhood. However, these neighborhood plans are broadly stated and not grounded in an implementation framework sufficient to have any significant impact on the redevelopment process for vacant lots.

The City’s goal for housing in every neighborhood is 62% owner-occupied housing units based on the existing average for the City. In 1997, Upper South Providence’s owner-occupancy rate was at 44% and Lower South Providence’s rate was at 47%. These rates fall below the set goal, but one must also consider the median income of residents in each neighborhood and thus the affordability. The city’s goal of 62% may be too high for low-income neighborhoods where a many residents can only afford to rent. The Providence Housing Report states with regard to the need for rental units, "a large and important part of the Providence housing market is its renters." Some residents, City Council members and community groups think that new rental units will have negative impacts on the value of their properties and on the character of their neighborhoods.  This idea is supported by the Providence Housing Policy Report, "Increasing the level of home ownership in troubled neighborhoods can help maintain adjacent, more stable neighborhoods."

Different City agencies have different goals in relation to vacant lots. The Providence Redevelopment Agency would like to take ownership of properties and foreclose on their titles in order to transform vacant, blighted land into productive use. The City’s Tax Assessor’s Office and Tax Collector’s Office would like to sell these properties and collect the taxes owed on properties so as to generate revenue for the City. The Tax Collector’s Office views the delinquent taxes as a source of revenue and the PRA views these delinquent taxes as an impediment to redevelopment (with redevelopment providing more long-term, stable sources of revenue).

Local non-profits also face conflicting redevelopment goals. For example, organizations such as Stop Wasting Abandoned Properties (SWAP) and OMNI Corporation are interested in turning vacant land into new housing units whereas groups like the Southside Community Land Trust would like to create more greenspace on vacant lots. Sometimes, local non-profits and local residents or representatives do not agree on the types of redevelopment that should occur on vacant properties. All of these different combinations of conflicting goals can lead to delays and a loss of momentum on the road to redevelopment.  On the other hand, there is such an abundance of vacant land that these conflicting goals may not surface until the demand for land increases.

One approach to decide the optimal use for vacant land is to maintain land use continuity. In Map 5, Land Uses in South Providence, there are discernable areas where vacant lots occupy contiguous parcels of land on large portions of blocks surrounded by residential properties. Such areas provide an opportunity to redevelop vacant lots into residential properties. Likewise, where there are commercially and industrial zoned areas with vacant lots present, these options should be given greater consideration in order to maintain the urban landscape.

A recent example illustrates how conflicting redevelopment goals can hold up the redevelopment process. Stop Wasting Abandoned Property (SWAP) is a non-profit organization that has been in existence for over 24 years. The principal mission of the organization is to provide low-medium income housing in South Providence. SWAP has developed both rental and owner-occupied housing units on vacant properties, some of which were transferred over from the PRA. SWAP obtained financing for a new housing development project in South Providence, called the Friendship/Pine Revitalization, from the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation. This housing development is a $5 million project to rehabilitate and build 14 multi-family rental units for low-medium income residents from South Providence living in the areas of Point, Friendship, and Pine Streets. Close to $4 million of the total cost is coming from federal tax credits for low-income housing (US Department of Housing and Urban Development).

Although this project seems like a viable option for revitalizing blighted land in South Providence, the City Council placed a moratorium on the development because the local Councilwoman generally opposed the development of rental units instead of owner occupied units. Councilwoman Balbina Young (Ward 11, South Providence) also opposed the SWAP project because of lack of community input in the project development and design. Although the City Council moratorium did not halt the project (moratoria are not legally binding or enforceable and the resolution was not approved by the full Council and the Finance Committee) the group still depends on the City Council for approval of tax abatements on vacant properties that they want to redevelop. Without the support of the Council on tax abatements, the cost and time to redevelop blighted land would significantly increase. This example points out several problems with the current process of redevelopment. The tax abatement process is tenuous, the City Council, non-profits and residents may dispute the validity of different types of redevelopment goals for vacant land and there is no mechanism in place to ensure that residents’ input is considered in the redevelopment process. Since the moratorium, SWAP leadership has attempted to hold public meetings and invite the public to participate in the planning meetings as well as visit the project area and give feedback.

Community Input

The SWAP example highlights the importance of community involvement in the redevelopment of vacant lots. The PRA has the ability to transfer properties to residents and local organizations via the Special Vacant Lot Program. But without adequate advertising, marketing and early community input into the process, residents and local groups have very little power to access and actively participate in the process of redevelopment. How much local interest is there in becoming involved in the process of redevelopment? Obviously, not everyone will be interested in the redevelopment of vacant land in neighborhoods. But for those residents who are or have the potential to become interested, it is important to find ways to channel this grassroots energy in order to propel the revitalization of blighted land and neighborhoods.

What is the best or most effective, efficient, sustainable mechanism for community involvement? There are several existing models of community involvement for the redevelopment of vacant land in Providence. It is difficult for me to conclude which model/ mechanism is the "best" or most useful because of my limited experience with each of these models. Certainly, local Community Development Corporations would like to serve as a link between the City and the communities they serve community in redeveloping these lots. Local groups such as SWAP, CleanScape and Southside Community Land Trust have successful in participating in the redevelopment of vacant land using their resources in the community with funding and cooperation from the PRA. Certain redevelopment options such as building new housing units could be done by private developers in the future but local groups feel strongly that their approach to redevelopment is more in tune with the needs and desires of the community. An overview of these current models may shed some light on strategies that have potential for further application in the redevelopment process.

Current Models of Community Input in Providence:

OMNI Corporation & SWAP are local Community Development Corporations, organizations with the primary goal of developing affordable housing units in low-medium income neighborhoods in Providence. Vacant land is usually transferred from the PRA or the City to these local groups although they also purchase privately owned land. Typically these non-profits serve the community where they are based.

DARE – Direct Action for Rights and Equality is a grassroots community organization, which, among other things, advocates for the proper clean up and maintenance of vacant lots in South Providence. This group also advocates for larger issues involving tax reform and an end to land speculation. DARE recruited residents to help test and clean up vacant lots with the EPA. The group was also instrumental in pressuring the Mayor’s Office to form a Vacant Lot Task Force. DARE’s approach to community involvement emphasizes grassroots advocacy and organizing.

Vacant Lot Task Force - The VLTF has been described as a community-based planning effort. The Mayor convened (via executive order) members of the community, non-profit organizations (i.e. DARE), academia (Brown University), Environmental Protection Agency, and city officials from a variety of departments. These stakeholders collaborated on studying the problem of vacant lots and writing a report making a series of recommendations. Some of the recommendations that were proposed have since been implemented, such as the $1/Lot Program, the Tax Sale Realty Law, and the Clean & Lien Program. DARE’s director felt that the task force was not "resident-friendly" and thought the implementation framework was absent for the recommendations to really take effect.

CleanScape & South Providence Development Corporation – CleanScape is a subsidiary of the SPDC. Both organizations are in South Providence and share the common goal of meaningful job creation for local residents. CleanScape operates a recycling and composting operation in South Providence and hires residents from the area for full and part-time employment. Recently, CleanScape acquired a contract from the PRA to clean up 21 vacant lots that may be used in future redevelopment projects in South Providence. CleanScape would also like to expand their interest in vacant lots beyond maintenance to redeveloping lots into community agricultural plots and gardens. They recently received a small grant from the EPA’s Livable Cities Initiative to pilot three redevelopment projects on some of the PRA’s 21 lots.

South Side Community Land Trust (SSCLT) – This local land trust has established community gardens and a City Farm for local residents on former vacant lots. SSCLT is considering a program that will train residents how to acquire and redevelop lots directly from the Special Vacant Lot Program. The SSCLT hopes that this type of training will be sustainable by teaching some community residents, then having them pass the knowledge along to others. In this manner, residents can become empowered to take a more active role in reclaiming lots that they want to use for greenspace, gardens, agriculture, etc. The program would require some seed money for initial clean up, testing, and redeveloping of the vacant lots.

$1/Lot – The $1/Lot Program is a program of the PRA to encourage the transfer of vacant land in low-income neighborhoods to residents and local community organizations. This program allows residents to purchase lots of varying sizes for redevelopment. There is an application process in which individuals or organizations that meet the basic criteria of the program are asked to describe the planned use for the property. Usually, the lots will go before the City Council for abatement of back taxes to alleviate the financial burden for residents of redeveloping these derelict lots. Unfortunately, the PRA does not have adequate funding for program advertisement and therefore few lots have been transferred to residents, partly due to lack of awareness among local residents.

9^th Ward Redevelopment Project – Ward 9 Councilwoman, Patricia Nolan, together with the Elmwood Foundation (local non-profit), the Planning Department and the Ward 9 Project Area Committee wrote a neighborhood redevelopment plan. The report outlines the steps that should be taken to revitalize areas in the neighborhood including vacant land and abandoned properties. Councilwoman Nolan described a process by which street associations provided extensive input creating the report. She notes that the prevalence of street associations in Elmwood makes collaboration with local residents a relatively manageable goal. Even with this plan, communication between the PRA’s Special Vacant Lot Program and the Councilwoman or local groups can be insufficient. A dispute between Councilwoman Nolan and the PRA erupted over the redevelopment of a vacant lot in Ward 9. The Councilwoman and a local street association planned to redevelop a lot into off-street parking while the PRA was planning to transfer the vacant lot to a local resident via the $1/Lot Program so he could build his first home. Eventually the dispute was resolved by giving the local resident a different vacant lot to build his home and allowing the street association to build their off-street parking lot.

Livable Providence 2000 Conference – The Livable Providence Conference began as a collaboration between the Mayor’s Office, the Department of Planning and Development, EPA’s Urban Environmental Initiative and Brown University’s Center for Environmental Studies. There was an interest in bringing together Providence residents to discuss urban environmental and quality of life issues that affected their lives. In preparation for the Conference, Brown students created an informational booklet on 15 urban environmental issues. As project coordinator for these booklets I helped organize a focus group with community residents, a focus group with Providence youth and a "stakeholders" meeting to identify those issues residents felt were most important. The booklets were prepared primarily as a resource for residents therefore they were written in a very straightforward manner detailing the issue, its history, any current information/data on the topic and contact information to learn more about each topic. These booklets were supposed to give residents some basic knowledge around each topic so as to inform the discussion at the Conference. The booklets were distributed to community organizations and libraries throughout the City before the Conference but most people saw the booklet for the first time at the Conference.

This one-day Conference was a public forum directed at attracting residents and stakeholders to discuss strategies for dealing with a variety of environmental and quality of life issues in Providence neighborhoods, including vacant lots. The Conference was attended by approximately 100 people mostly representatives from local organizations or government agencies interested in the topics (stakeholders). The small resident turn out may have been a result of ineffective advertising but attempting to tap into the membership pool of community organizations was the primary advertising tool for the Summit. Although Conference participants felt the issues discussed that day were important to them they wanted assurances that their input would be followed up on. This type of forum requires follow-up and action as a result of the community’s input so as to hold the City accountable otherwise these meetings are ineffectual tools. The City is considering holding follow up meetings in each particular neighborhood and conducting focus groups with residents to get additional feedback on solutions to problems like vacant lots.

In the case of vacant lot redevelopment, it may be useful to also consider involving residents in street associations or local community groups early in the redevelopment process by allowing these groups to identify vacant lots that are attractive for redevelopment before the lots go to tax sale. If the South Side Community Land Trust program to train residents to obtain and manage lots is supported by the City residents could identify lots in this way early in the process. This way, residents or organizations can avoid the troublesome tax sale process using the Tax Sale Realty Law and the PRA’s powers to transfer the properties before they become more blighted and tax delinquent. There are other models of community involvement besides the ones mentioned here but it may take several strategies used in conjunction to ensure the greatest level of community involvement. Over time, certain strategies will prove themselves to be more or less effective in achieving the goal of redevelopment. I think that local Community Development Corporations and grassroots organizations will continue to be the link between community interests and the City’s vacant lot redevelopment. Which local organizations will more successful at redeveloping vacant land and incorporating community needs/desires may become more clear as more programs are piloted and more organizations become interested in the issue of vacant lot redevelopment.

by Ana Baptista

Back to Top