Home
Forgot your password?
Mending the Urban Fabric: Blight in New Orleans
A February 2008 report from the Bureau of Governmental Research, focusing on the blight situation in New Orleans
Full screen
A Report from the Bureau
of Governmental Research
MENDING THE
URBAN FABRIC
Blight in New Orleans
Part I: Structure & Strategy
FEBRUARY 2008
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR Review Committee
BGR Board of Directors
Henry O’Connor, Jr., Chairman
Arnold B. Baker
James B. Barkate
Officers
Virginia Besthoff
Christian T. Brown
Lynes R. Sloss, Chairman
Pamela M. Bryan
LaToya W. Cantrell
Hans B. Jonassen, Vice Chairman
Joan Coulter
Hans B. Jonassen
Robert W. Brown, Secretary
Mark A. Mayer
Carolyn W. McLellan
Sterling Scott Willis, Treasurer
Lynes R. Sloss
Board Members
Herschel L. Abbott, Jr.
BGR Project Staff
Conrad A. Appel III
Robert C. Baird, Jr.
Janet R. Howard, President
Arnold B. Baker
C. Davin Boldissar, Principal Author
James B. Barkate
Peter Reichard, Production Manager
Virginia Besthoff
Ralph O. Brennan
Christian T. Brown
BGR
Pamela M. Bryan
LaToya W. Cantrell
Joan Coulter
The Bureau of Governmental Research is a private, non-
J. Kelly Duncan
profit, independent research organization dedicated to
Ludovico Feoli
informed public policy making and the effective use of
Hardy B. Fowler
public resources for the improvement of government in
Aimee Adatto Freeman
the New Orleans metropolitan area.
Julie Livaudais George
Roy A. Glapion
This report is available on BGR’s web site, www.bgr.org.
Matthew P. LeCorgne
Mark A. Mayer
Carolyn W. McLellan
Henry O’Connor, Jr.
William A. Oliver
Thomas A. Oreck
Gregory St. Etienne
Madeline D. West
Andrew B. Wisdom
Honorary Board
Bryan Bell
Harry J. Blumenthal, Jr.
Edgar L. Chase III
Louis M. Freeman
Richard W. Freeman, Jr.
Ronald J. French
David Guidry
Paul M. Haygood
Diana M. Lewis
Anne M. Milling
R. King Milling
George H. Porter III
Edward F. Stauss, Jr.
Bureau of Governmental Research
938 Lafayette St., Suite 200
Photos by C. Davin Boldissar
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
INTRODUCTION
1
OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
1
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
2
Current Structure
2
Fragmentation Creates Problems
4
Consolidating Blight Management
4
Controls on NORA
5
Code Enforcement: A Citywide Function
5
Coordination
6
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
6
Goals
6
A Comprehensive Citywide Strategy
6
Different Areas, Different Strategies
7
New Orleans’ Strategy
8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8
Program Structure
8
Goals and Strategies
9
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
ew Orleans has for decades suffered from
New Orleans faces multiple structural, legal and admin-
pervasive blight. Hurricane Katrina and the
istrative problems in addressing blight. They include the
Nresulting levee failures exacerbated this following:
problem. No one has conducted a compre-
hensive survey to determine the number of
n Fragmented Structure. The administration of
blighted properties. However, federal agencies have esti-
blighted property programs in New Orleans is
mated that approximately 80,000 housing units were
fragmented and uncoordinated.
severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. It is safe to say
that there are tens of thousands of blighted properties in
n Inadequate Goals and Strategies. Local govern-
the city.1
ment has not articulated comprehensive and realis-
tic goals and strategies for redeveloping blighted
Blight poses a serious impediment to the city’s recovery.
property.
Blighted properties destabilize neighborhoods, depress
property values and subject neighbors to health and safe-
n Funding Deficiencies. Blighted property programs
ty hazards. Blight deters investment and increases the
in New Orleans lack sufficient funding to address
likelihood that neighboring properties will also decline
blight effectively.
and become blighted. In post-Katrina New Orleans, it
discourages residents from restoring flood-damaged
n Poor Information. Poor record keeping and a lack
homes. Blight also represents lost tax revenue potential
of access to basic property information impede
in a city with troubled finances.
redevelopment.
Local government plays a key role in fostering blighted
n Acquisition Hurdles. Numerous problems with
property redevelopment. It is uniquely positioned to
acquisition processes prevent redevelopment.
acquire blighted properties and encourage their redevel-
opment, because of its powers, access to funding and
manpower.
METHODOLOGY
BGR conducted interviews with numerous profes-
Unfortunately, New Orleans’ blighted property programs
sionals, including:
have historically been ineffective. In the five years before
Katrina, the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans
n Staff of local government programs in New
Redevelopment Authority (NORA), the entity charged
Orleans and other cities5
with blight remediation in the city, acquired and redevel-
oped only a few hundred properties annually.2 Post-
n Urban planning and land use experts6
Katrina, the only tangible sign of redevelopment has
been the transfer of approximately 600 blighted and tax-
n For-profit and non-profit developers, attorneys
adjudicated properties by NORA and the City to develop-
and observers of the real estate market in New
ers.3
Orleans
BGR has previously made preliminary observations
BGR reviewed reports and academic papers regard-
ing blighted property programs and redevelopment,
regarding the City’s blighted property programs. These
including reports on New Orleans and the cities list-
observations appear in December 2007 letters sent to
ed below. BGR reviewed numerous documents and
NORA and the City’s Office of Recovery Management
materials it obtained from NORA and the City.
(ORM).4 This study builds on BGR’s initial observa-
tions, discussing the obstacles to blight remediation and
In addition to New Orleans’ programs, BGR’s research
proposed solutions in greater detail.
focused on seven widely discussed programs:
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Louisville,
BGR uses the terms “blight” and “blighted” to refer to
Richmond, Genesee County (containing Flint, Mich.)
severely dilapidated or damaged properties, regardless of
and Baltimore.
whether such properties have been formally designated
as “blighted” under a local government process.
BGR also conducted physical surveys of hundreds of
properties that NORA acquired.7
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 1
n Disposition Procedures. The procedures for trans-
ferring properties to individuals and developers are
PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
arbitrary, opaque and uncompetitive.
Local government in New Orleans has four pipelines
n Poor Maintenance and Cleanup. NORA has histor-
for acquiring blighted property:
ically not cleaned up and maintained the blighted
property under its control.
Road Home Transfers. The State of Louisiana plans
to transfer to local government bodies residential
n Involuntary Demolitions. Involuntary demolitions,
properties that it purchases through the Road Home
as currently administered, endanger blighted struc-
program. NORA is the designated recipient for the
tures that should be saved and returned to com-
thousands of Road Home properties in New Orleans.
merce.
Expropriation. Expropriation (also called eminent
There is no single “silver bullet” that will solve these
domain) is a basic power of government to take pri-
problems. Instead, policymakers must roll up their
vate property for certain purposes authorized by
sleeves and comprehensively address a multitude of
law, in exchange for compensation. The City and
issues.
NORA both have the power to expropriate blighted
property, although NORA’s powers are narrower.
Due to the complexity and scope of the issues, we are
Expropriation has been severely limited by 2006
addressing them in a two-part report. In this, the first part
amendments to the Louisiana Constitution.8
of that report, we address the first two issues listed
above: program structure and goals and strategies. In the
Tax Adjudication. The City Finance Department
second part, we will address funding and technical and
periodically offers tax delinquent properties for sale
procedural issues relating to property acquisition, main-
to the public. Successful purchasers receive title in
tenance, disposition and demolition.
exchange for payment of back taxes plus costs and
interest.9 The City holds properties that do not sell;
in legal terminology, these properties are “adjudicat-
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
ed” to the City. In many cases, these properties are
blighted.
Local government has a number of tools available to
address blight. It can actively enforce codes, encourage
Lien Foreclosure. The City, through code enforce-
rehabilitation through incentives, demolish properties
ment proceedings, can impose fines and liens on
that pose threats to safety and in some cases force the sale
property that is in violation of public health, housing,
of properties. Often, however, the government must
fire code, environmental or historic district ordi-
acquire blighted properties for ultimate resale or conver-
nances. The City can then foreclose on the lien, forc-
sion to public use.
ing a sale of the property by the Civil Sheriff.10 The
Sheriff sells the property to the highest bidder, which
New Orleans’ blighted property programs, like those in
could be a private party, NORA or the City. The pro-
other cities, focus mainly on the acquisition, maintenance
cedure has not been successfully tested.
and disposition of properties. In New Orleans, govern-
ment can acquire blighted properties through expropria-
tion, tax adjudication and foreclosure on liens created
NORA. NORA is an independent authority created in
through code enforcement proceedings (blight liens). The
1968 for the purpose of “eliminat[ing] and prevent[ing]
Road Home program provides an additional source of
the development or spread of slums and urban blight”
properties. These four acquisition pipelines are described
within New Orleans.11 Although its board members are
in the sidebar at right.
appointed by the mayor from nominees proposed by
State legislators, it is structurally independent from City
government.
Current Structure
NORA has significant powers, including the power to
The administration of the City’s blighted property pro-
undertake large-scale redevelopment and to expropriate
grams is fragmented among a number of entities and
blighted (and, in some cases, nonblighted) properties. In
departments. The following are the key players and their
the decade preceding Hurricane Katrina, NORA’s pri-
roles.
mary activity was the expropriation of blighted proper-
2 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
55 Properties
Rehabilitated. Of these, 8
appeared to have received
only minimal renovations.
25%
Rehabilitation
48 Properties
42: Redeveloped as new con-
struction affordable housing.
2002 NORA
22%
6: Redeveloped as new con-
Expropriations:
New
struction, either for commercial
Where do they Construction
(4) or market-rate residential
101 Properties
stand?
use (2).
63: Blighted or unmaintained
vacant lots.
46%
7%
31: Maintained vacant lots.
No Redevelopment
Some
7: Contain a blighted structure.
Rehabilitation
15 Properties
Had incomplete rehabilitation
or construction work.
IN 2002, NORA EXPROPRIATED 219 PROPERTIES west of the
Industrial Canal. In May and June, 2007, BGR conducted a site survey
of these properties, identified through records from Orleans Parish Civil
District Court and Orleans Parish Registrar of Conveyances.
ties for resale and redevelopment. The agency had a poor
Unit has managed the sale or donation of the City’s tax
record. In the five years before Katrina, it undertook
adjudicated properties. Recently, it awarded approximately
between 113 and 268 expropriations annually.12 It sold
1,800 tax adjudicated properties to for-profit and nonprofit
most properties to private parties who committed to
developers.14 The City has set aside the remaining 1,500
remediate them. BGR’s survey of year 2002 expropria-
for NORA. The City Attorney’s Office can also use lien
tions indicates that these actions were only partially suc-
foreclosure, although it has never done so successfully.15
cessful. As of mid-2007, almost half of the properties had
not been redeveloped. (See the chart above.)
ORDA. The City recently consolidated several depart-
ments into the Office of Recovery Development and
Since Hurricane Katrina, NORA has been revamped with
Administration (ORDA), under the direction of Edward
an expanded board and new management. It has become
Blakely. The offices that are now part of ORDA include
the designated repository for some blighted properties
(among others):
acquired by other government entities. These include an
estimated 1,500 tax adjudicated properties and the thou-
n Office of Recovery Management. The City created
sands of Road Home properties located in the city.13
ORM in late 2006 as a policy group that formu-
lates recovery and development plans and policies.
City Attorney’s Office Housing Law Unit. The City, acting
It created a recovery plan that calls for specific
primarily through the Housing Law Unit of the City
projects in 17 target zones. These projects include
Attorney’s Office, has also expropriated blighted property
redevelopment of both blighted and non-blighted
for later resale or donation. In addition, the Housing Law
properties in these areas.
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 3
n Housing Department. The housing department has
Third, fragmentation has contributed to a lack of focus.
a broad range of responsibilities, including the
With the exception of NORA, the personnel of the vari-
administration of federal housing funds and neigh-
ous departments and entities are not dedicated to blight-
borhood education, health care and other social
ed property issues. Rather, blighted property is part of a
service programs. With regard to blighted property
broad portfolio of responsibilities in each agency. The
redevelopment, the department inspects properties
City Attorney’s Office Housing Unit staff works on all
for dangerous conditions and orders involuntary
housing-related issues, including defending the City in
demolitions of structures that pose an imminent
litigation and advising the City on various legal issues.
health threat.16 Working in collaboration with the
Housing department personnel administer a wide range
Department of Safety and Permits, it does the
of federal housing and social services programs. ORDA
same for properties that are in imminent danger of
is responsible for all aspects of recovery management
collapse.17 The housing department is also respon-
and planning, and also has responsibility for housing and
sible for code enforcement and administers the
economic development issues. With these multiple
hearing process for declaring properties blighted.
responsibilities, personnel cannot focus adequately on
Once the City declares a property blighted, the
blighted property issues.
department imposes a fine and a lien to secure
payment. The blight declaration enables NORA or
the City to more easily acquire the property using
Consolidating Blight Management
expropriation, lien foreclosure or tax adjudication.
The solution to these problems begins with the consoli-
n Safety and Permits. The Department of Safety and
dation, to the greatest extent possible, of blighted proper-
Permits, together with the housing department,
ty programs. In particular, one entity should hold, man-
inspects and condemns properties that are in immi-
age and eventually dispose of blighted property. As dis-
nent danger of collapse.
cussed below, this entity could also administer some
aspects of blighted property acquisition.
Other City Departments. Two other City departments
play minor roles in blighted property redevelopment. The
Consolidation of these functions would help facilitate
Health Department, through its environmental health
communication and cooperation. It would put blighted
section, inspects and cites vacant lots for blight. As dis-
property management in the hands of a dedicated staff
cussed above, buildings are inspected and cited by the
with a focus on blighted property issues and make it eas-
housing department. The City Finance Department con-
ier for individuals and entities interested in redeveloping
ducts sales of tax-delinquent properties.
properties to navigate the bureaucracy.
The recommendation to consolidate these functions is
Fragmentation Creates Problems
not new. Earlier reports on blighted property programs in
New Orleans have advocated such consolidation.22
The fragmentation of responsibilities has a long history and
Local governments in other jurisdictions, including
causes three problems. First, the structure is confusing to the
Genesee County, Louisville and Richmond, have also
public and developers. A person concerned about a neigh-
streamlined and consolidated their programs.
bor’s blighted house must navigate several separately
administered and staffed departments and sort through over-
The depository for blighted properties could be either a
lapping and confusing programs. Faced with the frustration
City department or an independent agency. There are,
of working within this structure, many simply give up. 18
however, serious drawbacks to consolidation within City
government. Due to competing demands and responsibil-
Second, coordination among entities and departments
ities, it would be difficult for a City agency to keep focus
has been poor. An analysis prepared for Mayor Nagin’s
and momentum on blight issues. In addition, a City pro-
Transition Team in 2002 stated that “the relevant depart-
gram could wax and wane depending on the politics of
ments do not effectively share information or coordinate
the moment. Also, an independent authority is generally
efforts,” and other reports prepared in 1994 and 2004
subject to more transparency and public participation.
agree.19 In particular, observers have cited failures to
This is because, under the Louisiana Open Meetings
coordinate involuntary demolitions, code enforcement
Law, the authority’s deliberations in board and commit-
and expropriations.20 On more than one occasion, the
tee meetings must be open to the public.23 In contrast,
housing department demolished a structure that NORA
while City Council meetings must be open and public,
was attempting to expropriate for redevelopment.21
deliberations of City departments are not.
4 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
For these reasons, we believe that blighted property pro-
n NORA’s employees and directors should comply
grams should be formally consolidated in a single-pur-
with conflict-of-interest rules that go beyond exist-
pose authority. NORA is the obvious candidate. Its sole
ing State requirements.
mission is the remediation and redevelopment of blight-
ed properties and areas. It has most of the powers need-
n NORA and the City should jointly establish rigor-
ed to acquire, manage and dispose of blighted property,
ous performance standards.
including access to all of the property pipelines except
lien foreclosure.
n NORA should meet the performance standards
agreed upon with the City.
Since the storm, NORA has become the de facto deposi-
tory for blighted properties. However, the current
Strong performance and accountability could be furthered
arrangement is the result of ad hoc transfers rather than
by oversight from the City’s newly created Office of
the product of a long-term commitment. It should be for-
Inspector General. It is unclear whether the Inspector
malized through a new, comprehensive cooperative
General has sufficient authority to exercise full oversight.
endeavor agreement.
To avoid future disputes over the scope of authority, the
ordinance establishing the office and NORA’s governing
NORA should also, where possible, be the vehicle for
statute should be amended.24
acquiring property. As noted above, it already has the
power to acquire property through expropriation. While
To further increase accountability, the City could retain a
it currently lacks the authority to foreclose on liens, it has
limited right of reversion in properties it transfers to
the ability to purchase property through lien foreclosure. NORA. The right would allow the City to take the prop-
erties back should NORA fail to live up to its legal and
contractual commitments with the City.25 This will
Controls on NORA
require extra paperwork at the time of resale to waive the
right of reversion. To avoid costly delays, the City will
Our recommendation to consolidate functions within
have to execute the waiver in a timely fashion.26
NORA comes with reservations. NORA is not directly
accountable to voters. In addition, it has a troubled histo-
ry and has facilitated the redevelopment of few proper-
Code Enforcement: A Citywide Function
ties. Unless properly managed and monitored, it could
become a vehicle for sweetheart deals or pursue ill-
Code enforcement and involuntary demolitions are basic
advised development schemes that are not in the interest
governmental functions that should remain with the City.
of the city or its neighborhoods.
They should be housed within a single department. Tax
sale administration should also remain with the City
In view of NORA’s troubled history and its independ-
Department of Finance.
ence, controls on NORA’s operations are necessary to
promote strong performance and accountability. At a
In recent years, the housing department has performed
minimum:
the code enforcement and involuntary demolition func-
tions. The administration recently moved that department
n NORA’s efforts should be consistent with the
– and with it code enforcement – into ORDA. ORDA has
City’s master land use plan and its comprehensive
indicated to BGR that the reorganization of City depart-
zoning ordinance.
ments into ORDA reflects a shift from planning to imple-
mentation. The reorganization is expected to facilitate
n NORA should be subject to all maintenance
coordination and cooperation within City government.
requirements and demolition restrictions imposed
on private property owners under State and local
ORDA maintains that its responsibilities are citywide and
law.
that it will be implementing code enforcement citywide on
a strategic basis that is not limited to the 17 target recov-
n NORA and the City should jointly commit to a
ery zones. However, BGR remains concerned that ORDA
specific strategy and procedures for property
may concentrate code enforcement resources too narrowly
acquisition, maintenance and disposition.
on a limited number of recovery projects and areas. This
concern arises from the fact that most of ORDA’s written
n NORA’s activities should incorporate meaningful
public plans and strategy documents focus on the 17 target
public participation.
zones.27 Such a focus would leave fewer resources to
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 5
address blight in well functioning areas where there is an
which states that NORA’s purpose is to “eliminate and
active real estate market and only scattered blight. These
prevent the development or spread of slums and urban
are the very areas where blight remediation would have an
blight [and] to encourage needed rehabilitation.”29
immediate and critical impact.
Other cities’ blighted property programs also embrace
these basic goals.
Coordination
There are indications that the City and NORA intend to
impose on their blighted property
NORA and the City should careful-
programs other, more expansive
ly coordinate their activities.
goals. These include: building “inclu-
Among other things, coordination
The City and NORA need
sive” or “equitable” communities,
is necessary to ensure that the City
favoring certain types of develop-
to cast a wide net to
will promptly consider and hold
ment, pursuing other social goals
hearings on properties that NORA
encourage development by
such as “green” building, and promot-
is seeking to remediate. It is also
the largest possible group
ing homeownership.30 For example,
necessary to ensure that the City
of individual, non-profit
NORA’s most recent request for pro-
does not demolish buildings for
and for-profit developers.
posals for property disposition
which NORA has renovation plans.
favored developers that intend to do
workforce training, use environmen-
According to ORDA, the City has
tally sustainable techniques, “creat[e]
taken steps to address coordination. The City and NORA
vibrant communities,” use “sustainable ownership” mod-
are meeting regularly to discuss blight remediation
els and produce “projects [that] will be affordable to
issues, and both ORDA and NORA have asserted that
potential purchasers and renters.”31
communication has greatly improved in the last few
months. While internal meetings are certainly important,
The Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) and the United
coordination and transparency would be promoted by
States Department of Housing and Urban Development
spelling out responsibilities and procedures in a coopera-
(HUD) impose some restrictions that will require NORA
tive endeavor agreement. Currently, NORA and the City
to pursue goals beyond blight remediation. For example,
have two agreements in effect:28
the LRA requires NORA to redevelop 25% of Road Home
properties into affordable housing.32 However, the City
n In the first agreement, the City committed to allocate
and NORA should focus, to the extent possible within
up to $5 million in federal funds to NORA, on a cost
those parameters, on the basic goal of remediating blight.
reimbursement basis, for property acquisition and
It would be a mistake for NORA and the City to impose
land assembly in designated areas within or around
additional limitations unrelated to that basic goal and
ORDA’s 17 target zones.
good quality development. Such restrictions will limit the
range of potential projects and the pool of interested
n In the second agreement, the City committed to
developers, with the almost certain result that fewer prop-
allocate $2 million in City funds for property acqui-
erties will be rehabilitated.
sition within a target zone surrounding the proposed
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital site.
To be clear, BGR is not suggesting that developers who
NORA’s property dispositions must comply with a
seek to achieve goals beyond blight remediation — such
concept plan to be jointly agreed upon at a later date. as affordable housing and workforce training — should be
discouraged. Rather, it is simply suggesting that the City
These agreements do not spell out a cohesive strategy or
and NORA should not limit redevelopment to that type of
procedures. They do not provide for performance stan-
development. The City and NORA need to cast a wide net
dards with remedies if NORA fails to meet the standards.
to encourage development by the largest possible group of
individual, non-profit and for-profit developers.
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
A Comprehensive Citywide Strategy
Goals
Because blight is so widespread in New Orleans, the City
The basic goals of a blighted property program are
needs a comprehensive citywide strategy. As NORA has
blight remediation and redevelopment of blighted areas.
acknowledged, given the large number of blighted proper-
This is clearly expressed in NORA’s governing statute,
6 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
ties in the city and the current state of real estate demand,
In well-functioning areas with an active real estate market
it will be impossible to redevelop all blighted properties in
and only scattered blight, the market-driven approach is
the short term. Therefore, a blight strategy should take into
the most effective. Blighted properties in these areas are
account the viability of different areas and limited avail-
generally out of commerce for property-specific reasons –
able resources. The City and NORA should direct their
such as cloudy title, a vacant succession, or the owner’s
limited resources to viable areas where they would have
absence or intransigence. In well-functioning areas, once
the greatest potential for impact in the near future.
those problems are resolved and the properties are placed
in commerce, redevelopment generally takes place on its
In formulating strategy, local government must recognize
own. Local governments such as Baltimore and Genesee
that it is a facilitator. Individuals and developers will be
County have successfully used this approach. At one time,
the ones who rebuild or rehabilitate blighted homes and
NORA itself used a market-driven strategy in some neigh-
businesses. This is true in every city, no matter how
borhoods, with limited, but positive, results.
extensive the program. Effective blighted property pro-
grams encourage and facilitate private activity.
In more troubled but functioning areas, the targeted
approach is generally the most effective. Such areas have
clusters of blight, in which a critical mass of positive rede-
Different Areas, Different Strategies
velopment is needed. To create the critical mass, develop-
ers need to work on several or many properties at once in
Cities that have pursued successful blight redevelopment
the area. A targeted approach, such as the Neighborhoods in
have used different approaches in different types of
Bloom program in Richmond, Va., enables this.33 The use
areas. Those approaches include:
of a targeted approach should not preclude market-driven
redevelopment efforts in other troubled areas.
n Market-Driven Strategy. The local government
acquires as many blighted properties as possible
In the worst-off areas, which have scattered residents or
and gives all potential developers an equal chance
businesses, total redevelopment is generally the only feasi-
to purchase them.
ble approach. Many communities, including Philadelphia,
Detroit and Pittsburgh, have used this strategy.
n Targeted Strategy. The local government acquires
scattered blighted properties within a target zone
The amount of time and public investment required to
and transfers them to one or more developers for
implement the strategies discussed above varies consid-
immediate redevelopment.
erably. Total redevelopment is the most expensive and
time consuming. The table below provides information
n Total Redevelopment. The local government
on three communities that used that strategy.34
acquires blighted properties within an area to hold
for future large-scale redevelopment. This redevel-
The market-driven strategy is the least expensive and
opment may take the form of a new commercial or
time consuming of the three strategies discussed above.
residential development or a public use, such as a
public park.
Total Redevelopment: A Long and Costly Approach
Community
Type of Redevelopment
Total Subsidies
Time Required to Redevelop
Detroit
Single-family residential neighborhood
At least $115,000 per unit
Still under development (commenced in 1998)
(approximately 300 homes)
Philadelphia
Single- and two-family residential
At least $110,000 per unit
Approximately six years
neighborhood (103 units)
(excluding land acquisition costs)
Pittsburgh
Large sites including derelict steel mills and An average of approximately
10 to 19 years (most projects still under
slag dumps, a stockyard, and a blighted
$250,000 per acre (excluding
development)
neighborhood
infrastructure and construction
subsidies)
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 7
Buyers provide most or all of the investment. In a well-
would improve the quality of life and increase the hous-
run program, the time required for development of a par-
ing supply with a relatively modest investment of public
ticular property is generally minimal.
resources.
Targeted redevelopment is generally
Total redevelopment should take
Total redevelopment
more expensive than a market-driven
a backseat to the other strategies
projects have a tendency
strategy but less expensive than total
for now. As discussed above, the
redevelopment, both overall and on a
to “suck the oxygen out
costs and time commitment
per-unit basis. The targeted strategy used
the room” and consume all
required for total redevelopment
in Richmond redeveloped 419 properties
available resources, at the
are massive. Also, total redevel-
in seven zones. It cost approximately
expense of other blighted
opment projects have a tendency
$16.6 million (approximately $40,000 in
to “suck the oxygen out the
property redevelopment.
public funds per housing unit). That fig-
room” and consume all avail-
ure includes $2.7 million spent on capi-
able resources, at the expense of
tal improvements such as sidewalks and
other blighted property redevel-
street improvements. Richmond’s targeted redevelop-
opment such as market-driven redevelopment of scat-
ment took approximately four and a half years.35
tered sites. The City’s blighted property programs will
have a wider and much more immediate impact (with
much less cost) by focusing on market-driven and limit-
New Orleans’ Strategy
ed target zone strategies.
NORA and the City intend to rely heavily on a targeted
strategy. That strategy is a small part of a larger recovery
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
plan that involves infrastructure rebuilding, economic
development and redevelopment of vacant and idle prop-
New Orleans has struggled with blight for a long time,
erties in 17 target zones. ORDA has identified seven of
and Hurricane Katrina made the problem worse and more
these zones for blight remediation programs.36 NORA
urgent. To address the problem effectively, local govern-
plans to use a targeted strategy in at least five additional
ment must address a number of structural, legal and
zones.37
administrative challenges. These include fragmented
programs, overly broad goals and the lack of a compre-
The targeted strategy is appropriate for troubled areas.
hensive strategy. In addition, as BGR will discuss in
However, in light of the history of the City’s programs
detail in Part II of this report, funding deficiencies and a
and the slow progress made since Hurricane Katrina, it
host of technical and procedural problems have prevent-
makes sense for the City and NORA to start small, with
ed successful redevelopment. These include poor proper-
a few zones that are feasible and manageable. The num-
ty information, problems with property acquisition and
ber of planned zones is too ambitious at this juncture.
disposition procedures, lack of property maintenance and
NORA and the City should focus, at least at first, on no
a haphazard demolition process.
more than three or four zones.
While these problems may seem daunting, solutions do
In determining which zones to address first, NORA and
exist. To implement them, many policymakers, including
the City should use a transparent public process and clear
City officials, State lawmakers and NORA board and
and limited criteria. Criteria that have been used success-
staff, will have to work together. If these policymakers
fully in other cities to identify such areas include proxim-
roll up their sleeves and comprehensively address the
ity to well-functioning or up-and-coming areas, the
issues, there is a good chance that the City’s troubled
potential to encourage other development, and the pres-
course on blight can be reversed.
ence of existing redevelopment efforts. In New Orleans,
flood protection should also be taken into account in
BGR recommends the following with respect to program
choosing targeted zones.
structure, goals and strategies:
At the same time, the City and NORA should energetical-
Program Structure
ly pursue a market-driven strategy to eliminate blight in
well-functioning areas and in troubled areas where
n Blighted property programs in New Orleans should
be consolidated, to the greatest extent possible, in
appropriate. Addressing blight in functioning areas
NORA. Specifically:
8 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
o NORA should conduct all expropriations of
o Facilitates private development
blighted properties in New Orleans.
o Directs limited resources to viable areas
o NORA should serve as the depository for
with the greatest potential for impact in the
all blighted properties, with responsibility
near future
for managing and eventually disposing of
them.
o Gives priority to blight remediation efforts
in well-functioning areas and a limited
n City government should retain responsibility for
number of carefully chosen target zones
the administration of tax sales, code enforcement
and involuntary demolitions.
o Relies on a market-driven approach in
areas with sufficient development interest
n The State Legislature should amend NORA’s
enabling legislation:
o Acquires properties within chosen target
areas for simultaneous redevelopment
o To require that NORA follow the City’s
master land use plan and its comprehensive
n When identifying and prioritizing target zones,
zoning ordinance
NORA and the City should use a public process
with clear and limited criteria. Criteria should
o To provide for meaningful public participa-
include proximity to well-functioning and up-and-
tion in NORA’s property acquisition and
coming areas, potential to encourage other devel-
disposition decisions
opment and the presence of existing redevelop-
ment efforts.
o To establish strong conflict-of-interest rules
for NORA’s board members and staff
n The City Council should amend the City ordinance
governing the Office of Inspector General, and
State lawmakers should amend NORA’s enabling
legislation, to clearly give the Office of Inspector
General oversight power over NORA.
n The City and NORA should jointly commit,
through a cooperative endeavor agreement, to the
allocation of responsibilities recommended in this
report and to specific strategies, procedures and
performance standards.
n To provide a means of enforcing NORA’s commit-
ments, the City should retain a clearly defined
right of reversion in properties it transfers to
NORA.
Goals and Strategies
n NORA and the City should focus their blighted
property programs, to the extent possible, on the
goals of blight remediation and good quality rede-
velopment of blighted areas. NORA and the City
should avoid program requirements that interfere
with effective accomplishment of these goals.
n NORA and the City should adopt a comprehensive,
citywide set of strategies that:
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 9
END NOTES
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Department
6 BGR interviewed experts from University of Michigan,
of Housing and Urban Development, Current Housing Unit
University of Pennsylvania, Virginia Tech, Emory University,
Damage Estimates, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma,
Johns Hopkins University, Wayne State University and Carnegie
February 12, 2006, p. 23 (estimating that 78,810 housing units
Mellon University.
received “severe” damage from Hurricane Katrina and resulting
flooding). Other sources of data reflecting the scope of the prob-
7 These surveys included all properties west of the Industrial
lem are as follows: Krupa, Michelle, “Doubt Next Door,” The
Canal owned by NORA as of May 2007 or expropriated by NORA
Times-Picayune, August 26, 2007 (blight complaints were made on
in 2002 (NORA’s most active year between 2000 and 2005).
17,112 separate properties between 2006 and July 2007); City of
8
New Orleans, damage assessment data, December 18, 2007,
La. Const. art. I, § 4; La. R.S. 19:136 et seq., La. R.S.
gisweb.cityofno.com/cnogis/dataportal.aspx (post-Katrina damage
33:4720.59, and New Orleans, Louisiana, Ordinance No. 22,643
estimates by municipal address indicate that 29,262 properties had
M.C.S. (May 3, 2007).
damage of 50% or greater); U.S. Department of Housing and
9
Urban Development and U.S. Postal Service, HUD Aggregated
La. R.S. 47:2171 et seq. The purchaser’s title is subject to a
USPS Administrative Data on Address Vacancies, Third Quarter
right of redemption, allowing the original owner a period of time
2007 Data, www.huduser.org/datasets/usps.html (indicating that
to reclaim the property by paying the back taxes, interest and costs.
83,341 addresses in Orleans Parish were vacant or inactive). See
10
also Guillet, Jaime, “New office boosts Blakely’s fight against
La. R.S. 13:2575(C)(1), 2576.
blight,” New Orleans CityBusiness, December 17, 2007 (ORDA
11 La. Acts 1968, No. 170, §§2-3; La. R.S. 33:4720.52-53.
estimate of between 20,000 and 30,000 blighted properties).
12
2
Data from Orleans Parish Civil District Court (indicating 113
Data from Orleans Parish Civil District Court indicates that
actions in 2000; 234 in 2001; 268 in 2002; 212 in 2003; 162 in
NORA filed 113 expropriation suits in 2000, 234 suits in 2001,
2004; and 113 in 2005).
268 suits in 2002, 212 suits in 2003, 162 suits in 2004, and 113
suits in 2005. Some, but not all, of those suits resulted in acquisi-
13 Cooperative Endeavor Agreement between the City of New
tion and redevelopment. The City sold or donated 121 tax adjudi-
Orleans and New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, Contract No.
cated properties to developers between 2000 and Hurricane
K06-594, December 2006, p. 3; minutes from NORA Board of
Katrina. Data received in response to a June 8, 2007, public
Commissioners meeting, April 23, 2007.
records request.
14
3
Data received in response to a June 8, 2007, public records
BGR’s calculations indicate that 607 properties were sold or
request to the City Attorney’s Office (total of 1,833 tax adjudicated
donated by the City and NORA between August 31, 2005, and
properties awarded).
January 18, 2008. These calculations are based on data received in
response to a June 8, 2007, public records request to the City
15 According to the City Attorney’s Office, as of December 2007
Attorney’s Office and on data from the Orleans Parish Registrar of
it had made only one attempt to conduct lien foreclosure, through a
Conveyances.
lawsuit filed in 1997. In that lawsuit, the Court found the City’s
4
attempt procedurally deficient and gave the City a chance to cor-
These letters were dated, respectively, December 3 and
rect those deficiencies. The City did not pursue the case to a con-
December 11, 2007, and are available at BGR’s web site,
clusion. City of New Orleans v. Teche Street, Inc., Case No. 97-
www.bgr.org.
12588 (La. Civil Dist. Ct., Div. “L,” October 20, 1997).
5 BGR interviewed staff from NORA and the following depart-
16 New Orleans, Louisiana, Code § 26-263 (2007).
ments in New Orleans: City Attorney’s Office, Housing
Department, Department of Finance, ORM and ORDA. BGR
17 New Orleans, Louisiana, Code § 26-166 (2007).
interviewed staff from the following programs and entities in other
cities: Philadelphia Neighborhood Transformation Initiative;
18 Past reports have recognized the confusion caused by fragmen-
Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority; Cleveland Land
tation: National Vacant Properties Campaign, New Orleans
Bank; Louisville Department of Housing and Community
Technical Assessment and Assistance Project, Draft Report:
Development; Richmond Department of Community
Recommended Actions to Improve the Prevention, Acquisition, and
Development; Richmond Federal Reserve Bank; Genesee County
Disposition of New Orleans’ Blighted, Abandoned, and Tax
Land Bank; Baltimore Department of Housing and Community
Adjudicated Properties, October 2004, pp. 1, 5; Mayor Elect C.
Development; Homestead, Fla., Community Redevelopment
Ray Nagin Transition Team, Blighted Housing Task Force Report,
Authority; Detroit Economic Growth Corporation; and Milwaukee
May 2002, p. 22.
Department of Neighborhood Services.
10 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
END NOTES CONTINUED
19 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op. cit., p. 23;
Redevelopment Authority, July 2007; Mayor C. Ray Nagin,
National Vacant Properties Campaign, op. cit., p. 4 (“There is a
Testimony Before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee
lack of coordination … which contributes to developer confusion
On Housing And Community Opportunity, February 22, 2007
and a lack of effective targeting by the City.”); Mayor Elect Marc
(City’s blighted property programs “will provide affordable work-
H. Morial Transition Team, April 1994, Report to the Housing Task
force housing units built to community style.”).
Force, p. 5 (“Each organization is subject to unique political con-
31
siderations and pressures which makes collaboration between any
NORA, Request for Qualifications, op. cit. §§ 4-5.
and all of them nearly impossible.”); National Vacant Properties
32 Louisiana Recovery Authority, Action Plan Amendment 14
Campaign, Draft Report, op. cit., p. 4.
(First Allocation) – Road Home Homeowner Compensation Plan,
20 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op. cit., pp. 23, 26.
May 14, 2007, p. 11. See also HUD, Waivers Granted to and
Alternate Requirements for the State of Louisiana’s CDBG
21 See, e.g., NORA v. Ovide, 871 So.2d 396, 398 (La. App. 4 Cir.
Disaster Recovery Grant, 71 Fed. Reg. 34451, 34454 (June 14,
2004).
2006); HUD, Allocations and Common Application and Reporting
Waivers Granted to and Alternate Requirements for the State of
22 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op cit., p. 25;
Louisiana’s CDBG Disaster Recovery Grant, 71 Fed. Reg. 7666,
National Vacant Properties Campaign, New Orleans Technical
7667 (February 13, 2006).
Assessment and Assistance Report: Recommended Actions to
33
Improve the Prevention, Acquisition, and Disposition of New
See, e.g., Galster, George, Peter Tatian and John Accordino,
Orleans’ Blighted, Abandoned, and Tax Adjudicated Properties,
“Targeting Neighborhoods for Neighborhood Revitalization,”
February 2005, pp. 4-5, 9-11 (suggesting that functions could be
Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2006.
consolidated into a new operating entity); Mayor Elect Marc H.
34
Morial Transition Team, op. cit., p. 7.
Interviews with staff from Detroit Economic Growth
Corporation, Philadelphia Neighborhood Transformation Initiative
23 La. R.S. 42:4.1 et seq.
and Pittsburgh Redevelopment Authority.
24
35
The section of the governing ordinance entitled “Authority”
Galster, et al., op. cit., p. 459 n. 9.
gives the Inspector General the authority to investigate depart-
36
ments of “city government.” Other sections of the ordinance gives
ORDA, Target Area Development Plans,
the Inspector General certain powers (such as subpoena powers)
www.nolarecovery.com/taplans.html. These documents also
over independent boards and commissions. New Orleans,
include plans in another area, the Federal City in Algiers, as well
Louisiana Code § 2-1120 (2007).
as a few citywide projects.
25
37
Louisiana law allows sellers to impose a right of reversion. La.
NORA, Parish Redevelopment and Disposition Plan for
C.C. arts. 2567-68; see also, e.g., LeBlanc v. Romero, 783 So.2d
Louisiana Land Trust Properties, December 11, 2007, p. 5;
419, 420 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001). Applying this restriction to tax
Cooperative Endeavor Agreements (K07-733 and K07-734), op.
adjudicated properties may require changes in law.
cit. (indicating an additional zone surrounding the proposed
Veterans Administration hospital).
26 The purchaser will need this waiver because the right of rever-
sion is a cloud on the purchaser’s title.
27 See, e.g., City of New Orleans 2008 Budget, p. 61 (“The mis-
sion of [ORDA] is to design and successfully implement a plan for
the recovery of the citizens of the City especially in targeted recov-
ery areas….”); ORDA Target Area Development Plans,
www.nolarecovery.com/taplans.html.
28 Cooperative Endeavor Agreements (K07-733 and K07-734)
between City of New Orleans and NORA, December 2007.
29 La. R.S. 33:4720.53.
30 NORA, New Orleans Redevelopment Authority: Restoring,
Rebuilding, and Redeveloping an American City, A Fundraising
and Investment Prospectus, July 2007, pp. 8, 11; NORA, Request
for Qualifications for Participation in “Demonstration Village”
Redevelopment Initiative Conducted by New Orleans
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 11
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
New Orleans, LA
Permit No. 432
Bureau of Governmental Research
938 Lafayette St., Suite 200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
File contents
A Report from the Bureau
of Governmental Research
MENDING THE
URBAN FABRIC
Blight in New Orleans
Part I: Structure & Strategy
FEBRUARY 2008
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR Review Committee
BGR Board of Directors
Henry O’Connor, Jr., Chairman
Arnold B. Baker
James B. Barkate
Officers
Virginia Besthoff
Christian T. Brown
Lynes R. Sloss, Chairman
Pamela M. Bryan
LaToya W. Cantrell
Hans B. Jonassen, Vice Chairman
Joan Coulter
Hans B. Jonassen
Robert W. Brown, Secretary
Mark A. Mayer
Carolyn W. McLellan
Sterling Scott Willis, Treasurer
Lynes R. Sloss
Board Members
Herschel L. Abbott, Jr.
BGR Project Staff
Conrad A. Appel III
Robert C. Baird, Jr.
Janet R. Howard, President
Arnold B. Baker
C. Davin Boldissar, Principal Author
James B. Barkate
Peter Reichard, Production Manager
Virginia Besthoff
Ralph O. Brennan
Christian T. Brown
BGR
Pamela M. Bryan
LaToya W. Cantrell
Joan Coulter
The Bureau of Governmental Research is a private, non-
J. Kelly Duncan
profit, independent research organization dedicated to
Ludovico Feoli
informed public policy making and the effective use of
Hardy B. Fowler
public resources for the improvement of government in
Aimee Adatto Freeman
the New Orleans metropolitan area.
Julie Livaudais George
Roy A. Glapion
This report is available on BGR’s web site, www.bgr.org.
Matthew P. LeCorgne
Mark A. Mayer
Carolyn W. McLellan
Henry O’Connor, Jr.
William A. Oliver
Thomas A. Oreck
Gregory St. Etienne
Madeline D. West
Andrew B. Wisdom
Honorary Board
Bryan Bell
Harry J. Blumenthal, Jr.
Edgar L. Chase III
Louis M. Freeman
Richard W. Freeman, Jr.
Ronald J. French
David Guidry
Paul M. Haygood
Diana M. Lewis
Anne M. Milling
R. King Milling
George H. Porter III
Edward F. Stauss, Jr.
Bureau of Governmental Research
938 Lafayette St., Suite 200
Photos by C. Davin Boldissar
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
INTRODUCTION
1
OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
1
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
2
Current Structure
2
Fragmentation Creates Problems
4
Consolidating Blight Management
4
Controls on NORA
5
Code Enforcement: A Citywide Function
5
Coordination
6
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
6
Goals
6
A Comprehensive Citywide Strategy
6
Different Areas, Different Strategies
7
New Orleans’ Strategy
8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8
Program Structure
8
Goals and Strategies
9
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
ew Orleans has for decades suffered from
New Orleans faces multiple structural, legal and admin-
pervasive blight. Hurricane Katrina and the
istrative problems in addressing blight. They include the
Nresulting levee failures exacerbated this following:
problem. No one has conducted a compre-
hensive survey to determine the number of
n Fragmented Structure. The administration of
blighted properties. However, federal agencies have esti-
blighted property programs in New Orleans is
mated that approximately 80,000 housing units were
fragmented and uncoordinated.
severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. It is safe to say
that there are tens of thousands of blighted properties in
n Inadequate Goals and Strategies. Local govern-
the city.1
ment has not articulated comprehensive and realis-
tic goals and strategies for redeveloping blighted
Blight poses a serious impediment to the city’s recovery.
property.
Blighted properties destabilize neighborhoods, depress
property values and subject neighbors to health and safe-
n Funding Deficiencies. Blighted property programs
ty hazards. Blight deters investment and increases the
in New Orleans lack sufficient funding to address
likelihood that neighboring properties will also decline
blight effectively.
and become blighted. In post-Katrina New Orleans, it
discourages residents from restoring flood-damaged
n Poor Information. Poor record keeping and a lack
homes. Blight also represents lost tax revenue potential
of access to basic property information impede
in a city with troubled finances.
redevelopment.
Local government plays a key role in fostering blighted
n Acquisition Hurdles. Numerous problems with
property redevelopment. It is uniquely positioned to
acquisition processes prevent redevelopment.
acquire blighted properties and encourage their redevel-
opment, because of its powers, access to funding and
manpower.
METHODOLOGY
BGR conducted interviews with numerous profes-
Unfortunately, New Orleans’ blighted property programs
sionals, including:
have historically been ineffective. In the five years before
Katrina, the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans
n Staff of local government programs in New
Redevelopment Authority (NORA), the entity charged
Orleans and other cities5
with blight remediation in the city, acquired and redevel-
oped only a few hundred properties annually.2 Post-
n Urban planning and land use experts6
Katrina, the only tangible sign of redevelopment has
been the transfer of approximately 600 blighted and tax-
n For-profit and non-profit developers, attorneys
adjudicated properties by NORA and the City to develop-
and observers of the real estate market in New
ers.3
Orleans
BGR has previously made preliminary observations
BGR reviewed reports and academic papers regard-
ing blighted property programs and redevelopment,
regarding the City’s blighted property programs. These
including reports on New Orleans and the cities list-
observations appear in December 2007 letters sent to
ed below. BGR reviewed numerous documents and
NORA and the City’s Office of Recovery Management
materials it obtained from NORA and the City.
(ORM).4 This study builds on BGR’s initial observa-
tions, discussing the obstacles to blight remediation and
In addition to New Orleans’ programs, BGR’s research
proposed solutions in greater detail.
focused on seven widely discussed programs:
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Louisville,
BGR uses the terms “blight” and “blighted” to refer to
Richmond, Genesee County (containing Flint, Mich.)
severely dilapidated or damaged properties, regardless of
and Baltimore.
whether such properties have been formally designated
as “blighted” under a local government process.
BGR also conducted physical surveys of hundreds of
properties that NORA acquired.7
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 1
n Disposition Procedures. The procedures for trans-
ferring properties to individuals and developers are
PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
arbitrary, opaque and uncompetitive.
Local government in New Orleans has four pipelines
n Poor Maintenance and Cleanup. NORA has histor-
for acquiring blighted property:
ically not cleaned up and maintained the blighted
property under its control.
Road Home Transfers. The State of Louisiana plans
to transfer to local government bodies residential
n Involuntary Demolitions. Involuntary demolitions,
properties that it purchases through the Road Home
as currently administered, endanger blighted struc-
program. NORA is the designated recipient for the
tures that should be saved and returned to com-
thousands of Road Home properties in New Orleans.
merce.
Expropriation. Expropriation (also called eminent
There is no single “silver bullet” that will solve these
domain) is a basic power of government to take pri-
problems. Instead, policymakers must roll up their
vate property for certain purposes authorized by
sleeves and comprehensively address a multitude of
law, in exchange for compensation. The City and
issues.
NORA both have the power to expropriate blighted
property, although NORA’s powers are narrower.
Due to the complexity and scope of the issues, we are
Expropriation has been severely limited by 2006
addressing them in a two-part report. In this, the first part
amendments to the Louisiana Constitution.8
of that report, we address the first two issues listed
above: program structure and goals and strategies. In the
Tax Adjudication. The City Finance Department
second part, we will address funding and technical and
periodically offers tax delinquent properties for sale
procedural issues relating to property acquisition, main-
to the public. Successful purchasers receive title in
tenance, disposition and demolition.
exchange for payment of back taxes plus costs and
interest.9 The City holds properties that do not sell;
in legal terminology, these properties are “adjudicat-
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
ed” to the City. In many cases, these properties are
blighted.
Local government has a number of tools available to
address blight. It can actively enforce codes, encourage
Lien Foreclosure. The City, through code enforce-
rehabilitation through incentives, demolish properties
ment proceedings, can impose fines and liens on
that pose threats to safety and in some cases force the sale
property that is in violation of public health, housing,
of properties. Often, however, the government must
fire code, environmental or historic district ordi-
acquire blighted properties for ultimate resale or conver-
nances. The City can then foreclose on the lien, forc-
sion to public use.
ing a sale of the property by the Civil Sheriff.10 The
Sheriff sells the property to the highest bidder, which
New Orleans’ blighted property programs, like those in
could be a private party, NORA or the City. The pro-
other cities, focus mainly on the acquisition, maintenance
cedure has not been successfully tested.
and disposition of properties. In New Orleans, govern-
ment can acquire blighted properties through expropria-
tion, tax adjudication and foreclosure on liens created
NORA. NORA is an independent authority created in
through code enforcement proceedings (blight liens). The
1968 for the purpose of “eliminat[ing] and prevent[ing]
Road Home program provides an additional source of
the development or spread of slums and urban blight”
properties. These four acquisition pipelines are described
within New Orleans.11 Although its board members are
in the sidebar at right.
appointed by the mayor from nominees proposed by
State legislators, it is structurally independent from City
government.
Current Structure
NORA has significant powers, including the power to
The administration of the City’s blighted property pro-
undertake large-scale redevelopment and to expropriate
grams is fragmented among a number of entities and
blighted (and, in some cases, nonblighted) properties. In
departments. The following are the key players and their
the decade preceding Hurricane Katrina, NORA’s pri-
roles.
mary activity was the expropriation of blighted proper-
2 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
55 Properties
Rehabilitated. Of these, 8
appeared to have received
only minimal renovations.
25%
Rehabilitation
48 Properties
42: Redeveloped as new con-
struction affordable housing.
2002 NORA
22%
6: Redeveloped as new con-
Expropriations:
New
struction, either for commercial
Where do they Construction
(4) or market-rate residential
101 Properties
stand?
use (2).
63: Blighted or unmaintained
vacant lots.
46%
7%
31: Maintained vacant lots.
No Redevelopment
Some
7: Contain a blighted structure.
Rehabilitation
15 Properties
Had incomplete rehabilitation
or construction work.
IN 2002, NORA EXPROPRIATED 219 PROPERTIES west of the
Industrial Canal. In May and June, 2007, BGR conducted a site survey
of these properties, identified through records from Orleans Parish Civil
District Court and Orleans Parish Registrar of Conveyances.
ties for resale and redevelopment. The agency had a poor
Unit has managed the sale or donation of the City’s tax
record. In the five years before Katrina, it undertook
adjudicated properties. Recently, it awarded approximately
between 113 and 268 expropriations annually.12 It sold
1,800 tax adjudicated properties to for-profit and nonprofit
most properties to private parties who committed to
developers.14 The City has set aside the remaining 1,500
remediate them. BGR’s survey of year 2002 expropria-
for NORA. The City Attorney’s Office can also use lien
tions indicates that these actions were only partially suc-
foreclosure, although it has never done so successfully.15
cessful. As of mid-2007, almost half of the properties had
not been redeveloped. (See the chart above.)
ORDA. The City recently consolidated several depart-
ments into the Office of Recovery Development and
Since Hurricane Katrina, NORA has been revamped with
Administration (ORDA), under the direction of Edward
an expanded board and new management. It has become
Blakely. The offices that are now part of ORDA include
the designated repository for some blighted properties
(among others):
acquired by other government entities. These include an
estimated 1,500 tax adjudicated properties and the thou-
n Office of Recovery Management. The City created
sands of Road Home properties located in the city.13
ORM in late 2006 as a policy group that formu-
lates recovery and development plans and policies.
City Attorney’s Office Housing Law Unit. The City, acting
It created a recovery plan that calls for specific
primarily through the Housing Law Unit of the City
projects in 17 target zones. These projects include
Attorney’s Office, has also expropriated blighted property
redevelopment of both blighted and non-blighted
for later resale or donation. In addition, the Housing Law
properties in these areas.
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 3
n Housing Department. The housing department has
Third, fragmentation has contributed to a lack of focus.
a broad range of responsibilities, including the
With the exception of NORA, the personnel of the vari-
administration of federal housing funds and neigh-
ous departments and entities are not dedicated to blight-
borhood education, health care and other social
ed property issues. Rather, blighted property is part of a
service programs. With regard to blighted property
broad portfolio of responsibilities in each agency. The
redevelopment, the department inspects properties
City Attorney’s Office Housing Unit staff works on all
for dangerous conditions and orders involuntary
housing-related issues, including defending the City in
demolitions of structures that pose an imminent
litigation and advising the City on various legal issues.
health threat.16 Working in collaboration with the
Housing department personnel administer a wide range
Department of Safety and Permits, it does the
of federal housing and social services programs. ORDA
same for properties that are in imminent danger of
is responsible for all aspects of recovery management
collapse.17 The housing department is also respon-
and planning, and also has responsibility for housing and
sible for code enforcement and administers the
economic development issues. With these multiple
hearing process for declaring properties blighted.
responsibilities, personnel cannot focus adequately on
Once the City declares a property blighted, the
blighted property issues.
department imposes a fine and a lien to secure
payment. The blight declaration enables NORA or
the City to more easily acquire the property using
Consolidating Blight Management
expropriation, lien foreclosure or tax adjudication.
The solution to these problems begins with the consoli-
n Safety and Permits. The Department of Safety and
dation, to the greatest extent possible, of blighted proper-
Permits, together with the housing department,
ty programs. In particular, one entity should hold, man-
inspects and condemns properties that are in immi-
age and eventually dispose of blighted property. As dis-
nent danger of collapse.
cussed below, this entity could also administer some
aspects of blighted property acquisition.
Other City Departments. Two other City departments
play minor roles in blighted property redevelopment. The
Consolidation of these functions would help facilitate
Health Department, through its environmental health
communication and cooperation. It would put blighted
section, inspects and cites vacant lots for blight. As dis-
property management in the hands of a dedicated staff
cussed above, buildings are inspected and cited by the
with a focus on blighted property issues and make it eas-
housing department. The City Finance Department con-
ier for individuals and entities interested in redeveloping
ducts sales of tax-delinquent properties.
properties to navigate the bureaucracy.
The recommendation to consolidate these functions is
Fragmentation Creates Problems
not new. Earlier reports on blighted property programs in
New Orleans have advocated such consolidation.22
The fragmentation of responsibilities has a long history and
Local governments in other jurisdictions, including
causes three problems. First, the structure is confusing to the
Genesee County, Louisville and Richmond, have also
public and developers. A person concerned about a neigh-
streamlined and consolidated their programs.
bor’s blighted house must navigate several separately
administered and staffed departments and sort through over-
The depository for blighted properties could be either a
lapping and confusing programs. Faced with the frustration
City department or an independent agency. There are,
of working within this structure, many simply give up. 18
however, serious drawbacks to consolidation within City
government. Due to competing demands and responsibil-
Second, coordination among entities and departments
ities, it would be difficult for a City agency to keep focus
has been poor. An analysis prepared for Mayor Nagin’s
and momentum on blight issues. In addition, a City pro-
Transition Team in 2002 stated that “the relevant depart-
gram could wax and wane depending on the politics of
ments do not effectively share information or coordinate
the moment. Also, an independent authority is generally
efforts,” and other reports prepared in 1994 and 2004
subject to more transparency and public participation.
agree.19 In particular, observers have cited failures to
This is because, under the Louisiana Open Meetings
coordinate involuntary demolitions, code enforcement
Law, the authority’s deliberations in board and commit-
and expropriations.20 On more than one occasion, the
tee meetings must be open to the public.23 In contrast,
housing department demolished a structure that NORA
while City Council meetings must be open and public,
was attempting to expropriate for redevelopment.21
deliberations of City departments are not.
4 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
For these reasons, we believe that blighted property pro-
n NORA’s employees and directors should comply
grams should be formally consolidated in a single-pur-
with conflict-of-interest rules that go beyond exist-
pose authority. NORA is the obvious candidate. Its sole
ing State requirements.
mission is the remediation and redevelopment of blight-
ed properties and areas. It has most of the powers need-
n NORA and the City should jointly establish rigor-
ed to acquire, manage and dispose of blighted property,
ous performance standards.
including access to all of the property pipelines except
lien foreclosure.
n NORA should meet the performance standards
agreed upon with the City.
Since the storm, NORA has become the de facto deposi-
tory for blighted properties. However, the current
Strong performance and accountability could be furthered
arrangement is the result of ad hoc transfers rather than
by oversight from the City’s newly created Office of
the product of a long-term commitment. It should be for-
Inspector General. It is unclear whether the Inspector
malized through a new, comprehensive cooperative
General has sufficient authority to exercise full oversight.
endeavor agreement.
To avoid future disputes over the scope of authority, the
ordinance establishing the office and NORA’s governing
NORA should also, where possible, be the vehicle for
statute should be amended.24
acquiring property. As noted above, it already has the
power to acquire property through expropriation. While
To further increase accountability, the City could retain a
it currently lacks the authority to foreclose on liens, it has
limited right of reversion in properties it transfers to
the ability to purchase property through lien foreclosure. NORA. The right would allow the City to take the prop-
erties back should NORA fail to live up to its legal and
contractual commitments with the City.25 This will
Controls on NORA
require extra paperwork at the time of resale to waive the
right of reversion. To avoid costly delays, the City will
Our recommendation to consolidate functions within
have to execute the waiver in a timely fashion.26
NORA comes with reservations. NORA is not directly
accountable to voters. In addition, it has a troubled histo-
ry and has facilitated the redevelopment of few proper-
Code Enforcement: A Citywide Function
ties. Unless properly managed and monitored, it could
become a vehicle for sweetheart deals or pursue ill-
Code enforcement and involuntary demolitions are basic
advised development schemes that are not in the interest
governmental functions that should remain with the City.
of the city or its neighborhoods.
They should be housed within a single department. Tax
sale administration should also remain with the City
In view of NORA’s troubled history and its independ-
Department of Finance.
ence, controls on NORA’s operations are necessary to
promote strong performance and accountability. At a
In recent years, the housing department has performed
minimum:
the code enforcement and involuntary demolition func-
tions. The administration recently moved that department
n NORA’s efforts should be consistent with the
– and with it code enforcement – into ORDA. ORDA has
City’s master land use plan and its comprehensive
indicated to BGR that the reorganization of City depart-
zoning ordinance.
ments into ORDA reflects a shift from planning to imple-
mentation. The reorganization is expected to facilitate
n NORA should be subject to all maintenance
coordination and cooperation within City government.
requirements and demolition restrictions imposed
on private property owners under State and local
ORDA maintains that its responsibilities are citywide and
law.
that it will be implementing code enforcement citywide on
a strategic basis that is not limited to the 17 target recov-
n NORA and the City should jointly commit to a
ery zones. However, BGR remains concerned that ORDA
specific strategy and procedures for property
may concentrate code enforcement resources too narrowly
acquisition, maintenance and disposition.
on a limited number of recovery projects and areas. This
concern arises from the fact that most of ORDA’s written
n NORA’s activities should incorporate meaningful
public plans and strategy documents focus on the 17 target
public participation.
zones.27 Such a focus would leave fewer resources to
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 5
address blight in well functioning areas where there is an
which states that NORA’s purpose is to “eliminate and
active real estate market and only scattered blight. These
prevent the development or spread of slums and urban
are the very areas where blight remediation would have an
blight [and] to encourage needed rehabilitation.”29
immediate and critical impact.
Other cities’ blighted property programs also embrace
these basic goals.
Coordination
There are indications that the City and NORA intend to
impose on their blighted property
NORA and the City should careful-
programs other, more expansive
ly coordinate their activities.
goals. These include: building “inclu-
Among other things, coordination
The City and NORA need
sive” or “equitable” communities,
is necessary to ensure that the City
favoring certain types of develop-
to cast a wide net to
will promptly consider and hold
ment, pursuing other social goals
hearings on properties that NORA
encourage development by
such as “green” building, and promot-
is seeking to remediate. It is also
the largest possible group
ing homeownership.30 For example,
necessary to ensure that the City
of individual, non-profit
NORA’s most recent request for pro-
does not demolish buildings for
and for-profit developers.
posals for property disposition
which NORA has renovation plans.
favored developers that intend to do
workforce training, use environmen-
According to ORDA, the City has
tally sustainable techniques, “creat[e]
taken steps to address coordination. The City and NORA
vibrant communities,” use “sustainable ownership” mod-
are meeting regularly to discuss blight remediation
els and produce “projects [that] will be affordable to
issues, and both ORDA and NORA have asserted that
potential purchasers and renters.”31
communication has greatly improved in the last few
months. While internal meetings are certainly important,
The Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) and the United
coordination and transparency would be promoted by
States Department of Housing and Urban Development
spelling out responsibilities and procedures in a coopera-
(HUD) impose some restrictions that will require NORA
tive endeavor agreement. Currently, NORA and the City
to pursue goals beyond blight remediation. For example,
have two agreements in effect:28
the LRA requires NORA to redevelop 25% of Road Home
properties into affordable housing.32 However, the City
n In the first agreement, the City committed to allocate
and NORA should focus, to the extent possible within
up to $5 million in federal funds to NORA, on a cost
those parameters, on the basic goal of remediating blight.
reimbursement basis, for property acquisition and
It would be a mistake for NORA and the City to impose
land assembly in designated areas within or around
additional limitations unrelated to that basic goal and
ORDA’s 17 target zones.
good quality development. Such restrictions will limit the
range of potential projects and the pool of interested
n In the second agreement, the City committed to
developers, with the almost certain result that fewer prop-
allocate $2 million in City funds for property acqui-
erties will be rehabilitated.
sition within a target zone surrounding the proposed
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital site.
To be clear, BGR is not suggesting that developers who
NORA’s property dispositions must comply with a
seek to achieve goals beyond blight remediation — such
concept plan to be jointly agreed upon at a later date. as affordable housing and workforce training — should be
discouraged. Rather, it is simply suggesting that the City
These agreements do not spell out a cohesive strategy or
and NORA should not limit redevelopment to that type of
procedures. They do not provide for performance stan-
development. The City and NORA need to cast a wide net
dards with remedies if NORA fails to meet the standards.
to encourage development by the largest possible group of
individual, non-profit and for-profit developers.
GOALS AND STRATEGIES
A Comprehensive Citywide Strategy
Goals
Because blight is so widespread in New Orleans, the City
The basic goals of a blighted property program are
needs a comprehensive citywide strategy. As NORA has
blight remediation and redevelopment of blighted areas.
acknowledged, given the large number of blighted proper-
This is clearly expressed in NORA’s governing statute,
6 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
ties in the city and the current state of real estate demand,
In well-functioning areas with an active real estate market
it will be impossible to redevelop all blighted properties in
and only scattered blight, the market-driven approach is
the short term. Therefore, a blight strategy should take into
the most effective. Blighted properties in these areas are
account the viability of different areas and limited avail-
generally out of commerce for property-specific reasons –
able resources. The City and NORA should direct their
such as cloudy title, a vacant succession, or the owner’s
limited resources to viable areas where they would have
absence or intransigence. In well-functioning areas, once
the greatest potential for impact in the near future.
those problems are resolved and the properties are placed
in commerce, redevelopment generally takes place on its
In formulating strategy, local government must recognize
own. Local governments such as Baltimore and Genesee
that it is a facilitator. Individuals and developers will be
County have successfully used this approach. At one time,
the ones who rebuild or rehabilitate blighted homes and
NORA itself used a market-driven strategy in some neigh-
businesses. This is true in every city, no matter how
borhoods, with limited, but positive, results.
extensive the program. Effective blighted property pro-
grams encourage and facilitate private activity.
In more troubled but functioning areas, the targeted
approach is generally the most effective. Such areas have
clusters of blight, in which a critical mass of positive rede-
Different Areas, Different Strategies
velopment is needed. To create the critical mass, develop-
ers need to work on several or many properties at once in
Cities that have pursued successful blight redevelopment
the area. A targeted approach, such as the Neighborhoods in
have used different approaches in different types of
Bloom program in Richmond, Va., enables this.33 The use
areas. Those approaches include:
of a targeted approach should not preclude market-driven
redevelopment efforts in other troubled areas.
n Market-Driven Strategy. The local government
acquires as many blighted properties as possible
In the worst-off areas, which have scattered residents or
and gives all potential developers an equal chance
businesses, total redevelopment is generally the only feasi-
to purchase them.
ble approach. Many communities, including Philadelphia,
Detroit and Pittsburgh, have used this strategy.
n Targeted Strategy. The local government acquires
scattered blighted properties within a target zone
The amount of time and public investment required to
and transfers them to one or more developers for
implement the strategies discussed above varies consid-
immediate redevelopment.
erably. Total redevelopment is the most expensive and
time consuming. The table below provides information
n Total Redevelopment. The local government
on three communities that used that strategy.34
acquires blighted properties within an area to hold
for future large-scale redevelopment. This redevel-
The market-driven strategy is the least expensive and
opment may take the form of a new commercial or
time consuming of the three strategies discussed above.
residential development or a public use, such as a
public park.
Total Redevelopment: A Long and Costly Approach
Community
Type of Redevelopment
Total Subsidies
Time Required to Redevelop
Detroit
Single-family residential neighborhood
At least $115,000 per unit
Still under development (commenced in 1998)
(approximately 300 homes)
Philadelphia
Single- and two-family residential
At least $110,000 per unit
Approximately six years
neighborhood (103 units)
(excluding land acquisition costs)
Pittsburgh
Large sites including derelict steel mills and An average of approximately
10 to 19 years (most projects still under
slag dumps, a stockyard, and a blighted
$250,000 per acre (excluding
development)
neighborhood
infrastructure and construction
subsidies)
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 7
Buyers provide most or all of the investment. In a well-
would improve the quality of life and increase the hous-
run program, the time required for development of a par-
ing supply with a relatively modest investment of public
ticular property is generally minimal.
resources.
Targeted redevelopment is generally
Total redevelopment should take
Total redevelopment
more expensive than a market-driven
a backseat to the other strategies
projects have a tendency
strategy but less expensive than total
for now. As discussed above, the
redevelopment, both overall and on a
to “suck the oxygen out
costs and time commitment
per-unit basis. The targeted strategy used
the room” and consume all
required for total redevelopment
in Richmond redeveloped 419 properties
available resources, at the
are massive. Also, total redevel-
in seven zones. It cost approximately
expense of other blighted
opment projects have a tendency
$16.6 million (approximately $40,000 in
to “suck the oxygen out the
property redevelopment.
public funds per housing unit). That fig-
room” and consume all avail-
ure includes $2.7 million spent on capi-
able resources, at the expense of
tal improvements such as sidewalks and
other blighted property redevel-
street improvements. Richmond’s targeted redevelop-
opment such as market-driven redevelopment of scat-
ment took approximately four and a half years.35
tered sites. The City’s blighted property programs will
have a wider and much more immediate impact (with
much less cost) by focusing on market-driven and limit-
New Orleans’ Strategy
ed target zone strategies.
NORA and the City intend to rely heavily on a targeted
strategy. That strategy is a small part of a larger recovery
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
plan that involves infrastructure rebuilding, economic
development and redevelopment of vacant and idle prop-
New Orleans has struggled with blight for a long time,
erties in 17 target zones. ORDA has identified seven of
and Hurricane Katrina made the problem worse and more
these zones for blight remediation programs.36 NORA
urgent. To address the problem effectively, local govern-
plans to use a targeted strategy in at least five additional
ment must address a number of structural, legal and
zones.37
administrative challenges. These include fragmented
programs, overly broad goals and the lack of a compre-
The targeted strategy is appropriate for troubled areas.
hensive strategy. In addition, as BGR will discuss in
However, in light of the history of the City’s programs
detail in Part II of this report, funding deficiencies and a
and the slow progress made since Hurricane Katrina, it
host of technical and procedural problems have prevent-
makes sense for the City and NORA to start small, with
ed successful redevelopment. These include poor proper-
a few zones that are feasible and manageable. The num-
ty information, problems with property acquisition and
ber of planned zones is too ambitious at this juncture.
disposition procedures, lack of property maintenance and
NORA and the City should focus, at least at first, on no
a haphazard demolition process.
more than three or four zones.
While these problems may seem daunting, solutions do
In determining which zones to address first, NORA and
exist. To implement them, many policymakers, including
the City should use a transparent public process and clear
City officials, State lawmakers and NORA board and
and limited criteria. Criteria that have been used success-
staff, will have to work together. If these policymakers
fully in other cities to identify such areas include proxim-
roll up their sleeves and comprehensively address the
ity to well-functioning or up-and-coming areas, the
issues, there is a good chance that the City’s troubled
potential to encourage other development, and the pres-
course on blight can be reversed.
ence of existing redevelopment efforts. In New Orleans,
flood protection should also be taken into account in
BGR recommends the following with respect to program
choosing targeted zones.
structure, goals and strategies:
At the same time, the City and NORA should energetical-
Program Structure
ly pursue a market-driven strategy to eliminate blight in
well-functioning areas and in troubled areas where
n Blighted property programs in New Orleans should
be consolidated, to the greatest extent possible, in
appropriate. Addressing blight in functioning areas
NORA. Specifically:
8 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
o NORA should conduct all expropriations of
o Facilitates private development
blighted properties in New Orleans.
o Directs limited resources to viable areas
o NORA should serve as the depository for
with the greatest potential for impact in the
all blighted properties, with responsibility
near future
for managing and eventually disposing of
them.
o Gives priority to blight remediation efforts
in well-functioning areas and a limited
n City government should retain responsibility for
number of carefully chosen target zones
the administration of tax sales, code enforcement
and involuntary demolitions.
o Relies on a market-driven approach in
areas with sufficient development interest
n The State Legislature should amend NORA’s
enabling legislation:
o Acquires properties within chosen target
areas for simultaneous redevelopment
o To require that NORA follow the City’s
master land use plan and its comprehensive
n When identifying and prioritizing target zones,
zoning ordinance
NORA and the City should use a public process
with clear and limited criteria. Criteria should
o To provide for meaningful public participa-
include proximity to well-functioning and up-and-
tion in NORA’s property acquisition and
coming areas, potential to encourage other devel-
disposition decisions
opment and the presence of existing redevelop-
ment efforts.
o To establish strong conflict-of-interest rules
for NORA’s board members and staff
n The City Council should amend the City ordinance
governing the Office of Inspector General, and
State lawmakers should amend NORA’s enabling
legislation, to clearly give the Office of Inspector
General oversight power over NORA.
n The City and NORA should jointly commit,
through a cooperative endeavor agreement, to the
allocation of responsibilities recommended in this
report and to specific strategies, procedures and
performance standards.
n To provide a means of enforcing NORA’s commit-
ments, the City should retain a clearly defined
right of reversion in properties it transfers to
NORA.
Goals and Strategies
n NORA and the City should focus their blighted
property programs, to the extent possible, on the
goals of blight remediation and good quality rede-
velopment of blighted areas. NORA and the City
should avoid program requirements that interfere
with effective accomplishment of these goals.
n NORA and the City should adopt a comprehensive,
citywide set of strategies that:
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 9
END NOTES
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Department
6 BGR interviewed experts from University of Michigan,
of Housing and Urban Development, Current Housing Unit
University of Pennsylvania, Virginia Tech, Emory University,
Damage Estimates, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma,
Johns Hopkins University, Wayne State University and Carnegie
February 12, 2006, p. 23 (estimating that 78,810 housing units
Mellon University.
received “severe” damage from Hurricane Katrina and resulting
flooding). Other sources of data reflecting the scope of the prob-
7 These surveys included all properties west of the Industrial
lem are as follows: Krupa, Michelle, “Doubt Next Door,” The
Canal owned by NORA as of May 2007 or expropriated by NORA
Times-Picayune, August 26, 2007 (blight complaints were made on
in 2002 (NORA’s most active year between 2000 and 2005).
17,112 separate properties between 2006 and July 2007); City of
8
New Orleans, damage assessment data, December 18, 2007,
La. Const. art. I, § 4; La. R.S. 19:136 et seq., La. R.S.
gisweb.cityofno.com/cnogis/dataportal.aspx (post-Katrina damage
33:4720.59, and New Orleans, Louisiana, Ordinance No. 22,643
estimates by municipal address indicate that 29,262 properties had
M.C.S. (May 3, 2007).
damage of 50% or greater); U.S. Department of Housing and
9
Urban Development and U.S. Postal Service, HUD Aggregated
La. R.S. 47:2171 et seq. The purchaser’s title is subject to a
USPS Administrative Data on Address Vacancies, Third Quarter
right of redemption, allowing the original owner a period of time
2007 Data, www.huduser.org/datasets/usps.html (indicating that
to reclaim the property by paying the back taxes, interest and costs.
83,341 addresses in Orleans Parish were vacant or inactive). See
10
also Guillet, Jaime, “New office boosts Blakely’s fight against
La. R.S. 13:2575(C)(1), 2576.
blight,” New Orleans CityBusiness, December 17, 2007 (ORDA
11 La. Acts 1968, No. 170, §§2-3; La. R.S. 33:4720.52-53.
estimate of between 20,000 and 30,000 blighted properties).
12
2
Data from Orleans Parish Civil District Court (indicating 113
Data from Orleans Parish Civil District Court indicates that
actions in 2000; 234 in 2001; 268 in 2002; 212 in 2003; 162 in
NORA filed 113 expropriation suits in 2000, 234 suits in 2001,
2004; and 113 in 2005).
268 suits in 2002, 212 suits in 2003, 162 suits in 2004, and 113
suits in 2005. Some, but not all, of those suits resulted in acquisi-
13 Cooperative Endeavor Agreement between the City of New
tion and redevelopment. The City sold or donated 121 tax adjudi-
Orleans and New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, Contract No.
cated properties to developers between 2000 and Hurricane
K06-594, December 2006, p. 3; minutes from NORA Board of
Katrina. Data received in response to a June 8, 2007, public
Commissioners meeting, April 23, 2007.
records request.
14
3
Data received in response to a June 8, 2007, public records
BGR’s calculations indicate that 607 properties were sold or
request to the City Attorney’s Office (total of 1,833 tax adjudicated
donated by the City and NORA between August 31, 2005, and
properties awarded).
January 18, 2008. These calculations are based on data received in
response to a June 8, 2007, public records request to the City
15 According to the City Attorney’s Office, as of December 2007
Attorney’s Office and on data from the Orleans Parish Registrar of
it had made only one attempt to conduct lien foreclosure, through a
Conveyances.
lawsuit filed in 1997. In that lawsuit, the Court found the City’s
4
attempt procedurally deficient and gave the City a chance to cor-
These letters were dated, respectively, December 3 and
rect those deficiencies. The City did not pursue the case to a con-
December 11, 2007, and are available at BGR’s web site,
clusion. City of New Orleans v. Teche Street, Inc., Case No. 97-
www.bgr.org.
12588 (La. Civil Dist. Ct., Div. “L,” October 20, 1997).
5 BGR interviewed staff from NORA and the following depart-
16 New Orleans, Louisiana, Code § 26-263 (2007).
ments in New Orleans: City Attorney’s Office, Housing
Department, Department of Finance, ORM and ORDA. BGR
17 New Orleans, Louisiana, Code § 26-166 (2007).
interviewed staff from the following programs and entities in other
cities: Philadelphia Neighborhood Transformation Initiative;
18 Past reports have recognized the confusion caused by fragmen-
Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority; Cleveland Land
tation: National Vacant Properties Campaign, New Orleans
Bank; Louisville Department of Housing and Community
Technical Assessment and Assistance Project, Draft Report:
Development; Richmond Department of Community
Recommended Actions to Improve the Prevention, Acquisition, and
Development; Richmond Federal Reserve Bank; Genesee County
Disposition of New Orleans’ Blighted, Abandoned, and Tax
Land Bank; Baltimore Department of Housing and Community
Adjudicated Properties, October 2004, pp. 1, 5; Mayor Elect C.
Development; Homestead, Fla., Community Redevelopment
Ray Nagin Transition Team, Blighted Housing Task Force Report,
Authority; Detroit Economic Growth Corporation; and Milwaukee
May 2002, p. 22.
Department of Neighborhood Services.
10 BGR
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
END NOTES CONTINUED
19 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op. cit., p. 23;
Redevelopment Authority, July 2007; Mayor C. Ray Nagin,
National Vacant Properties Campaign, op. cit., p. 4 (“There is a
Testimony Before U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee
lack of coordination … which contributes to developer confusion
On Housing And Community Opportunity, February 22, 2007
and a lack of effective targeting by the City.”); Mayor Elect Marc
(City’s blighted property programs “will provide affordable work-
H. Morial Transition Team, April 1994, Report to the Housing Task
force housing units built to community style.”).
Force, p. 5 (“Each organization is subject to unique political con-
31
siderations and pressures which makes collaboration between any
NORA, Request for Qualifications, op. cit. §§ 4-5.
and all of them nearly impossible.”); National Vacant Properties
32 Louisiana Recovery Authority, Action Plan Amendment 14
Campaign, Draft Report, op. cit., p. 4.
(First Allocation) – Road Home Homeowner Compensation Plan,
20 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op. cit., pp. 23, 26.
May 14, 2007, p. 11. See also HUD, Waivers Granted to and
Alternate Requirements for the State of Louisiana’s CDBG
21 See, e.g., NORA v. Ovide, 871 So.2d 396, 398 (La. App. 4 Cir.
Disaster Recovery Grant, 71 Fed. Reg. 34451, 34454 (June 14,
2004).
2006); HUD, Allocations and Common Application and Reporting
Waivers Granted to and Alternate Requirements for the State of
22 Mayor Elect C. Ray Nagin Transition Team, op cit., p. 25;
Louisiana’s CDBG Disaster Recovery Grant, 71 Fed. Reg. 7666,
National Vacant Properties Campaign, New Orleans Technical
7667 (February 13, 2006).
Assessment and Assistance Report: Recommended Actions to
33
Improve the Prevention, Acquisition, and Disposition of New
See, e.g., Galster, George, Peter Tatian and John Accordino,
Orleans’ Blighted, Abandoned, and Tax Adjudicated Properties,
“Targeting Neighborhoods for Neighborhood Revitalization,”
February 2005, pp. 4-5, 9-11 (suggesting that functions could be
Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2006.
consolidated into a new operating entity); Mayor Elect Marc H.
34
Morial Transition Team, op. cit., p. 7.
Interviews with staff from Detroit Economic Growth
Corporation, Philadelphia Neighborhood Transformation Initiative
23 La. R.S. 42:4.1 et seq.
and Pittsburgh Redevelopment Authority.
24
35
The section of the governing ordinance entitled “Authority”
Galster, et al., op. cit., p. 459 n. 9.
gives the Inspector General the authority to investigate depart-
36
ments of “city government.” Other sections of the ordinance gives
ORDA, Target Area Development Plans,
the Inspector General certain powers (such as subpoena powers)
www.nolarecovery.com/taplans.html. These documents also
over independent boards and commissions. New Orleans,
include plans in another area, the Federal City in Algiers, as well
Louisiana Code § 2-1120 (2007).
as a few citywide projects.
25
37
Louisiana law allows sellers to impose a right of reversion. La.
NORA, Parish Redevelopment and Disposition Plan for
C.C. arts. 2567-68; see also, e.g., LeBlanc v. Romero, 783 So.2d
Louisiana Land Trust Properties, December 11, 2007, p. 5;
419, 420 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001). Applying this restriction to tax
Cooperative Endeavor Agreements (K07-733 and K07-734), op.
adjudicated properties may require changes in law.
cit. (indicating an additional zone surrounding the proposed
Veterans Administration hospital).
26 The purchaser will need this waiver because the right of rever-
sion is a cloud on the purchaser’s title.
27 See, e.g., City of New Orleans 2008 Budget, p. 61 (“The mis-
sion of [ORDA] is to design and successfully implement a plan for
the recovery of the citizens of the City especially in targeted recov-
ery areas….”); ORDA Target Area Development Plans,
www.nolarecovery.com/taplans.html.
28 Cooperative Endeavor Agreements (K07-733 and K07-734)
between City of New Orleans and NORA, December 2007.
29 La. R.S. 33:4720.53.
30 NORA, New Orleans Redevelopment Authority: Restoring,
Rebuilding, and Redeveloping an American City, A Fundraising
and Investment Prospectus, July 2007, pp. 8, 11; NORA, Request
for Qualifications for Participation in “Demonstration Village”
Redevelopment Initiative Conducted by New Orleans
MENDING THE URBAN FABRIC
BGR 11
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
New Orleans, LA
Permit No. 432
Bureau of Governmental Research
938 Lafayette St., Suite 200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
Hoffman Triangle in City Business!
