If this is the case then my jets have officially been cooled but they wont be retired until I　see a plan.

It is sad the the city is giving the building to the people that destroyed it.

 

Please expound.  Without explanation, your statement his highly offensive.

It is sad the the city is giving the building to the people that destroyed it.

 

Please expound. Without explanation, your statement his highly offensive.

 

On one end there is the affordable senior housing idea (which is great, considering proximity to hospitals).  On the other end is consolidated government housing (basically "the projects").  The latter almost always leads to detrimental effects for the surrounding neighborhood.  Affordable housing is the way to go here.. but not government subsidized, aside from potential tax breaks for the developer.

It is sad the the city is giving the building to the people that destroyed it.

 

Please expound. Without explanation, your statement his highly offensive.

 

I don't see how it is offensive. You gave people housing projects in the 1940s and 1950s, which were relatively successful in many cities for at least two decades. I know of several cities that still have these projects that are clean, safe and successful. But there were a few bad apples -- notably Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Camden. It was the people that destroyed it -- unsavory drug dealers, prostitutes...

On one end there is the affordable senior housing idea (which is great, considering proximity to hospitals).  On the other end is consolidated government housing (basically "the projects").  The latter almost always leads to detrimental effects for the surrounding neighborhood.  Affordable housing is the way to go here.. but not government subsidized, aside from potential tax breaks for the developer.

 

All affordable housing is subsidized by the government in some way.  It's reflective of a severe market failure at being able to provide adequate supply for a demand that exists.

 

I don't see how it is offensive. You gave people housing projects in the 1940s and 1950s, which were relatively successful in many cities for at least two decades. I know of several cities that still have these projects that are clean, safe and successful. But there were a few bad apples -- notably Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Camden. It was the people that destroyed it -- unsavory drug dealers, prostitutes...

 

There might be a handful of housing projects world-wide that can be considered a success, and I'm not sure I would put any American housing project in that category.  With that said, the failures of housing projects is more reflective of the poor physical and social design than it was the people living there. The planners and architects basically designed them to fail without knowing of course.  They were designed in a way that encouraged family separation, street networks, and a detachment between residents and their housing.

One other thing...why is affordable housing for old people acceptable, but affordable housing for anyone else is viewed as detrimental to a neighborhood?  People of all backgrounds and ages run into financial problems, we should be developing affordable living options for those people and not just seniors.  The trick is that it should be done right, and it needs to be funded heavily by the government as private market forces will not invest the necessary money to make the developments successful, if they produce them at all.

Affordable housing for the elderly is operating on a different model. The elderly are no longer earning income besides Social Security and pensions, whereas public supported housing for the rest is made problematic by the fact they could work and don't have all the safety and accessibility issues. Fundamentally, elderly housing doesn't undermine the neighborhood because they don't have peak age criminals living with them (15-25).

^ To add to that response, I think the biggest issue is that affordable housing for the elderly doesn't lead to an increase in crime.  Using other large scale affordable housing projects in Cincinnati as examples, they do lead to an increase in crime.  English Woods and Fay Apartments come to mind as examples.

 

Continuing with those examples, you never really see a building the size of Vernon Manor utilized as public housing (outside of New York, at least).  It reminds me of the iconic image of failure that Pruitt Igoe was.

It should be kept in mind that housing in and of itself doesn't create additional crime or anything that humans may do.  Lower income neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates, but those social reactions are much more complicated than being able to simply point to a proliferation of affordable housing.

 

I guess in the end it boils down to the fact that everyone needs housing of some sort.  You can debate how it is implemented, but the fact remains that it must exist or you accept homelessness as an acceptable alternative.  From there you then must decide whether you believe all of that affordable housing should be concentrated into a few select areas like was done in the urban renewal era, or whether you believe that dispersing affordable housing equally throughout a region based on job demand.

 

It has been pointed out that people don't like the concentrated approach, and many of these people also do not like the dispersed approach.  So what's the solution at that point?  Not only is it not feasible to not provide an option, it is illegal.

Yes, everyone should housing.  However, should a building of such prominance and architectural merit be turned into section 8 housing? Absolutely not. This, imo, essentially is cementing this portion of uptown as a ghetto for years to come.

It should be kept in mind that housing in and of itself doesn't create additional crime or anything that humans may do.  Lower income neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates, but those social reactions are much more complicated than being able to simply point to a proliferation of affordable housing.

 

I guess in the end it boils down to the fact that everyone needs housing of some sort.  You can debate how it is implemented, but the fact remains that it must exist or you accept homelessness as an acceptable alternative.  From there you then must decide whether you believe all of that affordable housing should be concentrated into a few select areas like was done in the urban renewal era, or whether you believe that dispersing affordable housing equally throughout a region based on job demand.

 

It has been pointed out that people don't like the concentrated approach, and many of these people also do not like the dispersed approach.  So what's the solution at that point?  Not only is it not feasible to not provide an option, it is illegal.

 

Spot on, fellow planner.

There aren't easy policy solutions to this problem.  Badly mismanaged properties across this nation and very few cases of additional policy measures coupled with the housing programs have caused this cynicism.  You say Section 8 and you instantly get a reaction, it's gutteral.

 

Simply put, housing is only one of a litany of issues tied to financial distress.

It should be kept in mind that housing in and of itself doesn't create additional crime or anything that humans may do.  Lower income neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates, but those social reactions are much more complicated than being able to simply point to a proliferation of affordable housing.

 

I guess in the end it boils down to the fact that everyone needs housing of some sort.  You can debate how it is implemented, but the fact remains that it must exist or you accept homelessness as an acceptable alternative.  From there you then must decide whether you believe all of that affordable housing should be concentrated into a few select areas like was done in the urban renewal era, or whether you believe that dispersing affordable housing equally throughout a region based on job demand.

 

It has been pointed out that people don't like the concentrated approach, and many of these people also do not like the dispersed approach.  So what's the solution at that point?  Not only is it not feasible to not provide an option, it is illegal.

 

It's my personal opinion that the entire system needs to be reconsidered.. but putting that aside I feel that government provided housing should be provided in 1,2, 3 or 4 family units at most.  The units should be located where affordable housing is actually affordable, not where real estate values are extremely high.  The one building approach seems to historically fail more often than it succeeds, and locating public housing in high income neighborhoods artificially has too many detrimental effects on society.  I'm also not opposed to a concept like Fay Gardens in Cincinnati as an alternative.  Dispersal of public housing comes with a huge NIMBY effect, so consolidating it may have to work at times.  I think proper design and planning can encourage or discourage crime, community interaction, etc. Vernon Manor doesn't have that  design, and was never intended for that type of usage.

Well, you're surely not going to fill the Vernor Manor hotel with condos.  The place needs work as it is, so I understand.  The market is saturated, and the rooms are small.  Section 8 would be good to fill it for now.  Perhaps in 15 years, after we have swaths of rail options, our population balloons by 100K, we can then think about using our old hotels for their originally intended purposes.  Not likely though.

Is anyone reading the posts on Page 2?  Nowhere in any article I have seen has mentioned Section 8, only affordable senior housing (Section 42, 9% Tax Credit housing to be precise).

I just hope the Vernon Manor doesn't follow the path that the old hotel (Alms maybe?) in East Walnut Hills took.

^Is it really that badly off?  It doesn't seem like it.

This is the Alms Hotel, now senior living. It's a crime-ridden development, and you will certainly not see just seniors living inside.

I want evidence that it's crime ridden.  This thread is now littered with assumptions.

You live in Wisconsin. I live only minutes away, and bike by this on a near-daily basis. Seeing drug dealers and prostitutes hang out on the corner is an obvious sign that this area has not been cleaned up. Just doing a CrimeReports search results in many violations of theft, drugs, burglary, domestic violence and assault within a one block radius of that building (it is not detailed enough to do a pinpoint of the property).

 

Just because I am not a planner by trade does not equate my comments to be less than inferior. As stated before, there is a correlation between public housing/section 8 and crime. You cannot dispute that.

Just because I am not a planner by trade does not equate my comments to be less than inferior. As stated before, there is a correlation between public housing/section 8 and crime. You cannot dispute that.

 

It's just that many of your arguments are anecdotal in nature in regards to this topic.  Read into it further and you'll notice that the correlation between public housing/section 8 and crime that you mention is much more complicated that a simple correlation like that.  Crime is a tricky, social problem.  Good urban design and housing policies can help address some of those issues, but in no way shape or form are they a cure-all, or blame-all.

I suppose that would extend to City West, which has helped reduce crime on all but along Linn Street. While it looks nice, I believe that it will become nothing more than a facade unless they can seriously enforce the laws already on the books and drive out the thugs and crime loiters. They just had a shooting only a block away from City West a few days ago, and it's almost comical to view CrimeReports for "Lynn and Ezzard Charles" because it pulls up so many results for the past 30 days.

 

You're right, it is more complicated, and what I provide is a general observation based upon CrimeReports -- that the city of Cincinnati feeds into. But there is a correlation and that correlation is why many middle- and high-income individuals protest the very thought of Section 8 or public housing in their neighborhood. Did City West and other associated projects help drive down crime in the West End? Yes. But it only pushed out the thugs to other parts of the city -- Price Hill, Lincoln Heights and Avondale, and further out in the suburbs.

 

I just don't think that locating subsidized housing for low-income seniors is ideal in a neighborhood that is on the fringe of losing its middle-income majority.

I just don't think that locating subsidized housing for low-income seniors is ideal in a neighborhood that is on the fringe of losing its middle-income majority.

 

That's fair, lets just try to avoid the sweeping generalizations about affordable housing and the various programs out there to provide affordable housing.  When we do that we become no different than the NIMBYs out there yearning for speed humps and protesting school ballfields.

You live in Wisconsin. I live only minutes away, and bike by this on a near-daily basis. Seeing drug dealers and prostitutes hang out on the corner is an obvious sign that this area has not been cleaned up. Just doing a CrimeReports search results in many violations of theft, drugs, burglary, domestic violence and assault within a one block radius of that building (it is not detailed enough to do a pinpoint of the property).

 

Just because I am not a planner by trade does not equate my comments to be less than inferior. As stated before, there is a correlation between public housing/section 8 and crime. You cannot dispute that.

 

I live in Wisconsin?  Huh?  I live at the corner of Clifton and Ludlow in Cincinnati.

 

I wasn't mentioning a planner track to prove a stronger point.  He's from the same school.  Nothing more.

 

The correlation between Section 8 (generally) and crime cannot be ignored, yes.  But in order to build more integrated communities, we need to recognize our own cop-outs (concentrated vs. deconcentrated low-income quarters, for instance) and stop treating poverty like a scare on our *perfect* cities.  Again, the generalizations about Section 8 and the urban poor doesn't help to solve a single thing--it just exacerbates the issue and provides no solutions. 

I will also mention that even a couple friends of mine must rely on Section 8 vouchers because of their disabilities.  One lived in a group home at Ahrens and MLK.  Know what happened to that entire block?  Well, perhaps you'll stay in a room at the future Courtyard Inn above his former home.  The closest and most accommodating location he could find was in Westwood.  Not exactly ideal when his social and job services are located two bus transfers away, and his school is in Clifton.

 

How is this related?  Section 8 voucher holders are inexplicably misunderstood, seen as a scar on a neighborhood rather than a fellow resident with fair opportunity.  Meanwhile, those who do commit crimes aren't necessary Section 8 recipients.  Many can be homeless members of society, gang members, etc.  I understand *why* there is a correlation between the Section 8 and crime, and I'm stating that is a broad misconception that leads to many inadequate problem solving techniques.

^Is it really that badly off? It doesn't seem like it.

 

That building always has so many people loitering around, and I have seen open drug deals in the middle of the day when walking by.  The building itself is gorgeous, and with it's prime location within walking distance to Eden Park, it should not be in the state that it is.  Law abiding citizens should not be afraid to walk from the coffee shop in EWH to Eden Park for fear of getting mugged in front of the building (as my friend was about 3 years ago).

 

I think the point that Sherman and I are making is that if the part of town that the Vernon Manor was in was more stable, it might be easier to see the hotel going low income housing in a more positive light.  However, this area is already pretty volatile, and is just possibly starting to turn around with the developments of Stetson Sq and the new Hampton Inn.  I think that converting the Vernon Manor (which is a very large building, btw) is just going to make this part of Uptown similar to what exists across 71 in Walnut Hills.  Why even try to redevelop this part of Uptown if we're letting our most prized buildings be used for this type of housing?

Sorry for the crass, Blue Line, I should be more watchful of what I state.

 

The correlation between Section 8 (generally) and crime cannot be ignored, yes.  But in order to build more integrated communities, we need to recognize our own cop-outs (concentrated vs. deconcentrated low-income quarters, for instance) and stop treating poverty like a scare on our *perfect* cities.  Again, the generalizations about Section 8 and the urban poor doesn't help to solve a single thing--it just exacerbates the issue and provides no solutions.

 

True, and I do like how City West integrated market-rate and subsidized units into its development, which provides an ideal integration rate so that crime is no more higher than in other locales. Unfortunately, none of the areas to the north or west have gentrified or redeveloped in the modest of sense, so there is still a lingering criminal element only across the street in some cases, and only a short walk away for most of the development. Until the West End can be really remedied with a wholesale clean out of its undesireable elements, then City West can never be truly successful.

 

I talked to a realtor for the City West. They had some strong initial sells for the residential units, both market rate and subsidized, but the market rate units have all but stopped in part due to the recession and because of the elevated crime rate of the West End that hasn't gone down. There are unfortunately near-daily shootings or melees only a few blocks away. It is also one reason why the commercial developments have never developed -- they just got the first tenant, a Cricket store, only two months ago after years of being vacant.

 

Does anyone mind if I move this to the Cinci public housing/subsidized housing thread? I think it fits better with that since we've gone into a different realm here.

^You keep drawing the same connection that the simple location of affordable housing somewhere is what creates the crime.  In fact many social case studies of the project housing developments found that it wasn't the people themselves who were naturally inclined to be criminal, but rather it was the design of their surroundings and the things happening in their lives.

 

This is not to say that people who commit crimes shouldn't take responsibility, but rather I'm trying to illustrate once again the complexities involved.  You can not simply take one low-income individual committing a crime who happened to live in an affordable housing unit is representative of all people living in affordable housing units.  Sure the rates tend to be higher surrounding affordable housing, but we should start asking why this is the case instead of taking the NIMBY approach.

 

While City West accomplished many good things it has also reduced the overall numbers of affordable housing units not only there, but in the entire city.  I'm glad the concentrated housing blocks were removed, but I would like to see a good cross-section of affordable housing options all across the region.  The demand for affordable housing is created by the aggregate of the entire region, as a result, so should its solution.

Do you agree with the installation of Section 8 and public housing in Hyde Park and Oakley to provide a true cross-section of public housing across the region? It already happens in West Chester, Evendale, Fairfield, Reading...

I believe I've made my position perfectly clear.  Neighborhoods should provide X number of affordable housing units based on their populations.  Should those neighborhoods wish to opt out of providing those affordable housing options then they can buy their way out thus providing a funding boost to neighborhoods taking on more than their fair share.

 

This of course would require some sort of regional cooperation and oversight which will probably never happen in Cincinnati given its three-state metropolitan area that is arguably one of the most fragmented in the country.

I guess I am classist or whatever, but I think that there is no need to ruin perfectly good neighborhoods with public housing.  I get the concept of spreading it out, and I think that if maybe you put a few units in different buildings around a neighborhood, then maybe that could work.  But I just think that a concentration of affordable housing the size of the Vernon Manor is not good for ANY neighborhood.  Not OTR, not Avondale, not Hyde Park, etc.

They already opt out by paying a significant higher property tax rate.  Moving in public housing will reduce the value of those properties, lowering the tax base.  People still have the right to live where they want, around who they want.  If people can afford the neighborhood, they have the right to live there.  If someone wants to rent out their property at the going rates, they have that right.

  I don't agree that every neighborhood should have to "set aside" anything for those who are "less fortunate".  People who can afford it have every right to live in areas that they choose to, and that may include areas with NO section 8 or "affordable housing".  They should not have to "buy" themselves out of it, as they already have by presumably paying more to live in said neighborhood.  By giving this forced availablility of affordable housing to some, you take away the choice of others to not be located by this type of housing. 

 

And yes, I do live in "the hood", by choice, so no flaming.

But I just think that a concentration of affordable housing the size of the Vernon Manor is not good for ANY neighborhood.  Not OTR, not Avondale, not Hyde Park, etc.

 

I agree...I've been speaking more in generalities than specifically about this case.

 

I don't agree that every neighborhood should have to "set aside" anything for those who are "less fortunate".  People who can afford it have every right to live in areas that they choose to, and that may include areas with NO section 8 or "affordable housing".  They should not have to "buy" themselves out of it, as they already have by presumably paying more to live in said neighborhood.  By giving this forced availablility of affordable housing to some, you take away the choice of others to not be located by this type of housing.

 

Here's another issue involved that creates problems.  There are a ton of jobs out in West Chester and Mason through their robust service-sector economies.  The people who fill these jobs may live there, but as we've seen with the Metro bus service to Kings Island,  many do not.  Consequently the problem arises when we place affordable housing in only low land value areas that these dwelling units do not match the spatial distribution of the jobs many of these people fill.

 

What's the problem?  Well you place higher transportation costs on that low-income family.  Maybe they have to buy a car, take inordinate amounts of time to commute via transfers, or work at odd times.  This creates a host of other problems often criticized by conservatives regarding public housing.  You're forcing these individuals to spend less time with their families, spend more than what they should on transportation and so on.  This creates the dilemma for someone of whether they actually want to work and take on those additional burdens for a nominal gain.

 

Do we want a moral society, do we want to emphasize the family unit, do we want a more environmentally friendly community, do we want a more social and diverse community?  These are all questions we have to ask ourselves individually.  It's not an answer to do nothing, so lets figure out a positive solution to this complex problem.

I believe I've made my position perfectly clear.  Neighborhoods should provide X number of affordable housing units based on their populations.  Should those neighborhoods wish to opt out of providing those affordable housing options then they can buy their way out thus providing a funding boost to neighborhoods taking on more than their fair share.

 

This of course would require some sort of regional cooperation and oversight which will probably never happen in Cincinnati given its three-state metropolitan area that is arguably one of the most fragmented in the country.

 

Unnaturally forcing the integration of classes isn't going to solve any of the problems associated with affordable housing.  No one is entitled to live in Hyde Park.  you live where you can afford to do so, and if you can't afford to live anywhere.. you'll live where the government can supply basic, simple housing at the most affordable price to the taxpayers.  I don't think West Chester residents should have to buy there way out of subsidized housing, that just makes it too much of a political tool.

^But the lack of affordable housing in West Chester isn't a response of the free market, but rather, exclusionary zoning regulations that mandate houses out of the price range of affordability.  Talk about rental units in many of these same communities and you'll be chased out of the room with torches.  I've said it several times already.  In no way shape or form is the housing market a success of the free market.  The free market has totally failed and the current housing market is completely manipulated by political interests.

 

You may believe that people should have to buy their way into their community and that's fair.  What I see is a spatial mismatch in our metropolitan regions which is specifically created by the manipulated housing market.  We have failed, and that's natural.  It's time to move on and realize where we can improve the housing market as possible.  It just doesn't make sense having the lowest income residents in our community paying a higher percentage of their income for transportation, food and health costs.  If we can figure out a way to correct these mismatches, then we can reduce the size of government and reduce the burdens we place on taxpayers.

DanB let me ask you this.  In a free market society is it possible for everyone to achieve the "American Dream?"  The reason I ask is because people like yourself like to put down members of the working class and other low-income brackets and say that it is their own doing.  In reality we have a class system and rely on these lower classes to make our society work.  So what should be done with these people?  Should we let them rot?  Is that your solution?

Yes, it is possible for everyone to achieve the American Dream.  Working class people have been doing it for 100's of years.  The immigrants did it by living together in close enclaves, all those wonderful "neighborhoods" that people like yourself like to frequent and drink the beer of Oktoberfest or eat the Italian food in Little Italy.,  My family comes from working class people.  I would never put them down.  I guess the operative word is working.

There are medium density rental units in West Chester, Mason, Fields Ertal, etc. All of the places with low paying service jobs often have these units nearby.  Maybe I'm just not seeing the huge failure in the market here.  I grew up in Loveland (where the only jobs are low paying service jobs) and there were quite a few rentals and Section 8 as well.

It's not the government's role to provide housing in desirable locales. If there is demand for Section 8 or other public housing in some neighborhoods, then the free market will be there to provide units that are affordable given that there is demand and the land values are cheap enough. Transportation costs are not factored in; it is not the role of the government to provide subsidized or free transportation. Individuals are free-minded; they can make rational decisions on where to live based upon their own set criteria -- how close it is to my employer, are the schools safe, and so forth.

 

There are plenty of jobs in West Chester that Section 8 vouchers can grab, just like there are plenty of jobs elsewhere.

^If that's the case then why haven't affordable housing units been moving en masse from the center city to the exurbs where distribution and manufacturing jobs have moved?

 

The current pattern for location affordable housing is generally based on land values, but also the option of locating such housing in an area.  In many suburban locales they regulate against rental properties to avoid any Section 8 or "undesirables."

 

Yes you can find Section 8 sprinkled throughout, but it's not reflective of a comprehensive free market reaction.  It's set up now in a way to create "winners" and "losers."  The winners then set up regulations to prevent things from changing.  This regulation (minimum lot sizes, heated floor areas, etc) is contrary to free market forces.

 

Affordable housing doesn't happen without government subsidies, so inherently there is no true free market affordable housing condition because it doesn't exist - a failure of the free market.  You could go on and say that the free market failures have also worked in the opposite direction based upon the recent crash of the housing market based around gimmick loans.

Perhaps racism on the part of the owners of those apartment complexes.

So you are of the belief that the government must provide subsidies or people can't move out of these areas?  Giving away housing doesn't help any more than other handouts.  What is wrong with working hard at 2 or 3 jobs, saving your money, and moving up?  Again, it has been done for many years by countless generations of Americans wanting the American Dream.  My family did it more than 100 years ago, and each subsequent generation has done better than the previous one.  No one did it with handouts.  My father worked 70-80 hours a week for as long as I can remember and never acted like there was any other way.

Perhaps racism on the part of the owners of those apartment complexes.

 

I really dislike it when people cry of racism at every turn. Obama's critics must be racists, say Jimmy Carter. George Bush doesn't like black people!

 

Really. The more obvious answer is that developers are in there to make the most profit out of an available parcel of land.

 

Randy, affordable housing does exist in the exurbs. In the West Chester case, Section 8 exists only one mile from IKEA. It's one complex, not an entire neighborhood, which answers your question of spreading the projects around. There are other Section 8 properties in West Chester, although they are not readily identifiable.

It isn't always racism. But in this case, I'm put a lot of money down that if the fair housing folks did one of their stings that a lot of these apartments would get caught with their pants down. Sadly, there remains reasons why Cincinnati is one of the most segregated regions in America.

Al Neyer Inc. wants to redevelop Cincinnati's historic Vernon Manor hotel

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

Bruce Crippen | Courier

The Vernon Manor in Avondale could be occupied by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

 

The Vernon Manor hotel will be redeveloped as an office building for Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, under a $35 million proposal from Al Neyer Inc.

 

The project would also create a new investment vehicle for black entrepreneurs, who are raising $2.7 million in a private offering to claim majority ownership of the property following its renovation.

 

 

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/10/12/story2.html?b=1255320000^2231891

More positive than the last proposal. But I question this:

 

"The project would also create a new investment vehicle for black entrepreneurs..."

 

Why can't this be an investment for all entrepreneurs? Why must a special interest group try to vie in majority ownership so they can selectively choose who they want in the property?

Great news - respect for the pas and inclusion of a black entrepreneurial base is good news for the city and the community.  This area is definitely cementing it's place as a strong medical/medical office area.  Investment grade products with minority involvement has historically been weak in the city - I like Laura's take on this and commitment to greater inclusion.  While senior housing would also be good, adding office to this area creates something much more significant for that area - a dramatic sign of progress.

BTW the parking lot that replaced the mansions is actually a pretty good-looking parking lot with decent fencing. It is monitored by the security guards in the Children's Hospital Poison Center right across the street who obviously help keep an eye on the Vernon Manor. I wouldn't doubt that a garage eventually takes its place.

 

This is all making the argument for light rail or streetcar on Reading stronger.   

More positive than the last proposal. But I question this:

 

"The project would also create a new investment vehicle for black entrepreneurs..."

 

Why can't this be an investment for all entrepreneurs? Why must a special interest group try to vie in majority ownership so they can selectively choose who they want in the property?

 

Might be because Laura Brunner, executive vice president of business development for Neyer, said that "the recruitment of black investors for investment-grade real estate projects has been a personal goal of hers for several years."

 

Or maybe it's because one of the financing elements for the deal is based around the equity contribution from a group of black investors looking to empower their minority group.

 

Or it could also be that this area is in an Empowerment Zone which could then open it up to additional funding should the project employ people from the predominately black neighborhood in which it lies.