Tag Archives: housing news

Not so easy

affordable housing, Baltimore, fair housing, housing, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, income inequality, integration, public housing, renters, Section 8, segregation, Vermont, , , , , , ,

A key goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), as it’s envisioned playing out around the country, is to break up concentrations of poverty and to promote socioeconomic and racial integration. That means ensuring opportunities for lower-income people and racial minorities to live in wealthier, “high opportunity” neighborhoods with access to jobs, goods schools and public services.

Two ways to facilitate those opportunities:

  • Promote regional mobility among people with Section 8 vouchers, enabling them to leave high-poverty areas and move into more well-to-do communities. This can require increasing their housing allowance so that they can afford higher suburban rents.
  • Build affordable, multifamily rental housing in those same, heretofor exclusive neighborhoods.

Both of these approaches deserve consideration around here, as Vermonters contemplate how to make their communities more socioeconomically inclusive. Meanwhile, it’s interesting to see how they’ve played out in an entirely different environment: metropolitan Baltimore.Baltimore1

First, some background: Baltimore has a long history of racial segregation (click here for a trenchant account), and in the mid-1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development was sued by city residents (Thompson vs. HUD) for its failure to eliminate segregation in public housing. In 2005, a federal judge found that HUD had violated the Fair Housing Act by maintaining existing patterns of impoverishment and segregation in the city and by failing to achieve “significant desegregation” in the Baltimore region.

Seven years later, a court-approved settlement resolved the case in a way that anticipated the AFFH rule that HUD issued this past summer.

The settlement called on HUD to continue the Baltimore Mobility Program, begun in 2003 in an earlier settlement phase. The program has provided housing vouchers to more than 2,600 families to move out of poor, segregated neighborhoods and into areas with populations that are less than 10 percent impoverished and less than 30 percent black. The program provides counseling before and after the move and has received high marks from evaluators who cite improved educational and employment outcomes for beneficiaries. A similar regional program is underway in Chicago.

The settlement also called for affordable-housing development in these “high-opportunity” suburban communities – 300 units a year through 2020. To make this happen, HUD was to provide new financial incentives for developers.

Here is where the story takes a dispiriting turn. Three years later, not a single developer has applied for the incentives. No affordable housing projects are even in the pipeline. That’s according to an eye-opening story the other day in the Baltimore Sun.Baltimore2

So, what happened? Why haven’t developers shown any interest? HUD had no explanation, according to the story, which suggested that perhaps the program hadn’t been well-enough publicized: a prominent builder of affordable housing admitted he didn’t even know about the incentives. Could it be that they weren’t generous enough?

Whatever the reason, the Baltimore experience reflects how difficult it can be to introduce affordable housing to privileged enclaves. No one should underestimate the AFFH challenge.

Nagging question

affirmatively furthering fair housing, affordable housing, fair housing, housing, housing crisis, income inequality, middle class, Mount Laurel, renters, segregation, , ,

How does an affordable housing development affect surrounding property values?

There’s no simple answer to this question, in part because of the many variables that come into play– the siting, for example, and the nature of the neighborhood (blighted? well-to-do?), the scale of the development, the design, and so on. affordable1

Not surprisingly, though, the question has spawned a large literature. A rather dated survey of the research, from the Furman Center at NYU, found that “the vast majority of studies have found that affordable housing does not depress neighboring property values, and may even raise them in some cases.” A “Field Guide to Effects of Low-Income Housing on Property Values,” put out by the National Association of Realtors and citing numerous references, updated last year, agrees: “Most studies indicate that affordable housing has no long term negative impact on surrounding home values.”

Indeed, that’s the standard pitch that affordable-housing advocates make in the face of NIMBY opposition: The notion that affordable housing drives down property values is a “myth.”affordable3

Then, along comes a study with an inconvenient conclusion, seemingly muddying the water. That would be “Who Wants Affordable Housing in their Backyard? An Equilibrium Analysis of Low Income Property Development,” by Stanford economists Rebecca Diamond and Tim McQuade. Their finding is that, within a 0.1-mile radius, Low Income Housing Tax Credit-financed developments raise property values over the long run in low-income neighborhoods but lower them in higher-income neighborhoods. They conclude: “Given the goals of many affordable housing polices is to decrease income and racial segregation in housing markets, these goals might be better achieved by investing in affordable housing in low income and high minority areas, which will then spark in-migration of high income and a more racially diverse set of residents.” affordable2

This conclusion runs contrary to the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing, which advocates a balanced approach for affordable housing investment: revitalizing blighted areas, on one hand, and desegregating higher-income areas, on the other. This dual approach also has the imprimatur of the U.S. Supreme Court, which effectively endorsed it in its ruling this summer upholding the disparate impact doctrine. (For our previous post on this, click here.) The court’s ruling favored a Texas plaintiff who argued that affordable housing projects should NOT be disproportionately sited in low-income minority neighborhoods.

While we await critiques of the Stanford study from the affordable-housing commentariat, we take note of various examples where affordable housing has not depressed property values in higher-income communities: Places such as Mount Laurel, N.J., epicenter of New Jersey’s fair/affordable housing movement, where a Princeton study found that values in surrounding neighborhoods were unaffected (for the New York Times account, click here). Or Weston or Wellesley, two of Massachusetts’ wealthiest communities, where a Tufts study found that mixed-income developments had no effect on surrounding property values, as reported via Shelterforce.

One factor that might well have a bearing, and that would not show up in the Census-tract-type data used by the Stanford researchers, is design. Affordable housing doesn’t have to look cheap or barracks-y. In fact, if the design is done well, affordable units can be hard to distinguish from market-rate units.

Planning consultant Julie Campoli demonstrates this in her “Thriving Communities” webinar/seminar presentation. She shows each of the following two slides of four photos each and asks viewers to guess which is affordable and which market-rate. We’re giving the answer away by showing the labeled versions here, but her point should be obvious.julie1

 julie2

Renters’ agenda

fair housing, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, income inequality, mortgage-interest deduction, renters, Section 8, segregation, tax policy, tax reform, Vermont, , , , , ,

The Center for American Progress has put out a report that nicely ties together, in summary fashion, the current status of fair housing and unaffordable housing. These are the mainstay, overlapping concerns of the “Thriving Communities” campaign. If you’re looking for a fairly brief (33 pages) treatment of where things stand, complete with an array of federal policy recommendations, “An Opportunity Agenda for Renters” is worth a look. rent2

The report touches on many of the topics we’ve mentioned in this blog — the persistence of racial and socioeconomic segregation, the barriers to mobility from impoverished to high-opportunity areas, the growing financial burdens on the growing class of renters in the face of woefully insufficient public subsidies.

One of the policy recommendations, naturally, is that the primary federal vehicle for creating or preserving affordable housing be expanded. That’s the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which accounts for about 110,000 residential units a year, according to the report. But even if that program were increased by 50 percent, as called for by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Housing Commission, the total number of units created or preserved would still be way too few, considering “the current shortage of 4.5 million units that are affordable to extremely low-income households.”

As things stand, the federal tax code benefits homeowners in several ways, and disproportionately the wealthier ones. The mortgage-interest tax deduction alone costs the government about $70 billion a year. By contrast, increasing funding of the Section 8 program to cover 3 million eligible low-income renters who are shut out of the program now would cost just $22 billion.

Here’s another proposal in renters’ favor: creating a federal renters’ tax credit. A modest tax credit benefiting the lowest income renters could cost a mere $5 billion.

Vermont’s renter rebate is better than nothing, but it still doesn’t go very far. In 2012, according to a 2014 report to the Legislature, 13,541 claimants (about one-fifth of the state’s renting households) received a total of $8.7 million in rebates, for an average of $641. That $641 was not enough to unburden the typical claimant.

“On average,” the report stated, “Vermont’s renter rebate program reduces gross rent as a percent of household income from 36.7 percent to 33.6 percent.” rent1

In other words, the average renter was living in an unaffordable place even after the rebate.

 

The economic damper

Burlington, California, housing, housing crisis, News, renters, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , , ,

If  a crisis isn’t mentioned in a presidential debate (as the national housing crisis was not, in either of the televised colloquies over the past week), does that mean it doesn’t exist?bench2

Of course not. Whether the candidates are willing to discuss it or not, the affordable housing shortage remains a damper on economic vitality and job creation. Burlington’s latest housing market analysis (July 31) gets to this point right in the first paragraph:

“Burlington’s housing market is marked by an imbalance between supply and demand. … The rental housing imbalance translates into high housing costs (relative to income) and lower quality rental housing stock. … An imbalanced rental housing market also impedes economic growth since employers have trouble recruiting and retaining their workforce.”

The same can be said for many other communities in Vermont and beyond, as seen in these news bulletins from the last few days:employment4

  • Toyota Financial Services decided to pull out of Los Angeles and move to Plano, Texas, in part because of LA’s high housing costs and rent burdens.
  • Well up the coast, in northwest Oregon, the lack of affordable housing “threatens the viability” of major cheese company that is subsidizing a housing task force in a county, beset by negligible development.bench3
  • In Key West, the Naval Air Station has trouble retaining civilian employees because of high housing costs. About half the base’s firefighter recruits wind up leaving after a few months’ training because they can’t afford to live there, according to the chief.
  • In Travers City, Mich., the housing shortage repels new workers, in a kind of vicious cycle. bench1 “Builders can’t construct housing because they lack works and workers won’t relocate to the area because they can’t find housing,” The Traverse-City Record-Eagle laments.
  • Colorado, the rental market is so tight in some ski towns that some workers are living in their cars or in temporary shelters. Several hundred Vail Resort workers recently confronted another kind of indignity: they were informed that they’d have to share rooms in the employer’s housing complexes.employment3

Capital ideas

affordable housing, Burlington, EB-5 program, elected leaders, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, News, renters, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , ,

This country’s shortage of affordable rental units runs into the millions, and Vermont’s is in the thousands. Where’s the money going to come from to build or rehab our way out of this hole? Government spending falls chronically and abysmally short, but there’s a glimmer of hope that a growing fraction of the massive need can come from an unlikely source: private investors. finance1

But first, consider the scale of the need. According to the recent Harvard report on rental housing, 11.4 million renter households are “severely burdened,” paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing. (An additional 9.9 million are simply “burdened,” paying more than 30 percent.)

In Vermont, 26 percent of the 75,000 renter households are severely burdened — that’s 19,500 households living in places that are far beyond their means. And in Burlington, 35 percent of the 9,500 renter households are in that position – about 3,300 households.

The federal government’s primary subsidy for affordable housing development is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which produces in about 100,000 affordable rental units a year. Then of course there’s the challenge of maintaining affordability for units whose tax credits expire, a challenge that Vermont’s housing nonprofits and state agencies contend with annually as they marshal limited public resources to preserve the affordability of what’s here. And even though they’ve been largely successful, what’s here isn’t anywhere near enough. Yes, the private market is turning out new rental housing to meet the growing population of renters, but the great majority of those new units are high-end.

A new report from the Urban Land Institute and NeighborWorks America, “Preserving Multifamily Workforce and Affordable Housing,” describes a range of new financing vehicles that seek to create or preserve affordable housing. Sixteen partnerships o investment companies – some new, some well-established — are profiled. One thing they have in common is that they offer returns to their investors– who include philanthropies, university endowments, pension funds and private individuals in the single digits, below what the typical real-estate investor might expect to receive. These entities include private equity funds and two real estate investment trusts (REITs) that focus on affordable multifamily developments.

The hook is that this investment sustains a social good: affordable housing. If “socially responsible investing” is popular among Vermont’s progressive monied class, why can’t affordable housing be one of their fiduciary causes? A creative financier might even find some way to enlist the UVM endowment or the state pension fund in support of affordable housing development.finance2

The report also mentions another possible funding source for affordable housing — the EB-5 program, which pulls in big investments from foreigners (typically from East Asia) in exchange for green cards, and which we’ve harped on before. Yes, EB-5 is supposed to be a job-creation program, but it turns out that real estate development developments are among the most popular EB-5 projects, in part because the construction jobs count. (Check out this article, “Real Estate: Still the Darling of EB-5.”) True, affordable housing isn’t the typical EB-5 project, but it has been done – in San Francisco’s Hunter’s Point Shipyard, and in Seattle, near the Seahawks’ stadium. Next up, Miami.

How about Newport, Vt.? 

Good news, mostly

accessory dwelling unit, affordable housing, home ownership, home sharing, housing, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, middle class, renters, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , , , ,
  • Little backyard houses — aka “accessory dwelling units” — are springing up all over Vancouver. vancouver This is a partial remedy to the affordable rental shortage that afflicts municipalities all over North America, including Vermont. It also affords an optional living arrangement for older people who want to age in place. In Vancouver, these appendages are called “laneway houses,” and some of them are pretty handsome. There’s plenty of room for additions like this in Burlington, even if we don’t have alleys — and in plenty of other Vermont communities, too.
  •  A “mobility program” in heavily segregated Baltimore moves families from high-poverty public housing complexes in the city to higher-rent, higher-opportunity suburbs. This is an initiative very much in the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing, but it serves a small fraction of the subsidy-eligible families in need and it operates largely under the radar, to minimize opposition. One obstacle: a shortage of affordable housing in suburban communities.
  • Plattsburgh has a new 64-unit affordable housing complex, called Homestead on Ampersand.  plattsburgh2It’s just a couple of miles from the neighborhood where complaints about a proposal for a smaller affordable housing complex prevailed.
  • Columbus, Ohio, plans to transform a vacant downtown building into “workforce housing” – which in this case means housing for people who make $40,000 to $60,000 a year. The made-over building would feature micro units – apartments of 300 square feet or so and targeted, presumably, to single Millennials. We’ve touched on the micro movement before, which seems to be taking hold mostly in bigger metro areas (here’s a roundup with a national map; for a more substantial study of the phenomenon, click here).   But it has also spread to Kalamazoo and, as we’ve noted, Syracuse, so there’s no reason it couldn’t work in an over-priced city like Burlington, where officialdom is forever wringing its hands about how young professionals have trouble finding affordable accommodations.

The Burlington College land deal

affordable housing, Burlington, Burlington College, elected leaders, housing, housing crisis, renters, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , ,

Burlington College’s intent to sell off much of its lakeside acreage drew opposition when it was announced two years ago. Now, as a development plan awaits City Council approval, the grumbling continues. Some of the grumblers apparently cling to an obsolete fantasy: namely, that most of the property could be spared development and conserved as greenspace. Burlington-College

Thumbnail history: In 2011 the college bought 32 acres from the Catholic diocese for about $10 million, then came to the realization, after a couple years of stagnant enrollment, that it couldn’t afford the payments. To survive, the college would have to sell off a big chunk of the land, and it revealed its plan to do so to housing developer Eric Farrell a little over two years ago.

The deal wasn’t done, though, and there was a window of many months when someone else — someone like the Nature Conservancy, say, or a land trust — could have stepped forward to offer the $7 million or so that would have been necessary to buy the developable land for conservation purposes. No one did, though. That’s why the greenspace fantasy is obsolete.

Not developing the land was not an option, at least if Burlington College wass to stave off bankruptcy. And if the college were to go belly up, well, then ownership of the property  would have reverted to creditors (principally a bank), leading to a development scenario perhaps less palatable than Farrell’s.

If there’s anything reasonably left to grumble about, it’s in the details of the agreement the City Council will review next week. Among those details, as we understand them: The city is acquiring 12 lakeside acres for $2 million to be maintained as parkland (a parcel, by the way that has been appraised at $2.9 million). Farrell will develop about 550 housing units on 16 acres, of which 160 will be affordable to families of income below 65 percent of the median, with other units targeted to people of moderate income, while the rest are market-rate; and 200 beds for students on a parcel the college will retain for its campus.

This much is clear: The city is in desperate need of more affordable housing, and it has its inclusionary zoning ordinance to thank for the affordable units in this scheme, and (2) This inclusive new neighborhood, as planned, will be one of exemplary economic diversity.

Surprise! Some rents going down

affordable housing, Burlington, housing crisis, housing subsidies, housing vouchers, renters, Section 8, Vermont, workforce housing, , , , , ,

Burlington’s chronic housing-affordability problem is bad enough — more than a third of the city’s 9,500 renting households are paying more than half their income for rent and utilities, which puts them in the “severely burdened” category — but guess what? It’s getting arguably worse. burlingtonapt

HUD just came out with its 2016 fair market rents for the Burlington/South Burlington metro area, and they’re lower than they were for 2015. This despite the fact that actual rents in this area have been going up every year. (The 2016 numbers are up and down across the state, as Vermont Housing Finance Agency’s news blog helpfully details.)

If you really want to know why Burlington’s numbers went down, you can go to the HUD page to see the methodology. The unfortunate upshot, though, is that anyone with a Section 8 housing voucher is going to have less to choose from in 2016 than they do this year. That’s because apartments that cost more than the “fair market rent” are off-limits for subsidy. (If it makes you feel any better, remember that majority of Burlington’s “burdened” households don’t have vouchers anyway. Nationally HUD rental assistance extends to only about one-fourth of the people who are income-eligible.)

OK, let’s consider a two-bedroom apartment. The 2016 “fair market rent” is $1,172 (as compared to 2015’s $1,302). What are the offerings on Craigslist?

Here are the first 10 listed rents for two-bedroom apartments in Burlington and environs (South Burlington, Colchester) that we found at noon Monday. (Craigslist is constantly updated, so if you do the search the results will vary):

$2,500, $1,600, $2,500, $2,100, $1,425, $2,400, $2,025, $2,000, $2,000, $1,650.

How “fair” is that market? Now, perhaps Craiglist rents tend to be above average (are there studies that document this?), but there’s not much consolation in that, especially if you have a housing-choice voucher.

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.