In the preceding article I highlighted that the
fundamental problem confronting Southbridge schools is the socio-economic
environment provided by the town.
In this article I want to highlight one area that
can contribute to addressing this issue.
There is little doubt that any plan that might be
advanced to deal with our community’s economic plight is going to cost money.
With resources on the verge of dwindling, one can reasonably ask where such
money might come from.
One area that has gone on for years with precious
little attention from the public is in the area of Community Development Block
Grants.
According to the state
website about this program:
President
Gerald Ford signed the Housing and Community Development Act in 1974, giving
state and local leaders around the country a powerful new tool to help
stimulate community development and job growth - the Community Development
Block Grant Program. Forty years later,
CDBG remains the principal source of revenue for localities to use in
identifying solutions to address physical, economic, and social deterioration
in lower-income neighborhoods and communities.
Massachusetts
Community Development Block Grant Program is a federally funded, competitive
grant program designed to help small cities and towns meet a broad range of
community development needs. Assistance is provided to qualifying cities and
towns for housing, community, and economic development projects that assist low
and moderate-income residents, or by revitalizing areas of slum or blight.
Below is a chart that details monies received by
Southbridge through this program between 2007 and 2013:
During this period we received $6,568,873 in CDBG funds.
Of that
amount, only $331,844 has been devoted to economic development programs!
That’s only 5% of the total!
Over the same period $520,871 has been devoted to
Grantee General Administration.
One might say that, well, program restrictions
probably dictated how that money should be spent.
However, with the exception of $578,802 received in
2008, all of these funds came from “noncompetitive, Mini-Entitlement community
awards”.
Rather, the money has gone to a variety of efforts
such as putting signs and awnings on short-lived local businesses, renovation of certain
properties and planning studies that have gathered dust.
In 2014 the town received $900,000 and in 2015 it
garnered $825,000.
In total that's over $8 million in the last nine years. Couldn't that have been used to make a dent in a situation that has left over 60% of our student population as "economically disadvantaged"?
In total that's over $8 million in the last nine years. Couldn't that have been used to make a dent in a situation that has left over 60% of our student population as "economically disadvantaged"?
The first step that I would recommend is a citizens’
committee to evaluate this program and propose activities geared to our
economic development, not mere short-lived civic beautification projects and
report writing exercises that only benefit highly paid consultants.
Here is my "Like" Button
ReplyDeleteThis is good and insightful information on town problems and possible solutions that I hope continues on this page.
This could tie into my point about reducing the oversupply of housing
ReplyDeleteHow does knocking down buildings and dumping them in tne Landfill help our Town, outside the $5.50 a ton for tipping fees?
DeleteYoung businessmen (or women) should be given these properties to fix them up and rent them or turn them into low cost co-ops.
With all the awful publicity about the school system right now, along with litany of lawsuits coming over the leachate leaking landfill, spending good money to remove buildings is not going to uplift our status very much if at all..
Please see my guess post, "The Education Game"
DeleteLimitations on CDBG Funds in cases of Eminent Domain
Delete■ The statute appropriating FY2006 funds for CDBG (Pub. L. 109–115) included an
administrative provision that prohibits the use of FY2006 funds to support any Federal, State,
or local project that seeks to use the power of eminent domain, unless that power is sought for
certain public uses. This provision has been extended in subsequent appropriations.
■ HUD considered this a “self-implementing” provision that did not require regulatory
amendment, but issued a Federal Register Notice on July 17, 2006 to provide guidance to
CDBG administrators.
■ Section 726 of the statute indicated that “public use” shall not be construed to include
economic development that primarily benefits private entities. Therefore, the restriction exists
on the use of CDBG funds for or in connection with applications of eminent domain powers.
■ The statute made the following uses specifically eligible as public uses:
o Mass transit, railroad, airport, seaport, or highway projects;
o Utility projects which benefit or serve the general public (including energy-related,
communication-related, water-related, and waste water-related infrastructure);
o Structures for use by the general public or which have other common-carrier or publicutility
functions that serve the general public and are subject to regulation and oversight by
the government; and
o Projects that involve the removal of an immediate threat to public health and safety or the
removal of brownfields.
■ HUD indicated that the development of LMI housing generally is not considered economic
development within the meaning of Section 726. Therefore, CDBG funds, as well as HUD’s
housing assistance programs, can be used to support projects in which the sole use of eminent
domain is to acquire land exclusively for the development of housing for low- to moderateincome
families.
■ Mixed-use housing developments may raise Section 726 concerns, especially where the
amount of retail or commercial space is more than incidental in relation to the amount of
44
housing. All mixed-used housing developments require careful evaluation, and jurisdictions
should consult with HUD.
■ HUD encourages CDBG grantees to consult with HUD on any project that might involve
eminent domain, which could occur under any of the following eligible activities:
o Acquisition of real property;
o Provision of CDBG assistance to for-profit entities to carry out an economic development
project;
o Provision of assistance to public or private nonprofit entities for activities including
acquisition of real property; and acquisition, construction, or installation of commercial or
industrial real property improvements;
o Relocation payments and assistance; and
o Assistance to community-based development organizations carrying out activities including
community economic development projects.
■ CDBG grantees should also check State law, which may also limit eminent domain.
■ Where a project involves eminent domain and is determined to be subject to this funding
prohibition, grantees may not use CDBG funds to pay for staff time expended on the project.
This will require grantees to carefully allocate time in accordance with OMB Circular A–87.
Block grants are not the only means to reduce the oversupply
DeleteWhat other means are there. Be specific and how would they be paid for.
DeleteTo our readers:
ReplyDeleteSuppose we could begin to redirect these funds toward economic development. What kind of projects would you recommend?
There are nice parcels in Southbridge that could make great housing locations for projects like the elderly apartments off Maria Ave.
ReplyDeleteOn the Cape, section 8 allows for home ownership. If we,had a low income housing with hmeowners, it would change the flavor of lower income living and inspire more community pride, more retail sales, fewer absentee landlords, and hopefully built by qualified local folks that get paid well enough to buy a home here.