FA TORS IMPA TING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUKYlouisville.edu/upa/programs/mup/files/Housing_Final_Report2017.pdf · FA TORS IMPA TING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUKY APRIL 2017 Mitch

FACTORS IMPACTING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

APRIL 2017

Mitch Henderick, Nia Holt, Bruce Lainhart, Sydney Morton, & Danielle Story

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

List of Figures ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2

Introduction ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

Project Scope _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 7

Study Area ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 12

Methodology ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14

Data Analysis ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 18

Key Findings ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 38

Case Study: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 43

Best Practices ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 47

Affordable Housing and TODs _________________________________________________________________________ 59

Policy Recommendations ______________________________________________________________________________ 59

Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 64

References ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 65

Appendix ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 68

FACTORS IMPACTING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KY

Page 1

List of Figures

Figure 1: 21 Market Areas in Jefferson County, KY

Figure 2: Market Area Subsections

Figure 3: Map of Percentage of Subsidized Housing Stock by Market Area

Figure 4: Table of Percentage of Subsidized Housing Stock by Market Area

Figure 5: Market Area Ranks for Public Housing

Figure 6: Market Area Rankings for LIHTC

Figure 7: Market Area Rankings for Section 8

Figure 8: Map of Recently Closed Grocery Stores

Figure 9: Table of Food Access by Market Areas

Figure 10: Food Access by Market Area Map

Figure 11: Food Access in East Core Market Area

Figure 12: Food Access in West Core Market Area

Figure 13: Percentage of Vacant & Abandoned Properties by Market Area

Figure 14: Vacant & Abandoned Properties in the Northwest Core Market Area

Figure 15: Vacant & Abandoned Properties in the West Core Market Area

Figure 16: Top 5 Neighborhood for Vacant & Abandoned Properties in Jefferson County

Figure 17: Percentage of Foreign-Born Population by Market Area

Figure 18: Market Areas with the highest percentages of Foreign-Born Population by

Census Tracts

Figure 19: Breakdown of Jefferson County’s Foreign-Born Population by Region of Origin

Figure 20: Risk of Displacement by Market Area

Figure 21: Market Area Displacement Risk Level

Figure 22: Breakdown of Risk Levels by Subsections

Figure 23: Metrics Table

Figure 24: List of Market Areas by Subsections

Figure 25: Summary Table of Market Area Analysis


Page 2

Executive Summary

Safe, fair, and affordable housing is something that all cities strive to provide for its

residents. The 2016 State of Metropolitan Housing Report findings show that affordable

housing and residential segregation are still a prevailing issue in Louisville. That same

report found that 43% of the total workforce in the Louisville MSA does not earn enough

to afford a two-bedroom unit at Fair Market Rate without taking on excessive cost-burden.

In addition to that figure, 27% of homeowners are cost-burdened (based on 2015 data).

Louisville Metro Government is in the process of updating Cornerstone 2020 (Louisville’s

Comprehensive Plan), which was adopted June 15, 2000. Housing was not included in this

plan and that exclusion left no guiding principles, goals, or objectives on the future of

housing in Jefferson County. In the upcoming Cornerstone 2040 plan, a Housing Section

will be included for the first time. This is an opportunity for Metro to build upon the rich

collection of housing research.

The scope of this project is to inform the development of the Housing plan element in the

updated comprehensive plan by providing research and data analysis on five topics;

Affordable Housing, Food Access, Foreign-Born Population, Vacant and Abandoned

Properties, and Risk of Displacement (due to gentrification). A comprehensive look at

housing and the areas of analysis outlined in this report for each of the 21 Market Areas

identified several key findings. This report identified Market Areas with the highest

concentration of subsidized housing populations; Market Areas which are experiencing a

lack of food access; the portion of foreign-born populations living in each Market Area;

Market Areas with high amounts of vacant and abandoned properties; and Market Area

populations are at risk of displacement.

Through the analysis of findings, exploration of related best practices, and subsequent

policy recommendations in this report, the research team provided a broader examination

of Louisville’s current housing situation. This analysis of complex issues across each of the

21 Market Areas will allow Louisville Metro to identify how the areas of analysis affects

housing. In addition, this report will aid City Leadership in determining where to best

allocate resources by having geographically oriented metrics that compare Market Areas

to one another to determine where policies are working or where they are falling short.


Page 3

Introduction

Safe, fair, and affordable housing is something that all cities should strive to provide for its residents. Housing is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a broad, well-rounded approach in regards to researching and implementing solutions. It is an issue that touches on nearly every aspect of an individual’s life. Where a person calls home can affect their access to food, transportation, healthcare, and education. An article in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine stated the following: The inadequate supply of affordable housing for low-income families and the increasing spatial segregation of some households by income, race, ethnicity or social class into unsafe neighborhoods are among the most prevalent community health concerns related to family housing (2003). Like any large city, Louisville is home to a plethora of housing conditions which can drastically vary from one neighborhood to the other. Amongst these different conditions, there are various factors influencing the accessibility and quality of equitable, affordable, housing for all residents, something that all cities strive to provide for their residents. Inadequate supply promotes spatial segregation of households by income, race, ethnicity, or social class into unsafe neighborhoods where property values and housing costs are cheaper. This leads to the most vulnerable residents of a city enduring consequences brought about by the failure to address housing concerns.

Photo: Homes in

Old Louisville


Page 4

The 2016 State of Metropolitan Housing Report findings show that affordable housing and residential segregation are still an issue in Louisville. Families are considered “cost-burdened” when they are spending 30% or more of their income on housing alone. This leaves them with little room for other necessities such as food, healthcare, transportation and education. That same report found that 43% of the total workforce in the Louisville MSA does not earn enough to afford a two-bedroom unit at Fair Market Rate without taking on excessive cost-burden and 27% of homeowners are cost-burdened (based on 2015 data).Due to its far-reaching nature housing is a difficult issue to tackle, but can be done if a comprehensive approach is taken. One of the most common methods of taking a comprehensive approach to housing is include it as an element in a City’s Comprehensive Plan. Housing was not included in Louisville’s Comprehensive plan, Cornerstone 2020, which was adopted June 15, 2000. The exclusion left no guiding principles, goals, or objectives on the future of housing in Jefferson County. Even though Housing was not included in the document that guides future long-range planning and regulations in the city, an extensive amount of research has been done on the subject. At the time of this project Louisville Metro was in the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. In Cornerstone 2040 a Housing Section will be included for the first time. This is an opportunity for Metro to build upon the rich collection of housing research that has been generated over the years. Starting in 2003, the Metropolitan Housing Coalition in partnership with the Center for Environmental Policy Management at the University of Louisville produces a yearly study titled the “State of Metropolitan Housing Report”. The report provides an in-depth analysis and statistics on the various measures of housing affordability. Including but not limited to: home ownership, fair market rents, foreclosures, housing segregation, and homelessness. The Louisville Metro Department of Housing and Family Services released a report in 2010, “An Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Louisville Metro, KY”. The report looked at the role of the Land Development Code and universal themes affecting Louisville’s protected classes. This report will attempt to fill the gaps in and/or add to current collection of housing research in Louisville.

The Importance of Affordable Housing Affordable housing is a term that associated with the cost-burden that is placed on households to cover their housing-related expenses. Complete definitions of affordable housing and cost-burden can be found in Appendix B. As stated earlier in this text, the cost of housing and can limit the housing options for many of city’s low-income households. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that there are 12 million renter and homeowner households who now pay more than 50% of


Page 5

their annual incomes for housing (2015). According to the Assessment of Affordable Housing Needs in Louisville, in Louisville Metro, a full-time worker would have to make $13.35 an hour to afford a market-rent, two-bedroom apartment; almost double minimum wage (2012). In Louisville, nearly 50% of renters are living in housing they cannot afford and almost 20% of homeowners are living in unaffordable housing (Assessment of Affordable Housing Needs in Louisville 2012). Furthermore, housing includes other expenses such as utilities, which are constantly rising. The same housing assessment report found that utility cost in Louisville have nearly tripled in cost since June 2010 (2012).

Photo: Beecher Terrace Public Housing. The oldest public housing complex in Louisville

In search for affordable housing, some people live in communities that add additional burden on their budgets. As families move to find affordable housing, they end up living further away from their homes and spending more on transportation. Transportation is the second largest expense next to housing and the average American family spends 19% of their annual income on transportation (Way 2008). Many of these same households also end up living further away from fresh and healthy food options. Limited access to food has a negative impact on their health. Over time, this will lead to an increase in medical expenses. When housing, transportation, and food cost are cover there if often little money left over in some of the poorest in a community to meet other needs such as education and healthcare.


Page 6

It is due to excessive cost-burden that some homes become vacant and abandoned. Vacant and abandoned houses can have a negative impact on the communities the properties are located in unless there is proper invest in addressing community blight. However, this invest must be founded on community conscious approached to development. Failing to do so can lead to the displacement of the original residents as the development leads to an increase to property values and therefore taxes increase. The original residents can no longer afford to live in their homes. An example of community conscious neighborhood revitalization methods is to reach out to the community’s immigrant population. Cities like Boston have created vacant property-related programs that give homeownership opportunities to immigrants. The neighborhood then becomes more attractive and inviting as a whole, as it no longer seems to represent a certain class or group of people. Housing is a vital component of any successful city. Everyone should be able to live in safe, healthy, and affordable housing. Citizens deserve to have affordable housing options within their neighborhoods and equal access to amenities. Unfortunately, a portion of Louisville’s residents is going without. Making this goal a reality in Louisville will be challenging. This project allowed the research team to examine five topic areas that can help overcome the challenge of affordable housing in Louisville's communities.


Page 7

Project Scope

The scope of this project is to guide the development of the Housing plan element in the updated comprehensive plan by providing research and data analysis to Louisville Metro and the Comprehensive Plan Housing Work Group. Since much research already exists on housing in Louisville, we are analyzing gaps in housing data. Louisville Metro provided us a broad request for data points and research questions and we narrowed it down to five topics. The topic areas include: Affordable Housing, Food Access, Migration of Foreign Born Population, Vacant & Abandoned Properties, and Risk of Displacement (gentrification). Our goal is to not only fill in the gaps of housing data but to provide a comprehensive look at each Market Areas as it pertains to the specific topic areas previously outlined. In addition to our primary goal, we will be addressing how each topic area are specifically connected to housing and how the results overlap across variables and the various Market Areas.

Using mapping and data analysis we will be able to answer the following questions: Which Market Areas have the highest concentration of subsidized housing? Which Market Area populations are experiencing a lack of food access? Where is the foreign born population living? Which Market Areas have a high amount of vacant and abandoned properties? Which Market Area populations are at risk of displacement?

Housing

Housing is the central topic of analysis of this project. The introduction examined the

importance of affordable and its intersections with other aspects of an individual’s life.

This report will explore two questions about housing. First, it will look at the presence of

subsidized housing units.

This variable originated from the first set of presenters for the Capstone class, wherein

three city representative spoke and it was stated a few times that the demand for unit size

would be an interesting variable, but there were little to no ways to quantify such. Upon

further discussion and some brainstorming, the group decided that exploring the demand

for unit size was too important to disregard when discussing housing in Louisville Metro.

This is due to the large population of refugees and immigrants in Louisville Metro, and the

size of “families” in general. Many families living in Louisville Metro are not the typical

parent and children-only household, they are, instead, multi-generational and homes

which are filled with many family members. This information, or an approach to


Page 8

gathering such information, will aid housing subsidies and charities when placing

families, along with property managers and developers. This data point also covers the

issue of overcrowding in apartments and homes throughout the city. Barriers to finding

this data are that it is not readily available, nor is there a great deal of physical data for

these topics. Also, there are a number of gaps in the data that have yet to be explored. One

possible solution the group agreed upon was creating a survey and narrowing down the

data collection to one Market Area.

Food Access

Access to safe, healthy, and nutritious food is considered a basic human right. The World

Health Organization states that “poor nutrition can lead to reduced immunity, increased

susceptibility to disease, impaired physical and mental development, and reduced

productivity (WHO, 2016).” Disparities in food accessibility are created by various

economic, social, geographical conditions that leave many people without proper

nutrition. In 2015, 13% of households (15.8 million households) were food insecure and

5% of households (6.3 million households) experienced very low food insecurity in the

United States. Twelve states exhibited statistically significant higher household food

insecurity rates than the U.S. national average of 13.7%, 2013-2015. Among these 12

states, Kentucky ranked 5th at 17.6%. In other words, 17.6% of Kentucky population is

considered food insecure or experience low food security. (Coleman-Jensen, Rabbit,

Gregory, & Singh, September 2016). For the first time in its history, the American Housing

Survey included questions on food security status. This allowed the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to assign a “food security status” score to

households. The survey found that renters were 3 times as likely to be food insecure than

homeowners, 15.5% and 4.9% respectively (U.S Census Bureau, 2016).

Food access is a key component to food insecurity and has become a pertinent local issue

in Louisville due to the closure of several urban grocery stores. Residents in these areas

lack options for healthy food sources and have an overabundance of fast food options.

Financial barriers and little or no vehicle access greatly inhibit one’s ability to travel to

grocery stores in other neighborhoods and causes undue hardship. Low-income

populations in urban areas are the most vulnerable to food insecurity due to financial

barriers and limited vehicle access therefore; there is a greater need for grocery stores


Page 9

within a reasonable walking distance (e.g. ½ mile). Where you live greatly influences your

ability to access needed resources. The American Planning Association states that “access

to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food is a key component not only in a

healthy, sustainable local food system, but also in a healthy, sustainable community” and

recognizes that “food access and other food system issues, however, are often missing

from local planning processes”. To truly provide safe, healthy, and affordable housing,

cities must include a food access lens. Improving food access where people are living, in

particular in areas with considerable subsidized housing locations, allows for healthier,

sustainable, and more equitable communities.

Vacant & Abandoned Properties

Although the country as a whole has recovered from the 2008 Recession, many cities

including Louisville Metro, are still managing the effects. One of the most visible

consequences of the Recession is the number properties that are still vacant and

abandoned. Such properties can be found throughout the county, but it is in the

communities with the highest percentages of low-income households and minorities that

are impacted the most (MHC 2012). This is not an easy problem to solve and several

barriers exist to carrying out the most readily available solutions. Even defining it is

difficult, because various government agencies – across all levels of government – have

different definitions of vacant and abandoned. For the purposes of this project the Vacant

& Public Properties Administration’s definition of vacant and abandoned are used

(Appendix B). Another barrier is that the majority of the vacant properties are privately

owned. Of the nearly 8,000 vacant and abandoned properties in Louisville, the

Government owns about 700 (Louisville Magazine 2017). This fact limits what Metro

Government can do to immediately address the issue of vacant properties outside of

initiating the foreclosure process when there are municipal liens which can take up to 11

years (Center for Community Progress 2012). The second option is to demolish the

properties, which creates opportunities for development. However, due to funding

limitations Metro can only demolish 100 properties per year.

Louisville Metro is presented with the opportunity in which they can think of creative

ways to overcome the challenges and barriers that are represented by vacant and

abandoned properties as they develop the housing section of the new comprehensive

plan. HUD describes vacant properties as spaces of opportunity and challenge (HUD


Page 10

2014). Innovative design practices and policies have expanded the possibility of reuse,

creating the opportunity to use vacant properties for an expansion of affordable housing

and growth of local economies. However, left unchecked vacant properties – especially in

high concentrations - can lower nearby property values (Schuetz, Been, and Ellen, 2008),

create a disincentive for surrounding property owners to maintain their properties (MHC

2012), and jeopardize the health and safety of the community by creating an environment

for crime and pest infestation (National Vacant Properties Campaign 2005).

Influence of Foreign-Born Population

When discussing the future of housing in Jefferson County it is also necessary to think

about the people that will reside in these homes. The Global Louisville Action Plan states

that 6.7% of Jefferson County’s total population is foreign-born (and the foreign-born

population is projected to increase to 10.4% in 2025 and to 17.2% in 2040 for 172,000

foreign-born residents. This projected increase in foreign-born residents creates the

potential for an increase of wealth and investment into Jefferson County. A report by the

Americas Society/Council of the Americas and the Partnership for a New American

Economy (page 5) shows that “foreign-born homeownership raised the median home

value in Louisville $2,086 per unit and raise the housing wealth nearly $625 million

between 2000-2010.”. The same report states that “immigrants help to revitalize

distressed neighborhoods by buying houses, investing in improvements, and creating

mixed income neighborhoods that attract seeking home ownership opportunities.”

The projected increase in foreign-born residents could provide opportunities to areas in need of investment such as the Northwest Core and the West Core, which currently have foreign-born populations that make up 1% and 2% of their total populations, respectively. Communities at Risk of Displacement

The research paper “Has falling crime invited Gentrification,” discusses using FBI crime statistics from cities across the U.S. to determine which cities are experiencing a drop in violent crime (APA cite). The paper identifies falling violent crime rates as stimulus in these cities which leads to conditions that encourage financial investment from homeowners and businesses. Violent crime is considered a relevant variable as victims are more likely to leave the neighborhoods they reside in and; if crime is high or increasing, residents of any demographic will choose not to move there. “Gentrifiers” is


Page 11

the term used to broadly identify the demographic profile associated with residents who move into neighborhoods and increase property values. They include white residents, educated residents, and high income residents. Using publicly available data, the authors found that cities which experience a decrease in crime and an increase in this demographic are most susceptible to gentrification.


Page 12

Study Area

Figure 1: 21 Market Areas in Jefferson County, KY

The study area for our project is based on the 21 Market Areas identified in the Louisville

Metro Demographic and Economic Projections 2010-2040 Report released by the Kentucky

State Data Center (See Figure 1). The Market Areas are composed of groups of aggregated

2010 census tracts. We decided to divide the Market Areas further into Sub-Sections referred to

as the Core, the Inner Ring, and the Outer Ring (See Figure 2).


Page 13

Figure 2: Market Area Subsections

The Core has 8 Market Areas; the Inner Ring is composed of 9 Market Areas; and is made

up of 4 Market Areas. This allowed us to make comparisons of Market Areas that are

located in areas of similar age and development stages. Figure 2 is a map that depicts the

subsection boundaries. Appendix C includes a table that summarizes some key

demographic features of each Market Area. It should also be noted that Louisville Metro

and Jefferson County will be used interchangeable in this report.


Page 14

Methodology

Key Data Sources

A substantial amount of the data utilized in this report was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014 and 2015 American Community Surveys (ACS). Jefferson County demographic data retrieved from the 2015 ACS included number of housing units, median household income, race, educational attainment, cost burdened homeowners, cost burdened renters, and nativity in the United States. The 2014 ACS: 5-Year Dataset titled Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population in the United States” was sued for analysis of the region of origin for foreign born residents. Most of the affordable housing data used in this report was obtained from the United Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Spatial data obtained from included public housing buildings, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties and Section 8 properties. Supplemental information was obtained from the Metropolitan Housing Coalition and the Louisville Metro Housing Authority. A variety of data was obtained from the Louisville/Jefferson County Information Consortium (LOJIC). Spatial data retrieved from LOJIC included Jefferson County parcels, Jefferson County Urban Neighborhoods, and Jefferson County Census Tracts. Some data was obtained from Louisville Metro Government agencies. Vacant Property information was retrieved from Develop Louisville’s Codes & Regulations Department. Crime data was obtained from Louisville Metro Police Department’s open data portal. Food Access data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In order to ascertain the food access of residents in the different Market Areas the Share of Low Income & Low Access Population at 1/2 Miles by Census Tract for Jefferson County was used from USDA Economic Research Service 2017 Food Access Data.


Page 15

Methodological Processes This project analyzed 6 elements of connected to the broader picture of affordable housing and community development in Louisville Metro: Unit Demand Size, Subsidized Housing near TODs, Vacant & Abandoned Properties, Food Access, Influence of the Foreign-Born Population and Neighborhoods at Risk for Displacement. All data except for the unite size demand survey information was aggregated to the Market Area level. Definitions for key terms can be found in Appendix B.

Housing A county-wide analysis of unit demand size was not feasible in our given timeframe. Therefore, we surveyed 29 property management companies in a single Market Area, Southwest Core, to get an estimate of unit size demand. Of the 29 property management companies that received a survey 17 sent back responses. The list of survey questions are listed in Appendix D. The second, housing analysis involved examining the relationship between the TODs set by the Community Form Team and government subsidized housing. Public Housing, Section 8-Housing Choice Vouchers, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) were mapped and analyzed across the 21 Market Areas. This method was employed to determine which Market Areas provide the highest percentage of subsidized housing. Examining Food Access in Louisville Metro Using the 2017 food access data from the USDA Economic Research Service this project mapped the share of the population that is defined as low-income (annual family income


Page 16

at or below 200% of the Federal threshold for family size and low-access (more than ½ mile from the nearest grocery store). The data was mapped by census tracts across the county and then aggregated up to the Market Area level for analysis. Market Area data was provided by the Kentucky State Data Center. This method was employed to determine the number of people in each Market rea that have low access to healthy food. Limitations exist within the data because the directory of store locations is from 2015 and does not include the most recent grocery store closures. (See Appendix B for full definition). Vacant & Abandoned Properties One of the goals outlined in Mayor Fischer’s Strategic Plan is to reduce vacant and public properties in all communities in Louisville Metro to 10% or less. The percentage of vacant properties in each Market Area was calculated by using the total number of parcels in the Market Areas as the denominator and the total number of vacant properties as the numerator. This information was mapped. The disposition number for the Market Areas with vacant properties greater than 10% was calculated by first converting the percent vacant into a whole number by multiplying the percentage by the total number of parcels in the Market Area. The next step is to find how many properties make up 10% of the total properties and find the difference between the two values. Definitions for vacant & abandoned properties and disposition are listed in Appendix B. Foreign-Born We used the 2015 American Community Survey data for the analysis of the total foreign-born population as it relates to the total population. The figures in the tables for each respective dataset will not be perfectly aligned due to the difference in the source data. To effectively look at the foreign-born population data in Jefferson County the data was aggregated to both the Market Area and census tract levels. The values listed in the legend represent the total number of foreign-born residents divided by the total population in the Market Area. Displacement Five indicators were used to predict risk of displacement across the 21 Market Areas: Cost-Burden (renters & homeowners), Race, Educational Attainment, Income, and Crime. A more detailed description of the indicators can be found in Appendix E. Percentage increase or decrease for each variable by Market Area was used to develop the risk displacement score. Since population using the percentage increase or decrease normalized all variables except crime, we converted the crime numbers to a percentage based on the Market Area population. Once the crime data was converted we then determined if there was an increase or decrease in violent crime. The signs on the finding of crime from 2010 to 2015 were converted to show a positive score to reflect an increase


Page 17

in crime reduction and a crime reduction would show a negative number. All other variables indicating gentrification showing positive numbers. Z-scores were used to normalize the various indicators. Summing the Z-scores across variables for each Market Area produced a value that was used to generate a score index to quantify the risk of displacement by residents. Displacement risk increases as the percentage change of the variables increases so, those Market Areas with higher Z-scores (higher deviation from the mean data) associated with each variable when summed; reflect a higher level of risk for displacement. Metric Table The metrics table will be used to calculate which Market Areas are in good standing with our five selected data points. Each data point has an assigned threshold to be measured based on 5-point system. If the Market Areas meets the assigned threshold for a data point then a “1” will be placed in the corresponding cell. If not, a “0” will be placed in the corresponding cell. A low score will signify that the Market Area is not in good standing. Market Areas are listed by region of analysis: Core, Inner Ring, and Outer Ring. Metrics

1. Subsidized Housing - 10% of total housing units classified as subsidized housing. Measure derived from the STAR Metrics.

2. Food Access - 15% or less of the population is defined as low-income and low- access. Metric set by Louisville Forward Senior Policy Advisor, Theresa Zawaki for the purpose of this project.

3. Foreign Born Population - 10% or greater foreign-born population. Metric determined by 2025 Foreign Born population projection of 10.4% as stated in the Global Louisville Action Plan.

4. Vacant & Abandoned Properties - 10% or less vacant and abandoned properties. Measured derived from Mayor Fischer’s Strategic Plan.

5. Displacement - Does not pose a high or moderate risk of displacement. Inspired by a working paper by Ingrid Gould Ellen and in collaboration with colleagues at the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and UMASS Boston.


Page 18

Data Analysis

Subsidized Housing in Proximity to TODs Figure 3 displays the percentage of each Market Area’s housing stock that is subsidized including Public Housing, Section 8 Vouchers, and LIHTC. The top five Market Areas with the highest percentage is Downtown (49%), West Core (26%), Northwest Core (23%), University (12%), and Southwest Core (11%). In fact, these Market Areas were the only ones to meet the STAR metric of 10% and all are located in the “Core” subsection. The “Core” subsection contains the majority of all subsidized housing at 71%, followed by the “Inner Ring” at 27%, and the “Outer Ring” with only 2%. Figure 4 shows each Market Area’s percentage of housing stock that is subsidized and is organized by the three subsections.

Figure 3: Map of Percentage of Subsidized Housing Stock by Market Area


Page 19

Figure 4: Table of Percentage of Subsidized Housing Stock by Market Area

Subsection Market Area

Total Public Housing Units

Total Section 8 Vouchers

Total LIHTC

Total Subsidized Housing

Total Housing Units

Percent of Housing Stock that's Subsidized

Core

Downtown 1,845 343 548 2,736 5,616 48.72%

East Core 10 65 349 424 17,656 2.40%

Northeast Core 45 118 12 175 8,723 2.01%

Northwest Core 869 1,389 1,314 3,572 15,576 22.93%

Southeast Core 13 143 178 334 48,644 0.69%

Southwest Core 105 1,483 687 2,275 20,762 10.96%

University 292 505 625 1,422 11,576 12.28%

West Core 1,394 1,174 1,188 3,756 14,273 26.32%

Inner Ring

Airport 0 25 0 25 978 2.56%

Central Bardstown 188 791 52 1,031 35,104 2.94%

Central Preston 42 703 852 1,597 24,289 6.57%

Central Taylorsville 35 269 96 400 23,169 1.73%

East Metro 84 134 92 310 35,286 0.88%

Iroquois Park 17 753 144 914 22,853 4.00%

Northeast Metro 0 4 24 28 7,259 0.39%

Riverport 1 233 0 234 6,515 3.59%

South-Central Dixie 14 598 389 1,001 23,192 4.32%

Outer Ring

Jefferson Forest 0 124 0 124 9,045 1.37%

McNeely Lake 0 150 67 217 12,244 1.77%

NorthFloyd's Fork 0 40 0 40 14,275 0.28%

Parklands of Floyd's Fork 0 2 0 2 5,495 0.04%

Total Louisville Metro 4,954 9,046 6,617 20,617 362,530 5.69%


Page 20

The analysis below breaks down the share of Public Housing Units, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Section 8 Vouchers per Market Area

Public Housing

Subsidized housing locations are restricted to a limited number of the Market Areas in Jefferson County, especially in regards to public housing. “Public housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities (HUD.GOV, 2017).” In Figure 5, the ranking of the Market Areas for public housing locations is listed from greatest to least with the Market Areas without any locations excluded. The top five Market Areas are Downtown (37%), West Core (28%), Northwest Core (18%), University (6%), and Central Bardstown (4%).

Market Area Total Number of Units

Share of Public Housing Units

Downtown 1,845 37.00%

West Core 1,394 28.00%

Northwest Core 869 18.00%

University 292 6.00% Central Bardstown 188 4.00%

Southwest Core 105 2.00%

East Metro 84 1.70%

Northeast Core 45 0.91%

Central Preston 42 0.85% Central Taylorsville 35 0.71%

Iroquois Park 17 0.34% South-Central Dixie 14 0.28%

Southeast Core 13 0.26%

East Core 10 0.20%

Riverport 1 0.02% Figure 5: Market Area Ranks for Public Housing

Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program encourages the production of affordable rental housing. The program offers federal tax credits to private developers if they


Page 21

develop affordable rental housing units (HUD.GOV, 2017). The distribution of Low Income Housing Tax Credits is very similar to the public housing locations. In Figure 6, the ranking of Market Areas for LIHTC is listed from greatest to least with the Market Areas without any locations being excluded. The top five Market Areas are the Northwest Core (20%), West Core (18%), Central Preston (13%), Southwest Core (10%), and the University (9%).

Market Area Total Number of Units Share of LIHTC

Northwest Core 1314 20.0%

West Core 1188 18.0%

Central Preston 852 13.0%

Southwest Core 687 10.0%

University 625 9.0%

Downtown 548 8.0% South-Central Dixie 389 6.0%

East Core 349 5.0%


Iroquois Park 144 2.0% Central Taylorsville 96 2.0%

East Metro 92 1.0%

McNeely Lake 67 1.0% Central Bardstown 52 0.8%

Northeast Metro 24 0.4%

Northeast Core 12 0.2% Figure 6: Market Area Rankings for LIHTC

Section 8 Vouchers

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to be able afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market (HUD.GOV, 2016). Section 8 Vouchers are more greatly dispersed throughout Jefferson County with the West and Northwest Cores still seeing a high volume of vouchers. In Figure 7, the ranking of Market Areas for Section 8 Vouchers are listed from greatest to least. All 21 Market Areas have voucher locations. The top five Market Areas are the Southwest Core (16%), Northwest Core (15%), West Core (13%), Central Bardstown (9%), and Iroquois Park (8%).\


Page 22

Market Area Total Number of Units

Share of Section 8 Vouchers

Southwest Core 1,483 16.00%

Northwest Core 1,389 15.00%

West Core 1,174 13.00%

Central Bardstown 791 9.00%

Iroquois Park 753 8.00%

Central Preston 703 8.00%

South-Central Dixie 598 7.00%

University 505 6.00%

Downtown 343 4.00%

Central Taylorsville 269 3.00%

Riverport 233 3.00%

McNeely Lake 150 2.00%


East Metro 134 2.00%

Jefferson Forest 124 1.00%

Northeast Core 118 1.00%

East Core 65 1.00%

North Floyd's Fork 40 0.44%

Airport 25 0.28%

Northeast Metro 4 0.04% Parklands of Floyd's Fork 2 0.02%

Figure 7: Market Area Rankings for Section 8

Unit Size Demand in Southwest Core Twenty-nine (29) surveys were distributed and of that 29, 17 responded fully (one responded partially), for a total of 58%. Of the responses received, 90% of the managers stated that two bedrooms were the average unit size available. However, the most requested were three bedroom apartments (71%) and a small percentage of the managers asserted that they meet this demand (35%). In addition, a majority of the managers (90%) responded that prospective residents are more interested in the amount of bedrooms rather than square footage. This is most likely due to the rule of “two heads per bed” in property management, meaning that only a certain number of people can occupy the unit based on the amount of bedrooms. For example, a two-bedroom


Page 23

apartment can only have four people living in it, including children and babies. Moreover, while many of the managers stated that they could not quantify how many prospective residents requested this unit size, they were able to communicate that these requests are usually made by families of different cultures. This further demonstrates the assertion that two-bedroom apartments are more prevalent but are not fitting the need of many families that inhabit this Market Area.

Photo: Derby Estates Apartments In addition, the responses from property managers demonstrate an analysis of housing challenges in Louisville Metro completed by the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission wherein unit size, or number of bedrooms, is discussed briefly in terms of amount and location. The report affirms that the highest percentages of renter-occupied units are two bedrooms, and the highest percentage of three-bedrooms are in the North Dixie, South Dixie, and South Jefferson regions, which surround the studied Market Area but are not part of it. This report is also an analysis of occupied units, meaning that three-bedroom apartments are present, but are occupied and these regions demonstrate a high occupancy for such. The list of survey questions is located in Appendix D.

Food Access A 2010 report “The State of Food: A Snapshot of Food Access in Louisville “produced by the Food in Neighborhoods Committee as part of the Mayor Fisher’s Healthy Hometown


Page 24

Movement provided an in-depth analysis of food accessibility. The report found that west Louisville and east Downtown were the most at risk for food insecurity due to having the worst access to mainstream grocers and supermarkets. Based on the analysis summarized below, food access in these areas has not improved over the last seven years, but has worsened due to the closure of the Old Louisville Kroger, Portland Pic Pac, First Link, Shively Kroger, and Pic Pac Central.

Figure 8: Map of Recently Closed Grocery Stores

Figure 9 lists the food access of the 21 Market Areas. A total of 153,613 residents (21 % of total population) are low-income and low-access (1/2 mile from nearest grocery store). The Market Areas with the greatest share of residents that are low-income and low-access are the West Core (52%), Airport (38%), University (35%), Jefferson Forest (34%), and Riverport (30%). Figure 8 show food access mapped by Market Area.


Page 25

Sub-Section Market Area 2010 Total Population

Low Income & Low Access Population

Share of Low Income & Low Access Population

Core Downtown 13,291 2,781 21%

East Core 36,092 4,514 13%

Northeast Core 15,054 3,310 22%

Northwest Core 32,005 8,753 27%

Southeast Core 49,229 3,858 8%

Southwest Core 44,210 12,496 28%

University 20,000 6,925 35%

West Core 28,744 14,911 52%

Inner Ring Airport 2,536 959 38%

Central Bardstown 78,975 18,241 23%

Central Preston 54,027 10,888 20%

Central Taylorsville 52,977 7,399 14%

East Metro 76,833 10,271 13%

Iroquois Park 51,891 12,078 23%

Northeast Metro 16,305 1,587 10%

Riverport 14,902 4,536 30%

South-Central Dixie 54,600 9,964 18%

Outer Ring Jefferson Forest 22,522 7,598 34%

McNeely Lake 30,057 7,451 25%

North Floyd's Fork 33,806 3,881 11%

Parklands of Floyd's Fork 13,040 1,214 9%

Total Louisville Metro 741,096 153,613 21% Figure 9: Table of Food Access by Market Areas


Page 26

Figure 10: Food Access by Market Area Map

One in five residents in Louisville Metro is low-income and low-access. The data clearly shows a division between the Eastern and Western parts of the county. Twelve of the 21 Market Areas have greater than 20% of the population defined as low-income and low-access; 10 of those are located in the Western part of the county with the exception of Central Bardstown and the Northeast Core. The data is certainly more telling when displayed at the census tract level. It becomes very clear which neighborhoods are experiencing the most severe food insecurity It is important to note that several of the census tracts would be displayed at higher percentages if the data included the most recent grocery store closures, one example being the census tracts in the Downtown Market Area. While there are Market Areas in the Core, Inner Ring, and Outer Ring that are experiencing a lack of food access, the most extreme difference is between the East and


Page 27

West Core Market Areas that are located in the “Core” area of analysis. The East Core Market Area has a total population of 36,092 and 12.5% are considered low-income and low-access. The West Core Market Area has a total population of 28,744 and 52% are considered low-income and low-access. One tract in the West Core, located in the Algonquin neighborhood, has a startling 89% of its population defined as low income and low access. This neighborhood has the worst food access in the county. This is a clear example showing that where you live clearly influences your ability to access resources. For census tract information in the West Core refer Appendix G.

Figure 11: Food Access in East Core Market Area


Page 28

Figure 12: Food Access in West Core Market Area



Page 29

Figure 13: Percentage of Vacant & Abandoned Properties by Market Area

There are only two Market Areas that have over 10% vacant and abandoned

properties: the West Core (Figure 14) and the Northwest Core (Figure 15). Both Market Areas contained approximately 14% vacant properties. There is a large separation between the top two Market Areas and the rest of Jefferson County. The Market Areas ranked third for percentage of properties vacant or abandoned, the University, is only 4.5% vacant. This would suggest that Metro will only need to target these areas. However, it would require the disposition of over 600 properties in each Market Area between the West and Northwest Core (See Appendix H). Let us assume that there will be no new vacant properties added to the vacant and abandoned property inventory, the percentage of vacant properties in the other Market Areas will remain constant, and Metro is able to divert all their resources to these two communities over the next 5 years. Even in this situation Metro will need to put over 240 properties back into productive use each year. This comes to roughly 120 properties in the West and Northwest Cores. Over the past 3


Page 30

years Develop Louisville’s Vacant and Public Properties Administration disposes of an average of 80 properties annually (Yates 2017).

Figure 14: Vacant & Abandoned Properties in the Northwest Core Market Area

A closer examination of the neighborhoods within the West Core and Northwest

Core Markets Areas will allow Metro to target the communities most affected by vacant and abandoned properties. Figure 16 list the top 5 neighborhoods with the highest percentage of vacant and public properties. Figure 16 also shows a comparison of the number of vacant properties in each neighborhood need to be disposed of for the neighborhood to be below the threshold and how many properties Louisville Metro Controls (as of March 2017). For example, the Russell neighborhood has 20% vacant or abandoned properties. This translates into 630 properties. In order for the neighborhood’s vacant and abandoned property percentage to be decreased to 10% 343


Page 31

properties need to be disposed of. Unfortunately, Louisville Metro only controls 151 properties which is less than half of the projected disposition number.

Figure 15: Vacant & Abandoned Properties in the West Core Market Area

Figure 16: Top 5 Neighborhood for Vacant & Abandoned Properties in Jefferson County

Rank Neighborhood Market Area Number Vacant

Percentage Vacant

Disposition Count

Number VAP Metro-Owned

1 Park Hill West Core 639 26% 389 69

2 Russell Northwest Core 630 20% 343 151

3 Parkland West Core 374 18% 166 50

4 California West Core 469 17% 199 67

5 Portland Northwest Core 840 13% 239 121


Page 32

Influence of Foreign-Born Population

The majority of the Jefferson County Market Areas have less than a 10% foreign-born population (see Figure 17). There are only three Market Areas with foreign-born population of 10% or more (see Figure 18). The Airport (36%) has the highest density of foreign-born residents, while Iroquois (15%) and Central Preston (11%) are also above the 10% threshold. The large concentrations of foreign-born residents can potentially be attributed to local availability of employment within the Airport Market Area, from three of Louisville’s largest employers; UPS, the Ford Motor Co. Truck Plant, and the General Electric Appliance Park. There are four Market Areas that consist of 2% or less foreign-born residents: Parklands of Floyd’s Fork, West Core, South-Central Dixie, and Northwest Core. Below is a graph representing this data.

Figure 17: Percentage of Foreign-Born Population by Market Area


Page 33

Figure 18: Market Areas with the highest percentages of Foreign-Born Population by Census Tracts

Another aspect of the foreign-born population in Jefferson County is the region from which they emigrated. The regions of origin are defined as follows: North America, Central America, South America, The Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia. The largest share of foreign-born residents emigrate from Asia (31%), followed by Central America (17%), and the Caribbean (16%). The region with the smallest number of residents is South America (4%). This data represents foreign-born diversity, or lack thereof within the twenty-one Market Areas in Jefferson County and is shown Figure 19.


Page 34

Figure 19: Breakdown of Jefferson County’s Foreign-Born Population by Region of Origin

Communities at Risk of Displacement With 95% of all data points falling within + or – 1.96 units of standard deviation of the mean, the statistically interesting results occur in the 5% of the data which fall outside + or - 1.96. 98.1% of all data sets fall within 3 units of standard deviation from the mean. These values indicate a markets areas larger deviation from the mean compared to the other Market Areas. By focusing on these ranges, we can be confident that the percentage change for the variables across the Market Area is more intense (+-) than 95% of the data falling within +1.96 and -1.96 units of standard deviation from the mean (98.1% falling within +3 and -3 units of standard deviation. A positive Z-score reflects a positive distance the data is from the mean. A positive increase in our variables is what we are most interested in when identifying risk or displacement. Positive Z-score values which are larger than +1.96 were targeted as scores to identify Market Areas experiencing the largest percentage change in their variables. These Market Areas and Z-scores included:

Northeast Core 5.287275425 Downtown 3.558160124 Central Taylorsville 2.515735196 University 2.35895023


Page 35

Figure 20: Risk of Displacement by Market Area

Using the above guidelines for Z-score distances in units of standard deviation from the

mean, a risk for displacement value was assigned accordingly:

Z-scores larger than +3 as High Risk

Z-scores from +1.96 to +2.9 as Moderate Risk

Z-scores from +0.1 to +1.95 as Low Risk

Z-scores less than 0 as No Risk

According to the index and scores, the Market Area most at risk for displacement is the

Northeast Core (see Figure 20).

The Northeast Core experienced the following changes in each variable:

-0.58% change in Cost Burdened Renters

-1.52% change in Cost Burdened Homeowners

1.73% increase in white residents


Page 36

0.69% increase in residents earning above median income

10.05% increase in residents with bachelor’s degree or higher

11.26% increase in the reduction of violent crime (11.26% decrease in violent crime)

Market Area Sub Section Sum Z Score Risk Level

Northeast Core Core 5.287275425 High Risk

Downtown Core 3.558160124

Central Taylorsville Inner Ring 2.515735196 Moderate Risk University Core 2.35895023

Central Preston Inner Ring 1.906360912

Low Risk

Southeast Core Core 1.802989721

South-Central Dixie Inner Ring 1.633742876

East Metro Inner Ring 0.794904738 Parklands of Floyd's Fork Outer Ring 0.741613091

Riverport Inner Ring 0.581931221

Central Bardstown Inner Ring 0.405168987

West Core Core -0.305743806

No Risk

Airport Inner Ring -0.813594655

Iroquois Park Inner Ring -0.904723555

Southwest Core Core -1.282255977

McNeely Lake Outer Ring -1.495783024

Northwest Core Core -2.112192346

East Core Core -2.321177907

Jefferson Forest Outer Ring -3.559289443

North Floyd's Fork Outer Ring -3.701278273

Northeast Metro Inner Ring -5.154613301

Figure 21: Market Area Displacement Risk Level

The Cost Burdened Renters and Home Owner population both saw a decline in this

Market Area. It is difficult to correctly identify why these residents are seeing a decline

however, displacement is more likely to be experienced by residents who are cost


Page 37

burdened with housing. With an increase in white, high income, and college-educated

residents and an 11.26% decrease in crime, these variables are associated with

gentrification and identify an opportunity to explore whether or not this decrease in cost-

burdened residents is because they are being displaced.

Breakdown of At Risk Market Areas by Sub Sections

Core 36%

Inner Ring 55%

Outer Ring 9%

Breakdown of High Risk Market Areas by Sub Section

Core 75%

Inner Ring 25%

Outer Ring 0%

Breakdown of Moderate Risk Market Areas by Sub Section

Core 33%

Inner Ring 66%

Outer Ring 0%

Breakdown of Low Risk Market Areas by Sub Section

Core 0%

Inner Ring 75%

Outer Ring 25%

Figure 22: Breakdown of Risk Levels by Subsections


Page 38

Key Findings

Metrics

Metrics 6. Subsidized Housing - 10% of total housing units classified as subsidized housing. 7. Food Access - 15% or less of the population is defined as low-income and low-

access. 8. Foreign Born Population - 10% or greater foreign born population. 9. Vacant & Abandoned Properties - 10% or less vacant and abandoned properties. 10. Displacement - Does not pose a high or moderate risk of displacement.

Analysis of Metric Table

Using the Metrics (see Figure 23) to compare the Market Areas across the five topic areas several interesting results were revealed. Ten of the 21 Market Areas met 3 of the 5 metrics. The majority of these Market Areas do not pose a high or moderate risk of displacement, have good food access and a low percentage of vacant properties. The only subsection where this changed was the Inner Ring where there was lower food access and a higher percentage of foreign-born population. However, many of the higher scoring Market Areas do not meet the STAR subsidized housing standards and/or do not have the 10% foreign-born population. The Market Areas with a high percentage of vacant lots did meet the housing metric but have low food access. The Northeast Core Market Area scored the lowest meeting only the vacant and abandoned properties metric.


Page 39

Region of Analysis Market Areas Displacement*

Food Access

Foreign Born Population

Subsidized Housing

Vacant & Abandoned Properties Score

Core

Downtown 0 0 0 1 1 2

East Core 1 1 0 0 1 3

Northeast Core 0 0 0 0 1 1

Northwest Core 1 0 0 1 0 2

Southeast Core 1 1 0 0 1 3

Southwest Core 1 0 0 1 1 3

University 0 0 0 1 1 2

West Core 1 0 0 1 0 2

Inner Ring

Airport 1 0 1 0 1 3 Central Bardstown 1 0 0 0 1 2

Central Preston 1 0 1 0 1 3

Central Taylorsville 0 1 0 0 1 2

East Metro 1 1 0 0 1 3

Iroquois Park 1 0 1 0 1 3

Northeast Metro 1 1 0 0 1 3

Riverport 1 0 0 0 1 2

South-Central Dixie 1 0 0 0 1 2

Outer Ring

Jefferson Forest 1 0 0 0 1 2

McNeely Lake 1 0 0 0 1 2

North Floyd's Fork 1 1 0 0 1 3

Parklands of Floyd's Fork 1 1 0 0 1 3

Figure 23: Metrics Table; * The Market Areas achieving a score higher than +1.96 on the Risk Displacement Index are considered as not meeting the threshold.


Page 40

Summary of Key Findings

This section compares the significant findings of each topic area within the Market Area

subsections. Figure 24 provides a table that lists the Market Areas according to the

subsections they are located. Figure 25 summarizes the findings of the different topic

areas by Market Area.

Core Inner Ring Outer Ring

Downtown Airport Jefferson Forest

East Core Central Bardstown McNeely Lake

Northeast Core Central Preston North Floyd’s Fork

Northwest Core Central Taylorsville Parklands of Floyd’s Fork

Southeast Core East Metro Southwest Core Iroquois Park

West Core Northeast Metro University Riverport

South-Central Dixie Figure 24: List of Market Areas by Subsections

Outer Ring The Outer Ring has a very low percentage of subsidized housing available, only 2% of all subsidized housing. The Jefferson Forest and McNeely Lake Market Areas both have greater than 15% of the population as low income and low food access. North Floyd’s Fork is the closest Market Area to achieving 10% foreign born population at (9.2%) of the Market Areas below 10%. The percentage of vacant properties in Outer Ring is very low. The Market Area with the highest percentage of vacant properties in this subsection is Jefferson Forest at 2%. According to the index and scores, the Market Area least at risk for displacement compared to the other Market Areas is Northeast Metro. Inner Ring The Inner Ring contains 27% of all subsidized housing but none of the Market Areas meet the Star metric of 10%. The majority of foreign-born population lives in three Market Areas in this ring, the Airport, Iroquois Park, and Central Preston. All of those markets also have poor food access. The percentage of vacant properties in this subsection is also very low. There were no Market Areas in this subsection that were at a high risk of displacement.


Page 41

Core The Core has 71% of all subsidized housing. All the Market Areas that meet the 10% subsidized housing threshold are located in this subsection. The Downtown Market Area has the highest percentage at 49%. The majority of the Core Market Areas have greater than 15% of the population considered low income with low food access. The West Core has the worst food access in the county at 52%. Northwest Core has the lowest percentage of foreign-born population at less than 1%. This subsection also contains the two Market Areas with the highest percentage of vacant properties the West Core and Northwest Core each above 14%. These two Market Areas are also the only Market Areas in the County that are above the 10% vacant property threshold. According to the displacement risk index, of the 21 Market Areas, the most at risk for displacement is the

Northeast Core.


Page 42

Subsection Market Area

Percentage Subsidized Housing

Percent Vacant & Abandoned Properties

Percentage Foreign-Born

Share of Population Low income & Low Access

Displacement Risk Level

Core Downtown 48.7% 4.80% 4% 21% High Risk

East Core 2.4% 0.20% 6% 13% No Risk

Northeast Core 2.0% 1.10% 4% 22% High Risk

Northwest Core 22.9% 14.10% 1% 27% No Risk

Southeast Core 0.7% 0.80% 3% 8% Low Risk

Southwest Core 11.0% 3.30% 5% 28% No Risk

University 12.3% 4.50% 7% 35% Moderate Risk

West Core 26.3% 14.70% 2% 52% No Risk

Inner Ring Airport 2.6% 0.70% 36% 38% No Risk

Central Bardstown 2.9% 0.70% 9% 23% Low Risk

Central Preston 6.6% 1.50% 11% 20% Low Risk

Central Taylorsville 1.7% 0.10% 8% 13% Moderate Risk

East Metro 0.9% 0.20% 8% 13% Low Risk

Iroquois Park 4.0% 1.80% 15% 23% No Risk

Northeast Metro 0.4% 0.30% 7% 10% No Risk

Riverport 3.6% 3.30% 3% 30% Low Risk

South-Central Dixie 4.3% 1.80% 2% 18% Low Risk

Outer Ring Jefferson Forest 1.4% 2.20% 5% 34% No Risk

McNeely Lake 1.8% 0.80% 3% 25% No Risk

North Floyd’s Fork 0.3% 0.20% 9% 11% No Risk

Parklands of Floyd’s Fork 0.0% 0.30% 2% 9% Low Risk

Figure 25: Summary Table of Market Area Analysis


Page 43

Case Study: Philadelphia Land Bank Strategic Plan

The following sections summarizes and analyzes housing-related policies from around the country. In order to better understand how these policies were implemented in these various communities and how it can carried out in Louisville the research team answers the questions: who, what, when, where, why and how. There is a single case study from Philadelphia and six best policy practices from other comparable cities. The case study is not a typical housing plan. Its primary focus is on vacant and abandoned property. However, vacant and abandoned properties are an underutilized opportunity for expanding affordable housing in Louisville. The plan from Philadelphia also has elements that should be incorporated into Louisville’s future consolidated plans.

What & Why

In 2013 Philadelphia lawmakers passed enabling legislation to establish a Land Bank Authority. Since its creation, the Philadelphia Land Bank (PLB) has corrected the legal descriptions of nearly 6,000 deeds, acquired approximately 2,000 vacant properties, and responded to hundreds of request for properties (Philadelphia Land Bank 2017). PLB decided to create a Strategic Plan to build upon its success. The Philadelphia Land Bank Strategic Plan & Performance Report is a thorough document created to guide the City’s management of vacant and abandoned properties and improve the quality of life in Philadelphia. The Strategic Plan also includes specific goals, strategies, action items, and metrics that align with the City’s affordable housing policies and plans. A main goal of the Plan is to leverage vacant properties for community and economic development with an emphasis on affordable housing. The Strategic Plan was developed through a collaborative process and uses data from several Philadelphia reports and plans. The Plan includes the following information:

Real estate market conditions in Philadelphia

Affordable housing needs and opportunities

Means of stimulating development

Ways to expand green and open space

Goals for property acquisition and disposition

Methods for increasing transparency in the City’s Acquisition and Disposition policies and processes

Their disposition policy has several categories all of which contribute to the broader goal of community development. They include opportunity sites, business expansions, and the


Page 44

one most relevant to this report, affordable housing. The policy for housing utilizes vacant and abandoned properties to address the need for affordable, safe, and accessible housing. The Land Bank Authority works with the local Housing Authority to support developers who build affordable housing. In this context Affordable Housing is 50-80% below the area median income. Once PLB has assembled suitable tracts of vacant land they will use an RFP process to announce development opportunities and gather proposals for affordable housing developments.

Where

Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the United States and has an estimated population of 1,567,442; 13% of which are foreign-born. Louisville does not have nearly the same population of Philadelphia, but is still a city in the Rust Belt and also has a combined City-County Government. Louisville Metro has an estimated population of 615,366. As previously stated, nearly 7% of the Louisville Metro population is foreign-born. The residents of Philadelphia are 41% White, 43% African American, 12% Hispanic, and 6% Asian. Louisville is less racially and ethnically diverse than Philadelphia. White residents make up 71% of the Jefferson County. The remaining racial makeup of Louisville residents is 23% African American, 5% Hispanic, and 2% Asian.

The median home value and gross rent in Philadelphia is slightly higher than in Louisville. The median home value in Philadelphia is $145,300 and the median gross rent from 2011-2015 was $922. In Louisville the median home value is $140,700 and the median gross rent was $727. The median household income is $38,253 and 26% of the population lives in poverty in Philadelphia. In comparison, Louisville has a median household income of $45,762 and 18% of the residents in the county live in poverty. These differences can be contributed the difference in cost of living between the two Cities.

Demographic data for both Cities was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 Quickfacts.

When

The Plan was approved and the revised policies were adopted on March 9, 2017. The plan covers a 5-year span and progress will be evaluated in 2021. The timeline for the plan is divided into two categories: acquisition and disposition. The housing policy that is described in the Plan in primarily a strategy for disposition. Philadelphia’s Land Bank and Dept. of Housing & Community Development began issuing RFPs during the 2016-2017 fiscal year. The first one was posted in June 2016. Once the notice for the RFP is posted applicants have approximately two months to submit their proposals. Winning proposals


Page 45

are selected within two weeks of the submission deadline. The time of the RFP process and schedule is meant to allow developers time to secure additional funding resources.

How

The Philadelphia Land Bank’s long-term goal is to use 68% of the properties they control for the expansion of affordable housing. Land already committed to specific affordable housing development projects are noted in the Plan’s 2016-17 disposition goals, but speculative for future years. PLB does not provide financing or grant resources to development projects, therefore subsidies for the variety of projects require other sources of funds. The role of PLB is taking the lead in assembling land while the Housing Authority will help developers find funding sources (grants, sponsors, etc.). The agencies will release a joint request for proposal (RFP) for affordable housing developments. Details of the policy can be found in Appendix I.

During the 2016-17 fiscal year, the PLB plans target 500 parcels for acquisition, but only expects to acquire at least 350 parcels. The location of a vacant parcel will impact how it is developed. The amount of vacancy on a block will influence decisions for how parcels are acquired, consolidated, disposed of, and improved. Sometimes blocks can be stabilized with the improvement of a few parcels, others – particularly in low-income areas with higher percentages of vacant properties - require larger interventions. The vacant parcels for affordable housing will need to be larger tracts of developable land that can support multi-family housing. The Philadelphia Land Bank outlined an acquisition policy that would support an expansion of affordable housing in targeted areas such as West and North Philadelphia. PLB and the Philadelphia Housing Authority will work together to support developers who are devoted to creating affordable housing.

The plan assumes a 30% drop off rate which accounts for this difference between the targeted 500 parcels and the expected 350. The primary reason that properties may drop off is if the property becomes tax compliant. The same acquisition goal and assumption is carried across the other four fiscal years. Each year the PLB plans to dispose of 25% of vacant properties through the Side Yard Program and 13% to be used as Open Spaces and Urban Gardens. The disposition number for Side Yards and Open Space uses assume the properties are being sold but at a discounted rate, unless otherwise restricted to eligible applicants.

Louisville Link

Develop Louisville’s Vacant & Public Properties Administration (VPPA) manages Metro’s vacant properties and staff the Louisville Jefferson County Land Bank. VPPA has the foundation to adopt a practice similar to the one from the Philadelphia Land Bank. The agency has sold assembled parcels to developers for housing and they have an RFP


Page 46

process in place for buying vacant structures. The next step would be to form an agreement with the Office of Housing & Community Development and other key stakeholders to implement this program. This will require the department to modify some of its current policies and procedures.

Undertaking a similar strategic planning process to Philadelphia will be the first step in implementing a more aligned housing policy. The strategic plan will be beneficial in accessing VPPA’s current status and identifying stakeholders (and their role). The Philadelphia plan was created using Philadelphia’s planning documents. Louisville Metro Government and local housing advocates have invested a great amount of time and resources in housing research and studies. Since 2003 the Metropolitan Housing Coalition (MHC) has annually released a State of Metropolitan Housing Report that explores the current housing situation in Louisville. The MHC, working with organizations like the Human Relations Commission and the Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research have released other reports that expose impediments to fair and affordable housing and offers recommendations for overcoming fair housing barriers. The most comprehensive of these reports was Making Louisville Home for Us All: A 20-year Action Plan for Fair Housing. A list of the housing and housing-related reports can be found in Appendix J.

This plan also offers a model for Louisville’ larger strategic plan for housing. The Philadelphia Land Bank’s plan identifies the connections with other agencies and outlines a process that guides that coordination. Key stakeholders are listed in Metro’s consolidated and action plans for housing, but they do not detail how to best utilize those partnerships. The Philadelphia Land Bank also includes various categories or opportunity areas where vacant properties can be used for the betterment of the community. This element of the plan can be transformed into “opportunity areas”. For example, one of the topics in this report explores the benefits of investing the Foreign-Born population in a community. If this - Foreign-Born Population - is an opportunity area included in the plan then the plan will include strategies for meeting the housing needs/demands for this demographic and supporting their assimilation into the community.


Page 47

Best Practices

Housing Best Practices Affordable Housing and Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) What & Why: Denver, Colorado, a peer city of Louisville, and one of the more affluent cities in the country, created the Campaign for Responsible Development, or CRD in a South-Central neighborhood of the city. CRD is a mixed-used destination point on a major brownfield that sits on roughly 70 acres in that area and is designed as a transit community that also addresses issues with affordable housing, access to good jobs, and a better lifestyle for low-income/working families. The project is a multi-year, billion-dollar endeavor that will ensure maximum support and benefit to working families. The development includes a light rail transfer station that accesses two existing light rails and a third one was added on in 2006, as well as pedestrian and bike-friendly passageways. There will also be a park-ride station for commuters. Furthermore, the project set goals to ensure to exclude super stores such as Wal-Mart to ensure that taxes are not subsidizing low-wage grocery jobs. Where: The Campaign for Responsible Development (CRD) in Denver, Colorado is a coalition of labor between private and public partnerships that includes affordable housing, low-income women’s advocacy, and environmental groups. When: It began in 2003 as a coalition for varying issues in Denver and is in the process of being complete, as the project was estimated to be finished between 2015 and 2020. How: For affordable housing, this project serves as the largest major development in the city to include affordable housing by dedicating 10% of for-sale units and 20% of rental as affordable prices. The proposal calls for 10% of rental units be affordable to families earning less than 45% of AMI and 10% of rental units be affordable to families earning less than 30% of AMI. In addition, the city’s prevailing wage will extend to privately-funded construction jobs and maintenance jobs after the project is complete. The city also extended its living wage policy to privately employed parking and security persons and the CRD fought for an establishment of a neighborhood-targeted hiring program to benefit low-income communities near the development. And, contractors were also only selected if they provided health care and internship/apprenticeship programs and an extension. CRD is the first of its kind in Denver to be built upon a community benefits framework and to change the way that Denver interacts with developers. Generally speaking, a


Page 48

community benefits agreement is a contract signed by community groups and real estate developers that requires the developer to follow certain guidelines and the communities to show support of the project. It also influences how subsidized developments are approached in the city and how a project this size pays its share of service burdens created during the process. This project also placed emphasis on the role of the local government in regard to dealing with reuse of brownfields/brownfield development. Who: There are several stakeholders involved in the project. They include . . .

- Cherokee Denver LLC, - low-income women’s advocacy groups, - Front Range Economic Strategy Center (FRESC), - the Regional Transportation District’s Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project, - and the Denver Area Labor Federation (DALF).

Louisville Link: Louisville is home to many brownfields and has already participated in reuse in recent years, with the development of the Germantown Mill Lofts in Germantown, but with a focus on TOD in MOVE Louisville, the CRD project in Denver serves as a good starting point for how to create a mixed-use development that addresses both housing and transit. Louisville can take the principles outlined in MOVE Louisville for transit communities and link them to the development approaches utilized in Denver’s CRD project, such as requiring affordable housing, using community benefit agreements, broad coalition of groups involved in the development, and wage/employment/hiring agreements. Transit-Oriented Development Fund What & Why: The Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund was the first affordable housing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) acquisition fund in the United States and began in 2010. Its purpose is to create 1,000 affordable housing units through deliberate property procurement in current as well as future TOD corridors. This fund and subsequent projects demonstrate a need for affordable housing in areas where the economy has affected property values negatively and developers for affordable housing are not as present. Such a fund allows the investors and government entities to collaborate and make the most of the current state of the housing market and values. It also helps support and preserve affordable housing prior to the pending installation of an operational light rail in the area. Originally, the fund began at $15 million and has since expanded to over $24 million. Due to it being a revolving loan, capital will be available to purchase and keep sites for up to five years along any current and/or future rails and bus corridors with high frequency. This $24 million dollar investment is estimated to influence over $500 million in local


Page 49

economic development activity, which then enhances many economically challenged neighborhoods in the Metro Denver area. The TOD Fund also assists families who are cost burdened because they are able to accrue wealth, have access to better employment (extended workforce), transit, and educational opportunities. As of April 2013, since its implementation, eight properties have been acquired, 626 affordable homes have been preserved, and 120,000 square feet of commercial space has been developed for community utilization. The community assets acquired range from public libraries, to childcare programs, investments in the arts such as theatre and spaces for nonprofits that are affordable. In that three short years the fund also leveraged $200 thousand of the $500 million proposed from each area of the partnerships (public, private, nonprofit). In addition, more than 700 jobs were created from this TOD Fund at that time. Where: The fund was created in Denver, Colorado and has mainly affected Metro Denver. This is due to the transit corridors in the area and presence of light rails. How: The fund began in 2010 with the city being the largest investor and ULC being the second largest. Its structure consists of four categories: Borrower Equity, Credit Enhancement/Top Loss, Grant/PRI Capital, and Senior Debt (Bank/CDFI). The borrowers provide a minimum of 10% cash equity for every property acquired with the fund. The credit enhancements are public/quasi-public dollars that are used to influence private investments by offering credit enhancement through loan-loss absorption and low returns. The Grant/PRI Capital is money from foundations and/or philanthropic organizations. Moreover, senior debt is a traditional loan from a bank. The fund is set up a loan term of up to five years, with up to a 90% loan to value ratio, limited resources to borrowers. The loans are also interest-only with rates below 4.5%. Who: Several investors were involved, including the Urban Land Conservancy (ULC), Enterprise Community Partners, the City of Denver, the County of Denver, and many others. Partnerships were also created between government, quasi-governmental organizations, banks, nonprofits and foundations. Louisville Link: Louisville has established 9 TOD areas and can take the partnership aspect of the TOD Fund to create a similar arrangement that incorporates affordable housing. The TOD Fund began with funds from both the city and private developers, as well as other non-government organizations like nonprofits. LMHA, Develop Louisville, the Metro Housing Authority and development organizations can partner together to create a fund here that acquires properties and implements affordable housing.

Food Access Best Practice Including food access goals, objectives, and policies in local government’s comprehensive plans.


Page 50

What & Why: Due to the increasing need for cities to address food insecurity planners and advocates can come together to create inclusive and innovative food system policy changes in a city’s comprehensive plan. Involving all community stakeholders in the process creates proper discourse and leads to solutions that promote health, equity, affordability, and sustainability in the food economy. Specific policy recommendations that directly connect food access to city infrastructure, mobility, land, and resources sets specific actions in place to improve access and growth of the local food system. See Appendix K for food access policy examples. Where: The Minnesota Food Charter is a Food Access Planning Guide. The guide helps inform advocates and planners about how to include food access issues in a city’s comprehensive plan and its contents are divided into two sections. Learn, which provides resources and information to help bridge the knowledge gap between planners and food advocates and Act, which provides sample language and food access policy recommendations for various sections of a comprehensive plan including land use, housing, transportation, and economic development. The guide connects all the components in a local food system including food production, farmland preservation, healthy food retail, food aggregation, processing and distribution, and pollinators. When: The Food Charter was officially released to the public on October, 2014. The Minnesota Food Charter Network was launched on November, 2015. How: This statewide initiative was created to be guide for all cities in Minnesota to better address food insecurity. It was joint effort between the Minnesota Department of Health, multiple Food Charter Planning Committees, the University of Minnesota, multiple Minnesota corporations and nonprofits, various state agencies, and thousands of community members. It was funded by a grant from the Centers of Disease and Prevention that was secured by the Minnesota Department of Health’s Statewide Health Improvement Program. Additional financial assistance was provided by the Center for Prevention at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. The Food Charter was developed through a broad based public process that took approximately 20 months to complete. Who: There are three key stakeholders. They include . . .

Food Charter Steering, Drafting, and Launch Strategy Committees

Minnesota Department of Health

University of Minnesota Health Foods, Healthy Lives Institute Louisville Link: Louisville planners and city officials from Advanced Planning, Louisville Forward, and the Office of Sustainability along with community members and food justice


Page 51

advocates should use the Minnesota Food Charter as a guiding food access planning document. The current update of the comprehensive plan is an ideal time for all stakeholders to formalize goals, objectives, and policy recommendations into the plan elements of Cornerstone 2040 along with addressing food accessibility in neighborhood plans. Doing so would create an all-inclusive approach to tackling food access while improving continuity and efficiency by developing shared metrics to measure progress.

Vacant & Abandoned Properties Best Practice Combating Deterioration and Loss of Viable Housing

What & Why: The Trouble Building Initiative (TBI) program was implemented to aggressively address the deterioration and loss of viable housing. The program utilizes targeted enforcement efforts and direct intervention with property owners. TBI is the representation of the combined resources and expertise of eight city departments and the nonprofit, Community Investment Corporation (CIC). This partnership works to ensure that structures are safe as well as help owners obtain financing to rehabilitate problem buildings. Since the program’s launch, TBI partners have evaluated conditions in more than 830 buildings and overseen the rehabilitation of 500 buildings with 9,800 units; purchased and transferred to responsible owners 245 buildings with 3,802 units of affordable rental housing; and acquired 289 condo units, filed condo deconversion orders and transferred 57 buildings with 581 units to new owners. [Statistics as of September 30, 2015.]

Where: The Trouble Building Initiative is a city-wide program that was developed and launched in Chicago, IL.

When: Implementation of this program began in 2003 with a focus on multi-family buildings. Chicago saw such success with TBI that the City decided to expand the program to troubled single-family properties in 2005.

How: The TBI partnership is supported by a combination of federal, City and private resources. Community Development Block Grant funds are used to help defray CIC’s administrative costs and cover expenses needed to gain control of troubled buildings. Each fiscal year, the City of Chicago and the nonprofit Community Investment Corporation (CIC) allocate $1 million in Community Block Grant funds and $1 million in corporate funds to the program. The TBI program uses a variety of methods for save at-risk buildings, including, but not limited to persuading owners to sell their troubled buildings to responsible developers, working directly with tenants and neighbors to identify and correct problems in buildings, and buying delinquent property taxes of troubled buildings.


Page 52

Who: There are 9 organizations involved with the TBI program: Dept. of Housing, Dept. of Buildings, Law Dept., Dept. of Administrative Hearings, Water Dept., Planning Dept., Police Dept., Dept. of Streets and Sanitation

Community Investment Corporation (CIC), a not-for-profit mortgage lender, Louisville Link: One of the program’s most successful strategies is petitioning for receivership of vacant and abandoned buildings. Receivership refers to the process of appointment by a court of a receiver to take custody of the property of a party to a lawsuit pending a final decision on disbursement or an agreement that a receiver control the financial receipts of a person who is deeply in debt (insolvent) for the benefit of creditors. Although, Kentucky’s culture of property rights may not make it feasible to pass as exact ordinance in Louisville, a modified policy could be developed. Currently, the Vacant & Public Properties is exploring a program called “Save this Structure”. Interested parties can buy vacant structure for really low price if they have a plan and the means to rehab it within a reasonable amount of time. Combining these two programs is an example of modifying TBI to Louisville’s culture and helping to decrease the number of vacant and abandoned buildings.

Influence of Foreign-Born Population Best Practices Boston Back Streets Program What & Why: Due to the decline of industrial activity in the City of Boston during its transition to a knowledge-based economy, the City of Boston helped create the Back Streets Program in 2001 to assist Back Street Businesses, defined as small and medium-sized industrial and commercial companies that were fleeing to the cheaper suburbs. This decline in industry was affecting many inner city residents because the jobs lost once provided them with well-paying jobs and immigrants often used those positions to bring their families into better financial situations. The City of Boston’s land that was zoned industrial has decreased every year and as of 2000, only 3% of Boston’s land was zoned for industrial use. The Back Street Office has achieved success retaining these businesses but has also had its share of challenges as the industrial workforce continues to shrink. Where: This takes place in City of Boston, Massachusetts.


Page 53

When: The Boston Back Streets Program was created in 2001 in response to a study by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City and the Boston Consulting Group along with a series of focus groups facilitated by the City of Boston. How: Through a series of focus groups facilitated by the City of Boston, it was determined that Back Street businesses, defined as small and medium-sized industrial and commercial companies, were vital to Boston’s economy. The focus groups resulted in the Back Street Office (BSO). The BSO focuses on four areas: Land and Space, Navigation and Access, Workforce, and Access to Capital to help these businesses thrive so that jobs and residents do not leave for the suburbs. The City agreed to increase their efforts to invest in these corridors. At the launch of the BSO, the City committed $5 million over 5 years to upgrade industrial roadways, sidewalks, lighting and other infrastructure. The BSO provides training for local residents for Back Street employment through English-language and financial literacy courses, and well as hard-skill training that reduces risk for employers and saves operational costs. The City also provided $1 million in funding for the Boston Local Development Corporation that provides small business loans to local businesses. Who: There are five agencies involved. They are: • City of Boston • ICIC (Initiative for a Competitive Inner City) • BCG (Boston Consulting Group) • Boston Local Development Corporation • Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority Louisville Link: With Louisville’s projected increase in foreign-born residents, there will be a continued supply of “Back Street” businesses and jobs that come with them. If Louisville wants to compete to continue to attract immigrants, they must continue to support the “Back Street” businesses that currently call Louisville home, whether that be investing in infrastructure that supports these businesses, providing financial literacy programs for immigrants, or providing access to small business loans. Do Immigrants Present an Untapped Opportunity to Revitalize Neighborhoods? What & Why: Global Detroit, working on behalf of the Welcoming Economies Global Network and the Fiscal Policy Institute, released new research on the importance of immigrants as a source of new homeowners and vacant property acquisition in Detroit and 22 other Rust Belt cities. The purpose of this report is to start a discussion based on the potential that immigrants have in revitalizing communities by purchasing vacant property, increasing the tax base, and opening “Main Street” businesses such as salons,


Page 54

restaurants, and retail shops. Immigrants are an often-overlooked source of neighborhood revitalization. Global Detroit, using Census data, found that “Detroit’s U.S.-born population has continued to shrink over the last five years, decreasing 5.3%, which translates to 35,991 fewer U.S.-born Detroit residents between 2010 and 2014 according to the Census’ ACS one-year average.” The analysis of the Census data showed that immigrants helped offset some population loss in the City. “But Detroit’s immigrant population grew a remarkable 12.7% or 4,362 additional foreign-born residents during the same 2010-14 period.” Influx of immigrants breathes new life into communities through new jobs, lively communities, and cleaner neighborhoods. Often overlooked, some immigrants run into financing issues and lack of financial education that become barriers to purchasing homes or vacant property. These financial issues could make the idea of buying and rehabbing a vacant home intimidating. Access to loans, lacking enough money for a down payment, and not having good or any credit are just some of the potential barriers to homeownership amongst the immigrant population. Where: The model identified twenty-three cities located in the Rust Belt. The cities were chosen due to their efforts to address distressed housing and immigrant integration efforts. Akron, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Des Moines, Detroit, Indianapolis, Lafayette, Manchester, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Rochester, St. Louis, St. Paul, Syracuse, Toledo, Utica, York. When: The report along with the interactive online tool was presented in 2016. How: The report includes a new online tool that enables users to pick any of the twenty-three cities, select the cost of a new or rehabbed home, and determine the number of immigrant households currently renting who could afford the home. The purpose of the tool is to show users how many eligible residents can afford to purchase and rehab vacant properties. Who: There are three principal stakeholders: • Global Detroit • Welcoming Economies Global Network • Fiscal Policy Institute Louisville Link: This model was created using twenty-three Rust Belt Cities with many similarities to Louisville. This model uses the following variables to show how many potential residents are eligible to purchase and rehab vacant properties in their respective cities: number of immigrant households’ currently renting, median household income, and price of vacant property in the area. The Louisville Metro Office of Globalization in partnership with local non-profit immigrant-focused organizations, can


Page 55

develop a multi-lingual marketing campaign targeting immigrants, promoting homeownership opportunities related to vacant and abandoned housing. Displacement Best Practice

Identifying Communities at Risk for Displacement

What & Why: As a strategic response, the Portland Plan made a commitment to better

understand and minimize the effects of gentrification. It provides guidance for the City of

Portland to assess the susceptibility or risk of gentrification for different neighborhoods

and to identify best practices for addressing gentrification and displacement that may be

appropriate for Portland. The study recommends a market-conscious approach to

gentrification by embracing new principles that allow for:

• An inclusive development paradigm with a racial/ethnic equity lens.

• A recognition of how public investments affect the private market.

• Ways to anticipate housing demand and market changes.

• Options for utilizing the public sector to regulate and engage a range of

private development and community actors through financial incentives to

minimize the effects.

Where: Portland is the largest city in the Oregon. The study focuses on the effects on the

housing market, particularly the loss of affordable housing and identify best practices for

addressing displacement that may be appropriate for Portland.

When: Portland's Comprehensive Plan updated its Gentrification and Displacement risk

section in 2013. The primary focus of this portion of the plan is realizing the importance

of ongoing and real time monitoring of housing stock trends. Collaboration between

entities which maintain data pertinent to housing (i.e. property sales, construction

permits, unit vacancies, property tax rates, tax delinquencies, evictions, etc) are

consolidated into a database called Portland Metroscope to inform planners and policy

makers on trends which could lead to displacement of at risk residents.

How: Data are available on the kinds of households served by the current housing stock

with the ability to monitor housing across different types, tenures, sizes, and

prices. Planners can provide demographic projections of household growth, which

predict future needs for housing, while tools like Portland Metroscope provide market


Page 56

segment analysis that can help with considering needs for housing at different income

levels, tenures, and unit types/sizes.

When neighborhoods are targeted for revitalization, the private market responds. The

changes to neighborhood housing markets that lead to the displacement of lower-income

residents is anticipated as increased market activity by higher income households and

consumers is the goal of the development community. The Portland Plan recommends

public sector actors anticipate the speed and intensity with which the private market can

change as private market actors act quickly to respond to new demand. Failing to

anticipate these changes means missing opportunities to prevent the harms of

displacement. It is easier to avoid the harmful effects of these changes than to mitigate

them once they are underway.

Efforts to improve housing conditions in Portland is supplemented by agencies which

have data associated with neighborhood conditions including indicators for whether

gentrification is anticipated, or whether population and market changes show it is already

underway. When neighborhoods are understood to be potential areas of revitalization or

new investment, the plan recommends there should be analysis of the potential impacts

on the housing market.

Louisville Link: Portland and Louisville are similar in population size. Portland has an

urban service boundary similar to the proposed and ongoing “ring of parks system” in

Louisville (which will act as an urban service boundary by contiguously encircling the

county in undevelopable park land). Due to the large undeveloped land area included

within the urban service boundary of Portland and within the proposed Ring of Parks in

Jefferson county, much of the growth occurring is suburban/subdivision style

development. Developers in both cities have the option to focus on these traditional style

developments that offer enticing financial returns and minimal regulation. Alternatively,

they can choose to build in or closer to the urban core, apply adaptive re-use to existing

structures, or raze existing structures to build ones that are more profitable. As rural land

within these two cities is developed, there will be increased pressure for developers to

build where residents currently live and work. The practices outlined in the Portland

Plan could serve Louisville well, particularly the ongoing monitoring of neighborhood

level housing changes and; leveraging the market through financial incentives to make

affordable housing near the urban core more enticing.


Page 57

Cross-Comparison & Analysis of Best Practices

The Philadelphia Land Bank (PLB) case study is essentially a compilation of the different

areas of study within this housing report- affordable housing, food access, vacant and

abandoned properties, foreign-born population and displacement. The best practices

discussed in this report demonstrate how to connect these to housing by highlighting

examples that focus on economic development and neighborhood regeneration through

housing trust funds in Austin, T.X., and improving access to food in the Minnesota Food

Charter, and utilizing immigrant populations as an opportunity to revitalize

neighborhoods in the Rust Belt. The best management practices also demonstrated how

to combat the loss of viable housing through direct intervention in the Trouble Building

Initiative in Chicago and mitigate displacement by creating a database to track real time

housing trends in Portland. In essence, the PLB brings the best practices discussed to

fruition through its comprehensive framework of identification of stakeholders,

cooperation between departments, expansion of affordable housing, focus on vacant

properties, and a commitment to creating an efficient strategic plan.

As illustrated in the connections to comparable urban cities in the “Louisville Link”

section of each best practice, many of these recommendations should be incorporated

into programs or policies already in place. In regards to affordable housing, Louisville

could expand on and stabilize the Affordable Housing Trust Fund by creating a dedicated

source of funding through ongoing public revenue. Louisville can include the

improvement of food access into the current comprehensive plan. This would include

better incorporating food access polices into neighborhood plans by addressing the

specific needs of communities. Utilizing the Learn and Act sections outlined in the

Minnesota Food Charter to directly connect food production, land preservation, and retail

for healthy food to housing development, transportation, and land use. There are goals

currently in place for two variables, vacant and abandoned properties and the foreign-

born population. The related best practices examples and the Philadelphia Land Bank

Strategic Plan serve as guidelines on how to reach those goals. Louisville has various

departments and committees dedicated to the issues discussed, such as Advanced

Planning and Vacant & Public Properties Administration (VPPA), which are part of

Louisville Forward, and the Metropolitan Housing Commission (MHC), to name a few.

Using key stakeholders and various Louisville Metro Agencies, the city can recreate a

database to monitor neighborhood-housing trends to predict populations at risk of


Page 58

displacement by using the Building Blocks Program technology developed by

OpportunitySpace to house the database. Many of these policies and programs have

shared goals and objectives and should work across departments to ensure more effective

and coordinated successful outcomes. Louisville possess other strengths and

opportunities that can be useful for implementation. For example, adding a housing

section to this Comprehensive Plan shows that Louisville is officially placing emphasis on

an issue that has been affecting the city for decades. Funding is also a concern but through

creative planning, cooperation between departments, and applicable policy

implementation, these practices can be realized have a lasting impact on the housing in

Louisville.


Page 59

Affordable Housing & TODs

The U.S. Census Bureau found that housing and transportation are two of the largest

expenses for households with the average family spending approximately 32% of their

income on housing and 19% on transportation (Way 2008). More importantly, extremely

low income households can spend over 50% of their family income on transportation. As

families move to find affordable housing, they end up living further away from their

homes and spending more on transportation. The problem is made worse, because the

cost of housing and transportation are rising faster than incomes nationwide. TODs

(Transit-Oriented Development) offer a great opportunity to connect transportation and

housing. Connecting affordable housing to TODs is an important strategy for combating

displacement of low-income residents who live near these centers of development.

Families who live in transit rich locations still spend 32% of their income on housing, but

transportation cost can be as low as 9% (Way 2008). There are 4 TODs located in Market

Areas that have a Moderate or High Risk of displacement (Move Louisville TOD locations):

Core

Downtown Market area (Downtown CBD TOD)

Northeast core Market Area (Lexington Road TOD)

Inner Ring

Central Taylorsville Market Area (2)

Hurstborne Pkwy @I-64 TOD and Jeffersontown Redevelopment TOD

Cities such as Oakland, St. Louis, and Portland have supported housing developments that

are either mixed-income housing or entirely low-income housing. The cities created an

income threshold (e.g. households that make less than 60-80% of the city’s median

income) and reserved a portion of affordable housing units near TODs.


Page 60

Policy Recommendations

Housing

The previous section discussed how displacement around Transit Oriented Developments

(TODs) could become an issue if community-conscience development practices are not

used and why affordable housing need to be incorporated into TOD plans. When Louisville

Metro begins investing in TODs the research team recommends that they create a (TOD)

fund for the purpose of supporting and maintaining affordable housing units in TOD areas.

Before any TOD project begins there needs to be a dedicated funding source for a TOD

fund established. Louisville Metro should set a base number of affordable housing units to

be created in a TOD according to the level of displacement risk.

In addition to establishing a base number of affordable housing units it is also important

to determine what the demand is for unit size is in Louisville. This way Louisville can

make sure that it is providing housing units that meet the needs of the community -

around TODs and beyond. The research team recommends starting this process by

collaborating with the Louisville Metro Housing Authority. Metro should encourage LMHA

to analyze housing unit size demand among its residents. Surveys and other community

responses methods can be utilized to gather the needed data. It will also be important to

form partnerships between Housing and Community Development, Metropolitan Housing

Coalition, and private owners, property management companies, and/or real estate

developers to gather this information from throughout Jefferson County.

Transit-Oriented Development

Louisville Metro must educate developers and community members about the central ideas

behind TODs and their benefits of it if it is going to become a reality. Metro needs to also establish

hard boundaries, constructed using evidence-based research, to delineate boundaries for TOD

development around Louisville. Once the boundaries are established and there is community buy-

in, the research team recommends using a location-based approach to target specific development

strategies and policies according to the needs of the different TOD areas. Market-based

approaches such as tax incentive should be used to encourage developers to build to suit. The

long-term success of TODs will depend on public-private partnerships. This will allow Metro to

better leverage existing city funds to meet TOD needs. This can help to support creating a TOD

trust fund and create a steady funding stream.


Page 61

Food Access

Many of Louisville’s poorest communities have limited access to fresh, healthy foods. In

order to combat this issue the research team recommends including food access goals,

objectives, and policies into the city’s long range planning. Louisville Metro should use the

Minnesota Food Charter as a food access planning model to implement food access policy

recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan. The local government should work with

key food access stakeholders to develop a shared set of metrics to measure progress and

create consistency. This will include examining ways to better incorporate food access

policy recommendations into neighborhood plans. Food access planning needs to be used

as a lens or essential component when discussing and implementing housing, land use,

transportation, and economic development.


Reducing the vacant and abandoned properties needs to also be part of the discussion of

housing, land use, transportation, and economic development policy. The research team

recommends implementing a program modeled after Chicago’s Trouble Building Initiative

(TBI and which aligns with Kentucky’s laws and statutes. Such a program will allow

Louisville Metro to combat the deterioration and loss of viable housing through targeted

enforcement efforts and direct intervention. The success of the program will rely on two

things: strong partnerships and sufficient funding. Some key partners include Vacant &

Public Properties Administration, Housing & Community Development Department,

County Attorney's Office, Codes & Regulations, Planning & Design, Public Works, Center

for Neighborhoods, Metropolitan Housing Coalition, and the Louisville Urban League.

Partner agencies and organizations will need to agree to contribute to the Affordable

Housing Trust Fund. A set percentage of the trust fund will be used to carry out the

program.

Foreign Born

Investing in Louisville’s immigrant population will be another great way to bring about

neighborhood revitalization. The Welcoming Economies Global Network and the Fiscal

Policy Institute offer program and policy models for determining the number of

immigrants eligible to purchase and rehab vacant & abandoned properties. Louisville

Metro in partnership with local immigrant-focused non-profit organizations such as


Page 62

Kentucky Refugee Ministries, develop a multi-lingual marketing campaign targeting

immigrants, promoting homeownership opportunities related to vacant and abandoned

housing.

Displacement

Studies show that the risk of displacement for the original residents increases in or

around TODs. The research team recommends creating a database of consolidated data

from various Metro agencies that will give policy makers the tools they need to monitor

changes in variables associated with displacement and larger housing stock trends.

Examples of the agencies that could be a part of this displacement data mining are zoning

changes. A complete list of the data needed for the database can be found in Appendix L.

Once the data has been collected risk of displacement reports can be generated to offer

planners and policy makers real time data to analyze and predict trends. The data could

guide policy decisions, encourage/discourage land uses to comply with affordable housing

needs, expand financial incentives in Market Areas at the highest risk for displacement,

and encourage TOD investments to anticipate an increased risk of displacement as

property values are expected to increase where public investment in infrastructure

increases.


Page 63


Page 64

Conclusion

Housing is a vital component of any successful city. Citizens deserve to have affordable housing

options within their neighborhoods and have equal access to amenities. With cities across the

globe making efforts to deliver on this service, Louisville will be competing with the rest of the

world to entice new residents to migrate into the city, and foster economic growth for those

already here. The city has to ensure affordable housing opportunities for all those who choose and

continue to call Louisville home. Housing as a term is broad which affects every aspect of our city

and residents’ lives. This makes it a difficult to encompass all of the many elements that factor into

housing in a single project.

The variables discussed in this report were selected to explore areas of interest that the current

body of research for housing in Louisville did not address, or there was data lacking that explored

and connected these pertinent topic areas directly to housing. This projects’ exploration into

Affordable Housing, Risk of Displacement, Foreign Born Population, Food Access, and Vacant &

Abandoned Properties has revealed a more complete Housing profile for the city of Louisville. Our

research collaboration brought together numerous data sets that show interesting correlations

with one another. For example, the majority of subsidized housing is located in areas with a high

percentage of vacant lots, low food access, and low diversity. The population in the Northeast Core

Market Area was determined to have the highest risk of displacement in Louisville. This highlights

the need to address affordable housing in those communities due to the development of the new

Louisville City FC stadium that could potentially displace residents. This has filled in gaps and

made connections that can inform Louisville Metro as they create policies on housing. This is just

one more report in Louisville’s gallery of housing research. The update of the comprehensive plan

and the new housing element gives Louisville Metro the perfect opportunity to implement many of

the recommendations that are outlined its rich collection of research.


Page 65

References

American Planning Association. (2016, March). Planning for Food Access. Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/research/foodaccess/

Americas Society/Council of the Americas and the Partnership for a New American Economy.(2013). Immigration and The Revival of American Cities: From Preserving Manufacturing Jobs To Strengthening The Housing Market

Assessment of Affordable Housing Needs in Louisville (2012)

Austin Texas Best Practices Guide. 2012. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Capital_Planning/Website/Best_Practices_in_Affordable_Housing.pdf Boston’s Back Streets Brings Economy Back to its Roots. 2015. http://icic.org/bostons-back-streets-brings-economy-back-roots/ Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbit, M. P., Gregory, C. A., & Singh, A. (September 2016). Household Food Security in the United States in 2015.

Develop Louisville Codes & Regulations. Property Reports: Vacant Structures. http://portal.louisvilleky.gov/codesandregs/property-reports/vacantstructures

Do Immigrants Present an Untapped Opportunity to Revitalize Communities? 2016. http://www.weglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/WE_Distressed-Housing-Report_H.pdf Fair Housing Report 2013: Making Louisville Home For Us All: A 20-Year Action Plan for Fair Housing

Genesee County Land Bank Authority. Celebrating the First Ten Years: 2004-2014. http://www.thelandbank.org/downloads/gclb_10th_anniversary_booklet.pdf Good Jobs First. Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs. Good Jobs First. Sarah Grady and Greg Leroy. 2006. http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/makingtheconnection.pdf Greater Louisville Inc., Louisville Metro Government (2015). Global Louisville Action Plan: Welcoming Immigrants for Community and Economic Growth

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Capital_Planning/Website/Best_Practices_in_Affordable_Housing.pdf

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Capital_Planning/Website/Best_Practices_in_Affordable_Housing.pdf

http://icic.org/bostons-back-streets-brings-economy-back-roots/

http://www.thelandbank.org/downloads/gclb_10th_anniversary_booklet.pdf


Page 66

HUD Exchange. Housing Trust Fund (Programs). 2017. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/htf/ HUD. Vacant and Abandoned Properties: Turning Liabilities Into Assets. (2014). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/winter14/highlight1.html Hud.gov.https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/ Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. Adopted in 2012. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/imagine-austin Ingrid Gould Ellen, Davin Reed, Keren Mertens Horn, NYU Furman Center, “Has Falling Crime Invited Gentrification?” October 18, 2018 http://furmancenter.org/research/publication/has-falling-crime-invited-gentrification

Louisville Kentucky Metro Police Department. (2017) Open Data Portal, (https://data.louisvilleky.gov/dataset/crime-data) Accessed February, 2017

Mayor's Healthy Hometown Movement. (2010). State of Food: A Snapshot of Food Access in Louisville. Metropolitan Housing Coalition (2012). “2012 State of Metropolitan Housing Report”. http://www.metropolitanhousing.org/wp=content/uploads/member_docs/SMHR_2012_webMinnesota Food Charter. Food Access Planning Guide. 2014. http://mnfoodcharter.com/.pdf

Minnesota Food Charter Food Access Planning Guide. 2014. http://mnfoodcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FAPG_PlanGuide.pdf Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 11.0 [Database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 2016.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. State and City Funded Rental Housing Programs. 2014. http://nlihc.org/rental-programs/catalog/austin-housing-trust-fund National Vacant Properties Campaign (2005). Vacant Properties: The True Cost to Communities. Center for Community Progress.

One house, one family at a time, immigrants are helping refill Detroit. 2016. http://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/one-house-one-family-time-immigrants-are-helping-refill-detroit Philadelphia Land Bank. Strategic Plan & Performance Report 2017.

https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/htf/

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/imagine-austin

http://mnfoodcharter.com/

http://nlihc.org/rental-programs/catalog/austin-housing-trust-fund


Page 67

http://www.philadelphialandbank.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/philadelphia-land-bank-strategic-plan-february-2017.pdf Quick fact: Philadelphia City. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/HSG030210/4260000 Ruther, M. (2015). Louisville: Immigration Rebirth (Rep.). Kentucky State Data Center.

Schuetz, J., Been, V., & Ellen, I. G. (2008). Neighborhood effects of concentrated mortgage foreclosures. Journal of Housing Economics, 17(4), 306-319.

Trouble Building Initiative. 2015. http://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/Chicago%20IL%20Nom%20Pkt.pdf. Urban and Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental College, Women Organizing Resources and Knowledge (WORKS). (2011). Affordable Housing Residents and Developers may be Significant Contributors to Healthy Food Access.

U.S. Census American Fact Finder, 2010 and 2015 (estimates) data, sets https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Source: USDA Economic Research Service Food Access Research Atlas, 2017, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/documentation/

Vacant & Public Properties Administration. Study of the Jefferson County Landbank Authority (2012). Center for Community Progress.

Way, Heather. (2008). Transit-Oriented Development and Affordable Housing. University of Texas School of Law. Retrieved from http://canatx.org/research_reports/reports/COA_TOD_UT.pdf.

World Health Organization. (2016, March). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/topics/nutrition/en/

Yates, L. (2017). Personal Interview with the Assistant Director of Develop Louisville’s Vacant and Public Properties Administration.

http://www.philadelphialandbank.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/philadelphia-land-bank-strategic-plan-february-2017.pdf

http://www.philadelphialandbank.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/philadelphia-land-bank-strategic-plan-february-2017.pdf

http://www.nlc.org/sites/default/files/Chicago%20IL%20Nom%20Pkt.pdf

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/documentation/

http://canatx.org/research_reports/reports/COA_TOD_UT.pdf

http://www.who.int/topics/nutrition/en/


Page 68

Appendix

Appendix A: Housing Work Group Goals for comprehensive plan update


Page 69

Appendix B: Definitions

Affordable Housing: a broad term which refers to housing that allows a household to pay

no more than 30% of its annual income. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Cost Burdened: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their annual income for

housing and housing-related cost. These households may not have resources left over to

pay for necessaries such as food, transportation, and healthcare. Source: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development

Disposition: This is a term that is derived from the field of accounting which refers to the

disposal of property. When the term is used in reference to vacant and abandoned

properties is means that the property has been put back to productive use. Common

methods for vacant properties to be disposed of is through sale, demolition or lottery.

Source: Yates 2017.

Gentrification: This occurs when a neighborhood has attractive qualities for example,

location or historic architecture—but remains relatively low value. This disconnect

between potential value and current value occur due to historic disinvestment by public

and private sectors. When the area becomes desirable to higher-income households

and/or investors, there are changes in the housing market. As demand rises for the

neighborhood, higher-income households are able to outbid low-income residents for

housing, and new development and economic activity begins to cater to higher-income

tastes. Lower-income households and/or households of color migrate out of the

neighborhood and new residents change the demographics of the

neighborhood. Gentrification is often used to describe the negative consequences of re-

development. Source: Ingrid Gould Ellen et al 2018

Fair Housing: Refers specifically to ending housing discrimination among the federally

and locally protected classes. Source: Making Louisville Home for Us All

Foreign-Born: Anyone who was not a us citizen at birth, including those who have

become us citizens through naturalization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Public Housing: Public housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing

for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Public housing


Page 70

comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single family houses to high rise apartments

for elderly families. There are approximately 1.2 million households living in public

housing units, managed by some 3,300 HAs. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): A federal program that encourages the

production of affordable rental housing. With this program, private investors are offered

the federal tax credits if they develop affordable rental housing units. The state, or local

municipality, then sets the goals and administers the program to suit the neighborhood

where the development will be built. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Low income, low access, share of people at ½ mile: Percentage of tract population that

has low income and lives more than ½ mile from the nearest supermarket, supercenter, or

large grocery store. Low income is defined as annual family income at or below 200

percent of the Federal poverty threshold for family size. Source: U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Risk Assessment: The approach to assessing the susceptibility or risk of gentrification for

different neighborhoods has two levels of analysis. The first level is to anticipate the

potential market changes by focusing on a relatively small set of indicators based on

resident’s vulnerability to displacement, recent demographic changes, and housing

market conditions. These indicators are used to classify neighborhoods into a typology

that represents different stages of gentrification. The second level is a focused equity

analysis to understand the specific change dynamics of a neighborhood that can help

focus a public response. Public agencies can use this assessment approach to better

understand the risk of gentrification in the communities in which they are working. It also

implies a commitment to ongoing monitoring and tracking to understand changing

conditions and emerging at-risk neighborhoods. Source: Ingrid Gould Ellen et al 2018

Section 8: The housing choice voucher program is the federal government's major

program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford

decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The participant is free to choose

any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units

located in subsidized housing projects. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development


Page 71

Vacant and Abandoned Properties (VAP): vacant structures or lots that fit the following

criteria: An Property Maintenance violation is open on the structure or lot; It been

determined by a Code Enforcement Officer to be “vacant” at least one year; and It has been

referred to Metro for abatement action (cleaning, mowing, boarding, demolition). Source:

Develop Louisville Department of Codes & Regulations.

Appendix C: Summary of Market Area Demographics

Market Area Total

Population

White

Population

Non-White

Population

Median

Income

Total Housing

Units

Airport 2,713 66% 34% $31,394 978

Central Bardstown 79,308 70% 30% $53,387 35,104

Central Preston 55,774 72% 28% $42,829 24,289

Central Taylorsville 53,837 82% 18% $61,391 23,169

Downtown 12,097 41% 59% $18,142 5,616

East Core 25,976 92% 8% $65,006 17,656

East Metro 77,346 85% 15% $70,139 35,286

Iroquois Park 16,831 72% 28% $40,529 22,853

Jefferson Forest 13,074 94% 6% $45,643 9,045

McNeely Lake 30,288 86% 14% $61,480 12,244


Page 72

North Floyd's Fork 36,484 77% 23% $111,599 14,275

Northeast Core 15,190 85% 15% $45,453 8,723

Northeast Metro 17,120 92% 8% $113,057 7,259

Northwest Core 33,609 28% 72% $25,224 15,576

Parklands of Floyd's

Fork

13,499 94% 6% $88,929 5,495

Riverport 14,174 75% 25% $40,600 6515

South-Central Dixie 57,021 85% 15% $50,888 23,192

Southeast Core 50,267 93% 7% $58,047 48,644

Southwest Core 34,018 50% 50% $29,902 20,762

University 10,752 67% 33% $26,250 11,576

West Core 30,946 10% 90% $22,326 14,273

Appendix D: Unit Demand Size Survey Questions

1) What is your most requested unit size?

a. In the past year?

b. In the past five years?

2) Do you offer your most requested unit size?

a. If so, what is your vacancy or occupancy rate for those units?

3) To your knowledge, are the occupants of your largest unit size single family or

multigenerational?


Page 73

4) If you could quantify requests for unit size, what percentage of prospects would

you say are interested in the most requested unit size?

5) Are people more interested in the square footage or bedroom size for your

community?

Appendix E: Apartment communities selected in Southwest Core

Auburn Place Town and Garden Homes Patriot Crossing (502) 367-6554 (502) 361-9273 Colonial Oaks Renaissance St. Andrews (502) 363-4603 (502) 935-8077 Douglas Park Apartments Royal Garden Apartments (502) 361-0129 (502) 361-4525 Falcon Crest Apartments Southview Apartments (502) 968-7991 (502) 361-0009 Gables at Stone Ridge Apartments Summerfield Apartments (502) 409-7368 (502) 473-0787 Glen Hollow Apartments Summit Apartments (502) 337-3710 (502) 361-0885 Heritage Green Apartments Victoria Gardens (502) 367-0164 (502) 964-0430 Iroquois Garden Apartments Walnut Grove Apartments (502) 368-7221 (502) 449-2177 Kenwood Arms Washington Park Townhomes (502) 361-5030 (502) 368-4200 Ledgewood Apartments Whispering Hills Apartments (502) 361-4832 (502) 964-2260 Legacy Apartments Whispering Hills Apartments Southeast (502) 366-6900 (502) 964-2022 Meadowoods Apartments Williamsbug Apartments (502) 366-9788 (502) 448-7361


Page 74

Oaks at St. Andrews Woodland Hills Apartments (502) 565-4664 No number listed Overlook Terraces Woodsmill Apartments (502) 409-7345 (502) 968-6049 Park Place (502) 363-1876

Appendix F: List of Displacement Indicators

Crime

To get the Data for crime in Louisville, I downloaded the criminal report from the

Louisville open portal. The report lists all crimes committed in Jefferson county and gives

them an address reflective of the nearest "00" address line on the street the crime

occurred. I also had to single out violent crime (Assault, Robbery, Homicide, Rape, Arson)

using the FBI Uniform Crime Report Classification system. After data clean up, geo-coding

addresses using Matt Ruthers Geo database, I was able to get a 93% match rate for 2010

data and 94% match for 2015 data. Anything above 85% is considered good usable

results. (Original Files from the Louisville Police Department are attached as well as the

cleaned up version I used to for mapping and research).

Cost Burdened Home Owners and Renters

These data sets are available by census tract for 2010 and 2015 and reflect residents in

each tract whom spend more than 30% of their income on housing. These individuals are

the ones most at risk for Displacement, should gentrification occur. These original data

sets by tract from the US census are attached as well as maps showing number of cost

burdened residents in each Market Area).

Income, Education, Race

The residents who are attracted to neighborhoods that are being revitalized or, are

responsible for facilitating the transition of a neighborhood have a particular

demographic profile. The article sites those who are high income, highly educated, and

white are identified as "gentrifiers" and so I used these same variables for my topic. To

define high income, I used census data from 2010 and 2015 to quantify residents by


Page 75

census track making above the median income. For education I used 2010 and 2015

census data to quantify residents by census track having a bachelors degree or higher. For

race, I used 2010 and 2015 census data to quantify the number of white residents by

census track. (Attached are all original files from the Census, cleaned versions used map

each variable by Market Area as well as the maps).

Income- what was the percentage increase or decrease in the number of residents making

above median income in the Market Area?

Education- what was the percentage increase or decrease in number of residents with a

bachelors degree or higher in the Market Area ?

Race- what was the percentage increase or decrease in number of white residents in the

Market Area?

Cost burdened residents- was there a percentage increase or decrease in the number of

Cost burdened home owners and renters in the Market Area?

Crime- was there a percentage increase or decrease in the number of violent crimes in the

Market Area?

Appendix G: West Core Market Area Demographics and Food Access Data by

Census Tract


Page 76

Appendix H: Vacant Property Percentage by Market Area

Market Area Sub-Section Percent Vacant

West Core Core 14.70%

Northwest Core Core 14.10%

University Core 4.50%

Downtown Core 4.80%

Riverport Inner Ring 3.30%

Southwest Core Core 3.30%

Jefferson Forest Outer Ring 2.20%

South-Central Dixie Inner Ring 1.80%

Iroquois Park Inner Ring 1.80%

Central Preston Inner Ring 1.50%

Northeast Core Core 1.10%

Southeast Core Core 0.80%

McNeely Lake Outer Ring 0.80%

Central Bardstown Inner Ring 0.70%

Airport Inner Ring 0.70%

Parklands of Floyd’s Fork Outer Ring 0.30%

Northeast Metro Inner Ring 0.30%

Census Tract 2010 Population

Poverty Rate

Median Family Income

Low Income & Low Access at 1/2 Mile

Low Access & Low Income Share of the Population

21111001000 2,540 43 20,081 1,561 61%

21111001100 3,373 24 43,583 1,675 50%

21111001200 2,811 31 37,500 1,772 63%

21111001400 2,601 36 29,646 885 34%

21111001500 3,072 31 28,792 932 30%

21111001600 2,644 41 27,835 947 36%

21111001700 2,268 32 29,492 1,315 58%

21111001800 1,490 46 25,417 426 29%

21111002700 2,985 55 23,688 2,422 81%

21111002800 1,872 43 24,701 229 12%

21111003500 3,088 70 12,619 2,747 89%


Page 77

East Metro Inner Ring 0.20%

North Floyd’s Fork Outer Ring 0.20%

East Core Core 0.20%

Central Taylorsville Inner Ring 0.10%

Appendix I: Summary of Philadelphia Land Bank Housing Policy


Page 78

Appendix J: List of Louisville Metro Housing Reports

2016 State of Metropolitan Housing Report

CEPM helped produce the State of Metropolitan Housing Report for the Metropolitan Housing Coalition. This year focused on housing for people living with disabilities and our aging population.


This year’s report focused on the Supreme Court’s decision on fair housing and its implications on community members, leaders, and organizations.

Searching for Safe, Fair, and Affordable Housing: Learning from Experiences:

This report was contracted by the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission and was written in collaboration with The Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research at the University of Louisville and the Metropolitan Housing Coalition. Searching for Safe, Fair, and Affordable Housing: Learning from Experiences is an analysis/assessment that consists of a written research-based report derived from two kinds of data: (1) compilation and analysis of existing relevant quantitative findings and (2) focus groups of persons in protected classes on housing choices. Protected classes are defined by race, color, religion, national origin, sex, family status, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Using current local housing data and focus group results, the report formulates the realities (and myths) of housing availability that meets the needs of protected classes within Louisville Metro.

Resource Guide for Recycling on Multifamily Properties

Multifamily recycling programs manifest themselves quite differently than residential recycling programs for single-family properties and similarly have different issues in terms of efficacy and efficiency, such as lower participation rates relative to single-family properties. Multifamily waste represents a fairly small fraction of the waste stream. Despite the perception that they are not being served, recycling service is offered at approximately 82 percent of multifamily developments nationwide. In two-thirds of these areas, all multifamily units are covered. This resource guide and collection of tips will be useful to those initiating new programs or seeking to improve existing efforts. Suggestions are drawn from a sampling of successful programs and associated materials across the country, including Mecklenburg County, NC; Alameda County, CA; Madison, WI; Palo Alto, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and the State of Georgia.


The 2014 State of Metropolitan Housing Report revisits focus topics and recommendations made by Metropolitan Housing Coalition over the past eight years. The 2014 report re-examines five key policy areas: planning and zoning, transportation, utilities, environmental quality, and vacant properties. These are policy issues that intersect to impact the distribution of fair, affordable, and safe housing across our area. By highlighting examples of progress and on-going opportunities for

http://louisville.edu/cepm/mhc-2016

http://louisville.edu/cepm/real-mhc-2015-1

http://louisville.edu/cepm/projects/housing-policy/searching-for-safe-fair-and-affordable-housing

http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/MultifamilyRecyclingTechAssistance20141022.pdf



Page 79

improvement, the reports brings attention to the need for understanding how decisions in one sphere impact outcomes in others.

18th Street Corridor Study Report

In 2011 Louisville Metro Department of Economic Growth and Innovation was awarded an EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant. As part of this grant, the Center for Environmental Policy and Management (CEPM) received a sub-award to assist in the development of an area-wide plan for the 18th Street commercial corridor in Louisville, Kentucky. The goal of the planning process is to identify priority sites for environmental assessment, consider future end-uses for brownfield properties within the commercial corridor, and make recommendations to enhance the corridor's connectivity, mobility, and accessibility within a two-block depth along 18th Street from Broadway to Algonquin Pkwy.


The focal point of the 2013 Metropolitan Housing Report is renters and rental housing, and their demographics. Louisville's Land Development Code is analyzed in the context of equitable housing, given Louisville's need for affordable rental property.

State of Fair and Affordable Housing Report for Lexington-Fayette Urban County, Kentucky

Written for a broad audience to encourage discussion and collaboration around housing issues, this report provides profiles of Lexington-Fayette Urban County's demographics and housing conditions as well as housing indicators.


Through its nine measures of fair and affordable housing, the 2012 State of Metropolitan Housing Report clearly demonstrates Metropolitan Louisville's growing need for safe, fair, and affordable housing. The focus topic of the 2012 report is vacant properties and their impact on the community as well as current efforts and best practices for dealing with vacant properties. The report also drills down into the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, a federal program designed to address the issue of vacant properties, and how it was used in Louisville.

23 Years of Impact: A look back at the Housing Partnership Inc.'s impact on the Louisville community since 1989

November 2012

Claysburg Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (6 MB)

June 2012


The 2011 State of Metropolitan Housing Report examines the links between environmental issues and housing in the Louisville area, including vacant properties and brownfields, access to

http://louisville.edu/cepm/projects/brownfields-and-safe-soil/18th-street-corridor-report

http://www.louisvilleky.gov/economicdevelopment/

http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm

http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm


http://louisville.edu/cepm/state-of-fair-and-affordable-housing-report-for-lexington-fayette-urban-county-kentucky


http://louisville.edu/cepm/23-years-of-impact

http://louisville.edu/cepm/23-years-of-impact

http://louisville.edu/cepm/clay1



Page 80

greenspace, exposure to environmental harms, location efficiency, and energy-efficient public housing.

Schoolyards as Resources for Learning and Communities: A Design Handbook for Kentucky Schools The handbook provides information to aid in the design and development of schoolyards in Kentucky. It describes the schoolyard concept, identifies examples and best practices, and provides an outline for how to conduct a participatory schoolyard redesign process driven by community input. It outlines what issues need to be considered when designing a schoolyard and outdoor learning spaces, describes features often included in schoolyards and outdoor classrooms, and offers strategies for implementing the resulting design, particularly maintenance and sustainability issues, fundraising, and utilization of community resources. The report also raises the environmental questions that need to be considered throughout the various phases of the design and construction process. The handbook was developed and authored in partnership with the University of Louisville's City Solutions Center.


The 2010 State of Metropolitan Housing Report provides a housing policy roadmap for Louisville Metro. The report 1) defines local housing policy topics and related concepts, 2) reviews the research on each concept to determine how effective they are in practice, and 3) provides examples and case studies of these policies in practice, both in Louisville and in other U.S. cities. Ultimately, the report provides an outline for which issues local and state housing policies should address, which policies and strategies have been successful, and the most effective ways to implement these policies and strategies to provide fair and affordable housing for all members of the Louisville community.

Kentucky Wet Growth Handbook

The purpose of this document is to familiarize the reader with the concept of wet growth and tools for dealing with wet growth in community settings. Many Kentuckians have become aware that their growth practices have implications for valuable water resources. As a result, local communities increasingly concern themselves with the impacts of land use on our waters and with identifying policies and practices that are healthy and sustainable when it comes to water quality, water supply, and overall water-based environments. This document is a summary of Kentucky Wet Growth Tools for Sustainable Development: A Handbook on Land Use and Water for Kentucky Communities.

Jeffersonville Housing Inventory Study

The purpose of the Jeffersonville Housing Inventory Study was to provide a complete inventory of residential structures in the historic city center of Jeffersonville, Indiana. An original housing inventory survey was created for the study by the research team in partnership with Jeffersonville city officials to record the location, exterior condition, and other physical and architectural characteristics of each residential structure. The data from the survey process was then used to

http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/kyschoolyardshandbookfinal

http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/kyschoolyardshandbookfinal


http://louisville.edu/landuse/healthy-watersheds-land-use-initiative.html

http://louisville.edu/cepm/jeffersonville-housing-inventory-study


Page 81

create a comprehensive housing database for the city. The property conditions and attributes were then analyzed and mapped to provide the city with a detailed account of housing conditions in historic Jeffersonville.


The 2009 State of Metropolitan Housing Report examines changes over time in the Louisville area on a number of housing indicators, including foreclosures, the production of affordable housing, homelessness, federal funding for housing programs, housing costs, and the location of subsidized housing, among others.

Protecting the Kentuckians' Economic Well-being in the Face of Energy Cost Increases

This study reviews the threats Kentucky faces with the changing energy priorities and policies in the U.S. and around the world. The Commonwealth has taken steps to respond to these changes and though challenges exist, the prospects for Kentuckians can be positive.

Option for Protecting Kentuckians' Economic Well-being in the Face of Energy Cost Increases

This report first summarizes the findings in Protecting the Kentuckians' Economic Well-being in the Face of Energy Cost Increases, then examines the issues and options that faces KY's General Assembly when implementing the recommendations provided.


The 2008 State of Metropolitan Housing Report examines utilities cost and energy efficiency as a component of housing affordability in the Louisville area.

Effects of Public Sector Interventions on Adjacent Land Values: Waterfront Park in Louisville, Kentucky

Using available property valuation authority information, this case study of the economic effects of Waterfront Park’s development on adjacent land in Louisville, Kentucky shows that a significant improvement can be shown on adjacent land values due to public sector interventions. It is also found that these effects are not limited to immediately adjacent properties but extend to off-site properties as well although the change in improvement diminishes with distance to the park amenity.

Rural and Urban Sustainability in Clark County, Indiana

The report examines the agriculture industry, economic development, and land-use practices in Clark County. The study is broken down into six parts: (1) a demographic profile of the people of Clark County to gain a better understanding of population trends and statistics that are directly related to the economy, such as income and jobs; (2) the county’s agricultural industry, including crop and livestock production, revenue and expense, and agri-tourism; (3) an economic analysis and how competitive business and industry in Clark County is when compared to larger regions; (4) a look at what it cost to convert farmland to residential uses, with a focus on utilities, roads, and public services; (5) strategies for farmland preservation which include reusing and


http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/ProtectingKyiansEconWellBeinginFaceofEnergyCost.pdf

http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/OptionsforProtectingKentuckians.pdf

http://louisville.edu/cepm/publications/reports/OptionsforProtectingKentuckians.pdf




http://louisville.edu/cepm/effects-of-public-sector-interventions

http://louisville.edu/cepm/effects-of-public-sector-interventions

http://louisville.edu/cepm/rural-and-urban-sustianable-in-clark-county


Page 82

redeveloping brownfields, as well as examples of policies and programs that have been successfully implemented across the country; and (6) an analysis of Clark County’s current land use. This report was produced at the request of Jeffersonville Main Street.


The 2007 State of Metropolitan Housing Report examines the relationship between housing and transportation in the Louisville region, including transportation access, costs to households, and public funding.

Connecting Smart Growth and Brownfields Redevelopment

This report discusses strategies and tools for the creative development of policies that encourage brownfield redevelopment and smart growth outcomes. These tools are flexible and can be combined in various ways depending upon the needs and desires of a community, and can create a climate in which smart growth principles come to be expected and brownfields redevelopment is supported.


The 2006 State of Metropolitan Housing Report examines planning and zoning in Louisville Metro and how it impacts the development and location of affordable housing.

Louisville Housing Demand Analysis (2015)

On December 18, 2015, Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission released the report Searching for Safe, Fair and Affordable Housing, Learning from Experiences: An Analysis of Housing Challenges in Louisville Metro.

Read more and download the full report

20-Year Action Plan for Fair and Affordable Housing (2014)

A 20-year action plan to improve fair housing, released on February 13, 2014 at the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission’s annual Race and Relations Conference, documents that residential segregation remains a major problem in Louisville and suggests remedies.

Read more and download the full report

Appendix K: Food Access Policy Examples

Example policy recommendation for land use

[Local government] will support development patterns that preserve agricultural land,

and decrease the distance between households and retail food options. Actions suggested

include: Encourage and zone for higher-density or mixed-use housing near transit lines


http://louisville.edu/cepm/connecting-smart-growth-and-brownfields


http://louisville.edu/braden/research/20-year-action-plan


Page 83

and commercial areas, consider minimum density requirements for new residential and

mixed-use projects and other types of development, and adopt policies that support infill

development and redevelopment over greenfield development.

Example policy recommendation for housing

[Local government] will support practices that integrate healthy food in residential

settings. Actions include: integrate community gardens into public housing developments

and create incentives for community gardens in affordable housing developments that

receive public assistance, build and encourage partnerships that work to expand

residential access to healthy food, and use a food system lens when planning housing

developments to inform site layout, landscape design, and residential amenities.

Appendix L: List of Data to Analysis for Displacement Data Base

Creating a database of consolidated data from the following agencies could give policy

makers the tools they need to monitor changes in variables associated with displacement

and larger housing stock trends:

Land sales and Foreclosures- To monitor economic indicators associated with investment

or divestment in the Market Area (Jefferson Circuit Court Commissioner's Office in

Louisville, Kentucky, facilitates property sales and foreclosure property sales throughout

the county).

Zoning changes and Construction Permits – Zoning to monitor potential impacts of

affordable housing resulting from zone change, and Construction Permits to monitor scale

and impact of new investment and future use (Both are currently available on the

Louisville Planning and Zoning web page (https://louisvilleky.gov/city-services/city-

planning-zoning)).

Real Estate Sales- Monitoring home sales and values which can quantify property values

and demand for housing within a Market Area (The Jefferson County Property Value

Assessors office (https://jeffersonpva.ky.gov/property-search/) as well as the Jefferson

County MLS (http://www.semonin.com/Jefferson-County-MLS-listings-KY.aspx) keep

these records

https://louisvilleky.gov/city-services/city-planning-zoning)

https://louisvilleky.gov/city-services/city-planning-zoning)

https://jeffersonpva.ky.gov/property-search/

http://www.semonin.com/Jefferson-County-MLS-listings-KY.aspx


Page 84

Vacancy rates on rental homes and leased spaces – By monitoring vacancy rates of these

unit types, policy makers can predict future housing supply needs for renters, analyze

factors which encourage low/high vacancy rates, and these impacts on displacement risk

for current residents (Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provide information on

housing stock (https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/cmar_louisvilleky-in.pdf);

The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps monthly data on Non-Farm wage and salary

employment percentage changes (https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ky_louisville_msa.htm);

Commercial entities like CBRE provide detailed market analysis including commercial and

industrial vacancy rates (http://www.cbre.us/o/louisville/Pages/market-outlook.aspx)).

Property Tax delinquency and Evictions for Rental/Leased Units – Monitoring changes in

these variables show impacts on Cost Burdened Home Owners and Renters. Property Tax

delinquency would increase as the number of cost burdened home owners increase and;

Evictions from apartments and rental homes would increase as the number of cost

burdened renters increase (The Jefferson County Sheriff’s office keeps a data base on tax

delinquency and evictions which could be used ID fluctuations in cost burdened property

owners (tax delinquencies) and renters (evictions)

(http://www.jcsoky.org/ptax_search.htm)).

Crime Reports- Louisville Metro Police department maintains this data which could be

used an indicator for neighborhood revitalization and displacement risk

(https://data.louisvilleky.gov/dataset/crime-data).

Public Investment and TOD’s- Where public investment occurs there is potential for

dynamic change in that area. Whether it is Transit Oriented Design Investments, Tax

increment finance districts, or broader infrastructure project spending, public investment

allocated for a region should include reviewing existing displacement risk factors and

anticipating potential impact on the area.

Once consolidated, the reports could be generated monthly to offer planners and policy

makers real time data to analyze and predict trends. The data could help guide and shape

policy, encourage/discourage land uses to comply with affordable housing needs,

expanding financial incentives in Market Areas at the highest risk for displacement, and

encourage Transit Oriented Development investments to anticipate an increased risk of

displacement as property values are expected to increase where public investment in

infrastructure increases

https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/cmar_louisvilleky-in.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ky_louisville_msa.htm

http://www.cbre.us/o/louisville/Pages/market-outlook.aspx)

http://www.jcsoky.org/ptax_search.htm)

https://data.louisvilleky.gov/dataset/crime-data

Documents

FA TORS IMPA TING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUKYlouisville.edu/upa/programs/mup/files/Housing_Final_Report2017.pdf · FA TORS IMPA TING HOUSING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUKY APRIL 2017 Mitch