Historic Preservation and RightsizingCurrent Practices and Resources SurveyPrepared for the Right Sizing and Historic Preservation Task ForceAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationMay 2012Cara Bertron and Donovan RypkemaPlaceEconomics
About the authorsThis report was prepared and written by Cara Bertron and Donovan Rypkema. Ber-tron is Director of the Rightsizing Cities Initiative at PlaceEconomics, a WashingtonD.C.-based real estate and economic development consulting firm. She studiedurban planning at Stanford University and holds a master’s degree in historic pres-ervation from the University of Pennsylvania, where she wrote her thesis on incor-porating preservation in older industrial cities’ rightsizing strategies. Rypkema isprincipal of PlaceEconomics. He is the author of The Economics of Historic Preserva-tion: A Community Leader’s Guide and an adjunct professor in the Historic Preserva-tion Program at the University of Pennsylvania. The authors can be contacted atCBertron@placeeconomics.com and DRypkema@placeeconomics.com.Report design by Cara Bertron and Jesse Lattig
Cara Bertron and Donovan RypkemaPlaceEconomicsHistoric Preservation and RightsizingCurrent Practices and Resources SurveyPrepared for the Right Sizing and Historic Preservation Task ForceAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationMay 2012
1IntroductionOlder industrial cities today face complex challenges. The placesthat built America into a financially optimistic middle-class nationon the move—Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Youngstown, Roches-ter—have been plagued by population loss for decades. The fore-closure crisis and its consequences have compounded longtimeproblems, leaving older industrial cities with struggling downtownsand commercial corridors, a glut of abandoned houses, and manyassociated problems. While some cities are experiencing modestpopulation upswings, even they still have to deal with the physicallegacy of decades of depopulation and disinvestment.This report examines how cities are developing responses to thissituation, with an emphasis on rightsizing: the process of reshapingphysical urban fabric to meet the needs of current and anticipatedpopulations. Rightsizing can be a politically charged term—oneoften associated, accurately or not, with demolition or forced re-location—and many cities use downsizing or long-range planninginstead. By any name, the process is being executed principally byplanning department staff in concert with local housing and rede-velopment agencies, building inspection/code enforcement de-partments, parks and recreation, and occasionally school districts.Elected officials may serve as driving forces or public faces in theprocess.The report provides the results of a survey about the problems as-sociated with long-term population loss, municipalities’ responsesand use of federal resources, and the current and potential placeof historic preservation in those efforts. The report was developedfor the Right Sizing and Historic Preservation Task Force (RSTF) ofthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which seeks creativeways to use preservation and related tools in stabilizing and revi-talizing challenged communities. Municipal planners, preservationplanners, and local preservation advocates from the 20 older indus-trial cities with the highest proportional population loss (1960 to2000) contributed ideas and information.1Their responses revealthat nearly three quarters of cities are engaged in explicit rightsiz-ing efforts, and nearly all are carrying out actions and strategiesaimed at long-range planning for a smaller city (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 Cities engaged inrightsizing1The list was drawn from Joseph Schilling and Jonathan Logan’s“Greening theRust Belt”in the Journal of the American Planning Association (Autumn 2008,Vol. 74, No. 4). That list was adapted from a selection of 65 older industrial citiesincluded in“Restoring Prosperity: The State Role in Revitalizing America’s OlderIndustrial Cities,”by Jennifer Vey for The Brookings Institution Metropolitan PolicyProgram (2007).
2The survey included telephone interviews and an online survey andconsisted of:2• 22 interviews with preservation planners or preservation ad-vocates from 20 cities• 16 online surveys completed by planners• 8 follow-up interviews with planners• 5 interviews with State Historic Preservation Office staff, state-level nonprofit staff, and professionals and scholars focusingon the intersection of preservation and rightsizingSurvey results suggest broader patterns among other older indus-trial cities. Information from these 20 cities—the hardest hit, andlikely the most invested in addressing the challenges stemmingfrom population loss—indicates an urgent need for a comprehen-sive, locally tailored approach to long-range planning, better fed-eral tools to support it, and a more effective strategy to integratehistoric preservation into planning decisions.2Because of the inherent challenges of small samples, this report should beviewed as an indication of patterns and trends rather than statistical certainty.Surveyed CitiesBaltimoreBinghamtonBuffaloCantonCincinnatiClevelandDaytonDetroitFlintHarrisburgHuntingtonNewarkPittsburghRochesterSaginawScrantonSt. LouisSyracuseUticaYoungstown
3Defining the ProblemsThe most visible consequences of long-term population loss areevident in once-dense residential neighborhoods now pocked byvacant houses and lots. However, the effects do not stop with aban-doned houses—or churches, schools, or commercial properties.These problems exist on multiple levels, from municipal finances todevelopment prospects to identity. One of the survey’s key ques-tions sought information on the challenges stemming from popula-tion loss, asserting that this knowledge is critical to understandingresponses on the ground and determining if available resources suf-ficiently support them.Below are the most frequent responses in the telephone survey.Vacant Buildings⊕ Oversupply of aging, deteriorating houses⊕ Vacant, unsafe properties (often residential)o Depressed real estate marketo ForeclosuresVacant Land• Challenge of repurposing vacant land for some use• No big chunks of developable land, only small infill lots⊕ Mentioned frequentlyo Mentioned occasionally• Mentioned once
4Building Stock• Low-quality housing• Functionally obsolete housing• Expensive to bring historic housing stock up to code• Aging infrastructure and public facilitiesLimited Resources⊕ City financially strapped as a result of lower tax revenues andother factors⊕ More problem properties than the City can demolish with ex-isting funding• States are cutting resources for older urban areas• Need to protect neighborhoods where abandonment is occur-ringOthero Loss of identity and challenge of creating new, more positiveimages for neighborhoodso Many rental properties with unresponsive landlords• Struggling historic commercial corridors
5ResponsesThough cities’ planning responses to these challenges are shapedby unique local circumstances, notable common goals and ap-proaches emerged in the survey. The vast majority of surveyed cit-ies (94 percent) are employing a variety of strategies consistent withlong-range planning, as shown in Figure 2. The most frequentlyused strategies are growth-oriented or related to comprehensiveplanning. Public meetings around rightsizing are much more rare,likely reflecting political wariness around the issue. Most cities (88percent) are demolishing scattered and/or concentrated proper-ties, and many (75 percent) are also enacting policy changes suchas establishing land banks and strengthening vacant property poli-cies. Few cities are using voluntary relocation. Transportation wasnot specifically included in the survey, but changing transportationpatterns was identified as a strategic tactic during one interview.Fig. 2 Municipal responses
6Goalso Identify “centers of activity” or “neighborhoods of choice” andfocus development, form-based code use, and resources thereo Sustainability and market stabilityo Find economic or environmental reuse of all the lando Safe and affordable housingo Increase population• Economic growth, not decline• Engage citizens• Clean up blightThe approaches can be broadly divided into two categories: strate-gic and situational actions. Strategic responses take a comprehen-sive, long-term view of a given challenge and related factors, whilesituational actions react to specific instances of problems. Whilethese instances may not be isolated, a situational action consid-ers each instance separately—for example, demolishing a vacanthouse without reference to a cohesive plan for the entire neighbor-hood. The following lists are drawn from telephone interviews thatexpand on and augment the online survey.Strategic Actions⊕ Developing a comprehensive plan with public engagement⊕ City developed or is developing a new zoning code⊕ Demolishing vacant properties in a concentrated areao Establishing a land banko Not investing resources in distressed or environmentally sensi-tive areaso Selling municipally owned vacant property and buildings infocus areas to residentso Talking about returning some areas to undeveloped land orurban agricultureo Recognizing historic neighborhoods and properties as attrac-tions for potential residents• Focusing financial, administrative, and enforcement resourcesin stronger areas/neighborhoods like traditional commercialcorridors and historic, walkable, family-oriented neighbor-hoods with a strong neighborhood organization and distinctneighborhood character• Changing local policy around vacant property (e.g., more strin-gent demolition by neglect legislation)• Addressing rightsizing on a neighborhood-by-neighborhoodbasis with plans and grants• Re-visioning neighborhoods as less dense places• Tracking vacant properties• Protecting designated historic resources• Identifying potential historic resources and districts and en-couraging designation• Redeveloping streets in central areas as“complete streets”⊕ Mentioned frequentlyo Mentioned occasionally• Mentioned once“ The City isn’tthinking of right-sizing as knock-ing down housesand putting inparkland; it’slooking at whereto reinvest. We’vegot the realdeal—let’s buildon that.”
7Situational Actions⊕ No comprehensive planning; reactionary efforts to problems⊕ Demolishing scattered vacant properties around the cityo Making demolition decisions on a building-by-building basis3o Selling municipally owned vacant property and buildings toresidents (not in focus areas)Resources UsedRightsizing and long-range planning in older industrial cities con-stitute largely uncharted territory in contemporary planning. Indeveloping and executing plans and strategies, cities are lookingfor advice—and financial resources—from a variety of local, state,and federal entities in the public and private realms. Over half thesurveyed cities communicate with entities familiar with the com-munity or rightsizing issues: local organizations, institutions, and of-ficials or cities in similar situations. Just over 40 percent of the citiesconsult with federal agencies (mostly HUD and the EPA; a coupleconsult with the Federal Transportation Administration). Just over30 percent consult with their SHPO.Fig. 3 Agencies and organizations consulted by municipalities in the rightsizing process“ I’m worriedabout the ‘if webuild it, they willcome’ mentality.You can’t buildyourself out ofit—you can’t nec-essarily think thatsomeone’s goingto come.”3Respondents presented this point as both a negative (lack of overall planning)and a positive (no clearance of entire blocks).
8Federal Tools UsedAs part of this survey, ACHP staff identified 25 federal programs un-der 6 agencies that could offer support to rightsizing cities. Respon-dents indicated whether their city used each program for rightsiz-ing or other activities to the best of their knowledge.Of the 25programs thatwere identified as potentially usefulin right-sizing efforts, only five were cited as being used for that purposeby the surveyed cities (Fig. 4). Even the program most frequentlyused for rightsizing (CDBG) was identified by fewer than half thesurveyed cities. Figure 5 lists the usage of the identified federal pro-grams for any activity. As can be seen, HUD programs are the mostoften used. Resources used less frequently or not at all are often notclearly related to physical planning in cities, such as those offered byUSDA, the Commerce Department, the Economic Development Ad-ministration, and the departments of Defense, Energy, Education,and Labor.Fig. 4 Federal programs used for rightsizing
9Fig. 5 Federal programs used for any activity
10Continuing ChallengesSome progress is being made with current approaches and tools.Nearly three quarters of the surveyed cities are utilizing land banks,almost half are developing more flexible zoning codes and refram-ing policy around vacant properties, and many are focusing limitedresources in strategic areas. Still, much remains to be done.This section presents rightsizing or long-range planning issuesthat survey respondents identified as needing new strategies andresources. Some issues are fiscal, while others focus on importantplanning and policy challenges. Other issues such as suburbansprawl and state funding cannot be addressed by the municipalityalone, but are key parts of a comprehensive approach to rightsizing.“ There’s nota large-scaleprocess to thinkabout rightsiz-ing. Everyone’sstill trying to dowhat they be-lieve to be bestfor the city withintheir own areasand programs…There are effortsin all directions.”
11⊕ Mentioned frequentlyo Mentioned occasionally• Mentioned onceFew Municipal Resources⊕ A small planning and Landmarks Commission staff stretchedbetween many daily tasks, with little time for long-range plan-ning, outreach, and educationo Low and declining tax revenueso Inadequate code enforcement, largely due to staff cutbacks• Lack of resources for planning process• Inadequate demolition funding• Few resources for people who struggle to maintain and rein-vest in their homesPlanning Shiftso How to support transitional neighborhoods• Existing tools like participatory planning technologies, trans-portation improvements, and vacant land management prac-tices are used infrequently and ineffectively• Funding is disproportionately allocated to demolitionPolicy Changeso Zoning ordinance should be more flexible, streamlined, and“green”o Expedited foreclosure process, with more accountability mea-sures for banks• How to manage neighborhood character outside historic dis-tricts• How to remediate hazardous materials (lead paint, asbestos)in a preservation-minded way, especially when using federalfunding• Need mechanisms to help homeowners with repairs (e.g., re-volving loan funds and grants)Encouraging and Targeting Growth• Spurring population growth• Attracting industry and jobs• Incentivizing development in areas designated by City plansMulti-Jurisdictionalo Continuing sprawl and competition with suburbs for business-es, jobs, and residentso Long-range regional planning and smart-growth strategieso Unequal access to funding, compared to suburbs• Entities like school districts operate independently from themunicipal government, with little information exchangedabout investments
12Role of Historic PreservationThe role of preservation in the surveyed cities’long-range planningand rightsizing efforts varies, but it appears to be—with a few ex-ceptions—very small. Some municipal preservation staff and pres-ervation advocates are involved in comprehensive planning pro-cesses, while others are not involved with comprehensive planningand do not see historic resources included in the results. Many cities’long-range plans include preservation in one or more elements, buta number of respondents felt that inclusion starts and stops with astatement of preservation values.Surprisingly, only 14 of the 20 cities are Certified Local Governments(CLGs), with access to the associated technical and financial assis-tance. The remaining third of the cities may have low municipalcommitment to historic preservation or inadequate fiscal or regula-tory capacity to meet CLG standards. Lack of CLG status inherentlylimits the use of historic preservation as a public strategy in generaland as a rightsizing tool in particular.Current RoleTraditional preservation tools—designation, rehabilitation and de-molition review, tax credits, education, and advocacy—are beingused in many cities, but there is broad consensus that they need tobe enhanced, intensified, and supplemented to be more effective.Long-Range Planning⊕ Perception that long-range planning and rightsizing have notincluded historic resources⊕ Preservationists feel that they are neither informed about norinvolved in municipal planning efforts⊕ Preservation staff and advocates participated in or led publicmeetings during planning processo Preservation advocates sat on preservation or steering com-mittees for comprehensive plano Preservation planners incorporated preservation into multiplesections of the comprehensive plano Comprehensive plan raises awareness of preservationPlanning Processo Preservation staff reviews rehabilitation and demolition pro-posals and administers Section 106 process• After demolition, building material is salvaged and sold“ Preservation-ists are aware ofwhat’s happen-ing, but they’redoing triage.They’re not reallyin dialogue withpeople who arecreatively rethink-ing the city.”
13• New zoning code focuses on“livable communities”and allowsmixed use• Local government could be more supportive of preservation• City effectively balances preservation with developmentEducation and Advocacyo Preservation staff, local preservationists, and communitygroups educate homeowners about state historic rehabilita-tion tax credits (where available)o Preservation staff and local preservationists nominate historicproperties for landmark or district designationPreservation’s PotentialSurvey respondents discussed a variety of ways that planners, pres-ervation planners, and grassroots preservation advocates can uti-lize preservation more effectively to meet their communities’needs.As can be seen in the following list, their suggestions span dailyplanning processes, long-range public and private decisions aboutwhere to reinvest scarce resources and energy, and the significantopportunity and challenge to change perceptions of neighbor-hoods and cities.Planning⊕ Identify potential historic resourceso Argue for and employ preservation in the context of environ-mental and fiscal sustainabilityo Discuss how to make long-term preservation and demolitiondecisions in distressed neighborhoods and cities• Require historic preservation to be incorporated in compre-hensive plan
14• Include preservation organizations in planning processes• Give Landmarks Commission enforcement authority• Increase efficiency and improve homeowner perceptions byallowing staff to approve minor alterations• Allow sufficient time to consider the value of buildings andneighborhoods before choosing demolition• Use more flexible standards in transitional and distressedneighborhoods4Focus Resources⊕ Prioritize which historic buildings and areas to fight foro Focus financial and educational efforts in historic areas to revi-talize historic areas, attract new residents and businesses• Figure out intersections of historic resources with other impor-tant factors (grocery stores, stable schools, transportation) andprioritize investments in those areasLook to Historic Neighborhoods and Properties Firsto Take advantage of market for downtown residences and small-er houseso Capitalize on historic districts’ relative stability (higher levelsof owner occupancy, active community groups, high-qualityconstruction and materials)o Preservationists can offer resources (state and federal tax cred-its, connections with developers, marketing commercial andresidential properties to developers and homeowners)• Change perceptions of historic neighborhoods located nearamenities and jobs; help build a residential market• Direct firms to historic industrial sites and downtown buildings• Assess the feasibility of reusing existing resources (publicbuildings, neighborhoods, factories) before deciding on newconstruction• Don’t ignore pleasant, livable older neighborhoods that don’tmeet National Register criteriaIncentiveso Develop more “financial carrots” for preservation (e.g., revolv-ing loan funds and state-level rehabilitation tax credits that al-low rehabilitation of historic houses on a larger scale)o More funding to rehabilitate rather than demolish houses• Get federal government to allocate money for mothballingand repair work with historically compatible featuresEducation and Advocacyo Present positive vision of how historic buildings can contrib-ute to stronger neighborhoods and help manage change⊕ Mentioned frequentlyo Mentioned occasionally• Mentioned once4This comment suggests that applying the Secretary’s Standards in all circum-stances may be limiting flexibility.“ At some point,we will weigh inon neighborhood‘tipping point’questions insome way. Now,we’re still work-ing on a microscale.”
15o Educate people (especially younger homeowners) about prop-erty maintenance and stewardshipo Develop a list of preservation-friendly affordable contractors• Build support for preservation in other community organiza-tions• Learn from historical development during periods when localpopulation was similar to contemporary levels• Use preservation to sustain cultural continuityReduce Demolitiono Look at alternatives to demolition, such as mothballing• Make informed decisions• Look beyond reflexive short-term solutions like demolitionwhen responding to resident complaints• Consider demolition’s impact on historic working-class neigh-borhoods where the chief significance lies in intact block andneighborhood fabricEnforcement and Maintenanceo Proactively enforce maintenance provisions of city and land-marks ordinanceso Address investor-landlords who neglect rental properties• Develop a fine system that is high enough to enforce ordi-nance and lowers the risk of property abandonment
16ConclusionsAfter evaluating the statistical and qualitative data, it is possible todraw four major conclusions.First, nearly all of the surveyed cities are actively working to tacklelongstanding problems of vacant buildings and land, aging build-ing stock and infrastructure, and limited municipal staff and fund-ing. Many of their actions are consistent with rightsizing: develop-ing comprehensive plans, strengthening strong and transitionalareas, carrying out concentrated demolitions, and using entitiessuch as land banks to invest strategically.Second, municipalities’ ability to develop long-range plans, hire orretain planning and code enforcement staff, and execute plans andprograms is exceptionally limited. Short-term situational responsesto urgent issues are frequent. Many cities recognize the need tofocus demolition and reinvestment resources within a long-rangeframework but are pressed for staff time and funds to develop acomprehensive response. Transportation—especially public trans-portation—needs to be an integrated part of any rightsizing strat-egy, but it was not mentioned as a tactic during most interviews.Third, there appears to be a mismatch between acute municipalneeds and available federal resources. The vast majority of the fed-eral programs identified as potential resources for rightsizing werenot used for rightsizing. Twenty of the 25 federal programs wereused by less than a third of the cities for any purpose, to the best ofthe respondents’ knowledge. This either reflects inadequate com-munication between federal agencies and municipal governmentsor indicates that current federal resources do not meet older indus-trial cities’needs.Finally, historic preservation is, at best, on the fringe. Though pres-ervationists are included in comprehensive planning efforts insome cities, most feel that their contributions do not substantiallyinfluence the plans. In other cities, preservationists are not even atthe table. Yet both preservationists and planners agree that preser-vation has an important role to play in strategic planning. Respon-dents offered many ideas about how preservationists can bringresources for focused reinvestment; help build and strengthen realestate markets downtown and in historic neighborhoods, wherecities have an advantage over suburbs; and assist in managing andprioritizing change in historic environments.“ For preser-vationists to beat the table, wecan’t bring ourusual game plan.Flexibility, com-promises, andhard choices arenecessary.”
17In conclusion, the survey results indicate that much work remains tobe done on the local, regional, state, and federal levels. Older indus-trial cities are taking various situational and strategic approachesto address issues stemming from long-term population loss. Thesecities have an acute need for additional resources—particularly re-sources for planning—yet available federal programs are not beingutilized. Similarly, preservationists feel that they can offer assistancewith planning, development, and marketing, but historic preserva-tion is generally not an integrated part of the planning process.Historic neighborhoods should be the cornerstones of smaller,more resilient, more livable cities. As diverse, walkable, existingenvironments with unique character, historic neighborhoods andtraditional neighborhood business districts can be sustainable atenvironmental, economic, and social levels. These qualities help re-tain existing populations and attract new residents and businesses.At this critical point, federal agencies and preservation advocateshave the opportunity to strengthen historic cities by bringingtools, funding, and technical assistance to long-range planning andrightsizing efforts. A number of federal programs are available topromote preservation, including CDBG and NSP funds, as well asfederal rehabilitation tax credits. However, the pressing problemson the ground and a local desire for urgent responses mean thatinterested parties must offer timely, targeted resources; and theymust offer them soon.
19Survey ParticipantsTarik AbdelazimDirector of Planning, Housing, and Community Development, Cityof BinghamtonMichele AlonsoPreservation Specialist, City of NewarkKate AuwaerterPreservation Planner, City of SyracuseJames BaldwinPlanner, City of HuntingtonMichael BosakLandmarks Society of Greater UticaBetsy BradleyCultural Resources Office Director, City of St. LouisRobert BrownCity Planning Director, City of ClevelandRon CampbellPreservation advocate, FlintBill D’AvignonDirector, Community Development Agency and Planning & Zoning,City of YoungstownJoe EngelExecutive Director, Canton Preservation SocietyMark EpsteinDepartment Head, Resource Protection and Review, Ohio HistoricPreservation OfficeEmilie EvansMSHP/MCP, Columbia UniversityNancy FinegoodExecutive Director, Michigan Historic Preservation Network
20Michael FleenorDirector of Preservation Services, Cleveland Restoration SocietyMarty GrunzweigBuffalo Preservation Board SupervisorJohn HankinsChair, Cabell County Landmarks Commission (Huntington)Stephanie HardenAssociate Planner, City of SaginawLarry HarrisUrban Conservator, City of CincinnatiBrian InderriedenPlanning Manager, City of DaytonRobert KeiserSecretary, Cleveland Landmarks CommissionKatherine Keough-JursSenior City Planner, City of CincinnatiKristine KidorfPrincipal, Kidorf Preservation Consulting, DetroitDonald KingPlanner, City of ScrantonKathleen KotarbaExecutive Director, Commission for Historical and ArchitecturalPreservation (CHAP), City of BaltimoreH. Peter L’OrangeHistoric Preservation Planner, City of BinghamtonAndrew MaxwellDirector of Planning & Sustainability, City of SyracuseSusan McBridePrincipal Planner/Historic, City of DetroitMary Ann Moran-SavakinusDirector, Lackawanna Historical Society (Scranton)David MorrisonPresident, Board of Directors, Historic Harrisburg Association
21Sherri PiercePlanning and Zoning Coordinator, City of FlintRuth PierpontDeputy Commissioner, New York State Office of Parks, Recreationand Historic PreservationSarah QuinnPreservation Planner, City of PittsburghDon RoeActing Director of Planning & Urban Design Agency, City of St. LouisRebecca RogersHistorian/Section 106 consultant, YoungstownPeter SiegristPreservation Plannner, City of RochesterRoane SmothersSecretary to the Landmarks Commission, City of DaytonJack SpaethEconomic Development Program Specialist, City of UticaTom StosurDirector, Department of Planning, City of BaltimoreTom TrombleyDeputy Director, The Castle Museum of Saginaw County HistoryRoyce YeaterNational Trust for Historic PreservationTom YotsExecutive Director, Preservation Buffalo NiagaraRick ZenglerPlanning Department, City of Canton
22Survey Questions1. Is your city in the process of “rightsizing,” or adjusting its physicalfabric to match its current and anticipated population? Yes No Not sure2. With regard to rightsizing, which of the following has your city done,is doing, or planning to do? Gathering data in preparation for developing a plan Developing a rightsizing plan or a comprehensive plan that in-cludes rightsizing Holding public hearings or meetings about rightsizing Demolishing scattered vacant properties around the city Demolishing vacant properties in a concentrated area Focusing financial, administrative, and enforcement resources instronger areas/neighborhoods Establishing a land bank Changing local policy around vacant property (e.g., vacant prop-erty registration ordinances) Encouraging residents to move from weaker to stronger areas/neighborhoods Working to attract new businesses and residents Other3. Which of the following agencies or organizations (if any) has yourcity consulted in the rightsizing process? Officials or staff from cities in similar situations County officials or administrators Local foundation or nonprofit organization Academic institution Local corporation State legislators State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National organization Federal agency (if so, please specify which agency in the box be-low) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) None Other4. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Sus-tainable Communities Partnership (SC2) for rightsizing planning andactivities? Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP, NSP2, NSP3) Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Choice Neighborhood Initiative TIGER Grants
235. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by the De-partment of Agriculture (USDA) for rightsizing planning and activities? Section 502 homeownership loans, Section 521 rental subsidies,Section 533 housing preservation grants, and Section 523 and 524housing site loans Farmers Market Promotion Program Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program6. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by the SmallBusiness Administration (SBA) and Economic Development Administra-tion (EDA) for rightsizing planning and activities? CDC/504 loans (SBA) Planning Grants and Technical Assistance Grants (EDA) Section 703 Disaster Relief (EDA) Public Works and Economic Adjustment Assistance (EDA)7. Has your city used any of the following other resources offered by theCommerce Department for rightsizing planning and activities? Economic Adjustment Assistance Economic Development Support for Planning Organizations Technical Assistance8. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by the Fed-eral Transportation Administration (FTA) for rightsizing planning andactivities? Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Grants Urbanized Area Formula Planning Grants Major Capital Investments grants9. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by the De-partment of Defense (DOD) for rightsizing planning and activities? Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and Small Business In-novation Research (SBIR) grants Community Base Reuse Plans grants Community Economic Adjustment Planning Assistance10. Has your city used any of the following resources offered by otherfederal agencies for rightsizing planning and activities? Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants offered by the Depart-ment of Energy Impact Aid School Construction Funds offered by the Departmentof Education Education Stabilization Funds offered by the Department of Edu-cation Urban and Community Forestry grants offered by the Forest Ser-vice The Department of Labor’s Job Corps11. What other resources does your city use for rightsizing planning andactivities, if any?