Affordable housing’s carbon footprint

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Affordable housing, when it’s located near town centers or transit hubs, benefits not just its residents but the larger community. That’s because inclusive, diverse communities tend to enjoy more economic, social and cultural vitality that their exclusive counterparts. But there’s another argument for building more of this housing – which typically takes the form of multifamily, subsidized housing — in “locationally efficient” places: as part of a climate-change strategy mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

greenhousemorgue1

Lower-income people drive less and use space more efficiently than non-low-income households. Therefore, a multi-unit complex occupied by lower income people is likely to produce lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than a luxury complex with the same number of people.

So we learn from a new study for the California Housing Partnership, “Income, Location Efficiency and VMT.” VMT stands for vehicle miles traveled, the standard measure that climate-change plans try to reduce. The study, based on California data, concludes that “allocating land and funding to enable development of location-efficient areas in a way that is affordable to lower-income households is expected to yield greater VMT benefits per parcel and per person than allocating the same land to higher-income people.” After all, lower-income people not only drive less, they “own fewer cars, live in fewer rooms, and take up smaller shares of their buildings.” What’s more, they disproportionately prefer to live in location-efficient areas, the study says, further justifying the housing subsidies.

singlefamily

This study complements the literature that takes suburban sprawl and the single-family home to task as unsustainable. The per person carbon footprint of the residential multi-unit complex is less than for the tract home, as a piece in the Atlantic several years ago pointed out. Some of the anti-single-family screeds can be pretty shrill, like this one out of Seattle — a city where the administration even toyed with the heretical idea of banning single-family zoning.

 

A sleeper issue for our time

News, , , , ,

Early as it is in the presidential campaign, but it’s never too early to point out the important issues that the candidates are ignoring or overlooking.

prescampaign1

Issues such as — you guessed it — the affordable housing problem.

Today’s synopsis comes from “The State of Nation’s Housing 2015” by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, which states, among other things, that:

“The shortfall in affordable housing remains substantial as the number of cost-burdened low-income renters continues to rise. Reversing this trend will require a firm recommitment of the nation to the goal of secure, decent, and affordable housing for all.”

How big the national shortfall? For every 100 extremely low-income households (less than 30 percent of median income), there were just 34 affordable units. And for every 100 very low income households (up to 50 percent of median income), there were 58 affordable units. Moreover, housing cost burdens are increasing for moderate-income households as well, especially in pricey metro areas.

What is to be done? The report states (emphasis added):

“Since the private sector cannot profitably supply very low-cost units, the government must play a critical role in ensuring that the nation’s most disadvantaged families and individuals have good-quality, affordable housing.”

This brings us to the presidential candidates. If either major party is going to favor government intervention on behalf of affordable housing, it’s likely to be the Democrats, so we begin our seat-of-the-pants research project with them. We check in on each of their campaign websites, and go to the “issues” or “priorities” or “vision” tab, whatever it’s called. Is there any mention of the affordable housing problem?

Lincoln Chafee: No.

Hillary Clinton: No.

Martin O’Malley: No

Bernie Sanders: No.

Jim Webb: No.

Mind you, these people have plenty to say about fortifying the middle class, expanding Social Security, making college more affordable, creating good jobs, and so on –all of which could weigh in favor of millions of benighted renters. But they’re not talking about what government can or should do to address the housing problem per se.

Oh, well, it’s still early. One of these days we’ll look at the Republicans.

 

The finer points of rent inflation

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

This may come as a shock, but when it comes to development of multi-family rental housing, new luxury units far outnumber the mid-tier ones across the country. Little wonder, when they’re built on a scale like this:

miamitower

And because of the abundance of luxury units, luxury rentals are rising less rapidly than mid-tier rentals.

So says a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, which featured this graph on rent inflation that makes the point. Class A is luxury, Class B & C are for middle-income and working-class people:

rentclassgraph

Whether this sort of thing is going on in Vermont is up for discussion. We can’t say for sure. Anecdotally, though, we notice that rents in new mid-tier buildings – never mind the luxury ones – are getting rather pricey.

There’s a new apartment building on South Winooski Avenue in Burlington, for example, where a one bedroom runs $1,350 and a two bedroom, $1,625. Those rates look to be above average, although of course the average is forever rising.

Then there’s a new high-rise complex in Williston where a one bedroom goes for $1,425 and two-bedroom for $1,825.

Both of these places have apartments that are above HUD’s 2015 fair market rents, so they’re off-limits to Section 8 voucher holders.

By the way, HUD’s fair market rents are the same for Burlington, Williston, South Burlington, Winooski, and so on. How do they compare to averages in these places? You be the judge:

1 BR, $1,003; 2 BR, $1,309; 3 BR, $1,639; 4 BR, $1,925.

 

Spurning another national trend

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

New population estimates have revealed a startling trend, as described in this blog post on the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies website: urban cores growing faster than suburban fringes. Nationally, city populations were up 0.91 percent on average in 2010-14, compared to 0.77 for the suburbs.

“This recent trend of city populations growing faster than those of suburbs is a dramatic departure from prior decades, when suburban population growth significantly outpaced that of cities,” writes Rachel Bogardus Drew, a post-doctoral fellow.

Naturally, this set us to wondering about Vermont’s own megalopolis. Not surprisingly, especially in a state that likes to think of itself as idiosyncratic, the trend doesn’t hold here. If anything, it’s operating in reverse: suburbs here are still outgrowing the urban core of Burlington and Winooski.

chittco

Before getting carried away with this, we remind ourselves that the latest estimates are just that, and the Vermont-scale numbers are so small that errors could easily swing some totals the other way.

Still, we can’t help but notice that the populations of Burlington and Winooski are both down, and those of all the other Chittenden County towns, save Westford, are up:

 

       2010 census        2009-13 estimate
Bolton town 1182 1204
Buels gore 30 46
Burlington city 42417 42331
Charlotte town 3754 3776
Colchester town 17067 17167
Essex town 19587 19908
Hinesburg town 4396 4427
Huntington town 1938 1965
Jericho town 5009 5021
Milton town 10352 10429
Richmond town 4081 4086
St. George town 674 728
Shelburne town 7144 7332
South Burlington city 17904 18163
Underhill town 3016 3030
Westford town 2029 1947
Williston town 8698 8820
Winooski city 7267 7257

 

Let’s face it, though, the rises and falls are pretty small, in most cases – further evidence of Vermont’s much-lamented population stagnancy, or graying, as the Millennials flee and the old-timers hang-on. Could it be that some of the Millennials are leaving because they can’t afford to live here?

 

The renter minority

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

Yesterday’s post took note of the housing burden borne by Burlington’s renters (they pay 44 percent of their income, on average, on rent/utilities). Demographically, that’s a significant burden, because renters in this city are the majority.

In a state where the home ownership rate is over 70 percent, about 9 points above the national average, not many other municipalities can make that claim. Only one other can, in fact: Winooski.

According to the Vermont Housing Data website, 62.2 percent of Winooski’s residents who live in occupied units are renters. In Burlington, the figure is 57 percent.

burlingtonapt2

These are the only communities in the state where the renter population outnumbers homeowners. The renter-occupant figure for Vermont as a whole is 25.9 percent.

Conscientious readers may recall that Winooski scored No. 1 on the workforce housing index we introduced last month. In case you missed it, that index showed the number of subsidized housing units for every 100 in Vermont’s major employment centers. (We defined major employment centers as municipalities with 2,000 jobs or more in 2014.) Burlington came in at No. 5.

As it happens, several other employment centers that do a relatively good job of providing affordable housing also have big renter populations.

apartment

Barre City’s renter population is 48.5 percent; Rutland City’s, 42.7 percent; Brattleboro’s, 43.2 percent; St. Albans City’s, 46.9 percent; and St. Johnsbury’s, 40 percent.

Of the big suburbs surrounding Burlington/Winooski, South Burlington has the highest renter proportion (30.8 percent). The others are all below the state average: Colchester, 25.8 percent; Essex, 20.6 percent; Shelburne, 17.3 percent; and Williston, 14.9 percent. (All of these communities are “major employment centers,” by the way.)

When people talk about the need for affordable housing in Vermont, they’re talking mostly about multi-family housing for renters (although, yes, efforts to promote accessory rental units, as well as single-family homes/condos for purchase, are important). So, here are a few things to keep in mind about renters in Vermont generally, as compared to homeowners:

  • The median household income for a Vermont renter household ($30,943) is less than half that for the homeowner household ( $64,771).
  • The housing cost burden falls more heavily on renters. Among renters:

— 52.5 percent pay more than 30 percent of their household income on housing, as compared to 32 percent of owners;

–26.4 percent pay more than half their household income on housing, as compared 12 percent of homeowners.

 

 

Housing Action Plan revisited

Uncategorized, , , ,

The latest draft of Burlington’s Housing Action Plan, out last week, deserves a few pointed comments. Aside from two additional proposals (bringing the total to 20), there aren’t many substantial changes, but we noticed a few subtle revisions worth noting.

burlingtonapt

We all know there are no simple remedies for the housing affordability problem, which the action plan declares to be one of the city’s “most significant challenges.” The two new proposals certainly don’t qualify as silver bullets.

One is for Burlington to take the lead in “regional housing initiatives that strengthen transportation corridors.” Clustering new housing near transportation nodes or corridors makes sense and is being pushed in various metro areas around the country. Certainly, if any municipality around here is going to take the lead in this sort of planning, it might as well be Burlington. On the other hand, in the absence of county government or targeted oversight by the legislature, regional planning in these parts is largely a hand-waving exercise.

The other new proposal, to improve home energy efficiency of rental units, could help diminish some of the prevailing housing burden (58 percent of Burlingtonians are renters, and they pay an average of 44 percent of their income on housing, the report states), but not the lion’s share of that burden –monthly rents.

The new draft adds language in its first paragraph acknowledging the need to “continue supporting efforts to protect tenants’ rights, prevent displacement, and ensure fair housing” — a commendable revision. Granted, the action plan doesn’t have much to say about fair housing, but that’s OK, because Burlington will be giving fair housing a detailed look in its forthcoming “assessment” mandated by HUD’s affirmatively furthering fair housing regulation.

As before, the plan recommends considering revisions in the inclusionary zoning ordinance. The new draft adds “triggering thresholds” to the provisions to be rethought, but in any case, all the serious rethinking of this ordinance is being deferred to a consultancy-to-be-named later. Ultimately, we’ll be looking for recommendations on how the ordinance can produce affordable units at a higher rate than it has in the past (fewer than 250 units in 25 years).

Another pending review (or moving target) focuses on Plan BTV South End, which we mentioned in a previous post and is in a comment phase now.

Here’s one area where the action plan draft comes up short: addressing the housing burdens of middle-class people, including the proverbial young professionals. The plan’s introduction lays out the affordability “challenge” for “residents across much of the income spectrum, and in particular those who make enough money that they are not eligible for subsidized housing, but struggle to compete in an unhealthy housing market where demand has far outstripped available supply.” What does the plan offer for these residents in particular? Not much, beyond vague references to “workforce housing” and the familiar argument that increasing the housing supply (in part by pulling students out of the rental market and into new residence halls) will ameliorate upward pressure on rents.

 

There but for the grace of God go we

Uncategorized, , , , ,

 

A report is out from The Century Foundation that exposes interesting national demographic trends that appear, on their face, to have little to do with Vermont. We’re not so sure, though.

“The Architecture of Segregation,” by Paul Jargowsky, argues that the number of high-poverty neighborhoods nationally has increased significantly since 2000 and that poverty has become more concentrated – in part because of policy choices that could be changed to produce a different result. As is typical with national-scale reports like this, the focus is on major metropolitan areas, such as Detroit or St. Louis, so the Vermont reader is left wondering what any of this has to do with us – even if we do want to understand sociological trends around the country that help explain events in places like Ferguson or Baltimore. (Note of regional interest: the metro area with both the highest black concentration of poverty and the highest Hispanic concentration of poverty is a little more than a stone’s throw away: Syracuse, N.Y.)

Well, Vermont may not have poverty concentrations in the scale of the metro areas, but it’s still worth considering whether similar trends feeding disparate residential patterns have been at work here. For example, many suburbs have grown at the expense of cities they surround. Jargowosky’s word for that grown is “cannibalistic.”

suburbs1

“In virtually all metropolitan areas, suburban rings grew much faster than was needed to accommodate metropolitan population growth,” he writes. That has a ring of familiarity around here. Burlington’s population has been fairly stagnant; the big housing growth is indeed in the suburbs. But to what extent does the new housing reflect the income distribution in the population? What share of the new rental complexes rising from the fields in Williston, for example, are “affordable”?

Jargowskyomes to two conclusions that could have some application here, or at least are worth thinking about:

“Our highly dispersed and profoundly unequal distribution of housing is not inevitable; indeed, it is not the norm around the world. The two main changes that need to occur are simple to state, but hard to bring about. First, the federal and state governments must begin to control suburban development so that it is not cannibalistic: new housing construction must be roughly in line with metropolitan population growth.”

Exactly how state government here (in the absence of county government) would attempt to assert such “control” is an open question.

“Second, every city and town in a metropolitan area should be required to ensure that the new housing built reflects the income distribution of the metropolitan area as a whole. To some, this suggestion may seem like a massive intervention in the housing market.  In fact, exclusionary zoning is already a massive intervention in the housing market that impedes a more equitable distribution of affordable housing.”

This brings us back to beating the drum for inclusionary zoning, which is sadly missing throughout the state, including the booming suburbs of Chittenden County.

 

Where can Section 8 families live?

Uncategorized, , , ,

We’ve mentioned in several posts that low-income families benefit in various ways when they’re able to live in mixed-income, “high opportunity” neighborhoods. (And we contend that these inclusive neighborhoods benefit, too, in various ways – economically, socially and culturally.)

Here are two publications that document the benefits to low-income children. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children,” which came out in May, found that children in poor families move to better neighborhoods before the age of 13, they wind up with higher educational attainment and higher salaries as adults.

Another paper, “Children and Housing Vouchers,” argued that public policy should promote locating families with housing choice vouchers under the Section 8 program — families who live predominantly in lower-income areas, nationally — in better neighborhoods. (Baltimore’s Housing Mobility Program was cited as an example with documented benefits.) This paper noted that HUD’s Section 8 program, in which voucher-holders rent from private landlords, is in a better position to spread voucher-holders among low-poverty areas than HUD’s project-based public housing program.

All of this got us thinking about housing choice vouchers in Vermont. According to Vermont’s 2015 Housing Needs Assessment, there are about 6,310 housing choice vouchers in this state, and about 3,100 households on the waiting list. To these numbers, add these, from the 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice: 23 of Vermont’s 184 census tracts had concentrations of low-to-moderate income people, as shown on this map:

map5lmi

So, here are our questions of the day, awaiting further research:

  • How many of these voucher holders live in the low-income zones, and how many live elsewhere? (Perhaps HUD’s new data analysis tools supplied under the AFFH rule will help answer this.)
  • What are policy-makers or housing officials doing, if anything, to encourage Section 8 voucher holders to move to low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods?

Granted, HUD’s subsidizable “fair market rents” may rule out units in some properties, particularly, one- or two-unit “non-conventional” housing that according to the Needs Assessment tends to be pricier in Vermont. Still, HUD’s Fair Market Rents for Chittenden County, according to the assessment, seem high enough to allow voucher holders a good deal of choice. They range from $1,003 for a one-bedroom apartment to $1,925 for 4 bedrooms.

 

‘Heated’ conflict over affordable housing?

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

A provocative op-ed in the Times last week by Thomas Edsall has ruffled a few feathers. He took on the question of whether public housing subsidies should be directed to impoverished neighborhoods or to upscale areas.

subdivision

Pushing the former is something called the “poverty housing industry,” which he called “a de facto alliance of multimillion-dollar nonprofit housing companies, city politicians, state and local housing authorities” and others. Pushing the latter are those who advocate integration of poor minorities in more well-to-do neighborhoods. The result, Edsall wrote, is a heated conflict “within the affordable-housing community.”

He argued that some large nonprofit development companies benefit by confining their low-income housing developments to low-income areas. Bolstering the critique of that stance by the integrationists are three things: academic research that shows benefits to low-income children whose families are resettled in low-poverty areas; the Supreme Court decision upholding disparate impact; and HUD’s AFFH rule, which among other things calls for breaking up patterns of historic residential segregation.

A critical response to Edsall’s piece was soon in coming. A blog post on the website of the giant law firm Nixon Peabody took him to task for various alleged distortions and oversimplifications. Among other things, Edsall was said to have overlooked the obstacles to developing affordable housing in affluent areas – the high cost of land, the resistance by residents, and so on.

It’s also worth noting that Edsall, in citing the Supreme Court decision, did not mention the caveat in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion that left the door open to continuing to invest in poor neighborhoods:

“It would be paradoxical to construe the Fair Housing Act to impose onerous costs on actors who encourage revitalizing dilapidated housing in our Nation’s cities merely because some other priority might seem preferable,” Kennedy wrote, adding:

“The FHA does not decree a particular vision of urban development; and it does not put housing authorities and private developers in a double bind of liability, subject to suit whether choose to rejuvenate a city core or to promote new low-income housing in suburban communities.”

What does all this have to do with Vermont? Edsall’s primary targets are big, national nonprofits working in impoverished sections of major U.S. cities. His critique doesn’t seem to apply much in this rural state, although socioeconomic integration does present a challenge here.

Comments, anyone?

Real estate ad pitfalls

Uncategorized, , , ,

Monday’s civil rights hearing covered a lot of ground on housing discrimination, but it never got around to advertising. Maybe that’s because illegal ads aren’t as pervasive as they used to be. Signs like this hard seldom seen nowadays:

forrent

The newspaper staffers who oversee classified ads are generally savvy – they’ve been brow-beaten by fair housing activists enough over the years to have a pretty good idea what passes muster and what doesn’t. Then again, how much real estate advertising are newspapers getting these days, anyway? Not as much as they used to, sadly.

The most popular advertising venue that lacks editorial oversight, of course, is Craigslist. And that’s what the Fair Housing Project devotes most of its monitoring time to, in its capacity of advertising watchdog.

Craigslist, to its credit, puts a little blurb in each of the entries, “please flag discriminatory housing ads” with a link to a summary of what’s prohibited under the federal Fair Housing Act. Vermont’s Craigslist does not provide any info about Vermont-specific discrimination, however. “Receipt of public assistance” is a protected class in Vermont, which means ads can’t say “No Section 8.”

Very few do, though, even on unfiltered Craigslist. Over the last five months, browsing Vermont rental ads on Craigslist several times a week, we’ve found 30 ads with one or two violations (or probable violations – we’re not an enforcing agency, after all).

About two-thirds of the violations have pertained to familial status – a federally protected category. That means presence of kids. That is, the ads appear to discriminate against families with children.

Much of the discriminatory language might be characterized as subtle. Just about everybody, even the proverbial small-time landlord, knows better than to say “no children.” Instead, they say things like, “best for singles or couples” or “single occupant” or “college students only.”

Roughly one-third of the violations pertain to receipt of public assistance. Here again, the language is less than direct. “Professionals only” … other units “occupied by executives, business owners” … “located in a quiet, professional neighborhood.”

The great majority of real estate ads on Craigslist are fine, at least in fair housing terms. Most advertisers, intentionally or not, abide by this useful guideline for what to put in the ad: Describe the property, not who you want to live there.