IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v14y2003i1-2p47-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “failures, downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Defending community development corporations or defending communities?

Author

Listed:
  • Randy Stoecker

Abstract

An overemphasis on preserving community development corporations (CDCs) may confuse the ends with the means. The end is empowered, self‐sustaining communities of place and identity. CDCs are one means of trying to get there, and there are many communities in which CDCs are helpful, and, indeed, empowering. However, the trends we are seeing—failures, downsizings, and mergers—may tell us that it is time to look for alternatives to CDCs. If we truly care about poor communities, those of us with the resources to find the best community development models should be searching for them. We do not have good data to show whether community organizing is a better strategy than CDCs for achieving community development, but it is a strategy that merits exploration.

Suggested Citation

  • Randy Stoecker, 2003. "Comment on William M. Rohe and Rachel G. Bratt's “failures, downsizings, and mergers among community development corporations”: Defending community development corporations or defending communities?," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 47-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:14:y:2003:i:1-2:p:47-56
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2003.9521467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2003.9521467
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2003.9521467?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:14:y:2003:i:1-2:p:47-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.