Category Archives: housing

Why Chittenden County Still Needs More Housing

affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, Chittenden County, housing, housing crisis, housing development, Municipal and Regional Planning, Vermont, ,
My Turn,  From the Burlington Free Press

” … we applaud efforts in Montpelier and are excited to work with local municipalities that want to make bold investments in affordable housing, realizing that such investments are winners in accomplishing Governor Scott’s three priorities: supporting our economy, making Vermont more affordable for Vermonters, and protecting our most vulnerable community members. Several proposals have been made – we welcome all efforts that satisfy each of these three objectives.”

by Michael Monte

There seems to be a burst of housing construction in Chittenden County, and some are even suggesting that the tide has turned in making the rental market more affordable, or that the vacancy rate is high enough, or we’re building too fast. At the Champlain Housing Trust, our assessment is that although the trend line is improving, more needs to be done – especially for low wage earners priced out of the market, and certainly for the 350 people on any given night in the county who have no home at all.

According to Mark Brooks, co-author of a report that provides a comprehensive semi-annual analysis of the real estate market, the long-term market vacancy rate in Chittenden County is 2%.  The December, 2016 report indicated a market vacancy of 4.4% – a number offered as a point-in-time rate of what’s available without taking in consideration the timing of apartments just completing construction or other factors.

This lower rate is a more accurate assessment, as it takes into account the time in which newly-constructed apartments are absorbed into the market.  Most will agree that a 5% rate will yield a healthy market for renters and owners alike. While we were close at a point in time in December, we’ve not sustainably reached this target.

In the last two years alone, over 1,200 apartments have been constructed. The new construction does give some renters more choices: according to the report, “…landlords are offering incentives such as one month free rent, flexible lease terms, or lower rents.” Rent rates across the board have been stable and closer in-line with inflation – unlike the previous six years.

New households are forming every day in Chittenden County, and large numbers of people are still commuting long distances from less expensive housing in more rural counties to get to work. In fact, in 2002, 73% of Chittenden County workers lived in the county; that percentage dropped to 63% in 2014. Lack of housing opportunity is leading more and more workers to commute longer distances.

Demand is still high as younger people, sometimes saddled with high college debt, are renting instead of purchasing a new home. And employers are still viewing rents and housing availability as being barriers to economic growth. A representative of one business told us recently that her company added jobs in the mid-west instead of Burlington because of the lack of housing.

In order to push the underlying market rate from 2% to a sustained 5%, we need to continue to provide additional growth. Can we sustain this growth and increase the vacancy rate in the future? We hope so. But next year fewer apartments are on track to be coming on line, less than half the number built this year. And although there are an additional 2,400 apartments in the development pipeline county-wide, those won’t be here next year, or even the year after that.

Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, part of a coalition launched in 2016 that will try to bring about the construction of 3,500 housing units in Chittenden county over the next five years. Peter Hirschfield / VPR

As importantly, the resources available for affordable housing are seriously limited. Although there is enormous opportunity and capacity to build more affordable housing, the equity or cash needed to insure that rents remain affordable are not available. Non-profit owners continue to struggle with meeting the demand for more affordable housing, as evidenced by long waiting lists for subsidized housing or the 150 applications CHT gets every month for the 20-25 apartments available.

That’s why we applaud efforts in Montpelier and are excited to work with local municipalities that want to make bold investments in affordable housing, realizing that such investments are winners in accomplishing Governor Scott’s three priorities: supporting our economy, making Vermont more affordable for Vermonters, and protecting our most vulnerable community members. Several proposals have been made – we welcome all efforts that satisfy each of these three objectives.

————————————————————————————————————————-

Michael Monte, is Chief Operations & Financial Officer at The Champlain Housing Trust, founded in 1984, it is the largest community land trust in the country. Throughout Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle counties, CHT manages 2,200 apartments, stewards 565 owner-occupied homes in its signature shared-equity program, offers homebuyer education and financial fitness counseling, provides services to five housing cooperatives, and offers affordable energy efficiency and rehab loans. In 2008, CHT won the prestigious United Nations World Habitat Award, recognizing its innovative, sustainable programs. 

April Fair Housing Month Activities in Burlington Vermont

affirmatively furthering fair housing, April Fair Housing Month, April Fair Housing Month, civil rights, fair housing, housing, Uncategorized
Tell your friends, family and coworkers to participate. Some April activities will no doubt be happening in other states as well.

Be sure you scroll down using the scroll bar on the right of the text box to see both pages.

If you have questions write FHP@CVOEO.ORG

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.thrivingcommunitiesvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/fair-housing-april2017-burlington-calendar1-2.pdf”]

What is Fair Housing Month about? HUD explains.

affirmatively furthering fair housing, April Fair Housing Month, civil rights, finance and race, home ownership, housing, housing development, housing subsidies, human rights, zoning regulations, , ,
Getting a head start on April in March –

Note: All the content below in this post is taken from a web site maintained by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In April, we come together as a community and a nation to celebrate the anniversary of the passing of the Fair Housing Act and recommit to that goal which inspired us in the aftermath of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination in 1968: to eliminate housing discrimination and create equal opportunity in every community.

Fundamentally, fair housing means that every person can live free. This means that our communities are open and welcoming, free from housing discrimination and hostility. But this also means that each one of us, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability, has access to neighborhoods of opportunity, where our children can attend quality schools, our environment allows us to be healthy, and [for us to grow] opportunities and self-sufficiency.

…commitment to fair housing is a living commitment, one that reflects the needs of America today and prepares us for a future of true integration.

History of Fair Housing –

On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Fair Housing Act (of 1968).

The enactment of the federal Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968 came only after a long and difficult journey. From 1966-1967, Congress regularly considered the fair housing bill, but failed to garner a strong enough majority for its passage. However, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson utilized this national tragedy to urge for the bill’s speedy Congressional approval. Since the 1966 open housing marches in Chicago, Dr. King’s name had been closely associated with the fair housing legislation. President Johnson viewed the Act as a fitting memorial to the man’s life work, and wished to have the Act passed prior to Dr. King’s funeral in Atlanta.

Another significant issue during this time period was the growing casualty list from Vietnam. The deaths in Vietnam fell heaviest upon young, poor African-American and Hispanic infantrymen. However, on the home front, these men’s families could not purchase or rent homes in certain residential developments on account of their race or national origin. Specialized organizations like the NAACP, the GI Forum and the National Committee Against Discrimination In Housing lobbied hard for the Senate to pass the Fair Housing Act and remedy this inequity. Senators Edward Brooke and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts argued deeply for the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Brooke, the first African-American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, spoke personally of his return from World War II and inability to provide a home of his choice for his new family because of his race.

With the cities rioting after Dr. King’s assassination, and destruction mounting in every part of the United States, the words of President Johnson and Congressional leaders rang the Bell of Reason for the House of Representatives, who subsequently passed the Fair Housing Act. Without debate, the Senate followed the House in its passage of the Act, which President Johnson then signed into law.

The power to appoint the first officials administering the Act fell upon President Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon. President Nixon tapped then Governor of Michigan, George Romney, for the post of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. While serving as Governor, Secretary Romney had successfully campaigned for ratification of a state constitutional provision that prohibited discrimination in housing. President Nixon also appointed Samuel Simmons as the first Assistant Secretary for Equal Housing Opportunity.

When April 1969 arrived, HUD could not wait to celebrate the Act’s 1st Anniversary. Within that inaugural year, HUD completed the Title VIII Field Operations Handbook, and instituted a formalized complaint process. In truly festive fashion, HUD hosted a gala event in the Grand Ballroom of New York’s Plaza Hotel. From across the nation, advocates and politicians shared in this marvelous evening, including one of the organizations that started it all — the National Committee Against Discrimination In Housing.

In subsequent years, the tradition of celebrating Fair Housing Month grew larger and larger. Governors began to issue proclamations that designated April as “Fair Housing Month,” and schools across the country sponsored poster and essay contests that focused upon fair housing issues. Regional winners from these contests often enjoyed trips to Washington, DC for events with HUD and their Congressional representatives.

Under former Secretaries James T. Lynn and Carla Hills, with the cooperation of the National Association of Homebuilders, National Association of Realtors, and the American Advertising Council these groups adopted fair housing as their theme and provided “free” billboard space throughout the nation. These large 20-foot by 14-foot billboards placed the fair housing message in neighborhoods, industrial centers, agrarian regions and urban cores. Every region also had its own celebrations, meetings, dinners, contests and radio-television shows that featured HUD, state and private fair housing experts and officials. These celebrations continue the spirit behind the original passage of the Act, and are remembered fondly by those who were there from the beginning.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

 

“Housing Doesn’t Filter, Neighborhoods Do” by Rick Jacobus

affordable housing, density, economic growth, housing, housing crisis, housing development, housing subsidies, inclusionary zoning, integration, middle class, Opportunities, rental housing market, renters, ,
Posted by Rick Jacobus on November 4, 2016 on the “Rooflines, the Shelter Force Blog”
Read the full article (part 1) on the Rooflines, Shelter Force Blog:  http://tinyurl.com/jacobus-filterDown

“There has been a renewed interest in the role that the real estate market can play in solving our growing affordable housing crisis. For decades “affordable housing” has been the near exclusive domain of the public sector, but the crisis has reached the point where we are now calling for all hands on deck. Can private capital, private development companies, and market-rate housing developments help make housing affordable for everyone?”

…

“Housing advocates tend to agree that we need to supplement market-rate luxury development with subsidized affordable housing, but rarely do we ask the market to provide housing for people further down the income ladder. This dichotomy of new market-rate housing only for the rich and new affordable housing only for the poor has become the de facto housing strategy in most American cities. We can do better.”

Reform land use, promote shared growth of new housing

affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, density, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, Municipal and Regional Planning, zoning, zoning regulations, , ,

– San Francisco Chronicle  http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reform-land-use-promote-shared-growth-of-new-9283703.php

By Jason Furman | September 25, 2016 | Updated: September 25, 2016 8:34pm

housing-constructionpicturePhoto: Michael Macor, The Chronicle

When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises.

It is no secret that cities like San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., face challenges in the availability and cost of housing. But policymakers and economists have increasingly recognized both the role that certain inappropriate land use restrictions play in raising housing costs — not just in major cities but across the country — and the opportunity for modernizing these regulations to promote shared growth.

Basic economic theory predicts that when the supply of a good is constrained, its price rises and the quantity available falls. In this respect, the market for housing is no different: When certain government policies — like minimum lot sizes, off-street parking requirements, height limits, prohibitions on multifamily housing, or unnecessarily lengthy permitting processes — restrict the supply of housing, fewer units are available and the price rises. On the other hand, more efficient policies can promote availability and affordability of housing, regional economic development, transportation options and socioeconomic diversity.

Research suggests that local barriers have become more restrictive in recent decades. One way to measure this is comparing the sale price of houses with construction costs. This gap typically reflects the cost of buying land — which increases with tighter land use restrictions. Indeed, the gap has increased in the past two decades: House prices from 2010 to 2013 were 56 percent higher than construction costs, a 23 percentage-point crease over the average gap during the 1990s.

Of course, many land use regulations can have benefits for communities. Environmental reasons in some localities may make it appropriate to limit high-density or multiuse development. Similarly, health and safety concerns — such as an area’s air traffic patterns, viability of its water supply, or its geologic stability — may merit height and lot size restrictions.

But in other cases, barriers to housing development can allow a small number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of living in a community while excluding many others, limiting diversity and economic mobility.

This upward pressure on house prices may also undermine the market forces that typically determine patterns of housing construction, leading to mismatches between household needs and available housing.

Improving land use policies can also create benefits for the U.S. economy as a whole. High- productivity cities offer higher-income jobs than low-productivity cities and often attract workers who move from other cities, naturally bringing more resources to productive areas of the country. But when unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers — particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most — are less able to move.

All told, this means slower economic growth: Some researchers have estimated that GDP could have been almost 10 percent higher in 2009 if workers and capital freely moved so that the distribution of wages across cities was the same as in 1964.

On the other hand, smarter land use and housing policy can promote both growth and equity. While most land use policies are appropriately made at the state and local level, the federal government can also play a role in encouraging smart land use regulations. Today, the Obama administration is releasing a new toolkit at http://bit.ly/2d4dVAc that highlights best practices that localities have employed — including streamlining permitting processes, eliminating off-street parking requirements, reducing minimum lot sizes, and enacting high-density and multifamily zoning policies — to reduce overly burdensome land use restrictions and promote mobility and economic growth.

Reforming land use policies can have important benefits for local residents and the nation as a whole, not only raising economic growth, but ensuring that its benefits are widely shared among all Americans.

Jason Furman is the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs

fair housing, housing, housing development, inclusionary zoning, zoning

Inclusionary Housing, A Series of Research & Policy Briefs by Center for Housing Policy

[Below is an excerpt. Here is a link to download the full piece -12 pages.  http://www.nhc.org/#!2016-fact-and-fiction/jfbck ]

By Lisa A. Sturtevant, Ph.D.
May 2016
Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies, and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.
Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs,the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others.
In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local housing markets. While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially in terms of their research approaches and quality. In addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however, the most highly regarded  empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices. [emphasis by author]

…

New Rental Development: nationally the cost is slanted upward

affordable housing, housing, housing development, income inequality, rental housing market, Uncategorized, , , ,

A higher percentage of people are renting their homes in the U.S. than has been the case for many decades. The market is responding with more rental housing development – but there is a big glitch – too much of that new rental housing now being developed is on the high end of the affordability spectrum.

This article: “Surge in New Rental Construction Fails to Meet Need for Low-Cost Housing,”   by Irene Lew, at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, offers a thorough and informative analysis of the current situation – which is not a good one for moderate to low income people in our communities.

DownwardSlidingRentalAffordability“…the housing affordability crisis has shown little signs of abating in recent years, as renter incomes continue to lag behind rising housing costs. Though there has been a ramp-up in rental housing construction, much of this new housing is intended for renters at the upper end of the income spectrum…”

Note: Data includes vacant for-rent units and those that are rented but not yet occupied. Excludes no-cash rentals and other rentals where rent is not paid monthly. Source: JCHS tabulations of US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013 American Housing Survey.
Note: Data includes vacant for-rent units and those that are rented but not yet occupied. Excludes no-cash rentals and other rentals where rent is not paid monthly.
Source: JCHS tabulations of US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013 American Housing Survey.

Housing as a Vaccine

AARP, affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, artists' housing, housing, housing cooperatives, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, human rights, public housing, Uncategorized, workforce housing, zoning

The 2016 Homelessness Awareness Day and Vigil was held at the Vermont State House in Montpelier on January 7th. Two House committees Housing, General and Military Affairs and Human Services had a joint hearing on homelessness, taking testimony on housing and homelessness issues. A number of other hearings regarding homelessness happened in the building during the course of the day.

sample

Opening the hearing was nationally recognized pediatrician Dr. Megan Sandel (principal investigator on Children’s Health Watch,  Associate professor at Boston University’s School of Medicine,  and Medical director, at  the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership at Boston Medical Center), who has done path-breaking work on the effects of housing insecurity and homelessness on children. She gave a brilliant presentation on “Housing as a Vaccine: A Prescription for Child Health.”

At that hearing, Representatives and attending members of the public also heard from Vermont homeless service providers Linda Ryan (Director of Samaritan House) and Sara Kobylenski (Executive Director of Upper Valley Haven) on the latest trends and some recommended solutions to end or decrease homelessness in Vermont.

At Noon, community members, legislative leaders, administration officials, and advocates took the State House steps for a vigil to remember our friends and neighbors who died without homes, and to bring awareness of the struggles of those still searching for safe and secure housing. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy and other legislative representatives and advocates joined and spoke at the vigil.

How can Housing be a Vaccine?

Dr. Megan presented data to support her thesis that housing can be protective for health. The quality, stability and affordability are important determinants to heath of all people. That means improving housing can provide multiple benefits. According to Dr. Megan, timing and duration of housing insecurity matter greatly to a child’s health. By increasing availability, affordability, and quality of housing, the health effect of housing insecurity can be decreased. Dr. Megan also provided specific evidence regarding housing quality and children’s health. For example, developmental issues, worsening asthma and other conditions have been tied to specific housing conditions such as pests, mold, tobacco smoke, lead exposure and so forth, and tied to long term effect with poor health outcomes.

sample 1

According to Children’s Health Watch, “unstable housing, hunger and health are linked” because evidence shows that being behind on rent is strongly associated with negative health outcomes such as high risk of child food insecurity, children and mothers who are more likely in fair or poor health, children who are more likely at risk for development delay, mothers who are more likely experiencing depressive symptoms. Research conducted by the National Housing Conference from Children’s Healthwatch illustrates that there is no safe level of homelessness. The timing (pre-natal, post-natal) and duration of homelessness (more or less than six month) compound the risk of harmful childhood health outcomes. The younger and longer a child experiences homelessness, the greater the cumulative toll of negative health outcomes, which can have lifelong effects on the child, the family, and the community.

Several community representatives spoke in support of increasing housing affordability by targeting more public funding to support housing affordability and housing stability and adding to state housing directed funds with a $2 per night fee on hotel, motel and inn stays.

 

And another thing

affirmatively furthering fair housing, Burlington, elected leaders, home ownership, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, human rights, integration, public opinion, renters, segregation, , , , , ,

This is the last grant-funded post, so we’ll try to keep it snappy, not sappy. What do we know about housing, anyway? Not a lot, but a good deal more than when we signed on to this gig 10 months ago.

For what they’re worth, we’ll leave you with a gratuitous thought and an anti-climactic ranking.endgame1

Housing can’t simply be left to the private market, any more than health care or education. It’s time for people to accept that resolving the housing-affordability crisis will require significant new governmental investment; and alleviating the socioeconomic and racial segregation that continue to stand in the way of fair housing choice, all across the country, will require concerted government intervention. Why shouldn’t the right to decent housing and fair housing choice be a public policy priority commensurate with the right to health care or the right to receive an education?

Rankings abound at New Year, so here’s one with an ancillary question: Rent or buy? 504 counties around the country are listed in order of rental affordability — that is, the percentage of local median income that’s required to pay median rent of three-bedroom apartment in that county. Also listed is the affordability percentage of a median priced home. Compare the percentages to see whether it’s more affordable to rent or buy.

No. 1 in rental affordability (or unaffordability) is Honolulu, at 73 percent. Buy. No. 505 is Huntsville, Ala., at 23 percent. Buy.

You can get  to the Excel table by clicking here.

The only Vermont county in the table is Chittenden (listed as Burlington/South Burlington). Sorry, Bellows Falls, Bennington, et al, but that’s the way of these national surveys.

Burlington/South Burlington comes in at No. 152 in rental affordability, at 40 percent. Buying affordability: 46 percent. The recommendation: Rent.

Lake Champlain Burlington, Vermont.
 

That’s despite the fact that, according to the table, the cost of a 3 BR apartment in Burlington/South Burlington went up 12.2 percent in the last year.

Sounds a little high to us (so much for the 3.3 percent figure we’ve been hearing) but again, what do we know?

Could be worse.

Bullish on mobile homes

fair housing, home ownership, housing, modular homes, predatory lending, reverse redlining, Vermont, , , , , ,

It seems that the wide-ranging portfolio of Warren Buffett, investment sage and one of the world’s richest men, includes a mobile-home empire that’s coming under fair-housing scrutiny.buffett1

That’s Clayton Homes Inc., the leading maker of mobile homes, which Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought in 2003. A Clayton affiliate is also the leading lender to purchasers of mobile homes.

Now comes an investigative series by the Seattle Times, the Center for Public Integrity and BuzzFeed alleging exploitative lending to minorities, not to mention racist employment practices. One of the key predatory-lending allegations is summed up by this sentence, the series’ third article published the other day:

“The company’s in-house lender, Vanderbilt Mortgage, charges minority borrowers substantially higher rates, on average than their white counter parts. In fact, federal data shows that Vanderbilt typically charges black people who make over $75,000 a year slightly more than white people who make only $35,000.”

To this and the series’ accusations launched beginning in April, Clayton issued a “categorical” denial in a press release dated Dec. 26, stating, among other things:

“(I)n 2015, for borrowers with credit scores less than 600 who chose to purchase a home-only placed on private land, and borrowed less than $50,000, the average note rate from Vanderbilt was the same for white and non-white borrowers. For borrowers with credit scores greater than 720, the note rate for non-white borrowers was 0.07 percent less than for white borrowers.”

Buffett stands by the company and told shareholders this past spring that he “makes no apologies whatsoever for Clayton’s lending terms.”buffett2

Most of the alleged depredations highlighted in the articles have taken place in the south and on native American reservations in the Southwest. Clayton does have a presence in Vermont. The company’s website lists two sales outlets in the state – in Montpelier and White River Junction – out of more than a thousand dealerships nationwide.

If the series’ allegations have legs, one might expect they’ll prompt a federal investigation or a reverse-redlining lawsuit of the sort that was lodged against Wells Fargo for preying on minority home-buyers in Baltimore and Memphis in the years leading up to the housing bust.