The City of Syracuse is located in the center of New York State at the intersection of two major interstate highways. It is also located within hours of major East Coast metropolitan centers as well as Canada. The result is a community that is diverse in it's economy as well as its population. The area also serves as a gateway to the Fingerlakes region as well as the Adirondack Mountains and is home to Syracuse University and other institutions of higher learning.
The City of Syracuse Consolidated Plan shows the beginning of a process that will result in a strategic plan for the City. The One Year Action Plan calls for spending approximately $12.4 million for Community Development Block Grant, $283,000 for Emergency Shelter Grant and approximately $1.7 million for HOME funds. These funds will be used for supporting efforts to create safe, affordable housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity.
Citizen participation is an ongoing and integral element of the local Community Development process. The involvement of Syracuse residents in the planning, implementation and monitoring of Community Development projects and activities is essential to the development of comprehensive programs which shall be responsive to the needs of the City and its citizen. Starting in 1995 Community Development will be engaging in the development of neighborhood plans including the redrawing of neighborhood boundaries. These efforts will encompass all segments of the community to achieve the broadest support possible.
The Community Development Advisory Committee, the primary vehicle for ongoing citizen participation, is a 21 member group which advises the Department, the Common Council and the Mayor on the Community Development Plan and Program.
Informal informational meetings are held with various neighborhood organizations on an ongoing (year-round) basis. Scheduled meetings are also held with the board of directors of Community Based Organizations and some of their constituents. The purpose is to talk with informed committed residents who sit on those boards and have both knowledge of the neighborhood and knowledge of the activities of the agency. This approach has allowed Community Development to engage in more technical discussions than would otherwise be possible in a large forum. A number of interviews are held with members of the community regarding historic preservation. The interviews include professionals in the field as well as community activists.
City-wide or special interest groups are encouraged to submit proposals and recommendations concerning program modifications or new activists. The Department encourages and supports the formation of neighborhood organizations. Upon request, the Department provides administrative services such as printing, distribution of information, and liaison services.
The planning process is scheduled to become a year round process starting at the beginning of the funding cycle in May. The process will continue the City's commitment to the revitalization of housing, building livable neighborhoods and creation of job opportunities through economic development activities.
On a year round basis the CDAC and its sub-committees will continue to review programs and projects within their areas of responsibility. In addition, they will consider and make recommendations for the modification of current activities and the development of new programs.
During the year, CD staff are available to meet with neighborhood groups and organizations to receive their input on current neighborhood issues related to Community Development and neighborhood improvement.
During the fall a city-wide meeting will be held at City Hall in order to provide an additional forum for residents' input. The focus of this meeting is to discuss with City residents the role of Community Development in their neighborhood, the range of eligible activities and the funding available. Special interest groups and neighborhood residents are encouraged to attend and present their views. A performance review of the prior year will also be presented at that time and copies of the Grantee Performance Report shall be made available. During late January, Community Development staff will develop a draft Consolidated Plan based on information received from above sources. The proposed plan will be distributed to the CDAC, Common Council, Department Heads, Mayor and also made available to the general public.
Two City-wide Public Hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers. Specific dates and locations are arranged in conjunction with neighborhood organizations. The meetings are advertised by posters, flyers, direct mailings and advertisements in local papers. Meetings are held in buildings accessible to persons with disabilities. The Central Office is available to assist in making special arrangements for transportation to the hearings for the disabled persons and other accommodations upon request.
During the months of December and January, the CDAC and its Committees formally review the Proposed Action Plan and comments and recommendations are submitted at the hearings. CDAC and staff recommendations are presented to the Common Council Housing sub-committee for review and as an effort to inform the Councilors of the contents of the plan so they shall be able to field questions when the public is informed of the plan.
In March, the Common Council holds it's own public hearing and formally votes to approve the submission of the Consolidated Plan. Following Council action, the plan is forwarded to the Mayor for his signature. The City then submits the Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This submission occurs at least 45 days prior to the start of the CDAC program year of May 1.
Upon submission, the final plan shall be published and copies of the submission shall be available for public review. A written explanation will be issued by the Department to all those who submitted written proposals to the Department during the planning process within twenty (20) working days of submission of the Plan. Any changes made to the program while under HUD review will be discussed with the Community Development Advisory Committee.
During the spring Community Development staff along with the CDAC will
engage in strategic planning in order to review and set priorities as well as
measure citizen concerns on issues. The process will use a wide array of
methods including small and large neighborhood meetings, focus groups, surveys
and planning conferences with City departments and agencies.
Syracuse's housing stock is relatively old and largely consisting of wood frame construction. Of the 71,502 total units in the city 53% were constructed prior to 1939. At the present time 22,102 of the units are considered substandard (32%). The situation becomes more grave when we look at low income neighborhoods within the city where almost 50% of the housing units have been deemed substandard. Within these low income areas only 21% of the units are owner-occupied. More than 550 properties have been determined to be vacant and abandoned.
At the same time that the housing stock is in generally poor condition it remains unaffordable to most very low income people as 72% of both owners and renters in this income group pay in excess of 30% of their income for housing expenses. It is particularly interesting to note that small families have the greatest housing cost burden of any other group. This population which includes single-parent households represents a most vulnerable segment of the community.
The U.S. Department of Labor anticipates a growth rate of less than 1% in the Central new York economy. Over the past year, job growth was less than 1/10 of 1% in Central New York as compared to 1.1% Statewide and 2.2% Nationwide.
Overall 37% of the children under the age of 5 live in poverty in Syracuse.
(18th highest in the country). In certain low-income neighborhoods, this figure
escalates to 54%. With regard to our elderly population, it is anticipated that
this category will grow by 17% by the Year 2010. Of approximately 50,000
elderly living in Onondaga County 18% are in need of supportive services.
The City of Syracuse is experiencing a decline in population as well as a decline in the condition of housing. Housing costs have increased while the number of vacant structures is on the rise. Trends in the economy point to a zero growth economic future. Large industry is on the decline while small local business has seen an increase. Overall, neighborhood conditions have declined while crime and juvenile delinquency continue to be the number one problem of residents.
Syracuse's housing stock is relatively old, wood frame structures. Of the City's 1990 census total of 71,502 year-round housing units, 53.3% (38,121 units) were constructed prior to 1939. In contrast, only 31.1% of all Onondaga County housing units were constructed prior to 1939. Ninety-six (96.3%) percent of Syracuse's housing units, or 68,856, were constructed prior to 1980. According to data provided by HUD, there are 64,371 housing units in the City of Syracuse constructed prior to 1979.
There is an increasing need for larger rental units priced so as to be affordable to low and moderate income families. There is also a demand well on excess of supply
Census data document an increase in the cost of rental housing. According to the 1980 census, the median contract rent in the City was $168 per month. This figure rose to $347 in the 1990 census, an increase of 106.6%, from $2,016 per year to $4,164 per year. The cost of owner-occupied housing has also increased significantly. According to the 1980 census, the median value of owner-occupied housing units was $31,000. The median value of housing increased 118.1%, to $67,600 in according to the 1990 census. In 1992, the Greater Syracuse Association of Realtors reported that the average purchase price of a home in the City of Syracuse ranged from $54,000 to $85,900. The increase in the cost of purchasing a home has put home ownership out of the reach of many very low, low, and moderate income families.
Housing availability is also a significant issue. Generally, there is a greater availability of smaller, rental units. Currently, there are 2,670 units of public housing available in the City of Syracuse. Specific unit sizes available are included on the following chart. The SHA reports that families generally wait longer for larger units, particularly five bedroom units.
The two areas that have the greatest impact on housing affordability are cost of rental housing and purchase price of single family homes. As noted above there was over 100% increase in cost of rental housing during the period from 1980 to 1990 and as the property tax burden continues to rise on individual properties the cost of rent is projected to rise.
On the other hand some areas of the City are experiencing a recent weakness in the demand for rental housing. This coupled with an increase in operating cots such as taxes and insurance is resulting in the increasing neglect of properties as landlords attempt to maintain profit margins and reduce operating costs.
Home ownership opportunities for low income families has been severely restricted by the dramatic rise in housing costs and pricing during the 1980's. Even with minimum down payment requirements from FHA and other programs, the significant increase in cash requirements as well as monthly mortgage costs has all but shut out low income home buyers.
In 1990, the Census Bureau counted 405 homeless persons living in emergency shelters in the City of Syracuse, and 52 persons were visible in street locations. The 1980 census did not account for persons living in emergency shelters separately from others in group quarters, however. Group quarter data for 1980 and 1990, 8,083 and 8,666 persons respectively, also include students residing in dormitories.
The Coalition for Health and Welfare of Syracuse and Onondaga County (CHW) has implemented a survey of the homeless shelter and service providers each year for the past six years to determine the number of homeless persons served. The average daily county of homeless persons in Onondaga County established by the CHW in 1991 was 462. (The 1992 and 1993 survey results have been collected, but not analyzed for average daily count at this time.) This count increased by 4.8% from 1990, and 36.7% since 1986.
The 18 emergency and transitional shelters that responded to the 1992 CHW Survey served 5,480 persons, 5,241 in emergency and 239 in transitional shelters. (These figures represent the number of persons per night times the number of nights of shelter provided.) Of those persons served for whom age was determined (3,777), the majority of persons served in shelters in Syracuse in 1992 were 18-39 year old males (918) and females (900), 24.3% and 23.8% of the total served respectively. Those least likely to be served were females over 65 (.5%), males over 65 (1.0%) and teen boys (2.0%).
The following is a breakdown of the public and assisted housing units in the City. There is also a waiting list of more than 2 years for Section 8 assistance.
| Type of Housing | SRO Unit | 0-1 Bedroom | 2 Bedroom | 3+ Bedroom | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public | 0 | 1,268 | 735 | 648 | 2,651 |
| Section 202 | 0 | 378 | 0 | 0 | 378 |
| Section 8 | 0 | 558 | 250 | 158 | 966 |
| Other HUD | 0 | 1,831 | 567 | 137 | 2,535 |
| State/Local | 0 | 370 | 25 | 29 | 424 |
| Coop/SMNC | 0 | 65 | 68 | 101 | 234 |
| TOTAL | 0 | 4,470 | 1,645 | 1,073 | 7,188 |
Several barriers have been identified within the Syracuse community which impact on the ability to create or maintain affordable housing to persons of limited means.
The issue of property tax assessment is a growing concern throughout the country, and Syracuse is no exception. The City's current assessment policies have evolved over 50 years. In general, properties in the older, inner-City neighborhoods tend to be assessed at a greater fraction of their market value than are properties in the newer, more stable neighborhoods. There is a growing move to assess all properties at their full value to address this inequity. As an interim step, the City has targeted areas of traditional over- assessment, and, as a result, approximately 7,000 assessments have been lowered. In addition, the City participated in a County-wide data collection effort that shall lay the foundation for greater tax equity throughout Syracuse and Onondaga County. Over the longer term, the City administration is advocating for tax equity, primarily through full value assessment for all properties.
The City's recently enacted Property Conservation Code is designed to insure that residential and non-residential properties are safe and habitable. While theoretically, it is more expensive to provide safe and habitable housing than not, the Code is a needed protection. In some areas, amendments have been made to the Code that will add to the cost of housing, particularly with regard to room and board-type housing. These amendments are designed to upgrade the quality of life for the residents of this housing, therefore the additional costs are justified. With any additional amendments that would add to the cost of housing, consideration will be given as to whether the added protections merit the added costs. Code enforcement efforts that result in citations may impact negatively on the ability of landlords to offer housing at affordable rates. However, the benefits of this activity far outweigh the negative impact.
The inventory of vacant HUD homes and City tax deed properties is increasing at an alarming rate within the inner city. It is clear that there is very limited demand for these homes at the purchase prices being asked. Our experience indicates that the appraisers who value these properties do not routinely take into account the actual cost of rehabilitation necessary to make the house livable and code compliant.
There is another social cost to the present valuation policies of vacant houses in that the properties become less attractive to owner-occupants and more attractive to absentee- owners who may only marginally repair the property and rent it. Although HUD has made some policy changes in this regard it has not produced the desired effect.
Although permit fees were recently increased, they are not seen as a significant impediment to affordable housing. The purpose of the increase was to shift the cost of inspections and plan review away from the taxpayer and toward the developer. Similarly, local zoning regulations are not seen as a barrier to affordable housing.
The City of Syracuse is undertaking a study on the issues and conditions of Fair Housing in Syracuse. Annually the City contracts an agency to implement testing and enhance litigation. Education is also a component of the Fair Housing activities. There are no current court orders, consent decrees or HUD imposed actions as relates to Fair Housing although there continues to be evidence of unfair housing practices within the community.
Syracuse's housing stock is relatively old primarily of wood construction, and deteriorated. Of the City's 71,502 housing units, 68,835 or 96.3% were constructed prior to 1980, with 78.4% constructed prior to 1970 and 53.3% prior to 1939. The City's population is relatively poor when compared with its surrounding suburbs. Data provided by HUD for developing the City's 1994 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) show a median Family Income (MFI) for the City of $37,210, 11.3 less than the County's MFI of $ 41,400. Due to the availability of public transportation, particularly accessible fixed routes on this system, the City tends to contain higher concentrations of elderly and disabled populations, as well as minorities.
It is conservatively estimated that more than 13,000 housing units in the six Syracuse Community Development Revitalization Areas have the potential to contain lead-based paint that poses a hazard to residents due to its deteriorated conditions. According to the 1990 Census, the remainder of the City contains 40,976 housing units constructed prior to 1980. If, as expected, 10% of this housing has deteriorated or peeling interior or exterior lead-based paint, an additional 4,098 Syracuse households have hazardous lead-based paint that poses a health risk to residents.
Community Development needs include additional resources for housing rehab and home ownership. Increased efforts need to be made regarding youth and youth related problems. The community as a whole is asking for solutions to crime which in many cases involves youth and lack of opportunities for them. The problems of housing and suitable living environment points to the fundamental problem facing the community which is a lack of wealth. Greater efforts must be made to raise the skill level of the unemployed population. At the same time job opportunities must be created that offer livable wages and are attainable by lower skilled individuals. Economic opportunity must focus on job creation and retention as well as startup and expansion of business that exist in the local market.
For homeless issues, the Syracuse Common Council Task Force on Homelessness and Housing Vulnerable serves as the principal means of coordinating Homeless issues and is directly involved in the development of the Emergency Shelter Grant program. The Task Force is chaired by the Common Councilor who heads the Metropolitan and Urban Planning Committee and is currently facilitated by the associate pastor of Plymouth Church Agencies represented on the committee include:
AIDS Community Resources, Alternative Efforts Center of CNY, American Red Cross, ARISE, Assumption Church, Ida Benderson Center, BOCES, Brady Center, Brothers Group, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Catholic Charities, St. Vincent DePaul Center, Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, Cayuga-Syracuse Presbyter, Center New York Services, Chadwick Residences, Christopher Communities, City/County Job Training Partnership Agency, City/County Youth Bureau, City of Syracuse Research Bureau, Syracuse Department of Community Development, Mayor's Office, City Code Enforcement Office, Consolidated Industries of Greater Syracuse, Head Start Program of PEACE Inc., Hiscock Legal Aid Society, HOME Program, Hospice of CNY, Human Rights Commission, New York State Hutchings Psychiatric Center, the Learning Place, Legal Services of CNY, Inc., Liberty Resources, Northeast Community Center, Northeast Hawley Development Association, New York State Department of Labor Employment Services, NAACP/INVICTUS, New York State Office of Mental Health Regional Office, New York State Senator Hoffman and DeFrancisco, Onondaga County Community Development, Onondaga County Department of Mental Health, Onondaga County of Social Services, Onondaga County Veterans Service Agency, Oxford Inn, Rescue Mission, Salvation Army, SC Hope/ Curriculum Office SUNY Health Science Center, Samaritan Center, St. Paul's Cathedral, Sequin Community, Social Security Administration, Southwest Community Center, Syracuse Brick House, Syracuse Housing Authority, Syracuse United Neighbors, Syracuse University College of Law, Transitional Living Services, Urban League of Onondaga County, U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato's office, U.S. Congressman James T. Walsh office, Vera House, U.S. Veterans Administration, YMCA, YWCA, and various individuals.
This group and its executive committee meet regularly to discuss various issues and experiences regarding homeless issues.
With respect to affordable housing, the regular forum provided by the Center for Education and Affordable Residences, Ltd. (CEDAR) brings together not only the providers of public and assisted housing but also organizations that represent private and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. The Board of Directors includes representatives of the City Department of Community Development, Salvation Army, Key Bank, Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse Interreligious Council, Syracuse Neighborhood Housing Services, University Neighborhood Preservation Association, Christopher Communities, Onondaga County Community Development Agency.
With respect to State involvement, Syracuse has consistently been successful
using New York State Affordable Housing Corporation to finance its new home
construction program through the Syracuse Housing Partnership, a not for profit
corporation that provides the letter of credit to the CDBG float loan used as
interim financing for the program. In addition, CDBG funds have been matched
along with city development funds and New York State Housing Trust funds to
provide low-income rental units.
Individuals and families living in poverty conditions are the primary focus of Community Development efforts. Those people and families in need transcend geographical boundaries. We have witnessed areas throughout the City which once were considered "stable" experiencing decay and disinvestment. Given the severity of the need throughout the community and the scarcity of resources available to meet the need our local strategy for geographical distribution is three-fold.
First, the preponderance of Community Development resources must be devoted to those geographic areas which, based on census information, have the lowest income levels.
Second, we must attempt to solidify other geographic areas within the City by serving residents in those areas who are in the most acute need of our services and programs.
Third, we must "concentrate" resources to complement public and private investments that are already in existence.
We have developed several proposed objectives to be followed in utilizing the resources. Additionally, we have indicated the proposed accomplishments to be made with each objective over a 5 year period using anticipated HUD resources.
With regard to assigning "priority" to the needs of this community, the substantiating statistical evidence points overwhelmingly to the need for housing assistance. Syracuse's housing stock is relatively old and largely consisting of wood frame construction. Of the 71,502 total units in the city 53% were constructed prior to 1939. At the present time 22,102 of the units are considered substandard (32%). The situation becomes more grave when we look at low income neighborhoods within the city where almost 50% of the housing units have been deemed substandard. Within these low income areas only 21% of the units are owner-occupied. More than 550 properties have been determined to be vacant and abandoned.
At the same time that the housing stock is in generally poor condition it remains unaffordable to most very low income people as 72% of both owners and renters in this income group pay in excess of 30% of their income for housing expenses. It is particularly interesting to note that small families have the greatest housing cost burden of any other group. This population which includes single-parent households represents a most vulnerable segment of the community. The combination of poor housing condition, lack of affordability and the vulnerability of very low income people struggling to meet housing expenses makes housing a local "top" priority need.
Given the fact that anticipated housing resources will be insufficient (even over a 5 year period) to adequately address the housing needs of low income people, it is apparent that an additional high priority needs to be the creation of jobs to increase disposable income. The development of enterprise within the low income areas of the city will be particularly important to sustain job opportunities.
This plan may be particularly difficult to implement given the fact that the U.S. Department of Labor anticipates a growth rate of less than 1% in the Central new York economy. Over the past year, job growth was less than 1/10 of 1% in Central New York as compared to 1.1% Statewide and 2.2% Nationwide. Given this scenario, our strategy needs to be to provide incentives to retain and expand business and existing jobs. Additionally, we need to increase incentives for manufacturing type jobs and increase the skill level of the work force.
An additional high priority in this community needs to be centered around the human service needs for our youth and elderly, particularly those living inn low income areas. Statistics indicate that overall 37% of the children under the age of 5 live in poverty in Syracuse. (18th highest in the country). In certain low-income neighborhoods, this figure escalates to 54%. With regard to our elderly population, it is anticipated that this category will grow by 17% by the Year 2010. Of approximately 50,000 elderly living in Onondaga County 18% are in need of supportive services.
Our strategy with respect to youth is to improve the quality of early childhood development so that children can attain the necessary mental, physical, emotional and social development skills to be able to successfully embrace educational and social opportunities for growth and learning. Regarding the elderly, our strategy is to provide services and support to ensure that the elderly can live independent and full lives.
Renters - The housing priority needs summary table was completed by analyzing census data (see CHAS Table 1c). These data show that small and large-family renters suffer a tremendous housing cost burden and live in structures with a high degree of housing problems. The statistics show that more than 77% of very low income small families and 66% of large families have a housing cost burden greater than 50%. This is obviously an area requiring a high priority. Comparatively, the elderly population is somewhat less burdened with 41% similarly cost burdened. With respect to low income families, we see that 76% of small families and 70% of large families have housing cost burdens over 30%. In this same category 59% of elderly households have housing cost burdens over 30%.
With regard to housing with defects we see that more than 87% of very low income renter families (both large and small) live in housing with problems (another high priority). Again, the elderly are slightly better off in this category as 64% live in structures with housing problems. For low income small and large families, it is seen that more than 80% live in housing with problems as compared with 64% for the elderly population. Thus, it seems that, given limited resources, the highest priorities in the renter category need to be for small and large families with very low and low income levels.
Owners - Among all very low income owners we see that 74% have housing cost burdens above 30% and 41% have housing cost burdens over 50%. An extremely important statistic indicates that for all very low income owners 76% live in housing with problems. It is interesting to note that in this area the elderly population shares the same sort of deteriorated housing condition as small and large family. The disparity which was seen in the rental situation where the elderly had slightly better quality housing does not extend to the ownership scenario.
As we analyze the statistics for low income owners we see that the situation improves somewhat as only 10% of all low income owners have housing cost burdens over 50%. 42% of all low income homeowners live in housing with problems. While this figure is higher than we might expect, it is clear that the highest priority need among owner occupants rests with those that are very low income.
Funding for Affordable Rental Units - Generally, very low and low income families are over-cost burdened and living in deteriorated housing units. This situation can be helped by direct financial assistance to landlords to help them fix up their properties. The HOME Program is an excellent tool to be used in this area because the rent restrictions shall assure that increased rental costs are not unfairly placed on low income tenants who are already overburdened.
We must also encourage greater use of low income housing tax credits throughout the City. In the past, the Syracuse Housing Partnership program had a narrow focus of providing affordable home ownership opportunities. During the 1995 program year we expect to expand the mission of the Syracuse Housing Partnership to include the development of affordable rental units particularly through the vehicle of the low income housing tax credit.
Funding for Low and Very Low Income Owner-Occupants - The statistics clearly point to the need for moderate rehabilitation financing for low and very low income owners. CDBG funds are the most appropriate funds for this program. Such funds must be offered at deferred or extremely low interest so as not to over cost-burden this vulnerable population.
Support New Construction Activities - Through the vehicle of the Syracuse Housing Partnership hundreds of new, affordable units have been constructed over the past seven years. Our experience with this program indicates that it is often possible to have low income renters move into these new homes with monthly payments comparable or lower than they were paying to rent. Again, noting the housing cost burden for low income renters many of these costs are due to the fact that the older homes have inefficient heating systems and are poorly insulated. By moving into a subsidized, energy efficient newer home, maintenance costs shall be minimal and utility bills are dramatically reduced.
We anticipate largely using State Affordable Housing funds and Syracuse Housing Partnership funds to support the new construction effort, but utilizing a Community Development float shall help keep interim construction costs low making the home more affordable.
Support of Housing Not-For-Profit Agencies - Not-for-profit housing agencies have proven to be an invaluable tool for creating affordable housing for both owners and renters. Because they can bring a multitude of resources to a housing project (first home club, tax credits, public funding, leveraged private funding, secondary mortgage markets, etc.) they can drastically reduce the cost of housing development. These agencies must be supported in their efforts through the use of CDBG funds as well as other fundraising efforts.
Compounded with severely cold winters, utility bills impact negatively on the ability of low and very low income people to afford their housing. This effort can be assisted by greater utilization of energy conservation through CDBG and HOME Rehab Programs. Better coordination of other weatherization programs is also necessary as are more innovative approaches to this problem.
Support for Rental Assistance - Given the high housing cost burdens for low and very low income people, we must strive to increase rental subsidies within the City of Syracuse. Although we are limited in our ability to use Community Development resources in this matter we can better coordinate activities with the Syracuse Housing Authority to advance this need.
Maintain Public/Assisted Housing Stock - The statistics indicate that more than 10% of the housing stock in Syracuse is either public housing or assisted housing. Generally, this housing is affordable and code compliant. To the extent that some of these housing projects are in financial difficulty, we must be prepared to utilize public funds to assist them. Once such housing is lost, it is extremely expensive to re-create.
Encourage Private Financing in Housing - As witnessed in the CHAS Table 1c, housing problems exist for low and moderate income families, but these income groups are not as cost-burdened as the very low income population (for owners and renters). As such, there appears to be opportunity to make better use of private financing to support rehabilitation efforts for owner-occupied and investor-owned properties. Where possible these funds could be leveraged using public dollars to provide a more affordable "blended" financing package.
We shall be meeting with area banks to explore the possibilities and opportunities in this area during the 1995 program year.
This section is best addressed by referring to the Strategic Plan developed by Syracuse during its Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Process. That application involved substantial citizen involvement and consultation including that of the adjacent communities.
The overall vision is to "Rebuild a City where children born in one of our empowerment zone streets can grow up healthy, strong, and smart; where they can have the opportunity to obtain a decent paying job; where they can find an affordable home in a safe, clean attractive neighborhood; and where that neighborhood is the one where they want to live."
Listed below are the goal statement and specific objectives stated with respect to various functional areas and a summary of whether these needs are eligible for Community Development Block Grant program funds and if they are currently being addressed directly by CDBG funds or by sub-recipient agencies of the CDBG program in Syracuse.
Health: To eliminate, in all areas of health care, the cost-quality comparison and the irrevocable selection of one over the other. The goal shall be accomplished by the addition of preventive, educational and advocacy programs--medical, dental, mental and public health services, including environmental health concerns, from emergency to tertiary care, for everyone from the unborn to the very old.
Education: The goal of education is to develop an educational system which shall provide collaboration and coordination among educational providers and the community to establish networking mechanisms which shall meet instructional, social, political and vocational needs of all community members.
Business and Finance (Economic Development): To improve the climate to expand, relocate, or start businesses; increase incentives of manufacturing or industrial style job creation; improve the quality of the work force, increase hiring of City residents, and address barriers to employment; identify development target areas and available space; create a vehicle for retaining existing businesses; improve the availability of investment capital; provide business management and development support on an ongoing basis.
Human Services: To develop a highly efficient, outcome oriented and coordinated infrastructure which supports new perspectives regarding employability and mechanisms required to sustain it. To provide a consistent message from the Human Service system to its participating individuals and families regarding employment. Support mechanisms should send a stronger more positive message about working. Have the means to support those individuals and families who opt for a job as opposed to public assistance.
Arts and Culture: To promote the Arts and Cultural Activity as an economic force within the Community. To develop Arts and Culture as a means to enlighten, educate and stimulate the community as to the broad, rich background of it's residents. To ensure that all residents of Syracuse have full access to all arts and cultural activities.
Environment and Infrastructure: To encourage a clean and healthy environment for current and future citizens by transforming existing challenges into opportunities, and by creating sustainable economic growth through the promotion of the commercial, recreational, and aesthetic redevelopment of the City's lakefront as the centerpiece of Syracuse's physical presence. Ensure community access to the National Information Highway. Mitigate polluting effect of combined sewer overflows (CSO) into Onondaga Creek. Improve Onondaga Creek channel appearance in zone area.
Criminal Justice: Empower residents so they can carry out their day to day activities without fear of crime and with confidence in the safety and security of their community. Strengthen the practice of Community Policing and create proactive concerned citizen advisory boards.
Religion: To develop an interreligious network to address the needs of all community people regarding education, unemployment, health, rental housing development, home ownership, business development, government participation, and recreational opportunities. To promote ethical and moral values within the community among individuals and families. These values shall transcend cultural, religious, and socio-economic differences particularly by emphasizing the benefits of work.
There are at least two schools of thought on methodologies to reduce poverty in America. The Universal approach which reinforces fundamental values, such as, rewards for work, opportunities for individual development and growth, commitments to family and community responsibility for the socialization and care of children and other vulnerable people. An example of a Universal methodology would be public education in America. A second approach is the Targeted approach. This approach narrows the focus to individuals or groups with certain characteristics or needs. An example would be public housing.
It appears that Syracuse has adopted some of each of these methodologies to address poverty. The City makes a $180 million dollar annual investment in the public school system. The United Way's Success By 6 program has universal aspects to it. At the same time there are countless targeted efforts for those defined as eligible.
If we are to truly make a difference we must continue with the efforts mentioned above but add more Universal methods. The data clearly indicate that children are much more likely to be poor than adults. We must impress upon every child that what they earn in life depends on what they learn in life. The journey out of poverty for every child must begin on their first day of school, if it has not begun by then. The schools must help the children learn the joy and value of learning in the early grades and by middle school the students must be involved in the transition from school to work. This methodology must include the vast majority of students in our schools, those 75% that are neither college bound or vocational.
If our school-to-work methodology is truly going to be successful we must have jobs for the graduates. The focus must continue to be maintaining the jobs we have now and attracting new business. The current labor market is extremely tight, unemployment is higher than it has been since July 1991. Average annual job openings for 1994 through 1998 as estimated by the New York State Labor Department number 14.230. A trained work force is one crucial variable in the decision to locate a business or keep a business in a particular area.
Reforming the New York State welfare system is clearly one of the new governor's goals. In Syracuse and Onondaga County there are currently a number of reforms underway. Perhaps most significant is the Child Assistance a Program or CAP. This program allows an AFDC mother to earn outside income with minimal financial impact on her assistance, food stamp and medical benefits. As her income rises her assistance is reduced but on a scale that is not punitive. Additionally, the county's JOBS PLUS strategy will increase the number of hours AFDC and Home Relief recipients are required to participate in training programs in order to continue to receive assistance for 20 per week to 35 hours per week.
In order to reduce poverty in Syracuse, the combination of universal and targeted methods must continue to be examined for effectiveness and efficiency. There is at least one organization that appears to be in a position to do so. The Syracuse Onondaga County Private Industry Council, Inc. has expressed an interest in being the lead agency in the effort to move individuals from unemployment to productive employment. Their focus includes teenagers who have never worked, individuals who have left the labor force and desire to return, dislocated workers who have lost their jobs and individuals on public assistance. This private industry council, composed of primarily business representative, can offer oversight and evaluation of the current strategies, an objective view of new ideas and access to a broad spectrum of the local labor market.
There are essentially four choices any community can make regarding its anti-poverty strategy.
There is a wide variety of Federal, State and Local resources being used to address community needs and problems. It should be noted that current funding levels are inadequate to meet the problems facing the community. Some sources include CDBG, HOME, ESG, Section 8, ESG, Shelter Plus Care, NYS AHC, NYS HTF, NYS DFY, Syracuse Housing Partnership, United Way, Community Foundation, HUD 108 loan program and wide variety of local initiatives by banks, business and neighborhood agencies.
The coordination process involves working with the organizations identified in the Coordination portion of the needs assessment above. Many community organizations are involved in the planning and implementation of efforts to resolve community problems. The City uses CDAC, the Homeless Task Force and funded agencies as primary partners for coordination of effort for our three funding sources.
The City has had limited success in creating a coordinated plan that aligns
resources, efforts and direction across the community. The political climate
and public will are not present to achieve the coordination of resources that
are beyond the reach of the local government. The community has yet to be
convinced of the value of community wide strategic planning and the political
entities have yet to align themselves behind such an effort. Community
Development will continue to promote the benefits and educate the public on the
value of strategic planning.
| NAME | TYPE | BUDGET |
|---|---|---|
| Community Development - Administration | CDBG/ADM | 931,000 |
| LSCNY & Fair Housing Council/ Fair Housing Enforcement | CDBG/ADM | 10,000 |
| Total Administration | 941,000 | |
| Downtown Committee of Syracuse | CDBG/ED | 27,500 |
| Downtown Loan Program | CDBG/ED | see SEDCO |
| SEDCO Loan Program | CDBG/ED | 275,000 |
| Urban Renewal Land Disposition | CDBG/ED | 226,000 |
| Rebuild Syracuse, Inc. | CDBG/HS | 106,900 |
| Support Staff | CDBG/ED | 412,000 |
| UBOC - Administration & Loans | CDBG/ED | 87,000 |
| E. D. Float Loan | CDBG/ED | 500,000 |
| HUD 108 REPAYMENT | CDBG/ED | 100,000 |
| Westside Innercity Association/Neighborhood Econ. Dev. | CDBG/ED | 10,000 |
| Total Economic Development | 1,744,400 | Community Development - HOUSING REHAB | CDBG/HS | 1,940,000 |
| Community Development - SPECIAL HOUSING | CDBG/HS | 400,000 |
| Rehab Technical Assistance Staff | CDBG/HS | 593,500 |
| Housing Float Loan | CDBG/HS | 2,770,000 |
| Time of Jubilee, Inc. | CDBG/HS | 110,000 |
| Syracuse Housing Partnership | CDBG/HS | 0 |
| Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corporation | CDBG/HS | 382,700 |
| Westside Innercity Association - Home Handyman | CDBG/HS | 50,000 |
| ENIP Housing Dev.Proj. ENIP, Inc. | CDBG/HS& HM | 25,000 |
| Empire Housing and Development Corp. | CDBG/HS | 7,500 |
| NY-STAR Standards - NY-STAR, Inc. | CDBG/HS | 0 |
| Boys & Girls Club - Building Tomorrows | CDBG/HS | 23,000 |
| HOME Relocation - Relocation costs | CDBG/HS | 89,900 |
| HOME Relocation - Administration | CDBG/HS | 68,000 |
| Community Development - HOMESTEAD/VACANT | CDBG/HS | 1,688,670 |
| Vacant Property Management | CDBG/HS | see hmstd/vacant |
| ARISE INC - 'Home Access Program. | CDBG/HS | 81,700 |
| Community Development - PAINT | CDBG/HS | 170,000 |
| TOTAL HOUSING | 8,399,970 | |
| Curbs, Sidewalks & Streets/ Community Development | CDBG/PPI | 140,000 |
| Engineering Support | CDBG/PPI | see admin |
| Tree Planting | CDBG/PPI | 0 |
| Park Rehab | CDBG/PPI | 0 |
| Kirk Park Colts - Pop Warner | CDBG/SS | 10,000 | TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS | 150,000 | Southwest Community Center | CDBG/SS | 371,600 |
| Northeast Community Center | CDBG/SS | 198,500 |
| Catholic Charities - Brighton Family Center | CDBG/SS | 55,100 |
| Spanish Action League - Housing Services | CDBG/SS | 21,900 |
| Urban League Tenant/Landlord Counseling | CDBG/SS | 21,000 |
| ARISE - Housing Referral & Advocacy Program | CDBG/SS | 15,800 |
| Huntington Youth Service Prog. | CDBG/SS | 17,600 |
| PEACE, Inc./Project Connection | CDBG/SS | 36,000 |
| Syracuse Parks - Benderson Center & South West Pool | CDBG/SS | 210,000 |
| Syracuse Housing Authority - HOME | CDBG/SS | 43,900 |
| Northside CYO - Catholic Charities - Kid's Spot | CDBG/SS | 35,000 |
| Syracuse Housing Authority - Tenant Services | CDBG/SS | 15,800 |
| Neighborhood Linking/Univ.United Method.Church | CDBG/SS | 7,500 |
| Hiscock Legal Aid for Tenants Facing Eviction | CDBG/SS | 48,000 |
| Boys & Girls Club - Extended Summer Hours | CDBG/SS | 28,000 |
| Self-Dev.Project/Center for Community Alternatives | CDBG/SS | 30,000 |
| Native American Service Program - Senior Citizen Program | CDBG/SS | 5,000 |
| ARISE / Euclid Community Open House | CDBG/SS | 11,900 |
| Northside Neighbors Together | CDBG/SS | 2,500 |
| Catholic Charities - Family Support Project | CDBG/SS | 8,800 |
| Youth Enrichment Outreach - Project Safe Streets | CDBG/SS | 10,000 |
| Spanish Action League - Vision-Blodgett Gym | CDBG/SS | 9,975 |
| Greater Syracuse Tenants Network | CDBG/SS | 7,500 |
| TOTAL SOCIAL SERVICES | 1,211,375 | |
| TOTAL CDBG | 12,446,745 | |
| Alternative Efforts Center/DePalmer House | ESG/R | 15,000 |
| Vera House, Inc. | ESG/R/OP | 15,000 |
| Chadwick Residence | ESG/ES/OP | 20,000 |
| Northeast Comm.Ctr./Emergency Shelter Grnt. | ESG/HP | 12,500 |
| PEACE, Inc./Homeless Family Development | ESG/OP/HP | 9,000 |
| R.Mission/Homeless Intervention Service Team | ESG/ES | 23,000 |
| R.Mission/Housing Coordinator | ESG/OP/HP | 10,000 |
| Catholic Charities Hospitality Houses | ESG/OP | 10,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES 'Homeward Connection | ESG/OP/HP | 28,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES Oxford Street Inn Shelter | ESG/OP/ES | 30,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES 'Dorothy Day House | ESG/OP/ES | 23,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Barnabas | ESG/OP/ES /R | 15,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Booth House | ESG/OP/ES | 11,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Emergency Family Shelters | ESG/OP/ES | 12,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Transitional Apts. & Parenting | ESG/OP/ES | 13,500 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Women's Shelter | ESG/OP/ES | 11,000 |
| SALVATION ARMY - Homeless Fam.Service Ctr. | ESG/HP | 18,000 |
| 420 Gifford Hospitality House for Youth, Inc. | ESG/OP | 7,000 |
| TOTAL ESG | 283,000 | |
| Total HUD Allocation | 283,000 | |
| Community Development - Administration | HOME | 173,000 |
| NEHDA - Affordable Housing Project | HOME | 34,100 |
| Eastside Neighbors In Partnership - Housing Dev.Project | HOME | 50,000 |
| HOME I, II, III | HOME | 1,4829,00 |
| TOTAL HOME CHODO and ADMIN | 1,740,000 | Total HOME Allocation | 1,740,000 | TOTAL CD ACTIVITIES | 14,469,745 |
Many of the housing projects are available city wide but generally take place within CD Revitalization Areas which are Census Tracts with greater than 51% Low/Mod population. Most other projects especially Social Services operate within Revitalization areas.
The lead agencies in housing include Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corporation, Jubilee Homes and Eastside Neighbors in Partnership. Social Services has numerous agencies around the City including Southwest Community Center and Northeast Community Center. Economic Development is done mainly through the City.
Goals for: Housing Rehab - 160 homes, Homestead/Vacant - 75, New Construction - 25, Paint - 50, Ramps - 15 and Home Handyman - 100.
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 6 is a map which depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects for one neighborhood.
MAP 7 is a map which depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects for one neighborhood.
MAP 8 is a map which depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects for one neighborhood; in addition, a table provides information about the project(s).
