Redevelopment of vacant lands in areas that are recovering from a long period of recession and disinvestments can be especially difficult. Even when there is strong grassroots support for change, real physical improvements will require financial backing to initiate and complete projects in areas with limited capital to put up front. The recent Providence Journal article about the condition of Riverside Mills illustrates this point by showing how the site has been sitting undeveloped due to a lack of funding for redevelopment projects. Riverside Mills is an old abandoned Mill factory in a low-income neighborhood that was designated a Brownfield site by the EPA. Although the derelict, abandoned property has managed to acquire extensive federal funding for environmental study, the site remains vacant and derelict due to a lack of funding to follow up with redevelopment plans. In this case, the site has an advantage over vacant lots because it qualifies for federal funding for environmental assessment, a luxury that vacant lots are not afforded. Because vacant lots are generally small (4000 sq ft), formerly residential properties they do not qualify for funding assistance under the Brownfield programs.

In addition to financial resources, vacant lot redevelopment will require leadership and effective management to achieve the goals of redevelopment in a sustainable manner. Improved data management systems need to be installed citywide in order to coordinate information and efforts across all city agencies. The current data on vacant lots and taxes is out dated and very difficult for the public to access.

Human capital also needs to be invested in order to address solutions to vacant land problems. Without effective leadership and available staff assigned solely to the mission of redeveloping vacant land in the City’s neighborhoods, redevelopment projects will continue to happen piecemeal, if at all.

The need for funding is evident in order to move the redevelopment process forward. The following list summarizes different aspects of redevelopment that will require funding:

Vacant lot redevelopment will require an infusion of capital to ensure that the goals of equitable redevelopment can occur. The question, of course, is where will this funding come from – the city, state or federal governments, private sector, grants or residents. It seems fairly clear that although residents may be able to provide some of the human capital necessary for redeveloping vacant lots, the low-income status of the majority of residents in these neighborhoods will limit their ability to take on the financial burdens that accompany many of derelict lots.

The City carries the greatest proportion of the financial responsibility for redevelopment efforts. This makes the most sense because the City has a real interest in fostering growth and improvements in neighborhoods that will benefit the overall quality of life in the City and build long-term stability and prosperity in neighborhoods. The City already uses part of its annual budget to fund the PRA’s activities. It also pays for a small amount of clean up and lot maintenance on a piecemeal level via the Department of Public Works. The City absorbs some of the costs of redevelopment by granting tax abatements and reducing the lot prices to $1/Lot. The EPA’s Urban Environmental Initiative has paid for small amount of soil lead testing in the past. The federal government also funnels money into the development of low-income housing via HUD and to RIHMFC programs that grant loans to non-profits like SWAP that build homes on vacant lots. Community Block Grants and other smaller grant programs from the EPA fund smaller redevelopment projects for vacant lots usually via non-profits (CleanScape’s Livable Cities Grant). The RI General Assembly decides on appropriations to fund different departments and programs in Providence. The state assembly can also grant the City permission to float another municipal bond like the $50 million bond that was granted in 1996.

"There is no one entity that is charged with this responsibility or properly equipped to take on the function of title clearing, property acquisition and property management." There must be an agency or an official in the City government that is charged solely with leading efforts to move vacant, blighted properties in the City’s possession into productive use.

Currently, the PRA would seem the most likely candidate for taking on this leadership role but so far there hasn’t been a very strong impetus from within the PRA or the City to get tax exemption status (a first step in leading the redevelopment effort) or more funding to move redevelopment more aggressively. The lack of leadership and aggressiveness by the PRA is rooted in the lack of interest and leadership from the Mayor’s Office because ultimately it is the Mayor who appoints the PRA director, allocates funding, and creates policies that will fuel redevelopment efforts. Pressure and momentum from the community coupled with leadership and a commitment from the Mayor will promote redevelopment efforts. Resources are scarce at every level of government and especially so for non-profit groups. But with bold new proposals from the Mayor to redevelop abandoned areas of the City (the New Cities proposal) it may spur more interest in redeveloping blighted land in neighborhoods like South Providence as well. If the redevelopment efforts applied to "New Cities" projects can be applied to vacant land in South Providence, the revitalization of these different underutilized areas of the City could be coupled.

by Ana Baptista

Back to Top