Working material for the board and invited collaborators.
A scoring table and a set of empty case slots. The cases get chosen for this situation, not carried in from another one.
A comparable has to be comparable in the way that matters here: a mission owner growing a portfolio inside an existing lower income neighborhood, holding community trust that took twenty five years to build.
That is a different situation from a new district on vacant or industrial land, so the usual district precedents do not apply and are not listed. The scoring table below is the filter. A case that scores badly is still worth writing up if it failed instructively.
| Test | Why it matters here |
|---|---|
| Owner type | A nonprofit or community owner rather than a developer or a public agency, because the capital available and the time horizon are different. |
| Existing residents | Growth inside an occupied neighborhood, with the people who live there staying, rather than growth on empty land. |
| Buy before build | Whether the case acquired property ahead of developing it, which is the ordering Brighton's own strategy proposes. |
| Distributed ownership | Whether ownership was spread across more than one entity, and what that did to the number of funding doors available. |
| Tenure mix | Rental and ownership in the same program, which is what the South Holly model attempts. |
| Documented outcome | Published figures years after completion, not a launch announcement. A case without published follow up data does not go in the table. |
Each slot gets the same treatment: what the owner controlled, what it cost, where the money came from, what happened to the people who already lived there, and what the published figures say some years later.