RPA: What are the key systemic changes you’d like to see in New York City, and how do they relate to this concept of ​“inclusive growth”?

Robyn: I would love to see an independent group made up of service providers, municipality and resident/community leadership work alongside funders in determining the funding of shelter sites and programs. The current process does not allow true equity and inclusion for new organizations. The powers that be can solely determine who gets funding for shelter projects.

RPA: What are some of the challenges or lesser-known roadblocks in your work providing shelter for families and single individuals experiencing homelessness? What are some means of support that are currently unavailable that could be established to address those challenges?

Robyn: A sad and reoccurring roadblock is the repeated concentration of shelter sites in certain communities. Landlords are more than willing to partner with organizations, but more than not, funders refuse the submission of potential sites, because there are too many current shelters in the area.

Even when properties are proposed for mixed use, location concentration remains an issue.

RPA: What are the key systemic changes you’d like to see in New York City, and how do they relate to this concept of ​“inclusive growth”?

Carl: I believe that inclusive economic growth is defined or measured by an increase in opportunities for all, with a focus on typically and historically marginalized populations. I would like to see greater access to vocational training programs, affordable housing (including pathways to home ownership), public school funding, funding for citywide veterans. Additionally, I would like to see such initiatives prioritize equity and inclusion, specifically for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, the LGBTQ+ community, individuals with disabilities, and many more who have been subject to systemic inequalities for generations. To me, economic growth is not solely tied to income through employment, but rather it is intersectional with access to affordable housing, medical care, and other basic human rights. Too many of NYC residents face multiple barriers to economic growth including systemic racism, ableism, poverty, histories of substance abuse and incarceration, and homelessness.

RPA: What are some of the fundamental challenges veterans face when entering the workforce and how do you navigate those challenges in your role with the Institute for Career Development?

Carl: Veterans in the workforce often need help in lots of different ways, including costs from medical expenses and housing. Too many veterans are suffering from homelessness and need financial help once they have completed their military service. In addition to these issues, Post-9/11 veterans who account for the youngest members of the veteran community have a 43 percent chance of having a service-connected disability which is significantly higher than veterans who served prior to 9/11. Furthermore, research shows that disabled veterans with higher disability ratings experience unemployment at a higher rate with many being left behind, struggling to obtain employment.

As a Post 9/11 Veteran, I have personally benefited greatly from workforce development services offered through NYC nonprofits. These agencies were integral in my career development and I believe that adequate funding must be allocated to community-based organizations that provide accessible vocational training and job placement services that are tailored to the needs of veterans. My personal approach to the challenges presented in my role as veterans workforce development coordinator at the Institute for Career Development is to strive to ensure that veterans and other traditionally marginalized individuals obtain and maintain employment. I do so by connecting people to opportunities that they are qualified for but not aware of, or by showing them how to pursue certain benefits on their own. I believe that work provides more than the financial rewards of a paycheck: it improves health and well-being, contributes to happiness, and creates opportunities for greater independence and dignity. We have made substantial progress since the passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), however there is still much left to do as we prepare to celebrate its 31st anniversary in 2021.

RPA: What are the key systemic changes you’d like to see in New York City, and how do they relate to this concept of ​“inclusive growth”?

Michael: Thinking about transportation, NYC has become very good at implementing individual projects (capital projects may take too long and cost too much, but that’s a different issue). What’s been missing historically is big-picture planning. I’m a planner so maybe I am biased towards plans, but I do think that citywide or borough-wide plans that define where investment should be prioritized in walking, transit, biking, truck movement, etc., would have a lot of benefits. These plans provide the opportunity to define key routes at the regional level and do the technical analysis that helps determine where different investments should go and what form they should take. They let us look at systemic things like equity to understand where the populations that are most in need of different kinds of transportation investments and improvements are, or where different communities have been harmed by past infrastructure decisions.

And this up-front planning, while labor-intensive, provides the best opportunity to involve communities in goal-and vision-setting and weighing local needs vs. citywide and regional movement needs. We want to make sure that we’re not only hearing from the groups of people who typically speak up about transportation issues – it is even more important to hear from the people whose lives could be most uplifted, whose opportunities could be most opened up, through improved mobility options. So I think more effort up-front can actually save effort down the line – when the time comes to implement a portion of a large-scale plan, we can go to the affected communities and have a more constructive, targeted conversation rather than going back to the drawing board.

There have been some good starts towards this kind of large-scale network planning, like the Vision Zero Borough Action Plans, Green Wave bike plan, and the recent Smart Truck Management Plan. Looking even more holistically, the City will be developing a citywide Streets Plan (something that was required by City Council legislation) to tie the different plans and considerations together under one comprehensive framework. So, the City is set to make big strides from where we were even just a couple of years ago.

Beyond the streets by themselves, though, there needs to be more coordination between transportation, land use, economic development, social services/community facilities, and other planning and investments. Unlike many cities, NYC doesn’t do a Comprehensive Plan, although there have been some ideas floated as part of the last City Charter Review Commission and in the City Council. Comprehensive Plans have their pros & cons but, whatever you want to call it, there needs to be a higher-level vision for which areas of the City have the capacity to grow (e.g. based on transit capacity), which need investment from an equity standpoint, where new development should be avoided from a coastal resilience standpoint, etc. It doesn’t need to be exhaustively detailed but I think you need it. That’s the citywide/regional strategy.

Perhaps even more important is the need for bottom-up community planning. NYC has a framework for community plans (the 197a process), but it isn’t formal enough, understood enough, funded enough, or binding enough to achieve its original goal. I’d like to see a program where every neighborhood of the city develops a community plan, there are dedicated City resources (agency staff, funding) to help them do that, and it’s updated every 5 years or so. Then, infrastructure investments and large-scale developments that are proposed should be evaluated against how well they meet both the community goals and needs, and the citywide strategy. Hopefully, whomever is proposing the ideas will have already done their homework and based their proposal on those community and citywide priorities.

RPA: Aside from issues of affordability, what are some of the challenges you have encountered in your work in urban mobility that reinforce systemic inequity? How do we implement an intersectional approach to those challenges?

Michael: Thinking about infrastructure and transportation, there are so many historic decisions that were made that contributed to racist and inequitable outcomes. Those include things that were built, like urban freeways and ​“LULUs” (locally-unwanted land uses like waste transfer stations and truck garages), as well as policies like how funding is allocated to public transit vs. highways. I’d say the transportation planning industry has woken up to this and is getting much better at incorporating equity as a forward-looking goal, but I’d like to see us actually reckon with the past as part of our planning processes – in just as formal a way as we might analyze, say, traffic volumes or transit ridership. We need to really understand the local context of how urban infrastructure has actively contributed to inequitable outcomes through basic historic research, through the way we map and analyze historic data, and by hearing from the communities firsthand about how these things affect people’s day-to-day lives.

At the most basic level, transportation can either hinder or unlock access to opportunity by helping people get to where they need to go: jobs, education, healthy food, social services, recreation, culture, civic life. It is more expensive to own a car than to take transit, but that assumes that you live in a transit-rich place where taking transit is actually a practical option. For example, if getting to your job by bus requires two transfers and almost two hours each way, that is not a competitive option – and, more importantly, it is not a fair or equitable option if it’s your only one. There is an inevitable challenge that the more transit-rich areas of cities are the more desirable ones to live in and therefore the more expensive, so you really can’t look at transportation divorced from land use and housing policy.

How do we make investments to improve people’s mobility – whether expanded or more frequent bus service, or safer and more bike-friendly streets, or more public spaces to hang out with your neighbors in – without also simultaneously increasing the chances for displacement? Any city that is growing and culturally rich will have a cycle where the downtown areas get more and more unaffordable, pushing lower-income people further out into less transit-rich, less walking- and biking-friendly areas, a perverse outcome given that they are the people who most need affordable transportation options. This is where land use and housing policies, affordable housing, and ongoing transportation improvements in the most high-need areas are so critical.

These things are truly all related, and that’s why citywide and neighborhood planning that cuts across subject matter silos really matters when it comes to inclusive and equitable outcomes. That’s what I really appreciate about the Inclusive Growth Initiative’s approach to these issues – we are looking at these things all together, not in isolation.

RPA: What are the key systemic changes you’d like to see in New York City, and how do they relate to this concept of ​“inclusive growth”? The concept of ​“growth” is not objective, so the first critical step is asking, ​“Growth for whom? And how?”

Sydney: Community development and investment have often meant unfettered real estate development, growing racial and economic disparities by cultivating wealth for decision-makers with power. Inclusive growth must center the needs of folks who have been invisibilized by systemic oppression, neighborhood displacement, racial and gender-based violence, and unjust carceral systems. We must redefine the very idea of growth not as a tool to benefit the wealthy and privileged, but a process that helps heal the community trauma of system failures, a process that uplifts the expertise and decision-making of people who have not been deemed visible, and a process that includes a reckoning with historic and current system failures. Inclusive growth means financial and infrastructural investment in communities of color, in working class communities, in immigrant communities, in transgender communities, in communities living in the margins. It means heeding to the leadership of these communities and trusting the decision-making of people often left out. It means fighting for voice and power in how we cultivate neighborhoods, economic mobility, and safety through accountable policies and resource allocation.

RPA: What are some of the ways our current national housing landscape fails to address the needs of LGBT+ elders? How are you centering anti-racism in your work?

Sydney: The epidemic of violence against LGBT+ people, particularly transgender communities, is underreported and insidious, built into systems often deemed neutral. We are beginning to understand the ways identity-based harm can impact entire communities’ health and wellness, and this is particularly true for LGBT+ elders. Interpersonal and systemic discrimination, police violence, housing discrimination, and identity erasure is exacerbated by in an invisibility in data collection, as LGBT+ identities have not historically been captured in surveys, medical trials, or research. The lack of data, then, is the data—it exacerbates invisibility. We see elders going back into the closet when it comes time to enter a nursing home or aging care facility, terrified of their treatment by staff or neighbors--if they can find a provider they can afford or that accepts their form of insurance. LGBT+ elders experience disproportionate rates of poverty, disengagement from medical care, and high rates of isolation, leading to disparate physical and mental health outcomes that often catch up to us as we age. We see this manifest in long-term health challenges, and housing insecurity due to financial instability, shelter discrimination, vulnerability to predatory exploitation, and a lack of safety and affirming environments in affordable housing and aging services.

Some of the biggest challenges for LGBT+ elders revolve around safe, affordable housing, rooted in legacies of discrimination, lower income levels, unsafe pathways to affordable housing, family of origin rejection and compounded isolation, traumatizing medical experiences, or landlord discrimination--to name a few. The needs of LGBT+ elders who are living in deeply vulnerable situations must be addressed through more culturally competent services throughout the lifespan, and by creating affirming pathways to affordable housing and aging care. This is particularly true for BIPOC elders and transgender elders who experience racism compounded by gender identity or sexual orientation. Safety is relative to intersectional identities, and we must center the needs of elders of color within a racist housing system. We cannot advocate for fair and safe housing without naming the legacy of racism in this country’s history--a legacy directly impacting housing access today. Community displacement, redlining, and blatant discriminatory practices are the racialized story of housing access in New York City, and a fight for LGBT+ liberation must actively dismantle white supremacy and name the racism that has enabled inequity for the deeply vulnerable people in our communities--LGBT+ elders of color without networks of support who face housing insecurity and discrimination.

RPA: What are the key systematic changes you’d like to see in New York City, and how do they relate to the concept of ​“inclusive growth”?

Yahshaanyah: I would like to see intentional and consistent efforts directed towards racial and economic equity, where race no longer remains a clear dividing line for economic success and opportunity for New Yorkers.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, New York City was long recognized as the epicenter for economic growth and opportunity, often overshadowing what many of us recognize as pre-existing conditions of racial and economic inequity that systematically impacts low-income communities, communities of color, and historically marginalized populations. Economic growth and access to economic opportunity should be shared by all. It is my firm commitment to be a part of a network of collaborators that will support and drive the creation of strategies and policies that address structural barriers to inclusive opportunity and propel underserved communities and populations towards equal access to economic security.

I would like to see stronger long-term investments and commitments from philanthropy and government towards inclusive cross-sector partnerships in underserved communities, aimed at place-based and economic mobility strategies that will empower and build the capacity of community organizations from all sectors (housing, education, health, workforce development, etc.) to achieve greater impact and build stronger communities.

There is no one-size fit all antidote to tackling racial and economic inequity, but by recognizing and building the capacity of community institutions that are attuned to the needs and lives of local residents and vulnerable populations, we can ensure that they have the capacity to cultivate meaningful partnerships, implement levers of change, and deliver services that generate economic outcomes for residents.

RPA: How do we strengthen the economic mobility of underserved communities in New York City in a way that does not replicate previous patterns of marginalization and economic inability?

Yahshaanyah: We must focus on the creative assets of underserved communities. Far too often, underserved communities are stigmatized and associated with negative outcomes, when there are structural and inequitable systems at play that cause vulnerabilities.

Local economic development within underserved communities should be aimed at inspiring new possibilities that build stronger and more sustainable communities, while creating pathways to shared and inclusive economic growth for local residents. There should be opportunities for local community-based organizations who often represent the ​“unheard” voices of many residents and are working on programs and interventions that address barriers to mobility, to help shape and contribute to the economic goals and benefits of local economic development projects around the needs of communities.

Recognizing the creative assets of underserved communities should also involve meaningful investments in sector employment strategies that have the greatest potential to effectively address the workforce development needs of unemployed, underemployed and economically disadvantaged individuals, in a manner that is responsive to the skill demands of local employers and targeted business sectors. These practices allow for more equitable access to industry-specific training and connection points to employer linkages.

I’m fortunate that my work in the community and workforce investment practice at UMEZ has helped to shape these practices on the local level.

--

These conversations highlight the importance of changing our focus and economic development strategy to become a region that is more equitable and inclusive, as well as the need to acknowledge and reckon with the history of unjust, discriminatory decisions that have brought us to our current situation. To change our focus, we must change who is leading key decision-making processes. To move our city and region forward, we must understand the structural and systemic framing that was designed to oppress and keep specific communities in the margins in order for other communities to prosper.

The Inclusive Growth Initiative and similar collaborative projects are vital as we reimagine a region that holistically protects socially and economically vulnerable communities. Our city is not thriving if its residents are suffering which means that everyone benefits from an equitable system. The diverse responses from steering committee members underscore that there is no ​“one size fits all” solution to a complicated history with a myriad of consequences. What is clear is that we need to find new approaches to economic development in order to achieve better outcomes for all.