Author Archive

« Older Entries
Return to the Building Healthy Communities Home Page

Healthy Homes, Healthy Lives: Making the American Dream Smarter

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

For those of you who regularly follow my Tweets and this blog, you know that The Home Depot Foundation is focused on bringing the benefits of healthy, affordable housing to working families.  And you know that we’ve actually increased our funding initiatives over the last couple of years while many foundations have had to cut back.  Why?  Because housing has been at the crux of much of the country’s economic woes, and so we feel there is no better time to be focused on how to build and maintain healthy, affordable homes for families. The studies are clear:  healthy homes generate higher resale values, and the communities they form see lower crime rates and greater neighborhood involvement.  In addition, studies show that children growing up in healthy homes are less likely to suffer from respiratory problems, and are more likely to succeed in school.

That’s why I’m so excited today to announce the new affiliates that are part of our Partners in Sustainable Building Program (PSB) with Habitat for Humanity International.  PSB is a five-year $30 million green building initiative that will help build 5,000 green homes nationwide.  More than 135 Habitat affiliates across 42 states will be granted $3,000 for each home built to Energy Star standards and up to $5,000 for each home built to a higher green standard. The selected Habitat affiliates are expected to build 2,400 homes in 2010-2011.  You can read more about the specifics of our initiative in today’s press release.

I’m so proud of this initiative, because it’s having a real impact on families’ health and their ability to save money each month.  For instance, in St. Louis, Missouri a homeowner saved so much in utility bills that she was able to purchase everything her children needed for the new school year, an annual expense she could not previously afford.  And in Grayson County Texas after months of 100+ degree temperatures, a homeowner reported that her highest electric bill was only $100.  These kinds of savings are real and can often mean the difference between making the ends meet each month or not.

When we started down this housing path, many were skeptical that we could help non-profits build homes that were “green” and affordable.  I think that’s because when people hear the term “green building,” most think of really expensive homes covered with solar panels, bamboo floors, or metal exteriors that make them look like spaceships. In other words, homes that most people wouldn’t want to live in or can’t afford to build.

But our definition of a “green building” is different.  For us, a “green building” is simply one built with environmentally friendly materials such as nontoxic insulation, caulk and paint, and that uses water-saving faucets and energy-efficient appliances.  And since our primary goal is to provide homes for working families, we want these “green” homes to be affordable to own and maintain over the long term.

The basic math is pretty clear.  According to a survey by Habitat for Humanity, building to Energy Star standards adds less than $2,000 to the cost of a home.  And building to these standards will save homeowners an average of $6,000 on heating, air conditioning, and water in the first six years alone, according to the U.S. EPA’s Energy Star statistics.

And that’s just the math of the building costs.  That doesn’t count how smart maintenance of the home continues to save homeowners money each month.  From CFL and LED lighting to programmable thermostats, homeowners will continue to make money off operating their home in a healthy, energy-efficient way.

Every time I talk about how much money homeowners are saving through our green-building partnerships with Habitat and other housing organizations, I wonder why we all aren’t focused on green homes.  If homebuyers with the least to spend are realizing these kinds of benefits, why aren’t we all doing the same?  Why are we all leaving money on the table by not paying attention to how efficiently our homes are running?

To learn more about how you can reap these same benefits in your own home, check out this list of tips.  You’ll find that green building isn’t just about making your home healthier…it’s about putting green back into your pocket!

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Healthy, Affordable Housing, Sustainable Communities, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

An Ounce of Prevention…

Monday, August 30th, 2010

It’s that time of year when we start watching the Weather Channel more frequently, and I start getting emergency weather updates on my Blackberry.  It’s hurricane season. We are thinking about this all the more as we observe the fifth anniversary of the horrible time called Hurricane Katrina.

Working with Home Depot for over a decade, I understand how a big storm impacts people, families and communities.  We are exceptionally proud of the things we do as a company and as a foundation in the wake of a storm when a community needs help.  This is also what gets the most media attention.  I hope, though, that we can start paying more attention to things that can happen before a hurricane, tornado, flood or fire damages a community or an entire region.  I know, it’s not nearly as exciting; the pictures aren’t nearly as good.  But what if we could actually avoid those “after” pictures.

I was exceptionally pleased last week to see that HUD has awarded $312 million to 13 states to reduce the damages from future disasters.  These funds will be used:

  • to buyout homeowners in high-risk areas and relocate them to safer places;
  • to complete improvements to homes to reduce damage by doing things like reinforcing windows and doors and raising the elevation;
  • to improve and enforce building codes; and
  • to develop thoughtful land use plans that reduce development in high-risk areas.

You may say that that’s a lot of money right now and ask it we can really afford it.  That’s a salient concern, but the answer is clearly that we can’t afford not to make these investments.  Every dollar spent on damage mitigation will result in a $4 reduction in the amount we would spend for disaster recovery.

You may also be asking why I’m writing - or even thinking - about this.  I know I typically focus on topics related to affordable housing and  “green” building.  But what could be more sustainable than to invest in building homes so they don’t get blown away by a strong wind or to build them in places where a flood won’t carry them away?  What could help a family with few housing choices more?  We know these storms are going to occur - whether every 10 years, every 30 years or every 100 years.  Isn’t it just common sense that we would think about how to reduce the damage caused by something that will inevitably happen?

I hope I’ve convinced you to think about what you can do before we start tracking the next satellite images of a storm (I know, there’s a storm tracking right now!).  While it’s on the top of your mind,  I’m  encourage you to do a couple of things.  First, think about donating to the American Red Cross before a specific emergency arises.  Every year we give to the Red Cross’s Annual Disaster Giving Program so they can do the things they need to do to be on the ground helping people immediately after a disaster.  They also have great resources to educate you and your family on how to be prepared.  Other fantastic resources are available at the site of our long-standing partner, the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, where they have everything from DIY home inspections, to a contractors’ certification program, to videos with step by step instructions on how to improve your home with disaster safety in mind.  Remember “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Healthy, Affordable Housing, Sustainable Communities | Leave a Comment »

Making Cities Healthier - for People and the Economy

Friday, July 30th, 2010

I’ve just come from a two-day discussion among a group of a dozen experts from a cross section of fields related to sustainability - energy, transportation, water and economic development, to name a few.  We brought them together to select the recipients of The Home Depot Foundation Awards of Excellence for Sustainable Community Development.  That’s a lot of words strung together, but we were looking for cities - large and small - that are 1) thinking about sustainability in the broadest sense and what it means for their community,  2) creating a plan that sets out the ways they are committing to make their cities healthier over the long term from an economic development, public health, social equity and environmental stewardship standpoint and that defines the objective standards they will use to measure progress and 3) completing projects that help move them toward their goals.  After reviewing the applications, I can confidently say that cities across the country are undertaking some truly amazing sustainability efforts right now, despite the dire budget forecasts they are facing.  (I can’t tell you who we thought was doing the best work yet, but you can check out the videos of last year’s award recipients.)

I think what the conversation underscored for me is what Kermit said so many years ago, “It’s not easy being green.” It takes an enormous dedication of resources, time and expertise to bring the benefits of sustainability to our cities.  In fact, it requires that leaders, staff and citizens re-think everything they are doing from paving roads and building police stations to buying paper and installing streetlights.  Hard questions need to be asked about the true health of a community and the actual opportunities that are available to its residents.  This requires looking at, among other things,  the rates of energy and water use, accessibility of transportation options, affordability of quality housing, levels of pollution in the air and water, success of local businesses and prevalence of obesity and related diseases.  And not only do they need to investigate all of this, they also have to figure out what needs improvement and set goals, prioritize the list and come up with money to pay for it.  They then must measure what they’ve done and report back.  Whew!

After reading that last paragraph, you may be thinking that this is too much to ask of any local government.  It’s too hard; the economy is too bad; for now, they should just focus on getting through the next week, month, year.

But that’s my point, right?  It’s not just “for now.”  The choices that are being made today are determining what our tomorrows are going to look like across this broad spectrum of issues.  We are creating roads, light rail lines, buildings and parks that are going to be with us for decades.  To a large extent, through the decisions made today, we are determining what taxes our children will pay, what kinds of homes they will live in, what kind of jobs they will have and whether they will enjoy healthy lives.  After all, much of what we live with today is because of what our fathers (and mothers) did: encouraging sprawl, eliminating green space, buying energy gobbling cars and homes and dumping pollution into our rivers.

So hopefully, you can see that although it’s hard, this is important work that must be done.  I hope, though, that you can also be convinced to take it one step further to realize that this is a once-in-a-lifetime, exciting opportunity.  We have the chance to really make a difference and to improve the way cities operate and govern.  We can make cities run more efficiently, more productively and more sustainably.  We can transform them!

Cities, after all, have a lot of infrastructure and history and policies, but they are made up of, and created for, people.  By making cities run better, we are getting to the core of what we do as a foundation: we help people to achieve their dreams of success for their families and to live better lives.  sci_logo

To learn more about how you can take action to make your city more sustainable, visit www.SustainableCitiesInstitute.org.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Communities | Leave a Comment »

Finding the Right Balance for Healthy Housing

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Last week, we had an Advisory Committee of experts in a variety of areas community development, affordable housing and green building come to Atlanta to assess the finalist for our 2010 Awards of Excellence for Affordable Housing, Built Responsibly.  (Sorry - I can’t tell you who the winners are yet, but check out the case studies of recipients from prior years if you want to get a taste of the outstanding and inspirational work being done by dedicated, talented, passionate professionals across the country.)  The conversations turned into mini-debates on some of the issues practitioners building healthy homes for families of modest means every day.  Most of the time, there’s not a “right” answer, but rather an attempt to find the best balance of competing needs and limited resources. I wanted to toss several of these issues out to get input from a larger group.  So, let me know what you think about these issues.

Affordability vs. Responsibility:  This one is really at the crux of everything we do at The Home Depot Foundation: how do you build the best home possible at a price that remains affordable.  (One question we won’t address here is “Affordable for whom?”  We’ll have to save that one for another day.) We actually started this Awards of Excellence program because we kept hearing people say that it wasn’t possible.  We knew that not only is it possible, but that people are doing it amazingly well.  Obviously, though, a home that incorporates every new technology that enhances its efficiency and health would be cost prohibitive.  So what’s the right balance?  When does a product become “green bling” rather than a practical upgrade.  Take for instance photovoltaics.  PVs are a great way to keep energy costs low for residents by tapping into the free energy of sunlight, but they are very expensive.  If there are no subsidies to pay for them, does it make sense to invest in a technology that won’t pay for itself for 20 years?  Maybe it does if you are planning for someone to live in the home for 50 years, but that’s a big upfront expense to absorb.  On the other hand, siting a building to take advantage of the sun’s heat  in a cold climate or to reduce the heat build up in a warm climate is one way to control the impact of the sun’s heat on a building through thoughtful design rather than expensive technology.

Now vs. Later:  There are trade-offs in every decision.  Among the hardest are those that pit current impacts of our choices against the long term implications.  Here’s an example that seems at first blush to be fairly simple, but gets very complicated very quickly.  You are selecting windows for your new apartment complex, but you are limited in what you can spend for each one (just like everything else).  You can choose wood or composite windows that are more efficient than what the local code requires.  For the same money, you can use vinyl windows that are even more energy efficient.  The wood windows are more environmentally friendly to make and at the end of their useful life as the wood will decompose.  The vinyl windows use less energy, which means more money in the residents’ pockets each month, but raise environmental issues related to how the vinyl is manufactured and the fact that it will be with us essentially forever.  This one, to me, has no “better” answer.  What would you do?

Developer vs. Resident:  Unfortunately, there is still some incremental cost to building a more efficient, healthier home.  Depending upon who you ask, that can be next to nothing up to 15-20% more than traditional building.  (Keep in mind, that it is very difficult to define what a “traditional” building is:  Is it one that merely meets code?  - And by the way, which code?  California’s stringent energy efficiency code or a state that has no statewide standard?) - One that includes Energy Star appliances?  Or one that is already built to a minimum green building standard?)  At any rate, it is a fact today that the developer is going to spend some extra amount to build a green home, but will not realize a huge financial incentive.  If it’s a home that will be purchased, the homeowner will receive the benefits in lower monthly utilities and less maintenance.  Even in the case of apartments, financial institutions don’t consider the cost savings that will come over time when they are calculating reserves and the amount that can be borrowed.  Affordable housing has been ahead of the game because grants and subsidies have been available to cover the incremental costs and because the developers are mission-driven nonprofits, but the financial and insurance industries must start to factor in both the costs and benefits if we are going to achieve real market transformation.

As I said to start, I don’t think these are easy issues, and this certainly isn’t an exhaustive list, just a few examples of the kinds of thoughts the Advisory Committee grappled with. Every building development is unique in terms of location, residents and finances and each one has to find it’s own “right” balance.   One thing I do know, however, is that we are fortunate as a country to have people who are working at getting to the best housing outcomes for families, neighborhoods and the environment.  Just wait ’til you see out winners!

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Healthy, Affordable Housing | Leave a Comment »

Help Pick SCI’s Pilot Cities

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

In May during the Congress of New Urbanism meeting in Atlanta, we were very excited to launch a new program for The Home Depot Foundation, the Sustainable Cities Institute (to read more about this program, see my prior post).  The primary purpose of SCI is to provide vetted best practices and useful resources as well as a hub for communication to city officials and staff to help them think about what they are doing now that will impact the long-term health of their community.  The issues covered run the gamut from housing and transportation, to water and waste management to land use, energy and economic development.  The goal is to help cities to take a long-term, integrated and systematic approach to developing and achieving  healthy communities by simultaneously addressing economic, environmental, and social issues.

We understand, though, that we can’t just be talking about these things, we also need to be doing them.  So a critical piece of SCI is the Pilot Cities Program, which is a way for SCI and our partner organizations to demonstrate how cities can move through the process of defining what sustainability means for their residents and communities and use that shared understanding to implement real change on the ground.  We will do this by investing $1 million in two cities over two years and by bringing appropriate experts in different aspects of sustainability to provide hands on assistance.  One of the most exciting parts of this program will be that the two winning cities will be posting their progress - good and not so good - on SCI within the City Program pages.  We believe that this essential if we are going to achieve our overall goal of helping all cities move their sustainability programs forward.

We invited an array of cities: large and small; hot and cold; those that had thought about sustainable development for many years and some who are coming to it more recently, and asked them to tell us how they are thinking about sustainability and what their plans are for moving forward through the expansion or implementation of a city-wide initiative.  We also asked them how they would use those plans with regard to a specific project that would create or rehab homes or an entire neighborhood for people of modest incomes.

When we extended that invitation to about 40 cities, we weren’t sure what responses we would get - we knew we were expecting them to do a lot and we were asking them to tell us a lot.  We were truly and honestly amazed at the quality of the work going on across the country - and not just in the large cities like Boston and Atlanta, where you would expect it, but in Burlington and Savannah as well.  Because of this, it was difficult to narrow the list to 4 finalists, but we’ve done it.   I know that after visits to these cities, it will be even harder to select the 2 pilot cities.  Here is information on the finalist cities and the nonprofit partners they are working with. We are scheduling trips to see what’s happening in each of them, but if you have a reason why you think we should pick one over the others, please let us know!

Ann Arbor, MI (pop. 114,000) and the Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute of the University of Michigan:  In 2007, Ann Arbor adopted 11 Environmental Action Plan Principles and 10 Environmental Action Plan Goals.  They are now working to integrate these into their Master Plan and Capital Improvements Plan.  Their proposed project would focus on making rental housing in Ann Arbor and its sister city of Ypsilanti more energy efficient by providing incentives to landlords owning a total of 500 units.

Charleston, SC (pop. 124,000) and The Sustainability Institute: Charleston adopted a sustainability plan in February of this year, which focuses on six specific areas: better buildings, cleaner energy, sustainable communities, improved transportation, zero waste and green education.  Charleston SAVES is a city-wide initiative to provide energy efficiency services to any building owner who doesn’t qualify for the federal weatherization program.  They have proposed that SCI help implement the Green Collar Workforce Program, which would professionally train workers to conduct energy audits and to complete retrofits while makign energy efficiency upgrades to about 200 homes owned by low-t- moderate income families.

Fayetteville , AR (pop. 67,000) and the National Center for Appropriate Technology: While Fayetteville doesn’t have a sustainability plan, they have done great work in adopting Fayetteville Forward 2009, which sets policy across a broad range of issues, including transportation and light rail, green economy, local food, land use and green infrastructure.  The city has over 100 miles of stream, so water protection is a high priority.  Accordingly, they are proposing that we would work with them to create a manual for low impact design for drainage and that the guidelines developed in the manual would be used in the development of a new subdivision of about 50 green, affordable homes.

Salt Lake City, UT (pop 182,000) and NeighborWorks Salt Lake: The city adopted its sustainability plan in 2008 along with publishing the Blueprint Jordan River, which outlines an initiative to preserve 300 acres of habitat along the river, create transportation connections to the river and revitalize the housing along the river by making green improvement grants to homeowners.  The goal is for several local governments to coordinate efforts to increase housing values, preserve the river and promote healthy neighborhoods and sustainability within an urban setting.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Sustainable Cities | Leave a Comment »

Nonprofits Earning Profits: What’s the Right Definition?

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

The Home Depot Foundation partnered with the Georgia Center for Nonprofits this week to hold a conversation about social enterprises in Georgia.  The basis for the discussion among about 70 nonprofit leaders was a survey GCN conducted of charitable organizations that yielded responses from over 750 groups.  GCN also produced a white paper summarizing the results and highlighting several considerations we should think about as we move forward into this somewhat blurry mix of business and philanthropy.

But before we get into any of that, I want to back up to point out that the terms “social venture,” “social entrepreneurship,” “social enterprise,” (or whatever we call it) aren’t really self-explanatory.  According to the Social Enterprise Alliance:

A social enterprise is an organization or venture that achieves its primary social or environmental mission using business methods. The social needs addressed by social enterprises and the business models they use are as diverse as human ingenuity.  Social enterprises build a more just, sustainable world by applying market-based strategies to today’s social problems.

That’s a lot of words, but to me it simply means that we are talking about nonprofit organizations that start a business to support their cause.  That may mean 1) that they are in business to raise money to support their work or 2) that they are creating a business to fill a gap they have identified that makes it hard from them to accomplish their goals.  It’s pretty easy to come up with examples of the first kind of social enterprise: look no further than the little girl next store selling Girl Scout cookies or the Salvation Army or local church’s thrift store.   The second kind often involves starting a business to provide jobs for people who are hard to employ, such as former felons, people with mental or physical disabilities or young people who don’t yet have skills or work experience.  In the survey of Georgia nonprofits, organizations are doing everything from running restaurants and landscaping companies to managing warehouses and recycling centers to radio production.  There’s even a nonprofit beverage bottler!

In a time when government and private support is shrinking, I applaud all of these nonprofits for thinking about creative ways to do more.  There is a hitch with that, though, in that 32% of the groups surveyed said they were losing money through their efforts, and perhaps even more disturbing, fully 30% said that they weren’t sure if they were making money or not (in their defense, most of these had been up and running for less than a year).  Although we want to encourage groups to take risks and try new ways of doing things, we also hope that they do it in a fiscally responsible way, that they know when to cut their losses (particularly when their goal is fundraising).

Interestingly, for almost 15% of the groups turning a profit isn’t even a goal for their venture.  This made more sense to me after talking to the director of the Georgia Justice Project, which says on its homepage that it is “an unlikely mix of lawyers, social workers and a landscape company. We defend people accused of crimes and, win or lose, we stand with our clients while they rebuild their lives.”   So you may question whether a bunch of lawyers should be in the business of running a landscaping company, they only do it because it’s difficult to find employers who will hire ex-offenders, and without jobs, their clients can’t move their lives forward.  Accordingly, GJP’s mission always trumps profits when they are making business decisions.  Their primary goal for the venture is to help their clients acquire a marketable skill and establish that they are dependable, trustworthy employees, and so that dictates how they make decisions.  For example, when Georgia experienced a severe drought, their business fell off, but they kept all of their employees by raising grant dollars to cover their losses.

You would hope that that would always be the case - that a charitable organization would always look to its overarching purpose to guide its decision-making, not the dollars and cents calculation of the bottom line.  If that’s true, maybe the line between philanthropy and business isn’t so blurry.  Maybe there aren’t really any “nonprofit” organizations.  Maybe we just need to think differently about what we a group needs to achieve to say they’ve turned a “profit.”

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Philanthropy | Leave a Comment »

Fill in the Blank: I am proud of _______

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Last week, I posted some thoughts on the things that I would change about what’s going on around us - the things about the world that make me embarrassed and that we could change.  This week, I want to look at the other side and talk about the situations I see that make me proud of us all.

First, I want to talk about a few things close to home - our home at The Home Depot Foundation.  In 2007, we pledged to invest $400 million to build and rehab 100,000 homes and plant three million trees over ten years.  Just three years in, we’ve contributed $163 million, touched 64,000 families by helping them live in safe, healthy homes and planted 732,000 trees.  That’s a lot of numbers, but it’s also a lot of people and neighborhoods changed for the better and many, many great partners with whom we have worked.

Speaking of which, I am exceptionally proud, as well as humbled, to have worked with each of the nonprofit partners who made those numbers a reality in communities across the country.  Seven days a week, passionate professionals spend their days pouring out their energy working to help others.  They aren’t just thinking about making a difference (or writing about it), they are actually changing the way people are living their lives: building healthy homes where a policeman can afford to raise his family; teaching a mom how to program her thermostat to save money on her utilities so she buy new sneakers for her son; planting a garden where a family and neighbors can plant vegetables, watch with anticipation as the tomatoes turn red and enjoy what they have grown together, creating a healthier meal and a stronger community.

I’m proud of the thousands, actually the millions, of volunteers who give their time to do things for others without asking for anything in return.  They paint homes, plant trees, mentor kids, cook meals and visit veterans’ hospitals.  They understand that by giving of themselves, they will be happier and more fulfilled, and all of us will benefit.  And they often do this when they have no idea who will ultimately be helped by what they are doing.

I’m astounded that even as we are bombarded with bad economic news, Americans donated over $300 billion to charities in 2009.

I am proud that an average person laughs 15 times a day.  I am proud that usually if you trust people, they won’t let you down.  I’m amazed that there are scientists who are creating medicines to fight horrible diseases.  I’m awed that anyone has walked on the moon.  I’m proud that we can each do so many things - big and small - to make life a little easier, a little happier or a little healthier for someone else.  And I’m even more proud of us because we actually do so many of those things every day.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Healthy, Affordable Housing, Philanthropy, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Embarrassed to be Human?

Friday, June 4th, 2010

I was talking to someone whom I greatly respect about some of the pressing issues facing us all right now, and he said that some of our current affairs made him embarrassed to be a member of the human race.  I hadn’t heard that phrase before, and it struck me as humorous at first, but if you take it literally, he’s completely right.

Pause and create your mental list of the realities that exist today that make you cringe inside.  My list includes the facts that:

I could go on, but that’s enough.  And this is in no way meant to be depressing - I hope that this is a very loud wake up call.  This list is embarrassing, not disheartening or overwhelming.  According to Webster’s dictionary, embarrass means to cause self-conscious distress.  We should be distressed, and we should each be looking inward to think about what we are doing about it because these are circumstances that we should not accept.  We should not allow these situations to continue to exist - and make no mistake, through our action or delay, we are allowing these facts to be.  We have the ability to change them; we just haven’t chosen to do that so far.

I believe strongly that there is no reason that almost 15% of Americans aren’t sure that they’ll be able to pay their mortgage or rent this month, that they’ll be able to feed their kids dinner tonight or that they’ll be able to fill a prescription the next time they get sick.  It is inexcusable that any child should try to go to sleep or to school with a stomach grumbling for food.  Why on earth don’t we recycle paper or think about what chemicals we are putting into our homes?  Perhaps part of the problem is that we aren’t being honest with each other - or with ourselves - about what we can do to change what’s going on around us.

This is my list and my commitment is to put my time, energy and resources into scratching them off, so instead of having a list of embarrassments, I have a list of things that make me proud to be a member of the human race.  I hope you’ll add your thoughts and tell me how we can work together to change what we see when we look at each other.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Healthy, Affordable Housing, Philanthropy | Leave a Comment »

Catalyzing Sustainable Actions

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Those of us who think about how to make our cities better places to live had a great week in Atlanta as we hosted the Congress for the New Urbanism’s Congress 18, which focused on the interconnectedness of our health and the places where we live.  We don’t think or talk about it much, but how we live depends in large measure on where we live.  CNU focuses on planning and developing communities for people, not just cars, and for all kinds of people doing different things.

mayberry_post_office_rfdEssentially, it’s a throwback to Mayberry R.F.D., a small town where the doctor lived next to the barber (or sheriff) and you could walk downtown to shop or get an ice cream cone.  There was a park to throw a ball or have a picnic (baseball and apple pie).  Now we talk about sustainability and new urbanism, mixed-use developments and TODs (transit oriented development).  We don’t say you can walk to town, we say that it’s pedestrian-friendly or walkable  - you get the gist.

We call it “new” because we are coming full circle after we sped and sprawled to the suburbs only to learn that the grass wasn’t necessarily greener five - or 25  - miles outside of town.  It began to take a lot of time and resources (both emotional and financial) to drive into work everyday, which left less time and money for relaxing, enjoying friends and families and exercise.  And instead of walking to the places we wanted to go, we had to drive to the strip mall, so we were always sitting behind a steering wheel or a desk rather than getting some exercise and fresh air.  Our waistbands seemed to hdf_atl_0596spread along with the roads.  Unless your own yard was big enough to play a game of football or baseball, you and your kids probably weren’t going to play because there’s not a park in your neighborhood, so you stay inside and play a video game version.  Come to think about it, with all those cars on the new road, the air wasn’t so fresh anyway.  As the farms and forests started to be developed and paved, the rain water had fewer places to run and floods started drowning places that weren’t in the flood plain.

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that we want to create communities like we used to have.  With larger cities, we are thinking in terms of neighborhoods.  As energy costs continue to increase and clean water becomes more precious, conserving resources and cutting utility bills also become more important.  We understand that where we put the places we need to go, such as offices, homes, schools and hospitals, and whether we have choices about how we get there, whether by cars, trains, subways, bikes or walking, have an enormous impact on our lives.  These questions of land use, transportation, resource allocation and economic development are enormous issues, and they are issues that our cities control.  More and more cities are bringing sustainability, which in many situations means getting more while using less, into their planning processes, their operations and their ordinances and zoning.

sci_logoBut it’s not easy to think comprehensively about all of the aspects of a community that make it a place that you want to live and that is affordable.  We’ve talked to many city officials, professional planners and developers and neighborhood residents who say that it’s hard to find credible, practical, action-oriented materials to help them accomplish their goals for today without sacrificing the resources and budgets of the future.  That’s why The Home Depot Foundation is excited and proud to announce the creation of the Sustainable Cities Institute, which we have developed in partnership with Southface.  At the Institute’s website, we are providing vetted tools and information to jump start efforts to make cities’ operations and policies more sustainable.  People in so many places across the U.S. and Canada are making enormous strides in bringing the economic, health and environmental benefits of sustainability to their residents.  By sharing their efforts and successes, we intend to catalyze similar activity in other places across the country.  In the fall, we will announce two cities that will have been selected as pilot cities.  Over two years, we will invest $1 million in these locations to bring their sustainability plans to life through specific developments.  The progress, challenges and learnings from those cities will be chronicled on the SCI website.

Just as we know that anything worth doing takes time, we understand that creating places and lives that are sustainable takes years and the effort of many people.  While we have been able to launch SCI because of the dedicated work of dozens of people, we know that it will evolve over time.  We hope that you’ll contribute your thoughts and experience as a member of SCI and join us in this journey to make SCI a tool that can help shape our communities of the future.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Environmental Responsibility, Sustainable Communities | 1 Comment »

A Passion for Home

Friday, May 14th, 2010

I am struggling with a question, that I hope someone can help me with:  why aren’t we passionate about affordable housing as a cause?  I know some people are, a small cadre of activists, those who work in social services and community development.  But I mean just people - our neighbors, friends, colleagues.  Why don’t we donate, raise money, do walks to allow others to live in safe, healthy homes that they can afford?  Sometimes it seems we care more about where stray dogs are kenneled than we do about where people in our communities sleep at night (and please don’t misunderstand, I love animals and firmly believe that we should care about both).

I have two reasons why I struggle to understand this lack of public interest:  first, so many of us spend a huge amount of time, thought, planning and money making our own homes a comfortable,  loving place; and second, without a stable home, how can you expect anyone to have a successful life?

With regard to the passion millions of people have for their own homes, think of the number of magazines, internet sites, stores and professions (architects, builders, inspectors, decorators, etc.)  dedicated to helping people create their dream home.  It’s a huge industry, and we do love our homes.  Just think of the way we talk about what a home can mean: it’s the embodiment of a shared American dream, a foundation, a nest, our home base.  It’s a safe place where you can start to decide what you want for the rest of your life.  So if we all want this for ourselves and for our families, why aren’t we interested in helping other people achieve this too?

On the second point, I wish everyone would pause to think about what living in the same home over several years means for the other aspects of their lives.   What if you had to find a new place to live every six months or year because you didn’t make enough at your job as a teacher or fireman or waitress to keep paying the rent where you are.  Can you find another place close enough to your current job(s) or will you have to find a new one?  Can you find an apartment in the same school district or do you need to transfer your kids to a new school?  You’re already having trouble paying your bills, so how can you afford to move, with all of the transportation costs and security deposits?  Forget about the money for a minute, how much stress is it causing to be moving or worrying about whether you are going to have to move?  And if all of this is going on, how do you have time to help your kids with their homework or ask them how their day was?

All of this really hit home with me this week while I was visiting a neighborhood in Chicago.  This community has a network of strong nonprofits that are providing job training, health care and tutoring to families in the area.  They are also rehabbing homes that have fallen into foreclosure to resell them and building new homes as well.  They’ve worked with their city councilman to build new schools and create new parks.  This is a tough place, but one where progress is being made even in this economy.  As we walked down the street, I was distracted by two signs I kept seeing in the windows.  One said “We Call Police,” meaning we are paying attention and call for help if we see bad things going on - we aren’t going to have our neighborhood taken away from us.  The other sign actually gave me a chill; it read “Don’t Shoot, I Want to Grow up.”

dontshootWould you allow your child to wait for the bus or play outside in a place where you would hang that sign?  How can we allow any child to live there?  What can we expect from a boy or girl who calls that home?  And how would you feel if that’s the only home you could afford to provide for your child?  Shouldn’t we all care about helping each other change that situation?

I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone couldn’t.

By Kelly Caffarelli
Posted in Healthy, Affordable Housing | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries