WEIGAND: Let's rethink fixes for urban poverty

Kurt Wiegand
March 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Kurt WiegandSixteen years ago, I was part of a team given the task of estimating the total cost to repair substandard housing in low-income areas on the near-east side of Indianapolis. I worked for a not-for-profit that did housing rehabilitation and we needed to understand the overall magnitude of the problem.

The total estimated cost to repair the roofs, foundations, furnaces, etc., in our target area was overwhelming. The exact figure isn’t important; the point is that there weren’t adequate government programs, grant sources or tax-credit financing to begin to fund the scope of work that was needed.

Why were other neighborhoods not faced with the same vast and unmet need? The obvious answer is private investment. Individual property owners in other neighborhoods paid to maintain their own property.

To be fair, some areas of the city—such as Fall Creek Place, Fountain Square and the Central Canal—have received public money that has provided a catalyst for private investment. Other areas—such as Woodruff Place, Cottage Home, Fletcher Place and Irvington—have revitalized a little less suddenly; however, in every case, where neighborhoods are well-maintained or restored, it’s because of a large amount of private investment by individual homeowners.

The message to neighborhoods couldn’t be clearer: It’s absolutely essential to attract and retain middle-class homeowners with the resources to invest in—and maintain—their own homes, as well as support surrounding businesses.

The message to the city, not-for-profits and community leaders is that providing an environment that encourages middle-class homeownership and investment in the core of the city should be a defining organizing idea.

There are many thoughtful people who are offended by the potential displacement of low-income people from older neighborhoods. However, the reality is that, with few exceptions, in Indianapolis, it simply isn’t on the radar. Census data show the trend over more than four decades has been the dramatic loss of middle-class families from neighborhoods, not the displacement of poor people.

How did we get the idea that it was advantageous to low-income families to be housed in dwellings that need significant and unaffordable repairs? With the needed investment, many of these homes can be real jewels. But without that investment, they are unsafe, difficult to maintain, costly to heat, and have unpredictable expenses.

And the problem isn’t just housing. It’s often not advantageous for low-income families to stay in neighborhoods where poverty is concentrated. Entry- and second-level employment opportunities tend to be in the suburbs, not downtown. With the notable exception of some charter schools and Indianapolis Public Schools magnet programs, the township public schools are probably better. Retail is often nonexistent in poor neighborhoods because income demographics don’t support it. We need only look at the shuttered businesses that litter East Washington Street to see the results.

By now, we have several decades of experience to show that concentrated poverty simply doesn’t work. Unfortunately, when things don’t work, our instincts often lead us to precisely the wrong conclusion—that we need to do the same thing, only more of it. If only we had more housing subsidies, if only the schools had more money, social programs, etc.

It’s said that bankruptcy is nature’s way of telling a business owner he should be doing something else. Likewise, we should make a realistic assessment of parts of the city, recognize that they are unviable, and dramatically change our approach. It’s time to stop focusing low-income programs in urban neighborhoods in Indianapolis, as well-intentioned as they are, and instead coordinate efforts to aggressively compete for middle-class homeowners. The future of the neighborhoods and the city depends on it.•


Wiegand is information technology director for a local company. He previously spent eight years at Eastside Community Investments, a former neighborhood development organization.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.