You are on page 1of 4

Chicagos Policy Research Team

544 W. Division
PO Box 1260
Chicago, IL 60610
312.449.8900

CPR Team
MEMORANDUM
TO:

The Mayors Office and City Councilmembers

FROM: LuGary Davis, Director of Chicagos Policy Research Team


DATE:

November 17, 2015

RE:

Reinvestment Policy Options (SRA)

Summary: Our Chicago Policy Research (CPR) Team is aware of your need to solve the issue of concentrated poverty,
crime, and decay in low-income communities. However, our policy research confirms the growing alarm and opposition
by various key stakeholders to gentrification as a standard policy solution to the problem. In this memorandum weve
researched and now present the major concerns of various key stakeholders, developed 3 major reinvestment policy
options to consider, and provide recommendations for the most optimal policy in the Smart Reinvestment Act (SRA)
which we have proposed. We recommend adopting the proposed SRA as it ensures smart reinvestments in low-income
communities that prevents displacement by ensuring the essential purposes of reinvestments is for the social integration of
low-income communities rather than continued isolation or elimination.
Background: There have long been many problems in the City of Chicagos low-income communities, namely crime,
poverty, poor services, failing businesses, schools, and housing markets. In the City of Chicagos quest to be recognized as
a global-city, both powerful and livable, these problems, including the proposed solutions, have become of growing
concern with huge impacts to the entire city: local officials, developers, businesses, residents, tourist, and many other
stakeholders alike.
Of the proposed solutions, it is gentrification that has become the contemporary all-purpose standard urban policy
solutions to the problems in low-income communities. Yet rather than understood as all-purpose policy solutions to the
problems in low-income communities, more recently, gentrification itself has been perceived as the problem. However,
our policy research contends that while gentrification may not be the perfect policy solution, and an even controversial
solution, it is far from the problem.
Problem: The clearest problem in the City of Chicagos low-income communities is the concentrated poverty, crime, and
decay caused by years of segregation, neglect and disinvestment of both people and places of low-income. As we strive to
become a city of the future it is a must that the aforementioned problem is addressed. The clearest solution is to socially
integrate the citys low-income communities through smart reinvestments that brings improved infrastructure, basic
services and amenities to these communities ( 1Paes, 2012). Stakeholders in strong favor of gentrification have argued that
the aforementioned solution is achieved through homogenization and have touted homogenization as a key feature and
essential purpose of gentrification. However, the many stakeholders in strong opposition to gentrification contend that
gentrification, its key feature, essential purpose, and this sense of homogenization is produced through the elimination
1 E. Paes (2012). The Four Commandments of Cities. TedTalk video. Assessable at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eduardo_paes_the_4_commandments_of_cities?language=en

rather integration of low-income communities2. Thus, for all the problems gentrification may prove to solve, including
concentrated poverty, crime, and decay, today many concerned stakeholders specifically aware of the displacement which
tends to emerge, are heavily weighing in on alternative solutions.
Options: As an alternative solution to concentrated poverty, crime, and decay, we reasonably rule out disinvestments a
feasible option, considering it is the very cause of the very problems we wish to solve. Understanding disinvestment as the
very cause, we therefore consider all proposed solutions to the problem of concentrated poverty, crime, and decay as lying
on the opposing spectrum of reinvestments.
On the spectrum of reinvestments lie countless reinvestment options which we have broadly categorized into three distinct
ranges: (A) huge reinvestments options, (B) moderate reinvestments options, and (C) little to no reinvestments options at
all in low-income communities. Also for each of the three distinct ranges of reinvestments there are three often correlating
distinct purposes: for elimination, for integration, or for continued isolation of low-income communities (See figure
below). In the decision-making process, stakeholders often chose the reinvestment option that best identifies with their
purpose.

Reinvestment Options
A
Huge Reinvestment
Elimination

Options
B
Ranges
Moderate Reinvestment
Purposes
Integration

C
Little/No Reinvestment
Isolation

Option C: With little to no reinvestment options, it is hard to imagine solving a single problem in low-income
communities, never less concentrated poverty, crime, and decay. For low-income residents, little to no reinvestments may
ensure no rise in property value, thus preserving affordable housing, and preventing displacement and/or gentrification all
together. However, little to no reinvestments almost certainly ensures nothing is done to resolve the problem of
concentrated poverty, crime, and decay including the years of isolation and neglect which drives and even sustains such
problematic conditions.
Stakeholders, like local residents and businesses, who favor Option C, so strongly oppose gentrification and fear of being
displaced that they are willing to resist reinvestments at all cost; even it means remaining isolated in sustained conditions
of concentrated poverty, crime, and decay. For these stakeholders, if reinvestments means massive changes to the
community then they rather see no changes at all. Of these massive changes, displacement is of their greatest concern. For
these stakeholders, Option C is strongly favored as it is the option in which displacement is least likely to occur, while
Option A is strongly opposed as it is the option in which displacement is most likely to occur. However, in the decisionmaking process, though these stakeholders are perhaps the most effected, they are often of lower political and socioeconomic class and bare the least amount of leverage.
Option A: With huge reinvestments options, huge changes are most certain to occur. Property values are most certain to
rise, affordable housing certainly to be lost, and displacement/replacement of low-income residents by a higher-income
class certainly to occur (i.e. gentrification).
With huge reinvestments we repeatedly see low-income communities go from being long neglected and isolated to
suddenly and completely eliminated and with the community it is replaced by completely unrecognizable. The problem of
concentrated poverty, crime, and decay, may be completely eliminated and/or displaced, but so are many of the former,
2 Social Integration: We simply prefer to point out that social integration of low-income communities requires a
much less homogenized and much more diversified City of Chicago.

often longtime, local schools, businesses, and residents. The changes are often so swift and significant that almost nothing
and no one familiar is left and almost everything and everyone familiar gone. Huge reinvestments have been seen to
eliminate entire communities; the people, history, and culture all 3vanished.
For stakeholders, like local leaders and developers, who favor Option A, growth is of their greatest concern and Option C,
isolating and/or seemly ignoring the problem and doing nothing, is no longer a feasible option. These stakeholders so
strongly favor growth and the at all cost elimination of sustained conditions of concentrated poverty, crime, and decay,
that they are willing to accept the complete elimination and/or displacing of longtime local schools, businesses, and
residents as unfortunate conditions required for growth. For these stakeholders, if massive elimination means massive
growth in the community then massive elimination it will be. For these stakeholders, Option A is strongly favored as it is
the option in which growth is most likely to occur, while Option C is strongly opposed as it is the option in which growth
is least likely to occur. However, in the decision-making process, though these stakeholders are perhaps the least effected,
they are often of higher political and socio-economic class and bare a higher amount of leverage.
For leaders and developers striving for a more powerful and livable City of Chicago, Option C and isolation of lowincome communities may no longer be a feasible option, however, neither can Option A and massive elimination be.
Option C almost certainly ensures the problem of concentrated poverty, crime, and decay remain, however, Option A most
certainly ensures that nothing familiar at all remains. Furthermore, massive elimination is by no means required to ensure
growth no more than isolation is required to prevent displacement. For this reason I now would like to reasonably rule out
both Option C and Options A as an even feasible options. Both the ranges and purposes for which these reinvestments are
proposed are neither smart nor any longer feasible options for solving the pressing problem of concentrated poverty,
crime, and decay in low-income communities. We therefore consider all proposed solutions as lying within Option B with
moderate scales of reinvestment and for the purposes of social integration rather than continued isolation or elimination.
Option B: With moderate reinvestments options, reinvestments are neither too small to change anything, nor too huge too
change everything, but moderate enough that just the right amount of changed is indeed realized. As a result, of the
proposed reinvestment solutions, Option B is required to be with the most democratic and diverse and the least autocratic
and homogenized. For example, instead of reinvestment in an entire community park and smaller community garden may
just be green enough (Green, 2015)4. However, by Option B meeting in the middle of the spectrum, more concerns are
satisfied, more stakeholders willing to collaborate and contribute, to successfully adopt and adapt to the proposed
moderate changes. The single shared purpose of those in favor of moderate reinvestment is to bring about moderate
changes (i.e. infrastructure, basic services and amenities) that ensures successful social integration of low-income
communities. Today that single shared purpose is being heard loud and clear in the tune of growth without
displacement. Within Option B, as it is the only option proposing growth without displacement, youll find most of your
current and most feasible proposed solutions. These solution oppose little/no reinvestment but even stronger oppose
gentrification: rent controls and freezing property taxes, increased affordable and subsidized housing, mix-income
strategies, strategies to even increase political and socio-economic leverage, however our research proves that the most
important proposed solution by far is in preventing huge-scale reinvestment in low-income communities.
Summary: Gentrification may very well solve the problem of concentrated poverty, crime, and decay in low-income
communities, however, our policy research confirms the growing alarm and opposition by various key stakeholders to
gentrification as a standard all-purpose policy solution to the problem. Huge reinvestments, which ensure gentrification,
are being exceeded now by more moderate, democratic, and diverse reinvestment policy option. With this in mind, our
policy research has culminated into the Smart Reinvestment Act (SRA) in which we propose moderate reinvestment to
currently be the only smart and feasible s reinvestment solution. We recommend adopting the proposed SRA as it makes
certain that growth occurs without displacement by ensuring the essential purposes of reinvestments is for the social
3 Preservation Groups: As openly oppose as we are to environmental damage we must be no less intolerable to the
socio-cultural damage that huge reinvestments have proved to bring about.

4 J. Green (2015). Ethical Design Practices May Help Slow Gentrification. The Dirt blog. Assessable at:
http://dirt.asla.org/2015/11/07/ethical-design-practices-may-help-slow-gentrification/

integration of low-income communities rather than continued isolation or elimination. As having the absolute most
leverage in the decision making process, our policy research team ask that you please consider our recommendation.

You might also like