The frustration of trying to invest in my hometown

Banks job is to get money out there door and get it back with interest as agreed in loan documents. When I say short sighted, I intended to convey a lack of imagination for the future. Banks are asking, “how does this debt get serviced day1? Day30? Day365? What could interrupt those payments into the future? They do not buy into “but imagine what this will look like in 5 years!” that isn’t their job, that’s the investor’s job.

As for the wealthy gate keeper fulfilling a role in society: Well, generally yes I support that with the caveat that HNWI s are required for an $80mm risky investment, but not for a neighborhood coffee shop investment or for a business owner moving their business into Ensley, creating jobs in Ensley. But there must be people with money making decisions against the risk, and that’s important. Here’s why: why invest in Ensley vs the same investment in the middle of nowhere, Alabama? Why shouldn’t the US Government (the ultimate wealthy gatekeeper) invest in a bespoke vision for a large luxury mixed use community in the middle of miles of farmland? Because the investment doesn’t work, a total waste of money! The Ensley investment, as proposed, is an investment that doesn’t work. Capital is limited, capital flows to the highest risk adjusted returns, blah blah blah, and there are similarly dilapidated parts of Birmingham AL that have received massive investment because those investments DO work. Investors are investing in those parts of town instead. It’s a sliding scale balancing opportunities, risk, time and effort, and investing in an unproven area is risky proposition and someone needs to step forward to personally take on the unmarketable risk. For someone who knows what they are doing, there is tremendous opportunity for value. That’s what my company does.

There may be a path forward for Ensley, and I suggest starting with direct job creation, not finishing out a dilapidated building and hoping someone shows up to pay rent. If this person from the article wants to invest in Ensley, starting very small could be a ticket, building a case for investing in Ensley, and then convincing others to come along side, but there must be a leader taking a load of the initial risk, as well as ongoing risks, and those risks are great.

I should also mention, real estate development in general is incredibly complicated, risky, and difficult, even when the odds are in your favor starting out. Just getting the building open to public (Fire and life safety regs) is a major challenge, let alone ever making a return on investment. We typically receive plenty of rejections for loan proposals for development deals, or offers with onerous terms that are intended as a “nice way of saying no”.

You've put "banks are racist" in speech marks, but I can't find where you're quoting it from.

The question is begging an easy answer to a structural problem. But note that, when a pandemic unfairly makes it expensive for businesses with disproportionately white shareholders to lend, the taxpayer spends trillions to make it cheaper.

Edit: Isn't that exactly what JP Morgan Chase are talking about doing about in the link?

What is considered "proximity" for jobs? Would that be considered jobs in the neighborhood or adjacent neighborhods? It's not terribly far from downtown Bham.

That's not a quote.

"Banks are racist" is my very short summary of the supposed situation. The problem I have with such explanations is the same I have with "women get 20-30% less money for the absolute same work". Since labor is the major cost factor in most industries, any company exploiting that arbitrage would stomp their competitors.

Why wouldn't anyone want to get rich off of lending to minorities? Pecunia non olet, I'm sure even a committed racist would be quite happy to make 10% by lending to African Americans instead of 5% by lending to WASPs in a highly competitive market. They may not want to deal with them personally, but that wouldn't stop them. It's even more astonishing that rich Black people wouldn't do it, so I believe it requires a bit more of an explanation.

> But note that, when a pandemic unfairly makes it expensive for businesses with disproportionately white shareholders to lend, the taxpayer spends trillions to make it cheaper.

Are the shareholders mostly white? It's my understanding that most large investors are pension funds, insurance companies and the like, not individuals. We've supposedly saved the banks in pretty much every country because we'd wipe out those institutions, not because of some private individuals with giant investments.