Reading Reflection 3

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 1/16

Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? Apr 05, 2019

Renovated former tobacco warehouses near downtown Durham, North Carolina

There are many de�nitions for gentri�cation, which can make discussions about development

and displacement confusing.

Many anti-displacement activists de�ne gentri�cation as a pro�t-driven, race, and class change

of a historically disinvested neighborhood. “Disinvested” in this context means areas that

businesses and governments have abandoned—where there has been little new development or

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 2/16

maintenance of existing buildings or institutions. Gentri�cation occurs where land is cheap and

the chance to make a pro�t is high due to the influx of wealthier wage earners willing to pay

higher rents.

One case of extreme gentri�cation is the Bay Area in California, which is undergoing a radical

makeover due to the rise in technology companies replacing old industries and jobs. New people

moved in to work for these companies and replaced the pre-existing residents. Land values and

housing prices increased dramatically, as did the pressure for property owners to get the most

out of rents on urban spaces. The Bay Area has become the second densest urbanized area in

the country after Los Angeles.

The Bay Area has grown radically wealthier, but the newfound wealth coming from the tech,

medicine and �nance businesses goes to a small percentage of people. (The area has more

millionaires and billionaires than New York City.) The upper layers of the labor force are getting

paid very well, allowing them to outbid ordinary working people, the elderly, and people with

disabilities for homes. This increased competition for housing has left areas like Oakland and the

San Francisco Mission less affordable for long-term residents.

Race is tied to class and power in gentri�cation. Most of the wealthy and well-paid in the Bay

Area are white while those being displaced are people of color, who typically have less income

to bid for housing and are more often renters at greater risk of eviction. The elite can hold onto

their claims to the city because they also hold the political power.

There are ways, however, to revitalize neighborhoods without also gentrifying them. One is to

use a positive development model that builds a new vision of community health and

sustainability that bene�ts all residents. Community organizing that brings different groups to

the same table to identify a shared interest and common struggle is key to ensuring

development that empowers entire communities.

The development process should enable community members to identify the types of housing,

services and infrastructure that should exist in their neighborhood. The process should value

longtime residents’ visions of neighborhood change and give the power of decision-making to

community residents. A healthy community is one that acknowledges and supports the

importance of racial equity, community and culture.

Public agencies can foster positive development by supporting a shared neighborhood vision

and working with community institutions to ensure a successful revitalization that values

culture, health, and positive human development, not just increased economic activity. Agencies

should help ensure lasting change though development without displacement.

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 3/16

Advocates from United for a New Economy – Denver, Colarado Credit: John Goldstein

Displacement — The Real Enemy

The most common problem people associate with gentri�cation is the displacement of residents

from a neighborhood experiencing redevelopment. Displacement happens in various ways.

“Direct displacement” is when residents are forced to move because of rent increases and/or

building renovations. “Exclusionary displacement” is when housing choices for low-income

residents are limited. “Displacement pressures” are when supports and services that low-

income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood.

Although displacement is cited as the most common concern of gentri�cation, the research on

gentri�cation and displacement is unclear. Ingrid Gould Ellen and Gerard Torrats-Espinosa

studied the long-term effects of gentri�cation and tracked racial change over time. They de�ned

gentri�cation narrowly as an increase of income in a neighborhood compared to the larger metro

region over time.

The researchers found that a growing number of low-income neighborhoods occupied

predominantly by people of color have gentri�ed in recent decades, although most have

remained low-income. Gentri�cation in the short-term has brought racial integration for many of

these neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that became racially diverse through gentri�cation

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 4/16

remained racially diverse past the initial gentri�cation period. Some neighborhoods that

experienced gentri�cation in the 2000s, however, did experience a more signi�cant rise in white

population in the short term and may not experience the same racial stability in the long term.

Gentri�cation can also bene�t neighborhood residents by lowering poverty rates and exposing

residents to more opportunity. Recent studies found that public housing residents in gentrifying

neighborhoods are exposed to less violent crime, are more often employed, and have higher

incomes and greater educational attainment than their counterparts in low-income

neighborhoods. Urban revitalization also brings more services to an area. A lack of choice and

competition in disinvested neighborhoods may cause families to pay more for goods and

services. There can be bene�ts to gentri�cation, but only to long-term residents who are not

pushed out. Development without displacement is the key. Fighting against displacement

rather than �ghting against development should be the focus.

An exclusionary effect of gentri�cation is the high cost of rents that force low-income

households to move to lower-cost neighborhoods with fewer resources. Displaced low-income

households most likely end up in new low-income neighborhoods. Many vulnerable households

that do move are renters and are at greater risk of moving to neighborhoods that have lower

home values, high unemployment rates, lower median incomes and poor public-school

performance.

Cultural displacement is also common. The closing of long-time neighborhood landmarks like

historically black churches or local restaurants can erase the history of a neighborhood and with

it a sense of belonging. The influx of a new population of upper- and middle-income residents

can also change the political landscape, with new leaders ignoring the needs of long-time

residents. The loss of long-time residents’ political power leads to further withdrawal from

public participation and a loss of control.

Although gentri�cation can bring about racial diversity, integration, neighborhood

improvements, and greater access to services, advocates need to actively promote policies that

protect tenants from displacement. Preserving the subsidized housing in gentrifying

neighborhoods can ensure that income and racial diversity remains in a neighborhood over time.

Governments should also create more affordable low-income homes in gentrifying

neighborhoods through new construction and acquisition. Housing subsidies should require

long-term or permanent rather than temporary affordability. The next section of Tenant Talk will

explore these solutions in more detail.

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 5/16

Local Policy Solutions for Preventing Displacement

Grace Townhomes formed by the Community Justice Land Trust. Photo: Domus, Inc

The data on displacement due to gentri�cation is insuf�cient. Many researchers have measured

the problem at the city or metro level, but there are few studies that look at neighborhood or

“submarket” areas. There is also not a silver bullet or list of sure-thing policies to prevent

displacement, but the following are some of many tools that can help combat gentri�cation.

They include baseline protections for the most vulnerable residents, producing and preserving

affordable homes, non-market-based approaches to housing and community development, and

approaches to community participation.

Community Land Trusts

One of the biggest problems with gentri�cation is land. Developers and investors buy land when

it is affordable in struggling neighborhoods, and then wait for the right moment to move forward

with pro�table development. Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are one way to keep land owned by

the community and to �ght against rapid property value escalation.

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 6/16

CLTs are nonpro�ts that own land - received as donations or bought with government subsidies -

to ensure it stays affordable for long periods. The land is used for housing or other community

purposes. If it’s for housing, the homes are sold to lower-income families, but the land is still

owned by the CLT. When a CLT homeowner moves, they sell the home back to the CLT or another

low-income family. The CLT homeowner receives a more modest return on their investment than

a regular homeowner when they sell because they “share equity” (the land portion) with the

CLT.

Some concerns with CLTs are that they are costly to implement (require substantial funding),

especially in gentrifying neighborhoods, and they rarely provide homes to extremely low-income

families. CLTs also usually operate on a small scale, which could be helped if cities gave public

land to CLTs and established supporting organizations to build them.

The Community Justice Land Trust (CJLT) in Philadelphia, PA, was created in 2010 by a

community coalition that included the Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP) and

the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations. Philadelphia CJLT

addresses the community’s recent dramatic increases in housing prices, the rise in new

development that did not consider existing needs, and the problem of vacant land and

abandoned buildings. The land trust has 36 rent-to-own townhomes and plans to develop 75

more. It is governed by an advisory committee of residents and other stakeholders, as well as

WCRP board members.

Research on one of the largest CLTs in the U.S.—Champlain Housing Trust in Vermont —shows

that lower-income affordability continued and improved between generations of homebuyers,

homeownership was expanded for persons left out from the market, most homeowners gained

wealth, and most homeowners bought market-rate homes after they left the CLT. Though CLTs

provide limited opportunities for the homeowners to build wealth, they help sustain relative

affordability for lower-income households over time.

Rent Control

Rent-control policies offer protections from sudden rent increases, establish maintenance

standards, provide the right to a lease renewal, provide the framework for organizing and

litigation, and set limits on security deposits. These policies directly affect neighborhood

affordability by preventing rents from skyrocketing, enabling residents to stay in their

apartments for the long term. Basically, rent control sets a cap on how much a landlord can

charge for the rent.

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 7/16

New York Housing March, January 2018. Photo: Ethan Fox

New York has the strongest rent-control policies in the U.S. The Emergency Tenant Protection

Act (ETPA) of 1974 established details for rent control and allowed eight counties to voluntarily

participate. Currently, 966,000 apartments (45% of the rental market) are rent-stabilized in New

York. Since the 1990s, when the law was weakened, the state has lost 300,000 units of rent-

stabilized housing. Landlords can remove apartments from rent control when a renter vacates

the apartment and then make substantial improvements. This loophole has led landlords to

harass, frighten or incentivize renters into leaving their rent-regulated homes.

The ETPA is due to expire in 2019. The Upstate Downstate Housing Alliance sees this as an

opportunity to strengthen and expand tenants’ rights and is calling for the state to undo

provisions that incentivize the loss of rent-regulated units and to extend the rent stabilization

framework to the entire state.

Rent-control policies must be carefully implemented to avoid negative consequences. First, rent

controls are not tied to speci�c residents, so there is no way to ensure they are bene�ting the

people most in need; there are many examples of higher-income, even wealthy, people

bene�tting from rent control while extremely low-income people remain homeless or on

housing assistance wait lists. Second, landlords and developers regularly attack rent control

laws, so a strong advocates’ rights coalition is needed to ensure proper enforcement and to

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 8/16

advise renters on seeking legal recourse. Third, landlords often argue that legal cap on rents

leave them too little income for repairs and maintenance, so rent control policies must be paired

with enforceable building standards.

Just-Cause Eviction Ordinances

Every rental lease has an end date, even those made by spoken agreement. It is common that

when a lease expires, it automatically renews month-to-month on the same terms as the

previous lease. Many renters are displaced because at the end of any given lease term, the

landlord can simply “not renew” the contract. Some jurisdictions prevent such displacement by

passing “Just-Cause” eviction ordinances stipulating that a landlord cannot evict a renter unless

there has been a speci�c violation of the lease. Non-renewal is no longer an option.

Seattle, WA, has had a just-cause eviction ordinance in place since 1980 that applies to verbal

leases and month-to-month leases. In these cases, a landlord may ask a tenant to leave for 18

speci�c reasons, such as failure to pay rent or renter damage to the property.

Just-cause eviction protections are most effective when paired with rent control. If there is no

limit on the amount a landlord can increase the rent, a landlord often can just double the rent,

and effectively push the renter into moving, without a just cause for eviction.

Community Bene�ts Agreements

Community bene�ts agreements (CBAs) are legal contracts signed by a developer and

community groups. They spell out the bene�ts a developer promises to provide to the

community as part of a development. CBAs give community groups a voice in shaping projects

and the legal authority to enforce developers’ promises.

For CBAs to be effective, they need to be created by active community-based coalitions willing

to stay involved during the development process to hold the developers accountable. Coalitions

must ensure any CBAs include fair bene�ts that are reflective of the community’s wishes. If

CBAs are weak, they cannot be changed and can be used by developers to look good in the

public eye without delivering substantive bene�ts.

"CBAs give community groups a voice in shaping projects and the legal authority to enforce

developers’ promises."

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 9/16

Cherokee Denver had purchased the Gates rubber factory in Denver, CO, in 2001 to redevelop

the site. They worked with the community to create a CBA that included affordable homes and

job guarantees, but the project fell through because of the recession. Broadway Station Partners

(BSP) �nally bought the land in 2018 to create a mixed-use development. The community

surrounding the factory site formed a CBA with BSP, similar to the now-repealed Cherokee

Gates Urban Redevelopment Plan. BSP agreed to build 338 affordable homes (affordable for 40

years) and to hire local construction workers. This strong CBA required community groups to

stay engaged with developers over nearly 20 years to ensure that redevelopment would have

community interests at heart.

Gates Rubber Factory. Photo: John Goldstein

Tenant Option to Purchase

“Tenant option to purchase” (TOP) is a tool for residents facing eviction because the property

owner intends to sell the property, demolish it, or convert to another use. Cities can pass a TOP

policy to require that any housing unit undergoing such changes is offered to residents �rst

before being sold, demolished or re-rented on the private market. The bene�ts of TOP policies

are that they create legal rights for individuals and families faced with displacement, they can

ensure housing stability for existing tenants by giving them an option to return to their original

homes after being relocated, and they can increase living standards that bene�t the existing

tenants.

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 10/16

The District of Columbia has an effective Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). This law

requires owners of properties with two or more rental units give tenants and/or tenant

associations the option to buy the apartments before a property conversion takes place. If the

owner does not provide tenants the option to purchase, the tenants can pursue a lawsuit against

the owner. According to Scott Bruton at the Coalition for Nonpro�t Housing and Economic

Development, TOPA is the most valuable tool the District has for preserving affordable rental

housing. Without TOPA, affordable housing developers would lose out to for-pro�t, market-rate

developers in buying multifamily rental properties.

Regulating and Taxing Short-Term Rentals

Research shows that short-term rentals correlate with fewer regular rental units (each unit that

gets converted to a short-term rental, takes one away from renters), increased rents, and higher

property values, which all lead to displacement. Jurisdictions could regulate and tax the short-

term rental operators, many of whom work through AirBnB. Jurisdictions could limit the number

of days per year a room or apartment can be rented short-term, require a local contact person

be licensed for short-term rentals and �ne offenders, and require that only apartments occupied

by a permanent resident who is leaving temporarily may be rented short-term.

Taxing short term rentals is another option. Citizen’s Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA)

advocates were successful in getting a state law passed that applies the 5.7 % hotel and motel

room tax to short-term rentals (effective July 1, 2019), excluding homeowners who rent their

units for two weeks or less during the year. At least 35% of the revenue generated must fund

affordable housing, the �rst state to do so. The law also allows jurisdictions the authority to

create additional local taxes, makes short-term renters obtain $1 million in liability insurance,

and creates a public registry of short-term rentals. It remains to be seen whether this bill, the

�rst of its kind, prevents the future loss of affordable homes.

"The bene�ts of TOP policies are that they create legal rights for individuals and families faced

with displacement..."

Vacancy Taxes

Rents rise when there is insuf�cient housing for all who need it. Vacant properties, of course,

provide no housing. Some real estate investors buy buildings and let them sit empty – a

phenomenon called “speculation” - often in areas at risk of gentri�cation where land can be

relatively cheap. Real estate investors buy the property and allow it to sit empty because that

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 11/16

costs less than managing the building and making sure it’s up to local codes. When the right

development opportunity arises, they sell the property or demolish it to make way for something

new.

In some communities, speculation has led to a rapid growth in vacant apartments, and some

jurisdictions have begun taxing property owners who refuse to make homes available for rent.

Voters in Oakland, CA, passed such a tax law by a vote of 68%-31%. The new tax will generate

about $10 million annually, which will the city will then invest in affordable housing.

Small Area Fair Market Rents Can Help Minimize Harm Due to Gentri�cation

Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs) are a potential tool to minimize displacement of

residents and help ensure an income mix in gentrifying neighborhoods.

What are Small Area FMRs?

SAFMRs base the value of a Housing Choice Voucher to a landlord on rents in a ZIP Code.

Without SAFMRs, the value of a voucher is based on Fair Market Rent (FMR), which is based on

rents in an entire metro area. Metro areas have many areas with very different market rents. A

voucher pays the difference between 30% of a household’s income and the voucher “payment

standard.” Public housing agencies (PHAs) set a payment standard (the amount a landlord gets

from a voucher) at 90% to 110% of the FMR. As a result, the FMR voucher value is often not

enough for rents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

Use of SAFMRs ensure payment standards (the value of vouchers) are more in line with

neighborhood rental markets, making vouchers more valuable in higher-rent neighborhoods,

such as those undergoing gentri�cation. Vouchers that pay less that the market rate make it

dif�cult to rent in gentrifying neighborhoods. Household often end up paying more than 30% of

their income for rent (paying the difference between the voucher payment and landlord’s market

rent).

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 12/16

Minimizing Displacement and/or Fostering Mixed-Income Neighborhoods

Where SAFMRs are available, long-time residents with vouchers (or voucher applicants) living in

gentrifying neighborhoods might be able to remain in their homes, avoiding displacement as

landlords attempt to cash in on rising demand for rental housing. Use of SAFMRs before a

neighborhood fully gentri�es can help new income-eligible households move into a

neighborhood to take advantage of the improving community features and provide a healthy

mixed-income area.

Required and Voluntary SAFMRs

A new HUD regulation required PHAs in 24 metro areas to begin using SAFMRs on April 1, 2018.

SAFMRs have to be used by all PHAs in those metro areas, not just the PHA in the major city –

e.g., 19 PHAs in the Philadelphia metro area must use SAFMRs, not just the Philadelphia PHA.

More metro areas could be required to use SAFMRs in the future. PHAs anywhere can voluntarily

use SAFMRs, and residents should advocate for their PHAs to use them. A list of the 24 metro

areas can be found at: https://bit.ly/2Vt3KLq (https://bit.ly/2Vt3KLq)

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 13/16

One issue, however, is that landlords are not required to rent to households with vouchers.

There are two categories of exceptions:

Extended Affordability Requirements are a Tool to Preserve Affordable Housing

The lowest-income renters face a national shortage of more than seven million affordable,

accessible and available rental units, and only one in four eligible low-income renters receives

the assistance they need. The affordable housing crisis could worsen when 279,207 publicly

subsidized rental homes reach the end of their affordability periods over the next �ve years;

these homes could convert to market-rate rents without additional subsidy. One way to prevent

future losses of affordable homes is to extend affordability requirements.

Many state legislatures have chosen to extend the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

(LIHTC) housing affordability requirements beyond the year 30 limit. LIHTC is the largest federal

affordable housing production in the U.S., and many LIHTC homes risk being converted to

market rate housing once affordability restrictions expire. The states with extended mandatory

affordability requirements include Pennsylvania, Florida, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire,

Oregon, Utah, Hawaii, Colorado, Maryland, and Connecticut*. Most of these states have

affordability requirements of 35 to 50 years; they are 60 years in Oregon, 99 years in New

Hampshire, and permanent in Vermont.

Landlords must accept vouchers if their building is assisted by the Low Income

Housing Tax Credit, HOME, or national Housing Trust Fund programs.



Some cities and states have laws that ban “source-of-income” (SOI) discrimination,

prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent paying with a voucher, Supplemental

Security Income, or Social Security. The Poverty & Race Research Action Council

annually updates a list of SOI laws at: https://bit.ly/2DKnFQ0 (https://bit.ly/2DKnFQ0)



8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 14/16

Vermont’s permanent affordability requirement was created in the 1980s because many

affordable homes built with HUD and USDA funding had affordability requirements expiring at

that time. Many property owners chose to convert the affordable units to market-rate housing,

leading to a massive displacement of the lowest-income renters. At the same time, HUD was

reducing affordable housing subsidies available to state and local governments.

The “Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund Act in 1987” requires any housing

subsidized by the state must be permanently affordable to lower-income Vermonters.

Compliance is monitored by a community-based nonpro�t or a public agency like the Vermont

Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB). Over the past thirty years, VHCB has assisted

nonpro�ts and municipalities develop 8,300 permanently affordable homes. In addition to

homes made permanently affordable, VHCB prevented virtually all affordable homes built with

HUD and USDA subsidies from turning into market-rate housing.

Solutions like permanent or extended affordability requirements protect the limited supply of

affordable homes, which in turn can effectively ensure low-income residents remain in their

neighborhoods. NLIHC advocates for the longest possible affordability periods in all federal

programs, and while progress is slow, advocates can win extended or permanent affordability

requirements for states or cities’ uses of federal dollars!

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 15/16

Opportunity Zones—A Potential New Challenge in the Fight against Gentri�cation

The “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017”—President Trump’s massive tax cut law that mostly

bene�ts wealthy Americans and corporations — created “Opportunity Zones,” 8,700 ZIP codes

where governors have determined a need for more investment and where those who do invest

will now receive signi�cant tax bene�ts.

The Opportunity Zones (OZ) concept—more investment in struggling neighborhoods — could be

a good thing. Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), who authored the plan, hope to

address blight and crumbling infrastructure. As passed, however, the law does not incentivize,

much less require, the investments be used to bene�t long-term residents by building affordable

housing, supporting local businesses, creating decent-paying jobs, or providing other types of

community bene�ts. Investor-developers can now receive large federal tax bene�ts to build

anything from hotels to luxury condos to corporate of�ce buildings, as long as they build it in an

OZ.

Housing Trust of Rutland County makes renovations to Heritage Courts in Poltney, VT

8/19/2020 Gentrification and Neighborhood Revitalization: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference 16/16

To compete for a governor’s OZ designation, a ZIP code had to have a poverty rate of at least

20% or a median income no greater than 80% of the area median income. ZIP codes can be

quite large, include a variety of income groups, and contain wealthy pockets or a major

university or an arts district in an otherwise poor area. Also, not all OZ ZIP codes need to meet

the “low-income” de�nition; up to 5% of the OZs can include ZIP codes next to a “low-income”

ZIP code, as long as the adjacent ZIP code has a median income no more than 125% of the low-

income ZIP code. All of the OZ investment activity could happen in the wealthier ZIP code, with

little or no bene�t to the neighborhoods in need.

Combating this new gentri�cation pressure will require advocates to engage with local of�cials

approving the developments. Advocates should argue that proposed projects in OZs must

include permanently affordable rental housing. Advocates must also urge their members of

Congress in Washington, DC, to call upon the Department of Treasury to issue strong and clear

regulations for OZ investments that require a focus on extremely low-income people, increase

affordable rental housing, and support the neighborhood development vision of long-term

residents.

"Combating this new gentri�cation pressure will require advocates to engage with local of�cials

approving the developments."

Some have merely asked for “transparency” by requiring OZ administrators to report outcomes

– an after-the-fact exercise. Without strong regulations at least providing incentives, if not

requirements, that protect long-term residents from displacement and ensure real bene�ts to

low income communities, the reporting will be an empty exercise.