1. Prioritizing Regions for Investment: Achieving Equitable TOD Allison Brooks September 29, 2010 TOD Working Group

2. Quick Recap of Previous Findings Factors Previously Evaluated: –Transit Planning –Federal Political Significance –HSR Planned Investments –Economic, Ethnic, Geographic Diversity –Forward Momentum, “Champions”

3. Recap of Previous Findings List Narrowed to 23 Regions, 4 HSR Corridors Directed to Complete Further Analysis of Development-Related Issues –Land Use Policies –Housing Policies –Financing Mechanisms

4. Direction from Last Meeting Explore “D” in TOD Expand list to 27 regions: –More southwest cities (Albuquerque, San Diego, Dallas) –Split out Baltimore / Washington D.C. Clarify role of foundations

5. Data Collection Methodology Affordable Housing Policies/Tools Land Use Finance Linking Equity to Land Use / Transportation

6. Affordable Housing Inclusionary Zoning State/Regional/Local Funding Sources State Requirements for Housing Elements (and effectiveness) Understanding of Need to Link Transit and Equity Goals Presence of Housing Advocates

7. Land Use Requirement for or Presence of Regional Blueprint Use or Presence of Station Area or District Planning Mechanisms Effectiveness of Planning at: –Implementation –Financing –Community Outreach Integration of Housing, Transportation Goals or Strategies in Planning

8. Finance Existing or Emerging Finance Tools for Infill, Housing Presence & Activity of CDFI Community Successful Development Examples / Developers Understanding by Public Agencies of: –Infill –Affordable Housing –Infrastructure Finance Challenges

9. Linking Equity / Land Use / Transportation HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Applications Review (where possible) Community Benefits Agreements, other Transportation Equity Activity Inventory & Interviews with Advocates, Coalitions

10. Whoa… Great information, but hard to use to narrow list/define role Having a policy does not necessarily make it effective Does “having the most policies” mean you win?

11. What does this information tell us? Challenging to use it to limit number of regions: –Want to continue to define success differently –Different regions have different needs/priorities Want to understand what investments are needed, who to fund, and when funding needs to happen

12. Additional Research Completed Review of HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Applications Interviews with 2 to 3 local practitioners: –Advocacy –Public Agencies –Development

13. WHAT WE HEARD: WHAT INTERVENTIONS ARE NEEDED?

14. Capacity Building Planning/Visioning Policy Implementation An Evolutionary Process Equitable TOD

15. Education & Framing of Issues Capacity Building Planning/Visioning What Interventions Are Needed? Cultivating Local Champions Establishing Collaborative Processes

16. Capacity Building: Examples Framing the issues – build arguments that resonate: Economic Competitiveness (Tampa, Pittsburgh) Public Health (Oklahoma City, Seattle) “Quality of Life” vs. “Sustainability” (Houston)

17. Needs Assessment/ Data Collection & Analysis Planning/Visioning Policy Cultivating Regionalism Technical Assistance with Planning Tools What Interventions Are Needed?

18. Planning & Visioning: Examples Many regions do not know exactly what they need, or need so much they are overwhelmed Genuine interest and capacity but lack of technical understanding Vision exists, implementation is harder

19. Changes to State Policy Policy Implementation MPO Reform Bolstering supportive land use policy at local scale What Interventions Are Needed?

20. State Policy: Examples Continuum of supportive state policy: SupportiveLess Supportive California (SB375) Colorado Maryland Arizona MassachusettsTexas Utah Changing policy is complex and involved

21. Regional Policy: Examples MPO reform is much needed, but politically charged: Geography doesn’t always make sense Decision-making authority is inconsistent When reform has been discussed, MPO’s and COG’s have been heavily resistant

22. Local Land Use Policy: Examples Policies need to be evaluated in a larger context –Inclusionary Zoning –TIF Need collaboration not competition Success relies on support of: –Developers –Elected/appointed officials –Practitioners

23. Introduce development comparables to push density Implementation Equitable TOD Technical assistance to make better use of finance tools, develop new ones Strategic planning to focus existing resources What Interventions Are Needed?

24. Implementation: Examples Financial assistance is not just about creating innovative tools Some regions need to “walk before they run” –Focus resources in a better way –Add affordable housing set aside to TIF (Milwaukee, Chicago) –Evaluate effectiveness of policies, tools (PA)

25. What Interventions are Needed? Process is not entirely linear, but there is some order to these steps Within a region some places are more sophisticated than others

26. Capacity Building Planning/Visioning Policy Implementation Equitable TOD Interventions Need to Measure Performance Coordination of funding tools, denser development Changes to critical policies, removal of barriers Successful station area planning Creation of partnerships, coalitions

27. WHAT WE HEARD: WHO ARE THE RIGHT ACTORS?

28. Looking for key actors to provide “traction points” Advocates Public agencies (city, regional, state) Affordable housing developers Local funders

29. Different actors have different weight External forces: federal partners, investors Actors who may come or go: elected officials, coalitions, developers Actors with an enduring presence: local foundations, community-based organizations, banks

30. Leveraging local partners Opportunities to bring local funding partners to the table in “emerging” regions like Houston, St. Louis Connecting with Public Health community is key in many regions, and can also generate interest from new funding partners Promoting collaboration and pooling of resources to advance causes further (i.e. HUD Sustainable Communities grants, Regional Equity networks, etc.)

31. “There are champions everywhere” Even some of our less known regions have emerging actors with interest in transit, compact development, equity: –St. Louis –Oklahoma City –Houston

32. WHAT WE HEARD: WHEN SHOULD PLACES BE FUNDED?

33. Need a catalyst to advance the agenda: New powerful actors (mayors, other champions whose presence might be fleeting) Major policy change or federal funding Crises: transit service cuts, housing market fluctuation Transit construction

34. “Traction Point” Catalytic Issue Champion who is Ready to Act

35. Capacity Building Planning/Visioning Policy Implementation Equitable TOD “Traction Point” Can Come At Any Stage Acts as a “trigger” to speed up the pace of evolution toward the end goal

36. Places with a catalytic issue/event may have more traction HUD grant recipients New transit lines that are generating interest Mayor with transit/TOD as agenda Regional summaries identify some of these catalytic issues

37. Conclusion There is an evolution toward equitable TOD Studied regions at various stages of evolution Pace of evolution varies among regions “Traction point” is the key catalyst

38. Conclusion Regions need help to move along the continuum Technical Assistance Policy tools Financing ideas Foundations can identify “traction points” to help regions advance to the next stage of evolution toward equitable TOD

39. QUESTIONS?