Neighborhood Inequalities:

Vacant Properties in Providence, Rhode Island from 1996 to Present

Executive Summary

Robin Averbeck

Bachelor of Arts Degree, May 2006

Vacant properties, defined by the National Vacant Properties Campaign as vacant residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and lots that pose a threat to public safety or exhibit signs of neglect, can pose a number of social, environmental, and economic problems for cities, taxpayers, and residents. In 1996 in Providence, Rhode Island, there were 8,076 tax-assessed vacant lots with the highest concentrations of lots in low-income, minority neighborhoods. Citizen outrage over neighborhood blight and health risks posed by vacant lots culminated in allegations of “environmental racism” against the City government. In response, former Mayor Vincent Cianci convened the Vacant Land Task Force, comprised of a variety of stakeholders, to write a report and create a comprehensive plan for addressing vacant lots in the City of Providence. In recognition of the importance of the Task Force, I ask the question: Did the Task Force achieve its goals of reducing the number of vacant lots in Providence and their associated economic, social, and environmental problems?

On the one hand, some evidence suggests that the Task Force was successful. A significant number of the Task Force’s institutional, enforcement, and legislative recommendations were implemented, and a number of these showed innovation and flexibility on the part of the City. In addition based on the Tax Assessor’s data there are 30% fewer vacant lots today than in 1996, and over 50% of that total 30% decline occurred between 1996 and 1998, the time period in which the majority of the VLTF recommendations were implemented. There also appears to be a 19% decrease in “high risk” or “suspected abandoned” properties between 1997 and 2004, which could, in part, be attributed to the success of the Task Force’s reforms, such as the Environmental Court, the Super Lien Law, the Clean and Lien program, and the $1/Lot program.

However, a number of factors complicate assessing the absolute impacts of the Task Force and indicate that its success was more limited, including problems with the data and other factors that contributed to vacant lot redevelopment since 1996, such as the rise of community development corporations (CDCs) and development of affordable housing, new city development projects, population growth, and changes in the real estate market. In addition, neighborhoods with the highest percentages of racial/ethnic minority persons continue to be disproportionately burdened by vacant properties and their associated social and environmental costs. This suggests that while decreases in the number of vacant properties have occurred in all neighborhoods, the Task Force Report, which was born out of environmental justice concerns, did not go far enough to address this problem.

Furthermore, this study identified a number of recommendations of the Task Force that were not implemented, including the formation of a smaller, working ‘Task Force’ to carry out the recommendations of the VLTF report; the establishment of the PRA as a land bank; the creation of a continuous database for vacant properties in the City; and combination of lien sales. The failure to implement these recommendations, respectively, limited citizen oversight and input in the process of carrying out the recommendations of the Report; decreased the ability of the City to efficiently assemble and market vacant properties of interest; limited the City’s capacity to continue to monitor and therefore create policy in relation to vacant properties; and allowed land speculators to continue buying vacant lots in low-income, minority communities. These shortcomings, in sum, allowed some of the problems associated with vacant properties to continue to negatively impact Providence neighborhoods but can be used to inform future recommendations.

First, I recommend that a universal definition of vacant and abandoned property should be developed and adopted in state and municipal legislation and used by all state and municipal agencies that track and handle vacant and abandoned properties; the database, currently being maintained by Providence Plan, should continue to be supported with city funding and should be used to inform land use planning decisions; a Providence Vacant Property Task Force, comprised of neighborhood representatives, community development corporations, and city agents should be convened to reassess the problems of vacant properties and build a comprehensive citywide strategy for addressing them; neighborhood revitalization plans should be developed that modify citywide strategies for fighting blight to the market conditions of individual neighborhoods; and the tax sale should be amended to be more accessible and inclusive. Together these recommendations in combination with recommendations produced by a reconstituted ‘Vacant Property Task Force’ comprised of a variety of stakeholders could set the foundation for the creation of a comprehensive plan for addressing vacant properties in Providence today.