The Myth of the Double Bottom Line

Your article about Hope Community Development Corporation in East Harlem and the responses to it (“The Conundrum of Community Development,” Shelterforce #125) raise some interesting points about the contradictions in our work. There is, however, an important point that was not addressed: Can there really be a “double bottom line”? Is there a way for activist groups to utilize real estate development strategies as part of the struggle for community empowerment, or must we necessarily become just friendlier versions of the developers and landlords that so often represent the worst of what our system has to offer?

My thinking is that it is possible to do well with development as part of an activist approach, but only if the group refuses to buy into “The Myth of the Double Bottom Line.”

“The Myth” implies that a group can do both – act as a good “business” and serve the community well. But too often what people mean by being “more businesslike” is to make sure we make sacrifices that will keep our funders happy – lenders, investors and public agencies alike. Instead of fighting the almost total elimination of development programs that can produce truly affordable housing, many groups have, since Reagan, used “The Myth” as an excuse to compromise before we give ourselves a chance to develop housing in a way consistent with our values of empowerment and economic justice. What’s one of the most common strategies for achieving that mythical “double bottom line”? Adjusting your definition of “affordable” so you can access currently available financing, and then shift your targeted population so as to not go broke trying to house the poorest in your community.

And as to the second half of “The Myth”: Do groups really put serving the nonfinance aspects of their mission on a par with satisfying those who put money into their projects? How many groups set out to make a project truly affordable, or ensure built-in services for residents, and then compromise on both of those points to get the “deal” done? How many of us actually stop the process, and refuse to go forward with a project if it can’t meet the community’s “bottom line” in terms of affordability, access or services? And which strategy would the “double bottom line” group employ in a cash crisis: Delay the mortgage payment or lay off the organizer?

Complicating our reliance on “The Myth” is the fact that the most prominent affordable housing finance programs available today – tax credits and homeownership programs – are designed more with the investor and developer in mind than with any concern about true affordability.

There are inherent contradictions in trying to be both activist and developer. Most of us did not get into this work so we could collect rent from our neighbors and evict them if they don’t pay. The CDC that loses sight of its commitment to community empowerment and economic justice to ensure its financial stability and increase production has “failed” just as much as the group that can’t pay its bills.

Despite the inherent contradictions, some groups do succeed in using their community development work to enhance, rather than impede, their organizing efforts. I had the good fortune to be associated with one such group for many years – Bickerdike Redevelopment in Chicago. In the seven years since I left Bickerdike, it has not only increased its affordable housing production by hundreds of units, it has also increased its commitment to empowerment and economic justice, adding two full-time organizers and leading a city-wide campaign for a set-aside for affordable housing development. And it owns vacant land in a gentrifying area that it has refused to develop if that means acquiescing to the local alderman’s demands to develop it as “market” housing. They regularly run up against City Hall and real estate interests. Residents play key roles on the board, in setting rental policies, and in management oversight. And yet they are still hailed as one of the more “successful” CDCs in Chicago.

Do groups like Bickerdike evict people? Sure, but typically only after some degree of resident oversight of management’s actions. Do they get into disputes with residents, and sometimes with legal aid? Yes again, but there is a commitment to organizing and empowerment that makes efforts to address those conflicts just as, if not more, important than strictly business concerns.

Some of our colleagues argue persuasively that you can’t be both a community organizer and a community developer. I’m not sure I agree. But what I am sure of is this. The combination can only work if the group acknowledges the contradictions and addresses them in ways that enhance, rather than detract from, its activist role.

Most CDCs have come of age in an era of almost no federal money for affordable housing and a resurgence in real estate investment in many of our neighborhoods, leading to greater gentrification and displacement pressures. So, ironically, we might be less well equipped today to utilize development strategies effectively than we were 30 years ago. Hope CDC says it wants to “continue to be relevant” by doing projects for middle-income buyers. Most community groups know that to be relevant to their communities they need to participate in the struggle for social and economic justice. If real estate development gives such groups a chance to be more effective in that struggle, then go for it. Otherwise, beware the siren calls of “The Myth” – we need your activism more than the handful of housing units you’ll be able to produce.

— Bob Brehm
Chicago, IL

The writer was director of Bickerdike Redevelopment from 1978 to 1995. He now teaches in the Urban Developers Program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His article, “So You Want to Be a Developer,” appeared in Shelterforce #121.

Copyright 2003