• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Say hello
Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

  • Podcast
  • Posts
  • In the news
  • Speaking and media
    • About Eve
    • Speaking requests
    • Speaking engagements
    • Press kit
  • Investment opportunities

Equity

Radical in its simplicity.

May 26, 2021

Beth Silverman is Executive Director of the Lotus Campaign, a nimble nonprofit startup focused on reducing homelessness.

What makes the Lotus Campaign especially interesting is its approach to putting a roof over a homeless family’s head. Instead of building ground up affordable homes, employing a bevy of subsidy financing, the Lotus Campaign is instead focusing on existing Class B apartment buildings, and on building partnership with Landlords. By offering a networked support system to ensure that each tenant succeeds, the Lotus Campaign has been able to house 300 families to date. Only 1 has been evicted – a resounding success and a testament to the program.  Even better, each placement has only cost an average of $800. 

This seems such a small price to pay to put a roof over someone’s head… 

Beth’s background lends itself to this feisty little startup. She has been chief of staff for Real Estate Transaction Services with the New York City Economic Development Corporation under Bloomberg, and led ULI’s Real Estate Advisory services, which gave her an inside look at the issues cities grapple with all over the world.

Insights and Inspirations

  • The Lotus Campaign is a spirited startup, experimenting to find solutions for homeless families.
  • Another 10 million families are expected to be homeless once the pandemic eviction moratorium ends.
  • Educating landlords is key. Perceptions around homelessness are the enemy.
  • Homelessness is a race issue. 75% of the homeless are people of color.
  • Beth’s BHAG is be put out of business, because they’ve scaled and taught others how to replicate the Lotus model.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:06] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co, a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, please join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers. Today I’m talking with Beth Silverman, executive director of the Lotus Campaign, a nimble non-profit startup focused on reducing homelessness. What makes the Lotus Campaign especially interesting is its approach to putting a roof over a homeless family’s head. Instead of building ground up affordable homes, employing a bevy of subsidy financing, the Lotus Campaign is instead focusing on existing Class B apartment buildings and on building partnerships with landlords. By offering a network support system to ensure that each tenant succeeds, the Lotus Campaign has been able to house 300 families to date. Only one person has been evicted, a resounding success and a testament to the program. Even better, each placement has only cost an average of 800 dollars. This seems such a small price to pay to put a roof over someone’s head. Beth’s background lends itself to this feisty little startup, she has been chief of staff for real estate transaction services for the New York City Economic Development Corporation under Bloomberg, and she’s led ULI’s Real Estate Advisory Services, which gave her an inside look at the issues cities grapple with all over the world. I’m going to learn a lot from Beth and so might you. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe if you can.

Eve: [00:03:02] Hello, Beth. It’s been a few years since we talked, and I’m really excited to catch up.

Beth Silverman: [00:03:08] Great to be here, Eve.

Eve: [00:03:10] Yes, so I’ve been tracking the Lotus Campaign for a few years now, and I wanted you just to tell us the primary purpose and mission of the Lotus Campaign. And how did you get that name?

Beth: [00:03:24] Sure.

Eve: [00:03:24] Fill that in as well.

Beth: [00:03:26] So, Lotus Campaign is a non-profit startup dedicated to housing driven solutions for homelessness. And part of what makes us different from other approaches that are out there is the whole goal is how do we bring together the private real estate and investment communities alongside of the non-profit social service providers? Our whole mission, which sounds very simple but is more complex than you might think, is to open up access to housing. And we do that through a couple of different ways. But it’s really to open up access to market rate housing and to folks that are either at risk of experiencing homelessness or experiencing homelessness. And the name is really based off of the meaning behind the lotus flower. So, if you know anything about the mythology of the flower, you know, it’s been revered for generations by many different cultures, but it is a symbol of rebirth and renewal. And the flower submerges every night into pond mud and then in the morning blossoms into a beautiful flower. And we thought that was really a great metaphor for what we’re trying to do with Lotus and in general of both the perceptions of the challenge of homelessness and the hope needed to solve it.

Eve: [00:05:12] I think it’s a lovely name. So what is the actual program?

Beth: [00:05:17] So we have three different programs and they’re all tied to immediacy of impact. So our program, which is really connected to immediate impact, is a landlord participation program and that is pretty radical in its simplicity. What we’re doing is we’re bringing market rate landlords together with non-profit social service providers. And what we’re doing is Lotus is acting as the mediator between what are the risks that the real estate community has in renting to someone that has experienced homelessness. And what is all the friction that the non-profit sector has in finding housing for their clients? So we solve for that risk in two different ways. We do a bunch of economic mitigation and then we also solve for the perception risk. So, in terms of the economic mitigation, pretty much, we did a massive amount of interviews with private sector landlords and asked them why they would be hesitant to rent to someone that’s experienced homelessness. And we took all of their objections and then solved for them. So we use capital as a tool, right? So, we do things like offer a payment in lieu of security deposit. We pay for application fees, inspection fees, renters’ insurance for a year up front, we guarantee against loss of rent and tenant caused damages. And we also agree to reimburse any legal costs if someone needed to be evicted. So we’re really trying to hedge a potential landlord’s economic risks. And then in terms of the perception risks, we partner with high-capacity non=profits that provide ongoing support and services to a resident for the duration of their lease term. And what’s really cool about that program is the impact isn’t just getting someone into housing, it’s that that impact is, one, providing a stable home for someone in a neighborhood of opportunity. It’s also giving someone a year of a runway minimum to stability and self-sufficiency. It’s giving a resident or a family the opportunity to build credit while they’re there and get all of the supportive services they might need to potentially move on to housing on their own. So, what we’ve been able to do in that program in less than three years is house over 300 individuals and families at a cost of less than 800 dollars per person.

Eve: [00:08:15] Wow. So, let’s stop there a moment. So, you’re mitigating things that are sort of making landlords nervous and unwilling to rent to that group of people who is in danger of losing their homes or already have. So, what’s the biggest thing you heard in that survey that you took?

Beth: [00:08:36] I think the biggest concern, it wasn’t even necessarily the economic concerns. Those are so easy to solve. It’s how is the person being supported once they’re in housing? And what’s the mechanism there? Because property managers aren’t case managers. Right. And so, you know, the economic barriers are really easy to solve for. It’s finding the combination of the housing plus the services, which I think…

Eve: [00:09:06] So your partnership with the service providers is really critical.

Beth: [00:09:10] Yeah. And it’s a way to invest in existing systems that are great but need some new tools and need some roadblocks eliminated for them too.

Eve: [00:09:22] So who are the tenants, and do they come into this housing opportunity and leave in a better place or like what’s the result of this program, I suppose, is what I’m asking?

Beth: [00:09:35] Yeah, no, no, no. It’s a great question. I’m going to start taking you to fundraising meetings with me. You know, it’s all different folks. So we work with everyone from high functioning chronic. That’s someone that has experienced homelessness and living without shelter for a number of years, to folks that are at risk of becoming homeless. And I think that last category is really important, especially right now. Right? There’s some recent data about the number of renter households that are at risk of losing their housing once eviction moratoriums are lifted. And that number right now is 10 million people.

Eve: [00:10:19] Oh, my heavens.

Beth: [00:10:20] So we really feel strongly that you also have to stop the flow into the cycle of homelessness. And so in terms of what sort of impact can a program like this have on someone? We’ve had people graduate from the program and move into housing on their own. A big data point for us is the number of renewals we have. Another data point is someone graduating from the program and renewing on their own. But it really depends on where the person is starting from. And and I am a strong believer that someone working with one of our non-profit partners and walking into the door of a place that they feel safe living in and feel proud of, that’s a huge metric of success that just can help lead to lots of other things.

Eve: [00:11:17] What about evictions? How many of these three hundred tenants have gone bad or not been able to perform or have not been able to succeed?

Beth: [00:11:24] That’s a great question, Eve?

Eve: [00:11:26] Gone bad was a bad way to say that.

Beth: [00:11:29] Well, I like to always say don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good. So to date, you’ve have had one eviction and it’s always unfortunate that was a case of someone not following the requirements of the program they were in. It was never an issue with the landlord. To me, it’s a sign that the program works because our non-profit partner made the decision that that person was no longer a fit for the program. For whatever reasons we you know, they decided that. And as part of that, if they weren’t holding up their end of the bargain following the end of their lease term, they could no longer continue.

Eve: [00:12:15] How does that make you feel? One failure in amongst 300?

Beth: [00:12:21] Well, I think I’m a reformed perfectionist. And to me, that’s just a sign the program’s working, right?

Eve: [00:12:29] Yes.

Beth: [00:12:29] It’s not going to be a slam dunk.

Eve: [00:12:32] But it’s a pretty good safety net if those are the numbers.

Beth: [00:12:36] Yeah.

Eve: [00:12:36] And 800 dollars is extraordinary for what you do for these people. That’s amazing. So I’d love to stay with this program. I know you have two more to talk about, but I just want to ask a few more questions. So, the landlords that you have partnerships with, where are they and what do they look like and why did they decide to do this? Who are they?

Beth: [00:12:55] Yeah, no, great question. I mean, they are mostly Class B landlords, right? Some of them have Class A properties and more high end properties that are not fit for our program just based on the rents.

Eve: [00:13:11] What’s a Class B property for people who don’t know?

Beth: [00:13:15] Great question. So it might just be an older property that does not have the same amenities as a new building.

Eve: [00:13:25] So no roof deck. No shared gym. No swimming pool.

Beth: [00:13:29] No indoor swimming pool.

Eve: [00:13:31] But in good shape. Well looked after.

Beth: [00:13:35] Yeah. Yeah. And honestly, you know, where do they come from? Why do they want to be involved? I think really what the key to me has been with this, if you give the real estate community an easy path to say yes and participate, they’ll take it. I mean, I think folks, especially landlords and the property management community, they’re the front lines of understanding the housing affordability and homelessness crisis. So how do you give them a way that they can participate? That’s easy. As opposed to telling them they should do this, or they should do that. Or, you know, unless you do it this way, you can’t be a part of this.

Eve: [00:14:21] Interesting.

Beth: [00:14:21] And so we have a mix of landlords that participate with 10 units to a couple of hundred units. And a good piece of data for me is one of our newest landlords who started with us in July, just wrote me last week and said they want to expand their participation across their whole portfolio of properties. Going from 10 units in July to now 80 units. And to me, that’s a test that it’s working and that it’s it’s really just a great thing…

Eve: [00:15:01] Yeah.

Beth: [00:15:01] For them to be involved in in terms of being a community champion for some new ways to think about homelessness and housing.

Eve: [00:15:08] Oh, yeah. Pretty great. So another question is like, what are the neighbors thinking in these buildings, you know, NIMBYism, I think has been a downfall, right?

Beth: [00:15:18] Yeah, well, something I started to think a lot about on that front, having been yelled at for six years by community boards in New York City, is the idea of community courage. Right? And it’s not necessarily political will or NIMBYism. It’s the necessity of community courage to try new things and strengthen our communities. But the great question you asked, what do people think? What I like to say is, well, someone’s no longer homeless once they’ve moved in somewhere. So the whole key is for Lotus to kind of be the actor behind the scenes that provides the structure and the facilitation. But, you know, ideally, neighbors don’t know that they’re…

Eve: [00:16:04] Yeah, I don’t know when my neighbors came from last at all. So, yeah, it’s irrelevant. Right?

Beth: [00:16:10] Right.

Eve: [00:16:10] Interesting. So what cities are you in right now?

Beth: [00:16:15] So we’re currently in Charlotte, but we are working on scaling this year to another community and raising money to do that. Which is exciting because the whole idea behind Lotus is that we want to build a model that’s replicable and scalable. Housing affordability and homelessness are not challenges that are specific to any one community. They’re unique in some of their characteristics, but every community across the country is challenged by both of those issues. So, the idea is we’ll scale another pilot this year, test that scaling, and then the hope is that then we can expand where we’re operating and where we can’t go. Really teach communities how to do what we’re doing.

Eve: [00:17:05] Mm hmm. Fabulous. OK, so tell me about the other two programs now.

Beth: [00:17:10] Great. Yes, so the second program is geared towards addressing a shortage of high quality, safe and affordable workforce housing by investing in existing properties, using the same private investment strategies that are used in for-profit real estate development. So our acquisitions and investment program looks to leverage capital. So, to give you an example of this, we purchased our first multifamily property three months after we launched, which was both terrifying and exciting. And Lotus put in or I should say Lotus and Friends invested 300,000 dollars. We got…

Eve: [00:17:59] And you didn’t crowdfund it.

Beth: [00:18:02] We didn’t.

Eve: [00:18:05] I’m chastising you.

Beth: [00:18:07] We might have had we had more than 26 days.

Eve: [00:18:11] Oh yes. You need a little more time.

Beth: [00:18:12] There’s a funny story with a flaw in the title which we don’t have time for on this podcast. But a short amount of time to raise money. And we were able to partner with an impact investment fund out of Jonathan Rose’s investment arm. And so for our 300,000 dollars, we got an equity partner for about six million, got a traditional Freddie Mac loan for about 11 million. So, for our 300,000 dollars, we now have control of a 17-million-dollar asset for seven years. The investors are making a six percent cash return today and a 12 percent return over the life of the investment…

Eve: [00:18:59] That’s a really good return for impact investing.

Beth: [00:19:02] Yeah, we think so. We’re pretty proud of it.

Eve: [00:19:05] A really great return. Yeah.

Beth: [00:19:06] It’s a great capital stock. It’s not complicated, right?

Eve: [00:19:08] Yes.

Beth: [00:19:11] So what we do in projects that we invest in, 20 percent of the units in this property are set aside for our core mission, so, providing housing for folks experiencing homelessness. So, 20 percent of the units, that’s about 30 apartments are participants in our landlord participation program. And the rest is just market rate, workforce housing. So, the idea there is profit is a tool. You can do good and do well. And we don’t have to have all of these complicated layers to preserving free housing that’s affordable.

Eve: [00:19:51] So are the units that are available for homeless people less expensive than the workforce housing units? Is that how you’ve managed the income flow?

Beth: [00:20:02] The rent is slightly lower for those units, which does help keep them affordable to our non-profit partners, but not by much. But it is really the 80 percent workforce market rate units that are allowing us to make the rent of the other units more affordable.

Eve: [00:20:18] That’s what I figured, okay. Do you have any more of those projects planned?

Beth: [00:20:24] Yes, we’re right now doing some due diligence for another project. We’ll see how that goes, we’re knee deep in it. But the idea eventually, too, is that we have a pipeline of enough projects. We’re also helping with that next stage of housing, and we are offsetting the operations of the non-profit.

Eve: [00:20:47] Right, right.

Beth: [00:20:48] So this model doesn’t have to solely depend on philanthropic contributions. It can also have a revenue model where we’re getting either an asset management fee or a return on our investment.

Eve: [00:21:04] Yep, yep. And what’s the third program?

Beth: [00:21:07] Well, this is probably the most daunting, but I think one of the most critical is an education program. And it’s really how do we creatively raise awareness, bust myths around who’s homeless and why, and really share our model and then also help dispel some misperceptions about the economics of housing development. And a key goal of this work is really to build community support, encourage and get people to have a different type of dialogue about homelessness and housing. So how do we flip the script on these really difficult topics for people to get into?

Eve: [00:21:52] Mm hmm. It’s really interesting. You probably thought a lot about affordable or homeless housing solutions and why this one and how do you think it might scale 10 million more people? Families? Homelessness is super daunting.

Beth: [00:22:10] Yeah, well, what’s interesting is I actually, my background is in urban planning, but I’ve never worked in urban planning. I’ve always worked in equitable economic development and real estate. And when I was first talking to one of my co-founders, I just said, this is ridiculous. I don’t want anything to do with it. And then the more we started fleshing out what this could be and how it could be a new tool and bringing some imagination to a space that’s just heavy and fatigued, I said, you know what, this sounds more like a startup. This sounds this sounds more like testing new ideas and seeing how they land. And that sounds really exciting to me. And, you know, in many ways, I think Lotus is about abandoning the notion that there’s one way to solve a problem. I don’t think Lotus on by itself is going to solve homelessness alone. But as we know from increasing numbers of homelessness and housing insecurity, we need every tool in the toolkit. And so, what I love about what we’re trying to do with Lotus is it also represents the bright light of human possibility, because it’s about investing in players on the ground. It’s about investing in systems and trying to get rid of the friction that’s preventing those systems from being effective. And it’s about bringing a bigger tent together to solve problems. Right?

Eve: [00:23:52] Yeah.

Beth: [00:23:52] And if we think about homelessness, it’s really a barometer of social justice and the strength of our communities.

Eve: [00:24:00] Right. Right. So, what’s the biggest challenge you’ve had in building this startup? So many you can’t answer?

Beth: [00:24:09] Well, I always look at the challenges as opportunities for growth, too, but I think there is a lot of resistance at first to will this model work? Is it actually replicable? And now we’re in a place where we have a strong enough narrative of impact and proof of concept that we don’t get that question anymore. So now we get other questions. I think it’s also disarming people’s notions of what homelessness is and how we can start making a dent in it. I think it’s disarming people’s notions about who get to be allies and problem solvers together. As you probably are aware, there’s some interesting perceptions of the private sector if you’re in the public sector or the non-profit sector and vice versa. And in many ways, translating all of those worlds is a thing we do really well. And bringing those folks together who usually may not have the opportunity to be part of the same team.

Eve: [00:25:16] Um hmm.

Beth: [00:25:16] And I think, challenges, like any startup, is raising capital to do more pilots, right?

Eve: [00:25:25] Yes.

Beth: [00:25:25] We’re not at a level with our investments and acquisitions that that’s going to fund every next pilot. I don’t think this is a challenge, but I think it’s the opportunity of, how do we get people to feel connected to what we’re doing and see the impact it’s having. So that is creative storytelling and how we share what we’ve been able to do, the impact it has, and then why it all matters.

Eve: [00:25:53] Mm hmm. So, I have to ask, what role does racism play in homelessness? What are the demographics look like? I’m sure you’ve looked at this.

Beth: [00:26:02] It’s a great question. I think arguably they play a huge role. National stats show that the majority of people that experience homelessness are African American. With the data we collect in our program, the folks that we’ve been able to house, about 75 percent of those are African American. What we know about housing and real estate and land use law is that for a long time, it was actually used to segregate communities and discriminate. I think that’s no longer up for debate, which is is refreshing. And some of the challenges with the impacts of whether it was restrictive covenants, redlining, access to just the ability to buy a home. Right. And build equity,

Eve: [00:26:56] Access to capital.

Beth: [00:26:58] Yeah, it’s played a huge role. And the challenges we got to lean into, difficult conversations about structures and things that are still in place that have, whether intended or not, consequences.

Eve: [00:27:13] So what’s the big, hairy, audacious goal then for the Lotus Campaign?

Beth: [00:27:20] That’s a great, great question. You know, survival is a good goal, but I think…

Eve: [00:27:25] That’s not an audacious one.

Beth: [00:27:28] On a more aspirational note. I’d love to see us in a couple different communities in the next few years and really sharing having a blueprint to share our model with other people.

Eve: [00:27:41] That’s a very sensible goal. So I want to go back to your background, because I know you’ve had a really interesting career path. And I want to understand what led you here. So you have a degree and I can’t remember, planning?

Beth: [00:27:58] Yeah, well, undergrad, I did the design-your-own-major program.

Eve: [00:28:03] Oh.

Beth: [00:28:03] Which was great actually, but I created something that was probably would have in any other place, would have been in urban studies program and then went on to study city planning and economic development in Philadelphia, which was a great city to be learning about all of those things and forced myself to take finance classes while I was there so I could understand that language of real estate. I have never worked as an urban planner, which I find interesting, but I think most people that go into urban planning, it’s a great field of study for identifying problems and understanding how to create solutions.

Eve: [00:28:46] I met you when you were at the Urban Land Institute, which is a very large, what, 10,000 strong, more people? Real estate membership organization with lots of big, fat developers. So how did you get like, what’s your trajectory been like? How did you get to the Lotus Campaign?

Beth: [00:29:08] Yeah, great, great question. So, I think a good starting point with my path is in my early 20s, I was an outdoor guide. Which means I taught people how to feel safe and comfortable doing crazy stuff outside. Whether it was hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, sea kayaking, snowshoeing. But the whole key there was disarming people of their notions of what they thought something was, teaching them how to trust themselves and how to try something new. And hands down one of the most fun and one of my favorite jobs and have a great community of friends from those days. But the other thing with nature is, is that’s always been a refuge for me. That’s always been a part of community building for me. And I found myself in urban planning because I wanted to strengthen communities. So, I went to undergrad, there was no such thing as urban planning, at least not where I went. So, I did this design-your-own-major program that looked at essentially urban studies and economics and then decided, let me go on and study this and throw on economic development and went to grad school in Philadelphia. And I found myself, you know, in an interesting path, which is not linear, because I wanted to soak up as much experience as possible. But I think a thread that runs through all the jobs that I have is how do we strengthen our communities? And, you know, I worked in New York City when Mike Bloomberg was mayor, doing crazy real estate projects, trying to get things going during a recession when no one was building things, getting yelled at community board meetings, because I was the free therapy for that evening and trying to disarm people’s notions of what they thought something was. But Lotus, for me, was this opportunity to build something and create real change and get to do it nimbly and at ULI I had this great job where I got to travel all over the country and the world with teams of experts helping communities on complex land use and real estate issues. What that also showed me was where people were inspired and motivated in their careers, right. And what some of the characteristics were.

Eve: [00:31:59] And how some people aren’t motivated and inspired, right?

Beth: [00:32:03] Totally, totally. You know, I think a bunch of people wanted my job after they went on a roll. But also personally. Right, with homelessness and housing, if you’ve ever witnessed someone in your family have some sort of emergency, whether it’s an economic crisis, a medical crisis, a mental health crisis and how close to the edge people get. If they don’t have a support system, what happens? Right, and with Lotus, there are just so many people that fall into a cycle of homelessness because they don’t have a support network or they don’t have an emergency fund or a strong family network, whatever it might be. And I was just really attracted to the idea of I think we can do something here and let’s take the best principles from real estate. Let’s take the best principles from community building. Let’s test some things. And so now I found myself running a startup. But as I’ve mentioned earlier, I really think homelessness is a reflection of us. Right. And if we’re measuring our communities doing well, are they thriving or are they healthy? I think we have to look at that as one of the metrics and it’s a sobering reality because a lot of communities are not doing so well, so that’s a long way of saying, I think I’ve had I’ve had a non-linear path, but it’s always been about how do you usher in change and get people to join you and how do you do it in a way that helps create some sort of positive impact.

Eve: [00:34:00] So I would say it’s pretty courageous path. I don’t think there’s many people, I think a lot of people don’t know what to do about the homeless situation and don’t even know where to begin to help. And you’re sort of diving into one of the most difficult problems, housing problems to solve. It’s not even about affordable housing housing. It’s about any housing. Right?  It’s the roof over your head, so…

Beth: [00:34:29] Well, the other thing that keeps me motivated is no one else is doing this. And if we don’t do it, how are we going to get others to join us and how are we going to get someone else to do this? And I actually think about that a lot because I don’t think what we’re doing is rocket science, but it is radical in its simplicity and that makes it challenging for some people to understand.

Eve: [00:34:54] So when I met you, you were at ULI, and that’s a very different place where you are now. I mean, Urban Land Institute rights for our listeners.

Beth: [00:35:07] Right, and I was running a program called the Advisory Services Program, which you can think of as an in-house consulting arm that goes out with teams of multidisciplinary experts and works with communities on complicated land use and real estate challenges. So that might be a downtown vision challenge for Norman, Oklahoma, or that might be how do we think about transit-oriented development in Cape Town, South Africa? So that was a wild couple of years of getting to travel all over the country and internationally a little bit to see what challenges communities were facing and then also provide real, tangible strategic advice to them. And I think a big takeaway I had from that phase of my career is most communities have similar challenges as different as they might be.

Eve: [00:36:11] No, I sat on a few of those advisory committees, and I was always struck like small town, big city, same problems. Pretty amazing. Almost the same financial problems. The performers look the same. This was really quite striking.

Beth: [00:36:29] Yes.

Eve: [00:36:30] Same homeless problems, do you think?

Beth: [00:36:34] You know, maybe different scales, but I can, I can say that every single program I did, it was always a housing issue. Even if it was a panel about urban resilience, there was always a housing affordability issue that came up.

Eve: [00:36:50] So then of all of the things you’ve done, why this? Because you saw, you know, because housing loomed larger in your life or I mean, it’s a big leap from real estate to, you know, director of advisory services to running this non-profit, which is really, really stretching the limits of what’s possible, right?

Beth: [00:37:13] Yeah, I mean, I’m a doer, right? I’m impatient, I like to solve problems, and I saw this as an opportunity to work somewhere and lead something that could be really nimble and had the potential for massive impact and to build a new tool that could ideally help communities help individuals. And that’s what really attracted it, attracted me to the, to helping to start Lotus. I will tell you, I was not a housing expert when we started. And now I feel like I have a little more fluency. But again, all these things about building strong communities. How do we measure that in our communities? I think it also comes down to housing and folks’ access to housing and you know how we’re thinking about how the folks that are with the least resources…

Eve: [00:38:17] Right.

Beth: [00:38:18] How they’re able to be a part of the community. And I think I was just really attracted to, let’s try to make a dent in this thing that seems intractable.

Eve: [00:38:30] Yeah, well, I’m really excited to see where you go with this. And I’m ready to buy a building with you in Pittsburgh if you if we can get a Class B building.

Beth: [00:38:42] Okay.

Eve: [00:38:42] Because I really think it’s a what a great program. It’s really pretty fabulous. I can’t wait to see where you take it. Thank you so much for joining me.

Beth: [00:38:51] Thanks so much for having me, Eve.

Eve: [00:39:01] Radical in its simplicity. That’s how Beth Silverman thinks of the Lotus Campaign. This spirited little startup is growing quickly, experimenting with a variety of solutions to homelessness. Lessons I learned today? Another 10 million families are expected to be homeless once the pandemic eviction moratorium ends. Educating landlords is key. Perceptions around homelessness are the enemy. Homelessness is a race issue. 75 percent of the homeless are people of color. Ultimately, Beth’s big, hairy and audacious goal is to be put out of business because the Lotus Campaign has taught others how to replicate the Lotus model and they are no longer needed.

Eve: [00:39:57] You can find out more about this episode on the Show Notes page at EvePicker.com, or you can find other episodes you might have missed. Or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music, and thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Beth Silverman, the Lotus Campaign

Bridging the Gap.

May 24, 2021

“Even after retiring from the NFL, Seattle Seahawks players keep finding ways to give back to their community. Former offensive tackle Garry Gilliam and defensive tackle Jordan Hill, who have played football together for most of their lives, are uniting once again to create change in their hometown of Harrisburg, PA.” writes Samantha Sunseri for Yahoo Sports.

When Garry Gilliam retired from football, it was just the end of his first career. As a graduate with multiple degrees from Milton Hershey School and Penn State University, and with a thirst for knowledge and a passion to give back to his community, he launched a second career –  as founder and CEO of The Bridge. Not content with coaching youth football, his former colleague and good friend Jordan Hill also jumped on board as chief community officer.

With the Bridge they are building a ‘for-purpose’ real estate development company with the intention of acquiring unused properties such as malls, schools and warehouses and transforming them into inner-city mixed-use ‘eco villages’. Their focus is on cooperation, collaboration, and community. Sustainability will be achieved by residents being able to work, eat, learn, live, and play all in the same location. The first eco-village, in the former Bishop McDevitt High School, broke ground in late 2020 and they hope to open it to the public in 2022. The project will include affordable housing and spaces for entrepreneurs, entertainment, specialized learning and trade programs. Year-round food production is planned, using no-soil agricultural techniques such as hydroponics and aeroponics. 

The Bridge wants to address some of the challenges which many communities face and which have created systems of oppression for many Black Americans. They want to “span the tide…. that exists between the rich and the poor, the informed and the untaught, the entrepreneur and the everyday citizen.”

Listen to my interview with Garry Gilliam or read the original article here.

Images courtesy of The Bridge

Know your price.

May 12, 2021

Andre Perry is a senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings and a scholar-in-residence at American University. He writes for The Hechinger Report, and has been published by The Nation, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Last year, Andre put out a new book based on his work: Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities, which explores urban development in cities across the country, and how it has so often failed Black communities.

This story is also a personal one. Andre talks about growing up in the Pittsburgh region, in the township of Wilkinsburg. He has described how he has watched over the years as this community remains stagnated, and without meaningful investment, while neighboring areas experience remarkable economic revivals.

Andre began his career focused on education, but his work has expanded to examine the myriad ways government policies have ‘created housing, education, and wealth disparities’ that continue to disadvantageously impact minority communities in urban metro areas. Andre has written on subjects as diverse as infrastructure, how our children are driving climate action, student debt cancellation, access to fertility treatments, and supporting Black businesses. He also served as the Founding Dean at the College of Urban Education, at Davenport University in Grand Rapids, an institution he helped to plan and launch.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Institutionalized racism creates an ‘unconscious bias,’ where we are willing to blame the people who have been marginalized rather than the policies that made it possible. And so, we recycle discrimination over and over and over. If we don’t see the problem, we have no incentive to change it.
  • Andre found that in neighborhoods where the share of Black population was 50 percent or higher, homes were underpriced by 23 percent, or $48,000 per home … $156 billion in lost equity.
  • These communities should have access to the same information, data, research, and ideas as corporations, cities and state governments … so they can come to the table empowered.
  • We need to create a culture of inclusion where all people are valued, and to do this we need innovations. We need new mortgage products. We need new appraising systems. We need new tax assessment systems.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:10] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co, a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, please join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers. Today, I’m talking with Andre Perry, a senior fellow at Brookings in Washington, D.C. Andre is also a scholar in residence at American University, a columnist for The Hechinger Report, and he writes for the Nation. But what really drives Andre is the seemingless impossible divide between blacks and whites in this country. He is focused in his recent work on the multiple issues impacting minority communities in urban metro areas. And he has authored a book, published in 2020, called Know Your Price, Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities. In his work at gathering data for the book in black majority cities across the country, Andre found that homes in black neighborhoods where the share of population was 50 percent or higher were valued at about half as much as white neighborhoods. Andre further refined the data by taking into account education, crime, walkability and other key neighborhood factors. And still, he found that homes in black majority neighborhoods were underpriced by 23 percent, or about 48,000 dollars per home. That’s 156 billion in lost equity. And Andre knows we have to fix that. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe if you can.

Eve: [00:03:18] Hello, Andre, and I’m just really delighted to have this opportunity to talk to you.

Andre Perry: [00:03:22] Well, thanks for having me. I’m looking forward to the conversation.

Eve: [00:03:26] Great. There’s lots to talk about. You’ve thought and written about multiple issues impacting minority communities and urban metro areas and most recently in your book, Know Your Price, Value in Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities. So, first of all, I wanted to ask you, because I’ve also read other things that you’ve written, and I’d like to know what you mean by the term unconscious bias.

Andre: [00:03:54] Well, unconscious bias is when you act without thinking. It’s essentially the responding to a narrative that we generally know and accept. It’s like when people say the American dream, we all have an idea about what that means, and we respond to it. But when it comes to Black Americans, we also have an idea in our head that if anything goes wrong, we blame Black people. And so without thinking, without batting an eye, if there are problems in Black neighborhoods, we say, oh, it must be the character of the residents. It must be crime. It must be something else. We never look at policy implications or we don’t look at policy makers behavior. So for me, when I talk about unconscious bias, I generally refer to how we assume that Black people are the problem when considering the issues in Black neighborhoods and cities.

Eve: [00:05:09] Right. So what’s been the overall impact of this unconscious bias and what’s the impact today? I mean,

Andre: [00:05:17] You know, we talk a lot about unconscious bias, but at its heart is really just plain discrimination.

Eve: [00:05:24] Emotion, yeah.

Andre: [00:05:24] Like that. You know, it’s when you talk about, for instance, redlining. It was the practice of the federally backed Homeowners Loan Corporation in the 30s and throughout to the 70s, the practice of saying that Black neighborhoods were too hazardous or or they weren’t worthy of low interest loans to help develop those those areas. But it was predicated on this, the effort to isolate Black people in communities.

Eve: [00:06:00] Wasn’t that conscious bias rather than unconscious bias?

Andre: [00:06:03] Yeah, I mean, but it was also just fueled by this belief that Black people and white people should not live together. And there was a conscious effort to bring that belief into policy. And so, you know, I you know, I talk a little bit about conscious bias in my work, but the source of a lot of our implicit or tacit assumptions are racist policy. Conscious, conscious, racist policy. And so we can’t let policy off the hook for our behaviors. I tend to blame policy, not people. I just I find it more useful to get at the root for me. And that’s policy. And that, for me, represents that conscious effort to suppress Black people based on a hierarchy of human values.

Eve: [00:07:08] Right. Yeah, that’s, I think, very conscious and really disturbing. But, you know, I have to wonder about all the unconscious bias out there that just perpetuates things a little longer, makes it a little harder to get where we need to go.

Andre: [00:07:23] You know, a lot of my work, I look at home values. What anchors the book Know Your Price is a housing study we did a few years back where we looked at the average price of homes in areas where the share of the Black population is 50 percent or higher and compared them to areas where the share of the Black population is less than a percent. And we controlled for education, crime, walkability, all those fancy Zillow metrics. And what we found is that homes in Black neighborhoods are underpriced by 23 percent, about 48,000 per home. Cumulatively, that’s 156 billion in lost equity. That’s the money people use to lift themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps. It’s the money municipalities use to fund everything from education to infrastructure to policing. But, you know, there’s a way to interpret that 23 percent difference. Again, we controlled for education, we controlled for crime. And certainly, crime and education mattered. They lower price, but that there’s still a gap. And it’s almost as if people, when they see Black neighborhoods, they see twice as much crime than there actually is. They see worse education than there actually is. So there is a perceptual issue here. That when evaluating or assessing taxes, when appraising homes or any kind of subjective task is at hand, people lean on these tropes of Black neighborhoods. And and so there is something psychological in nature that’s reducing the value in Black neighborhoods in ways that it shouldn’t. So there is something there when you’re talking about unconscious bias.

Eve: [00:09:36] So as you mentioned, this bias spills over into investment and who has wealth and who does not. And, you know, as a real estate developer, I’ve certainly seen how it works with appraisals because, you know, banks will lend based on appraisals and appraisals in existing neighborhoods have a certain value. And if they’re already devalued, what’s going to disrupt that and raise the value? You know, it’s just a huge dilemma.

Andre: [00:10:06] Yeah. You know, the price comparison model is an example of structural racism. I mean, a good example of structural racism. So, as you mentioned, when an appraiser has to find a comparable home and they stay in the neighborhood, that’s already been discriminated against, you’re essentially just recycling discrimination over and over and over.

Eve: [00:10:27] Exactly. So how do you disrupt that?

Andre: [00:10:30] Oh, so one, you can you don’t necessarily have to stay in the neighborhood for finding comparables. I mean, what’s interesting is like for our data, we looked at the entire metro area and compared homes with similar social circumstances. So you can find, using big data, you can find homes in areas that have similar educational levels, similar crime levels, all those different things. And you don’t necessarily have to compare it to another home in the same neighborhood.

Eve: [00:11:07] Yeah, but then you’re dealing with an industry that’s used to doing that. So really, the disruption has to come with the entire banking and appraisal industry. How do you make them look elsewhere? Like what prompts? You know, I was one of the first loft builders in Pittsburgh and I went through this myself because there were no comparables. And so I talked to appraisers about like, well, you know, look at that project. It’s not in the same neighborhood, but it’s offering a similar product. And they did. You know, they had to because it was the beginning of something new and there wasn’t anything else to look at. But when you have, you know, five other houses that have sold in a neighborhood, like Wilkinsburg, where I know you grew up or Garfield and that’s the easiest go-to, how do you disrupt that behavior?

Andre: [00:11:57] Yeah, but I think you said a word that is really relevant to the conversation. You make them.

Eve: [00:12:05] Ahhhh.

Andre: [00:12:06] You know, one thing I learned about this protest movement over the last few years, but really culminating in the summer of 2020 is that people do have power. This is a power issue. And the same way we created a culture of exclusion, we can create a culture of inclusion where people are valued, all people are valued. And we need innovations, no question. We need new mortgage products. We need new appraising systems. We need new tax assessment systems, and we should open ourselves up to that. But clearly, people in various industries aren’t going to do that themselves. They’re going to have to be backed into it. So I encourage communities to mobilize, organize and fight back. The typical thing that has incited structural change in the United States, it’s litigation.

Eve: [00:13:14] Right, right.

Andre: [00:13:14] So that is a tool. But I also just think that we are going to have to pressure banks and appraisal, the various industries in housing to take new approaches. Because those approaches are the tools that reify discrimination in this country, and it goes beyond appraisals and lending. You’re talking about zoning structures as well.

Eve: [00:13:47] Yes. Yes.

Andre: [00:13:47] You know, you’re talking about building.

Eve: [00:13:50] My backyard. Yeah.

Andre: [00:13:52] Yeah, exactly. And so there’s all these structures that maintain exclusion and bias. And we need to demand change in all of those structures. So and that’s where, you know, for my book, Know Your Price, there’s a theme, there’s you know, I want people to demand their proper value. And it’s not going to come because someone else says this is what it should be worth or, it’s going to come by people from places like Wilkinsburg, Homewood, Garfield, demanding their proper value.

Eve: [00:14:37] Right.

Andre: [00:14:37] And so for me, it’s, you said the word make. Yeah, that’s what it’s going to take.

Eve: [00:14:43] Yeah, I think you’re probably right. So the interesting thing is also, you know, there are developers who, developer it isn’t always a bad word, who really want to work in these neighborhoods. And they can’t because of this entire sort of pricing structure becomes impossible. It doesn’t matter if you build a house in Wilkinsburg or Garfield or downtown, the construction costs are going to be the same. Right?

Andre: [00:15:09] Yeah.

Eve: [00:15:09] But the market’s really different. So that is a huge problem. But also, I’ve always been really sort of irritated and puzzled by the affordable housing market, which almost demands a product that looks the same. So, I think when you talk about value, you know, good design, different design, innovative products can bring a different value as well. And I don’t think people think about that very much. You can drive down a street in Pittsburgh and, you know when you’re on a street which has affordable housing because it all looks the same.

Andre: [00:15:44] Yeah.

Eve: [00:15:46] It’s bad branding, right?

Andre: [00:15:47] Exactly. And I’m not a real estate person in the sense I’m not a practitioner. I’m a researcher. But I’ve been saying, hey, there needs to be innovation in the actual end products that we put up. You know, we’ve got to show how diverse products can look and serve diverse communities. We’ve got to have innovation in lending and in ownership. Like we need new cooperative models. We need new everything from credit scoring systems to zoning ordinances. But I will say this, that at some point you need more capital directed in the right way.

Eve: [00:16:37] Yes.

Andre: [00:16:38] And so for me, it’s also about understanding the role the federal government has to play in creating inclusive communities. Because remember, it was the federal government largely that created the problem we’re in today. They, instead of distributing resources equitably in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, they distributed resources to help communities, to build up communities and wealth, really among white residents and not Black. So, the same approach as we used in the 30s, 40s, 50s to help people build up communities, we can use today. But when it comes to Black people, we don’t want to give Black residents low interest loans and grants and down payment assistance. And and we don’t want to reward developers for actually creating inclusive homes and facilities. We then hide behind the sort of, you can’t create any kind of race based program that’s reverse discrimination. But the reality is, if you really create some type of equitable strategy, you almost have to target your investments towards people who have been disenfranchised or injured by past policy.

Eve: [00:18:09] Right.

Andre: [00:18:10] And it happens to be Black people and we should not shy away from that. And then it happens to be in places that you have significant Black populations, not completely all Black people in Wilkinsburg or Homewood or Garfield, but those are the places we need to find a way to direct capital to and in ways that just makes sense.

Eve: [00:18:33] Yes, yes.

Andre: [00:18:34] And there’s this reticence to drive capital based on need. And until we solve for that, it’s going to be hard to really do what we need to do.

Eve: [00:18:48] So you’ve also talked about the devaluation of Black owned homes, and I want to hear a little bit more about that. How how did you calculate that?

Andre: [00:18:57] At the core, you know, I’m from Wilkinsburg and I come back home all the time,

Eve: [00:19:02] We should explain to people who are listening to this, because we have listeners all over the country, maybe even the world. So, Wilkinsburg is actually a beautiful neighborhood town on the outskirts of Pittsburgh that has amazing architectural building stock and has just sort of stagnated and leaned in really poor condition for a very long time, presumably because it is predominantly a Black demographic. Is that a good explanation?

Andre: [00:19:34] Yeah. And it’s you know, growing up in Wilkinsburg, I really didn’t know the difference between Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh, because Wilkinsburg is a Black majority municipality borough surrounded by Pittsburgh on three sides.

Eve: [00:19:49] Oh, I didn’t know that actually. Yeah.

Andre: [00:19:51] Yeah. And the people generally were the same. I mean, in the parts of Pittsburgh that it was adjacent to was Black. Wilkinsburg was majority Black. It had thriving commercial corridor, and it had all the quote unquote assets that you would look for when considering to develop a place. It’s close to downtown, close to the university. It has its own highway. It had parks. It has everything.

Eve: [00:20:22] There’s even a busway stop there.

Andre: [00:20:24] Busway. I mean, there’s…

Eve: [00:20:26] Like ten minutes to downtown. It’s amazing.

Andre: [00:20:28] I mean, it has literally everything you would want. But when U.S. Steel left town or downsized considerably, white residents moved, leaving a majority Black population and investment just stopped. And in any situation, I mean other situations, if you said if that area had majority white people in it, there would be no question there will be development there, because, as you mentioned, housing stock was excellent. You had a thriving commercial corridor.

Eve: [00:21:07] Yeah, the main street’s lovely.

Andre: [00:21:09] Exactly. You had everything there. And so, when I go back home, it is like stupefying to look at why isn’t investment coming? And right next door in Pittsburgh, which similar situation in terms of access to transportation, great housing, universities nearby, commercial corridor. But there was a decision to bring Google into town. And Google could have landed in Wilkinsburg. They chose Pittsburgh. And I talk a lot about bias in bias out. And so, in the planning for Google to come to Pittsburgh. To site itself in a former Nabisco factory where Black people used to live around. All the planning was essentially with white people. And if you look at that part of Pittsburgh now, it’s thriving, it’s booming. It has restaurants, shops,

Eve: [00:22:18] It’s actually gentrified, which is a little shocking.

Andre: [00:22:21] But you don’t see Black people.

Eve: [00:22:23] No, I know that. You know, I did a couple of developments in East Liberty before Google came along. And the last thing in the world I wanted to see was that neighborhood gentrify.

Andre: [00:22:36] Yeah.

Eve: [00:22:37] And I was absolutely shocked to see it happen over the period of probably 18 months. It went from Black people on the street to what looked like people visiting from the suburbs. I don’t know how else to say it, but it was it was actually shocking to watch. It was like for one moment in time, it was a great mixed, diverse neighborhood and then it was over. How can you, like, stop it right there, you know, when it’s at the great, mixed, diverse neighborhood point?

Andre: [00:23:06] But that’s why we need more housing policy connected to our economic development policy.

Eve: [00:23:15] Yep.

Andre: [00:23:16] And oftentimes they’re running on parallel tracks, never to touch. And it, my belief that some of that is intentional. That there are many people who don’t want to see Black people around a new development. And so, when you plan with all or mostly all white people with the muckety mucks of places like Pittsburgh and not include others in your development, you get what you get. And so I always say that. The developments really reflect who’s involved. Now, and it’s difficult because when you’re talking about planners and architects and economic development folks, largely white crowds and so…

Eve: [00:24:08] Also, largely white male crowd.

Andre: [00:24:11] Yes, that’s right.

Eve: [00:24:12] I want to point that out because I’ve been the only female in the room for a long time.

Andre: [00:24:16] Exactly. Very. A lot of testosterone in the room.

Eve: [00:24:21] Yes.

Andre: [00:24:22] Right. Lots of it. And so, and then people look up when the project started to go, why does it look pale and male? Because the planners were pale and male, you know? So you have to be very intentional about making sure people are included in any kind of development. And so, whether you are in Pittsburgh or Philly or Birmingham or Detroit or Baltimore, you just have to be very deliberate about including people. And we have to make every effort to concretize inclusion into policy. You know, I wrote something not that long ago that talked about, on the federal government side, that we need equity scoring system. This, just the way we score legislation against its potential impacts on the budget. We should score policies and practices on its potential impact on Black and brown communities. And so, when you’re developing a project, you’ve got to demonstrate how is this going to boost employment? How it’s going to boost ownership? How are Black people going to share in the prosperity? If you don’t see a clear path, then we should not greenlight these projects.

Eve: [00:25:42] Yeah.

Andre: [00:25:43] Not only must we build a culture that supports inclusion. That culture must build policy to protect for inclusion.

Eve: [00:25:56] Right. So, in your book, you also talk about wanting to give Black communities and home-owners information to stand on to empower them. But how do you do that? I’ve been involved in community meetings in neighborhoods like Garfield and it’s excruciatingly difficult. Do you want to explain what you’re doing? You are faced with a crowd of people, some of whom are just trying to get by. And as a small developer, it’s just it’s you want to do the right thing. It’s just really hard to know how to do it.

Andre: [00:26:32] Yeah, but this is why we need to really work with community members. It’s a lot easier when you’re of the community. When people recognize you as a member of a particular community. So when I come back to Wilkinsburg, although I’ve been fairly distant for most of my professional career, when I go back, people go, oh, Andre, he’s down with us. He believes in us.

Eve: [00:26:56] They trust you.

Andre: [00:26:57] They trust me.

Eve: [00:26:58] Right.

Andre: [00:26:59] And so when I talk with developers, I see, you know, a lot of this work and it’s hard work. But you got to think of yourself as becoming a member of a community first, because when you’re a member of a community, it’s so much easier to communicate. It’s so much easier to share the benefits and the trade-offs. And it’s so much easier to be honest. And so one of the reasons why I wrote Know Your Price, it’s a policy book, but it’s there’s a lot of stories in there, personal narrative, biographies. Because one of the goals of the book was to introduce this idea of devaluation, not making it a policy wonky type of thing, but really explain it through the lived experience. And when you run through the lived experience, keep, it resonates with community members. So that was my goal of the book. But it’s something that everyone should take on. They should see themselves as becoming a member of a community because communication becomes so much easier.

Eve: [00:28:20] Interesting. So, I also want to shift to your partnership with Ashoka. The Brookings Ashoka Partnership, and explain what you’re trying to accomplish there. And also, what Ashoka, I know a little bit about Ashoka, but not a lot. So it would be great to hear something about this.

Andre: [00:28:38] Ashoka is a social entrepreneurship organization that really tries to incubate or incentivize systems changing ideas. So, if you have an idea that will change some system, they fund or incentivize through these through fellowships or competitions to find interesting and innovative approaches to solving problems. So, when I presented this issue of housing devaluation, someone from the Ashoka organization reached out and said, hey, this is the kind of problem that requires a systems changing idea. So, after a year worth of planning and discussion, we landed on a competition, a challenge, competition of sorts. Collaborative competition, I should say. That we’re looking for innovations that will find those systems changing ideas that will solve for housing devaluation. So, if you are out there and we’re going to have a million dollars’ worth of prize money that we’re going to use as incentive. So we’ll be giving away different prizes totaling a million dollars to people who may have new zoning ordinances they want to put forth. New credit scoring systems. New cooperative ownership models. If you have a solution, we want to hear about it. All you have to do is Google Ashoka Brookings Collaborative Challenge and you’ll get all the information. But it was my way of really saying, hey, how can we incentivize people who are proximate to the problem to solve for this issue? And so we launched it a few months ago, but people can start enrolling in the competition in the summer. Right now, we’re just simply mapping ideas, looking for different approaches and so we can then categorize them. But people will be able to join in this collaborative challenge starting this summer.

Eve: [00:31:09] That sounds really fabulous.

Andre: [00:31:11] Yeah, it’s fab because, you know, when you work in a think tank, I’m a senior fellow at Brookings. We’re good with identifying problems, sometimes not as good as identifying solutions. So, this is really my effort to say, hey, here are some solutions that will be community driven. Not coming from up high, from somebody in D.C. These are solutions driven by community members. And so that’s the whole point.

Eve: [00:31:46] So if you could imagine the country 10 years from now, how would you like to see it changed?

Andre: [00:31:53] I want to see a country in which there’s a culture that supports reparative strategies. You know that I want to see these kind of policy changes come from a change in culture. For so long we’ve created a culture of exclusion and that led to everything from redlining to exclusionary zoning to employment discrimination. All these things are supported by an exclusive culture. I want to see 10 years from now a culture that supports reparations, inclusionary zoning, other policies that repair the damage that was caused by discrimination. And that’s going to take people who are talking about repair, talking about inclusion, talking about the value of diversity, and if we do this enough, we can shift the culture. And so that’s what I want to see.

Eve: [00:33:07] I’ve thought about this a lot. And I think for me, it’s I’d love to see a culture of trust. And that would probably only be built after everything you’ve said. But the mistrust is really, I think, stopping us moving forward really big time. And so, I’d love to live in this country and not feel like I’m mistrusted because I’m white or not feel like I might mistrust someone because they’re Black. That would be a really lovely thing. Don’t you think?

Andre: [00:33:40] Oh yeah. I mean, you know, that’s certainly core.

Eve: [00:33:44] Yes.

Andre: [00:33:44] We really don’t trust each other.

Eve: [00:33:47] No, I think that’s …

Andre: [00:33:47] As you know, developing trust is a process.

Eve: [00:33:51] It certainly is.

Andre: [00:33:52] I think if we are willing to put ourselves in that process, then we can gain trust. It is achievable to be a trusting, loving reparative culture.

Eve: [00:34:07] So what’s next for you? Final question.

Andre: [00:34:10] Oh, man, I’m I have this Ashoka Brookings Collaborative Challenge. I have reports coming up. But, you know, I’m going to continue to fight for justice using research as my main tool and engage in places with places like Pittsburgh, Wilkinsburg. And just go deeper with my analysis and look for solutions. So, more of the same. Yeah. So, you know, obviously we keep updating our research. We keep finding new insights, but I’m going to keep pressing on fighting for justice.

Eve: [00:35:06] Well, I can’t wait to see what else you do. And I’m certainly going to keep an eye on that Ashoka challenge. It sounds really interesting. Thank you so much for spending time with me today.

Andre: [00:35:16] Hey, thanks for having me.

Eve: [00:35:35] That was Andre Perry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. Andre grew up in Wilkinsburg on the outskirts of Pittsburgh. Once a diverse and thriving neighborhood and now a poor majority Black neighborhood. On his trips home, he can’t help but notice that East Liberty, an adjacent neighborhood and home to Google, is thriving. Meanwhile, Wilkinsburg seems stuck in time. There has been no investment there in decades, and this speaks to the data he has found. Black neighborhoods are valued at 23 percent less than white ones. In Andre’s perfect world, which he is working towards, they’ll be valued the same. You can find out more about this episode on the show notes page at EvePicker.com, or you can find other episodes you might have missed. Or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Andre Perry/Brookings

Happier housing.

May 10, 2021

In her book, Brave New Home, Diana Lind argues that the single-family home is at least partly to blame for our current housing woes.

“A fundamental part of the American dream is to own a single-family home. But this aspiration and the lifestyle that comes with it has grown increasingly unaffordable, unhealthy, and ironically out of step with consumer demand” writes Lind in an opinion piece for The Philadelphia Enquirer. “A large and growing portion of the population is unable to access the homeownership lifestyle, even if they desire it. Not surprisingly, the lack of housing choices and the prevalence of exclusionary housing regulations—such as minimum lot sizes and required off-street parking for each household— has made housing grow more expensive decade over decade, even though wages have not kept up with housing costs.”

The impossible dream

Home ownership, idealized by real estate developers and 20th Century policymakers, is no longer an achievable goal for many. It divides the country not only financially but racially. Redlining and other widespread discrimination have left entire neighborhoods in poverty. The high cost of housing and subsequent poverty can be directly linked to poorer health outcomes. And suburbs full of single-family housing, where cars are required, have caused environmental consequences as well.

Single family homes are just not as suitable as they once seemed. Today, 20 percent of the population lives alone and 20 percent live with extended family in multi-generational homes.

Alternatives

COVID-19 has also challenged the way we look at housing. Stay-at-home requirements during the pandemic brought the need for community into sharp focus. “The fact is that encouraging more housing types would accommodate more people with different life circumstances” writes Lind. “By changing our zoning to not only accommodate more housing, but also changing how we incentivize housing types other than the single-family homes, we could make our neighborhoods more livable and affordable for a wider range of people.”

Other housing types might include duplexes, a good option for family who want to live close to each other; Single Room Occupancy buildings (SROs), a better option than living on the street for those who can’t afford an entire apartment; and Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), a housing type which includes basement apartments, in-law suites and backyard cottages.

_

So, how do we find a path to what Diana Lind calls “smarter, simpler, happier housing”?

“We will have to include housing in a broader set of policies to address the country’s deep inequality. But we must do so without prizing homeownership and the single-family home.“

Listen to my conversation with Diana Lind or read her Phildelphia Enquirer article here.

‘Missing Middle Homes 2′ by Sightline Institute from Flickr CC BY-2.0

Jumpstart desegregation.

April 26, 2021

The United States has an ugly history of displacement, exclusion, and segregation which continues to this day. Blacks continue to be denied the same opportunities that are given to whites for affordable rental, home ownership and wealth building. While many may believe that this state of affairs somehow occurred organically, the truth is that Federal, state, and local policies have all led to that displacement and segregation. Those policies continue to undermine the prosperity of minorities, stripping them of wealth and financial stability.

Just a few of the policies that led to catastrophic outcomes for Blacks were:

  • Policies to create outdoor space. In the 1850s thousands of predominantly Black residents were displaced to create Central Park in New York city. And in Atlanta, the oldest subsidized affordable housing project, where 30,000 mostly Black families lived, became Centennial Olympic Park.
  • Policies that discouraged racially diverse neighborhoods. The Federal Housing Administration justified housing discrimination by asserting that if Blacks bought property in white neighborhoods, then insurance values would fall causing loans to be at risk. There was no basis for this rationale.
  • Policies that ‘red-lined’ neighborhoods.  The New Deal, established by Franklin D. Roosevelt to stimulate the economy after the Great Depression, offered home-buying aid to Americans. But color-coded maps of every metropolitan area in the country determined where it was “safe” to insure mortgages. Areas where Blacks lived were ‘red-lined’ to indicate that they were too risky.
  • Policies that encouraged ‘white flight’. Post World War II, the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administrations focused on moving the entire white working-class and lower middle-class populations out of urban areas and into single family homes in all-white neighborhoods. This was the beginning of suburbanization and these suburbs came to ring all American cities. And it led to the devaluation of inner city neighborhoods where Blacks lived for many decades.

More recently there has been a shift in housing tastes when life in suburbia, with its gridlocked highways for the morning and evening commute, became less appealing. And so a shift in housing demand has emerged, changing the landscape once again. Wealthy and middle-class people began moving back into urban areas, leading to the redevelopment of previously blighted urban neighborhoods. This revitalization and resulting gentrification exacerbated racial inequality and caused further displacement as Blacks, unable to afford newly gentrified neighborhoods, had to leave once again.

In his book, ‘The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America’, Richard Rothstein explores the history of housing segregation in the United States. He argues that each of these policies violated the Constitution. Although he recognizes the efforts being made to remedy the situation, he believes we need a more coordinated, new civil rights movement. One focused on housing segregation, to jumpstart desegregation in a meaningful way.

Listen to my conversation with Richard.

Civil Rights March on Washington D.C. from Library of Congress, Public Domain

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

(no title)

February 22, 2025

Bellevue Montgomery

February 11, 2025

West Lombard

January 28, 2025

FOLLOW

  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Tag Cloud

Affordable housing Climate Community Creative economy Crowdfunding Design Development Environment Equity Finance FinTech Gentrification Impact Investing Mobility Offering Opportunity zones PropTech Technology Visionary Zoning

Footer

©rethinkrealestateforgood.co. The information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website is intended as investment, legal, tax or accounting strategy or advice, or constitutes an offer to sell, solicit or buy securities.
 
Any projections discussed or made may not be accurate and do not guarantee a specific outcome. All projections or investments are subject to risk due to uncertainty and change, including the risk of loss, and past performance is not indicative of future results. You should make independent decisions and seek independent advice regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website.

Recent

  • The Mulberry
  • Mount Vernon Plaza
  • The Seven
  • Real estate and women.
  • Oculis Domes.

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

Copyright © 2026 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in