Community Revitalization Legislation…

Is Good for the Environment:

• By encouraging the redevelopment of areas that are already urbanized, revitalization legislation reduces development pressure on valuable farmlands and treasured outdoor areas that are often recreational destinations.
• Community revitalization protects wildlife by concentrating development and therefore reducing the habitat destruction that occurs when cities spread out into undeveloped areas. In addition, community revitalization reduces the need for new road construction which will lower the number of wildlife fatalities from collisions with cars and will decrease the habitat loss and fragmentation that occurs when these unnatural barriers are created.
• In the nation’s 100 largest Metropolitan areas, on average only 22% of the people work within 3 miles of the central city; thirty-five percent work more than ten miles away. http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/glaeserjobsprawl.pdf When communities are redeveloped and people and businesses locate in urban areas, commutes are typically shorter and people can often walk, bike, or use transit rather than drive. This reduction in automobile use helps solve a variety of pollution problems:
  • Levels of dangerous regional air contaminants such as ground-level ozone are reduced
  • Non-point water pollution from runoff is decreased
  • Deposits of air pollutants in watersheds are reduced
  • Greenhouse gas emissions are lowered helping to control climate change
  Source: Glaeser, Edward L. and Matthew Kahn. “Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” May 2001. The Brookings Institution: Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy. 13 May 2003 <http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/glaeserjobsprawl.pdf>.
• By recycling unused buildings and redeveloping urban neighborhoods, natural resources that would have otherwise been used to build new developments can be preserved. Residential construction accounts for 40% of softwood lumber consumed in the United States annually according to the American Forest and Paper Association. Renovating existing buildings instead of building new homes can help reduce logging and protect forests.

Is Good for the Economy:

• By creating dense, prosperous, and safe neighborhoods in areas that are already urbanized, community revitalization reduces local fiscal burdens. The areas that revitalization efforts redevelop are typically already receiving city services. Conversely, when new subdivisions are built on previously undeveloped land, tax dollars need to be spent on providing infrastructure and services such as:
  • Trash Collection
  • Water and sewer
  • New roads
  • Fire and police protection
• Researchers at Rutgers University found that it would be possible for New Jersey to save $2.32 billion over 20 years (2000-2020) if the state did not build transportation and water infrastructure as their sprawling development trends required.

Is Good for Society:

• Community revitalization helps prevent crime by bringing more upstanding citizens into older neighborhoods and fostering a sense of community and a greater intolerance of crime. In addition, creating economic opportunity and improving schools and infrastructure also helps prevent crime.
• By improving blighted urban neighborhoods and encouraging businesses to invest in them, job opportunities are created and widespread poverty and unemployment can be alleviated.
• Community revitalization efforts often include incentives for developers to build affordable housing for low income residents. The new affordable housing units that are constructed as part of revitalization efforts are typically more safe and comfortable than other low-income housing options.
• Community revitalization often provides housing for a variety of income levels in the same neighborhood and therefore helps reduce our current high level of economic geographic segregation. Based on 2000 census, the poverty rate in central cities was 18.4% and the poverty rate in suburbs is/was 8.3%.
  Source: Berube, Alan and William H. Frey. “A Decade of Mixed Blessings: Urban and Suburban Poverty in Census 2000.” August 2002. The Brookings Institution: Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy. 13 May 2003 <http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/berubefreypoverty.pdf>.
• Nationwide, more than 13 million families have critical housing problem characterized by using more than half of their income on housing or living in severely inadequate conditions.
  Source: Barbara Lipman, et al. “Paycheck to Paycheck: Working Families and the Cost of Housing in America.” The Center for Housing Policy. June 2001.