Proceedings of the
Las Vegas Valley Vacant Property Roundtable

Convened by 
ICMA and the National Vacant Properties Campaign

December 3-5th, 2003
Las Vegas, Nevada

Introduction

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA), with support from the Fannie Mae Foundation and the National Vacant Properties Campaign, convened a Vacant Properties Roundtable for local government staff from the Las Vegas Valley. Hosted by the City of Las Vegas at the East Las Vegas Community/Senior Center, the roundtable took place from December 3-5, 2003. Approximately 25 representatives from the City of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, and Clark County, along with two dozen national experts and representatives from the National Vacant Properties Campaign, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Fannie Mae Corporation, the New School of Architecture, and local government practitioners from the cities of Tucson, Phoenix, San Diego, Sacramento, Reno, Dayton, Ohio, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, participated in this three-day training session. 

Rapid growth and expansive development on the fringe of the Las Vegas Valley has left the region’s older neighborhoods with a patchwork of blighted buildings and vacant properties. Given this pattern and level of abandonment, the roundtable sessions focused on the prevention and stabilization of vacant properties. Various techniques and tools were addressed, such as coordinating code enforcement staff, consolidating nuisance abatement ordinances, appointing receiverships, working with both for profit and nonprofit developers, inventory and tracking of vacant lands, and creating infill incentives/programs and redevelopment strategies. 

Background

Through the participation of Doug Selby, the City Manager of Las Vegas, and his staff in ICMA’s Vacant Properties Network, ICMA applied to the Fannie Mae Foundation for a grant to convene a roundtable to address the region’s vacant properties issues. In December of 2002, the Foundation approved resources so that ICMA staff could assess the issues, design the program, convene the forum, and conduct limited follow-up assistance. Fannie Mae Foundation staff was also instrumental in shaping the roundtable’s program and offered guidance with planning the event.
 
ICMA and Fannie Mae Foundation staff conducted an assessment visit in June 2003, followed by a series of planning conference calls throughout the fall. During the June site visit, the vacant properties study team toured the region and met with representatives from the different local governments (City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, Clark County, and City of Henderson), the development and building industry, and community development organizations. While the level and type of abandonment varies from community to community, a common theme arose from the interviewees—the drain, both social and economic that derelict buildings and vacant lots impose on the local governments and the residents who are forced to live near them. The interviewees further recognized that successful vacant properties revitalization could help address broader policy problems, such as increasing sprawl and a shortage of affordable housing, generated by the region’s rapid growth over the past decade. Based on these discussions and ICMA’s expertise in providing similar strategic assistance to other cities and regions, the roundtable was designed to foster the following goals: 

•	Sharing best practices and lessons learned from other Western communities facing similar vacant property problems;
•	Introducing a strategic framework that integrates vacant property revitalization across multiple departments and agencies; 
•	Creating ample opportunities to problem solve and develop draft action plans;
•	Providing resources and guidance from a team of national experts and local government practitioners.

For the first time the roundtable brought together staff from the four local governments to examine the region’s vacant property problems. The presentations focused on prevention, stabilization and more specifically the different dimensions of real property abandonment within the Las Vegas Valley. See the attached program agenda. While staff from ICMA and the National Vacant Properties Campaign facilitated the roundtable, national experts and practitioners served as discussion leaders and provided examples from other communities relevant to the problems in the Las Vegas Valley.

In addition to the expert presenters and local government representatives, participants also included a few regional resource leaders from the private and non-profit sectors. They did not make formal presentations, but due to their experience with vacant properties they provided assistance and best practice examples during the discussion periods of the roundtable. Other resource leaders included observers from other cities who are interested in sponsoring and/or hosting future training and technical assistance roundtables. See the attached attendee’s list. As a result of the roundtable’s discussions, the local government staff have developed an action plan and formed an informal network to facilitate better communication and coordination of vacant property activities. See the attached roundtable action plan. 

Day 1—December 3, 2003
Orientation and Introduction

Vacant Properties Virtual Tour of the Las Vegas Valley

The first session of the roundtable consisted of a virtual tour of the Valley’s vacant property issues. The informal presentations gave the local participants an opportunity to share examples of particularly complex vacant properties in their communities. The images and subsequent dialogue illustrated the nature, level, and scope of abandonment confronting the region. In addition, the session gave attendees from one local government an opportunity to offer their suggestions on how to help solve tissues associated with properties located in another jurisdiction. Roundtable experts from other cities offered feedback and ideas in formulating a site-specific strategy for these problem properties. Given staff schedules and resources, only Clark County and the City of Las Vegas presented in-depth tours, while representatives from North Las Vegas and Henderson shared their thoughts during the discussion period.

Clark County—the redevelopment challenges of vacant properties

Clark County, named after William Andrews Clark who established the railroad line between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, was formed in 1909. Today, the county is fast growing with a population of 1.6 million making it the most populous of Nevada’s 17 counties. The demographics of the county are as follows: 58.2 percent are white; 22 percent are Hispanic; 7.4 percent are African American; 4.7 percent are Asian and 7 percent are “other.” The county covers an 8,012 square-mile area.

Lesa Coder, Director of Operations for the Clark County Redevelopment Agency, presented two examples from potential study areas for the soon-to-be created Clark County Redevelopment Agency. Based on recommendations adopted by the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, Clark County began the process to formally charter its first redevelopment agency to better eliminate blight from the county’s areas in most need of redevelopment. Both of these vacant property examples are located in neighborhoods that have consistently declined since 1996. 

Area 1 – Sunrise Manor, at Sahara Avenue and Boulder Highway. 

This neighborhood suffers from general abandonment, fires, crime, mostly robberies, and consists of large tracts of abandoned buildings as well as some recently constructed apartment buildings. Many abandoned retail, gas stations, and restaurants surround occupied residential properties, such as this 200-unit apartment complex and single-family homes. To the north, there are thousands of mobile homes, while to the west, there are many car dealerships. All of the properties in this area date from the 1960s and 1970s, so asbestos and lead-based paint will both become issues if these abandoned businesses are demolished. The redevelopment agency is searching for a new use for the site, which is proving to be a difficult task since it failed as retail.

Area 2 – Winchester Township between Las Vegas Blvd. and Maryland Parkway, as well as businesses along Sahara Avenue.

This neighborhood area, considered to be the agency’s biggest redevelopment challenge, consists of aging retail, apartments, and businesses. The Winchester Township borders the Las Vegas Country Club Estates, an affluent community, and sits on the east side of City of Las Vegas. Totaling 35 acres, the area includes a six-acre commercial center that has been besieged by vandalism and abandonment. In fact, at one point this commercial building was frequently used for illegal rave parties and was rumored to have been a set for adult videos. There are 36 different property owners (and a total of 305 business licenses), including the county, which owns 18 acres of the parking lot. A group of investors recently purchased the site for $5 million and demolition might be the technique used to replace the existing structures.

The current challenge for Clark County is how to best redevelop the six acres zoned for commercial uses. Since demolition seems to be the most desirable strategy, what can the county do to encourage owners to demolish and redevelopment the property? What are the possible end uses for the entire site? Could the local and regional economic markets support a mixture of commercial and residential uses? 

Roundtable Discussion—insights into stabilizing vacant properties

Participants shared their insights and suggestions on how to stabilize these sites, especially on the need for additional information before taking action. For many of the staff this was a unique experience to sit down with their colleagues from neighboring jurisdictions to discuss the common vacant property challenges confronting them. This collaborative problem-solving session further illustrated the benefits of regular sharing of information and coordination among the different local governments. The synergy among the participants also generated thoughtful ideas about a range of possible strategies that could apply to similar properties in cities throughout the country. 

•	Demolition: Because the commercial potential for both areas is not great, the majority of participants raised demolition as the most viable option for addressing these problem properties. It was suggested that instead of retail, that Clark County might consider condominium or entertainment uses. Other issues and considerations included:

o	If the apartments in Area 2 are demolished, there needs to be a plan for relocating displaced residents. 
o	The physical features of these buildings promote low-end businesses – not nice enough for a strong, legitimate business. Demolition is good, so something better can be built. In their own way the buildings in both areas tend to promote the kind of activity going on there. 
o	Because of the 35 owners, it will be hard to assemble the property and move out bad owners through demolition strategies.
o	Does Clark County have a set of demolition requirements for properties allowing it to demolish buildings if they meet the criteria? We do not have a separate set of demolition procedures only those that our building dept. has to formally classify buildings as “dangerous”.
o	Need to assess the political implications when government takes on demolition given the region’s strong regard for private property rights. 
o	The county might want to provide a subsidy to owners to tear down their vacant buildings, rather than subsidizing their rehabilitation or the county taking on the demolition itself. Offering incentives to developers or current owners to demolish vacant properties is a good strategy, which works better with commercial rather than small residential properties. Positive financial incentives are important to attract developers to a project.
o	As part of its powers, would the new redevelopment authority have the authority to provide owners with incentives to demolish and not rehabilitate? What if the site is outside of the agency’s redevelopment areas?
o	An affordable housing developer from the region shared his experiences from dealing with similar situations. In his projects, he attempts to find a balance between affordable housing and commercial development through the use of mixed-use developments. Often buildings must be taken down with support from subsidies and then new developers will be more interested in the site. Make it easier for the new developer by acquiring and cleaning the site. It is in the best interest of cities and counties to demolish blighted buildings by offering subsidies to the owners, so that large tracts of vacant land can be redeveloped.

•	General Code Enforcement Approaches: Most business owners are not in compliance with their local business licenses. The County issued criminal citations to several of the business owners, but a local judge dismissed the case and prevented the police from taking further enforcement actions. 

•	Eminent Domain: What about the selective use of eminent domain in this case? Redevelopment agencies are able to use eminent domain … it is used as a last resort. The climate within the community needs to be good to use it – support from the community is essential. Many of the community and neighborhood groups in these areas, especially those with residents of color, perceive any government action as another attempt at urban renewal that could destroy the fabric of their neighborhoods.

•	Rehabilitation and Vacant Properties Registration: Are there rehabilitation plan requirements, etc., in the county’s ordinance that give the county the power to compel the owner to file a rehabilitation work plan? If the owner fails to file the plan or carry it out, does the county have the authority to demolish? The participants discussed this matter and concluded that the county rarely demolishes a building due to a lack of rehab plan; instead, the county building department would have to make a finding that the building was structurally unsafe or dangerous.

Another similar approach that the City of San Diego has used successfully is to require property owners to register their vacant and boarded-up properties and produce a rehabilitation plan. The owners are assessed a fee each time there is a complaint or nuisance call about the property. These registration ordinances provide a disincentive for keeping buildings boarded, however, it is still illegal for most local governments to demolish properties that are structurally sound. 

•	Inter-departmental Working Groups: Another essential ingredient for effective vacant property programs is having an integrated team that includes members from a number of key departments. For example, the City of Las Vegas formed its integrated service teams (IST) based on Vancouver’s model. A dozen Clark County inspectors and police officers, known as the County Multi-Agency Response Team (CMART), perform a role similar to that of the City of Las Vegas’ IST. 

City of Las Vegas—the plague of abandoned and boarded properties

Tim Whitright, Senior Planner, and Pam Hines, Neighborhood Response Supervisor from the City of Las Vegas, presented three vacant properties from a low-income residential neighborhood in West Las Vegas where half the buildings are boarded up or uninhabited. Most of these properties are rental properties, with small units typically rented for $450 per month. The owners, many of whom could be considered slumlords, do not seem concerned with their tenants and the high level of drug dealing in the neighborhood. The city would like to purchase the properties, but many are too expensive for the city in spite of their condition and low rents. All of the buildings have been vacant and boarded for some time. 

•	420 W. Washington Avenue – Four units. Secure, boarded-up for 4 years, owner deceased (now owned by daughter).

•	713 W. Adams Avenue – Vacant. Owned by former drug dealer, now deceased. The property is in probate litigation; the city is having trouble acquiring the property.

•	833 F Street – Vacant for over 5 years; currently in probate. It is a prime site, upon which many people wanted to erect a daycare center, but because the owners have kept it secure, nobody can acquire it.

By way of background the responsibilities of the Neighborhood Services Department include, administering funding sources to address abandoned commercial and residential buildings, constructing infill housing and rehabilitating substandard housing, and supporting reinvestment into older neighborhoods. The Response Division is responsible for keeping abandoned buildings safe, secure, and free of graffiti.

West Las Vegas was historically an African American community, but today the area is approximately half African American and half Hispanic. Unfortunately, it seems there is little organized community infrastructure within West Las Vegas. Any vacant property strategy must also address the social factors of the stakeholders in this part of the city. West Las Vegas is a HUD Enterprise Community – so far the city has done work on the perimeter of the community and now is starting to address the dire problems in the core. However, the city must be careful that its programs in West Las Vegas are not perceived as urban renewal programs of the 1960s. Several participants voiced the opinion that many of these owners typically do not trust that the city will return the land after the buildings have been demolished, so there is a need for education and trust-building. The local government needs to be sensitive to the concerns of existing owners; working in conjunction with local churches can be a successful tool for building trust within a community. 

Roundtable Discussion—a variety of code enforcement remedies

•	Acquisition and Rehabilitation: What would be the cost to improve the 100 boarded-up properties in the West Las Vegas area? While the total cost of rehabilitation is unknown, the most important problem faced by the City of Las Vegas is how to get ownership of the properties in the first place. Some of the properties are not worth rehabbing due to their level of deterioration. In addition, since the city does not have a defined public policy about which properties qualify for rehabilitation and which do not, rehabilitation might not be the most effective tool for some of the properties. 

o	Do local governments and community development corporations have the authority to act as a land bank and assemble vacant properties for future development? Not in the Las Vegas region. Not sure local governments have been granted this legal authority by the state government.
o	What about working with CDCs to assemble the properties for affordable housing? The CDC community in Las Vegas seems to have limited experience and capacity with assembling properties.
o	Does Las Vegas monitor properties that have been rehabbed? The city does inspect the properties, and this is necessary since the owners occasionally allow the buildings to fall back into disrepair.
o	How do you get multiple property owners to enter into a deal together? A local government has to be able to do this, even by convincing the owners that displacement will be a better situation for them.
o	Why doesn’t the city try to buy the properties and develop them? The properties are high value and the city cannot afford to buy them. In addition, it was noted that there are very few neighborhood-based nonprofits to help the local governments deal with these properties.
o	What disincentives can the city impose on the absentee owners to do something with the building and not let it remain vacant and boarded for years? The City of San Diego uses state law that restricts property owners from receiving income tax and business deductions for rental properties that violate the State Housing Law. 

•	Federal Drug Forfeiture Authority: If the property has been used as part of illegal drug dealing or manufacturing, the District Attorney’s office can initiate seizure proceedings under federal and state law, but that is not the case with these three properties. Plus, those involved in illicit activities are not going to call the police and other citizens, for the most part, are too scared to contact the city.

•	Community Organizations and Support: There are two neighborhood groups in West Las Vegas – West Las Vegas Pioneers and West Las Vegas Executive Board – although not in the core area, as well as the West Las Vegas planning team, which could help reestablish a sense of community. The West Las Vegas Planning Team was a group formally chartered with revising and updating the West Las Vegas Plan; which was eventually adopted by the full City Council in April 2003. Unfortunately, the community group that was originally thought would be the "champion" of moving forward with implementation of the WLV Plan has experienced some internal difficulties, so another group needs to be identified to move forward with implementation of the plan. 

•	Demolition: Like the properties in Clark County, could the city provide the current property owners with incentives to demolish the buildings as the first step of a partnership with the city to redevelopment the site and revitalize West Las Vegas. Depending on the size and condition of the structure, demolition costs typically run the city anywhere between $2,400 to $23,000 per building. Within the last 18 months, the city of Las Vegas demolished 20 buildings. 

•	Probate: Several of the properties are part of protracted legal battles among heirs of the previous property owners. In San Diego, for example, if a property is stuck in probate, the city’s vacant properties coordinator partners with the County Administrator to help the heirs expedite the property through the probate proceedings. The county gives the owner resources to get it out of probate, and then the property is sold. Nonprofits are given the first chance to acquire the properties at auction and the county is refunded for its expenses after the sales.

•	Vacant Property Registration Ordinances: A participant queried if the city of Las Vegas has ever attempted to pass an ordinance to impose limits on boarded and secured structures? In San Diego, the property owners are required to submit a rehabilitation plan, but only about six owners have actually done this. There is no enforcement of the rehabilitation plan, since there is no staff to monitor the properties. What is the recourse if the owner fails to file the rehab plan or fails to carry it out? Can the city take the property if the owners do not complete the rehabs? Not in San Diego!
 
o	In Oklahoma City, the government was given the power to assess a fee, but the owners could keep the properties boarded up indefinitely. The ordinance did not have sufficient teeth to have recourse. Now, in Oklahoma City, if a property has been boarded up for three years, with no utilities, it can be demolished by the city. This may not be possible politically in Las Vegas, since it would have to be approved by the State legislation. In San Diego, owners can be charged with a misdemeanor if they do not provide the city with a letter of intent to improve their properties. For every 90 days the owners do not carry out the requirements of their plan, they are charged a $500 fee. Due to the strong financial disincentive, only 5% of the penalties are appealed.

o	A Chicago based group called Artistic Board-Up (www.artisticboardup.com), which does creative board-up jobs on abandoned buildings, often consisting of murals with community-related themes. Boards have to be painted the same color as the building. What they have found out is that calls to the city about these buildings are significantly less than those that do not have murals. This is one successful way to keep vacant buildings from becoming nuisances while they are in transition. 
 
•	Inventory and Marketing of Vacant Properties: How does San Diego get information out to potential investors about abandoned properties for sale? City officials share information on title issues, owner, council districts, etc., with their contacts, including real estate agencies, lenders, nonprofits, and for-profit developers.

•	Foreclosure on Nuisance Abatement Liens and Tax Liens: Tax liens can be very helpful in getting properties into different hands through foreclosure. This happens most often when there is not much value to the property.

As a result of these examples and discussions, it became apparent that local governments must have the ability to take a variety of actions in order to tailor the remedy to the facts of a particular property. More importantly, local governments need to build consensus with the community about their vacant property programs and the specific applications of these legal remedies. Certain properties demand more aggressive actions, while other properties may only need a simple notice to the owner or some financial assistance. Partnerships with CDCs, realtors, buildings, and the probate systems would further alleviate some of the more complex vacant properties.

Introduction and Overview of Vacant Property Revitalization

Las Vegas City Manager Doug Selby gave a formal welcome to the group. He noted that this was the first time that staff from all four of the local governments had been brought together in one place to discuss vacant property strategies. In fact, the East Las Vegas Community Center was once a former National Guard Amory that was underused. With the use of local redevelopment powers and federal brownfields grants, the City was able to clean the property and construct this new community center. The city worked closely with the near-by residents to ensure the reuse met community needs for social and recreational services of the neighborhoods largely Latino and African American community. He also thanked ICMA for its expertise and leadership in helping create the National Vacant Properties Campaign as many cities across the nation are facing similar revitalization challenges.

The Roundtable Facilitator, Joe Schilling, Director of Community and Economic Development for ICMA, welcomed the participants and walked them through the agenda for the roundtable. The roundtable’s goals include: sharing best practices and lessons learned from other places, introducing a strategic framework, brainstorming and solving problems, providing resources and guidance, and facilitating a strategic action planning on the last morning. He hoped the presentations and discussions would enable participants to share information and forge stronger relationships, so that the local governments across the Las Vegas Valley could overcome their abandonment issues before they get worse. The region does not yet have vacant properties on a scale found in the Midwest or the older cities of the east coast, but both older and newer communities are susceptible to the problem in the Las Vegas area. If addressed now, the area’s problem can be contained and hopefully solved. 

When addressing vacant properties two questions immediately arise: 1) What are vacant properties; and 2) What are the underlying causes of the abandonment? Vacant and abandoned properties typically are properties where the owner fails to carry out the significant responsibilities of ownership and/or the conditions can be characterized as a public nuisance. Vacant properties take on many forms, including vacant lots, substandard buildings, single- and multi-family units, and commercial buildings. 

When it comes to abandonment a wide variety of communities have vacant properties due to poverty, sprawl, race relations, economic hardship, and loss of jobs. The impacts of vacant properties, not limited to disorder, nuisances, decreased property values and taxes, can be negative even in the healthiest of neighborhoods. While it is necessary to focus on the property and what should happen to it, it is equally important to address why the property fell into disrepair or was abandoned. 

Schilling then presented a strategic framework for revitalization known as the Vacant Properties Cycle as a means to classify different strategies and ensure they address the generic vacant property problems. Local governments and communities can also apply the Cycle as a means to assess their existing programs and policies. 

The Vacant Properties Revitalization Cycle consists of the following five stages: 1) Prevention and Assessment, 2) Stabilization, 3) Rehabilitation Resources, 4) Property Transfer or Demolition, and 5) Long Term Revitalization Strategies. The cycle can serve as a self-assessment tool for local vacant property programs and as a gauge of how to best allocate resources. 

Below are typical actions that local governments and communities often take during each of the five stages:

•	Prevention: Work with property owners, housing inspection, pro-active code enforcement, etc. 
•	Assessment: Know your territory and understand particular local conditions affecting abandonment. The basics of developing a property information system, often called “early warning systems.” 
•	Stabilization: Use your local code enforcement powers, both criminal and administrative. Receivership as a temporary remedy for substandard housing.
•	Rehabilitation Assistance: Financial resources and technical assistance. Other incentives such as rehab codes. 
•	Property Transfer or Acquisition: Tax delinquency, land banks, and eminent domain.
•	Neighborhood Planning for Long Term Revitalization: Comprehensive and community revitalization plans, affordable housing policies, and rebuilding markets. Other revitalization opportunities such as infill development, affordable housing, work force housing, livable neighborhoods. 

Roundtable Discussion—Policies and markets affecting vacant property revitalization in the Las Vegas Valley

Following the presentation of the cycle, much of the discussion dealt with the broader policy and market dynamics faced by local governments and communities in revitalizing vacant and abandoned properties:

•	Real estate prices are increasing across the Las Vegas region. We have more people coming to this region as they are being priced out of markets such as southern California. Another factor in the current housing crunch is the Bureau of Land Management’s auction of surplus lands on the valley’s fringe. Congress requires BLM to sell large tracts of land to developers in the area who then build master planned subdivisions. These newer homes help fuel the overall market increases in home prices, but they also make it hard to attract residents and developers to rebuild in the region’s older suburban neighborhoods. As real estate values go up, the only way to make these properties viable is to increase density, which creates a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) reaction. This is a real challenge for infill development especially in neighborhoods where affordability is a big issue.

•	Law enforcement is not as effective a tool as it used to be for code enforcement cases. Search warrants and litigation is very slow and expensive. It is difficult for many jurisdictions to enforce laws to help get these properties back into productive uses. There are too many hoops to jump through and no affordability support for the middle class, since the assistance is offered primarily to low-income families. Other cities have better coordination with mortgage brokers to provide information on who holds the mortgage on any property. 

•	It is important for government officials to incorporate eminent domain and standards for redeveloping properties into their plans for addressing their vacant properties problems. The challenge is trying to be friendly to residents and owners, but still get things done. Much of this is communicating the need for code enforcement as a means to address blight and doing it strategically. Hopefully it will increase the property values of neighbors.

•	How do you try to improve markets in low-income areas so that people want to improve their properties themselves? One strategy is for the local governments to rezone. Rezoning can provide more opportunities for developers to complete lucrative projects, including mixed-use development. Rezoning can also allow existing property owners to make a profit off their own properties.

Day 2—December 4, 2003
Holistic Vacant Property Revitalization

Welcome and Introduction

Vera deVera from the Fannie Mae Foundation, a roundtable sponsor, described Fannie Mae’s interest in the issue of vacant properties. They have supported research on vacant properties, such as an upcoming Guidebook by Alan Mallach from the National Housing Institute and a member of the National Vacant Properties Campaign’s Advisory Committee. Fannie Mae, together with the Ford Foundation, also convened a forum of national experts and practitioners that served as a catalyst for the creation of the Campaign. The Foundation views vacant lots and abandoned buildings as significant affordable housing opportunities. 

Next, John Bailey, Associate Director of Smart Growth America, gave an overview of the National Vacant Properties Campaign (www.vacantproperties.org) and SGA’s involvement with the program. Founded in 2002 by three national organizations engaged in community development, smart growth, and neighborhood revitalization—The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), and Smart Growth America (who acts as the Campaign’s coordinator)—the Campaign now has a diverse array of national partners and local communities that includes experts, academics, local practitioners, foundations, lenders, and community development groups. SGA, ICMA, LISC, along with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, now form the Campaign’s Executive Team. SGA received initial funding from the Fannie Mae Foundation to plan and start-up the campaign and U.S. EPA helped support the official campaign launch in July 2003 in Washington, D.C. The campaign’s Advisory Committee is made up of over 25 organizations, including some cities, environmental groups, among other organizations. Bailey outlined the campaign’s access to experts and the latest developments in the field. The four goals of the Campaign are: 

1)	To build a national network to support a national movement 
The Campaign plans to cultivate leaders and develop a national network of experts, practitioners and consultants with extensive experience and interest in reclamation efforts. It will recruit a diverse array of leaders, from environmental advocates to real estate professionals.
2) 	Give communities the tools they need 
Practitioners are searching for new strategies, policies, and tools that can help them prevent, manage, and rehabilitate vacant properties. The Campaign will focus on disseminating cutting-edge research, identifying and analyzing policy innovations and best practices, presenting model legislation, and informing people about the latest policy developments in the field.
3) 	Make the case for reclamation efforts
Effective communications are essential for transforming ideas into action. We will collect compelling evidence, develop persuasive messages for our spokespeople, determine the best ways to influence top decision makers, and elevate the visibility of the issue for the general public.
4) 	Provide technical assistance and training
Many communities lack the capacity or expertise to deal with their vacant properties by themselves. The Campaign will provide several forms of expert assistance to help a wide range of communities jump-start their vacant property efforts.

In order to meet its goals, the Campaign plans to disseminate information about effective strategies into the hands of practitioners around the country. Joe Schilling and Naomi Friedman have authored reports detailing effective practices in San Diego, Richmond, Va., and Portland, Ore. (see http://icma.org/vacantproperties). Additional goals include creating communication tools to make vacant property reclamation a high priority, building a network of practitioners, policymakers, and experts, and coordinating technical assistance. Las Vegas is the campaign’s first official technical assistance effort to design a roundtable the addresses the vacant properties problems unique to this region. Today’s workshop also shows that vacant properties are a problem in fast-growing cities—something that most folks do not know about.

Session One: Stabilization and Code Enforcement

The roundtable’s next exposed code enforcement practitioners to two or three successful strategies and tools that could address the more complex and intractable vacant property problem, such as locating absentee property owners and forcing property owners to abate the public nuisance caused by their abandoned building or vacant property. Topics included court receivership, building relationships between cities and community development corporations, and ways to better integrate code enforcement with the planning, housing, and community development efforts. 

Receivership as a Code Enforcement Stabilization Strategy

Kevin Collins, esq., Mark Easter, esq., and Sam Emmerson, esq., from the California-based law firm Best Best and Krieger LLP provided a general overview about the use of receivership by local governments and CDCs in California. They addressed questions, such as what is receivership and when is it good to use this tool. 

Substandard properties pose significant problems for municipalities in all types of communities. Public officials often find it hard to deal with these properties. Many California cities use misdemeanor criminal prosecution as their code enforcement strategy. Yet, criminal prosecution presupposes two things: 1) You can find the owner; and 2) That you have someone who cares. The reality is that these two things rarely exist in the ten percent of cases that are often the most difficult vacant property case. Demolition is often sought but it is not a sustainable solution because the community is often left with a “gap-tooth” appearance. It is important to point out that spot blight can often happen in wealthy neighborhoods and to all building types, including hotels and motels.

The Receivership Solution Under California Law: The City of Los Angeles was the impetus to create the state’s receivership statute in the late 1980s. At the time, there were several shell corporations who were the city’s main slumlords so the City lobbied the state legislature to change the state housing laws to empower the courts to appoint receivers for substantially substandard housing. As stated in Section 17890.7 of the Health & Safety Code, the receiver’s job is simply to take action to correct the conditions cited in the notice of violation. A receiver, or court’s agent, is often used in foreclosures, bankruptcies, and business dissolutions. More local governments are using receivership, such as Ontario, CA, because it costs less and is so effective for spot blight properties in transitional or relatively stable neighborhoods.

Roundtable Discussion—the practice and policy of receivership in California

•	What are the procedural requirements for obtaining receivership? The procedural requirements associated with obtaining a receiver, include issuing a notice of violation and the due process requirements associated with the notice. 

•	What are the expenses related to receivership? If the city does all of its due diligence, then the courts will insist that the property owner pay for the expenses through a “super priority” lien. Receivership is a much cheaper and easier opportunity than eminent domain. With receivership, all the costs are paid by the property, not the city; in fact, receivership costs the city little. The whole process only takes 6-9 months, which is of course significantly less than foreclosure. The receiver makes money through billable hours and by rehabilitation costs.

•	How does the receiver get back the funds for his or her services along with the costs for repairs? In California, to get a “super priority” lien, if expenses are not paid, you are required to notify all interested parties. You must issue a “general nuisance” in the contract because if you specify then you can only fix what is in the contract. 

•	What types of cases or properties would receivership be appropriate for in Las Vegas? What resources or steps would need to be taken in order to have an effective receivership program?

o	Which city agency does the law firm work with for receivership projects? This depends on the city – sometimes it is the community development department, the police, or a special vacant property task force.
o	What happens to the owner of the property? Often just the threat of receivership makes the property owner fix the property. When a property is rehabbed, the owner is typically asked to pay for the expenses. They rarely pay, primarily because they are not capable or interested in retaking ownership. 
o	Has the firm had any success with receivership involving numerous owners on the same block? Not so much, but this practice is increasing.

•	Existing Receivership Laws in Nevada: Receivership is not yet available as a vacant property reclamation tool in Nevada. It is going to take a collective effort between the city and the county to get this on the legislative docket for the state of Nevada in the next legislative session.

SABER – Slum Abatement and Blight Enforcement Response

Paul Swift, Director of Tucson’s Department of Neighborhood Resources, discussed how the City’s Slum Abatement and Blight Enforcement Response team helped break down inter-departmental barriers. The program tries to address social behavior issues that result when blighted properties become serious problems. Tucson, as a fast-growing sunbelt city consisting almost entirely of single-story structures with the exception of some commercial and apartment buildings. The sprawling city has many neighborhoods with varied uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial. Slum-like conditions are not centralized in any one area of the city, but instead are dispersed throughout. SABER is a multi-agency project lending assistance to individuals and neighborhoods to resolve issues, including substandard housing conditions, overgrown vegetation, rodent problems, vandalism, safety concerns, and abandonment. The city and the seven involved departments utilize the following planning tools to improve their neighborhoods: uniform building codes, administrative codes, housing codes, and vacant and abandoned building codes. The City is still reviewing the ordinance to refine it – to see how it could be even better and cover more ground. In addition, they are also seeing how this model for code enforcement could be applied to other issues and areas of local government.

Legal Foundation: In February 1999, Tucson enacted a slumlord ordinance for addressing rental properties – gave city an opportunity to do something with problem properties with sketchy ownership, etc. The mayor and council did not trust their ability to perform enforcement and things were not working. The ordinance gave the city the ability to enforce the laws better. Property owners became required to register properties with the county recorders office.

Problems Associated with SABER: Who at the city/county should be responsible for slum abatement? There is no clear answer to this question, but for Tucson the city had all the tools they needed. They decided to make slum abatement everyone’s issue and they worked together to develop SABER. Too much departmental specialization, however, did create fragmentation. A big question was could the city craft an inter-departmental effort that would address slum conditions of properties holistically? They decided to try despite the fear of lack of control. 

The City created new forms and protocols for code enforcement that were standard across departments, so that any department could enforce code violations for any other. This became a lengthy process since the City did not have enabling legislation to create this uniformity; as a result, they pushed for the creation of a Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance to allow for making things more uniform.

Tucson’s Leadership: A new City manager came in and provided the leadership to take on the vacant property issue – he set the mission for SABER and was its champion. A new City Attorney came from the City of Phoenix and provided additional leadership. He changed the way the city attorney’s office worked with departments, which was critical. 

The City Manager gave the managers power to create the program, and they had to reach deep to do it. The managers had never been pushed to do something like this before, and the middle-level managers were especially critical in this process. They did not make staff generalists, but coordinated specializations into teams that complemented everyone’s expertise. As a result of this collaborative process, the staff in each cross-departmental team learned from each other and became aware of what others were doing. Department heads worked with their staff to make sure they had the training they needed in addition to the cross-departmental training. Every individual needed to know how his or her role fit into the bigger picture of city government. The City Manager’s approach was critical in creating widespread support for the program at the City level. 

A bigger issue was the lack of community confidence, which the City addressed by showing the public the program’s successes. The City asked one particularly skeptical reporter to identify some properties that needed to be priorities and the City worked to address those properties. As successes became apparent, the City got really good press because of this strategy. The creation and success of SABER proves that strong leadership is behind every successful effort. Sometimes, the leader has to direct and also show people what they have to gain by participating.

Community Relations: As the SABER program gained initial successes, city officials had to address the community trust issue head on – through training, outreach, and media coverage. They learned that the more information they put out, the easier their job became. They stopped hiding from pubic interaction and calls. The community has an important role in the process – they need to build coalition within departments, build cross-jurisdictional coalitions, and get the council on board and foster communication with them.

City officials found that some neighborhoods did not want them to come in, so they had to be sensitive about how they started working with each neighborhood. Eventually, neighborhood associations came to the City to ask for help. The City notified the public before SABER came to a neighborhood and this really made some people clean up their properties. The goal is to make people more accountable, before taking their properties. Just seeing the trucks drive by gets people cleaning!

In Tucson, politicians have been removed from decision-making process about appeals, fines, etc. Traditionally, decisions were appealed to the City Council, but that is no longer common. Now, its much more often dealt with through the courts.

It took 16 meetings at two hours each to create the ordinance, but the broad collaboration in creating made it fly through council. City staff now attends one neighborhood meeting per month, which creates a constant flow of information to and from the neighborhood by the City. Since November 2001, the SABER team has dealt with 93 properties. The courts are now taking the City seriously, and they are working with three attorneys. The City did not add a dime to its budget and used CDBG funds to hire two attorneys. Now, in Tucson, landlords are part of the solution. Fewer landlords appeal citations since they know they cannot win.

Back to Basics Program
Back to Basics is an infrastructure improvement program that allows different city departments to focus resources on a couple of projects in targeted small neighborhoods. The pilot program is a policy initiative directed at rehabilitating and revitalizing Tucson’s older neighborhoods with the most serious needs for basic improvements. Funds are used to provide grants for improvements in three categories – infrastructure, housing, and environment. Back to Basics has forged a partnership between residents, business owners, and city employees. The program was one of ten programs in the nation to receive the 1998 Exemplary State and Local Award from the National Center for Public Productivity and the American Society for Public Administration. For more information, please consult http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dnr/Back_to_Basics/back_to_basics.html

Roundtable Discussion—SABER’s transferability to the local governments in the Las Vegas region

•	Implementation: How can one adapt some of what we’ve heard about this morning here in Las Vegas? Have these same presentations before our City Councils! It would be helpful to get a multi-jurisdictional and multi-departmental group together to look at some of these coordination and management issues on an ongoing basis. For example, they could coordinate tools and strategies as to what they should present to the legislature. Neighborhood groups too can be influential with City Council if ordinances are not working; this could be especially useful in Las Vegas where there is less community support for such issues.

•	Leadership and Coordination: There are similar teams in Las Vegas, but there is no project manager running things as is the case in Tucson. Having a strong coordinator could be helpful, because right now every player has his/her own mission and someone has to define the common goals. Such leadership would improve consistency and accountability between various departments.
 
o	With the Sunrise project, for example, there was only one coordinator who planned the meetings and did research, and she was a temporary County employee. We worked well together on the Sunrise project.
o	In San Diego, one point person coordinated issues associated with the city’s code enforcement and vacant properties. Coming up with protocols is important – and a coordinator is responsible for getting issues to the city and getting accountability through high-level decisions and transparency.
o	Right now, the City of Las Vegas is suffering from a lack of education and coordination between departments regarding various provisions and code enforcement procedures. Austin, TX, for example, has a great database that people can access to find out what kinds of code enforcement is going on for specific properties thus helping cross-departmental communication. In addition, the local governments in the Las Vegas Valley need to communicate with the public more in order to gain support. The support will be crucial in the City of Las Vegas where the current mayor has expressed an interest in researching a new slumlord ordinance. 
o	In order to have a coordinator that functions well, it is critical that different departments be able to share databases. Need to be able to get information to the City Council and others about who is doing what, as well as accessing useful information that might not be in your department.
o	City leadership in Las Vegas is a real challenge. There is not a coordinating force that keeps people working together – historically, people have not worked together seamlessly. With community groups, the first question is: do you think there is a problem? This question should come before you ask them to help identify the solutions. 
o	San Diego established a task force of citizens and community policing representatives and created a unit for community policing that everyone bought into. This collaboration was key. The Integrated Service Team in Las Vegas is a first step, but has not been taken far enough.

Partnerships with Community Development Corporations (CDCs)

After properties have been stabilized, the next stage in the cycle requires attention to the rehabilitation of the property. The roundtable’s next session provided participants with an opportunity to critically explore the potential roles, challenges, and benefits of partnering with CDCs and how they can facilitate CDC capacity building in the region. Community Development Corporations are an important player in combating vacant properties since too often the private sector does not build or redevelop in high-risk neighborhoods.

Cloyd Phillips, the Executive Director of Reno’s Community Services Agency Development Corporation discussed the initiatives of his corporation and its experience forging stronger partnerships between community groups, non-profit developers, and local governments. Phillips highlighted successful public/private/nonprofit partnerships both in Vegas and Reno, the potential for mixed use in new developments, and the need for risk taking. Phillips emphasized that nonprofit/for-profit partnerships are critical to vacant property revitalization. If governments encourage partnerships among the private sector development community and not-for-profit developers that lead to specialization in different products, they will create new jobs in the region. 

Community Development Financial Institutions Initiative 
As part of its Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) initiative, the Fannie Mae Corporation granted CSADC a $500,000 revolving line of credit at the Nevada State Bank to help pay for the corporation’s new home rehabilitation program. The funds aim to increase homeownership in Reno and Washoe County by purchasing older properties, performing necessary renovations, and then selling the homes to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. Funds from the home sales will replenish the line of credit, enabling the CSADC to purchase, rehabilitate and resell more properties. http://www.fanniemae.com/newsreleases/2003/2735.jhtml?p=Media&s=News+Releases 

Phillips described his experience working with community members and soliciting neighborhood support for vacant property revitalization. CSADC hired a private consultant to coordinate these community efforts in conjunction with the Reno City Council. Phillips noted that in Las Vegas, there is a public misconception of the city’s intentions that must be changed. 

Phillips believes that city and county governments need to take greater risks by working with CDCs and by forging regional collaborations among local governments and CDCs. CDCs are looking to local governments for support both financially and in the creation of codes that support rehabilitation. Phillips stressed the importance of arts districts, business corridors, and small-scale projects, in revitalization efforts. These techniques, which have been often missing in Las Vegas, are currently being used to revitalize downtown Las Vegas with the use of mixed-use development and the formation of arts districts. 

Roundtable Discussion—CDC barriers and solutions

•	CDC Barriers: One of the main barriers facing CDCs is that stakeholders must be educated about the goals of a project, which can be a difficult task. A further challenge for CDCs is that high prices often prevent them from acquiring land. Local governments need to play a more proactive role in providing CDCs with properties. CDCs, for example, could become receivers in a receivership program or act as property managers.

•	Partnerships: In addition to the good partnerships with financial institutions, CDCs can benefit from financial incentives from local governments, including HOME dollars, CDBG, and tax credits, including New Markets Tax Credits. 
o	Where are the nonprofits in this? What are the barriers to working with them? Phillips responded that there is a need for greater collaboration between nonprofits and city and county officials. The goals of nonprofits and CDCs complement each other well. CDCs have the advantage of being able to get money more cheaply than private developers.
o	Phillips was queried as to how CDCs best attract private partners for their projects? Phillips responded that in his role as Executive Director of CSADC, he joined the local builder’s association, chamber of commerce, and networked. He worked to convince lenders and private partners that the corporation’s projects could make money. So far, the corporation has rehabbed 2,600 units across Nevada and now the corporation has two private developers that it works with consistently.

Mixed-Use Development
CSADC is looking to create mixed-use development and he stressed that it is important to design projects that people want to live in, for aesthetic reasons, and not only because they can afford to live there. This type of development does, however, pose challenges to CDCs since often financial institutions will separate the loans according to use, so there is one loan for the residential funding and another for the commercial. Projects completed by CSADC, including one called the Fourth Street Project have proven to be very successful examples of mixed-use development. 

Know Your Territory—Strategies and Technology Tools For
Tracking Vacant Properties and Managing an Active Case Load

Dr. Neal Richman, an Urban Planning and Public Policy professor at UCLA and Associate Director of UCLA’s Advanced Policy Institute, presented the Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles (NKLA) web site (www.nkla.ucla.edu). 

The Neighborhood Knowledge Los Angeles project originated within the applied community-based research program at the UCLA Department of Urban Planning. To help expand and institutionalize the Department’s participatory research, the HUD Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) program awarded UCLA funding in 1995 to undertake a comprehensive community development program in two target communities in the City of Los Angeles. Richman was designated as the lead researcher/technical assistance provider charged with the task of addressing issues of housing disinvestment and abandonment. The NKLA project, which began as a critique of City slum housing practices, later assisted the city in efforts to reform its internal systems. For an in-depth history of how NKLA was formed, please consult http://nkla.sppsr.ucla.edu/Master.cfm?Page=History/Main.cfm.

NKLA, a community information initiative and university-community-government partnership, is dedicated to the cause of preventing housing and neighborhood conditions from deteriorating. The website is developed and maintained by the UCLA Advanced Policy Institute. NKLA is supported through funding from the National Telecommunication Information Administration (NTIA), the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Los Angeles Housing Department, and Microsoft Corporation. NKLA provides tools for accessing property and neighborhood data and works with neighborhood residents, community organizations, and policymakers to mobilize support for community improvement in the Los Angeles area. Nonprofits, city employees, and community members use NKLA’s tools, training, and outreach. The organization has developed a system where housing inspectors use palm pilots to track abandoned buildings then puts that information directly into the NKLA databases. Dr. Richman described NKLA as: 1) an early warning system for code enforcement; 2) a tool for land assembly for communities and local governments; and 3) the foundation for launching a new, national data platform. Richman advocated for the cities to work with their communities to develop tracking and early warning systems. 

Roundtable Discussion—the transferability of NKLA to the Las Vegas region
 
1) Turf: No city agency would share their information with other agencies. The city hired him because he is a neutral person. He’s part of the National Neighborhood Indicator Project. www.urban.org
2) Tax delinquency is the most predicative indicator. The lenders buy the database to target the seniors to get there before. 
3) The key is getting the single local leader to get the data. Productivity increased through technology. 

Day Three—December 5, 2003
Connecting Vacant Properties with 
Infill Development and Community Planning

Infill and Redevelopment Strategies

Beyond the concrete tools that help cities and communities identify vacant properties and abate the public nuisances associated with them, the next stage in the revitalization cycle requires cities to think more broadly within the context of planning, growth management, infill development, and affordable housing. This session provided participants with an opportunity to link the earlier discussions surrounding code enforcement, affordable housing, and the roles of CDCs with the larger questions of infill and redevelopment. It highlighted infill development “best practices” from cities in the west and southwest. Local representatives from the building, development, and real estate industries shared their perspectives and insights about infill development hurdles and opportunities in the Las Vegas region.

Phoenix’s Infill and Housing Incentives Programs

Kate Krietor, City of Phoenix Housing Development Manager, discussed Phoenix’s infill development ordinance and housing incentive program. The city’s Infill Housing Program encourages infill development through a housing program, established by an ordinance in 1995. In order to be classified as an Infill Incentive District, the area must meet three of the following six criteria: Vacant and dilapidated buildings; vacant or underutilized land or contaminated sites; nuisance activities; absence of development activity; high crime rates; and population decline. Among the incentives offered by the city are the waiving of a number of development-related fees; city participation in the cost of off-site improvements; focused blight control efforts adjacent to infill development sites; expedited zoning procedures; and different standards for development. The assistance of a city staff “Infill Development Team” that has the explicit mission of shepherding infill projects through the city planning and development process is also offered to those in the districts. Since the program’s inception, 3,175 new single-family homes have been built in designated areas of the city, many of which end up providing affordable housing. Overall, 6,660 units have been added and 320 units have been demolished with permits for a net gain of 6,340 units. 

Infill Incentive Districts: Arizona passed a law two years ago that allows cities to pass plans for infill incentive districts. Options that the law authorized include various incentives for those areas, such as new zoning procedures, expedited processing, etc. Developers in Phoenix can also pay for expedited plan approval for vacant properties, although it is a very expensive process. The program is run out of the Business Assistance Office, which is part of the City Manager’s Office. The Single-Family Infill Program employs program criteria and quality standards, which specify siting, square footage, driveways, and other requirements for funding. Exceptions are made within low-income areas. The program’s accomplishments since March 1995 include 3,234 permitted units, $4.1 million in fee waivers, and $443 million in total home construction value. 

Phoenix employs a fee-waiver program funded out of the general fund, which in turn is subsidized out of the city’s enterprise fund. The fee waivers up to $2,250 for the first 25 units of a subdivision. In Las Vegas, however, the city does not waive any fees. 

Neighborhood Services Department: The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) is responsible for Infill Housing and Revitalization Areas. The NSD offers assistance for, among other things, request for proposals, land assemblage, demolition, infrastructure, down payment and closing costs, and new housing designs. There are also broader Neighborhood Initiative Areas (NIAs), which use strong infill strategies. In these areas, the city does strategic acquisition. Five NIA neighborhoods at a time receive $80,000 over two years and assistance from the city. On the other hand, 16 redevelopment areas are funded at one time, and for longer periods. 

Eminent Domain and Tax Foreclosure Strategies: Phoenix has become wary of using both of these powers. Redevelopment has become a bad word since the episode on the television news show Sixty Minutes. The City often faces resident-resistance to their use of eminent domain. Some state and local policy makers are now looking at legislative changes to eminent domain laws and redevelopment laws. For the foreseeable future city acquisition is the last resort for blight elimination, unless completely driven by the neighborhood. 

With respect to tax foreclosure, in Arizona the counties are responsible for collecting property taxes. Thus, the city has to entirely depend on the county to foreclose and whether the county has sufficient staff to process and management the foreclosure process. Generally tax foreclosure, especially on single family and small duplexes has not been a priority for the county. Thus, some local governments are now selling their interest in tax liens to private investment companies who buy the tax liens and get a favorable rate of return. They can foreclose after three years, and involve the City in dealing with other liens. These investors are the bottom feeders of the real estate market. 

In Arizona, they issue a notice of interest in acquiring properties and if they cannot, they go to council and request authority to condemn and demolish. It is not an easy process to acquire properties, even in redevelopment areas. Once the City gets ownership of the property, it issues a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a buyer. The City will typically sell a property to a potential developer at a reduced cost. City began selling properties to nonprofits and share plans and designs with nonprofits for free. Due to an issue of police seizure, the process of transferring the land to CDCs is not a good option in Las Vegas. An intermediary would be needed to ensure a smooth transfer of ownership.

South Mountain Village Projects: This project encouraged homeownership of scattered sites in South phoenix Village. Over 200 vacant properties were acquired and made available through innovated development approaches. The City selected two developers to deal with about 100 parcels the City had purchased, with financing out of Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds. One of them is a LISC-supported nonprofit developer, and the other is a national for-profit developer. Krietor suggested that it is a good idea to partner with local developers if possible, since they probably have more autonomy. The project also included a commercial and retail component and a neighborhood resource center. 

Financing and Funding of Infill Development Programs: How do you deal with programmatic cost issues because the Phoenix program is not a typical subdivision and the economies of scale are different than a typical private development model? It is just expensive—no way around it. It took the jump-start of an IDA loan of $2 million to make our infill development funding possible. Weed and seed grants did help. From a project perspective, a piece of vacant land in one of these neighborhoods is worth $20,000, and the city ends up putting in $40,000 in subsidy for each unit. That does not include relocation costs or demolition, asbestos, etc. However, the goal here is for the city to strategically acquire the worst blighted properties so that it will eventually decrease our calls for services (police, fire, code enforcement, litter control) and restore hope to these neighborhoods. We started this work in partnership with one nonprofit, building 35 homes over five years. Now the private developers are returning to the infill housing market. 

San Diego’s Revitalization Plan—Insights for the Las Vegas Valley

Michael Stepner, of the New School of Architecture and former City Architect and Planning Director for the City of San Diego shared his experiences in creating San Diego’s vision for infill development. Roundtable participants specifically requested information about: 1) Infill Development Incentives; 2) Inclusionary zoning ordinances and affordable housing.

San Diego will need 84,000 units of housing in the next four years. The city currently has a 2.5 billion dollar deficit in infrastructure. If you build homes without neighborhoods then you are not achieving smart growth. You need to build schools, transportation, and public space. The design of the buildings and design of infrastructure is critical. 

Background: San Diego County includes 18 cities with 2.8 million people. Most of the people now live in the northern half of the county. Along its southern border lies Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, with a population of approx. 2 million. San Diego County is larger than some of the smaller states. Most development is in the coastal zone.

The county is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean; on the east by the mountains, the desert, and land in public ownership. On the south is our border with Mexico, the world’s busiest border crossing; and, on the north, our armed boarder to protect us from Southern California–Camp Pendleton Marine Base.

The region is projected to grow by one million people by the year 2030–that is a recent revision by SANDAG, our regional planning agency–and we are going to run out of developable raw land in five to ten years, which means we need to look inward. 
Originally, San Diego was supposed to reach that mark by 2020; but, because of a minor change in birth rates and the cost and availability of housing, the number was modified. It isn’t that the people won’t be there. Rather, they will be living in Tijuana or in Riverside County and commuting to locations in San Diego County to work.
As with many other areas in the Sunbelt that are growing, there is a housing crisis. Projections for the county of San Diego indicate that for the period 2003-2013, the need is 113,696 of which 81,421 is the ten-year future need and 32,275 is an existing deficit that stems from past underproduction. $350K median price; 25% people can afford. 2,500/du - five. A task force appointed by the city of San Diego mayor and council has recommended a goal of 84,147 with 44% to go into the city of San Diego. In addition to the housing shortfall, we have in the city of San Diego a $2.5 billion shortfall in infrastructure and maintenance. 

This points out that just building homes is not enough. Michael Willis, FAIA, a San Francisco architect said it this way:
“We can build lots of houses, but the danger is in building houses without a total vision. We need to be guided by the understanding that we are creating neighborhoods and that means transportation, schools, and open spaces–communities–what we are now calling smart growth.”

Like many other western cities, we are characterized by “Dense Sprawl.” (The two things Americans hate most–density and sprawl.) Not low enough to fit the older definitions of suburban and, yet, not dense enough to have the advantages of higher density–walker neighborhoods, reduced traffic, and air pollution, etc. Of course, this is not uniform across the city and many of our “close-in” neighborhoods are experiencing positive infill and redevelopment. It seems that Las Vegas has a similar growth and development tension.

City of Villages Strategic Plan for Revitalization and Infill Development: The city recently adopted a revised framework for its General Plan–the City of Villages Initiative–based on a smart growth approach. The essence of the Strategic Framework Element is the City of Villages strategy, a wide-ranging approach to improving the quality of life for all San Diegans. The strategy addresses the urban development trends of the past and the challenges of the near future while outlining implementation strategies for the continued growth of the city beyond the year 2020. The focus of the strategy is determining where and how new growth and redevelopment occur to ensure the long-term environmental, social, and economic health of the city and its many communities.
The strategy seeks to target growth in village areas. Conceptually, the City of Villages reinforces and enhances the existing patterns of development found in the city’s communities. It draws upon the strengths of San Diego’s natural environment, neighborhoods, commercial hubs, and employment centers and utilizes existing and new village centers for further intensification. The city’s single-family neighborhoods are unaffected as higher-density redevelopment is directed into five distinct land use districts or village types.”

The strategy defines a village as the heart of the community where residential, commercial, employment, and civic uses are integrated. Villages are to be pedestrian-friendly and have inviting public spaces for community events. Villages will offer a variety of housing types and densities and be supported by excellent transit service and public facilities such as schools and parks. No two villages will be alike–each will be unique to the community in which it is located. 

Density and Infill Development: Other jurisdictions in the region (county; other cities; SANDAG, the regional agency; and the regional transit agency) have all advanced similar policies. The region’s strategies are based on infill, reuse/redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels–the smart growth approach. We cannot continue to grow outward. This is perhaps best represented by the continued increase in property values, especially in our older, close-in neighborhoods (200-to-300%). The City of Villages strategy called for increasing densities in targeted areas–“villages.”

In most neighborhoods, the proposal was not received well. The City Council responded by not approving the increased densities, using the rationale that there is unused capacity in most neighborhoods. The communities’ concerns were based on lack of services and facilities (read “traffic”), uncertainty about design quality, and about who might live there. The council’s actions were based in part on SANDAG’s projections–people commuting to Riverside and Mexico (perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy), and the inability to address the financing of public facilities. But, despite this, need and the market are causing infill to happen.

Cities need a wide variety of strategies and tools for infill development, ranging from planning to zoning and also various incentives. San Diego has used many of these tools fairly effectively:
•	Housing Element of the General Plan
•	Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
•	Community Planning Groups, 1960s
•	Units or in-lieu fees
•	Density Bonus

Standard redevelopment powers and incentives can also play a critical role with infill development, such as: 
•	Eminent Domain
•	Redevelopment Bond Issue
•	San Diego’s Affordable Housing Task Force Proposes $1 billion bond issue–infrastructure & housing (not moving)
•	CCDC Housing Authority
•	SEDC Redevelopment Authority

Roundtable Discussion

•	How is this relevant to Las Vegas? San Diego was also a predominantly two-story city, but it is not now. Cities do change.

•	How do you get over NIMBYism? A pent-up demand is key. Also it is critical that workforce housing be made mainstream. The Housing Action Network can play an important role in this task. 

Downtown Development Las Vegas Style

Richard Worthington, president of Paradise Development, a Molasky Group company, shared his experiences as a private developer on the challenges and opportunities of infill development in downtown Las Vegas. The Molasky Group focuses on offices, industrial, and apartment projects, on all levels of scale and affordability. Infill development can benefit from tax abatement and other financial incentives, yet it is a real challenge to find the right combination of resources and partners to carry out projects of this type. 

Worthington has completed redevelopment projects along Maryland Parkway, including a $17 million commercial development completed in 1998 and an Albertson’s supermarket at the intersection of Maryland Parkway and Sahara Avenue and the Park Place Shopping Center. Brownfield sites are also coming into play in development projects in the Las Vegas region. Worthington is currently developing a new IRS headquarters on a Union Pacific Railroad site in Henderson.

Worthington believes that the City of Las Vegas can improve its attitude towards infill development and start offering better incentives, such as shorter waiting periods for approvals for infill projects. Improvements such as these will increase participation in redevelopment of the region. The use of tax incremental financing (TIF) and tax credits are also useful and powerful tools, which local governments can employ to offer developers incentives. The threat of condemnation by the city has been helpful too. 

Roundtable Discussion

•	Time-share market: The time-share market is transitory. One needs to be careful with execution since unless it is really high-end, people are not looking for suburban-type development. 

•	Funding: What is the minimum rate of return? Worthington answered that if it is all his own risk, then it must be 25%. If the project is a fee deal then 11%. If the building is for someone else then 11% plus 25%. 

What about projects outside of redevelopment areas? What is the reasonable trade-off? On one deal, Worthington bought the land and did not have to pay interest for five years. The city can also subordinate its position. Henderson, for example, is trading properties around the city to make the projects happen. He actually doesn’t think waiving fees is a good idea. And of course, zoning densities can be a huge inducement. 

•	Density: Can projects jump to 3-4 stories from 1-2 stories? Until there are growth restrictions that increased density will never happen. Unless is there perception of security, nothing will go there – that is the key. Personal safety is paramount. That safety, which is often associated with the suburbs, can happen through both small and large steps. Redevelopment plans need to be clear. 

•	Demographics and Age: What role do demographics and aging play with downtown living? Security is paramount. If you handle that, then people will do it. Seniors will do it if you can work that out. High-rises can assist.

Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition’s Infill Development Plan

Jon Wardlaw, a Clark County planner, gave a brief overview of the goals and actions of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition’s 2003 Infill Development Plan. 

Southern Nevada continues to be one of the nation’s fastest growing regions. Local government entities across the region, namely Clark County, the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, and the Clark County School District, entered into an inter-local coalition in order to address the quality of life challenges associated with growth. Thus, the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) was formed to improve the education, health care, the natural environment, public safety, recreation and culture, and transportation of the region. The built environment and the association between urban vacant properties and urban-fringe growth has also been addressed by the Coalition. The market’s tendency to favor suburban development rather than urban living has resulted in vacant land and deteriorating infrastructure in many older neighborhoods. 

In 2003, SNRPC published the Infill Development Plan to analyze the structure and dynamics of the region’s growth and to promote infill development in the future. The plan discusses both barriers and solutions to infill development. The Plan specifically highlights design strategies that will promote the successful inclusion of infill into existing neighborhoods.

Table Top Action Planning--Pulling the Pieces Together

The roundtable’s final session helped the local government officials and practitioners translate the insights from the previous sessions into concrete actions for their programs. Each city brainstormed and produced a list of preliminary steps (short-term actions) along with ideas for long-term actions that may demand more effort and resources, such as adopting a new ordinance in order to be implemented. All city representatives grouped together and brainstormed to synthesize the information and tools they had just learned about. Answering a series of strategic planning questions, the group identified the major policy challenges and implementation barriers. The participants also created an action plan for vacant property reclamation that included both short-term steps along with ideas for longer-term strategies that demand more effort/resources (such as adopting a new ordinance or drafting proposed state legislation). Here are the top four action steps the group identified:

•	Enact a receivership law in the state of Nevada
•	Enhance code enforcement programs in each city and integrating code enforcement strategies with other revitalization/redevelopment efforts
•	Create an NKLA-style database that could inventory and track vacant properties in the Las Vegas Valley as well as provide an early warning system that can identify troubled neighborhoods and properties.
•	Provide for better intergovernmental coordination and communication, especially with coordinated code enforcement/law enforcement task forces and teams

For more information on the goals and challenges realized as a result of the Vacant Properties Roundtable, please see the attached Action Plan.