city of new orleans - nolanrp.comnolanrp.com/data/neighborhood/nola_nrp_summary.pdf · city of new...

City of New OrleansNeighborhoods

Rebuilding PlanSUMMARY

SUMMARY OCTOBER . 2006

Table of Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Context 4

C. Boundaries of Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plan 6

D. Why Focus on Flooded Neighborhoods? 7

E. Neighborhoods & Planning Teams 8

F. Guiding Assumptions, Predicated Upon Policies & PlanningMethodology 10

G. Consultants Engaging the Community and Community Engaging the Consultants 12

H. Implementation Initiatives 14

Appendix: Summary of Matrices 30

Neighborhood Plan ReportsVolumes 1, 2 and 3

Resident Survey by Dr. Silas Lee

City Planning Commission:Planning District Designations

2

Project Directory

City of New Orleans

C. Ray Nagin, Mayor

New Orleans City Council

Oliver M. Thomas, PresidentArnie Fielkow, Vice-President Shelley Midura, District A Stacy S. Head, District BJames Carter, District C Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, District D Cynthia Willard-Lewis, District E

Project Management

Lambert Advisory, LLC SHEDO, LLC

Overall Planning Consultant

Bermello-Ajamil & Partners, Inc.Hewitt-Washington, Inc.

Neighborhood Planning Consultants:

District 2Byron J. Stewart & Associates

District 3Billes Architecture

District 4Clifton James & AssociatesZyscovich, Inc.

District 5Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc.

District 6Hewitt - Washington Architects

District 7St. Martin Brown & Associates, LLP

District 8Stull and Lee Architects

District 9, 10 and 11St. Martin Brown & Associates, LLP

Graphic Design & RenderingsWallace + Perdomo, Inc.

Volume 1 of 3

Planning District 2Central City Milan

Planning District 3 Audubon/ UniversityFreretHollygrove / DixonLeonidas / West CarrolltonMarlyville / Fountainebleau

Planning District 4 FairgroundsFaubourg St. JohnGert TownMid-CitySt. BernardTreme / 6th WardTulane / Gravier7th Ward

Volume 3 of 3

Planning District 7Desire AreaFlorida AreaSt. ClaudeSt. Roch

Planning District 8Holy CrossLower 9th Ward

Planning District 9Edgelake / Little WoodsPines VillagePlum OrchardRead Blvd EastRead Blvd WestWest Lake Forest

Planning District 10Village de l’Est

Planning District 11Viavant / Venetian Isles

Volume 2 of 3

Planning District 5City Park / ParkviewCountry Club GardensLakeshoreLakeviewLake WoodLake Vista

Planning District 6DillardFilmoreGentilly TerraceLake Terrace / Lake OaksMilneburgPontillySt. Anthony

Neighborhood Plan Reports

City of New Orleans Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plan

Approximately 100 days afterHurricane Katrina struck, MotionM-05-592 was introduced byCouncilmember Willard-Lewis andunanimously passed by the CityCouncil of New Orleans. TheMotion ensured that community-based neighborhood-by-neighborhood planning for floodedareas of the City would be centralto decisions associated with therecovery of the most devastatedareas of New Orleans. The Councilwas adamant that the familiesmost impacted by the storm wouldplay a central role in defining thefuture of their communities.

In late March of 2006, the City ofNew Orleans (City) contracted witha team of consultants to assistthose neighborhoods flooded byHurricane Katrina developneighborhood level revitalizationplans. These carefully preparedrevitalization plans can be formedinto a citywide recovery andimprovement plan for submissionto the State of Louisiana andfederal government.

Specifically, the consultants wereengaged to assist residentsproduce neighborhood-by-neighborhood recovery plans forup to forty-nine (49) City PlanningCommission designatedneighborhoods that sustainedflooding in excess of two feet ofwater.

This product of the NeighborhoodsRebuilding Planning process thatran from contract executionthrough late-September includes:

• A summary report• A series of 42 narrativeneighborhood plans (covering allneighborhoods except one thatchose to plan without the help ofthe City Council and a secondconsisting entirely of a HousingAuthority of New Orleans propertywhich is scheduled for demolition)• A report associated with aresident survey completed as partof the planning process• A plan book with summaryimages/maps for each of theneighborhoods as well asfunding/project prioritizationmatrices.

3

A. Introduction

Beyond the Introduction, thissummary is divided into sevenadditional sections.

B. Context

Provides the contextualbackground for the planning effortand neighborhood plans

C. Boundaries of

Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plan

Details what the planning processincluded and excluded in terms ofscope

D. Why the Focus on Flooded

Neighborhoods?

Explains the rationale for focusingplanning on the 49 floodedneighborhoods in the City

E. Neighborhoods & Planning

Teams

Outlines the neighborhoods thatwere included in the plan and theteam structure/assignments

F. Guiding Assumptions,

Predicated Upon Policies &

Planning Methodology

Details those assumptions andpolicies that were used as thefoundation upon which theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Planshave been built, and the planningmethodology and process

G. Consultants Engaging the

Community and Community

Engaging the Consultants

Details the extensive and uniquecommunity involvement processundertaken in the development ofthis plan

H. Implementation Initiatives

Outlines the housing, economicdevelopment, land use, andimplementation managementrecommendations developed aspart of the plan.

SUMMARY

4

B. Context

The plans highlight the mostpressing recovery needs at thelevel of each individualneighborhood and acrossneighborhood boundaries in theflooded areas. Specific recoveryprojects are detailed and estimatesare given for the investmentrequired to sustain a robustrecovery.

Given the commonality ofneighborhood needs, the 42 plansaddress many of the samesignificant recovery issues.

Not entirely surprisingly, recoverygoals/expectations of almost allneighborhoods are, in large part,quite similar…no matter how rich or poor, flooded or dry. The primarylong-term objective for mostneighborhood residents who livedin New Orleans prior to the storm isto bring the neighborhood back tothe point where it was on August27th, 2005, the last complete daybefore a mandatory evacuation wasordered. Neighborhoods want torebuild the housing stock, restorestreets and other infrastructure,

reopen schools, and see theneighborhood supermarket andpharmacy reopen. In addition, most of the plansarticulate a second goal: to seekimprovements that, from theperspective of residents, enhanceneighborhoods beyond where theywere in August 2005, and areunique to the specificneighborhood.

New Orleans has always been acity of dichotomies. Despite thehigh rates of poverty, poorperforming schools, crumbling largepublic housing developments thatlimited investment surroundingthem, and having one of thenation’s highest rates of violentcrime before Hurricane Katrinastruck; 81 percent of residents inthe survey conducted as part ofthis plan said they were generallysatisfied with their neighborhoodand quality of life prior to Katrina.

Given the scale of displacementand the abnormal tearing apart oflives, some of those opinions areprobably attributed to a certain

degree of nostalgia. However, theclose-knit nature of New Orleans(when compared to other largeAmerican cities), the fabric of theneighborhoods, and the naturalattachment to home and all that itrepresents leads one to believe thatthis opinion would not have beenterribly different if asked prior to thestorm.

Moreover, what came up repeatedlyin many lower income communitieswas a palatable fear that the word“improvement” was a euphemismfor “displacement” or“gentrification.” Some of this fear isthe result of earlier post-Katrinaredevelopment proposals thatwanted to examine the wholesaleredevelopment of neighborhoods inthe city from the ground up. A goodportion of the rest of the concerncame from past experiences.

Improvements in areas such as theLower Garden District, IrishChannel, Treme, Bywater, etc. overthe last several years has resultedin higher income families movinginto homes that for decades, if not

generations, were occupied byworking class and lower incomeresidents.

One of the great challenges withregard to implementing the plansdeveloped as part of theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Planprocess is the establishment ofpolicies to ensure that measures ofsuccess include maintainingreasonably priced housing stock,while concurrently improving thosebasic services in terms ofinfrastructure, schools, and crimeprevention that are so important tothe future health of the community.

This summary provides a number ofhousing policies aimed at ensuringredevelopment occurs in a way thatdoes not displace large numbers ofresidents. However, effectivelyaddressing the persistent issuesthat faced the city in terms ofeducation, economic development,poverty, and crime prior toHurricane Katrina will substantiallydetermine how far the City of NewOrleans improves over the nextdecade.


5

The successful implementation ofthe neighborhood and citywideplanning effort will be measuredagainst two yardsticks. The first willexamine how well and how quicklythe middle income and moreaffluent communities of the Cityrealize a return of population andproperty values to a level thatexisted, or beyond the level thatexisted, prior to Katrina. This willrequire the investment in the basicinfrastructure improvements andsome housing / economicdevelopment policies outlined inthe neighborhood plans. Given thatcommerce drives the city and is theunderlying force in the community,this effort is also dependent uponthe return of the major pre-stormemployers to the City.

The second yardstick will measurehow well Gert Town, Mid-City, theLower Ninth Ward, St. Roch, andother low-income neighborhoodsthroughout the City recover inrelation to where they were prior toKatrina. If the storm did nothingelse, it demolished any illusion thatthere aren’t neighborhoods in cities

like New Orleans; where poverty isso persistent and severe thatpeople are forced to choosebetween a home and food, or foodand basic health care. Of the 47neighborhoods for which planswere developed, thirteen (13) arecommunities where more than 50%of children under the age of five

lived in poverty(1). For eleven (11)neighborhoods, more than twothirds of children lived below thepoverty line. The second yardstickwill measure how well the residentsof these neighborhoods are able toachieve a significantly improvedquality-of-life and stability as aresult of the broad scaleredevelopment in the City over thenext period. The plans for each ofthe low-income neighborhoods tryto detail the needs and establishthe foundation for necessaryincremental improvements to occur.

The level of communityinvolvement in planning for thefuture of the City of New Orleanswas nothing short of extraordinary.Over 7,500 residents participatedin nearly 100 published meetings,

and countless others participatedin hundreds of additional groupmeetings of a smaller scale. Thepositive tone and hopefulness thatis the underlying consistent themeof the plans developed as part ofthis process is a voicing of thedetermination and grit of NewOrleanians to rebuild their City.

Although the physicalimprovements outlined in theseplans are probably not enough inand of themselves to ensure therevitalization of one of America’sgreat cities…they’re a good start.

(1) Households with less than $17,603 fora family of four (2000 dollars) in totalannual income.

SUMMARY

6

There are a series of city planningand assessment efforts necessaryto obtain a complete picture of thescale and cost associated withrebuilding the City of New Orleans.

The Neighborhoods RebuildingPlan addresses redevelopmentneeds at the neighborhood leveland planning-district level for thoseneighborhoods that were floodedby Hurricane Katrina. The plansprovide an assessment of what isrequired to return neighborhoods tothe state that existed prior toHurricane Katrina or to a level ofrevitalization beyond where thecommunity was prior to HurricaneKatrina. This enhancedrevitalization goal is particularlytrue for those neighborhoods with ahigh degree of blight, publicfacilities in poor condition, andgenerally where population andhousing values were decreasing ata slow but steady pace over thepast several decades.

Not addressed in theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Plan,but required for the functional

restoration of the flooded areas ofthe City are:

• Flood protection and floodmitigation planning beingaddressed by the federalgovernment.

• Industry-specific recoverystrategies associated with themajor private employment andservice categories in OrleansParish, such as; health care,hospitality, retail and restaurants.These industries have broadlystruggled since the storm due,partially, to a lack of employees,but also because of the shift inmarkets. They are so central to theParish economy that they deservetheir own recovery plan at the Cityas opposed to regional level.

• The reconstruction needs ofthe utility systems including water,sewer, electricity,telecommunications, and cabletelevision.

• Large scale transit or airportimprovements, to the extent that

C. Boundaries of Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plan

these improvements were directlynoted by individual neighborhoods.

• Although the NeighborhoodsRebuilding Plan addressesindividual school issues at theneighborhood level, there is nodetailed overall schoolredevelopment/revitalization planthat addresses the phasing,relocation, funding, and schoolstandard issues provided as part ofthese reports.

• A plan for the reconstructionof the major public housingproperties, including residentrelocation and accommodationissues.

• Detailed analysis ofeconomic development project gapfunding needs. Although theNeighborhood Rebuilding Planhighlights where there may beprime opportunities for public /private partnerships associatedwith the redevelopment of the City,the plan does not provide anestimate of the cost to the publicsector for these projects. The plan

only refers these projects forfurther study.

• While the plans do addressland regulating and zoning to someextent in specific cases, the plansare not a comprehensive land useplan or zoning policy statement inany sense.

Overall, the NeighborhoodsRebuilding Plan provides the basisfor directing much of the fundingfrom the state and federal fundingagencies, however, the plan wasbounded by constraints of scope,time, and objective.


7

D. Why Focus on FloodedNeighborhoods?

One of the most persistentquestions that the planning teamswere asked was “Why did theplanning effort exclusively focus onthe flooded neighborhoods ratherthan the entire City of NewOrleans?”

The answer is in two parts:

1. As early as October 2005,the Urban Land Institute and somemembers of Congress wereadvocating the establishment ofpolicies to ensure that large areasin the flooded sections of the Citynot be rebuilt. The City Councilmade a decision to focus theplanning effort on the floodedneighborhoods first-and-foremost inorder to provide residents of theflooded neighborhoods a processthat would allow them to formallyvoice and define what wouldbecome of their communities;

2. The federal legislationauthorizing the CommunityDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG)funds at the center of revitalizationfunding specifically attests that the

funds are to be used in areas of“concentrated distress” where amajority of homes had major orsevere damage from the storm.This level of distress is almostexclusively found in the floodedneighborhoods.

While those neighborhoods thatsustained little or no flooding haveclearly been impacted by HurricaneKatrina, most of the challenges ofthe non-flooded neighborhoods(once weekly trash service,diminishment of transit service, jobloss due to the shrinking of theworkforce and economy) can bemitigated to a large extent by thereturn of population and commerceto the flooded areas of the City.

For all of the above stated reasons,the focus on the floodedneighborhoods is the most practicaland directed method of ensuringthat the City as a whole recovers.

SUMMARY

8

E. Neighborhoods and Planning Teams

I. The Neighborhoods

The following map details the 49neighborhoods that were originallyincluded as part of theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Plan.This represents more than two-thirds of the total neighborhoodsand population delineated by theCity Planning Commission andalmost 90 percent of the land massof the City. As previouslydiscussed, 42 plans have beenproduced covering 47neighborhoods.

The neighborhoods were brokendown into seven groupings andeach grouping was assigned aplanning team. With the exceptionof Planning District 4, which wassplit between two consultants,neighborhoods in the same districtwere assigned to the sameconsultant. This made coordinationof meetings and multi-districtplanning initiatives as seamless aspossible. Map:

City Planning Commission: Planning District Designations


9

II. The Consultant Team

At its core, the consultant team wasmade up of seven firms that servedas the neighborhood planners andwere each assigned a number ofthe 49 neighborhoods. Of theseven, four were based in NewOrleans and three firms fromoutside the City (Boston andMiami).

Day-to-day urban design of theeffort was directed by a two-firmteam made up of one local firm(Hewitt & Washington) and Miami-based Bermello Ajamil & Partners,Inc., who had overseen the multi-neighborhood planning effort insouth Miami-Dade County afterHurricane Andrew.

Also on the team were GCR andAssociates, a New Orleans baseddata management/analysis firm that provided the backup supportfor demographic and other relevantdata for all of the planning firms.Dr. Silas Lee & Associates, theleading pollster and consumersurvey firm in New Orleans,

conducted a random sample surveyof New Orleans residents regardingtheir experiences pre- and post-Katrina, and their expectations as itrelated to their personal lives andrecovery overall.

Overall project management andcoordination functions were sharedby SHEDO and Lambert Advisory ofNew Orleans and Miamirespectively.

The team was chosen for its broadexperience in and knowledge ofNew Orleans neighborhoods (allbut one of the firms had long-termexperience working in variousneighborhoods of the City), itsability to connect and build trustand rapport with residents and, inthe case of two of the firmsexperience in post disasterplanning and implementation.

SUMMARY

10

F. Guiding Assumptions, Predicated Upon Policies and Planning Methodology

I. Guiding Assumptions and

Predicated Upon Policies

The Neighborhoods RebuildingPlans are predicated upon two setsof assumptions. The first set wasgenerally understood or committedto by the time the planning effortbegan, and includes the following:

• With the commitment ofFederal Government, a floodprotection system would bedesigned to withstand futurecatastrophic loss from a 1 in 100year storm• Implementation of stringentbuilding codes to further limit futurewind damage• The underlying street gridand urban structure of the citywhile rebuilding would generally berespected• Establishing an organized,coherent, and operable HurricaneEvacuation Program that provides ahigh degree of confidence toresidents and businesses that theloss of life sustained as a result ofHurricane Katrina will not reoccur.

Given that the NeighborhoodsRebuilding planning effort began ata time where there were significantunknowns, the plan was alsopredicated upon a second group ofassumptions about yet-to-bepromulgated policies. Many ofthese early assumptions havebecome actual policies and,therefore, the 42 plans are wellgrounded in the reality of the policyand market framework that nowexists. Indeed, it is the policy andmarket framework established byFederal and State policy decisions,more than anything included withinthe 42 plans that defines how theCity of New Orleans will be rebuiltover the next decade. The secondset of assumptions included thefollowing:

• That there would be acommitment on behalf of theNational Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) to re-insure flooded areasconsistent with common pastpractice with regard to areasprotected by levees based upon thelevees holding in a 1 in 100 yearstorm

• That the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) is on anaggressive path to repair andimprove the flood control systemand those benchmarks will be metso that there is market andcommunity confidence that theflood protection system willwithstand the impact of anotherKatrina level storm by the end of2007 and broader protection by theend of 2010• That New Orleans’ 1984Base Flood Elevation Map wouldnot significantly be changed byFEMA’s Recovery GuidanceAdvisory Base Flood Elevation(ABFE) of April 12, 2006• That the release of housingassistance funds by LouisianaRecovery Authority (LRA) would notestablish reconstruction standardsthat were more stringent than thoserequired by FEMA. For example,including provisions in the RoadHome Program that would requirehomeowners to rebuild to the ABFEstandards even if the home wasless than 50 percent damaged• That the LRA’s housingassistance program would

encourage reconstruction ofdamaged homes and newresidential construction for bothowner and renter occupied housingin Orleans Parish whilediscouraging residents fromtransferring home equity outside ofthe area• That the City would adopt theAdvisory Base Flood Elevationsthat would allow homeowners toaccess the Increased Cost ofCompliance assistance providedthrough the NFIP• That the City and/or Statewould codify additional housingrecovery initiatives to further assistin recovery of residential areasincluding:

• Lot Next Door programdescribed later in this document;

• Targeted ElderlyHousing Road Home Initiative

• The earmark futureprogram income for revitalization ofpre-storm community developmentcommunities• That adequate funding wouldexist through the CDBG and othernon – housing targeted funds toaddress infrastructure, public


11

facility repairs, and other publicrealm improvements.

II. Planning Methodology

The 42 plans produced by theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Planningeffort are in a form generallyconsistent with the requirements ofthe City of New Orleans PlanningCommission’s June, 2006Neighborhood Planning Guide.

Although this guide was issuedseveral months after the consultantcontract and scope of work werefinalized, the planning teambelieved it important that all plansdeveloped by or on behalf ofneighborhoods be provided in acommon format. The teamtherefore adopted the PlanningGuide for the structure upon whichthe 42 Neighborhoods RebuildingPlans would be submitted.However, although the consultantsfollowed the guide as it related toformat of the plans, the initialscope of work included in thecontract with the City of NewOrleans continued to March 30,

2006 provided the framework forthe overall effort. The methodologyand planning process included thefollowing elements:

• Initial Scoping Meeting andAssessment of Existing Conditions –The consultant teams gathered allinformation accessible and availableat the beginning of the planning effortincluding condition assessments,demographic information, data onflood levels and impacts, etc,distributed this information to theteam, held meetings with thecommunity to review, assess theinformation, and use the informationas a guide in the development ofplan options;

• Concept Plan DevelopmentOptions – Based upon the datacollected in the assessment phaseand community input regardingexisting hurdles to redevelopmentsince the storm and conditions thatexisted prior to the storm, that maderedevelopment problematic, a seriesof development plan options weredeveloped and vetted for eachneighborhood. These were presented

at neighborhood meetings, discussedat length, and further refined basedupon neighborhood needs anddesires;

• Selection of RecommendedNeighborhood Rebuilding Plan – Athird round of meetings was used tohelp guide the community indetermining those elements, amongall options, that should be part of thefinal neighborhood plan. Additionally,this task was utilized to develop aranking or prioritization of projects inorder to determine those elements ofthe plan that were critical to fund inorder to realize broad basedrecovery of neighborhoods, whichelements were more mid-term innature but needed, and which weremore long-term improvements thatwould form the basis for substantialimprovement in the neighborhoodsover the next decade;

• Neighborhoods RebuildingPlan Prioritization and FundingMatrix - Informed by the collectedinformation, community input andinvolvement, and vetting of variousplanning options, a final plan was

developed for each neighborhoodthat was then subdivided intoindividual projects, largely for thepurposes of submitting the plan tothe potential funders. A fundingmatrix was developed that identifiedthe potential funders for each projectand an estimated cost of individualprojects on an order of magnitudeunit cost basis. The prioritization wasbased upon the priorities developedwith the community in each of themeetings and with a perspective onthe need to phase certainimprovements before others (i.e.underground utility improvementsbefore streets); and,

• General Meeting Comprisingall Neighborhoods – All of theneighborhood plans were presentedon September 23, 2006 in anafternoon meeting. The meetingaddressed how each of the plans forthe flooded neighborhoods wouldintegrate into an overall recoveryplan for the City, and how certainelements that may not have beenaligned with projects/elements inadjoining neighborhood plans wouldbe addressed.

SUMMARY

12

As previously noted, theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Plancommunity engagement processincluded nearly 100 noticedmeetings with approximately 7,500residents in attendance and literallyhundreds of other smaller scalemeetings held throughout the Cityevery day and every night of theweek with and without theconsultant teams in attendance.

When the NeighborhoodsRebuilding Planning processbegan, it appeared that threemeetings per neighborhood orplanning-district were going tosuffice in order to complete theplans.

Nothing could be further from thetruth.

Because the stakes were so highand emotions so deep, andbecause many neighborhoods hadbegun planning with little to modestdirection on their own in order to“prove their viability,” it quicklybecame apparent that three verystructured meeting was insufficient

to build a rapport and trust with theneighborhood groups. It was criticalto the success of this effort thatneighborhood residents not viewcity planning as something to beafraid of, and reframe it assomething that was constructive.

As a result, the neighborhoodplanning consultants began toengage the neighborhoods groupsand leaders anywhere andeverywhere possible and on theterms of the neighbors. The teamsmet in homes, under tents, on thestreet, in playgrounds, and mostimportantly in houses of worship.Without the tremendous hospitalityin making space available at alltimes of day or night, it is difficultto image how the process wouldhave not ground to a halt.

Where post-Katrina grass rootscommunity planning efforts wereon-going, the team joined in,where there was no effortunderway, the team helpedcommunities get organized aroundthe best models in other areas ofthe City with committee structures

G. Consultants Engaging theCommunity and CommunityEngaging the Consultants

and on-going task and reportingresponsibilities.

However, from the start it wasalways made clear that the plansthat were to be produced were notthose of the consultants, the City,State, or federal agencies but ofthe neighborhood residentsthemselves. While professionalguidance was required, the CityCouncil made it clear at the outsetthat if the communities did notbelieve the plans were their ownand were organized in such a wayto ensure that recovery was in theirbest interest, the process would failbecause there was no inherent buyin to the process.

What the consultants brought to theparticipation process wasinformation about pre-storm andcurrent conditions that would helpdefine the community needs andreconstruction plan, and aconsistent structure for the plansfor submission to the City and stateand federal funders. Theirprofessional experience andbackground both in and outside of

New Orleans provided somecontext as to which elements ofeach plan might be implemented inthe short term, mid- and long-term.

The planners also detailed whichelements had certain barriersassociated with them that neededto be mitigated prior toimplementation, and which weremore difficult to implement (for avariety of factors) than thecommunity believed them to be.Professional guidance that wasrendered was built based on trust.This was particularly importantgiven the fact that two prior andrelated post-Katrina initial planningefforts, by the Urban Land Instituteand Bring New Orleans BackCommission had ended with theperception among many of thecommunity’s residents that urbanplanning or recovery planning wassomething to fight rather thanembrace. Although not initially intended to bethe case, a secondary but criticaloutcome of the neighborhoodplanning participation process hasbeen that it has served to enhance

1. Grace Episcopal Church2. Jewish Community Center3. St. Joan of Arc Church 4. Holy Rosary Cafeteria5. Total Community Action

Building6. St. Joseph Catholic Church7. Corpus Christi Catholic

Church 8. St. Maria Goretti Catholic

Church

9. The Holy Name of Jesus School

10. Audubon Senior Center11. Central City EOC12. Our Lady Star of the Sea

Catholic Church13. Holy Angels Convent 14. University of New Orleans 15. St. Augustine Church16. St. Leo the Great Auditorium17. Holy Ghost Catholic Church

18. Lake Vista United Methodist Church

19. St. Peter Claver Church Hall20. St. Dominick Catholic

Church21. First Baptist Church –

Fellowship Hall22. Israelite Baptist Church

The City of New Orleans and Neighborhoods Rebuilding Team wish toThank the following Meeting Sites and Staff for their TremendousHospitality:


13

the organization and level ofcommunity involvement in thecommunity that will carry through tothe rebuilding and policyimplementation efforts. Thisextends to community organizingacross and betweenneighborhoods. The plans do notonly include recommendations forcapital projects but policy initiativeand adjustments that are importantto the future of the City.

Other important aspects ofcommunity participation processwere the three displaced residentmeetings held in Baton Rouge,Atlanta, and Houston for those whowanted a say in the future of theirneighborhood or city but were notable to travel to New Orleans toparticipate in the process. Thesethree outreach meetings werecentral to obtaining the input ofresidents who in many cases had adifferent perspective on the barriersto redevelopment and returning tothe City in comparison to thosewho lived in New Orleans.

Finally, and given the personalcrisis that many families were goingthrough as they made decisionsabout rebuilding their lives, many ofthe participants in meetings wereseeking information and werefacing challenges beyond thosethat could reasonably be addressedby planners. Therefore, a numberof meetings that were held withresidents were organized with adual purpose. On the one hand,information was gathered from thecommunity regarding desires andchallenges with regard to the long-term future of their communitiesthat made the plans relevant toeach of the neighborhoods. On theother, representatives of variousservice providers and governmentalagencies (FEMA, LRA, Entergy,Sewage and Water Board, etc.)were invited to set up informationtables or answer questions thatmight come up regarding immediateconcerns and issues and how theymight apply or access certainprograms.

Overall, the communityparticipation process wasextraordinary in terms of scope,participation levels, and the factthat organized communities eagerto guide and participate in therevitalization of neighborhoods arenow in place.

SUMMARY

14

H. ImplementationInitiativesWhile the plans principally areorganized neighborhood-by-neighborhood, there are a numberof policy areas that were discussedin virtually every neighborhood andare central to multipleneighborhoods in relation torecovery. These fall into threecategories:

I. Housing – Based upon thedata and community planningprocess, three housing policies orinitiatives that go beyond thecurrent structure of the LouisianaRoad Home Program and LowIncome Housing Tax Creditprogram were recommended tohasten and broaden the housingrecovery in the City.

II. Economic Development –While city and region-wideeconomic development issues arebeyond the scope of this planningeffort, given the neighborhoodorientation, restoring commercialactivity at the neighborhood levelwas ranked as one of the mostsignificant needs of the community.Therefore, this plan details a

specific policy oriented towardencouraging retail investment indesignated commercial districts orzones in the City.

III. Land Use andImplementation Management –While there are a variety ofproposals suggesting how therecovery process should bemanaged going forward, theneighborhood level planning effortclarified a number of policiesrelated to land use and themanagement of the implementationprocess that must be undertaken orenhanced in order to realize themomentum around the City’srenewal. These proposed policiesare outlined herein.

The following summarizes each ofthese policy recommendations

I. Housing

A. LOT NEXT DOOR

It is critical to the recovery of NewOrleans that residentialredevelopment in neighborhoods

across the City takes place in shortorder.

The speedy restoration andexpansion of quality housing inneighborhoods will replace theblight, encourage the return andcommitment of homeowners andrenters alike, and enhance thevalues of nearby properties(concurrently increasing the City’stax base).

To be truly comprehensive, thearray of housing and neighborhooddevelopment programs to beimplemented in the coming monthsmust address many persistentbarriers to neighborhooddevelopment that existed beforethe hurricane struck, as well as theproblems caused by Katrina.

A key issue will be how toeffectively encourageredevelopment of homes andresidential lots that fall into publicownership.

The Lot Next Door program is oneof a series of proposed policies

developed as part of theNeighborhoods RebuildingProgram. Each of these policies isproposed to support the marketdriven redevelopment ofneighborhoods throughout NewOrleans.

Simply put, the Lot Next Doorprogram will offer thosehomeowners committed torebuilding their homes the ability topurchase publicly owned adjoininglots before these lots are offered toany other buyers. Homeowners willhave this option whether theproperty is in public ownershipthrough the adjudication process orthrough the sale of the lot to apublic entity through the RoadHome or other public acquisitionprogram.

Rationale

It is unclear exactly how manyresidential properties will end up insome form of public ownershipthrough the Road Home oradjudication efforts. It isreasonably certain, however, that


15

many thousands of properties inneighborhoods throughout NewOrleans will be owned by somegovernmental entity over the nextseveral years.

Several specific market andhousing policy rationales suggestthat the Lot Next Door program canbe a significant vehicle forredevelopment in post Katrina NewOrleans.

Reliance on Property OwnersCommitted to Future ofNeighborhood and City – It is clearthat residents seeking to rebuildhomes in flooded neighborhoodshave made a special level ofcommitment to New Orleans.Despite all the challenges and allthe unknowns, these families arerelying on the future of the City andtheir neighborhood. They are thebackbone of the recovery and thefoundation of neighborhoodstability, and are among the mostlikely to continue to invest in theneighborhoods’ and the City’sfuture.

Encourage Redevelopment in aWay that Better Matches City’sHousing Stock with 2006 MarketDemand - There are manycommunities within New Orleanswhere existing small lots andhouses, often platted and builtbetween the 1920s and the 1950s,do not meet the demands oftoday’s middle income housingmarket.

These homes, many in the olderneighborhoods, were built at a timewhen the house size and layoutexpectations of middle-incomefamilies were different. As a result,even before Katrina, many middle-income families were seekinggenerally larger homes inreasonably affordableneighborhoods such as Algiers andEastern New Orleans, or outsidethe City.

This led to a beginning of atransition from homeowneroccupied to rental housing in manyneighborhoods. This was a typicalsituation in areas such as theSeventh Ward, Lower Ninth Ward,

St Roch, St Claude, PonchartrainPark and some areas of Lakeviewand Gentilly.

The Lot Next Door programprovides a mechanism forcommitted residents to build largerhomes, or to even expand theirhomes to multiple lots, rather thanbeing constrained to rebuilding onthe existing small footprint of thehouse.

This is a market driven method ofmodernizing the housing stock inneighborhoods where there isalready a demonstrated depth ofhomeownership.

Enhances Stability in RentalHousing Market - The Lot NextDoor program may also help torestore the rental stock in the Cityin a healthy manner. Homeownerswho purchase the Lot Next Doorhave the option of building asecond unit on the lot as opposedto expanding their existing homeonto the property. In this regard,the homeowner can build eitheranother for-sale home next door, or

a rental property. However, unlikemany of the problems associatedwith absentee landlords, the ownerof the rental property will be livingimmediately next door to the rentalmitigating many of the challengesassociated with absenteeownership.

Maintain and Build Wealth withinCommunity - The Lot Next Doorwill help maintain and build wealthin the community andneighborhoods as well as createsan incentive for people “on thefence” around rebuilding.Homeowners who avail themselvesof the program have the ability ofexpanding their property ownershipand the option may provideincentive to some residents whomight otherwise not rebuild.

Relative Ease of ProgramAdministration - The Lot Next DoorProgram is reasonably easy toadminister and will not slow downthe rebuilding process. Familieswho are interested in participatingwill register with the program andwill be notified when and if the lot

SUMMARY

16

next door becomes available. Theywill have 45 days to make a non-refundable deposit on the lot basedupon a percentage of the Citydetermined fair market value orsales value, whichever is lower,before it is otherwise sold on theopen market or packaged for sale.They will also incur a requirementto begin the rebuilding processwithin the same time framerequired of any other purchaser.Assistance programs providingincentives for rebuilding in someneighborhoods can be provided tothe Lot Next Door purchasers.

Potential Program ChallengesWhile there are substantial benefitsthat outweigh the limitations of theimplementation of the Lot NextDoor program, there are alsoseveral potential issues to beconsidered when adopting theprogram. These include thefollowing:

May Encourage the Reduction ofTotal Number of Units in City - It islikely that the widespreadimplementation of the program

could result in a net decrease inthe number of homes redevelopedon the purchased lots, as comparedto the number of homes existingbefore Katrina.

However, even if maximum housingproduction was possible, smallhouses on small lots will not beeasily absorbed in a marketplacethat requires a more generousliving space and lot.

Requires Management andMonitoring Capabilities on Behalf ofCity - While the Lot Next DoorProgram is reasonably easy toestablish and manage at the outsetbased upon a simple registry andset of criteria, there is a need forongoing monitoring of the programto ensure that purchasers meettheir obligation to redevelop theproperty they purchased in a timelymanner, that they maintainresidency for a prescribed periodon at least one of the two lots theyown, and that there is a strategy forenforcement if owners don’t meetprogram requirements. However,no matter who acquires lots in

public ownership (largecorporation, not-for-profitdeveloper, etc.) there is a need fora monitoring process.

Will Likely Place Properties in theHands of Some Inexperienced andUndercapitalized Owners - Themost likely challenge withtransferring ownership to smallproperty owners is that despite thebest intentions, many owners maynot have the experience in hiringan architect/contractor, monitoringthe construction process, ormanaging rental units. Many maynot have the requisite capital toredevelop the lot next door. Whilethere are likely to be market drivenstrategies that will be developedthat will mitigate this issue, thishas the potential of slowing theredevelopment somewhat.

Program MechanicsThe program should work asfollows:

• Any residential lot in Cityownership, New OrleansRedevelopment Authority (NORA)

ownership, in ownership of a newentity charged with the dispositionof real estate through the RoadHome Program, or that isadjudicated will be assessed forboth current condition and value. Apurchase price ranging from zero tothe appraised fair market value ofthe asset will be placed on theproperty.

• All lots held or controlled asdescribed above will be mappedand cataloged in GIS, and theinformation will be uniformlyavailable through the web.Information to be listed within thedatabase will include streetaddress, property Tax ID, thepurchase price being asked by theentity, appraised fair market value,survey of property boundaries andmeasurements, lot size, zoning,and any other relevant informationincluding any known hazards onthe property.

• Any homeowner (includingtown home and condominiumowners) will be able to register forthe program through a registry


17

maintained by Neighborhood One.Residents will be able to register inperson or on-line. At the time ofregistration, proof of propertyownership of the homeowner’sprimary residential propertyregistered in the name of theregistrant and occupancy as theprimary resident through proof ofhomestead exemption and/or utilitybills/phone records will be required.Authority to act on behalf ofmultiple owners will also berequired. The homeowner will beasked to provide a range of contactinformation so if the Lot Next Doordoes become available, the Citycan quickly and easily contact theowner. Finally, the City should workto line up financial institutions thatwill pre-approve participatingowners for purchase financing.

• If the Lot Next Door doesbecome available for sale throughone or more of the public entities,the City will attempt to contact theregistrant through the contactinformation provided, letting themknow that the Lot Next Door hasbecome available. The City will

provide them with the purchaseprice, direct them to how they canfind more information about the lot,and notify them that they have 45days to make a non-refundabledeposit of 20 percent of thepurchase price to purchase the lotbefore it is packaged for sale onthe open market. The 45-daywindow is a short time within whichto make a decision and identifyfunding, but is needed to ensurethat the lots are moved from publicto private ownership and commercein a reasonable time frame. Thepurchaser will then be provided anadditional 90 to 120 days toactually close on the sale.

• Upon sale through the LotNext Door, the purchaser will berequired to certify that they willstay in or expand their currenthome for a period not less than 36months. With few exceptions,financial penalties will be imposedshould the owner move prior to the36 months are complete.

• In cases where two next-doorneighbors are registered for a

middle lot that falls into publicownership, the homeowner who isthe highest bidder over theminimum purchase price will besold the lot.

• The requirements placed onLot Next Door purchasinghomeowners to build on, or insome other way bring the lot backinto commerce thorough thedevelopment or expansion of theexisting home and accessorybuildings will be the same as forany other open market buyer. Thepurchaser will have six months tobegin construction and eighteenmonths to complete construction.

• As part of the Lot Next Doorprogram, the City will maintaininformation about developmentfunding assistance programs,builders, financing options, etc.,that purchasers can use to expandupon or rebuild a home on theacquired property.

• If one or more next-doorhomeowners (where one exists)declines to purchase the lot next

door, the lot will be packaged forsale with other lots on the openmarket. At no time, however, shalla lot be offered at a lower pricethan the minimum purchase priceestablished or offered to aregistered next-door homeownerwithout returning to thathomeowner with an offer topurchase at the new loweredpurchase price.

Elderly Road Home Tie-In

What has become quite apparentthrough the neighborhood planningprocess is that senior households,which have ties to the communityand have expressed some of thestrongest voices for rebuilding andreturning to the City, also facesome of the most significantchallenges in redeveloping orrebuilding their homes.

There are many areas of the Citythat had a high concentration ofelderly homeowners (Lower Ninth,Ponchartrain Park, and Lakeview)and sustained substantial damage.Those areas will require the

SUMMARY

18

demolition and reconstruction ofmany homes. Historically, thechallenges dealing with contractors,permit inspectors, lenders, etc.,has proved particularly challengingfor many elderly households afterexperiencing the trauma (physicaland psychological) that has beenvisited upon other communitiesafter disasters. Additionally, thereare a substantial number of areasof the City including Lakeview andareas of Gentilly, among others,where rebuilding homes withdamage in excess of 50 percentwill require the total reconstructionat three feet above grade or theBase Flood Elevations whichever isgreater. Many of these homes willhave to be raised close to onestory, making them a difficulthousing product type for peoplewith physical challenges.

Elderly homeowners are clearly aspecial case with specific needs,and currently there are noprograms targeted to this subgroupof homeowners.

A targeted elderly homeownerprogram is needed to allow elderlyhouseholds to tie their Road Homegrant to senior only elevator multi-story condominium projects to bedeveloped throughout the City.There has been wide support fordedicated multi-family seniorhousing products in many parts ofthe City, but particularly in areaswhere younger homeowners haveaging parents living nearby. Insome cases, there may be a needto increase the grant amount orprovide a low interest loan to thehousehold if there is a gap betweenthe values of the buyout (andinsurance proceeds) and the costof the condominium unit.

The multi-story condominium optionhas a number of obviousadvantages for senior households.First, it is an elevator product typethat mitigates stairs, it is centrallymanaged, and upkeep is theresponsibility of a professionalmanager.

However, there are several reasonswhy the market on its own will not

cause the development of thesetypes of units, and why a direct tiein with the Road Home program isrequired:

1. The notion of purchasing acondominium “off of plans” forelderly households is a verydifficult decision at this pointwithout some direct governmentoversight and control to ensure thatthe units are built in a timelyfashion and that the moneyreceived from the Road Homeprogram will be released on drawdowns that will be monitoredappropriately.2. Given all of the risksassociated with developing newmiddle and moderate-incomehousing product in New Orleanstoday, particularly in floodedneighborhoods, developers alsoneed incentives to make theprojects viable. Developers willsave substantial interest expenseby having the units pre-soldthrough the Road Home programand having funds readily availablebased upon a standard draw andcompletion of work schedule.

Additionally, the true pre-salenature of the effort will substantiallyreduce the investment hurdlesrequired by investors for thedevelopment of the product makingit broadly attractive to a widergroup of housing developers.

3. Finally, there are likely to befunding gaps for some moderate-income elderly households giventhe modest value of homes in manyareas of the City and the relativehigh cost of constructing multi-storyhousing product today. Through alow interest loan or additional grantprogram, the Road Home will beable to fill these funding gaps forthe developer and the homeownerin a seamless fashion and writedown costs to a point where it isaffordable to moderate and middleincome senior households.

Program MechanicsThe basic program mechanics areas follows:

• Issuance of Request forProposals from For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Developers – A request


19

for proposal will be issued todevelopers who have site controland multi-family developmentexperience for sites that areappropriately zoned for multi-familyresidential use or have a stronglikelihood of being rezoned formulti-family residential use. In mostcases, the property will serve asthe developer’s investment inproject. The responses to therequest will require a proforma besubmitted with the submission, abreakdown of unit mix bybedroom/bath, a general projectdescription, and a preliminary siteplan and schematic diagram oftypical floor plans. Developers willbe encouraged to offer a mix of oneand two bedroom units.

• Housing Option as Part ofRoad Home for Seniors - Pre-approved senior housingdevelopment will be made availableas an option within the buyoutthrough Road Home Program forhouseholds over 55 years of age.Project information will be providedto senior homeowners. If seniorhousehold opt for the purchase of

one of the condominium units, theirRoad Home grant funds will beplaced into escrow along with anyequity/insurance proceeds thehousehold will be using to purchasethe unit, in addition to any financingcommitment. Once a thresholdnumber of units are “purchased,”construction can begin.

• Gap Funding - Targeted gapfunding up to $50,000 per unit (softsecond no interest loans or lowinterest loan) will be provided forowners who do not have enoughequity (including insuranceproceeds and transfer of existingmortgages) to purchase thecondominium unit at pre-approvedmarket price. However, upon re-sale, for those households wheregap funding was provided, the saleof a unit will trigger a recapture of acertain proportion of the write downequity in the unit (should the valueof the unit increase) on a year-to-year decreasing schedule. Forexample, 100 percent for the firstthree years, and then decreasing at10 percent per year thereafter.

• Maintenance Fees & Reservefor Replacement - Purchasers willhave to pass an income testrelated to monthly maintenancefees to ensure that they have themeans to pay ongoing maintenanceand a required reserve forreplacement funding needs.Preferably, some gap funding maybe structured to forward fund aportion of the reserve forreplacement, mitigating the need tofund these improvements on an on-gong basis.

• Establish Escrow Accounts –As with the release of Road Homemonies for rebuilding, Road HomeSenior Housing monies will also beplaced in an interest bearingescrow account that the developercan only draw down upon based ona pre-approved delivery and drawdown schedule.

• Restrict Resale for 10 yearsto Senior Households - Re-salesfor the first ten years will beallowed only to other seniorhouseholds. After that time, resale

will be opened up to any purchaserin order to allow for a more naturalmarket turnover of units andbuilding of reinvestment/equity inthe property.

B. USE OF SECONDGENERATION FUNDS ANDEXPANSION OF HOMEPURCHASER ASSISTANCEPROGRAMS

One of the principal issues thathave come up time and again inneighborhood meetings is thequestion of how properties that endup in public ownership eitherthrough the adjudicated or buyback process will be resold in themarket.

While the Lot Next Door programprovides one method for recyclinglots in the market, there are goingto be numerous lots that are notacquired by next-door neighborsthat are going to have to be sold tothird party purchasers. Assuming that there are few newregulations associated withdeveloping housing (i.e. some

SUMMARY

20

requirement that certain units mustbe homeownership vs. rental) it islikely that the value placed onmany properties for sale willdetermine how quickly that propertywill be rebuilt for housing.Additionally, and realistically, thereare a variety of neighborhoodsthroughout the City, where reducingthe cost of a lot or unit toessentially zero will not be enoughto ensure the redevelopment of theproperty. These are generally thoseneighborhoods where land valueswere quite low prior to Katrina andhomes were not built unless therewas significant targeted publicassistance related to construction.

Given the different market factorsinfluencing the redevelopment ofhousing in different neighborhoods,there are a variety of strategiesthat will have to be employed withregard to the sale of lots acquiredthrough the acquisition program onthe open market. These strategiesinclude the following.

Recycle Second GenerationProceeds from Higher Income

Neighborhood Property Sales toProperties in Neighborhoods whereValues are Lower - There are anumber of neighborhoods in NewOrleans generally having highconcentrations of blighted andadjudicated properties prior toHurricane Katrina. In those areas,the market value of residential landis nearly zero or the cost ofdevelopment and land exceedswhat purchasers or renters will andcan pay. In these cases, it will benecessary to write down theconstruction cost of units so theyare affordable to families at orbelow median incomes and in turncause the redevelopment of theseproperties. Prior to HurricaneKatrina, the City through the HOMEor NHIF programs would have toinvest approximately $30,000 insubsidy for a single family for saleunit and up to $20,000 for a rentalto cause the rehabilitation of a unitto be affordable to families below80 percent of median income.Typically, rental units in theseneighborhoods also had LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)equity layered into the development

budget, reducing the maximumincome family to be served to 60percent of median. Because thereis an underlying market value thatproperties can be underwritten to,the write down required will likelynot be significantly different postKatrina, with the exception ofcapturing significant constructioncost increases that have occurred.The principal difference today is thenumber of blighted and adjudicatedproperties and therefore the needfor expansion of the total dollarsavailable to write down the cost ofhousing.

Remembering that there were notenough dollars in the system toaddress all of the properties andfamilies in need prior to the storm,the amount available for writingdown the cost of affordable housingafter Katrina is more of a Federaland State policy question asopposed to a general assessmentof need. However, what NewOrleans can do is stretch the use ofthe extraordinary expansion ofCDBG dollars that will now beinvested in middle and upper

income areas to purchase homesfor the first time.One of the key sources of fundingto expand and improve theaffordable housing stock in the Cityis to establish policies that recyclethe sales proceeds from housing inneighborhoods where market valuefor housing exists to neighborhoodswhere there is little or no existinghousing land values, and significantsubsidy is required to provide highquality housing to low andmoderate income families. In thisway, the City will be using theprogram income from public toprivate sales of lots in higherincome neighborhoods to assist theredevelopment of housing in thelow-income areas. This also willhelp focus the use of CDBG fundsin the low-income neighborhoodsconsistent with the principalprogram objectives.

Sell Adjacent Lots and Blocks ofLots in Public Ownership toExperienced For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Developers When NotPurchased Through The Lot NextDoor - To the extent possible,


21

multiple adjacent lots within blocksand lots within adjacent blocksshould be sold to experienced for-profit and not-for-profit builderswho have the management andfinancial capacity to undertakemultiple home redevelopmentconcurrently. The level of operatingefficiency, marketing ormanagement experience, speedand momentum that experiencedbuilders can bring to the housingredevelopment effort is a necessaryelement given the scale and scopeof revitalization required in the City.

Ensuring that experience buildershave access to pools of assets isone of the single best ways ofreducing the cost and time tomarket of redevelopment andensuring that what is redevelopedis consistent with purchaser orrenter demand. Additionally, somedegree of concentrating rentalproperties is critical to obtainoperating cost efficiencies as itrelates to on-going operations andmanagement. It is important,however, to manage the builderredevelopment process at multiple

levels. First, there needs to beclear time frames establishedassociated with placing propertiesback in service as housing and toensure that the redevelopment isdone in a way consistent withcurrent zoning.

Re-Sell Properties for Fair MarketValue and Reduce Price of LotsOnly When Very Specific PolicyObjectives Are Being Met - Forthose residential properties thatfind their way into public ownership,the sale of the lots should be soldback into the market based uponsome form of Fair MarketValue/Appraisal Assessment(conducted by the public owningentity rather than the purchaser asis the case in the existingadjudicated disposition process dueto lack of funding for appraisals). Insome neighborhoods, the fairmarket value may be zero or closeto zero, however there needs to bea formal process in place todetermine the value of any givenproperty. The principal reason whythe public sector should not selllots at below market value without

some very specific policy objectiveis that the sale of a large numberof lots owned by government atbelow market will naturally drivedown the value of properties soldin private transactions. This is notto the benefit of theneighborhoods. The exception iswhen lots are sold at reducedvalues in cases where the aim is toencourage certain types of housingunits to be built or placed on themarket such as for affordablerental housing, homes sold tobuyers below a certain incomethreshold (i.e. 120 percent ofmedian household income), etc. Inthis way, certain policy objectivescan be achieved without negativelyaffecting broader real estatevalues. It is important that theentity charged with disposing of theproperties constantly monitorvarious elements associated withthe disposition process. Forexample, how the market value ofproperties changes over timeduring the recovery, or the level ofconcentration of any one type ofhousehold in a small area that runsagainst broader policy objectives

associated with the de-concentrationof poverty.

Additionally, the calculationassociated with any reduced valueto meet broader objectives needsto be done on a property-by-property basis to ensure that thereduction causes theredevelopment of the property forthe targeted purpose withoutcreating a windfall profit for thebuilder or owner.

Given the scale of theredevelopment effort and flow offederal funds into the City, NewOrleans has an once-in-a-lifetimeopportunity to revitalize many of itslowest income communities for thebenefit of both existing residentsand new families.

The City can do this by writingdown the cost of housing throughthe recycling of CDBG funds usedto purchase properties in moreaffluent areas of the City. However,establishing targeted policies atthis stage and putting theorganizational structure in place in

SUMMARY

22

short order will define the degreeto which the rebuilding initiativeswill be successful. Conversely, ifthe program income from propertysales is used in an untargeted wayor broadly redistributed outside ofOrleans Parish, the hurdles andproblems associated withrevitalizing the City’s low-incomeneighborhoods will only beexacerbated.

II. Economic Development

One of the economic developmentinitiatives that many residentsranked higher than even therestoration of neighborhoodschools or health care, was thereturn of the neighborhoodsupermarket and pharmacy. Morebroadly, communities were seekingan improvement in retail offerings,including restaurants and softgoods retailers in general.

This should not come as asurprise. Hurricane Katrina’simpact on these businesses hasbeen severe not only for what ithas done in relation to the

customer base, but just asimportantly to the pool ofemployees. Even large retailerssuch as the Wal-Mart Supercenteron Tchoupitoulas, left untouched byflooding, are operating at a fractionof the level they were prior to thestorm due to an inability to identifyemployees to staff the entire store.Additionally, the degree, mix andquality of retail activity in NewOrleans prior to Katrina in manyneighborhoods was significantlybelow what neighbors in Jeffersonor St. Bernard Parishes enjoyed.Therefore, it is almost certainimproved retail would have been atthe top of the list of desire andneeds even if Katrina had neveroccurred.

Nevertheless, no matter the degreeof community desire, restoringretail presents several hurdles thatare difficult to overcome:

• First, and as noted above,the customer and employee baseare not at a level where most of thepre-storm retail can be easilyrestored;

• Second, retail development inthe city prior to Katrina washampered by a lack of viable sitesin key locations and income levelsthat often did not justify theattraction of certain types ofretailers who preferred the broaderincome depth of Jefferson Parish tothe west;

• Finally, government can onlyprovide so many incentives toencourage retailers to locate in acertain area. Retail rents typicallyaccount for only six to eightpercent of a retailer ’s total annualoperating costs and totaloccupancy cost including utilities,property taxes, and rent are almostalways less than 15 percent. Depthin an adequate customer base thatdrives profit from product sales anda ready workforce are much moreimportant factors to the locationdecision of retailers than is thedegree of rental concession theyreceive.

Broad provision of incentives toretailers on behalf of the State andCity will have modest impact at the

early stages of redevelopment, andtherefore we recommend a muchmore targeted two-tier retailrevitalization strategy upon whichthe State and City can encourageretail reinvestment in the City.

The first tier strategy would be toidentify two or three key nodes,primarily along the I-10 corridorwhere a broad package ofenhanced incentives would beprovided to retail developers andretailers who locate in thesespecial zones. The I-10 corridorhas some particular advantages inthat it is generally within a 10minute car ride from anywhere inthe most heavily impactedneighborhoods in New Orleans,intersects with most transit routesin the City, is easily accessible forpeople who might shop in theParish from outside of NewOrleans, and places large scaleretail development in a corridor thathas already been defined by theInterstate without further erodingthe fabric of historic neighborhoodsor many of New Orleans’boulevards.


23

Furthermore, by encouraging theconcentration of large scale retaildevelopment in two or three zonesthat are reasonably accessible,retailers will be able to draw from amuch larger area than would be thecase if the incentives were nottargeted but could be utilizedanywhere in the City.

Initially, and based upon theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Processcommunity input, the three initialpotential retail redevelopmentzones would be located adjoining:

• The intersection of Interstate 10 and Carrollton Avenue

• Surrounding and including the Lake Forest Plaza Property (which is already a special designated economic development zone by the State)

• Where Chef Highway runs together with I-10, west of the “High rise”

While opportunities may exist inareas of the Seventh Ward orTreme as well, the concern is that

any major redevelopment zone inthis area would further erode thehistoric fabric of theseneighborhoods. Redevelopment ofretail in these areas thereforeneeds to be handled with muchgreater care and in a more limitingfashion.

The incentives available to retailersin these zones would be modeledon the State of New Jersey’s UrbanEnterprise Zone Program, one ofthe oldest and most aggressive inthe nation as it relates to retaildevelopment. According the Stateof New Jersey, the UEZ program,started in 1983, has caused theinvestment of over $19 billion in the37 zones in the State, and attracted8,000 firms to the zones thatemploy 150,000 people.

Simply, the State of New Jerseyallows retailers in the zone tocharge ½ of the State sales tax on“in person” purchases and theremaining ½ that is collected isreinvested in the zone forinfrastructure and other economicdevelopment investments. Through

this incentive, the zones have notonly been able to attract retailerswho help to serve local residents,but also attract customers fromother areas of the State and amulti-state region who are seekingto save on larger purchases.

The program is only valuable if it islimited in its application. Ten zonesaround the New Orleans region oreven five in Orleans Parish woulddiminish the impact on theincentives, as the market areafrom which patrons would bedrawn would shrink. The programmust be targeted in such a waythat it is only applied in the mostdevastated areas of the City as theincentive is designed to become acatalyst for further investment inthese areas rather than only takebusiness away from retailersoutside of the zones.

Unlike a typical tax incrementfinancing (TIF) incentive, the NewJersey structure ensures that someof the benefit accrues to theconsumer and creates a reason forcertain high value retailers to

locate in these zones. Additionally,and with the possible exception ofthe Lake Forest Plaza site andarea which is already served byspecial TIF district legislation, thesales tax discount provides acertain marketing benefit tospecific types of retailers wherethe average sale is quite large (i.e.furniture, electronics, or certaintypes of sports equipment) and areseeking locations to serve aregional rather than exclusivelylocal market.

The second level of incentive canbe more broadly provided withinMain Street type initiatives inneighborhoods throughout the City.For example the proposed TownCenter in the Lower Ninth Ward,Harrison Avenue in Lakeview, St.Claude Avenue, the intersection ofGentilly and Elysian Fields, etc.where the main concern isdeveloping the infrastructure,landscape, and façadeimprovements necessary tosupport business development.This level of incentive can eithercome from the targeted use of

SUMMARY

24

CDBG funds or through various TIFstyle incentive programs. However,it is important to develop targetedstrategies and identify the fundingfor these areas the early stage ofrecovery so the improvements thatare made in the recovery processare oriented to improving thecommercial climate along thesestreets or within these districts. Thelevel of investment required, thescale of development, and the mostappropriate structure for theinvestment should be a key area offurther study immediately followingthis planning process.

III. Implementation Management

& Land Use Initiatives

While there has been a variety ofrecommendations over the pastseveral months related to how theplans once complete will beimplemented and more generallythe recovery implementationmanagement structure, the topic ofrecovery implementation constantlywas brought up in communitymeetings. Therefore the planwould not be complete without

some discussion and referencing ofthese items. There is further detailof specific neighborhood policyrecommendations or preferences ineach of the neighborhood plans,but the recommendations outlinedbelow were mentioned in most ifnot all of the neighborhoodscovered by these plans.

A. CLEAN CITY UP

One of the most consistent themesin meetings was thatneighborhoods could not reallybegin to recover before they werecleaned of debris and thedemolition process was wellunderway and delimited.

Indeed, the plans themselves arenot as specific as they otherwisecould be because it was unclearthroughout the planning process,which houses were going to bedemolished to which houses wouldbe re-occupied, and which would orwould not have adequate fundingthrough insurance proceeds, familyfunds and the Road Home programto rebuild.

While the strong enforcement of thegutting laws was generallywelcomed, the backlog in terms ofneed and capacity in both thegutting and demolition of homes isone of the most troubling aspectsof the recovery.

Given the scale of the effort andneed, the gutting of homes is notsomething that should be left to thegood will of volunteers. Thedemolition of homes should bewithout a backlog given the factthat it was clear as soon as the citywas pumped dry that a largenumber of the City’s homes wouldrequire demolition.

Federal, State, and local authoritiesmust ensure that the cleanupprocess proceed posthaste,because without the completion ofthe cleanup and the damage tostreets, sidewalks and landscapingthat comes with it, it is very difficultif not impossible to implement therecovery plan. Furthermore, thecost to the city in public safety tomonitor abandoned homes andstreets is dramatically higher thanneed be if buildings were secured

and dangerous structures andflammable materials demolished orremoved.

One of the biggest challenges inSouth Miami Dade County afterHurricane Andrew was securingand maintaining damaged homesabandoned after the storm. As withalmost all blighted housing, theseabandoned structures becamehavens for crime and onlyexacerbated the sense ofabandonment in the neighborhoods.Only after the County tookextensive measures to enforce thecode, did the neighborhoods ofSouth Dade begin to return tonormalcy.

B. ZONING AND RELATED LANDUSE POLICIES

In the neighborhood-by-neighborhood plans, there areseveral recommendations forspecific changes from the existingland use to new or allowance formix of uses. While it appears thatsome of these changes can beaccommodated within the existingzoning code, this is certainly an


25

area for further analysis anddelineation and was not part of thescope of this effort.

In four special cases however,there will be a need for a broadreview of the zoning for certainspecific areas. These include threeareas: Edgewood Heights, TheAgriculture Street area in theDesire neighborhood, and the areain the Mid-City neighborhoodbetween the Orleans Parish Prisoncomplex and Tulane Avenue wherean enhanced buyout programshould be undertaken for anyresidential development and zoningshould be change exclusively toindustrial use, or in the case of thearea in Mid-City, public institutionaluse. The forth case is the LowerNinth Ward neighborhood wherethe plan calls for the reorganizationof some of the streets to allow forthe development of a town centerin what is now a single familyzoned area and the expansion ofthe commercial district along NorthClaiborne and St. Claude. Theproposal also calls for thereorganization of the parcels in the

area to accommodate this change,and the development of the towncenter will require a very specificblock-by-block, lot-by-lot designand assessment along with a newzoning classification.

Other major proposals include therezoning of Eastern New Orleansmultifamily districts to provide forlower densities of development,and rezoning initiatives in Lakeviewto encourage single-familydevelopment. However, in each ofthese cases these changes werebeing discussed long beforeHurricane Katrina. TheNeighborhoods Rebuilding Planonly further supports the communitypreferences for these changes.Other more modest proposalsinclude the designation of plannedunit development district at theCarrollton/I-10 interchange to allowfor and encourage large scalemixed use development, therezoning of areas along ClaiborneAvenue to encourage a broaderrange of large format retailers tolocate in the area, the re-designation of several sites for

senior multi-family housing, andthe conversion of some formerlycommercial buildings to residentialuse.

Overall, the plan highlighted somekey broader land use concernsincluding:

• The current zoningclassification system is overlycomplicated with 56 separatezoning categories and requiressimplification. There was broadsupport in the community fordeveloping a new ComprehensiveZoning Ordinance, as was theintention of the City prior to theHurricane Katrina.

• Many neighborhoods want amore formal say in project approvalprocess and want investors to berequired to present their plans tothe community before going to thePlanning Commission or CityCouncil.

• Many of the city’sneighborhoods and particularneighborhoods with a significant

historic fabric want the City toconsider any variances requests inspecial zoning overlay districts withextreme care. Many neighborhoodsfeel that the City has not done thisin the past and it is having adomino effect on diminishing thenature of many boulevards andstreets in the City.• There is a broad interest inthe City for exploring the expansionof local historic district status inneighborhoods throughout the Cityin order to maintain and supportthe redevelopment of these areasin a manner sensitive to thehistoric nature of theneighborhood. Each neighborhoodplan details where further study iswarranted with regard to theestablishment of further historiccontrols. Neighborhoods are awarethat broader historic designationcomes at the price of significantlyenhanced controls and costsassociated with reconstruction butstill felt that given the importanceof the historic nature of manyneighborhoods and the threat ofloss, further controls may bewarranted.

SUMMARY

26

C. BUSINESS CENSUS ANDNEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

It is important that an outcome ofthis plan is that a census ofneighborhood businesses isundertaken and a strategy for therestoration of services andbusinesses in New Orleans’ floodedneighborhoods is developed. While the plans designate areas forfuture commercial development orthe focus of commercialdevelopment, information was notreadily available on the demand forretail, office, and industrial space,how that is likely to change overtime as the neighborhoodsredevelop, and which areas of theCity are most competitive today toattract what demand that exists.

The commercial areas of theflooded neighborhoods of the Cityhave not received the attentionthey deserve and understand theeconomic and market dynamicsaffecting the redevelopment ofthese areas and shepherding thatdevelopment in an informed way is

a critical element of the recovery atthis juncture.

D. RECOVERY MANAGEMENTRECOMMENDATIONS

There are several recoverymanagement recommendations thatwere consistently discussed in theneighborhood planning process,and which are of relevance to themanagement and implementation ofthe recovery. These include thefollowing.

Appropriately Staff and ChargeAccordingly for EnterpriseDepartments - Participants in theneighborhood planning meetingswere concerned by reports and bystatements made by members ofthe Planning Commission andOffice of Safety & Permits that stafflimitations were slowing the projectapproval process and in turnslowing the overall recovery.Therefore, there was strongagreement among participants thatthese departments having theability to charge fees for theirservices be staffed, or the services

of the department contracted for (ifstaff is unable to be hired due tothe current housing/cost of livingcrisis or difficultly finding qualifiedcandidates) at the most appropriatelevel in order to hasten the reviewand approval process over the nextseveral years.

Cross-Reference all FundingRequests - One of the limitations ofwhat can be gleaned from theNeighborhoods Rebuilding Plansfunding matrices is that they haveyet to be cross-referenced with the“PWs” and other funding requestssubmitted to FEMA and otherfunding entities. This is anundertaking that must becoordinated between citygovernment, the various schooldistricts, Sewage & Water Board,the Louisiana Department ofTransportation & Development, theRegional Transit Authority, and anyother public agency that operatespublic facilities in Orleans Parish.

This is a critical organizing meetingthat needs to occur over a one ortwo day period, that will better

define which of the neighborhoodlevel funding prioritizes andrequests may have alreadyreceived funding, requests forfunding have been submitted (andto what entity), or are stilloutstanding.

Multi-Agency Coordination - Nomatter which agency is tasked withoverseeing the recovery of the city,there is at least a perceptionamong residents of theneighborhoods most impacted bythe storm that there is little or nocoordination between the keyagencies and departments taskedwith redeveloping the City. Peoplewould wonder out loud in meetingsif Public Works (in charge ofrepairing and replacing streets)was coordinating with the Sewageand Water Board (responsible formuch of the underground utilitysystem) to ensure that utilities thatrun under streets were addressedprior to the streets being repaired,or if the school districts werecoordinating with the NORD in theredevelopment of schools andrecreation areas.


27

Even if this most obvious ofprocesses is occurring on a regularbasis, the sense of manycommunity members is that this isnot the case. Therefore this planrecommends that at minimum a bi-weekly “cabinet style” meeting beheld at which all of the relevantdepartment and agency heads arerequired to attend along with theMayor and Governor’s staff todiscuss recovery status, issues orchallenges, and how the variousagency’s will coordinate theirefforts to address the issues orchallenges over the following twoweeks. The notes of thesemeetings can then be broadlydistributed to the public and press.

Structure Recovery OrganizationAround Neighborhoods or PlanningDistricts - Finally, there was broadagreement among residents thatthe only way in whichimplementation would occurconsistent with desires within theneighborhood plans is if theorganization charged withoverseeing the City’s recovery bestructured in such a way that

teams of staff are assigned tospecific neighborhoods on a fulltime basis and are responsible forimplementing the plan at thisdecentralized level. Each sub-areashould have a dedicated staff,project budget, be responsible forcollecting and analyzingneighborhood level data, and beresponsible for meeting specificgoals and objectives.

While accountability, standards,and the organizational structureneed to be in place at the citywidelevel, the organization responsiblefor the overall recovery of the Cityhas a unique opportunity toestablish a system where theoverwhelming majority of moneyavailable for reconstruction flowsdown to the neighborhoods andprovides flexible authority tostaff/contractors who makedecisions at the neighborhoodlevel. This is opposed toestablishing a centralizedbureaucracy that will have atendency to move slowly and notbe responsive to community needs.Overall, the City needs to take care

not to create an organizationwhose heavily centralized structuremakes program implementationsluggish.


APPENDIXCity of New Orleans

Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plan

30

What tie the NeighborhoodsRebuilding Plan to funding are theidentification of specific projectsand an estimate of initial cost (byproject) for each neighborhood.The costs analyses are provided onan order-of-magnitude basis as tothe scope and magnitude of theproject proposed and theinvestment required to construct it.As such, variations as to the scopeof the project could result invariations on the final cost ofconstruction.

In the process of cost analyses,consultations were carried out withthe City of New Orleans PublicWorks Department to identifygeneral cost guidelines typicallyused for the calculation of streetimprovements and reconstruction;additionally. other sources of costidentification included the MeansCost Data and our team’sprofessional experience inside andoutside of New Orleans.

No single source of funding orfinancial plan will be capable ofdealing with the capitalimprovement needs for total

redevelopment and reconstructionof all the neighborhood projectsand needs.

The funding matrix included in eachplan shows different fundingsources that could be madeavailable for specific projects and itshould be expected that layering ofmultiple sources of funding will berequired in most cases. The abilityto obtain these funds will rest withthe City of New Orleans andneighborhood groups and advisorycommittees. However, in the end,the ability to actually realize eventhe most basic of neighborhoodimprovements – streets, streetsigns, natural gas service, parks -

will rest with the determination ofthe President to follow through onhis commitment to do whatever ittakes to rebuild New Orleans, thewillingness of Congress toappropriate the funds necessary forthe reconstruction of the City’sneighborhoods, and the State ofLouisiana to insure that fundsappropriated flow to the areas inmost need in an expeditiousfashion.

Each matrix in the individual plansmatch proposed projects withpotential funding sources identifiedthrough the planning process andwhile not exhaustive in scope, itserves as a guide to where funds

could originate.

Each funding matrix, based uponconsultation with neighborhoodresidents through the communitymeeting process, also rankedprojects based upon priority ofneed with regard to recovery:“Early Action/Critical”; “Mid-Term/Needed”; and “LongTerm/Desired”. This rankingprovides a general guide as towhat communities believe is themost important priorities withregard to revitalization andredevelopment.

The table on the following pageshows a summary of costs on a

Appendix:Summary of Matrices


31

neighborhood-by-neighborhoodbasis, at the planning district level,as well as how the items rankedbased upon neighborhood priorities.The chart below highlights the total costfor all of the neighborhoodscombined with an estimated 10percent design/soft cost and 20percent contingency included toprovide a broad estimate for fundingand budgeting purposes. It isimportant to note that a second levelof review is still required that will takeprojects in each individual matrix onan individual basis and comparethese projects to those fundingrequests already submitted andcommitted to by one or more of thefunding entities. This will help insurethat there is no double counting ofprojects and funding requests.

Finally, there are a variety of itemsor initiatives listed within many ofthe funding matrices where acapital cost can not be attached ordetermined without further study,but the community believed neededto be a central part of the plan.These include:

• Undertaking specific furtherstudies to determine the actual costto governmental entities for certainpublic/private initiatives (for whichwe have noted the cost of thestudy)

• Housing initiatives for whichthere may be dollars alreadyallocated through the Road Home,Low Income Housing Tax Credits,private funding sources (insurers,lenders, etc), or other sources butwhere the additional gap in fundingis impossible to determine at thispoint

• Other policies including landuse and zoning regulations whichthe community believed to be in theshort and long term interest of thecommunity

• Recurring operations (i.e.expanded police patrols, libraryoperations, park operations, etc.)that either tie to certain capitalimprovements or are important tothe health of the community throughthe expansion of existing services.

city of new orleans - nolanrp.comnolanrp.com/data/neighborhood/nola_nrp_summary.pdf · city of new...

Documents