Category Archives: home ownership

Renters arise!

affordable housing, elected leaders, home ownership, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, middle class, renters, Vermont, , , , ,

 Since 2005, the number of renters in this country has gone up 9 million, to 41 million, the biggest surge of any decade on record. That brings the share of renting households to 37 percent, the highest in half a century. Meanwhile, their rents are up and their incomes are down: From 2001 to 2014, rents rose 7 percent (above inflation) and incomes dropped by 9 percent.

The biggest increase in renter households, surprisingly, came from the Baby Boomer cohort – people in their 50s and 60s. In fact households 40 and older make up the majority of renters.apartment

These are among the findings in “America’s Rental Housing,” a 44-page study out this week from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Not only are there many more renters, but many more of those renters can’t comfortably afford to live where they do. In 2014, 49 percent of renters were “burdened” (meaning they paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent and utilities) and 26 percent were “severely burdened” (more than 50 percent). According to Vermont Housing Data, Vermont’s current rates are a tad higher: 52.5 percent and 26.4 percent.

Yes, the housing burden falls most heavily on low-income people, but it’s growing among the middle-income stratum as well:

“(T)he sharpest growth in cost-burdened shares has been among middle-income households. The share of burdened households with incomes in the $30,000–44,999 range increased from 37 percent in 2001 to 48 percent in 2014, while that of households with incomes of $45,000–74,999 nearly doubled from 12 percent to 21 percent. Regardless of income level, though, the shares of cost-burdened households reached new peaks in 2014 among all but the highest-income renters.”

Meanwhile, only about one-fourth of eligible lower-income households receive housing assistance (Section 8 vouchers are not an entitlement!); funding for HUD’s three biggest rental assistance programs is about the same (corrected for inflation) as it was seven years ago, when the economy crashed; and the HOME program, a major source of federal funding for housing programs, has been cut way back. Private developers continue to add to the multi-family housing supply, but most of the recent additions “serve the higher end of the market,” according to the report. As it happens, high-income households (annual $100,000 or more) represent a small but fast-growing share of the rental market.

The report asserts:

“The challenge now facing the country is to ensure that a sufficient and appropriate supply of rental housing is available for a diversity of households and in a diversity of locations. While the private market has proven capable of expanding the higher-end rental stock, developers have only limited opportunities to meet the needs of lowest income households without subsidies that close the large gap between construction costs and what these renters can afford to pay. In many high-cost markets, moderate-income households face affordability challenges as well.”rental1

“Diversity of locations” is an invocation of AFFH (affirmatively furthering fair housing) and the goal of ensuring that a good share of affordable housing is in “high-opportunity” neighborhoods,” as in what follows:

“Policymakers urgently need to consider the extent and form of housing assistance that can stem the rapid growth in cost burdened households. Beyond affordability, they also need to promote development of a wider range of housing options so that more renter households can find homes that suit their needs and in communities offering good schools and access to jobs. It will take concerted efforts by all levels of government to capitalize on the capabilities of the private and not-for-profit sectors to reach this goal.”

Dare we suggest that concerted efforts have yet to be mounted, or even contemplated, by government at many levels?

New life for old idea?

affordable housing, Boston, Burlington, California, home ownership, housing, Massachusetts, New York, public opinion, rent control, renters, Vermont, , , ,

When the housing-unaffordability problem comes up at a public meeting in Burlington, chances are someone will stand up and call for rent control.  rental1Never mind that the city rejected the idea three decades ago and no one has made a serious effort to revive it locally. It’s an idea that never goes away, though, and is getting some fresh currency these days — where else, in California, the housing-unaffordability epicenter.

Rent control’s heyday was in the ‘70s and ‘80s, apparently. Massachusetts did away with it in 1994 via a statewide vote, but it can still be found in many municipalities in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, as well as California, where tenants’ advocates are pushing to get more communities to sign on and have come up with an organizing toolkit. “Rent control moment gains momentum as housing prices soar,” read a recent news headline, but a closer look suggests that much of the impetus is in California. Most states, after all, have laws that prohibit rent control, although in Washington, there’s an effort to lift the ban for Seattle.

Any groundswell in favor of rent control would have to grow out of large numbers of renters, and renters are certainly on the increase nationally. A new Harvard report announces that “that 43 million families and individuals live in rental housing, an increase of nearly 9 million households since 2005 — the largest gain in any 10-year period on record.”

Renters are a distinct minority in Vermont, where the home-ownership rate is above average. In fact, renters outnumber homeowners in just two cities — Burlington and Winooski — so if rent control were plausible anywhere in Vermont, those would be the likely places. City voters would have to approve a charter change, which would require legislative approval. How unlikely is that?

Burlington voters overwhelmingly rejected rent control in a special election in 1981, during Bernie Sanders’ first mayoral term. (Actually, they rejected the creation of a “fair housing commission,” which everyone agreed was a proxy for rent control.) They were influenced by a publicity campaign against the measure mounted by commercial interests.  burlingtonhouseSanders’ critics on the left complained he didn’t try very hard to see the idea through, and in fact he went on to promote affordable housing via a range of other policies.

Barring a major ground shift, rent control will remain one of those recurrent policy ideas with no traction in these parts. Like single-payer health care.

Modest proposal revisited

affordable housing, Burlington, China, EB-5 program, home ownership, housing crisis, Vermont, workforce housing, , , ,

At first glance, The Times’ recent  exposition on the surfeit of Chinese residential real-estate investment seemed exotic, distant. The money seems to be flowing into hot, upscale regions to the south, and one of the investors even asserted, “Chinese people like newer areas.” china1

But before you conclude this phenomenon has nothing to do with us, in graying old Vermont, consider this: Chinese students are enrolling in U.S. universities in increasing numbers, the story pointed out, adding: “Their parents often buy homes in college towns.”

“If you look at the stuent populations of any major or nonmajor university,” the Times story quoted a Chinese real estate executive as saying, “you’ll get a really good indication of what property prices are going to do.” What he apparently meant is that Chinese buyers, who more often than not pay cash, bid prices up.

This brings to mind the University of Vermont – never mind whether it qualifies as a major or a nonmajor institution. It’s eagerly stepping up its quotient of international students – part of the strategic plan, don’t you know – and the lion’s share of those students come from China. These are students, generally, whose parents can afford to pay full fare.

Here we pause and pivot to point out two independent trends:

  • Chinese investors are pouring money into American residential real estate, and many of them hanker to live in this country.
  • Vermont is desperately short not just of affordable housing, but of the capital needed to fill that need.

All of which suggests that we revive the EB-5 idea we floated a few months ago. Why not tap the profusive cash of Chinese investors who yearn for green cards to build affordable housing for Vermonters – affordable housing in upscale, high-opportunity areas, no less. With their residency established, the parents could then find accommodations for themselves near their collegiate offspring. China2

We can’t resist noting, again, that the Vermont regional EB-5 office is headquartered in the same state agency (Commerce) that hosts the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Extracurricular accommodations

affordable housing, Burlington, California, elected leaders, home ownership, housing crisis, middle class, teachers, teachers' unions, workforce housing

There’s a particular form of workforce housing that’s getting a lot of attention lately: affordable housing for teachers. Much of that attention is being paid in California, of course, where many school districts are having trouble recruiting and retaining teachers who can’t afford the prohibitive housing costs (in Silicon Valley, for example, or San Francisco, where the mayor has announced plans to build 500 affordable units for teachers). Similar plans are afoot in Oakland, San Mateo, L.A.

But housing complexes for teachers have arisen on the East Coast, too, mostly in bigger cities — Newark (pictured),teachersvillage  Baltimore and Philadelphia, with a development in Springfield, Mass., in the pipeline. These are projects aimed at Teach for America recruits for these cities — recent college graduates who spend two or three years in public or charter schools before they move on to other pursuits.

Not all the teacher-housing initiatives are urban, though. Several counties in North Carolina have provided, or pledged to provide, affordable housing for teachers, as has McDowell County, W. Va., in a project carried out with the American Federation of Teachers. In West Virginia, the hope is that the housing will help attract teachers to a place where they otherwise wouldn’t be inclined to settle.

Other states use housing as a teacher-recruitment tool in different ways. Oklahoma offers low-interest loans, for example. Texas offers mortgage assistance for teachers, and Mississippi subsidizes down-payments and closing costs. These happen to be states with pronounced teacher shortages.

Vermont has a teacher shortage, too — perhaps not as dire as those states’, but a shortage nevertheless. According to the Agency of Education’s “Designated Shortage Areas” for 2015-16, teachers of English, Spanish and special education were needed in all counties, and math teachers were needed in half the counties. Could it be that Vermont’s housing costs are a barrier to teacher recruitment? And if so, would it make sense for school districts — which are being encouraged to merge anyway — to collaborate in finding ways to ease the housing burden?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Another line of argument is that school districts, instead of futzing with housing benefits, should simply pay teachers well enough so that they can afford to live in those districts.

In any case, teacher villages, or housing complexes, come in different forms, and it’s not  always  clear how they gibe with affirmatively furthering fair housing standards. The one in Newark, for example, has been criticized as an oasis for transient young white professionals in a gentrifying neighborhood. (For a nice overview of these programs in The American Prospect, click here.) Still, Vermont communities would do well to think about how they can make affordable housing available to middle-income people – such as teachers – who are hard pressed to pay market rates.

Consider educators in the Burlington metro area. The National Housing Conference’s interactive “Paycheck to Paycheck” matches housing costs (the annual salary needed to afford a house of median price, $225,000) and the salary needed to afford a one-bedroom or two-bedroom apartment.

When you run the model for three educators – preschool, primary and secondary school teachers — you find that:

They can’t comfortably afford the median mortgage…

p2phomeowner

 

 

 

 

 

 

… or the two-bedroom apartment…

p2prenter

 

Tampering with the sacrosanct

affordable housing, economic growth, elected leaders, home ownership, housing crisis, housing subsidies, middle class, mortgage-interest deduction, renters, tax policy, tax reform, , , , , , ,

The presidential candidates have a lot to say about tax reform, but with one exception, they’re not about to get rid the big sacred cow — the mortgage-interest deduction, found on Schedule A of Form 1040:scheduleA (2)

Economists have been complaining about the mortgage-interest deduction for years. It’s a regressive benefit, increasing with income. It enhances inequality, effectively inflates property values and misallocates resources, or so the argument goes. In 2012, the mortgage interest deduction cost the federal government $70 billion, according to the Urban Institute, compared $36 billion for low-income housing subsidies.

But nobody expects that deduction to go away any time soon. It’s a firmly entrenched loophole (aka “third rail”) not only for the wealthy elite, but for the simple majority. The home ownership rate in this country exceeds 60 percent (in Vermont, it’s over 70 percent), and of course the lion’s share of those people are mortgage-holder beneficiaries. IRS2

The ranks of renters are increasing, though, and the more they do, the more seriously they might be taken as a political constituency. Politicians take renters seriously in Germany, where renters are in the majority and the regulatory climate is much more in their favor. Germany doesn’t offer a mortgage-interest deduction, either.

Might the growing numbers of American renters be mobilized to support the elimination of the mortgage-interest deduction — which ostensibly doesn’t benefit them anyway — in favor of increased housing subsidies for low- and moderate-income tenants? That seems like a stretch, unless another Occupy-style movement sweeps the country.

Well, if eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction discourages home ownership, so be it. There’s even evidence that home ownership isn’t necessarily such a wonderful thing, because it damages labor markets:

“We find that rises in the home- ownership rate in a U.S. state are a precursor to eventual sharp rises in unemployment in that state,” write economists David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald, in a 2013 paper. Why? Partly because higher rates of homeownership curtail labor mobility and lead to longer commutes.

So, who’s the exception among the presidential candidates? Ben Carson. bencarson He’s the only one who has said he’d do away with the mortgage-interest deduction. (Even Bernie Sanders doesn’t go that far – he’d cap it at $300,000.) For a full-throated defense of this Carson stance from someone who doesn’t agree with much of anything else he says, click here. 

Another population bubble

affordable housing, Baby Boomers, Burlington, density, home ownership, housing, housing crisis, Millennial generation, renters, , , , , ,

Millennials become the most numerous living generation this year, outnumbering the Baby Boomers, and there’s no shortage of treatises analyzing their tastes, their world views, and their impact on the housing market. How seriously to take these generalizations, or any other thumbnail pronouncements about generations, is an open question. (For a Pew Foundation exegesis of “generations research” that finds Millennials less religious, more diverse and less conservative than their predecessors — that is, compared to Generation X, Baby Boomers and the Silents(!), click here.)

Clearly, though, people born after 1980 tend to have higher levels of student loan debt than their forebears, and fewer are buying houses as a result.Millennials1 Young renters’ student debt burdens grew after the Great Recession, even as their median incomes dropped, which left them less able to qualify for a mortgage or to save for a downpayment. A new research brief from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, “Student Loan Debt and the Housing Decisions of Young Households,” lays out the details.

Nevertheless, there are commentators who see Millennials as poised to fuel a housing boom. “Millennials are making their move in the housing market,” proclaims the Dallas Morning News, quoting real-estate industry source attributing 30 percent of home sales to Millennials.

The common notion that Millennials want to live in cities is subject to dispute. More Millennials are moving from cities to suburbs than the other way around, Census data supposedly show. A survey came out earlier this year that got plenty of attention: It had 66 percent of Millennials preferring a life in suburbs, 24 percent rural areas, and just 10 percent cities.

The survey was sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders, though — an entity that would seem to have a vested interest in promoting the single-family-home-big-yard lifestyle.

But wait. A survey closer to home suggests that many Millennials really do hanker for a single-family home with a big yard. The 2014 “Young Professional Housing Survey Report,” sponsored by the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, asked 400 respondents (63 percent of whom were renters) what type of residence they would most like to live in, and 82 percent said single-family detached house with a yard. And most of those wanted a big yard!millennials2

Now, to the extent that these Burlington-area Millennials prefer suburban living, they do want to live in a place that’s a short commute to work, and a place where they can walk to community services.

Still, the young cohort seems to cling to the old American dream of a low-density-neighborhood lifestyle. Hasn’t anyone told them that big yards are obsolete in the Age of Climate Change?

More brainstorming: self-building

affordable housing, artists' housing, co-living, cohousing, home ownership, housing, housing subsidies, middle class, presidential campaign, workforce housing, , , , , , ,

The housing-unaffordability problem is too big, pervasive and complex to yield to single, simple remedies. Yes, government at all levels has to play a substantially bigger role than it does now. But without substantial new federal funding and subsidies — which can’t be found on mainstream politicians’ lists of spending priorities — we might as well brainstorm about piecemeal, alternative solutions.

Having touched on co-living and cohousing in the last post, we bring you a continental variant of this idea: collective building.baugruppe1

This intriguing headline in the Guardian, “The do-it-yourself answer to Britain’s housing crisis,” offers an entrée: community members, with help from a land trust, building their own affordable homes. Britain even has an organization, the National Custom and Self-Build Association, to promote such efforts.

Self-building seems to be an even bigger trend on the continent. In Germany, baugruppen, or building groups, are active all over, and reportedly account for 10 percent of new homes built in Berlin. baugruppe3These are groups of people who come together, often with something in common (they might be musicians, say, or share a political philosophy), and take responsibility for acquiring land, hiring architects and contractors, and creating their own housing. For a summary of how it works, click here, or another brief description, here.

The baugruppe is a well-established form of organization in Germany and apparently gets a good deal of institutional support, including financing from a state bank. Whether something like this could work in this country is an open question.

Mike Eliason, a designer who was author of a seven-part series on baugruppen, seems to think it could, at least in a place like Seattle. For the first article, on the website of a Seattle advocacy organization called The Urbanist, click here. As Eliason describes it, baugruppen projects cost less than traditional models because they do without developers and marketing, as well as real estate agents.baugruppe2

It all sounds reminiscent of cohousing, except that it’s commonly done in an urban setting — as the photos in this post reflect. It also sounds like a fairly middle-class phenomenon, considering how much of a personal investment it requires of its participants. Who has the time and energy necessary to do all the meeting and planning and hiring and so on? Probably not someone who holds down two minimum-wage jobs. Not that we don’t need affordable housing, sometimes called workforce housing, for middle-class professional types, too.

Scaling back, sort of

affordable housing, cohousing, high-rises, home ownership, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, New York, News, older people, San Francisco, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , ,

A new verb, or gerund, is twittering its way into the contemporary housing lexicon: “co-living.”

It’s often paired with “co-working,” another neologism, and “micro-housing.” These words are being used most commonly to describe the emerging lifestyles of highly driven, hard-striving young entrepreneurs, typically in technical fields — Millennial start-up wannabes, they’re sometimes called in the literature.tiny1 Harnessed to their ambitions, they’re willing to live in tiny spaces with some common amenities (co-live), work in open-space offices where they can freely network and brainstorm with peers (co-work), and abandon the idea of maintaining a conventional “work-life balance.”

These patterns reportedly originated in the Bay Area, as you might expect, but are showing up in New York. This summer, the Times ran a story about Pure House, one of several businesses renting apartments with amenities to such people who are willing to pay $1,600 to $4,000 a month to share rooms with others of their ilk. “The Millennial Commune,” read the headline. (For BuzzFeed’s elaboration on this phenomenon, click here.)tiny2

We’ve never met anybody like that, but we take it on faith that such people really do exist. What we’d like to suggest, though, is that some variant of co-living might have appeal for ordinary people, too – Millennials and oldsters, alike. We’ll explain in a moment, but first, let’s be clear that co-living is not the same as cohousing.

Cohousing, as the Cohousing Association of the United States describes it, is “an intentional community of private homes clustered around shared space.” There are many variations of this basic idea of combining private and communal space, and a couple of dozen of these communities have sprung up around Vermont. These are clustered developments, but they’re not necessarily adduced as an answer to the housing-unaffordability problem because of the added costs associated with the shared facilities.

Co-living, by contrast, puts people in tiny apartments (say, 200-300 square feet) with access to some shared space (such as a communal kitchen and lounge). Typically, these are furnished rentals.

An example is Commonspace, 21 micro units being developed on two floors of a five story building in Syracuse, N.Y., above a co-working office space. Each unit will have a bathroom and a kitchenette and will rent from $700 to $900 a month — supposedly slightly less than a one-bedroom apartment goes for in Syracuse, according to a fine profile in The Atlantic. tiny3

Quite apart from the “co-working” annex, micro-units have proliferated in Seattle over the last few years and appear to appeal especially to people who want to live close by where they work.

Now obviously, this sort of place is not for everyone. It means, among other things, giving up the idea that you’ll be paying for living quarters big enough to hold all your seldom-used stuff.

But it might make sense for lots of people — recent college grads working their first jobs, dislocated workers or homeless people getting back on their feet, retirees living on fixed incomes. Not that all these people would necessarily have live together, but assorted communities might suggest themselves.

And beyond rentals, perhaps different ownership models could be devised by land trusts, using judicious public subsidies, all with an eye to affordability.

Strange bedfellows, or not

AARP, affordable housing, Burlington, home ownership, home sharing, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, older people, , , , , , , ,

Not long ago we heard a tidy summary of two converging demographic trends bearing down on the affordable-housing problem:

There is the surging population of older people, Baby Boomers and beyond, who are looking to downsize.aging2

Then there is the younger-adult population — Millennials, Gen-Xers — who are looking to up-size but can’t afford to, as they postpone buying homes.

Might there be a way to meet these divergent generational needs in some way that somehow preserves neighborhoods with a stamp of affordability?

That’s a key challenge that one of the presenters in our “Thriving Communities” seminar, John E. Davis, posed at the end of his discourse. (You can see the seminar in webinar-slide form if you click here, or in video mode if you click here.) He admitted he didn’t have any easy answers.

Neither do we, but we have a few notions that might prolong the discussion. These ideas are predicated on the fact that older people, overwhelmingly, want to age in place (that is, in their own homes); that in many cases, those homes are too big for them to manage; that increasingly, older people are open to the idea of home-sharing (as we noted in the post about a recent AARP survey in Burlington). Why not look for ways to convert big, empty houses into spaces that can accommodate both an aging widower and a young family?burlingtonhouse

One way would be to encourage — and drop regulatory barriers from — the addition of accessory dwelling units. (For an article on how zoning can facilitate aging-in-place, click here. For an essay on aging-friendly land-use policies, click here.) The new unit could be an annex that the older person would occupy, freeing up the main house for other residents.

Or the new unit could be a self-contained space within the house itself. We’ve seen articles touting the idea of grown children adding an “in-law suite” to their own homes to house an aging parent. Why not turn that around, so that that aging person’s home is remodeled to include an independent suite that the aging person parent can then occupy, opening up the rest of the house for another owner, perhaps a young family?

family

How might affordability enter this picture? Perhaps as a condition of publicly subsidized financing that could be offered to promote construction of accessory units or the conversion of big old houses into duplexes. Various tax incentives could be offered for older home-owners to take these steps.aging1

And who knows, maybe the hide-bound mortgage world could be expanded to include new forms of co-ownership or shared equity for some no-longer-strange bedfellows: Older empty-nesters aging at home compatibly under the same roof as younger full-nesters.

 

 

Note by Ted Wimpey:

Another good option for “aging in place” is “home sharing.” Check out HomeShare Vermont for a good example.
http://www.homesharevermont.org/about-us/

“HomeShare Vermont helps people stay in their homes by connecting them with potential housemates who are looking for a place to live. While our primary goal is to help elders stay at home, we have found that people of all ages and abilities can benefit from homesharing. There are no age, ability or income restrictions to use our services. “

 

Racial disparity: here we go again

civil rights, fair housing, home ownership, segregation, , , , , , , ,

debt

ProPublica has a fine expose on racial disparities in debt-collection litigation. Reporters examined court judgments in St. Louis, Chicago and Newark and found that court judgments were twice the size in predominantly black neighborhoods compared to predominantly white neighborhoods – even controlling for income. African Americans significantly more likely than whites to be sued by debt collectors.

So what, you might ask, does this have to with housing, or more particularly, housing discrimination (AKA fair housing)?

Two things:

  • One inference from the findings is that blacks tend to have less resources – less wealth – to fall back on in hard times. Specifically, they have less wealth in the form of home equity to pass on one from one generation to the next, and that’s a legacy of housing racial discrimination that was promoted and enforced by governments at all levels – and notably, by the federal government from the 1930s on.

As the ProPublic article puts it:

“Experts cite many reasons why blacks might face more lawsuits, foremost among them the immense gap in wealth between blacks and whites in the U.S. It’s a gap that extends back to the institution of slavery and, more recently, to 20th century policies that promoted white homeownership while restricting it for blacks.”

That gap has even widened since the Great Recession, according to the Pew Foundation. The typical black household has a net worth more than 10 times less that of the typical white household:

wealthgap

 

 

 

 

 

  • The other connection to fair housing is that the racial disparity in debt-litigation cases runs parallel to the racial disparity in predatory lending that was revealed during the housing bubble years of the early 2000s. In many areas, blacks were steered to expensive home loans even when they could have qualified for standard mortgage loans. The debt collectors insist they’re treating everyone the same and not screening cases by race. That may be true, but the mass effect is similar to that produced when minorities were are targeted by predatory lenders in the years leading up to the Great Recession.

For a brief description of how a bank was called to account under the Fair Housing Act, check out this synopsis of a case that the civil rights law form Relman, Dane & Colfax filed against Wells Fargo in Baltimore, or this summary in the Baltimore Sun.