Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7183

Bill Overview

Title: Rust to Revitalization Act of 2022

Description: This bill sets forth a special rule for the certification and designation of a population census tract as a qualified opportunity zone. The population census tract must have a population of zero, was previously used for industrial purposes and is a brownfield industrial site, and is contiguous, including by water, to a population census tract that has been designated as a qualified opportunity zone. A qualified opportunity zone is an economically distressed community where new investments, under certain conditions, may be eligible for preferential tax treatment.

Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]

Target Audience

Population: People living in communities surrounding brownfield sites in opportunity zones.

Estimated Size: 4000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

teacher (Detroit, MI)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the old factory site is cleaned up and put to use, it could bring jobs and safety back to our neighborhood.
  • I am worried that those jobs may not be in education or fit my skills.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 3
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 8 2
Year 20 8 2

construction worker (Buffalo, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Hopeful that new contracts will become available due to opportunity zone developments.
  • Our firm is eager to bid on projects arising from the site redevelopment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 7 3

freelance artist (Gary, IN)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the policy leads to more people moving in or better community engagement, I might find more clients.
  • I'm skeptical of how long it will take for real changes to happen.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 3
Year 2 4 3
Year 3 4 2
Year 5 5 2
Year 10 6 2
Year 20 6 2

retired (Pittsburgh, PA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am not as impacted, but I can see how these changes might benefit my children and grandchildren.
  • There have been many promises about these sites before. I am cautiously optimistic.

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 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

small business owner (Youngstown, OH)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Revitalization would increase foot traffic, which can only be good for business.
  • Concerns about whether the developers will use local suppliers or bring in their own.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 8 2
Year 20 7 2

college student (Birmingham, AL)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy gives me hope for internships and practical projects.
  • I am concerned about whether the environmental cleanup will really prioritize safety.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

community organizer (Oakland, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Could potentially enhance community job training efforts.
  • I worry these developments might drive up living costs for current residents.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 3
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 9 3

retired engineer (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 61 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Retirement means I'm less affected, but investment in these areas can rejuvenate our community.
  • I just hope they involve local people in the process.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 3

software developer (Newark, NJ)

Age: 31 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Opportunity zone developments could improve infrastructure and connectivity.
  • I remain skeptical about how this will tangibly affect tech opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

mechanic (St. Louis, MO)

Age: 27 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Development might bring in more cars for service, boosting our business.
  • I worry about job stability if redevelopment changes local transit patterns.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $470000000, High: $620000000)

Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $490000000, High: $640000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations