From Private Equity to Public Good: Peter Brodsky on Housing and Hope

Peter Brodsky wasn’t always a real estate developer—but when he saw an opportunity to use his business experience to help transform southern Dallas, he stepped in. In this season finale of Good God, George Mason speaks with Peter about his work at the Shops at Redbird, his leadership at Housing Forward, and why homelessness, food access, and affordable housing demand both moral clarity and practical solutions.

Together, they explore the structural causes of poverty, the challenge of changing public narratives, and how Peter’s Jewish faith and commitment to tikkun olam—repairing the world—have shaped his decision to invest his time, money, and energy in building a more equitable city.

Peter Brodsky is a Dallas-based philanthropist, real estate investor, and chair of the board of Housing Forward, the lead agency coordinating homelessness response in Dallas and Collin counties.

Watch the video, here.

Peter (00:00):

Welcome to Good God, conversations that matter about faith and public Life. I'm your host George Mason, and I'm delighted to welcome to the program today, Peter Brosky. Peter is a real estate developer and a philanthropist and a tremendous, uh, asset to the city of Dallas, who also is chair of the Board of Housing Forward, uh, uh, which is, uh, working, uh, to address housing shortages, uh, across the continuum from, um, homelessness all the way up to affordable housing, I guess, probably, yeah,

Peter (00:35):

Mostly homelessness.

Peter (00:35):

Mostly homelessness. Great. Well, Peter, thank you for being with us. Uh, you, I think a lot of people probably don't know exactly who's behind a lot of stuff that you do, but, uh, let's just sort of clip it off a little bit and say, uh, one big project for you has been the conversion of the old Redbird Mall in southern Dallas, uh, into the shops at Redbird, uh, where you've brought numerous stores. Uh, when people said they couldn't come, uh, they wouldn't come. Uh, they're there, they're prosperous, they're thriving, uh, Starbucks and, and others. Uh, so I, I guess the, the big question is why there, uh, when all the money seems to be made north of the river, why spend your time and interest in a place like Southern Dallas and, uh, Redbird?

Peter (01:29):

Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. Yeah. I appreciate the invitation. Sure. Um, I, I think in order to answer that question, we have to go back a little bit. Okay. Um, I'm not, I'm not a real estate developer, uh, or I wasn't a real estate developer until this project. Okay. I had an entire other career Okay. In private equity, uh, where I, I was very fortunate and very lucky, uh, and, and did well there. And so I found myself, uh, with a lot of options in life And, uh, and I wanted to do something that was still business oriented, because I enjoy that intellectual challenge. I enjoy, enjoy business. Um, but I wanted to do something more, something that was gonna feed my soul a little bit. Okay. And I had begun to find that private equity was not feeding my soul <laugh>.

Peter (02:24):

Um, why Redbird? Because Redbird is, to me, the perfect place to prove that Southern Dallas is so much more than it's given credit for good. Um, Redbird is a solidly, solidly middle class community. Uh, it, it has some, uh, some, some pockets of upper middle class families, uh, particularly in the southern suburbs that are immediately adjacent to, uh, to the shops at Redbird. Uh, and yet when you drive around the commercial areas, you really don't see amenities that are any different from, uh, from, say, in Fair Park, which is a much, much poorer community. . And that has a lot to do with the preconceived notions that people have about Southern Dallas. The preconceived notions that people have about communities of color. Uh, and frankly, uh, it, it is, it is hurt by, by both, uh, by both the present and the past in different ways. It's hurt by the past because in the past there were some intentional policies that starved that area of capital and, um, and actions taken that actually prevented development. .

Peter (03:46):

And this would be red lining, for instance.

Peter (03:48):

Red lining would be a perfect example,

Peter (03:50):

Which would be, just to clarify, this would be, uh, a product of, uh, the federal government's, uh, decision to underwrite the costs of loans to certain parts of cities and not to others. Exactly.

Peter (04:08):

And

Peter (04:08):

So what happened was deliberate racial discrimination. Yes. Uh, that took place.

Peter (04:13):

Yes, that's true. Um, it's also hurt by the present in a, in a less, uh, in an unintentional way. And, and the way it's hurt by the present is that our area is booming. So, uh, so much, uh, and it's booming north. Yes. Uh, it's just easier To open up a shopping center in Frisco or Prosper . Than it is in southern Dallas. . And so, most people who go into business go into business in order to make as much money As quickly as possible. . Um, and, uh, and so Southern Dallas gets left behind. . Uh, and so I wanted to prove that you could make money in Southern Dallas, and that Southern Dallas was an area that is worthy not of not just, uh, worthy of philanthropy, but worthy of investment.

Peter (05:13):

Okay. So I assume that part of the strategy then is not just that you create one island of, uh, development that, uh, succeeds, but that there's a flywheel effect of that.

Peter (05:29):

That's the hope.

Peter (05:30):

Yeah. So that, that's the hope, so that once you prove that to be the case, then the adjacent areas and investors will come in and say, wait a minute, we missed this. This is an opportunity.

Peter (05:41):

Exactly. You know, it's hard to go first. Yes. It's much easier to go second, and it's even easier to go third. . And the reason is that when you go first, there's no comparables. Yes. There's nowhere I can point to in Southern Dallas that says there's a successful Starbucks. 'cause we have the only one in all of Southern Dallas. . Which is 208 square miles. Yes. So it's a, it's an area the size of Atlanta. Wow. And yet we have the only Starbucks. Now someone else can go in and say, oh, these demographics in this part of southern Dallas are very similar to Redbird, and look how well that Starbucks is doing. Good. Good. Uh, and so that's the idea. But, but that's a, that is a, a process that takes a long time. Yeah. Uh, another thing we're trying to prove out is that Southern Dallas is a viable office market. Hmm. If you look at all the office buildings in the city of Dallas, the vast majority of them are north of I 30. Yes. South of I 30 is really a bedroom community. . Well, we're trying to put offices in there. We're trying to put medical facilities in there. Uh, we're trying to put all sorts of different high quality amenities into Redbird to prove out all of these different markets Uh, so that, so that more people will follow on and, uh, and make those investments.

Peter (07:02):

So one of the, uh, linchpins of the shops at Redbird, uh, really was that there would be a big box grocery store that would go in. Yes. And the disappointing news after the exciting news, uh, is that, uh, Tom Thumb has changed its mind. Yes. And, and pulled out. That was, uh, I think, uh, such a hopeful thing for so many people. Uh, and, uh, faith Commons, the organization that is parent to, um, good God, uh, has been at work for a couple of years in southern Dallas, uh, bringing groups together around food access and trying to figure out the continuum between community gardens all the way up to grocery stores. . Uh, and, uh, because it really is a tragedy to think that people, uh, have such limited access, uh, to, uh, to quality food, uh, that would be, uh, nutritious. And therefore, um, the, the consequences of that for health and wellbeing in communities are significant. Yes. So where does that stand now? And what do you think are the alternatives? Because the goal still has to be the same to deliver, uh, accessible quality food, right?

Peter (08:24):

Yes. Well, where it stands is that, is that the Tom Thumb deal is, is dead. Yes. Uh, and, and it's not coming back. And that's very unfortunate. And so where that leaves us is talking again to other high quality grocery concepts, grocery stores, and trying to prove to them what we are trying to prove to everyone, which is that this is a viable Commercial market. . Um, and so we are in the midst of a couple of different conversations with a couple of different grocery stores. Uh, and I'm hopeful, uh, but these things take a long time. Yeah.

Peter (09:02):

And there aren't many of these grocery stores left.

Peter (09:06):

That's

Peter (09:07):

True. I mean, the, the competition, and this is also why the, what Kroger Albertson, uh, merger was denied is the, the competitive, uh, issue. So yeah. So that's fairly limited in terms of who you can talk to. But then there's also the alternative grocery stores like, uh, HEBs, JV's Which is going in several places in, uh, the southern area. Where do you think these alternative, uh, enterprises like that fit in the ecology?

Peter (09:43):

Well, um, JV's actually did go in about 1.2 miles south of Redbird. Uh, and my understanding is, and based on the, the crowdedness of the parking lot, it's doing extremely well. Okay. To me, that's a proof point. Okay. Uh, because that proves that there is an enormous amount of pent up demand for high quality grocery Yes. High quality grocery stores. Um, I think what we're trying to do at Redbird is something that is, um, a little bit more elevated. Yes. Um, because there is this middle class community, it's why Tom Thumb, I will maintain to my dying day that Tom Thumb would've apt done extremely well there. . Um, because there is this middle class community that wants a, a, a, a more elevated product. Yes. Not that there's anything wrong with JV's. . Uh, they've got, they've got great produce. Um, but it, but it is a, it is a lower end concept. It doesn't have a butcher counter, it doesn't have a bakery, it doesn't have a deli counter It has mu it has more limited lines of produce And we're really trying to, to bring, uh, more of a, uh, of a middle class amenity, uh, to, to our development.

Peter (11:03):

So you're working on an area that is a middle class community, but then another part of your work is housing forward Which is really working at the lower end of people's subsistence. Yes. I mean, this is the, the challenge of homelessness and how to move people through rapid housing and other means to get, uh, to get people on their feet and to strengthen that aspect of the community. Where do you feel like we are right now in this, since the time you've gotten involved? Uh, what are the dynamics that are, are, are moving us forward, or that are holding us back?

Peter (11:47):

Homelessness is a very fascinating issue, um, because people come at it from so many different angles. There are people whose sole concern is the individuals who are, uh, experiencing homelessness and their immediate, um, human needs and comforts And so that's one extreme of people who want to hand out tents, hand out food, hand out cots, and say, as long as you're living outside, let's make it as humane as possible. On the other end of the extreme are people who just don't wanna see homeless people. Yes. And they're, they're sort of more of the public safety angle. Yes. And what we have to do is we have to find a solution that balances, um, humaneness Uh, with, with public safety and the way that, that I believe, and housing forward believes, uh, and it's proving out in the numbers, the way to achieve that is by getting people off the streets as quickly as possible.

Peter (12:55):

There's a really great expression that I heard once, that I use all the time, which is the longer you're homeless, the longer you're going to be homeless. Yeah. Because it is so traumatic to be homeless. There's so much violence that occurs. Yeah. It's so degrading, uh, the conditions are so harsh, uh, that, uh, it, it wears down your, your mental health. Uh, and it also, uh, you know, people self-medicate with substances. . And so our strategy is to get people into homes as quickly as possible, and then surround them with services to ensure that they stay housed. Yes. And we have an excellent track record of people going through what we call our street to home project Where we literally go to encampments with, uh, with behavioral health specialists, drug specialists, people who to help them get IDs, job, job training people, uh, uh, an army of people will go to an encampment of, say, 15 people and work with every single person in that encampment.

Peter (14:03):

Get them housed, assign them to a case manager, have that case manager case manage them, and make sure that they are provided all the services once they're in their homes. And then comes the enforcement part where we then close down that encampment and to anyone new who wants to camp there. . The answer is no, it's fenced or it's protected. . . Um, to me, that strikes the balance. Yeah. Uh, because, because if all you do is say, Hey, you, you can't camp here, but you're not giving them anywhere to go. . All you're doing is playing whack-a-mole. Exactly. They're, they're moving from here to here. . Similarly, um, there's a, there's a, a movement afoot to build more shelter And, uh, I approach this from a very, from a business perspective, which is it is much more efficient to increase your number of shelter beds by increasing the velocity with which those beds are emptied, rather than to spend 50 to $200 million building a brand new shelter. Yes. And so what we're trying to do is we're trying to have a bed turnover four times a year instead of once a year. Yes. That quadruples the number of people who can be served in a shelter during the course of a year.

Peter (15:38):

What's, what's the census right now, uh, for homelessness? Well,

Peter (15:42):

We just counted in January. Uh, we're, we're still working on the data and deduplicating and things like that, but last year it was, uh, I believe it was just under 4,000 people.

Peter (15:54):

Okay. Which in my 35 years here is down some from, I, I feel like I remember it being over 5,000.

Peter (16:04):

It, it spiked in 2020. Yeah. Uh, it spiked from 2014 to 2020. Okay. And then since Housing Forward was reconstituted and began to implement this strategy, it's down significantly.

Peter (16:16):

So this strategy, uh, is, uh, not without its critics, uh, I think, but, uh, a lot of times, I think part of what's, uh, the challenge for people is, uh, there there is a kind of philosophical, um, idea that someone needs to merit or earn the right to receive housing And that therefore they need to prove themselves worthy to begin with. Um, I, ironically, I find that to be true of a lot of religious people who have that point of view, and yet in their own religious traditions, they, um, they would have to admit that, uh, human value is intrinsic to being human and is a gift from God regardless of achievement. And so this sort of oddly works against each other when, when people talk with you about, uh, their concerns about that, when you hear that line of reasoning, uh, what response do you have?

Peter (17:21):

Well, I have two responses. The first is that I don't believe that that human beings need to earn the right to eat or have shelter. Okay. Um, I just don't believe that. I believe every human has a right to those basic needs.

Peter (17:36):

But, but that's an ineffective argument if you're arguing with someone who believes that people do need to earn the right to shelter. . To me, it's about what's most effective. Okay. What is going to solve the problem? Because at the end of the day, what people want is for no one to be living on the street. Yes. That's what everybody wants. Whether it's for the reason of your care for the individuals, or your concerns about public safety And both are valid. . Everybody wants there to be no one living on the street. . To me, what we've come up with is the fastest, most effective way to get people into permanent housing and have them stay there. . And building more shelters. You can build all the shelters you want, but at the end of the day, you still have to house someone. . Uh, because you can't, because there, there's 8,000 people that fell into homelessness last year So in order for us to reduce the homeless census, we have to reduce, we have to house 8,001 people, my goodness. Every year. Wow. Uh, and so those shelters are gonna fill up very quickly unless we have a system that is a well-oiled machine of housing people, and then case managing them.

Peter (18:49):

Okay. So, Peter, housing them though, is incredibly challenging because of the, uh, paucity of housing opportunities. . So you, you have to provide housing somehow So you have to build new housing, you have to convert previously used buildings of some sort. You have to get all the permits to do that. It has a political process to it. There's community input and those sorts of things. Uh, so the, the number of units that we need to accomplish that is, uh, pretty high. . Uh, and the, the community pushback is often loud and challenging as well. Uh, what would you tell us, uh, uh, about how we could begin to change the narrative in a way that would encourage people to support this kind of work more?

Peter (19:47):

Before I answer that question, I'm gonna disagree with your premise. Oh, good. Okay. So there's, you have to distinguish between getting the people who are experiencing homelessness right now housed Yes. And distinguish that from having enough affordable housing that 8,000 people aren't becoming homeless every year. . What you just described was the, was the second issue. Okay.

Peter (20:17):

Because we don't have enough affordable housing in this market. . Uh, in many, many, many cities in the country don't have enough affordable housing. A lot of that has to do with the pandemic. A lot of it has to do with interest rates. A lot of it has to do with building materials. A lot of it has to do with these, uh, with, uh, these, uh, single family zoning, uh, issues that, that, that we're encountering in our community. But put that aside for a minute, in terms of the people who are experiencing homelessness right now, there is always a vacancy rate in this city of affordable housing And what Housing Forward has done is they've created a, uh, a, uh, landlord engagement team. So we have four or five people at Housing Ford, and all they do is cut deals with landlords.

Peter (21:09):

Hmm. So that at any given moment, we have between 150 and 250 apartments that are ready to go. Okay. And if we're housing two, 300 people a month, we have, we have enough, we have enough inventory. Okay. So in order for us to get everyone housed, we're gonna be on that treadmill for a long, long, long, long time, and we're gonna have to keep running fast, but we can do it. Okay. We can get people's homelessness down to 90 days or less. Great. Which is the federal definition of ending homelessness. Wow. The other issue is the longer term generational issue, which is how are we going to get enough affordable housing So that we don't have to keep running on this treadmill Yes. And spending this money year after year after year. . And that's a much, much more complex question. It has to do with everything from our education system and getting people qualified for higher paying jobs so that they can afford market rate housing.

Peter (22:16):

It has to do with, um, with, with job training. Uh, if you, if you missed out on the opportunity to get a, get, get a, a great K through 12, uh, education, and you're 30, now, it's about job training. . Um, it's about government investment, because affordable housing, at the end of the day, what that really means is subsidized housing. Yes. Uh, not market rate housing. Um, and then there's the question of, uh, these mixed use developments. . Uh, that, that some, some people would like those mixed use developments to go right smack in the middle of single family communities And some people are very opposed to that. . And I think that, you know, the answer, as with most things, lies somewhere in the middle. Um, I don't think it's appropriate for a, a huge apartment complex to be on a, on a city block that's right next to a single family home. . That, that doesn't make any sense from a zoning perspective But there are ways to put multifamily, uh, buildings, uh, within neighborhoods and not have them be directly next to someone's house. . Um, I think that we have to, um, realize that we've come as age, come of age as a city And we're going to have to get denser. Um, I grew up in New York City. It's very, very, very dense. . We're never gonna be that dense. . Uh, nor should we be. This is Dallas, not New York.

Peter (23:54):

And I grew up in Staten Island, by the way.

Peter (23:56):

Oh, did you really? Okay.

Peter (23:57):

We, we had no zoning. . You know, in my, in those years, I mean, if you drive around Staten Island is just a mess. . 'cause, you know, it was just anywhere. So, yeah. Mm-hmm

Peter (24:07):

<affirmative>. But I think that there's also a, a more fundamental issue, which is that

Peter (24:14):

People, people who have put their entire nest egg into their home Are very protective of that nest egg. . And that is completely understandable. And there is a fear that bringing in affordable housing will devalue their property. It will cause their property values to go down. There's actually no data that says that that happens. It's a very understandable fear. Sure. And so I think the way to get through this issue is, is, is to engage communities in conversation, make sure people are heard, address their concerns, and also arm them with more facts, uh, and, and ultimately arrive at a consensus. And that consensus may, in some communities, may be, we don't want any multi-family. And in some communities, they may say, you know what, actually, I just realized that my kids are moving back to Dallas and they've got their first job and they can't afford to buy a house yet. Uh, they need an apartment too. And it would be nice to have them live nearby. You

Peter (25:35):

Know, I just tossing an idea out here, I've, I, we, we always hear about giving tax abatements to businesses coming in, property tax abatements and things of that nature. And we, we earlier talked about subsidized housing, uh, from the government. I, I've wondered why in addressing this particular issue, why we couldn't have a municipal insurance, uh, plan where if, if your property rate value fell beneath, say 10%, you were subsidized, uh, for that. And that would like relieve some of the anxiety of the, this kind of change. You know, I mean, it feels like we could be creative in terms of how we, in how we think about the use of government involvement in this. And, and that isn't something I ever hear happening.

Peter (26:25):

I, I, I, I think it's a creative idea. I don't know how you do it, because at the end of the day, I don't think people are worried about their property taxes going down. Yeah. They're worried that when they're ready, the valuation, that when they're ready to sell their their house, they won't be able to sell it for the value they want. Sure. And no government can underwrite the value of a home

Peter (26:43):

Of, of course. Yeah. That's right. Well, I don't know. I don't, I'm just, we're all trying to figure our way, aren't we? Yeah. In this, I, and I think, you know, to summarize Peter, I think all these things that we've been talking about are not things that you have to be involved in. You could, you know, have, have a beautiful life with your family. You were involved in, um, private equity, uh, you made decisions that you were gonna invest yourself in this, some of that you earlier said, had to do with your soul. Uh, what does your faith mean to you in terms of motivating you to be involved like this and invest your life this way?

Peter (27:25):

Well, I'm Jewish, and there's a Jewish concept called TCU tikuna lam. Which, uh, is essentially, I improve the world. . Um, the temple that I belong to, temple Emmanuel really stresses This, and, uh, and I deeply believe in it. Uh, I believe that, and I was raised to believe that any success that I have had has, in some part, to do with luck. Huh. Um, I mean, it, it had nothing to do with me that I was born to a family that could afford to send me to college. . I could be the exact same person born in a different country Uh, that didn't have all the opportunities that our country had. . And I wouldn't be where I am today. . Uh, there, there's luck and timing to anyone's success. There's also hard work and natural and skill, et cetera, but there's luck and timing to a lot of success. Uh, and, uh, so I feel very driven to help other people enjoy the opportunities that I, that I've enjoyed. Great. Uh, and that's very much based on both, uh, my, my parents and grandparents and, and how I was raised, but also, uh, the, the lessons that I, that I learned, uh, from my faith.

Peter (28:58):

Well, and this is, I think, you know, part of the, um, ambition of this conversation and these conversations with good God is that we would urge people to consider where their values come from and how, uh, being part of religious communities practicing faith and in, in increasing your spiritual awareness in your life is not only good for your own mental health and wellbeing, uh, but it also, uh, helps to create the motivation for, um, making our communities, uh, places where we can flourish together. Uh, where we can live together in a good society. And so, uh, I hope that, uh, this kind of conversation will be motivating to other people. But most of all, Peter, I want to thank you on behalf of Dallas and, uh, for all that you, uh, are doing and have meant to our community. Thank you for your service.

Peter (29:57):

Well, thank you very much.

Peter (29:58):

You bet.