18 Gentrifying D.C. Neighborhoods Identified

Cross-Post from the Washington Business Journal by Michael Neibauer

From Chillum to Petworth to Congress Heights, new research reveals 18 D.C. neighborhoods whose median property value and federal adjusted gross income fell below the citywide average in 2001, and rose most significantly over the next decade.

In other words, they are gentrifying, or “transitioning” as termed by four experts behind a report recently submitted to the D.C. Tax Revision Commission. Many are not what, or where, you’d think.

A map of D.C.’s gentrifying neighborhoods, as defined by four researchers in a report recently submitted to the D.C. Tax Revision Commission.

The list, in alphabetical order:

Anacostia Barry Farms Brentwood Brookland Chillum Columbia Heights Congress Heights Deanwood Eckington Fort Dupont Park Ledroit Park Lily Ponds Marshall Heights Old City I (H Street NE) Petworth Randle Heights 16th Street Heights Trinidad

New residents of these neighborhoods are younger. They are strong earners. They are condo dwellers. They are single. And as they’ve arrived, older residents and married couples have left in droves, according to the research, leaving a vast gap between the have and have-nots.

We use “gentrifying” or “transitioning” to define communities in flux — those that have shifted wealthier or whiter or younger, usually at the expense of longtime, poorer residents. But how do we know what specific neighborhoods are in the throes of gentrification? In many cases, it’s purely perception, often based simply on who’s moving in down the block.

Researchers LaTanya Brown-Robertson of Bowie State University, Daniel Muhammad and Marvin Ward of the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Michael Bell of George Washington University take a more scientific tact — a deep dive into demographic, fiscal and economic statistics.

Over the last decade, according to the report, the District experienced a net loss of 15,120 people under the age of 14 or over the age of 65 — 88.7 percent of whom originated from a transitioning neighborhood. At the same time, those 18 neighborhoods gained 26,362 residents ages 15-64, or “working age.”

The number of married income tax filers fell 20.1 percent in transitioning neighborhoods over the study period, while the number of single filers soared by 66.5 percent. Of the 20,451 new individual income filers gained by the transitioning neighborhoods over the study period, 93 percent were single.

There was a 275 percent surge in condominium construction in the 18 listed neighborhoods, a 100 percent increase in the number of large commercial office properties, and a $76.6 million boost to the District’s tax collections “due to the demographic and economic trends that have occurred in the city’s transitioning neighborhoods.”

The burden of these trends falls on the “bottom 80 percent,” said Brown-Robertson, a lifelong D.C. resident. Testifying before the Tax Revision Commission in early June, Brown-Robertson suggested the District may want to offer additional tax deductions for poorer residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

“It should be more equitable for residents that have basically lived in the city throughout this whole transition, so they could afford it,” she said.

My immediate takeaway from this list: how little race plays a role in gentrification. We know Petworth, Columbia Heights and Trinidad have transitioned over the past decade as a younger, diverse set has moved in. And yes, many of those new residents are white.

But Barry Farms? Marshall Heights? Deanwood? Those east of the river communities were 90-plus percent black in 2000, and they’re 90-plus percent black today. Their gentrification, or “transition,” as the authors write, is not tied to the racial make-up of their new residents, but by their earning power.

The Tax Revision Commission, a panel led by former Mayor Anthony Williams, has accepted nearly two dozen research papers in the last six months as part of its all-encompassing review of the District’s tax code. Its recommendations are scheduled for release in January.

$417 Million Surplus Could End Homelessness for Families Living In DC General

In it’s Fiscal Year 2014 Report, the Fair Budget Coalition has laid out a plan that would not only end homelessness for the nearly 300 families currently living in DC General but also people living with AIDS and Seniors. The following video explains why DC’s City Council is unlikely to use any of the city’s $417 million surplus to implement this plan. Spoiler alert: It may have something to do with the Sustainable Capital Investment And Fund Balance Restoration Act Of 2010.

How DC Government Works

DC government only works well when DC residents are involved. Let’s face it, most of us don’t know how to get involved (beyond voting) in a way that has an impact on the laws and policies that ultimately get put into place. If you want to do more than just vote, come and learn how at the following event: Empower DC & DC Jobs with Justice Present the Grassroots Leadership Education Program HOW DC GOVERNMENT WORKS How Does the DC Council Function? How Are Laws Made? What do Committees Do? Facilitated by Empower DC staff organizers Tuesday, September 25th 6:30-8:30 PM Southeast Library – 403 7th St, SE Adjacent to the Eastern Market Metro Wheelchair accessible location RSVP to Schyla at (202) 234-9119 x 101 housing@empowerdc.org * limited child care available, please RSVP * With Support From: DC Child Care Collective

An Increase in Rent for DC’s Poorest Residents

This post has two features. The first is the latest edition of We Act Radio’s Live Wire program, The Empower DC Community Hour, which airs on Monday evenings from 7:00 – 8:00 PM. This week’s show was hosted by Empower DC Afforadable Housing Organizer Linda Leaks and focused on recent proposals by Congress and the Obama Administration to raise the minimum rent that section-8 housing voucher holders are required to pay. This weeks guests were Venus Little from the Task Force to Oppose the Minimum Rent Increase and Diane Hunter from the Perry School Community Service Center, Inc. Please listen and support the show.

[haiku url=”http://www.grassrootsmediaproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Live-Wire-EDC-Community-Hour-3-5-12.wav” title=”The Empower DC Community Hour for March 5, 2012″]

Empower DC Community Education Event

This second is a cross-post from Kathy Baer’s really informative blog Poverty & Policy, from which I took the title of this post:

What Would HUD’s Proposed Minimum Rent Mandate Mean for Extremely Poor DC Residents? Researching the impacts of the mandatory minimum rent proposal in the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget, I asked myself what it would mean for extremely low-income District residents who benefit from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s rental housing programs.

The answer, I think, is maybe less than for the poorest beneficiaries in most of the country. But it’s hard to be sure because we don’t know how broadly HUD would apply the new policy.

Here’s what we do know.

DCHA (the District’s public housing authority) doesn’t impose a minimum rent, as it could under the current law. It’s chosen — wisely I think — to let the lowest of low-income households conserve their cash for other needs.

These, recall, are households whose adjusted incomes are so low that the usual 30% they’d owe for rent is negligible, except to them.

In one scenario, they’d have to pay $75 a month, as would more than half a million of the poorest households nationwide, though DCHA could grant hardship exemptions for some of them.

But DCHA is one of the 34 public housing authorities that participate in HUD’s Moving to Work demonstration project. As such, it’s exempt from many of the rules most PHAs must comply with.

So it’s possible that DCHA could preserve its current rent policy for most residents who’d otherwise be affected.

According to DCHA’s latest annual report, 12,752 individuals and families had Housing Choice vouchers in its MTW program. It plans to increase the number to 12,784 by the end of this fiscal year.

DCHA says that close to 20,000 additional residents live in public housing units.

If the proposed policy change is like the one in a bill the House is considering — and it does seem that way — then the minimum mandatory rent wouldn’t automatically apply to either the voucher holders or the public housing residents.

Or so I gather from a bill analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But the minimum mandatory would apply to residents of project-based Section 8 housing, i.e., units that have federally-funded vouchers attached to them.

That, says CBPP, would put 1,273 extremely low-income District households at risk of “serious hardship and even homelessness.”

Do we really need anything more to push up our homelessness rates?

DC Council Budget Vote Run Down

Cross-Posted from Save Our Safety Net

If you haven’t already heard, we didn’t win the income tax brackets. But we did win one progressive revenue source which is helping to pay for our other collective win: Millions in restorations to safety net services! And it is directly due to OUR PRESSURE! Check out this news report from the day before the vote:

But Jack Evans is already trying to undo $13 million in possible restorations in order to repeal the progressive revenue that did make it in the budget–a progressive revenue, incidentally, that HE VOTED FOR. He even wrote an email to other Councilmembers telling them “You need to help us”. They don’t seem to give up, but neither do we. Click HERE to take action to make sure all new revenue will go towards services and not a tax repeal.

WHAT DID WE GET IN THIS BUDGET?

Let’s start with SAFETY NET FUNDING RESTORATIONS

Restorations were either funded in the budget, or promised future funding in a list of priorities if the June revenue forecast reveals the city will be getting more money than Council thought. (It is widely estimated that there will be additional funding that can be used to start funding the priorities in the order the Council has laid out.) Here’s a table to show you how restorations stand (there may be adjustments here and there as the final budget is analyzed, but this should be fairly accurate):

Services Cuts Restorations in Budget Restorations IF more $$ in June Homeless Services $20.5M $17M $2.2M Housing Prod. Trust Fund $18M 0 $18M Interim Disability Asstnce $4.8M $1.2M $3.3M TANF $5M $4.9M 0 Childcare $2.2M 0 $2M Children’s Mental Health $7M 0 $6.4M Victim’s Services $3M $4.1M** 0 Healthcare Alliance $11M 0 0 Housing 1st rent subsidies $4M 0 $1.6M TOTAL: $75.4M $27.2M $33.5M

**To help cover Victim’s Services cuts, the Council used $2.8M from the Domestic Violence Shelter Fund. For more information about the potential restorations and the list of priorities check out this post on the District Dime.

This is an incredible accomplishment. We did not get everything this city needs, we need to keep fighting to protect what we did get, and only time will tell how much of the $33.5M in future promises will actually be delivered. But as the Exec. Director of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, Patty Mullahy Fugere, told us: “In my 20 years here at the Legal Clinic, I don’t think I’ve ever heard so many council members express concern about maintaining a safety net for our low-income and homeless neighbors. It was a very welcome change.”

And this is because of your calls, emails, and participation in the numerous rallies, council visits, and actions in the past 3 months. (Seriously folks: early last week we heard that Homeless Services would only be getting $4M. By Friday (a few hundred calls, emails and a Safety Net Reality Tour later) that number had jumped to $17 million.)

And now on to PROGRESSIVE REVENUE:

We lost the income tax by two votes from two Councilmembers we had considered staunch allies until something happened in the back rooms of the Council. Tommy Wells and Marion Barry voted against the income tax, joining Cheh, Catania, Bowser, Kwame and Orange. For their votes in our favor, we profusely thank Michael Brown, Graham, Thomas, and our two newest safety net superheroes, Mendelson and Alexander.

Though we didn’t get the income tax, we did close the exemption on the out-of-state bonds tax which is projected to bring in a comparable amount of revenue. This was pretty amazing as it was a centerpiece of last year’s SOS campaign but it was not widely supported then. It became clear this bonds tax was just a gimmick intended to be repealed when the June revenue forecast is likely to reveal the city has a bit more to spend for this year. Kwame had written in language stating that he would use some of the extra revenue from the June forecast to “buy back” the tax. But Wells impressed us when he managed to pass an amendment to take out the repeal and redirect the funds to safety net services. He gets major props for that move.

ACTION POINT: Now Evans, Cheh, Kwame and Catania are plotting to take away the $13 million earned by Wells’ amendment, money that is currently promised to Homeless Services, Interim Disability Assistance, the Housing Production Trust Fund and Children’s Mental Health. CLICK HERE . . . → Read More: DC Council Budget Vote Run Down