Bill Overview
Title: Neighborhood Reinvestment and Revitalization Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to issue competitive grants to its charter members to support neighborhood revitalization activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Bustos, Cheri [D-IL-17]
Target Audience
Population: Residents in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods selected for revitalization
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on neighborhood revitalization, which implies urban and potentially rural neighborhoods that require economic or infrastructural improvement.
- The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation works primarily with low- to moderate-income communities to enhance their livability.
- Charter members of the Corporation typically include local governments, community development organizations, and non-profits focused on housing and community development.
- The target population would include residents of neighborhoods selected for revitalization projects, likely skewed towards lower income brackets.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to revitalize low- to moderate-income neighborhoods in the U.S., with a significant budget spread over 10 years.
- Residents of different backgrounds will experience varying degrees of impact depending on their direct connection to affected neighborhoods and personal circumstances.
- Although funding is substantial, the average per capita spending is modest given the target population estimate. Thus, many individuals may see only moderate changes unless directly involved in a targeted project.
- A balanced selection among the interviews will cover different geographic regions, types of occupations, and current levels of wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Community Organizer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that the funding will bring much-needed improvements to our neighborhood, especially improving public spaces and housing options.
- Our community has been involved in initial discussions, and I believe that this will create better opportunities for our kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Bartender (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I decided to move out for better job opportunities, but I'm glad the people I grew up with are getting some help through this Act.
- If the plans go well, I might consider moving back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The interest and enthusiasm I've seen are encouraging. Properly managed, this could make our communities stronger.
- We need to ensure the money is spent efficiently and with transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Rural Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that the focus will mostly be urban, leaving smaller rural areas like mine with less direct benefits.
- However, any improvement in the state is good for us all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Artist (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful but cautious; I've seen revitalization projects sometimes lead to gentrification, pushing out longtime residents.
- I hope this policy genuinely benefits everyone in the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the program succeeds in attracting more foot traffic and investment into our neighborhood, it will be a big boost for me and other small business owners.
- I'm cautiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this means more jobs and work for people like me.
- We've seen similar promises before, but not all of them pan out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
University Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's exciting as a student to see what I study being applied in real life close to home.
- I hope to eventually work on projects like the ones aimed to happen here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Industrial Worker (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I just hope that they keep things affordable for old folks like me.
- I'm happy the younger generation might have it better, but I've seen improvement projects push costs higher.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My day-to-day life won't be affected much, but it's good to see reinvestment into communities that need it.
- I hope it brings positive economic and living conditions for those directly impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 3: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of projects funded through the act will depend on the availability of other federal, state, and local resources leveraged for these projects.
- Potential coordination challenges with local government and community groups might affect timely implementation.
- Measuring the success and impact of revitalization efforts can be difficult and might require investment in data collection and analysis.