Should we have a discussion on the gentrification of west and northwest Dayton or a meaningful plan to reintroduce income and ethnic diversity back into all Dayton neighborhoods?
By Fred Holley
I hope the Salem Avenue Peace Corridor (SAPC) Town Hall presentation on June 7, 2020 delivered the message that we are focused on a new vision for the Salem Avenue Peace Corridor and surrounding neighborhoods, including a focus on mixed income and mixed use redevelopment. That means a fair and reasonable distribution of all income levels and retail, service, recreation and access to healthcare.
Fred Holley, President of DVHD
Dayton has placed over 70% of the lower/subsidized housing west of the river. We have all become “West Dayton.” This may have been by design or perhaps just by happenstance. In any case, we currently have a “Lock” on the subsidized housing market and it would take decades to level the playing field and address a more balanced approach to income diversity across the entire city/region. It is not the intent of the SAPC to exclude any opportunity to revitalize the Salem Avenue Peace Corridor but, for me, that means something that better matches all of the characteristics of our neighborhoods. A redevelopment concept that is both meaningful and sustainable for all of us. Some would choose to call it gentrification. I call it rebalancing the approach we take to sharing responsibility for all citizens in the region.
The whole issue of gentrification is an on-going discussion that we will continue to have as we progress and we hope to engage you, the community, at large, in future discussions. From my perspective, our plan is not focused on displacing large populations of neighbors. We are doing our best to use what has historically been a commercial/business artery to bring needed goods and services and healthy recreational venues to those who live in our neighborhoods and who represent our “Target Market”, the fortunate, and the not so fortunate. We all have the same basic needs and aspirations. We want to make sure people understand that.
We also need to understand that we don’t have to accept the first offer for investment dollars if those investments aren’t in the best interest of all of us who live and work here. For years, the only investment strategies for West and Northwest Dayton have been to grow our base of subsidized housing, using low-income tax credits. That is not sustainable, does not support the current residents, and is, in fact, a double edged sword.
On the one hand, we have accepted the major portion of subsidized housing investments to the extent we have a hugely disproportionate burden on our neighborhoods. Those investments are short-lived. There is no desire by commercial investors to develop where there isn’t a reasonable base of disposable income, there is no effort on the part of municipalities to augment the basic products/services people need, it drives the average household income down (using census and zip code data that isn’t reflective of specific neighborhoods), drives the value of existing housing down and the desire for new homeowners to invest in market-rate housing or current homeowners to improve their homes. This results in an enormous erosion of the tax base that supports so many of our needed services,(a good School District being a major one).
The declining population, which results, in part, from neighborhood disinvestment, makes it difficult for the city to have the dollars to maintain even basic services. Look at what’s happened to street maintenance, leaf pick up in older neighborhoods (with huge trees), charges for trash pick-up, fees, and surcharges for street lighting for more efficient fixtures (that should save enough money over the life of the fixture to at least pay for themselves).
Our housing inspection/code enforcement staff have been reduced to maybe 30% of what we need to actually stay on top of older neighborhoods and declining and vacant houses. Many of our neighborhoods are being ruined because we’ve not had sufficient code enforcement to catch issues before housing is in such a state of disrepair that tear-down is the only viable option This approach creates gaps in the streetscapes and people are told they can use the lot for community gardens. How does that preserve our neighborhoods or make them attractive to potential buyers?
Additionally, those of us who live in one of Dayton’s 14+ Historic Districts (four along the Corridor) don’t find tear-downs an option. We are here to preserve our history, the architecture, and the legacy of century-old neighborhoods.
Red light cameras, while touted as a safety measure, often rob the working poor of the few dollars they have to buy gas and groceries. Our police force seems to be reactive, not proactive in our neighborhoods. When asking why we rarely see a police presence, in our specific neighborhood, we are told that we don’t see them in the area because our crime rates are low and officers are assigned to higher crime areas. Does no one realize we need a presence to maintain our low crime rate (that we work so hard to achieve)? Crime moves just like people move when they finally get fed up. How is all of that sustainable? Does it even make sense?
We must begin to understand that we are not at risk of gentrification. We are suffering from the results of gentrification that has occurred over the past 30 or 40 years when the poor were driven out of areas like the Oregon District, Saint Ann’s Hill, South Park, McPherson Town, and the areas around Miami Valley Hospital. Our discussions, going forward, must focus on; “How do we reintroduce a mixed income and diverse population back into those areas?” Those who fear “gentrification” have to realize everyone deserves to have access to quality goods and services, healthcare, and recreational outlets. Yes, put convenient access to those products/services back into each neighborhood and you will likely see property values and the tax base increase but so will the homeowner’s net worth. Is that not to be expected? The alternative seems to be “do nothing” and complain that the poorer areas have seen disinvestment beyond what anyone could have imagined. I’m willing to work to develop a plan that fairly distributes the richness of diversity and shares the burden of lower income housing across the region so as to minimize the impact on any one section of town.
The city says “a healthy Downtown makes for a healthy city”. I say a healthy Downtown AND healthy neighborhoods make for a healthy city.