weston_capstone_final paper

Running head: RECAPTURING VALUE 1

Recapturing Value: Greening Vacant Lots in Kenosha, Wisconsin

John Weston

SMGT 792 Capstone Project

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Sustainable Management

Dr. Steve Dunn

December 06, 2015

RECAPTURING VALUE 2

Abstract

Vacant properties present a unique challenge today to cities of every size all across the U.S., especially in the wake of the recent Great Recession. Particularly those once largely dependent on manufacturing, like most in the industrial Midwest, continue to work toward redefining themselves while revitalizing their communities more sustainably. Increasingly, these efforts are incorporating urban greening initiatives that target vacant land to create more sustainable neighborhood-based amenities. Research on the positive social, economic, and environmental/ecological impacts continues to grow as the connection between community development and urban greening are better understood. Growing consensus supports the assertion that vacant properties provide fertile ground for neighborhood-scale and citywide greening strategies that can revitalize urban environments, empower community residents, and stabilize dysfunctional markets. Pioneering cities like Milwaukee, Baltimore, Portland, Rochester, New Bedford, Flint and several others have developed successful, cutting-edge urban greening initiatives that could provide other communities, particularly those in the Midwest, with the foundation for a more sustainable future.

RECAPTURING VALUE 3

Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................2

Introduction......................................................................................................................................5

Methodology....................................................................................................................................7

Data Collection............................................................................................................................8

Research Questions......................................................................................................................9

Research Objectives...................................................................................................................10

Literature Review..........................................................................................................................11

Previous Findings......................................................................................................................11

1) Neighborhood Stabilization & Community/Economic Development.........................12

2) Public & Social Health................................................................................................15

3) Environmental/Ecological...........................................................................................19

Case Studies...............................................................................................................................23

Findings.........................................................................................................................................35

Economic Impacts.....................................................................................................................36

Environmental Impacts..............................................................................................................36

Social Impacts............................................................................................................................38

Depth Interview/Sample Survey................................................................................................40

5 year action plan...................................................................................................................42

Priority Areas.........................................................................................................................42

Land Use Goals......................................................................................................................47

RECAPTURING VALUE 4

Implications...................................................................................................................................48

Limitations.................................................................................................................................49

Future Research.........................................................................................................................50

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................50

References......................................................................................................................................53

Appendices....................................................................................................................................62

A-Interview with Brian R. Wilke..............................................................................................62

B-Interview with Beth Goeppinger...........................................................................................71

C-Interview with Robert Beezat................................................................................................75

D-Kenosha Residents Sample Survey.......................................................................................79

RECAPTURING VALUE 5

Introduction

Urban, suburban, and rural communities across America have struggled with vacant,

abandoned and problem properties for several decades. The current situation is unique, however,

as powerful forces—most notably the recent foreclosure and economic crises—threaten to undo

decades of growth, development, and reinvestment in many communities. Compounding matters

is urban sprawl pushing new development to the edges of many communities. Today, different

types of problem properties can be readily found in most any sized city. According to the Center

for Community Progress (2010), the number of vacant properties measured by vacancy rates has

risen steadily over the past 40 years. The Brookings Institution also reported that in 60 cities with

populations over 100,000, there are an average of two vacant buildings for every 1,000 residents

(as cited in National Vacant Properties Campaign (NVPC), 2005). These properties vary widely

in size, shape, and former use but are most often characterized by overgrown, weeded lots strewn

with trash in blighted, low-income communities. The NVPC defines vacant properties as

residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and vacant lots that exhibit one or both of the

following traits:

The site poses a threat to public safety (meeting the definition of a public nuisance), or

The owners or managers neglect the fundamental duties of property ownership (e.g. fail

to pay taxes, default on mortgages).

However, this definition may also be extended to include spaces that, although already

relatively green, remain largely overlooked or underutilized in neighborhoods citywide. As such,

most urban residents would likely consider these spaces blights on their neighborhood. This is

not to say vacant properties must always contain buildings; older cities in particular are dotted

with land where homes, factories, and other structures once stood. Although generally

RECAPTURING VALUE 6

considered less of a nuisance than vacant, abandoned buildings the effects of vacant lots can also

be felt across communities, both directly and indirectly. These spaces are often abandoned as a

result of rapid population shifts, sprawling development, consumer preference, job loss, and

foreclosure. On an individual level, the most common reason properties are abandoned is when

the cost of maintenance and operation exceeds the apparent value of the property (NVPC, 2005).

In any case, vacant lots and abandoned buildings are a destabilizing force in neighborhoods and a

resource drain on taxpayers (OES Milwaukee, 2010). They reduce quality of life, lower property

values, discourage investment, increase crime and inner city decay, and stress municipal budgets

(Center for Community Progress, 2010).

As of September 2015, Kenosha County had just over 900 buildable vacant lots zoned for

single and multifamily homes (Flores, 2015). This does not, however, include those zoned for

business, manufacturing, and other uses. It is also important to note the distinction between city-

owned and privately-owned vacant lots. Although this project focuses on the former within the

City of Kenosha, some cities have also taken measures in addressing land hoarding and

encouraging more productive uses for stagnant, vacant private properties (i.e. taxes). Taken

together, vacant properties represent a wealth of untapped and wasted potential in offering

important social and ecological/environmental benefits to the City of Kenosha. This may

include: providing additional habitat supporting local and regional biodiversity; provisioning of

ecological services; increasing green spaces in low-income neighborhoods; reducing crime and

inner city decay; increasing adjacent property values; providing community garden spaces;

supporting local food production; creating new recreational spaces; improving stormwater

absorption; enhancing the beauty of neighborhoods and creating a sense of place; and increasing

environmental awareness and education (McPhearson, 2012). Cities like Milwaukee, Wisconsin;

RECAPTURING VALUE 7

Baltimore, Maryland; Portland, Oregon; New Bedford, Massachusetts; Rochester, New York;

Flint, Michigan and several others serve as positive examples of the innovative ways in which

cities all across the U.S are recapturing the value of vacant properties.

As evident in the growing number of local government officials, community

organizations, and residents that see vacant properties as opportunities for productive reuse, the

implications of this project are not limited to the City of Kenosha. Vacant land offers

opportunities for any city looking to capitalize on important social, economic, and ecological

benefits. Repurposing vacant lots is also not limited to the green space expansion. A number of

other purposes could also be explored (e.g. low-income housing, parks and playgrounds,

installation of alternative energy facilities, incubators for small businesses and emerging

technologies, etc.), depending on the particular needs and resources of the community. The aim

of this research project is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue of the value and opportunity

inherent in most any type of vacant land when it comes community development and urban

improvement. For the City of Kenosha specifically, it is designed to instigate action on the part

of the City Common Council to consider taking advantage of this largely untapped and

overlooked, yet valuable community resource.

Methodology

The majority of research for this project has been qualitative. The techniques used

included previous research, depth interviews, case studies, and a sample survey. The collected

data was analyzed in an attempt to understand and interpret its full meaning, including the

aggregate effect on individual neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Previous research focused

on the impacts associated with vacant lots in other cities, as well as steps some communities are

taking to address large numbers of vacant lots. This data included external costs such as

RECAPTURING VALUE 8

decreased property values, higher insurance premiums, increased criminal activity, reduced local

tax dollars, and greater concerns of social justice and equity. Benefits include those listed in the

introduction. Essentially, the previous research highlighted many of the potential benefits of

greening these spaces as well as the drawbacks of doing nothing.

Data Collection

Depth interviews were conducted with Brian R. Wilke (Kenosha Development

Coordinator), Beth Goeppinger (Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Naturalist at Richard

Bong State Recreational Area), and Robert Beezat (Sustainable Edible Economic Development

(SEED) Board President). The interview with Mr. Wilke (Appendix A) was to provide

background information and insight into the political and legal systems that govern property and

land reuse in Kenosha, the availability of suitable lots, and to determine if this type of proposal is

compatible with the city’s current redevelopment plan. It was also important to gauge the City

Planning Commission’s stance on the state of vacant lots in the city as well as to identify any

current or future plans for these spaces. The interview with Mrs. Goeppinger (Appendix B) was

to understand the effect urban green spaces have on area wildlife and vice versa. There was also

interest in identifying where green spaces might best support area wildlife and which species

might be the most impacted. The interview with Mr. Beezat (Appendix C) sought to learn more

about the state of the local food system and determine where the need for greening initiatives

was greatest (e.g. low income neighborhoods, food insecure families, food deserts, etc.).

Case studies included greening and other vacant lot repurposing initiatives developed and

implemented by local governments in comparable cities. This provided the bulk of data

regarding the steps other cities have or are currently taking to address vacant lots, as well as to

RECAPTURING VALUE 9

identify any reoccurring themes that would be useful to the vacant lot situation in the City of

Kenosha.

A sample survey (Appendix D) was also created and distributed online to measure the

attitudes of as many local area residents, business owners, and other relevant stakeholders as

possible. The survey consisted of eight structured, Likert scale-style questions designed to probe

respondents about their opinion of the vacant lot situation in Kenosha, in general, and their

attitude toward the proposed greening initiatives, specifically, including their interest in

contributing financially or taking part in some other way. The survey also included one matrix

table question with several statements focusing on how respondents thought converted lots (into

green spaces) would affect them personally, as well as their neighborhood and the city as a

whole. The last five questions in the survey were demographic questions for profiling purposes

and to cross-tabulate and compare subgroups to see how opinions varied between groups of

respondents. The survey was administered through Facebook to Kenosha community-based

groups such as the Kenosha Community Forum, Kenosha Harbor Market, and You Know You’re

From Kenosha If… Essentially, the survey was designed to gauge peoples’ opinions and feelings

about greening vacant lots throughout the city and to help determine whether this initiative

would be favorable with Kenosha area residents.

Research Questions

It was important to examine greening decisions by government officials in other cities to

gauge what actions might be applicable in Kenosha. Research was conducted by a content

analysis utilizing the results of several types of previous research, case studies, and interview

questions.

1) What role might city officials take in greening vacant lots in Kenosha?

RECAPTURING VALUE 10

Question One Proposition: Officials can take a number of different actions with varying

levels of involvement in vacant lot reuse/repurposing programs and other greening initiatives.

It was also important to attempt to determine the number of lots the city currently owned

in order to better access the extent of the problem, as well as the city’s level of involvement or

concern for reusing/repurposing these spaces.

2) How many non-residential lots are there and do city officials already have any current or

future plans for reusing vacant lots in the city?

Question Two Proposition: Based on personal observations after canvassing several

parts of the city, as well as being familiar with the vacancy history of several lots, there appeared

to be a number of vacant lots throughout the city with no current plans for reuse/repurpose.

Based on a thorough review of the literature on this topic, it seemed reasonable to expect

a considerable amount of involvement would be necessary on the part of local city officials in

encouraging reuse/repurpose of vacant lots. It was also important to gauge the attitudes and

opinions of local area residents in greening vacant lots since their involvement would be

essential to the success of any initiative or program.

3) How might the city best encourage greening of private lots and what would city residents

think about such an initiative?

Question Three Proposition: The city could be doing more to inform the public of the

value of greening vacant lots in the city, as well as encouraging action on the part of community

groups, residents, and other relevant stakeholders. It was also expected such an initiative would

be at least somewhat favorable with local area residents due to the growing popularity of various

food movements (e.g. slow food, local food, organic food).


Research Objectives

1) Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of developing vacant lots into different

types of green spaces (i.e. community gardens, food forests, urban agriculture, etc.).

2) Investigate whether this type of initiative is realistic and practical for Kenosha.

3) Determine which lots are suitable for these purposes and offer suggestions to the city

council of how to develop such an initiative.

4) Develop a 5 year action plan to convert 50% of current vacant lots.

Literature Review

Much of the literature reviewed for this project comes from non-profit and advocacy

organizations like The Center for Community Progress, the National Vacant Properties

Campaign, and Smart Growth America. Each of these organizations specialize in research and

information resources, tools, and assistance that supports vacant property revitalization efforts.

This project incorporated data taken from a diverse number of other sources as well including

city publications, news articles, and academic journals pertaining to varying characteristics of

blighted communities, strategies for redevelopment, benefits associated with green space in

urban environments, and greening initiatives from other cities. The whole of this data served as

the foundation on which to assess the vacant lot situation within the City of Kenosha and provide

recommendations to the city for going forward.

Previous Findings

The main common key concepts identified in the literature review include ways in which

vacant properties are detrimental to communities and the benefits of reclaiming/repurposing

these spaces. According to the National Vacant Property Campaign (2005), vacant and

abandoned properties impose a number of public health and safety costs upon communities.


Research from across the country has also identified a wide variety of costs, including city

services (i.e. nuisance abatement, crime and fire prevention), lower market property values and

tax revenues, as well as costs imposed on homeowners and issues surrounding urban blight. For

instance, police and fire departments usually bear the brunt of responsibility for crime, fire, and

other public safety issues associated with vacant and abandoned properties. Municipal staff from

several departments also need to work to address the care of vacant properties: legal offices,

public works, housing, and real estate services are all generally involved. As such, vacant

property management necessitates coordination between local governments, such as county

health department, tax collectors, and assessors (NVPC, 2005).

Previous research about the benefits of urban greening can be organized into three

general categories: 1) community development/neighborhood stabilization; 2) social and public

health; and 3) environmental/ecological. Although these categories should not be considered all-

inclusive or even applicable to all the research that has been conducted on this topic, it does offer

a convenient way to organize and frame the range of impacts identified thus far from urban

greening programs on vacant land. A more complete and concise list of impacts will be listed in

the findings section.

1) Neighborhood Stabilization & Community/Economic Development

Increases Surrounding Property Values

Research into the effect of greening on property values dates back to the early

establishment of the urban park systems. However, most recent studies focused on vacant lot

greening compare property values before and after greening implementation.

Three studies of Philadelphia’s Land Care program found property values nearby

simple vacant land management treated lots (i.e. removal of debris, grass and trees


planted, erection of a split-rail fence to prevent dumping) increased as a result of the

program (Heckert, 2015; Wachter, 2004; & Wachter, 2006).

Two of these studies, however, also revealed the potential for greening interventions

to affect neighborhoods differently depending on characteristics of both the

neighborhoods and the greening interventions involved. For instance, when

comparing property values for homes immediately adjacent to greened lots to sale

prices of typical area homes in a neighborhood-specific study, properties adjacent to

greened lots were found to be worth 30% more (Wachter, 2004); while a city-wide

study found increased property values by 11% (Wachter, 2006). On the other hand,

although property values increased in distressed neighborhoods more than in stable

real estate markets, the most distressed areas of the city did not see property value

improvements as a result of greening. The percentage of vacant land greened was also

found to be significant, with higher rates of greening associated with increased

property values (Heckert, 2015).

Another study conducted in New York City comparing property values around vacant

lots before and after the establishment of community gardens found significant

increases in property values within 1,000 feet of the gardens, with positive gains

increasing over time. However, neighborhood conditions were also determined to be

an important factor, with gardens increasing property values in low-income but not

high-income areas. In addition, garden quality also appeared to influence garden

impact, with high quality gardens leading to higher property value increases (Voicu,

& Been, 2008).


A study of community gardens in St. Louis found rents increased in close proximity

to newly established community gardens more than in larger surrounding

communities, suggesting a willingness for tenants to pay higher rents to live near

community gardens. Additionally, it found increased rates of owner-occupancy in

areas closest to the gardens (Tranel & Handlin, 2006).

A University of Minnesota study foundvacant lots resulting from the demolition of

vacant buildings led to a total of $26,397 in lost property tax revenue over a 20 year

period (NVPC, 2005).

These findings are consistent with literature on parks and green spaces showing that

parks, trees, and vegetation are all associated with higher property values. Further, although the

“proximate principle” remains widely accepted, some studies show impacts may vary based on

neighborhood and park characteristics such as crime (i.e. parks are associated with lower

property values in high crime areas), park amenities, and maintenance levels (Heckert, Schilling

& Carlet, 2015).

Supplements Food Security Efforts

Urban agriculture has received increased support in recent years as a food security and

urban sustainability strategy. Using vacant land as a resource for local food production is

growing rapidly worldwide as a means of combating community food insecurity and urban food

deserts (Gallagher et al., 2013). The economic benefits of food produced either for personal

consumption, sharing, or sale in local communities is becoming more apparent to community

gardeners everywhere.


Early data suggests urban specialty crop cultivation can be highly productive,

yielding 2-7 kg/m2, depending on crop and conditions (as cited in Beniston & Lal,

2012).

A study of vacant lots, open space, and underutilized parks in Oakland, California

with agricultural potential estimated that, even in the most conservative scenario, the

potential contribution of these spaces to the city’s current and recommended

vegetable needs contributed between 2.9 and 7.3% of current consumption,

depending on production methods, or 0.6-1.5% of recommended consumption

(McClintock et al., 2013).

A review of four studies on gardens and vegetable consumption found in three of the

studies that gardeners consumed more vegetables than non-gardeners. Although the

fourth study did not compare gardeners to non-gardeners, gardeners were found to

self-report greater consumption of vegetables while gardening than times when they

were not gardening (McCormack et al., 2010).

An ethnographic study of gardens in New York City’s Loisaida neighborhood found

that although residents have a variety of reasons for participating in community

gardens, many gardeners see gardens as primarily economic resources for food

production (Schmelzkopf, 1995).

A study of community gardens in Philadelphia suggests they can be instrumental in

for promoting environmental awareness and “ecological citizenship.” Gardens were

found to promote inclusion of people often marginalized and/or excluded from the

“agrifood system” and as sites of social learning (Travertine & Hunold, 2010).


A study of gardens in Philadelphia’s Mantura neighborhood found gardeners tended

to share their produce with neighbors and other members of their church communities

(Hanna & Oh, 2000).

2) Public & Social Health

Promotes social and physical health

Green space is widely regarded as an integral component of a healthy residential

environment, having been linked to health benefits such as reduced stress, lower blood pressure,

and increased physical activity. Urban green space specifically provides ample opportunity for

recreation, social communication, esthetic enjoyments, and education. Moreover, these benefits

can be extended to groups of people with age, gender, profession, culture, and education

differences (Zhou & Masud, 2012).

A study of participants in a community garden organization in Salt Lake City found

active men and women community gardeners had lower BMIs (body mass index)

than non-participating neighbors, spouses, and siblings. Women community

gardeners had significantly lowers BMIs compared to their sisters (-1.88) and men

community gardeners compared to their brothers (-1.33) (Zick et al., 2013).

A study in the United Kingdom comparing mental health scores before and after

relocating to greener urban areas found sustained mental health improvements

following the move, suggesting a link between increased urban green space and long-

term public health benefits (Alcock et al., 2013).

Four studies of community gardeners found they consumed more fresh vegetables

than non-gardeners in similar geographic areas. Another study that did not look at

comparisons to non-gardeners found that gardeners reported consuming more


vegetables while participating in the community garden (McCormack et al., 2010;

Litt et al., 2011).

These studies are consistent with the larger literature on the positive health benefits of

living near parks, trees, and vegetation – including increased physical activity, improved birth

outcomes, improved mental health, and reduced incidence of asthma (Cohen et al., 2007; Lovasi

et al., 2008; Hystad et al., 2014; Hartig et al., 1991).

Reduces Crime & Inner City Decay

Research indicates greening vacant lots can have a positive influence on neighborhoods

and is sometimes even associated with reductions of violent crime. These results are consistent

with long standing social psychological research on the relationship of physical disorder and

social disorder under the rubric of the “Broken Window Theory” (Wilson & Kelling, 1989). This

theory holds that if one broken window in a building is not repaired then people will assume that

no one cares about the building, or the neighborhood. In turn, this escalates to more and more

windows being broken, possibly even leading to more serious crime. Essentially, it is the nature

of the physical environment that leads to an increase in criminal activity (as cited in NVPC,

2005).

A study of the impacts of the Philadelphia Land Care program found incidences of

police-reported crimes decreased around greened lots when compared to un-greened

areas surrounding vacant lots. Estimates from a regression model showed vacant lot

greening linked to consistent reductions in gun assaults across four sections of the city

(including 4,436 lots totaling over 7.8 million square feet) and consistent reductions of

vandalism in one section of the city (Branas et al., 2011).


A study investigating the effect of different landscaping options in urban public housing

found tree plantings and proper grass maintenance had a clear positive effect on

residents’ sense of safety (Kuo et al., 1998).

Another study looking at the relationship between vegetation and crime in an inner-city

neighborhood found public housing buildings with high levels of vegetation nearby had

48% fewer reported property crimes and 56% fewer violent crimes than buildings with

low levels of vegetation (Kuo et al., 2001).

Although a study of community gardens and crime in Houston did not find any direct

impacts on property crimes and community gardens, residents reported decreased illegal

activity after the gardens were established. This suggests perceptions of safety and crime

changed even if actual rates did not (Gorham et al., 2009).

Cultural and amenity services refer to aesthetic, spiritual, psychological, and other

benefits people obtain by contact with ecosystems, both direct and indirect. A green view from a

window, for instance, has been shown to increase job satisfaction and reduce stress (Elmqvist,

T., 2010).

Cultural & Amenity

Cultural, aesthetics, spiritual, etc. - many of these services are associated with

urban areas and evidence demonstrates the important role biodiversity plays in

enhancing human well-being. Ecosystems also help foster a sense of place in

many societies and has considerable intrinsic cultural value.

Recreation, tourism etc. – visitation to protected natural areas is also growing at

or faster than international tourism. In 2006, as many as 87 million Americans

participated in wild-life related recreation, an increase of 13% over the decade


(Elmqvist, T., 2010). Although the role of biodiversity varies considerably among

these services, it is considered largely due to ecotourism and educational uses of

ecosystems. Newly created or restored green spaces are also becoming an

increasingly important component of the urban environment for providing this

service.

3) Environmental/Ecological

Improves Stormwater Runoff & Combined Sewer Overflows

Green infrastructure generally refers to stormwater management systems that mimic

nature by soaking up and storing water, thus leading to improved water recharge for underground

aquifer reserves. This involves the use of vegetation, soils, and other natural processes to manage

water and create healthier, more natural urban environments. By employing green infrastructure

techniques, vacant lots with rain gardens, retention ponds, and/or wetlands help mitigate

stormwater runoff and alleviate combined sewer overflow by helping control runoff volume and

improve water quality, resulting in improved erosion and sediment control (EPA, 2014).

A report to the Illinois EPA highlighted how green infrastructure techniques can be

employed to effectively reduce stormwater peak flows and runoff volumes, both of

which increase flooding and sedimentation risks. The report investigated the

effectiveness of five green infrastructure features (bio infiltration, permeable

pavement, filtration, green roof, and constructed wetland) on four common

stormwater management challenges (runoff volume, peak flow, total suspended

solids, and total nitrogen). Average peak flow reductions ranged from 52% to 70%

with runoff volume mitigated by 57% to 85%. The report also found green

infrastructure generally succeeded in reducing total suspended solids and total


nitrogen mean concentration, thus improving stormwater runoff quality (Jaffe et al.,

2010).

A study in Cleveland showed how a properly designed and managed green

infrastructure infiltration system can result in a vacant lot with sufficient capacity for

detention of average annual rainfall volumes for a major Midwestern city. Results

indicate improvements in the demolition and maintenance processes – including

removal of superstructure and debris, applying appropriate infill material, and the

establishment of a protective vegetation cover – can significantly improve infiltration

opportunities. This contrasts a typical vacant lot which is a net producer of runoff

volume.

Provisioning services simply refers to benefits ecosystems provide to people that can be

extracted from nature. This includes services that provide people with food, water, and other

resources.

Provisioning Services

Food - agro-ecosystems provide food for human consumption and, together with

associated ecosystems supporting marine and freshwater fisheries, underpin

global food security. Urban areas also have allotment and other forms of gardens

that are important in food production (Elmqvist, T., 2010).

Water – ecosystems play an important role in the global hydrological cycle,

contributing to water provision (quantity), regulation (timing), and purification

(quality). This is particularly relevant in urban and intensively managed

ecosystems where water quality is altered by the addition and removal of

organisms and substances, then purified as water passes through soils.


Ornamental resources – ornamentals are typically grown for the display of their

flowers but other common ornamental features include leaves, scent, fruit, stems,

and bark. Considerable effort has been made in the search for and transfer of

species to be enjoyed in parks, gardens, private greenhouses, and zoos. As such,

these resources continue to play an iconic role in the development of human

society.

Regulating services simply refer to benefits ecosystems provide to people by acting as

regulators. This includes regulating air and soil quality, erosion and flood control, pollination,

etc.

Regulating Services

Air quality and other urban environmental quality regulation – ecosystems

contribute to several environmental regulation services important for human

wellbeing, particularly in urban areas where vegetation can play an important role

in reducing air pollution and noise, mitigating the ‘urban heat island’ effect, and

reducing impacts related to climate change (Elmqvist, T., 2010). Moreover, urban

ecosystem services may be generated in a diverse set of habitats, including parks,

gardens, and green vacant lots.

Climate regulation - numerous factors interact in the regulation of climate,

including the reflection of solar radiation by clouds, dust, and aerosols in the

atmosphere. In recent years, however, the Earth’s climate has been changing and

is gradually getting warmer. Current change is driven largely by increases in the

concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere, principally as a result of changes

in land use and rapidly rising rates of combustion of fossil fuels (Elmqvist, T.,


2010). Although all soils store carbon, the largest stores are in peatlands and

forests are the only major ecosystems where the amount of carbon stored in the

biomass of plants exceeds that in the soil. In relation to climate change mitigation,

urban ecosystems may assimilate non-negligible quantities of carbon, ecosystems

assimilate about 17% of total anthropogenic CO2, and residential trees in the

continental United States may sequester 20 to 40 teragrams C per year (Elmqvist,

T., 2010).

Pollination – these are services important in any ecosystem, including urban

ecosystems. Pollinating species often depend on natural or semi-natural habitats

for the provisioning of nesting and floral resources not found within crop fields

(Elmqvist, T., 2010). Loss of suitable habitat is a key driver of declines in

pollination services by wild pollinators, and habitat degradation through

agricultural intensification leads to scarcity in critical floral and nesting resources

for many species. Plant diversity and floral abundance in urban environments can

help attract pollinating species, supporting healthy ecosystems (Elmqvist, T.,

2010).

Habitat services simply refer to basic necessities ecosystems provide for plants and

animals to survive. This includes food, water, and shelter.

Habitat Services

Migratory Species – these species may use an ecosystem for just a part of their

life cycle. However, a high level of interdependency exists among all species and

any species loss has consequences to the ecosystem. Although some may go

unnoticed by human observers, others are significant for the functioning and


provisioning of ecosystem services for migrating species. Green spaces and

surrounding residential areas should be integrated into urban planning and

development designs to maintain resident avifauna and overall species diversity in

urban environments (Elmqvist, T., 2010).

Genetic diversity - ecosystems exhibiting particularly high levels of biodiversity

(biodiversity hotspots) with exceptional concentrations of endemic species are

undergoing dramatic habitat loss. “As many as 44% of all species of vascular

plants and 35% of all species in four vertebrate groups are confined to 25 hotspots

comprising only 1.4% of the land surface of the Earth” (as cited in Elmqvist, T.,

2010). In addition to the overall importance of these ‘hotspots’ in maintaining

genetic diversity, supporting genetic diversity is of particular and immediate

importance in preserving the gene-pool of most of our commercial crops and

livestock species.

Case Studies

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Milwaukee has a population of just under 600,000 residents and a

land area of 96 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). The city also currently owns

and maintains more than 3,000 vacant lots, largely as a result of the 2008 foreclosure crisis (City

of Milwaukee, 2013). The city created the Office of Environmental Sustainability in 2006 to

improve quality of life in Milwaukee through smart, achievable sustainability principles. By

2011, Milwaukee ranked one of 24 cities globally as an IBM Smarter City in recognition of the

city-supported urban agriculture movement (City of Milwaukee, 2013). At his 2012 State of the

City address, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett announced his intention to collaborate with the


community to build a more sustainable city, while directing the City’s Office of Environmental

Sustainability Director to immediately begin a sustainability planning exercise. As part of this

initiative – and in response to troubling public health statistics citing unhealthy eating, obesity,

and poor access to healthy food – the city is well on its way to building a more sustainable and

resilient community food system.

Coincident with the development of Milwaukee’s Sustainability Plan was the 2012

announcement of the HOME GR/OWN initiative: a plan to “increase healthy food consumption

(demand) and access to healthy food (supply) by using city-owned vacant properties in targeted

neighborhoods, while catalyzing system-wide improvements in the local food supply chain (City

of Milwaukee, 2013). Essentially, HOME GR/OWN seeks to empower residents to transform

neighborhoods by repurposing city-owned vacant lots into new, green community spaces that

spark economic opportunities around local, healthy food production and distribution. As a

catalytic project HOME GR/OWN has set the following targets:

Five foreclosed structures re-used for residential or commercial end-use that support the

local food supply chain by July 2014

Ten vacant lots converted to food-based uses by 2015

Five new corner stores serving fresh food and produce by 2015

Necessary city ordinances/zoning/ permitting changes passed by July 2014 that remove

obstacles to developing new real estate disposition strategies, repurposing residential

properties to nonresidential uses, expanding urban agricultural uses on vacant lots and

establishing micro-business ventures in the local food supply chain

HOME GR/OWN projects as of 2013 include:

Passage of major revisions to the city's urban agriculture ordinances


Aided passage of revised Food Peddler ordinances

New community gardens and orchards on city vacant lots: with partners Neu-Life,

Groundwork MKE and Infallible Helping Hands

Gillespie Park constructed summer 2014; named 2015 MANDI finalist

Fundraising targets met to date

Priority projects for 2015 include:

Development and construction of two new urban farms: Alice's Herbal Farm and Cream

City Gardens

Construction of new mini-park at 37th Street and Center Street

Twenty new orchards and six new mini-parks, including Sunshine Park at 14th Street and

North Avenue, built through Partners for Places grant (200 apple, plum and cherry trees

planted this year)

Final construction on All People's Church orchard stormwater features

The city has also collaborated with groups like Growing Power (a nationally acclaimed urban

agriculture group founded by former professional basketball player Will Allen) and supports

other local food efforts. This includes the city’s Seasonal Plot Permit Program (involving

individual license grants to land for a single growing season); three-year leases with community

agriculture groups; land leased to Milwaukee Urban Gardens (a non-profit land trust that

acquires land for community gardens while providing educational and community support for

urban gardeners); and the $1 Vacant Side Lot – 15th District Pilot Program (purchased lots are

approved by local alderman for gardens, side yards, or landscaped open space) (City of

Milwaukee, 2015). Milwaukee has also revised its zoning code several times to remove barriers


that inhibit urban agriculture efforts (i.e. expanding zoning districts where urban agriculture is

permissible and the types of uses permitted).

Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore, Maryland has a population of just over 620,000 and a land area of 81 square

miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). The city also currently has more than 30,000 vacant

lots and abandoned buildings as a result of steady population decline since the 1950s (McHugh,

2012). The city’s Office of Sustainability was created in 2008 with one of its main goals to

enhance the local food system infrastructure. In so doing, the city has sought to increase land

cultivated for agricultural purposes; increase demand for local food used in schools and other

institutions; develop an urban agriculture plan; and implement the Baltimore Food Policy Task

Force’s recommendation for food policy (City of Baltimore, 2013). Included in the Task Force’s

recommendations is to promote farmers markets and CSAs (community supported agriculture),

support community gardens and urban agriculture, continue research of food deserts, and

improve the food environment around schools and recreation centers. In 2010, the Maryland

State Assembly also passed a bill allowing counties and the City of Baltimore to enact an “Urban

Agriculture Tax Credit” for properties used specifically for urban agriculture.

Perhaps at the heart of Baltimore’s vacancy strategy, however, is the Baltimore

Housing’s Vacants to Value initiative launched in 2010. This initiative looks at ways to

streamline the disposition and code enforcement processes to make redevelopment of blighted

properties quicker, more efficient, and economical (McHugh, 2012). Included in the city’s other

programs are: Power in Dirt, which streamlines the adopt-a-lot process by which residents can

use and maintain city-owned lots by reducing systemic barriers preventing residents and

organization from revitalizing vacant lots, while creating and supporting new initiatives; a


Request for Qualifications for Urban Agriculture in the City of Baltimore, allowing farmers to

participate in the development of pre-selected 35 acres of city-owned vacant land for urban

agriculture; and the transfer of lots to Land Trusts for long-term open space preservation.

In response to community support of urban agriculture, Baltimore is also working to

revise a zoning ordinance that adds community gardens as an approved use in many

neighborhoods. It has also taken additional steps to modify policies to improve the legal status of

urban gardens. For instance, the city established a policy to sell community managed open space

for $1 to groups who have a partner organization, such as the Parks and People Foundation. The

new version of the zoning code would simplify the city’s 40 year-old existing code, promote

mixed use development, and protect open space and community gardens. Moreover, it will

provide a definition of a “community garden” and specify the types of uses permitted in

community gardens within the city.

New Bedford, Massachusetts

New Bedford, Massachusetts is home to just under 95,000 residents and has a total land

area of 20 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Despite the size of the city in terms

of square mileage, approximately 24% of commercial space and 38% of retail space in

downtown New Bedford is vacant (HR&A Advisors, 2010). In addition to vacant properties, the

city is also struggling with a considerable number of vacant lots. Although the city does not have

an Office of Sustainability, New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell announced the launch of the Side

Yard Sales Program in 2013 to return vacant lots to productive use. Under this program, eligible

property owners have the opportunity to acquire vacant city-owned lots bordering their property

at a deeply discounted price. Vacant lots available for purchase are generally less than 8,000

square feet in size; located in residential neighborhoods with a privately-owned building on at


least one side; not needed by the city for open space or any other public use; and not part of a

larger, developable vacant parcel (City of New Bedford, n.d.). Acquired lots may be used as a

garden, side yard, landscaped open space, off-street parking, garage, septic improvements, or as

an addition to an abutter’s existing structure. The program is open to any property owner whose

property is located immediately adjacent to an eligible vacant lot. The fixed cost as determined

by lot size is as follows:

1. Lot size: 0 -1,000 square feet $ 250.00

2. Lot size: 1,000 – 3,000 square feet $ 500.00

3. Lot Size 3,000 -$5,000 square feet $ 750.00

4. Lot Size over 5,000 square feet $1,000.00

However, to assist with engineering and recording fees, the city reimburses applicants the

original cost of lot acquisition upon successful completion of the reconfigured lot. Mayor

Mitchell has also taken steps in marketing the program to ensure property owners are aware of

the opportunity to improve their lots and beautify their neighborhood. City Councilor Henry

Bousquet stated, “I support initiatives like the new Side Yard Sales Program to help preserve

green space, aid in getting unbuildable surplus land back on the city tax rolls, and providing a

valuable service to our taxpaying property owners” (as cited in New Bedford Guide, 2013). The

Side Yard Sales Program is operated by the New Bedford Treasurer’s Office with a guidebook,

including the application, eligibility requirements, and sale terms conditions available online at:

http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/treasurers/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/SideYardSales.pdf.

Portland, Oregon

Nestled in the Northwest corner of Oregon, Portland has a population of around 620,000

residents and a total land area of approximately 133 square miles (United States Census Bureau,

http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/treasurers/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/SideYardSales.pdf


2015). In 2008, Popular Science named Portland the greenest city in the United States, the same

year it took first place in SustainLane’s city sustainability rankings (Popovitch, 2014). Also in

2008, the city merged its Bureau of Planning with its Office of Sustainable Development (City of

Portland, 2015). In 1981, an urban growth boundary was approved by the city, forcing dense

population growth into a restricted area and transitioning the city into the savvy social economy

it is today. From decades-old municipal projects to recent efforts in revising its zoning code,

green planning and development (including urban agriculture) are well established and supported

within the city.

Portland has two main programs that support urban agriculture: the Community Gardens

Program (established in 1975 by the Portland Department of Parks and Recreation) and the

Sustainable Food Program. Through the Community Gardens Program, farmers can rent plots

and receive the necessary water, fencing, and other support necessary to start a garden. However,

due to the high popularity of the program and limited growing space, many community gardens

have multi-year waiting lists. As of 2014, the Portland Community Gardens Program included a

total of 50 community gardens covering 22 acres throughout the city (City of Portland, 2015).

The Sustainable Food Program focuses on policy and projects promoting CSAs and farmers

markets. Currently, there are a total of 26 farmers markets in the city, including a thriving local

food cart business (Popovitch, 2014). Essentially, the goal of the Sustainable Food Program is to

“promote community resiliency, equity, and environmental, economic, and personal health”

(City of Portland, 2015). According to Community Garden Program Coordinator for the Portland

Department of Parks and Recreation, “It sort of normalizes this idea of food being grown – a lot

of us are very disconnected from how to grow the food we eat” (as cited in (Popovitch, 2014).

The City of Portland also models its commitment to urban agriculture through a green space in


front of the city building devoted to growing vegetables for the Meals on Wheels senior food

program (Popovitch, 2014).

Other government organizations have been developed in conjunction with the

Community Garden Program and the Sustainable Food Program. The Produce for People

Program established in 1995 is another program of the Portland Department of Parks and

Recreation. In partnership with hunger relief agencies, Produce for People seeks to provide city

emergency food shelters with “fresh, nutritious, organic, locally grown food” (City of Portland,

2015). In 2014, 42 of the participating gardens donated a total of 43,693 pounds of produce to 23

community partner agencies (City of Portland, 2015).

The city also explained how it is taking steps to revise and improve its zoning code to

“establish zoning code regulations for urban food production and distribution activities that

support Portlanders’ access to healthy food, while ensuring that surrounding neighborhoods are

protected from impacts such as noise, traffic, and pollutants” (as cited in Goldstein et al., 2011).

The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s 2012 Urban Food Zoning Code Update included

zoning code amendments to address the following:

Market Gardens – gardens or orchards where food is grown to be sold.

o Currently, market gardens are classified as an Agriculture Use and only allowed

in certain zones (e.g. employment, open space, and very low density residential

zones).

o The amendments allow market gardens in all zones while ensuring any negative

impacts on neighbors are minimized.

Community Gardens – gardens where several individuals or households grow for

personal consumption or donation.


o Currently, community gardens are allowed in all zones.

o The amendments continue to allow community gardens in all zones, but include

regulations to minimize the negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

Food Membership Distribution Sites – sites where pre-ordered food is delivered and

picked up as part of a food buying club or CSA.

o Currently, the zoning code fails to address the issue of how to regulate a food

distribution site.

o The amendments allow food membership distribution sites in all zones and

include regulations to address the impacts of the distribution activity (i.e.

frequency and number of members, hours of operation, traffic, etc.)

Farmers Markets – events that occur on a regular basis in the same location with the

majority of vendors as farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers selling food,

plants, flowers and added-value products.

o Currently, farmers markets are regulated as temporary uses and the regulations

can be cumbersome and expensive.

o The amendments add regulations in the temporary use specifically for farmers

markets to address location, frequency, number of "non-farmer" vendors, and

when markets may set up on parking lots and vacant residential lots.

Portland also started the Grey to Green initiative in 2008 to boost green infrastructure in

the city. This includes constructed facilities like green streets, ecoroofs, and rain gardens that

capture and mange stormwater with vegetation and soils. The five-year Environmental Services

initiative worked with residents, community organizations, and businesses in building a civic


infrastructure while also greening the city. The Grey to Green initiative incorporated the

following:

1. Land acquisition – protecting natural areas from development while allowing

restoration of sensitive habitat through public ownership. Benefits: provides habitat

for wildlife in the city; protects rivers and streams; prevents flooding, erosion and

landslides.

2. Green Streets – natural, cost-effective management of stormwater runoff. Benefits:

allows water to soak back into the ground while protecting rivers and streams from

pollutants; recharges groundwater to supply cool, clean water to rivers and streams;

adds natural beauty to neighborhoods while also helping calm traffic.

3. Ecoroofs – living, breathing, sustainable alternatives to conventional roofs. Benefits:

manages stormwater on-site rather than allowing washed pollutants to infiltrate

streams and sewer systems; improves air quality; provides habitat for pollinators;

saves energy; reduces urban heat island effect; and provides neighborhood green

spaces.

4. Street and yard trees – intercepts runoff to reduce stormwater runoff while filtering

air pollutants and providing bird habitats. Benefits: stabilizes soil to prevent erosion;

provides shade and absorbs carbon to reduce climate changing greenhouse gases;

improves property values; slows traffic; makes streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists

and motorists.

5. Replacing culverts – improves fish migration; restores degraded land; creates healthy

natural areas for future generations; reduces flooding and erosion during heavy rains.


6. Revegetation – restoring native plants and trees in natural areas and open spaces.

Benefits: provides health habitat and better water filtration; improves urban forest fire

resistance and adaption to climate changes; reduces natural area maintenance costs;

creates healthy natural areas for future generations.

7. Invasive weed control – early detection and removal of new species prevents major

infestations. Benefits: education and outreach limits introduction of new species that

threaten native ecosystems; ongoing maintenance helps keep parks, yards, forests and

streambanks healthy.

Despite all of the strides Portland has made it too has struggled with vacant lots. In 2010,

for instance, there were as many as 384 vacant lots scattered around Portland’s Multnomah

County (Mirk, 2010). Many of these properties were seized several years ago by the county

through property tax foreclosures, with many being oddly shaped or poorly located strips of land

leftover following land sold or donated for county offices, government entities, or to affordable-

housing groups. In response to the vacant lot situation, the county’s Office of Sustainability and

Tax Title has partnered with local area non-profit organizations to bring an innovative program

to the community for the leasing and donation of tax foreclosed properties to qualified (non-

profit) organizations for urban gardens or green space uses. Currently, a total of six community

gardens have been created due to the County Digs Program and Green space Property Donation

Program. The county transfers tax-foreclosed properties to local governments and qualified non-

profit organizations in the community under the condition that the property is put to continuous,

productive use as a community garden, urban farm, teaching garden, and/or as green space

(Multnomah County, 2015). According to the County Digs Program website, the partnership


“reflects the county’s commitment to healthy, equity, local food, and our natural environment”

(Multnomah County, 2015).

Rochester, New York

Rochester, New York has a population of almost 210,000 residents and a total land area

of 36 square miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Having lost over 120,000 residents

since 1950, Rochester is one of many cities today facing a smaller future. In response to the

decline of its population and limited resources, Rochester is taking bold steps to ensure it

remains a vital, successful, and thriving community. Since the city’s built environment

accommodated more people in the past than it needs to now or in the foreseeable future,

Rochester faces a huge oversupply of housing units and a citywide vacancy rate of 12% to 14%

(City of Rochester, 2009). Project Green is designed to match the footprint of the city’s built

environment with that of its existing and anticipated future population. In so doing, Project

Green seeks to strategically parcel lots for reuse, ranging from single lot community gardens to

block wide redevelopment sites. This will involve demolition decisions of vacant structures over

the next two decades based on the feasibility and opportunities in combining lots to create larger

parcels for future development, or on sites that have high greening potential (City of Rochester,

2009). This includes greening initiatives such as community gardens, urban agriculture

enterprises, urban forests, and central civic green spaces.

At the time of the Project Green report, 300 community gardens – including floral and

produce – had been developed in Rochester (City of Rochester, 2009). The city continues to

provide technical advice, soil, mulch, plant material, and tilling –although hard work, dedication

and labor-hours are provided solely by neighbors (City of Rochester, 2009). In fact, the city

pointed out that it is most often neighborhood groups that develop community gardens on vacant


lots within the city. Garden permits are issued by the city on an annual basis at no charge, with

additional information about starting a community garden available through the city’s website.

One notable example is a former gasoline station site that was transformed into a community

garden after the city, as a partner in the effort, removed and disposed of underground tanks and

370 tons of contaminated soil in its cleanup efforts (City of Rochester, 2009). As positive as the

city considers community gardens, it also acknowledges that not every vacant lot created as part

of its project will find a dedicated neighborhood or community group to maintain a garden. Thus,

it emphasizes the need for other greening options and other ways to deal with vacant land in the

city.

Under Project Green, vacant lots created through demolition may also be combined with

lots of adjacent property owners to create larger yards, as well as large scale public green spaces

in the development of neighborhood park systems and green linkages. Sites reserved for future

redevelopment, however, are to be greened for the short-term with tree plantings and landscaping

to keep areas attractive while complimenting streetscapes. Included in the city’s short-term

strategy are edible landscapes, rain gardens, urban tree/flower farms, bio-remediation,

community gardens, and urban agriculture. Moreover, it is anticipated this will add value to

surrounding properties and improve social connections by providing park-like settings to

residents. The city is also considering medium- to long-term leasing on vacant lots for urban

agriculture to retain control of land should future residential market conditions change.

Essentially, Project Green strives to reduce public service and remedial costs, stabilize property

values in high vacancy rate neighborhoods, and create stronger market demand for remaining

inventories, hereby also benefiting the city’s tax base (City of Rochester, 2009).


Flint, Michigan

Flint, Michigan is home to 99,000 residents with a total land area of just over 33 square

miles (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Flint has also experienced severe population decline

to approximately half of what it was in the 1970s. Despite its relatively small size, Flint has more

than 23,000 vacant properties representing one-third of all properties in the city (Detroit Future

City, 2015). Approximately 14,500 of these properties are vacant lots, with half of these owned

and stewarded by the Genesee County Land Bank Authority (Detroit Future City, 2015). In

2013, the Flint City Council unanimously adopted the Imagine Flint Master Plan for a

Sustainable Flint, which provides a 20-year community vision for the city. Under the master

plan, the goal of Flint’s land use plan is to build a community “…made up of distinct and

desirable ‘places’ by integrating a wide range of land uses into a city pattern that is vibrant,

sustainable, livable, and healthy” (City of Flint, 2014).

Part of this unique, place-based approach to land use includes areas of the city designated

as “green innovation” and “green neighborhoods.” Green innovation are designated areas of the

city where redevelopment opportunities in large vacant areas are considered likely. Although

land uses in these areas are intended to be flexible and appropriately selected on a case-by-case

basis, new businesses located within are expected to demonstrate innovative practices that justify

their appropriateness in Green Innovation areas. These areas include an array of possibilities

from local food production, alternative energy, and environmental sustainability to other local

green initiatives such as agricultural research, organic food processing, aquaculture, and/or

renewable energy (City of Flint, 2014).

Green Neighborhoods are designated residential areas with sound housing stocks, but that

have experienced considerable disinvestment and abandonment. These are low-density


neighborhoods with significant amounts of vacant land dedicated to green uses, community

gardens, small-scale urban agriculture, and small open space areas. Flint’s Green Neighborhoods

are designed to be stable, safe and healthy areas, complimented by green and open spaces, and

maintained by local residents, community groups, and other invested stakeholders. Essentially,

these areas necessitate the stabilization of remaining homes while incorporating the introduction

of various green uses. The city’s desired vision of both Green Neighborhoods and Green

Innovation areas also requires revising the city’s zoning code to ensure uses necessary to support

the master plan’s place typology (City of Flint, 2014).

The Land Bank Side Lot Program also provides Flint residents the opportunity to extend

their yard by purchasing vacant properties adjacent to their home. The cost is $25.00 plus the

foreclosure year’s taxes (if foreclosed in or before 2003), a $25.00 administration fee, and a

$14.00 filing fee (Genesee County Land Bank, 2015). The property database and residential

property interest form are available on the Genesee County Land Bank’s website. The specific

requirements of the Side Lot programs are as follows:

The property requested is located in the City of Flint.

The property requested is currently owned by the Genesee County Land Bank.

The property requested is vacant real property with no structure on the site.

The property requested is next to the applicant’s property with at least a 75%

common boundary line on the right or left side.

The applicant is the owner and living in the property next to the requested

property.

The applicant has never received a lot through the Side Lot Program.


The primary intent of the program is to bring vacant properties back onto the city’s tax roll,

while reducing public costs associated with property maintenance. In fact, property maintenance

costs are something the City of Flint and the Genesee County Land Bank are intent on reducing.

According to Flint’s five-year Blight Elimination Framework, it would cost as much as $7

million to maintain all of the vacant lots in Flint once a month (Detroit Future City, 2015). To

reduce maintenance needs and costs, while also attempting to address urban blight, the Lank

Bank has recently started planting Dutch White Clover on as many as 1,800 vacant lots in Flint

(Detroit Future City, 2015). This provides ground cover that is slow-growing and easier to

maintain than typical grass-seeded lawns. Once established, Dutch White Clover requires

mowing just once or twice a year while providing the look of a maintained property. In addition,

it is cheap, widely available, drought- and shade-tolerant, and releases nitrogen into the soil

while also providing food for wildlife, including pollinators. Until lots are sold to adjacent

homeowners through the Land Bank Side Lot Program, the idea is that they will require much

less frequent maintenance. Planting and initial watering of the clover is also required of any

contractor demolishing blighted residential and commercial structures in Flint (Detroit Future

City, 2015).

Findings

To reiterate, the aim of this project was to answer the following research questions:

What role exactly might city officials take in greening vacant lots in Kenosha?

How many non-residential lots are there and do city officials already have any current or

future plans for reusing vacant lots in the city?

How might the city best encourage greening of private lots and what would city residents

think about such an initiative?


In so doing, it sought out to identify the advantages and disadvantages of greening urban vacant

lots in the City of Kenosha; to determine whether such an initiative would be worthwhile

endeavor for the city; and to recommend a course of action through the development of a five

year action plan. Based on a review of previous research and selected case studies, the following

potential impacts were identified:

Economic Impacts

Increases property values

Previous research has largely focused on determining the impact of parks on property values.

This generally involved property accessed values before and after park establishment. Other

research looking at changes in property values attributable to other forms of greening are positive

as well. This includes impacts of neighborhood green space (i.e. lawns, street trees, vegetated

sidewalk strips) as well as properly managed community gardens. However, studies also suggest

the effect of proximity to green initiatives on property values may vary, depending on location

and type of greening program.

Promotes tourism and recreation

Many cities rely on parks and recreation activities for attracting tourists. Tourists spent a total

of $181.3 million in Kenosha County in 2014 (VisitKenosha.com, 2015). The Philadelphia park

system also estimated as much as 8% of tourists visit the city for parks or park-related events,

totaling $5 million annually for the city in taxes and $40 million in profit from tourism

(Travaline & Hunold, 2010). Several other cities attribute substantial portions of city tax revenue

and profit from tourism to park systems, protected open spaces, and recreation activities. Other

studies suggest a link between retail sales levels and resident/business retention and greened

vacant lots, parks, and other greening activities (as cited in Heckert, 2012).


Environmental Impacts

Reduces stormwater runoff & improves water quality

Stormwater runoff is generally higher in urban areas due to more impervious surfaces.

Pervious surfaces characteristic of greened lots increase the natural infiltration of stormwater in

urban areas. Additional trees (in the case of food forests and other greened areas incorporating

trees) help intercept water in canopies and lessen flows, enabling slower and steadier stormwater

infiltration. Philadelphia’s Land Care program, for instance, was found to decrease stormwater

runoff by reducing soil compaction and increasing infiltration (Travaline & Hunold, 2010).

Mitigates Air pollution

Trees improve air quality directly through uptake of pollutants and indirectly through

pollutant emission reductions due to decreased energy use. Trees remove pollutants including

carbon monoxide, nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter of less than 10

µm (as cited in Heckert, 2012). Studies estimating annual air pollutant reductions from trees and

shrubs report 711,000 metric tons of pollutants were removed from the air annually in the United

States, and as much as 772 tons of particular matter (as cited in Heckert, 2012).

Reduces Energy Use

Trees can lead to lower energy use through direct shading (blocking sunlight and reducing

temperature), transpiration (lowering overall temperatures and reducing air conditioning use),

and reducing cooling through wind reduction (reducing energy use for heating). One well-placed

tree can reduce household energy use for air conditioning by as much as 8-12% (as cited in

Heckert, 2012).

Sequesters Carbon


Trees store carbon in biomass aboveground in trunks and branches and below ground in root

systems. Studies calculating Chicago’s urban forest found it stored 716,000 tons of carbon and

sequestered 25,0000 tons annually, while trees in Washington DC were found to store 526,000

tons of carbon and sequester 16,000 annually (Beniston & Lal, 2012).

Mitigates Urban Heat Island Effect

Cities are often hotter than surrounding suburban and rural communities. As mentioned in the

energy use section, however, trees can decease ambient temperatures through shading and

transpiration. Urban parks are generally one to two degrees cooler than surrounding

environments (i.e. the ‘cool island’ effect), and are more pronounced in larger parks with more

trees (as cited in Heckert, 2012). Park temperature differences of up to 5 degrees Celsius in

Vancouver, British Columbia and 7 degrees Celsius in Sacramento, California have been

reported (as cited in Heckert, 2012).

Supports/Increases Biodiversity

The view that cities are separate from nature continues to change as biologists better

understand and recognize the connection between cities and species diversity. Urban forests in

particular are showing to be significant in supporting and promoting biodiversity, with some

cities providing habitat to endangered species (Alvey, 2006). Street trees are also proving to be

very beneficial in this regard.

Social Impacts

Promotes human health

Studies noted in the literature review pointed to lower BMIs, improved mental health scores,

and increased consumption of vegetables. Studies also show positive impacts between green

spaces and healthy childhood development, mental and physical health, and alleviating stress and


reducing mental fatigue (as cited in Heckert, 2012). The link between physical activity, obesity

prevention, and proximity to green space has thus far yielded inconsistent results. This will be

discussed further in the social justice/equity section.

Benefits Communities

Several studies have looked at residents’ satisfaction with neighborhoods and preferences for

green spaces. This may be due to aesthetic reasons or indications that areas are cared for. The

literature suggests that well maintained green spaces enhance the lives of area residents and

increase levels of happiness and perceptions of quality of life. New parks and higher numbers of

trees were also found to contribute to improved quality of life, sense of safety, and association

with higher levels of resident satisfaction. Consistent reductions in the rate of gun assaults in

areas surrounding greened vacant lots were also reported in the study of the Philadelphia’s Land

Care program (Branas et al., 2011). Lastly, trees and green spaces were found to contribute to

more positive interactions between community members, serving as more inclusive social

environments than non-green urban areas (as cited in Heckert, 2012).

Social justice/equity challenges

Measuring access to parks and other green spaces has proven complex and challenging.

Attempts to quantify differences in access to these spaces based on race and class reveal mixed

results. However, geographic access alone may not fully capture the impact of parks on physical

activity or obesity. While most studies used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in measuring

accessibility, GIS alone may fail to account for potential congestion of park space, which may

deter use (Wolch et al., 2014). In fact, park congestion was found to be more acute in low-

income and minority neighborhoods. Instead, it may depend more on park characteristics and

programs offered since these spaces differ considerably in terms of size, quality, range of


facilities, organized recreation availability, or even perceptions of safety among area residents.

These spaces are designed to serve diverse communities with wide-ranging recreational needs

and reflect use, repute, upkeep, and design quality (Wolch et al., 2014).

Nevertheless, evidence reveals unequal access in the distribution of urban green space across

racial/ethnic and socioeconomic lines (as cited in Wolch et al., 2014). Several studies show

racial/ethnic minorities and low-income populations have less access to green spaces, parks, and

recreational programs than white, more affluent populations. Conversely, there are also concerns

of the impact new green spaces can have on housing costs and property values, as they relate to

gentrification and displacement of existing neighborhood residents. One proposed approach to

counter this undesirable effect is green space project design decisions shaped by community

concerns, needs, and desires rather than conventional urban design formulae or ecological

restoration approaches (Wolch et al., 2014).

Depth Interview/Sample Survey

Based on an analysis of previous research, the City of Kenosha may benefit from

greening city-owned vacant lots in at least the following ways: increasing surrounding property

values; supplementing food security efforts and supporting local food production; promoting

healthy people and vibrant neighborhoods; reducing crime and inner city decay; mitigating

stormwater runoff and improving water quality; providing additional habitat supporting local and

regional biodiversity; provisioning and regulating of ecological services; increasing green spaces

in low-income/minority neighborhoods; providing community gardens and recreational spaces;

promoting tourism; enhancing the beauty of neighborhoods; and supporting positive social

interactions among community members.


Analysis of the depth interview with Mr. Wilke suggests the Kenosha City Planning

Commission is uncertain of exactly how many vacant lots the city currently owns in total; nor

was any information collected pertaining to the cost to the city of vacant property upkeep. There

was some mention of the use of the city’s GIS interactive mapping system in identifying and

researching properties throughout Kenosha County, however, the system does not appear to

allow for a search of city-owned vacant properties specifically. As such, the number of vacant

lots the city oversees at this time is unclear, aside from the approximately 900 buildable lots

zoned for single and multifamily homes noted in the introduction. In addition, it was determined

infill lots within the city are indeed being developed, but also that the city’s future plans for its

vacant properties are primarily for either homes or new businesses. This corresponds with other

information collected from Mr. Beezat suggesting the city’s plan for these properties supports

economic and residential redevelopment through new housing and businesses. However, the city

also appears to be interested in redeveloping inner city lots with affordable housing options. This

sort of redevelopment in the inner city could be complimented with corner parks and other types

of green spaces on land unsuitable for residential housing units. In turn, Mrs. Goeppinger

emphasized the value in concentrating native plantings within close proximity to the lakeshore to

support migrating bird and insect populations. Mrs. Goeppinger noted significant loss of habitat

in this area of the city in particular, as well as the economic potential to the city in attracting

additional birdwatchers to the area.

A sample survey of 106 Kenosha area residents revealed 35% strongly agreed (and 24%

agreed) that vacant (empty) lots were a problem in Kenosha. Survey data also indicated

considerable support for community gardens (24% would very likely participate; 29% would

contribute in some way), food forests (38% would very likely participate; 31% would contribute


in some way), urban agriculture (49% in favor of using vacant lots for this purpose); and other

natural spaces such as corners parks and gardens, green corridors, amenity green spaces and

natural/semi natural green spaces (50% strongly in favor of using vacant lots for this purpose;

41% agree to using vacant lots for this purpose) by local area residents. The matrix table

question (including 12 statements designed to measure respondents’ opinions of the effect

converted vacant lots would have on them and their community) also showed largely positive

feedback across the board (see question nine in Appendix D). Finally, when asked what they

thought of converting vacant lots in Kenosha into different types of green spaces, 58% of

respondents said they loved the idea and 32% said they liked it.

Overall, the survey data reveals considerable support for repurposing/reusing vacant lots

in the city for urban agriculture and other green spaces. Although this does not necessarily

contradict Mr. Beezat’s view of little interest in urban farming in the area (particularly with new

farmers), it does suggest community support for urban agriculture operations located in the city.

It also supports information provided by Mr. Wilke of interest in community gardening, as well

as highlighting the issue of the city’s zoning code in defining community gardening as

agriculture (restricting community gardens to certain districts of the city). Lastly, although the

sample population in this case should not be considered a perfect representation of the larger

population, it does provide a good approximation of the number of Kenosha area community

members interested in and willing to support urban greening initiatives.

5 year action plan

The proposed action plan includes three categories of vacant land repurpose/reuse based

in part on actions taken by comparable cities and highlighted in the case studies:


1) Stabilization and retention strategies for areas of Kenosha where new development is

planned and anticipated;

2) Economically productive uses for urban agriculture; and

3) Green space expansion and green infrastructure designed to improve ecological systems,

increase public access to green space, and improve public health.

Priority Areas

Between 1980 and 2000, the amount of land used for urban uses in Kenosha increased by

approximately 2,800 acres, from about 8,000 to 11,000 acres (City of Kenosha, 2010). The

number of acres of open lands (lands that are vacant and unused) also increased by about 1,100

acres during this same period. By 2000, open lands made up about 14% of the total in the city

(City of Kenosha, 2010). As such, short-term, long-term, and permanent uses for this land should

be determined based on clear strategies and criteria. This section identifies areas of the city for

alternative land uses including urban agriculture, green space expansion, and stormwater

management.

Neighborhood Stabilization

Scattered vacancies can be addressed through small scale interventions like pocket parks

and community gardens, as well as lot consolidations to incrementally reduce neighborhood

density. For instance, a side lot program allows interested property owners the opportunity to

pursue the acquisition of vacant and abandoned, adjacent properties. Lots are typically available

for yard expansion or other residential needs, with the purpose of eliminating blight and

returning properties back to productive use. Milwaukee’s $1 Vacant Side Lot Program and

Flint’s Land Bank Side Lot Program are two examples. However, since vacancy conditions are


prone to changing often, it would be prudent to evaluate vacant properties and track changes

using a consistent and regularly updated set of indicators. These may include:

Vacant sites

Recent demolitions

Vacant/condemned buildings

Short-term vacancies

City land bank properties

Concentrated, large-scale vacancy may include areas with high development potential,

such as land bank areas, or those with low development potential, such as tracts of land with

little development demand and no apparent use in the foreseeable future. Stabilization efforts

should focus on maintaining these areas to keep them clean, safe, and ready for future

development.

Urban Agriculture

The number of Kenosha households enrolled in federal food aid programs increased from

fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 (RKCAA, 2010). In addition, city school districts reported

increased enrollment in free or reduced lunch and breakfast programs during this same period,

while food pantries in the city also reported increased usage. The percentage of Kenosha

FoodShare participants (both adults and children) also remains higher than the state average and

continues to rise, based on the latest 2012 data. The Kenosha News also reported a slight

increase in the percentage of adults in Kenosha considered obese, up from 28% in 2010 and 2011

to 29% in 2012 (Flores, 2012). This too is higher than the 2012 national benchmark of 25%

(RKCAA, 2010).


Growing food on vacant lots in Kenosha can help address concerns of hunger and

malnutrition, obesity, and physical inactivity. There also appears to be growing interest in and

support for urban agriculture and food forests in the city (based on the survey data). While

scattered sites in an urban environment are not likely to produce large economic returns from

agricultural uses, community gardens, urban farms, and food forests could play an important role

in increasing access to healthy food. Moreover, vacant land within the city could accommodate a

variety of agricultural operations, including small gardens, large farms, green houses, and

agriculture incubators. These various uses can be established on strategically selected sites,

perhaps complimenting community kitchens and other food processing facilities that add value

and profitability to urban agriculture efforts. In turn, agricultural production patterns may be

integrated into select neighborhoods across the city to increase access to healthy food while

creating compelling places that support urban redevelopment efforts. Urban food production on

vacant land may also be reconfigured to be more compact (i.e. greenhouses, vertical farming,

aquaponics), particularly as the population in the city increases over time. More compact

agriculture would better enable food production to coexist with more traditional urban

redevelopment efforts. Strategic vacant land management will help build resiliency into

transitional neighborhoods.

The city could begin by setting a goal of working toward establishing a community

garden, urban farm, or food forest within walking distance (about a quarter-mile radius) of all

city residents. However, it would be prudent to develop a more detailed set of criteria for

determining the most suitable locations in the city for food production, taking into account soil

conditions and social factors such as proximity to schools and supermarkets.


Green Space

Vacant land can also be strategically used to expand and enhance urban biodiversity

while providing additional ecosystem services urban residents rely on for daily living. Vacant

land can be used to create new public green spaces, particularly in neighborhoods that are under-

served in terms of existing opens spaces, public parks and other green spaces. The urban

ecosystem includes public open lands and green spaces such as parks, pathways, and natural

areas that contribute to the livability and sustainability of Kenosha neighborhoods. Pursuing

these goals will improve the quality of the built environment and help protect the city’s natural

areas. Vacant lots can be transformed into useful community spaces, either through

redevelopment or the creation and maintenance of open or other forms of green space.

Convenient, consistent, and safe access to well-maintained green space also provides

opportunities for passive to active recreation from sitting, resting, and gardening to creative play,

nature exploration, and sports. All are critical to the health and livability of any community.

City-owned vacant properties can be returned to productive use through a streamlined

process for selling city property and adopting sales policies and priorities with input from

community-based stakeholders. Sales of vacant lots to adjoining owner occupants can be

increased to create larger lots in identified neighborhoods by conducting research to identify

those neighborhoods, and revising city real estate policy on the sale of buildable lots. The city

may also explore developing incentive programs that match landscaping funds with vacant land

purchases for neighbors looking to increase green space or gardens. The result is reduction in the

city’s inventory and additional tax base to be reinvested back into city neighborhoods.

In any case, it is important vacant lots are stabilized, through proper cleanup and removal

of debris and basic landscaping, to prevent further deterioration until future land uses are


determined. Stabilization may also include regular maintenance and the installation of barriers to

deter illegal dumping. The city could also establish a new fee schedule, to be charged to absentee

property owners, in covering the costs of maintaining their vacant, privately owned lots and

strengthening the enforcement of dumping and litter laws. Stabilization and maintenance efforts

may also lead to more local jobs. The adoption and community stewardship of public land

through adopt-a-lot programs may also be considered.

Reviewing, analyzing, and updating zoning codes to promote land use policies for

sustainable urban design is essential. Nodes and multi-modal corridors for rezoning should be

identified to allow for high density, mixed-use, transit-orientated development. A revision to the

zoning code should also be explored to allow for other temporary uses, such as art installations

and exhibits, to provide temporary reuse of vacant lots and create more welcoming public spaces.

Urban land and ecosystems, which are well maintained and nurtured, raise the value of

surrounding properties and create potential for reuse and development. When this land is

managed with community support there are added benefits of social interaction, increased pride,

and additional community stabilization. Although there is a tendency to view vacant land as a

problem, it could also be considered an opportunity for land use transformations that contribute

to neighborhood stabilization and community development.

Land Use Goals

Based on an overall assessment of the aggregate data collected, the following goals have

been identified as recommended priority areas to be implemented through local city planning

processes:

1) Inventory city-owned vacant lots

Target: Inventory and identify suitable lots for repurpose/reuse by 2016.


2) Realign policies and codes to support vacant lot revitalization efforts

Target: Update city zoning code to allow community gardens and urban agriculture in all

residential districts; develop and implement public outreach strategy outlining city vacant

lot revitalization plan by 2016-2017.

3) Repurpose/reuse vacant and under-used land

Target: 50% of vacant lots converted to benefit neighborhoods, including uses such as

food production, parks, stormwater management areas and open spaces by 2017.

4) Increase connections to public green and recreational spaces

Target: Ensure all residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park, greenway, or other

green/amenity space by 2020.

Implications

Much of the previous research reviewed for this project focused on the outcomes of

individual greening efforts, largely as a means of revealing the economic implications. The aim

of this project was to better understand the combined social, economic, and environmental

outcomes of urban greening decisions, with particular emphasis on greening city-owned vacant

properties. Perhaps the main benefit of adopting a sustainability-based approach to vacant lot

revitalization research and policy development is that it offers a new way of framing policies and

assessing programs in terms of both scope and scale. While traditional assessments of

revitalization efforts focused primarily on growth, either economic or population, a sustainability

approach seeks to uncover a wider range of impacts, and rejects a growth model with a narrow

focus on economic growth as the central goal of revitalization efforts. A sustainability-based

approach also stresses a more holistic approach in terms of scale while recognizing that social,

environmental, or economic processes at one scale may be felt at multiple and different scales.


As such, it is important differences across scales are taken into consideration as well when

assessing the advantages and disadvantages of any urban greening efforts. Sustainability focuses

on balancing the needs of people at different places and times while providing an alternative

frame of reference for questioning the current trajectory of urban environments, measuring the

impacts of new policies and practices, and weighing alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most important implication of this project is in changing the way people tend

to think about vacant properties as areas associated with crime, trash, weeds, pests,

abandonment, depressed real estate values, and general economic and/or social failure. An

alternative perspective is viewing these spaces as opportunities for land reuse/repurpose as urban

green spaces that can contribute to community development and urban improvement in a number

of different ways. The whole of the data collected adds to the growing literature on the potential

for vacant land to provide important social, economic, and environmental/ecological benefits to

surrounding communities. For the City of Kenosha specifically, this project identified a number

of ways in which government leaders can initiate greening initiatives in the city by community-

based organizations, local businesses, individual residents, and other stakeholders. The action

plan proposed in this project serves a starting point on the part of the City Common Council in

developing a more detailed plan, based on a more comprehensive assessment of the vacant lot

situation in Kenosha.

Limitations

Due to the qualitative, exploratory nature of the research approach it is important to note

the challenge in drawing conclusive inferences about the data presented. In other words,

understanding and interpreting the full meaning of the data presents a challenge. Many of the

benefits outlined in this project are dependent on thoughtful, well-designed, and appropriately


located greening projects for them to be successful and advantageous to communities. In

addition, it should be noted that many greening initiatives in other cities began only fairly

recently in the wake of the Great Recession. As such, there is limited data and a fairly short

history of most city programs and their overall, long-term impacts thus far.

Depth interviews were also expected to be conducted with city officials from Milwaukee

and Cleveland, as well as with the Executive Director of Garden of Eatin’ (a nonprofit, Kenosha-

based community garden organization). Although their input would have likely contributed a

great deal with respect to program development and implementation, unfortunately, scheduling

and availability issues were encountered which prevented the interviews from taking place.

Finally, although there is sufficient evidence to support the finding vacant and abandoned

properties are detrimental to communities, research on the design and development of different

types of urban greening interventions is necessary in gaining a better understanding of what the

specific goals and benefits are of these interventions.

Future Research

Future research on urban greening of vacant properties should focus, in part, on creating a

framework in which to compare different urban greening interventions and the potential tradeoffs

associated with each. This might help communities better understand and articulate the goals,

potential outcomes, and benefits of urban greening interventions under consideration. Longer

term research is also needed in realizing and communicating the potential that urban greening

can provide across time and space, particularly those pertaining to environmental/ecological and

social benefits.


Conclusion

To suggest not too long ago Rust Belt manufacturing giants like Detroit or Philadelphia

would need one day need to rethink traditional growth models and concentrate on becoming

smaller but stronger cities would have been unthinkable. Times have changed. Many cities now

recognize they will not return to their one-time peak populations, nor to their history as

manufacturing centers. This sort of realization is fundamentally changing how cities think about

themselves and their future; it is unleashing, as the case studies have shown, a host of creative

initiatives across the country that are challenging traditional ideas of city planning, and opening

the door to a new way of thinking. This includes ways in which to build more sustainable,

resilient urban communities based on connectedness between people and ecosystems, and for

providing high quality urban living environments. With the proportion of urban vacant land

remaining fairly persistent in spite of population growth in many urban areas, it appears the issue

of vacant properties is here to stay, at least in the U.S. This suggests the need for thoughtful and

innovative management of these spaces in meeting current and future needs of urban residents.

With increasing numbers of cities developing and pursuing sustainability agendas, this will likely

result in the need to find low cost investment/high rate of return urban spaces with the potential

to meet a wide range of objectives. The results of this project suggest greening initiatives

targeting vacant land may be one means of doing just that.

Overall, this research project has demonstrated a wide range of benefits from urban

greening efforts like community gardens, urban farms, and food forests to neighborhood

revitalization and urban sustainability efforts. It has also highlighted a number of greening

projects and other initiatives developed by just some of the forward thinking cities sprouting up


across the U.S. Conversely, it has shown the complexity and importance of considering both the

potential short- and long-term impacts on communities.

Though these benefits suggest many of these programs could be advantageous in other

communities, they have local and regional policy implications as well. Prioritizing program

implementation will help answer questions of where in the city these benefits will be strongest.

Although this research does not directly measure and quantify the potential tradeoffs in terms of

action or inaction, it represents a starting point for constructive dialogue for cities in considering

how implementation decisions might affect the distribution of program outcomes. Perhaps most

importantly, this project points to the changing role of vacant land in municipal policy in both

shrinking and growing cities. Traditional approaches to vacant lots view these spaces as problem

properties to be solved, whereas the alternative approach adopted here favors a more optimistic

outlook as potential sites for urban greening and as community assets in creating healthier, more

sustainable and resilient communities.


References

Alcock, I., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Fleming, L. E., & Depledge, M. H. (2014).

Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban

areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(2), 1247. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1492272674?accountid=8289

Alvey, A. (2006). Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 5(4), 195-201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003

Beniston, J. & Lal, R. (2012). Improving soil quality for urban agriculture in the north central

u.s., in carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems. In Carbon Sequestration in Urban

Ecosystems. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/johnn_000/Downloads/Beniston%20and

%20Lal%202012_published%20version.pdf

Branas, C.C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J.M., Tam, V.W., Jackson, T.D. & Ten Have, T.R.

(2011, July). A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant

urban space. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174(11), 1296-1306.

doi:10.1093/aje/kwr273

Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., & et al. (2007). Contribution of

public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509-14.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215081082?accountid=8289

City of Baltimore. (2013). Greening: Food systems. Retrieved from

http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/greening/food-systems

City of Flint. (2014). Imagine flint master plan. Retrieved from

http://www.imagineflint.com/Documents.aspx

http://www.imagineflint.com/Documents.aspx

http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/greening/food-systems




City of Kenosha. (2010, April). A comprehensive plan for the city of kenosha: 2035. Retrieved

from http://www.kenosha.org/departments/development/pdf/COMP_plan/COMP-

PLAN.pdf

City of Milwaukee. (2013, July). City of milwaukee sustainability plan: Refresh milwaukee.

Retrieved from http://city.milwaukee.gov/ReFreshMKE_PlanFinal_Web.pdf

City of Milwaukee. (2015). Environmental sustainability: HOME GR/OWN milwaukee.

http://city.milwaukee.gov/homegrownmilwaukee.com#.Vj1vBLerTIV

City of Milwaukee. (2013). Vacant lot handbook: A guide to reusing, reinventing and adding

value to milwaukee’s city-owned vacant lots. Retrieved from

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/pdfs/

VacantLotHandbook.pdf

City of Portland. (2015). Community Gardens Program. Retrieved from

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846

City of Portland. (2012, June). Urban food zoning code update: Enhancing portlander’s

connection to their food and community. Retrieved from

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/402598

City of Rochester. (2009). From blight to bright: Project green. Retrieved from

http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A21466341113.PDF

Detroit Future City. (2015). Genesee county land bank: Alternative groundcovers in action.

Retrieved from http://dfc-lots.com/local-examples/genesee-county-clover/

Elmqvist, T., Maltby, E., Barker, T., Mortimer, M., Perrings, C., Aronson, J.,…De Groot, R.

(2010, March). Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services. Retrieved from

http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological

http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf

http://dfc-lots.com/local-examples/genesee-county-clover/

http://roc.democratandchronicle.com/assets/pdf/A21466341113.PDF

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/402598

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/pdfs/VacantLotHandbook.pdf

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/planning/pdfs/VacantLotHandbook.pdf

http://city.milwaukee.gov/homegrownmilwaukee.com#.Vj1vBLerTIV

http://city.milwaukee.gov/ReFreshMKE_PlanFinal_Web.pdf

http://www.kenosha.org/departments/development/pdf/COMP_plan/COMP-PLAN.pdf

http://www.kenosha.org/departments/development/pdf/COMP_plan/COMP-PLAN.pdf


%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic

%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). What is green infrastructure? Retrieved from

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

Flores, T. (2015, January). County unveils online map of vacant sites. Retrieved from

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/county_unveils_online_map_of_vacant_sites_48083

0731.html

Flores, T. (2012, September). Rise in obesity has health officials concerned. Retrieved from

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/rise_in_obesity_has_health_officials_concerned_439

097656.html

Gallaher, C. M., Kerr, J. M., Njenga, M., Karanja, N. K., Winklerprins, A. M., G., & A. (2013).

Urban agriculture, social capital, and food security in the kibera slums of nairobi,

kenya. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(3), 389-404. doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9425-y

Genesee County Land Bank. (2015). Side lots. Retrieved from

http://www.thelandbank.org/sidelot.asp

Goldstein, M., Bellis, J., Morse, S., Myers, A., & Ura, E. (2011). Urban agriculture: A sixteen

city survey of urban agriculture practices across the country. Retrieved from

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-

future/_pdf/projects/FPN/Urban_Community_Planning/

URBAN_AGRICULTURE_A_SIXTEENCITY_SURVEY_OF_URBAN_AGRICULTU

RE_PRACTICES_ACROSS_THE_COUNTRY.pdf

Gorham, M. R., Waliczek, T. M., Snelgrove, A., & Zajicek, J. M. (2009). The impact of

community gardens on numbers of property crimes in urban houston. HortTechnology,

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/projects/FPN/Urban_Community_Planning/URBAN_AGRICULTURE_A_SIXTEENCITY_SURVEY_OF_URBAN_AGRICULTURE_PRACTICES_ACROSS_THE_COUNTRY.pdf



http://www.thelandbank.org/sidelot.asp

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/rise_in_obesity_has_health_officials_concerned_439097656.html

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/rise_in_obesity_has_health_officials_concerned_439097656.html

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/county_unveils_online_map_of_vacant_sites_480830731.html

http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/county_unveils_online_map_of_vacant_sites_480830731.html

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm




19(2), 291-296. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/46364418?

accountid=8289

Hanna, A.K., & Oh, P. (2000). Rethinking urban poverty: A look at community gardens. Bulletin

of Science, Technology & Society, 20(3), 207-216. doi:10.1177/027046760002000308

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G.W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment

xxperiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26. Retrieved from


Heckert, Megan. (2015, January). A spatial difference-in-differences approach to studying the

effect of greening vacant land on property values. Cityscape 17(1), 51-9. Retrieved from


Heckert, M., Schilling, J., & Carlet, F. (2015, May). Greening legacy cities: recent research on

local strategies for reclaiming vacant land. Retrieved from

http://vacantpropertyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/VPRN-Translation-Brief-

FINAL-11.pdf

Heckert, M. (2012). The economic, environmental, and social justice impacts of greening vacant

lots: An integrated spatial assessment of urban revitalization and sustainability

outcomes Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1412504111?

accountid=8289

HR&A Advisors, Inc. (2010). New Bedford, Massachusetts: Market & Economic Analysis.

Retrieved from http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/

HRAsNewBedfordMarketEconomicAnalysis.pdf

Hystad, P., Davies, H. W., Lawrence, F., Josh, V. L., Gehring, U., Tamburic, L., & Brauer, M.

(2014). Residential greenness and birth outcomes: Evaluating the influence of spatially

http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/HRAsNewBedfordMarketEconomicAnalysis.pdf

http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/HRAsNewBedfordMarketEconomicAnalysis.pdf



http://vacantpropertyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/VPRN-Translation-Brief-FINAL-11.pdf

http://vacantpropertyresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/VPRN-Translation-Brief-FINAL-11.pdf






correlated built-environment factors. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(10), 1095.

doi:10.1289/ehp.1308049

Jaffe, M., Zellner, M., Minor, E., Gonzalez-Meler, M., Cotner, L., & Massey, D. (2010, June).

Using green infrastructure to manage urban stormwater quality: A review of selected

practices and state programs. Retrieved from http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-

infrastructure/docs/public-act-recommendations.pdf

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation

reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-367. Retrieved from


Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees,

sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 28-59. Retrieved from


Litt, J. S., Soobader, Mah-J., Turbin, M. S., Hale, J. W., Buchenau, M., & Marshall, J. (2011).

The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden

participation on fruit and vegetable consumption. American Journal of Public

Health, 101(8), 1466-73. Retrieved from


Lovasi, G. S., Quinn, J. W., Neckerman, K. M., Perzanowski, M. S., & Rundle, A. (2008).

Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal

of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(7), 647-649. Retrieved from


McClintock, N., Cooper, J., & Khandeshi, S. (2013). Assessing the potential contribution of

vacant land to urban vegetable production and consumption in oakland,





http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/public-act-recommendations.pdf

http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/public-act-recommendations.pdf


california. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46-58. Retrieved from


McCormack, L.A., Laska, M.N., Larson, N., & Story, M. (2010). Review of the nutritional

implications of farmers' markets and community gardens: A call for evaluation and

research efforts. American Dietetic Association Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 110(3), 399. Retrieved from


McPhearson, T. (2012, August). Vacant land in cities could provide important social and

ecological benefits. Retrieved from http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-

land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-and-ecological-benefits/

McHugh, Colleen. (2012). Cutting through the red tape: How baltimore’s vacant lot programs

have made it easier for communities to revitalize the underutilized and blighted spaces in

their neighborhoods. Retrieved from

http://architecture.mit.edu/class/nature/projects_12/pdfs/McHughBaltimoreVacancy1SM

ALL.pdf

Mirk, S. (2010). Gone to seed: County turns empty, foreclosed lots into urban gardens.

Retrieved from http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/gone-to-seed/Content?

oid=3081436

Multnomah County. (2015). County digs program: Making tax-foreclosed properties available

for urban food and green space! Retrieved from https://multco.us/multfood/county-digs-

program

New Bedford Guide. (2013, May). New bedford side lot sales program. Retrieved from

http://www.newbedfordguide.com/new-bedford-side-lot-sales-program/2013/05/20

http://www.newbedfordguide.com/new-bedford-side-lot-sales-program/2013/05/20

https://multco.us/multfood/county-digs-program

https://multco.us/multfood/county-digs-program

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/gone-to-seed/Content?oid=3081436

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/gone-to-seed/Content?oid=3081436

http://architecture.mit.edu/class/nature/projects_12/pdfs/McHughBaltimoreVacancy1SMALL.pdf

http://architecture.mit.edu/class/nature/projects_12/pdfs/McHughBaltimoreVacancy1SMALL.pdf

http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-and-ecological-benefits/

http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2012/08/21/vacant-land-in-cities-could-provide-important-social-and-ecological-benefits/




Racine Kenosha Community Action Agency. (2013). Kenosha county: Community food security

snapshot 2013. Retrieved from http://www.rkcaa.org/RKCAA-File-Pile/PDF/WIC/12-

18FoodSecurityReportFinal.pdf

Schmelzkopf, K. (1995). Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical Review,

85(3), 364-381. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/225345075?

accountid=8289

Tranel, M., & Handlin, L. B. (2006). “METROMORPHOSIS: DOCUMENTING CHANGE.”

Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(2), 151-167. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2006.00265.x

Travaline, K., & Hunold, C. (2010). Urban agriculture and ecological citizenship in philadelphia.

Local Environment, 15(6), 581–590. doi:10.1080/13549839.2010.487529

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: Baltimore city,

maryland. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24/24510.html

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: Flint (city),

michigan. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2629000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: Milwaukee (city),

wisconsin. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55/5553000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: New bedford (city),

massachusetts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2545000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: Portland (city),

oregon. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2015, October). State and county quickfacts: Rochester (city),

new york. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3663000.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3663000.html








http://www.rkcaa.org/RKCAA-File-Pile/PDF/WIC/12-18FoodSecurityReportFinal.pdf

http://www.rkcaa.org/RKCAA-File-Pile/PDF/WIC/12-18FoodSecurityReportFinal.pdf


Visit Kenosha. (2015). Tourists spend $181.3 million in kenosha county in 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.visitkenosha.com/press-releases/tourists-spend-1813-million-kenosha-

county-2014

Voicu, I. & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values.

Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241-283. Retrieved from

http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/The_Effect_of_Community_Gardens.pdf

Wachter, S.M., & Gillen, K.C. (2006, October). Public investment strategies: How they matter

for neighborhoods in philadelphia. Retrieved from

http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-

wachter-gillen.pdf

Wachter, S.M. (2005). The determinants of neighborhood transformation in philadelphia:

identification and analysis: The new kensington pilot study. Retrieved from

http://conservationtools-production.s3.amazonaws.com/library_item_files/1032/951/

The_Determinants_of_Neighborhood_Transformations_in_Philadelphia_Identification_a

nd_Analysis-_The_New_Kensington_Pilot_Study.pdf?

AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIQFJLILYGVDR4AMQ&Expires=1448183261&Signature=

%2Fy%2FSXli8zB3NR4sn%2F6qObDAt%2Bo4%3D

Wilson, J.Q., & Kelling, G.L. (1989. February). Making neighborhoods safe. Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/crime/safehood.htm

Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014, May). Urban green space, public health, and

environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and

Urban Planning, 125, 234-244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/crime/safehood.htm

http://conservationtools-production.s3.amazonaws.com/library_item_files/1032/951/The_Determinants_of_Neighborhood_Transformations_in_Philadelphia_Identification_and_Analysis-_The_New_Kensington_Pilot_Study.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIQFJLILYGVDR4AMQ&Expires=1448183261&Signature=%2Fy%2FSXli8zB3NR4sn%2F6qObDAt%2Bo4%3D



http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-wachter-gillen.pdf

http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-wachter-gillen.pdf

http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/The_Effect_of_Community_Gardens.pdf

http://www.visitkenosha.com/press-releases/tourists-spend-1813-million-kenosha-county-2014

http://www.visitkenosha.com/press-releases/tourists-spend-1813-million-kenosha-county-2014


Zhou, X., & Masud, P. R. (2012). Social benefits of urban green space. Management of

Environmental Quality, 23(2), 173-189. doi:10.1108/14777831211204921

Zick, C.D., Smith, K.R., Kowaleski-Jones, L., Uno, C., Merrill, B.J. (2013). Harvesting more

than vegetables: The potential weight control benefits of community gardening.

American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1110-1115. Retrieved from




Appendices

A-Interview with Brian R. Wilke

(Kenosha Development Coordinator) 10/06/15

Ice Breaker: Could you please provide me a little bit of background information about yourself

and your department (the city planning and development department)?

Lead/Follow-Up Questions

1) Does your department have a tally of the vacant lots the city owns?

“I’m sure somewhere we either have or could come up with the information of how

many…just vacant lots there are just around the city in the older parts in the older

neighborhoods…we probably either have that information or possibly could get that information

put together.”

*Respondent refers to GIS system and the capability of being able to use it pick out or find lots

zoned for residential, commercial, manufacturing, and other uses. Essentially, it sounds as

though the respondent is saying that they city could find out the total number using GIS, but not

that there is any sort of tally at this time.

2) Is there any indication whether this number is increasing, reducing, or remaining the

same?

“While our boundaries are growing the boundaries are really growing because of

development”…here and there we are seeing infill lots that are being developed…as far as single

family, a couple of commercial lots here and there that are also going to be redeveloped coming

up.”

3) What type of lots are these (e.g. residential, commercial, industrial)? In other words, what

they zoned for?


“Most are likely residential”

4) How much interest is there in redeveloping residential lots in the inner city?

“There is a lot of interest from our department…I mean we’ve got our own inner city

home building program…so we’re finding a lot of infill lots or underdeveloped lots in the inner

city neighborhoods to redevelop on our own… so we have an interest in either us doing it or

someone privately…whether that interest is out there in the public to build on some of those lots

(pause) I think it’s coming around…I mean like I said I’ve probably seen more in the past year in

infill lots that I’ve seen in years prior.”

5) What is the long-term goal for city-owned lots and what do you think needs to be done to

achieve it? Would the city mainly like to see homes built on these lots?

“I think ultimately that’s our goal is to see homes built…I mean obviously that’s best for

tax base, that’s best for home ownership and use for the property, um, but taking that a step

further we’d like to see these lots not vacant because vacant lots gather trash and different

undesirable things that happens to vacant lots when they’re not care for.”

6) Are the majority of these vacant lots in confined to one part of the city more than another?

“Yea, I’d probably define sort of our inner city area as from like 39th avenue to the lake

probably like 27th or maybe 21st street on the north to like 80th to 85th street.”

7) Where are they located?

8) Why is this the case?

“Yea, there are certain parts of the city some people would probably deem as you know

less desirable than others and if you could spend 100 grand to build a house in one area versus

100 grand in another area and you like the neighborhood better…but we’re finding we can build

homes and sell them for a discount because we’re not for profit.”


9) Would the land be cheaper in the city versus where development is happening out near the

interstate?

“I don’t know if it’s a fair comparison you know because we have smaller lots in the city

but per a square foot cost it might be cheaper in the city.”

10) What effect do vacant lots (and vacant properties in general) seem to have, if any, on

surrounding neighborhoods?

“It really depends on how they’re maintained, um, we see a lot of scenarios where the

vacant lot is owned by a guy who lives right next door who bought it as a package…those lots

tend to be maintained because the owner is right there” this is compared to someone who

purchased a lot but doesn’t live nearby…those because more of an eyesore.”

11) Any effects on property values?

“There’s two things with property values…there’s city accessed value and there’s sort of

the real market value…the city accessed value is probably not going to change any if at all but

the property value you or I see could drop…from that perspective the market value sort of speak

could drop the value.”

12) What is involved for the upkeep of these lots?

(Hiring private contractors, lawn mowing, snow removal, trash pickup.)

“I’m sure we have a list on file somewhere that says okay we got these 25 lots that we

somehow own and have to maintain…as far as who we choose we go out to a private bid and just

choose the lowest bidder.”

13) How much does upkeep cost?


“I really don’t want to foster a guess…but if we’re hiring to go out and do city lots,

whatever that cost is, it’s still a burden to the taxpayer so we like to sell off our lots for

development or to get some taxes generated versus wasting it.”

14) Is there any type of system in place for returning tax-reverted properties back to productive

use? In other words, how does the city go about getting properties back on the tax roll and

how well is it working?

“Typically no because my understanding of the process is, I believe, if you’re more than

4 years behind on your property taxes then the county can go through the process of taking the

property from you…but once the county takes it the county is the landowner and they’d have to

maintain it…now they would probably actively try to resell it to not have the burden of trying to

keep it up…I would assume at some kind of discount…I get calls all the time asking hey I see

this property up for sale, its county owned, can you tell me if its buildable.”

15) What about alternative uses, that is, something other than building a structure on a lot?

“The way our ordinances is setup we have really three different types of uses…we have

permanent uses, permitted accessory uses, and conditional uses…a permanent use is something

you can do by right on that property…you may still have to pull a permit but I can build a home

as long as the city doesn’t have cause to object…conditional uses like a community living

arrangement or utility substation…and those are fairly rare…so if you meet one of these

permitted uses I’m going to say go ahead and do it…if not then you’d have to rezone or I’d say

you just can’t do that on this particular lot.”

16) Is here a set amount of time that tax foreclosed properties are required to remain out of

circulation?

a. If so, why is this the case?


b. Is there a short or long-term lease option available for vacant lots?

c. What is involved in leasing a lot?

d. Is it a lengthy process to sell or lease a lot?

“Um, I don’t deal with those day to day but my understanding is any sort of city lot that

we are going to see has to go through what’s called an RFP (request for proposal) process and

say look we’ve got this…and this really becomes more of a commercial, nonresidential type of

situation but we can’t just say, if you come in to me and say hey city I want to build this hot dog

stand…this becomes more of a competitive process, if we like one bid better than another or if

they offer us more money or we like his bid better…um, city family lots I think we’re still doing

it the same way but more so if we have a single family lot and we own it is probably because

we’re trying to build a city home on it or we might just be land banking it and we’re trying to

hold onto it for some other reason later on down the road for another redevelopment project or

something.”

17) Speaking of land banking, does Kenosha participate in anything like that?

“Um, I’m going to say not actively…I mean if we find a property that we think has value

to the city as a whole for redevelopment project or something we’ll go out and try to find the

dollars to do it and we have a redevelopment authority that does just that…probably a good

example is the Boys and Girls Club…the city or redevelopment authority acquired several

parcels over the years…something we had almost this entire block and we’re like what are we

going to do with this and the Boys and Girls Club said we’re really looking for a site so we said

we are going to sell this to the them…um so, if we find lots here and there that come onto the

market and we think we can do something with them we’ll probably go out and try to find the

money to purchase it…there’s x amount of dollars in the budget each year for just that type of


thing…so we’re not actively trying to pick off every property we can, yet what has value to the

city.”

18) Are there any other practices that have been effective in reducing the number of vacant

lots the city oversees?

“Not particularly”

*Respondent mentions one neighborhood that they city has been actively buying up residential

lots in for the past 10 years to reduce density.

19) What about privately owned lots? Any idea how many vacant private lots are in the city?

a. Are they considered a problem? If so, why?

b. Are there any particular conditions under which property owners are required to

maintain vacant lots?

“There are probably some that are habitual repeat offenders but there are probably others

that people take pride in and maintain it…so there are probably more that we’ve never heard of

just because they are being maintained we don’t hear about it.”

20) Do you see a connection between the number of both private and city-owned lots in urban

areas with increased growth in the outskirts of the city?

“Yea, even during sort of the boom times between 2004 through 2007ish early 2008

when they were buying lots left and right out by the interstate…it didn’t seem like there were

many infill lots being built…you could pick up a lot twice the size out there for the same cost as

a smaller one in the city…as those have been filling up and the economy slowed it down now

they’re sort of more even and people are thinking sort of the hipper thing to do is to build in an

infill neighborhood and be closer to the downtown and work and those are starting to be the

places to go.”


21) What about green spaces? How are they protected and maintained and what are the

challenges in doing so?

“Um, this kind of came up the other day we were talking about a property down by the

lake which happened to be zoned RM2 which is for multifamily district and the question came

up about doing a community garden on the property, um, when you look at that specific district

what it did not include is agriculture, um, the fact that it is specifically listed here and not listed

in other districts basically means it is prohibited in that other district…so in that case RM2 didn’t

say agriculture so if someone wants to do a community garden we said yea if you want to plant

flowers or bushes that’s fine but when you really want to do a crop or have a production of food

there you have to have this language within the district you want to do it in…in that lot was in

RS1 then yes, you could do a community garden on it…whether we like it or not that’s just our

ruling of those particular districts.”

22) So a community garden would fall under agriculture?

“Yea we looked at a definition of agriculture and it seems like that would fall under this

if you are growing crops or doing something productive with the land it’s going to fall under

agriculture.”

23) So that would really limit what you could do there?

“Yea, yea, yea, um, but if you just want to go grow flowers to make it look pretty to us

that’s not agriculture.”

*When asked again about protection and maintenance, respondent refers to any spaces the city

owns or is charged with maintaining (i.e. natural spaces)…then goes on to refer to private lots

again and as long as owners are maintaining their properties adequately.

24) How close are residents to parks, greenways or other types of green or amenity spaces?


a. Is the proximity to these spaces considered an issue by yourself or your department?

“Couple of things, we have what’s called the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan

(CORE plan)…it’s basically the park plan for the city….I don’t know that it actually goes into

proximity to a park but it does have what’s in there are federal guidelines for every person living

in a community, you know, you should have this amount of community park space…I believe

from that CORE plan we are actually overserved on the numbers…we actually have more square

footage per person than we need but we are doing well there.”

*Respondent goes on to explain that newly developed areas are covered under the city’s master

plan to provide new park spaces.

25) Overall, how serious a problem would you consider vacant lots in Kenosha?

“There is certainly always something that needs to be addressed. Probably on a list of our

top ten things I don’t even know that it cracks the top ten but that’s not to say it’s not something

that we don’t think about or that we would like to see…again it probably comes down to a

handful of lots and probably even less of a handful of the same owner that are habitual problems

every year…now I could probably walk you through a couple of neighborhoods and go oh yea

that vacant lot over there I wish we could do something about that…so it always on our mind and

if there was a plan in place to say that if the city could either assist with this to make it either a

community garden or a flower garden or parkway or whatever…the city could either assist

financially or with approvals, you know, getting that information out there I’m sure that would

do nothing but help.”

26) How could the city help?

“The way an ordinance gets changed typically is city staff pretty much drafts an

ordinance change…for instance under permanent uses under a RS1 we are going to add a line


that says private park or community flower garden or whatever…we would typically draft that

and go gosh this is a good idea and something that everyone is doing…so we’ll make that pitch,

we’ll put the ordinance together and we send on to the planning commission…they look at the

zoning ordinance and say we think this is a good thing or a bad thing and from there is goes on to

the Common Council…the council adopts it and now there’s an A10 there that says here’s what

you can do in a RS1 district…so if we’re presented with a good idea and we think it’s good and

others back it as well then there’s the will to do it.”

27) What do you think is the biggest challenge in repurposing these lots?

What would you like to see done with vacant lots in the city?

28) Do you think a vacant lot greening initiative is realistic for Kenosha?

“I think something where the city could assist in the effort but not necessarily become the

landowner…you know where we could help find the funding if a group of residents got

together.”

“The city could get behind something for sure.”


B-Interview with Beth Goeppinger

(DNR Naturalist at Bong) 10/07/15

Ice Breaker: Could you please provide me a little bit of background information about yourself

and the organization you work for?


1) Based on your perspective as a naturalist, what effect would you say urban farms and

gardens (including those containing native plantings, vegetable gardens, fruit and shade

trees etc.) have on the surrounding environment?

“I think it would be fantastic. I think it would be very easy to convert a lot of places in

the city to native gardens and native plantings or food plots, um, time and time again it has been

shown how community building that is, uh, especially food gardens…but even flower or

butterfly garden or something like that also brings people together but you know personally I’m

a big proponent of native plantings because of the wildlife…and you don’t need the fertilizers,

they don’t need to water them…I mean they’re just so self-sustaining and a lot of cities are

happily going to this.”

2) Do you have any insight into the types of plants, animals and insects that are most

common to green spaces in this area, particularly in the urban parts of Kenosha?

a. Which are the most beneficial and useful to people?

*Respondent emphasizes the value in having milkweed and other native plantings located

as close to the Lake Michigan as possible to support migrating bird and insect populations. She

notes loss of habitat in this area in particular. Her feeling is that the middle of the city (in the

lower income neighborhoods I mentioned) would be better suited for food production in order to

increase community involvement, connect residents with healthy food, the soil/nature and with


the process of growing food. Native plantings to support local wildlife would then be secondary

to growing food for people.

3) What about the impact of wildlife in urban areas? Do you think these types of green

spaces will inevitably attract more wildlife to the city?

a. What effect might this have, both positive and negative?

*Respondent mentions raccoons specifically with regard to unwanted pests in food

plots…and deer as well. She says fences might help some and doesn’t provide any other tips. She

also goes on to mention peoples aversion to snakes and spiders but notes that they should be

considered beneficial in keeping other unwanted pests in check. Mosquitos could be an issue in

instances of new sources of still water. Fish and dragonflies feed on mosquito larva. She also

mentions bees and wasps performing important roles as well. Bees pollinate while wasps prey

on caterpillars that eat plants. Attracting birds will also help keep unwanted insects in check.

Recommends putting in toad houses to eat bug pests and perhaps mason bee houses to deter

other unwanted bees. Raccoons (especially those with scat…roundworm in feces), skunks and

possums (and mice) are main problem species with food plots but not really with other types of

plots…with the exception of those that include fruit producing plants: notes that they are not

destructive. Coopers hawks and peregrines prey would likely prey on mice near lakefront. Main

idea: a change in the public’s perception of the role these species play is necessary.

4) What about endangered and threatened species in the area? Which species of plants,

animals, bird and insects fall under this category?

a. What effect, if any, do green spaces have on these species?

*Respondent doesn’t feel greened plots will have much of an effect in this regard due to

them being too isolated…with the exception of monarch butterfly populations. Recommends


milkweed in any plots that are done…favors swamp milkweed…butterfly weed good too…and

Sullivan’s milkweed (which is endangered)…as well as asters and goldenrods for migrating

monarchs. Supporting bee struggling bee populations with native plantings.

5) What about migratory species that pass through this area?

a. What do these migrating species look for in terms of food, shelter and nesting

requirements?

*Respondent mentions shrubs, trees and conifers and blooming plants. Replacing Ash

trees that are going away with more thoughtful choices…especially in parks. Oaks in the spring

are really important for warblers (bird)…they are pollinating the same time the warblers are

going through and the pollen attracts insects…which the warblers feed on. Protecting

preexisting oaks is important. Adding June berries and other early blooming species then

Coneflowers and elderberries that birds can eat in the fall. Respondent doesn’t recommend a lot

of nesting boxes in the city unless the holes are small for wrens. Don’t want to breed house

sparrows. Purple martin houses by the lake are an issue since people do not monitor them and

house sparrows move in. Removing snags and dead trees in neighborhoods might also eliminate

raccoon problem.

6) Would you consider the current state of our natural environment adequate for area

wildlife, or put another way, what are your own thoughts about the state of our natural

environment within city limits? Is there room for improvement? Where would you most

like to see improvements made?

“Kenosha’s pretty good compared to a lot of other places because they have a lot of those

lakefront parks, but I really think they could do better, especially with their plantings. I think

there’s too much green grass…there should be more native plantings along the lake….and more


shrubs I think especially. There’s a lot of trees but there’s just not a lot of shrubbery. I don’t

know if that’s some sort of safety thing…I mean I know that’s something to think about too if

there’s more places for people to hide or if homeless people are living there…but I think a lot of

it is just “too manicured.” I think there’s a lot of potential and I think a lot of that once it’s

established will actually lower costs. Here’s another thing…birding is a really big deal. Billions

of people bird now and Kenosha’s already a bird city and to really play that in…because there’s

some spectacular birding spots along the lake. People come from all across southeast Wisconsin

to Myers Park to see these birds…people go to bird at Windpoint Lighthouse all the time. And so

that’s another potential tourism connection because birding is a really big deal.

7) Anything else you would like to add about this topic?

“The DNR and me in particular would be able to provide acceptable plant lists and

anything that would do well in that environment and in this area. Lake Michigan also has a lot of

coastal restoration grants and so if these things are done near the lake that is a potential funding

source. Wisconsin Garden Club Federation usually picks a project every year.”

8) Why are we only now rediscovering native plantings?

“I think a lot of it is availability. Home improvement stores like Lowes and Menards sell

a lot of nonnatives and so that’s a lot of what’s available. Also a lot of people don’t like that

messy look but it’s about plant choices and knowing what to plant while making it still look

good…so maybe using shorter species and those that don’t get away and spread.”


C-Interview with Robert Beezat

(SEED Board President) 10/19/15


1) Looking at both the mission and vision of S.E.E.D, I wonder if you could tell me a little

more about the work you and your organization do and how it is making a difference in

local communities (with respect to local food production and distribution in particular)?

a. What are your thoughts (and/or S.E.E.D’s position) on the state of the food system in

this area (and Kenosha in particular)?

*Respondent goes into length about the organization starting as a means of bringing

people together, initiating and supporting urban gardens (particularly in Racine) and helping

to create jobs around food (i.e. through grants, scholarships, startups, business expansions,

value added food processing and business incubator kitchens).

2) Looking at locally produced food specifically, how would you describe the state of the local

food marketplace and how are local food producers doing in terms of meeting the demand

for local produced food (as well as encouraging new buyers)?

a. What is (or should be) the role of locally produced food within the larger food system?

b. What are the challenges of producing food locally in this area (e.g. not enough

growers; small demand for locally produced food in this area; short/limited growing

season, etc)?

*Respondent explains that while some local food producing operations are doing well

and some are even selling their products to large distributors like Outpost, Trader Joes and

Whole Foods (e.g. Yuppie Hill Poultry, Brightonwoods Orchard, Olano’s Empanadas) there are

currently not enough food producers producing enough food to meet the demand of larger


regional distributors – that at one time actually showed interest in this area (Midwest Foods,

Testa Produce). He also goes on to explain the challenge of growing young, new farmers and

other local food producers. In his mind not many young people are interested in becoming

farmers. He refers to one recent year when it was difficult to find people to fill the number of

scholarships that SEED had available.

3) What about distribution challenges? Is healthy, locally produced food easy to come by and

readily available?

a. Are food deserts and food insecurity considered a problem in this area (specifically in

Kenosha)?

i. Geographically, where are these problems most apparent in the city and what

can and is being done?

b. Is there any indication where most of the locally produced food comes from (e.g.

mostly rural area farms)?

i. What is the average size of local food producing farming operations?

ii. What portion (if any) comes from urban farms?

*Respondent identifies main challenge as the lack of food that is locally produced. At the

same time, his experiences with many local farmers leads him to believe that most of them are

not interested in expanding their operations. Points to SEED created slogan “grow it and they

will buy it.”

4) What do you (and/or S.E.E.D.) see as the role of urban agriculture when it comes to local

food production and distribution?

a. What particular challenges do urban farms face?


b. What impact do you think increased numbers of urban farms would have on

surrounding neighborhoods and the larger community as a whole?

5) Goal number five of SEED (listed on the Racine Kenosha Community Action website) is to

“identify parcels of land that are available and viable.” How might this goal relate to

urban agriculture?

*Respondent again explains his view that there is not enough food currently being

produced here and that a large portion of the local population look to grocery stores for highly

processed foods coming in from outside the area. He goes on to note that his organization is not

familiar with many people that have demonstrated interest in starting an urban farming

operation. He stated that he thinks “it just hasn’t caught on yet here.”

6) What is (or should be) the role of community gardens in supporting local food production?

7) Are existing community gardens evenly dispersed in this area (and in Kenosha

specifically)?

a. Is there interest in increasing the number of (food producing) community gardens in

Kenosha?

8) What is the role of government in the local food system?

a. How do (or should they) support healthy, local food?

b. How does (or has) S.E.E.D. work with local government to achieve its organizational

goals?

9) Lastly, do you have any thoughts that you could share about the aim of this project?

10) Would you consider this type of initiative realistic for Kenosha?

a. Is it aligned with the mission and vision of S.E.E.D?


“Anything is possible.” However, respondent again goes to say that his feeling is that urban

farming is not something he sees happening anytime soon in this area.


D-Kenosha Residents Sample Survey

Initial ReportLast Modified: 11/11/2015

1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Vacant (empty) lots are a problem in Kenosha.

# Answer Response %1 Strongly Disagree 8 8%

2 Disagree 7 7%

3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 18 17%

4 Agree 36 34%

5 Strongly Agree 37 35%

Total 106 100%

Statistic ValueMin Value 1

Max Value 5

Mean 3.82

Variance 1.44

Standard Deviation 1.20

Total Responses 106


2. A community garden is a piece of land gardened collectively by a group of individuals. How likely would you participate in new community gardens in Kenosha?

# Answer Response %1 Very Unlikely 8 8%

2 Unlikely 15 14%

3 Somewhat Unlikely 12 11%

4 Undecided 7 7%

5 Somewhat Likely 22 21%

6 Likely 17 16%

7 Very Likely 25 24%

Total 106 100%


Max Value 7

Mean 4.61

Variance 3.99


Total Responses 106


3. Would you support a local community garden project through a contribution of financial support, volunteer time or other resources?


2 Unlikely 4 4%


4 Undecided 12 11%


6 Likely 28 26%


Total 106 100%


Max Value 7

Mean 5.38

Variance 2.71


Total Responses 106


4. A “food forest” is a low-maintenance edible plant-based gardening and/or land management system. If a free food forest was available to you in Kenosha, how likely would you take advantage of it?


2 Unlikely 2 2%


4 Undecided 14 13%


6 Likely 15 14%


Total 106 100%


Max Value 7

Mean 5.31

Variance 3.28


Total Responses 106


5. Would you support a Kenosha food forest project through a contribution of financial support, volunteer time or other resources?


2 Unlikely 3 3%


4 Undecided 13 12%


6 Likely 33 31%


Total 106 100%


Max Value 7

Mean 5.44

Variance 2.63


Total Responses 106


6. Urban agriculture is the growing or producing of food in a city or other heavily populated town or municipality for the purpose of selling it. What do you think of using vacant (empty) lots in Kenosha for urban agriculture?


2 Disagree 5 5%


4 Agree 34 32%


Total 106 100%


Max Value 5

Mean 4.18

Variance 1.10


Total Responses 106


7. Other types of natural spaces include green roofs, corner parks and gardens, green corridors, amenity green spaces and natural/semi natural green spaces. What do you think of using vacant (empty) lots in Kenosha for other types of natural spaces?


2 Disagree 3 3%


4 Agree 43 41%


Total 106 100%


Max Value 5

Mean 4.36

Variance 0.63


Total Responses 106


8. Overall, what do you think of the recommendation to convert vacant (empty) lots in Kenosha into different types of “green spaces”

# Answer Response %1 I love it 62 58%

2 I like it 34 32%

3 I'm neutral 6 6%

4 I dislike it 1 1%

5 I strongly dislike it 3 3%

Total 106 100%


Max Value 5

Mean 1.58

Variance 0.76


Total Responses 106


9. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: Converting vacant (empty) lots into “green spaces” will…

Statistic Q9a Q9b Q9c Q9d Q9e Q9f Q9g Q9h Q9i Q9j Q9k Q9lMin

Value1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Max

Value7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Mean 5.26 5.80 5.49 5.37 5.48 5.39 5.82 5.34 5.44 5.61 6.03 5.92

Variance 2.83 2.21 2.57 2.70 2.49 2.10 2.28 2.74 2.40 2.51 2.03 1.85

Standard

Deviation1.68 1.49 1.60 1.64 1.58 1.45 1.51 1.65 1.55 1.58 1.43 1.36

Total

Responses101 98 95 95 95 98 94 99 93 99 91 92


10. What is your gender?# Answer Response %1 Male 24 23%

2 Female 80 77%

Total 104 100%


Max Value 2

Mean 1.77

Variance 0.18


Total Responses 104

11. What is your age?# Answer Response %1 Under 18 years old 1 1%

2 18-29 years old 13 13%

3 30-49 years old 52 50%

4 50-64 years old 30 29%

5 65 years and over 8 8%

Total 104 100%



Max Value 5

Mean 3.30

Variance 0.68


Total Responses 104

12. What is the highest level of education you have completed?# Answer Response %1 Less than high school 2 2%

2High school graduate

(includes equivalency)11 11%

3 Some college, no degree 20 19%

4 Associate degree 10 10%

5 Bachelor degree 34 33%

6 Graduate degree or higher 26 25%

Total 103 100%



Max Value 6

Mean 4.37

Variance 2.02


Total Responses 103

13. How do you classify yourself?# Answer Response %1 African American/Black 0 0%

2 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1%

3 Hispanic/Latino 6 6%

4 Native American/American Indian 1 1%

5 White/Caucasian 90 87%

6 Not Listed (Please specify) 2 2%

7 Prefer not to answer 3 3%

Total 103 100%

Not Listed (Please specify)a human

AMERICAN



Max Value 7

Mean 4.92

Variance 0.46


Total Responses 103

14. What is your current employment status?# Answer Response %1 Full-time 51 49%

2 Part-time 12 12%

3 Self-employed 10 10%

4 Unemployed 8 8%

5 Student 1 1%

6 Military 1 1%

7 Retired 12 12%

8 Unable to work 3 3%

9 Other (Please specify) 6 6%

Total 104 100%


Other (Please specify)Stay at home mom, house wife

Home maker

Work and school

unemployed by choice

retired, now business owner

Homemaker


Max Value 9

Mean 2.98

Variance 6.99


Total Responses 104


15. What is your current household income?# Answer Response %1 Less than $10,000 3 3%

2 $10,000-$29,999 13 14%

3 $30,000-$49,999 21 23%

4 $50,000-$69,999 16 17%

5 $70,000-$89,999 13 14%

6 Over $90,000 26 28%

Total 92 100%


Max Value 6

Mean 4.10

Variance 2.37


Total Responses 92