A practitioner’s perspective

By Betsey Martens
Executive Director, Boulder Housing Partners
For the Journal of Housing & Community Development, 2011 

This article is the third in a series that began with an exploration of the political history of public housing [1]. That first piece explored the idea that many of the problems that challenge our affordable housing industry today have their genesis in the political compromises that precede the passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. It also examined the conditions that are present in our nation’s early response to a housing crisis that resulted in a housing policy that apportions resources to the housing goals of the wealthy in greater measure than to the critical housing needs of the economically poor. Finally, the article looked at key themes that shine some light on how we might effectively affect significant change in American housing policy today.

It concluded with the suggestion that the key ingredients of a new policy may well include:

• Strategic partnerships with the private sector;
• Public ownership and stewardship of the assets;
• Targeting of the greatest need married with mid-market eligibility;
• Excellent project design that integrates into, and improves, neighborhoods;
• A single-tiered housing policy that creates opportunity for all.

The second article [2] explored a strategic map for repositioning public housing and offered policy makers a strategy for the essential preservation of public housing for those communities where the asset is in jeopardy. This final article takes a broader look at federal housing policy and suggests a number of key issues and debates that await us. Given the challenges that have ensued in the past two years, both for our housing and community development (HCD) industry and the nation as a whole, the five ideas have expanded to 10, along with a plea for action.

March 16, 2012

Dear Council members,

We know you have been getting a lot of communication about the 1175 Lee Hill proposal. We asked project supporters to do two things in order to show their support and respect your time at the public hearing: 1) voice their support via our website and 2) allow a proxy to speak for them on March 20.  One of our five speakers will represent the 374 people who asked that their support be identified publicly. To that end, attached please find a summary of comments from people who are voicing support for the 1175 Lee Hill proposal. 

To the extent that time is so limited on March 20, I thought it might be helpful to provide our perspective on a couple of things.

From one perspective, 1175 Lee Hill has achieved an impressive alignment of elements required for a complicated project to come together. It has a proposed site that is the right size at the right price with the right program amenities; it has a very feasible financing plan with competitive sources that are poised to commit on a July 2012 schedule; and it has a long list of people who desperately need this type of housing.

The development proposal is founded on a long policy history that informed our decision making. We assumed that community consensus had already been established about how Boulder will make siting decisions for homeless-related projects, per the work that was done by city council in 2001. We perceived a strong measure of political support for the project, as proposed at 1175 Lee Hill, because we have received two years of funding from the city; the County has invested funds for acquisition of the land; the city led the effort to help us procure a congressional earmark for the project in this location; and the city and county jointly endorsed the Ten Year Plan which features Housing First as the best solution to ending homelessness.  As your housing authority partner we have always played the role of implementing your policy vision. That is unquestionably what we thought we were doing in proposing this project.

We now have a second perspective. We have listened carefully to the criticism about our neighborhood outreach process. Many have suggested that we proceeded as if we didn’t want, or care about, neighborhood opinion. In hindsight there are many things that we would do differently in terms of an outreach strategy, but we would never exclude neighborhood input.

Before our planned outreach effort began, we carefully watched the progress, or lack of progress, experienced by Bridge House (formerly Carriage House) as they have tried to locate a new day shelter in Boulder. We assumed that we would experience a similar resistance that they have experienced.  Therefore, we chose to be more informed about the details of our proposal when we reached out to the neighbors, rather than less. Regrettably, that created the appearance of avoidance.

We have also listened to suggestions that we should continue our current, and very successful, scattered site approach to Housing First instead of expanding the program using a site-based model. While there is no empirical evidence that suggests that one Housing First approach is better than another, we do know based on long experience, that some people will do better living alone and others will do much better in a supportive community.  Equally important to the consideration is the fact that we don’t currently have a ready source of financing to expand the scattered site approach. The use of low income housing tax credits is not available for a scattered project and that leaves a daunting, but not always impossible, financing gap. It also leaves a gap in financing for support services which is a critical program component of the Housing First model.  If it were only a question of money, I’m one who believes you can always be creative. For us, it’s about both program and financing.

And finally, we know that there are a lot of concerns about the concentration of affordable housing in north Boulder; the concentration of homeless people; the economic future of north Boulder, and the lack of amenities. These are all important and engaging conversations. It is our view that 1175 Lee Hill can’t, and shouldn’t, be responsible for these public policy decisions, and shouldn’t be sacrificed to the inconclusive nature of tangential policy concerns.  We strongly believe that our proposed project to build 31 affordable apartments will solve a problem, not create a new one.

In closing, I want to reiterate our desire for 1175 Lee Hill to be a success, both for the residents who will live there and for the neighbors who make up our community.  We are eager to continue working with neighbors to fine-tune the Statement of Operations and to thoughtfully manage the design of the building.  I thank you for your time and attention to this project and your ongoing support of Boulder Housing Partners.

With best wishes,

Betsey Martens

Executive Director, Boulder Housing Partners

Six Steps to Hope: A HOPE VI companion plan

By Betsey Martens
Executive Director, Boulder Housing Partners
For the NAHRO Annual Conference, October 2009

This paper builds on my January 2009 article in the Journal of Housing & Community Development about the political history of public housing. That article explored the idea that many of the problems that challenge our affordable housing industry today have their genesis in the political compromises that precede the passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The article also explored the conditions that are present in our nation’s early response to a housing crisis that resulted in a housing policy that apportions resources to the housing goals of the wealthy in greater measure than to the critical housing needs of the economically poor. Finally, the article looked at key themes that shine some light on how we might effectively affect significant change in American housing policy today.

It concluded with the suggestion that the key ingredients of a new policy may well include:

• Strategic partnerships with the private sector
• Public ownership and stewardship of the assets
• Targeting of the greatest need married with mid-market eligibility
• Excellent project design that integrates into, and improves, neighborhoods
• A single-tiered housing policy that creates opportunity for all 

This article expands on these ideas, and packages them into six strategic steps for creating a map for the future of public housing:

Step 1: Improve, and green, the asset
Step 2: Rationalize operations
Step 3: Open the door for new partners
Step 4: Preserve the existing demographic
Step 5: Fund resident services as part of operations
Step 6: Fix HUD’s mission confusion

The preliminary step: Agreement on preservation of the asset

Public housing’s early history has been characterized by a steady swing between two political schools of thought — government either in, or out, of the business of providing housing. The once-louder chorus of voices calling for a vouchering-out of public housing has been quieted by a growing understanding that public housing responds to a supply problem for markets where the current public housing demographic can’t often be served. Vouchers don’t work for everyone. Households with large families; households with special needs for supportive housing; households with credit or criminal background problems, or other legitimate needs for a benevolent landlord; households with limited resources or capacity to move, or households challenged by navigating a complicated maze of rules and regulations have not done well in the voucher program.

Where once the debate was a question of either/or — do we need a place-based housing program or do we need tenant-based solutions — we now have an understanding that we need both, and that there is an appropriate role for all sectors in housing solutions; no one sector can do it alone.

In fact, a broad coalition of national housing and community development trustees came together in 2008 to make a strong statement about the need to preserve public housing. The tide is turning in favor of a belief that the nation’s $165 billion investment in public housing is worth preserving.[1]

With the affirmation that public housing is an asset worth preserving, the next step is to solidify the consensus so that we turn our attention to public housing preservation with the urgency that is required. As reported in the report from the Future of Public Housing summit —

The nation suffered a significant net loss of public housing units between 1995 and 2008. While it has received little public attention compared to the mortgage mess and declining home values, this hidden housing crisis is no less devastating to the millions of Americans who call public housing home and for many for whom public housing is the first rung on the ladder of economic opportunity.[2]

“

— Proceedings from the Summit on the Future of Public Housing, 2008, page 2

The current successful preservation tool, HOPE VI, needs to be preserved and expanded. However, HOPE VI is not a solution for all of public housing, or even for much of it, and we need to create a rational reform program for the rest of the inventory. I propose that there are six strategic steps to hope for small and medium housing authorities who don’t have Moving to Work (MTW) status.

STEP ONE: Improve, and green, the asset

The nation’s public housing inventory consists of approximately 1,200,000 units contained in 8,000 asset management projects. Current data estimates that these units have a collective deferred maintenance backlog of $30 billion. HOPE VI has replaced most of the worst of our public housing inventory, and the probable inventory of remaining bad units that will require total replacement is only 100,000 units at this point. [3] The remaining units are in need of a legislative fix.

The Congress should give strong consideration to NAHRO’s proposal to create a term-limited public housing tax credit. Admittedly, now is not the time to bring new demand to a weak credit environment, but now is a good time to do the policy legwork required to roll out a new program. The concept is simple: NAHRO proposes the authorization of a public housing credit program within I.R.C. Section 42 to enable the preservation of existing public housing either through rehabilitation or replacement. The program would be authorized for an initial period of ten years in an amount sufficient to accomplish preservation of a majority of public housing units. Consideration would be given to ramping the credit up to ensure adequate utilization during the early stages of the program.

Alternately, an increase in appropriations for the Capital Fund program would be a more straightforward and rapid solution. We will soon understand the impact of the $4 billion appropriation through ARRA fiends, and we may discover that six to ten more years of doubling the appropriation would bring us a long way toward where we need to be. We also may discover that the asset doesn’t have a decade to wait.

Many housing authorities are working successfully with Energy Performance Contracts to make capital improvements to public housing. HUD should continue strong support of this vehicle and NAHRO should continue to help members learn about, and take advantage, of the financing approach.

Another option for helping housing authorities address more modest backlog needs is to place revitalized public housing on a sound financial footing by providing for a long-term funding structure that would allow them to borrow against a stabilized net operating income (NOI) to get their portfolio into a condition where capital needs are accruing forward. While this approach won’t generate sufficient capital for all of the accumulated needs, it creates the platform to move forward (see Step 2 below).

In related advocacy, NAHRO has also called for the conversion of public housing to a Section 8 project-based model in order to allow the asset greater access to redevelopment capital. As above, this approach will help the moderately distressed inventory, which is the majority of where we need to focus.

STEP TWO: Rationalize operations

Public housing policy and regulation has evolved in such a piece-meal fashion that public housing managers feel more like Jenga players than the real estate professionals that they are. We fear the moment that the hand of Congress might pull the wrong plank and the public housing asset could topple.

Many layers of regulation have evolved in public housing, all of which sit on an unstable base of assumptions. Prior to the Brooke Amendment of 1969, the base of assumption was solid: that property without mortgage debt could be supported by modest rental income derived from a broad range of incomes. The Brooke Amendment, while well-intentioned, had dire policy outcomes for the asset.

Brooke restructured income to decouple it from the cost of maintaining and preserving the asset. It didn’t take long for these meager rents to exhaust the system and an operating subsidy to be required. Soon thereafter, capital funds for modernization were necessary. Not long after, funds for resident services came in a third stream of funds. Following that, a fourth stream of funds for drug elimination and asset protection. As the asset, and residents, demand more resources, the more public housing managers see the precariousness of their operating platform.

Instead of a system that mirrors conventional real estate practice, we have an operating system that is both upside-down and Jenga-like. We have rent that is based on the family’s income, and a subsidy based on the cost to operate. Right side up, we would convert the system so that rental income is relative to the cost to operate and maintain the property, and subsidy would be relative to the family’s ability to pay the rent. This is the system that we see in the voucher program and the system that prevails in every other asset type.

Public housing needs, instead, a sustainable rent contract through which public housing will be guaranteed the funds required for three essential functions: basic operating costs; provision of services to residents; and contribution to a reserve for replacement and/or financing capital improvements through debt.

In this scenario, the rent would be comparable to market rents for similar product in the area, or determined on a budget basis taking into account the need to provide for sufficient replacement reserves to replace capital funding. The underwriting must assure that the manager has access to the excess cash generated. This provides two important operating principles: 1) it creates an incentive to manage to the bottom line and brings the power of market discipline to operations, and 2) it provides for resources to sustain the owner/portfolio/asset management function.

This approach also provides protection during years in which the appropriation to public housing is reduced. If the rent contract is reduced by 10%, then 10% of our units could be released from income requirements and be available to rent to households that can pay the rent without subsidy. This approach provides strong protection for the asset and public housing operations. It also allows tenants and tenant advocates a clear measure of the impact of reduced appropriations.

Additionally, in this approach, PHAS (the public housing assessment system) can be replaced by standard industry metrics derived from net operating income. The process of measuring FHA performance becomes simple, effective and transparent. For those properties that are funding improvements through net income, local banks can replace third party HUD inspectors to assure the protection of the asset. HUD can sub-contract its very important job of risk management and asset performance monitoring down to the local level, where it belongs.

We should also consider the intriguing idea of ACC portability. In 1997 BHP included this idea in its strategic plan with the goal of easing the density of some of our public housing neighborhoods. More recently, Conrad Egan introduced a similar idea to a NAHRO panel in March of this year. Mixed income neighborhoods have been the intuitive answer to public housing challenges for many years. In ACC portability, PHAs could reassign subsidy assistance to units they own in other properties. Making portable our public housing units is a relatively quick and easy way to achieve mixed income neighborhoods for those housing authorities that have an inventory of units that are not public housing.

STEP THREE: Open the door for new partners

Returning to the analogy of Jenga, we have created a public housing structure that can hold up for a period of time, but has never proven itself to be investment-worthy. It’s no wonder that managing public housing has been a singular and lonely business. QHWRA created provisions for some new partners to join the challenge of maintaining and preserving public housing, and HOPE VI has demonstrated the power of public/private partnership related to the asset. Much more needs to be done, however. Very few partners can, and want to, participate in public housing given its current structure. We need to open doors for partners to help with improving the asset, providing services to residents and transforming our buildings to net-zero energy consumption.

We need to be able to engage in tax credit partnerships with greater ease. Mixed financing is clunky and complicated, and the process of converting public housing is improved but still very burdensome.

As our public housing tenant characteristics change we need a meaningful way to engage and maintain new partners. There are two clear and distinct trends in my public housing that I suspect are reflected in the general population. People are living longer with greater medical challenges, and the population of people with disabilities is increasing. The short of it is that service needs are rapidly intensifying.

Public housing is an appropriate and powerful point of service delivery. For communities that are rich with services, we need to be sure we have ways to build lasting relationships with service providers. In rural and smaller communities, we need to fund ways to find partners, or respond to needs directly.

STEP FOUR: Preserve the existing demographic

Despite its position as the fourth step, the most important part of preservation thinking is to be able to assure residents and advocates that we can continue to house, or target, the existing demographic. Public housing conversion proposals are clouded by a concern that housing authorities are trying to abandon their fundamental mission. In her testimony to Congress, Atlanta Housing Authority Executive Director Renee Glover began by dispelling the myth that “PHAs are seeking ‘legislative cover’ to abandon their fundamental mission — providing affordable housing to low income families. This is not true.”[4] New policy must preserve, and improve on, the subsidy structure that makes public housing uniquely available to households with extremely low incomes.

The proposal described in Step 2 allows housing authorities to preserve their existing customer base. Rent continues to be paid based on income, without jeopardizing the operations of the real estate. And, given the proposal that resident services become an integral element in determining a property’s operating cost basis, outcomes and quality of life for residents will be significantly improved.

We should continue to explore, however, some things that might produce better outcomes. If we could simplify the process of calculating rent, we would free up significant resources for residents, housing authorities and HUD. We have developed a tangled web of complexity and oversight in the interest of rent integrity. There is a massive investment of money and time for all of us to force, and enforce, rent integrity in a system that seems almost designed to invite applicants and residents to report inaccurate income, either by mistake or intention.

We could consider a policy in which the rent-based-on-income approach might be preserved for elderly and disabled households whose incomes are fixed; and we could more aggressively understand a variety of flat and tiered rent options for families so that their increases in income are going to future prosperity instead of to rent.

STEP FIVE: Include services as a fundamental part of operating costs

The previous steps have argued for restructured financing with services as part of the core formula for doing business, and for creating broader partner relationships at the local, state and federal levels for appropriate responses to service needs.

There is no question that the need for affordable housing is not always, or only, economic. Public housing households can bring multiple challenges to their tenancy that strain the community and the asset. Step 3 talks about a changing demographic in public housing which is, in some ways, becoming a more high-need population. Every community will need to find its appropriate balance between services the housing authority provides and those that a partner responds to. In either case, the cost of service coordination or service provision needs to part of the cost of doing business.

In addition, our efforts in helping residents to achieve economic self-sufficiency can be an important supply strategy for many communities. To the extent that residents can move into market-rate housing more quickly, the more rapidly our long waiting lists shrink.

HUD could provide strong leadership in this area by creating the kind of service partnerships at the federal level that most of us have created locally. And, as Step Six suggests, HUD could take it a step further and make its mission more clear. I believe that our industry’s primary focus and skill area is housing, and that essential services should come from strong partnerships with the Departments of Education, Labor, Justice and HHS. Coordinated funding that recognizes that public housing needs to be service enriched, and that public housing is a logical delivery system, is an important next step. 

STEP SIX: Fix HUD’s mission confusion

On July 29, 2009 the House Subcommittee on Housing and Opportunity held hearings on the future of public housing, The committee invited perspectives from the academic community. Of the eight experts testifying, seven spoke about the future of public housing uniquely in terms of outcomes related to residents. The physical asset or its operating structure was never mentioned, Only one expert, former Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing Orlando Cabrera, spoke about the need to preserve the real estate. This incongruity may be emblematic of mission confusion at HUD. HUD is focused on, and provides funding for, initiatives related to the asset, while the rest of America is interested in positive outcomes for people.

HUD’s PHI website captures a double bottom line, describing the ‘aim’ of public housing as follows:

The aim of the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) is to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing; create opportunities for residents’ self sufficiency and economic independence; and assure fiscal integrity by all program participants.

“

At the same time, I think it’s fair to assert that most PHAs receive funding for only this first part of the goal, yet have obligation and expectation for all service coordination and self-sufficiency. We rely on fund-raising, local grants and donations and creative partnership to cobble together services we find essential.

We need to bridge the incongruity between resources and expectations. As suggested above, HUD can provide leadership in modeling a service-enriched housing program and provide sustainable funds for service navigation and coordination at the local level. In my own organization we regularly revisit the question — are we a real estate provider, or are we a social services organization? I maintain that we are uniquely both. HUD should reinforce, or disavow, that opinion.

Putting it all together: Towards a more balanced housing policy

The very early vision for public housing imagined modest, affordable multi-family housing accessible to the greater public in the same way that the other great public institutions provide: schools, hospitals, transportation and libraries. This potentially powerful concept was disabled before the first federal housing legislation was inked. A coalition of private sector interests was successful in convincing the Congress to make public housing so unattractive and narrow in scope that its potential threat to private developers would be next to none. At the same time, the Congress enacted parallel legislation delivering rich resources to the goal of homeownership. This two-tiered system put public housing squarely at the bottom of the resource pile.

Given the recent lessons related to the risk of pressing too hard on a homeownership goal, the nation might be ready to consider a more balanced housing policy; one in which rental housing production and preservation could share many of the same tax and appropriation resources that the homeownership industry does.

This topic will be the third in this series.

[1] Proceedings from the Summit on the Future of Public Housing, 2008, page 2
[2] Proceedings from the Summit on the Future of Public Housing, 2008, page 2
[3] The Center on Budget and Policy Priority estimates; 2008.
[4] Testimony of Renee Glover to the House Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, February 2006

The following article is the first part of a three part series written by Betsey Martens, Executive Director of Boulder Housing Partners and President of NAHRO. The article was published in Housing & Community Development, January/February 2009.

What do the U. S. Shipping Act of 1917 and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program have in common? Quite a lot, as it turns out. The history of our industry is something many of us have rarely, if ever; considered. In celebration of NAHRO’s 75th anniversary, the author shares her political view of the history of housing, with apologies to the rigorous historians out there. 

For those of us who have dabbled a bit in the history of housing, our understanding of the beginning of housing history is marked by the passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. This article explores the idea that many of the challenges facing our affordable housing industry today have their genesis in the political compromises that precede the passage of the U.S. Housing Act of l937. The article also explores the conditions that are present in our nation’s early response to a housing crisis that resulted in a housing policy that apportions resources to the housing goals of the wealthy in greater measure than to the critical housing needs of the economically poor. Finally, the article looks at three key themes that will shine some light on how we might effectively affect significant change in American housing policy today.

Looking Back 
Housing was not a policy issue in our nation until the mid to late 1800s. Prior to that, before the industrialization of America, most Americans worked where they lived. By the 1950s, when massive job creation occurred in the cities and rural Americans and immigrants flooded the urban centers in great numbers, there was a critical housing shortage. The responses to housing need were private, profitable and often unsafe. Real estate deve1opers were turning old single-family homes into subdivided tenement homes. Where one family had lived, three, four and five families crammed into every inch of the building. 

Despite these deplorable tenement conditions of the late 1800s, federal policy-makers were sluggish about any kind of response; steadfast in their belief that housing solutions were the exclusive domain of the private and charitable sectors, and best left to cities and states to wrestle with. It follows, then, that the history of housing policy in the United States begins with the New York Housing Act of l879. 

Responding to workforce housing conditions that were characterized by a lack of fresh air, ventilation, fire protection and indoor plumbing, the Act intended to make conditions safer. However, the driving force behind the legislation was less a concern for the physical safety of residents but a greater concern that the deplorable housing conditions would influence the moral character of tenement residents. 

The New York Commissioner of the Tenement House Department observed that “there can be no question that the three great scourges of mankind-disease, poverty and crime-are in large measure due to bad housing.” [1] 

There was significant debate throughout much of the ear1y 20th centuty about whether unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions could shape a person’s character. By 1915, housing reformers had broadened their understanding of housing and began to see housing less as a moral character issue and a pathology and more as a necessary component of healthy neighborhoods. 

At this early point in our policy history, we have the first evidence that housing policy is often shaped by motivations that are not transparent, yet must be understood if we are to create a more advantageous policy for our industry today.
 

The First Federal Housing Program
The major cities of the east coast, particularly New York, continued to pass legis1ation adopting building codes and housing quality standards, while the federal government continued to see no role for itself in housing policy. The onset of World War I, though, changed that laissez-faire approach dramatically. Suddenly, the nation was in full-tilt production for the war effort. Workers were needed on both coasts to build ships, and housing was needed for the workforce. The U.S. Shipping Act of 1917 authorized President Woodrow Wilson to address the workforce housing problem and appropriated $100 million for the effort. 

In less than two years, approximately 16,000 homes were built on 120 sites with funds from the Shipping Act. The massive production allowed housing reformers to experiment on a grand scale. There were two dominant themes behind their plans. One was to design both homes  and communities that would shape the best possible workforce. And the second similar theme, was to create a captive work force. The goal was to “get them [workers] to invest their savings in their homes and own them. Then they won’t leave and they won’t strike. It ties them down so that they have a stake in our [factory owners] prosperity.”[2] 

In this distinct housing policy shift—from the industrial era, pre-war focus on the pathology of housing—reformers now argued for the benefits of a housing policy that would reduce labor turnover, increase productivity and promote social harmony.

In this thinking, we can see the second key piece of evidence that housing policy is motivated by interests that often stray far from the simple provision of shelter. 

The Beginning of the American Dream 
The end of the war led housing critics, congressmen and real estate agents to reassess the role of government in housing.[3] With the Armistice in November 1918, Congress ordered the halt of housing production on projects less than 75% complete. The government ordered the single-family homes to be sold at auction, losing more than half of its investment. In the end, only 27 of the projects were completed as planned. 

This less-than-admirable result cooled the nation’s enthusiasm for any further government involvement in housing. 

President Hoover refocused the nation’s attention on housing. In the 1920s, as Commerce Secretary, Hoover took a strong interest in the subject. In addition to his profound understanding of how housing could fuel the economy, Hoover worried that the declining number of homeowners could have serious political ramifications. He believed that insufficient housing would create a class system of tenants and landlords that would lead to widespread discontent, and possibly revolution 

As Commerce Secretary, Hoover elevated the role of the states in flowing capital to a housing production effort. As President, Hoover developed carefully calculated government policies that exalted and promoted the virtues of homeownership. Some scholars suggest that he was building on the early 19th century ideas of a deeply imbedded national belief in the supremacy of homeownership and the sovereignty and inviolability of the private housing market [4] 

His administration set the stage for the network of programs that facilitated the enormous increase in American homeownership—the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Home Loan Bank, and the Federal National Mortgage Association. 

This chapter of our housing history adds a third motivation to significant housing policy: fueling the economy and managing the classes.

Depression-fueled Housing Policy
The early 1930s gave rise to yet another different housing movement created by a number of forces. In the chaos of the early Roosevelt administration and the many New Deal initiatives his administration created, the Public Works Administration (PWA) housing program was enacted in 1933 as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The PWA built 25,000 units in 58 locations over 4 years. 

PWA projects were well received by the public because they were well built, neighborhood-friendly and families didn’t have to be eligible based on income. This three-part approach allowed for a wide variety in household demographic. Three years later in 1936, Congress required that PWA housing be available only to families with very little income. This administrative change had significant future consequences. 


Behind the scenes of the housing movement in the 30s was a powerful visionary named Catherine Bauer, author of the classic 1934 book titled Modem Housing. Bauer was prophetic in her belief that housing created solely for poor people, built in isolation from the fabric of the neighborhood, and administered in a top-down government program would be politically unpopular. She argued instead for a large-scale housing program, created by non-profits and cooperatives, divorced from commercial interests, and designed for families of all incomes using an architectural style that would allow differences in family wealth to be invisible. 

She was an early advocate of a multi-family approach in which amenities could be shared by entire neighborhoods and efficiencies in construction would deliver affordability to all. She was adamant in resisting a growing trend in housing of creating one type of housing style for the majority middle class and an inferior visually stigmatizing product for the poor. Bauer teamed up with Senator Wagner in 1935 to attempt translation of her ideas into a public housing program. The effort failed in 1935 and again in 1936. Finally, in 1937, he succeeded in winning the support of Congress for the U.S. Housing Act. While the program was enacted into law, the spirited principles endorsed by Bauer and others were completely lost in the political debate and the legislation was so compromised that they considered withdrawing it. 

Three significant compromises set the stage for the problems we continue to wrestle with today. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Board of Realtors and the Bankers Association were adamantly opposed to government involvement in housing production They successfully amended the bill so that instead of a unified, comprehensive national housing program, a two-tiered system was created. In the top tier, significant resources and infrastructure assured a continuous and robust flow of capital to the goal of American homeownership. In the bottom tier; a scarce and tightly controlled allocation would flow to housing for the poor. 


To ensure that the public housing program operate well outside the domain of the private sector, the lobby interests led by the realtors succeeded in these three key points:

• that public housing be eligible only to low-income families; 
• that public housing’s development costs he limited; and 
•  the creation of new housing be tied to the clearance of existing blighted properties.

The combination of the three requirements assured that public housing would be a separate and less equal housing product, hamstrung by the high cost of land purchase in the inner cities. The vision of a universally integrated, broadly accepted, strongly resourced program evaporated in 1937. A national housing program that focused scant resources on dense product in often undesirable locations produced the results that its detractors hoped for. The public’s understanding of public housing in the urban cities consisted of mammoth high-rise projects occupying super-blocks, many of which had been built to accommodate urban renewal and existed in stark isolation from surrounding neighborhoods. Segregated and readily identified as charity cases, “warehoused by society in gray fortresses that loomed menacingly over the cityscape, public housing residents had vacated crumbling tenements only to be placed in sterile silos.”[2] 
Alter WWII, Bauer and her group of housing reformers had a second shot at significant housing reform. Returning soldiers were challenged in finding housing that met their needs and the nation wondered, again, if its housing programs were up to the task. Despite a constant plea to turn the nation’s attention to the public housing program, the focus was, instead, on urban renewal. 


Even though the U.S. Housing Act of 1949 coined the now-famous national commitment that promises a “decent home for every American,” and even though the Act provided for the construction of 810,000 units of public housing over six years (the 1argest and most ambitious appropriation ever), public housing was a minor focus. It centered on slum clearance and downtown development-the goal of which was to elevate property values, boost tax revenues and encourage private investment in beleaguered central cities. Urban renaissance, not unmet housing needs, had the attention of Congress. Congressional appropriation of funds for public housing fell far short of the ambitious authorization of 810,000 units. Production limped along at an average annual rate of 20,000 units. 


President Kennedy’s campaign for office was plagued by the class and race problems endemic of the time and made more difficult by the problems encountered in some public housing in the large cities. As a savvy politician, he turned the nation’s housing attention towards a demographic that was far more politically popular—the elderly. Kennedy’s administration ushered in the Section 202 program and legislated admission for the elderly in public housing. This smart political move, restored some of the nation’s faith in the potential of public housing.
The passage of the Brooke Amendment in 1969 tied public housing rent to tenant income, This change marked the beginning of the serious financial problems encountered by public housing today. While excellent in concept, the Brooke Amendment gave rise to funding mechanisms that have hamstrung-and nearly crippled the public housing inventory. 

Gathering the Meaning and Moving Forward 
From this brief review of the political history of affordable housing we can clearly identify a number of themes that will be important in framing the next major initiative in federal housing policy.


The first theme is the centuries old confusion, if not outright conflict, about the role of the federal government in the provision of housing. To extent that the federal role has always been viewed as competition for and a threat to, the private sector inventory, at least one solution path is obvious-a consistent partnership of the private sector in affordable housing. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has shown us that, even despite the inefficient deployment of taxes to incent housing production, it’s a successful and politically popular model. Public housing should certainly pursue its own variation on the theme. The second theme requires an understanding that the significant housing policy initiatives in our nation’s history have rarely grown out of an authentic vision of doing anything remarkable for families sidelined by the market. The drivers for policy change have consistently been two: a need to fuel the economy and a desire to shape, or control, behavior. Public housing advocates often strategize around the goodness of our mission and miss the key strategic leverage points. Public housing reform needs to be tied to economic development, community revitalization and social improvement. 


A third conclusion requires an appreciation for how radically the adopted public housing program departed from the original vision imagined in the 1930s, and how the resulting creation of a two-tiered national housing policy continues to work today. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition report titled “Changing Priorities,”[5] housing-related tax expenditures in 2006 were $120 billion, compared to HUD’s $30 billion for low income housing. Housing-related tax expenditures are for mortgage interest deduction, properly tax deduction, capital gains avoidance, and investor deductions. This means that the subsidy to promote and encourage homeownership for relatively wealthy Americans is almost four times greater than the subsidy for the nation’s poorest citizens. This confirmation that we have a de-facto two-tiered system has been little challenged. But, as we face the fact that many working Americans can’t afford the two-bedroom fair market rent in most communities, the idea that the mortgage interest and property tax deduction investments-the top tier of our national housing policy-needs to be rethought seems to be gaining some acceptance. 


Finally, this review of history suggests that, since public housing is now so disabled by genuine and disingenuous attempts to fix it since its compromised 1937 birth, we need to start with an entirely new paradigm if there is to be place-based housing for very low-income Americans in the 21st century. The key ingredients of a new policy may well include: 

• Strategic partnerships with the private sector 
• Public ownership and stewardship of the assets 
• Targeting of the greatest need married with mid-market eligibility 
• Excellent project design that integrates into, and improves, neighborhoods 
• A single-tiered housing policy that creates opportunity for all 

Returning to the question posed at the beginning of the article, the Shipping Act and the tax credit program share the common features of having harnessed market forces and sentiment to win broad appeal for significant housing production. If we can learn from these ideas from our housing history, we are better positioned to advance the next chapter.

[1] Hutchison, Janet, “Shaping Housing and Enhancing Consumption”, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

[2] Fairbanks, Robert, “From Better Dwellings to Better Neighborhoods”, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

[3] Radford, Gall. “The Federal Government and Housing During the Great Depression”. Pennsylvania Sale Universally Press 2000.

[4] Notional low Income Housing Coalition, “Changing Priorities: The Federal Budget and Housing Assistance, 1976-2007”.  August 2002.

[5] Karolak, Eric. “No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful”, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

The following key points provide a brief description of BHP’s proposed 1175 Lee Hill community

Summary

• Two-story, 31-unit apartment community with on-site supportive services.
• Each apartment has its own bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room.
• It is a rental apartment community, not a shelter.

There are eligibility requirements.

• Must not earn more than 30% of Boulder’s area median income (about $19,500).
• Must demonstrate a motivation and willingness to participate in the program.
• Must have lived in Boulder for at least one year.
• Criminal background checks will be required; sex offenders are not allowed.

There are rules regarding residency.

• Residents will pay a monthly rent.
• Residents will abide by the terms of a lease or risk eviction.
• Residents must meet with a case manager in order to receive supportive services.
• Residents must meet the HUD definition of chronically homeless: (1) experienced homelessness for more than a year and (2) diagnosed with at least two disabling health conditions.
• Just like any other affordable rental unit, there is no time limit on the length of occupancy; residents can stay as long as they meet the residency requirements and abide by the lease.

Resident success will be evaluated based on three key criteria.

• Ability to stay housed for 2 years.
• Increased skills and income.
• Greater self-determination.

It is based on the Housing First model, a national best practice proven to end chronic homelessness and save taxpayer dollars.

• Formerly homeless individuals are more likely to achieve long-term stability through supportive services after they are housed.
• On-site case managers facilitate access to healthcare, counseling, job training and federal benefits.
• A Denver study found that emergency-related costs for Housing First participants decreased by 73% during a two-year period, a total annual savings of $31,545 per participant.

It will be designed and managed to integrate with the surrounding community.

• Proximity to BHP will maximize property management oversight and control operating costs.
• Humphries Poli Architects has designed similar, award-winning communities for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.
• Precautionary safety measures include security patrols, surveillance cameras, and restricted building access.

It is consistent with more than ten years of local planning and zoning regulations.

• It meets the City’s land use code definition: a facility providing long-term housing in multi-family dwelling units…where participation in a program of supportive services is required as a condition of residency to assist tenants in working towards independence from financial, emotional, or medical conditions that limit their ability to find housing for themselves.
• It is an allowable use under the site’s BT-2 (Business Transitional) zoning status.
• Expanding the Housing First program is a goal of the Boulder County 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness.

For additional information visit: www.boulderhousingpartners.org. Click “Housing Development” and “1175 Lee Hill.”

Interested in learning more about affordable housing by getting a first-hand experience with the residents, properties, or Boulder Housing Partners?

Try volunteering for BHP out! Volunteering is a great way to get involved with your community, and also learn about something you may be interested in. You can either volunteer individually or get a group together. Volunteers carry out the company’s mission by providing services to the residents, groups of residents, or the employees of BHP.

Group Volunteering

If you choose to volunteer as a group you can do a wide range of activities such as garden cleaning, painting, limited landscaping, game playing, community dinners, and many other activities.

Individual Volunteering

Individual volunteering can involve all of the previous activities along with one-on-one interactions with residents to assist with any issues they may have. These interactions include exercise program teacher, T’ai Chi instructor, apartment packer, office volunteer, music teacher, gardener, computer skills teacher, and more.  If you choose interaction as your mode of volunteering, you must undergo a criminal background check, maintain resident confidentiality, and consent to supervision from the volunteer program. Sound interesting? Get involved!

How to Apply

1. Contact the volunteer coordinator (below) and setup an interview
2. Fill out the volunteer application and other forms requested by the coordinator
3. Undergo a three month probationary period as soon as a match has been chosen and agreed upon
4. You will be in the chosen match permanently or until the job is complete

For questions or more information, contact Volunteer/Intern Coordinator:

Richard A. Butler
butlerr@boulderhousingpartners.org
303-435-2786 303

Other Options

If volunteering isn’t for you, and you are a current college student, check out BHP’s internship program.

Is affordable housing is a passion of yours or you have experience in the field, check out BHP’s job openings and see if there is something for you.

Source:

http://boulderhousing.org/node/30

Looking for an affordable place to live? Boulder Housing Partners has about 400 affordable housing properties throughout the city of Boulder that are available to all different age groups. Properties include apartments, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and studios. Many of the rentals are in prime locations, including places near the Pearl Street Mall and in North, South, and Central Boulder.

Boulder Housing Partners continues to develop and acquire new properties for affordable housing. The latest development at Red Oak Park created 59 single-family duplex and triplex units. The next big project, High Mar, will have 59 affordable units for seniors age 62 + and is scheduled to be finished by 2013. With all the new opportunities for affordable housing be sure to check out the units and find out what properties you qualify for.

We will keep updates on new properties that are available for rent so make sure to keep up with the blog in the future for pictures and videos of properties currently eligible for rental in future blogs.

If you are single, senior or a family looking for a place to rent in Boulder call us today!

720 564 4610

 Visit these websites (below) frequently for locations and Boulder Affordable Rental properties:
http://www.boulderhousing.org/locations
http://www.boulderhousing.org/list-bhp-properties

Hello,

I am a part of a group of CU-Boulder students who will be writing the Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) blog for the next several months, bringing you news and information regarding BHP and affordable housing in general. Here is the latest news regarding the newest of BHP’s projects:

On Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Boulder Housing Partners had a media day to introduce Red Oak Park. The $13-million project, which is replacing the mobile home park called Boulder Mobile Manor, is centrally located near the intersection of Folsom St. and Valmont Rd. Only blocks from the Pearl Street Mall and the 29^th Street Mall, this affordable housing property is in a fantastic location.

Featuring 10 different floor plans for single-family homes, duplexes, and triplexes in 59 homes, Red Oak Park will provide permanent affordable housing in an amazing neighborhood community. Of the first 10 homes that are completed, 6 families from the Boulder Mobile Manor mobile home park have returned claiming “it’s a lot better.” These Energy Star-certified homes will provide affordable rent to those who qualify. The rent is dependent on each household’s income.

The neighborhood also has potential plans to develop commercial and retail space designed to serve the Red Oak Park community. The development is a huge step toward providing as much permanent affordable housing as possible. Here is a short video featuring residents talking about Red Oak Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8SUYZ-4SYw&feature=player_embedded

Currently under review by the public and the Board of Commissioners is the proposal to replace the wait list system with a lottery system, which has the potential to create fairness, increase efficiency and decrease costs.  The Board will reivew the final proposal on December 13, 2010, with the possibility of adopting the change.

There is a waitlist of three to six years to become a resident in this program, which shows the extremely high demand for affordable housing in the City of Boulder. Many people on the waitlists are discouraged and disappear after a year, thus the cost of trying to track these people is costly and inefficient for the organization. The demand for housing is an immediate need, not one where families can afford to be displaced and sit around waiting for years to get housing. They have to find a means of housing as soon as possible and may not be able to bear the burden of waiting on a lengthy wait list. The annual lottery would give everyone who is eligible an equal and fair chance to get housing in a timely fashion.

The section 8 voucher program is a federally funded program designed to assist low-income families with their housing needs.  BHP offers 857 vouchers to subsidize private sector rent. To qualify to participate in this program there is a maximum gross income limit depending on household size, which is equal to 50% of the area median income:

·      Individual $31,400,

·      Family of two is $35,850

·      Family of three is $40,350,

·      Family of four is $44,800

The proposed change has the ability to help families make housing decisions faster as well as help the community to become more efficient in their allocation of affordable housing options. Many local cities already have the lottery system in place such as Denver, Jefferson County, City of Longmont, and Adams County, as well as cities nationally such as Chicago, Indianapolis and New Orleans.

Boulder is primarily known to outsiders as a college town and people associate the city with a large amount of young people. People that live in Boulder know this to be true only in a small area around the campus. Boulder is a thriving economy with many innovative young businesses and contains people of all origins, creeds and ages. One age group that tends to be forgotten in our community is our elders. There are a few retirement communities in Boulder but very few that exist for those who can’t afford the expensive rents that are present there. Boulder Housing Partners is stepping in to make a community that will fit this niche.

The plans for the High Mar Redevelopment are underway. The development will be located in a community called Martin Acres where the High Mar Swim and Tennis Club used to exist. It will contain 59 affordable housing units in one apartment complex. The development will be age restricted to anyone over 62 years old and will be designed with that in mind. The complex is three floors with elevator access to all units. The units will be one and two bedrooms with private decks or patios. The residents will have beautiful views of landscaped courtyards and a community garden. The development is in South Boulder on Moorhead Drive and is within walking distance to many services. High Mar will be finished in 2013 but applications are being taken into consideration early. If you or someone you know would like to apply for the development please click here.

People often underestimate the power of a community which is open and upfront with its identity of who it is and who it wants to be. This identity translates, in the case of Boulder, CO into a community which values diversity and equality. When you see people and organizations within community reach out to each other to lend their time and efforts to support the fostering of learning and growth to those in need, you know that such a community has something special. With the sponsorship of Elevations Credit Union, and volunteer ESL teachers from Intercambio de Communidades of Boulder, Boulder Housing Partners residents were able to receive English classes on site and at no cost to the families. Intercambio de Communidades has been around for ten years now and focuses on assisting in the integration of immigrants into our society. They provide classes specializing in the education of immigrants dealing with various life situations from foreign language barriers, to opening a bank account to getting insured in the United States.

Elevations Credit Union has been a wonderful, pro-active sponsor for Boulder Housing Partners. Elevations contributed a $4,000 matching grant, which was used to purchase workbooks for  English as a Second Language classes taught by volunteers from Intercambio de Communidades. Elevations also sponsors paperwork management courses designed to create educational and organizational systems tp assist elderly  residents with paperwork needed for government housing recertification processes.

Boulder Housing Partners is  thankful for the generous financing from Elevations as well as Intercambio’s well-trained staff who work with our resident students.  BHP values these partnerships, which are instrumental in helping to make the community a better place to live in for all.

To learn more about Intercambio de Communidades, watch their informational video here or view their blog here. To follow Elevations’ community activity visit their Twitter page here.

Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) aims to maximize the amount of positive impact it has on its residents. For an organization to support its ambitions there is a critical need for resource funding. The Boulder Housing Partners Foundation was created as a non-profit 501 (c) (3) to support resident services activities at BHP thru its advocacy and fundraising efforts. A   501(c) (3) is a tax-exempt non-profit organization allowing individuals to make tax deductible donations.  The mission of the Boulder Housing Partners Foundation is to help Boulder Housing Partners residents pursue successful, productive and dignified lives by mobilizing resources for supportive, life-enriching, and community building services.

November Online Fundraising Event

The Foundation will be having an online fundraiser at the end of  November to help raise funds for services for the 1,600 very low-income, elderly and disabled families who call Boulder Housing Partners home. The residents wish for the basic essentials; textbooks and resources for classes to learn English or receive tutoring, aesthetically pleasing communities, and playground equipment. We ask for you to help them realize these dreams and wishes by donating to the Boulder Housing Partners Foundation. Please make your tax deductible donation help the residents live, learn and succeed. To donate or for information on donating please visit us HERE.

The construction of Red Oak Park is moving along on schedule. The former home of Boulder Mobile Manor, a 60-year-old, 66-units mobile home park, this area just off of Folsom and Valmont is becoming an eco-friendly Boulder Affordable Housing Program for both former Mobile Manor residents, and other community members needing an affordable housing option. Now four months into the construction that started in early June, people are starting to get excited about this new housing development.

Residents of this site were relocated in October 2008 to other affordable rental units in Boulder.  It is anticipated that a third of the original families will move back.

As the phases are completed, former residents will be given first priority on these new units. Originally, only Boulder residents earning up to 50 percent of the area median income would have been eligible to rent the homes. Now, about one-quarter of the project will be available for those who earn up to 30 percent or 40 percent of the area median income. These new conditions are ideal for those who used to live here and want to move back to their new and environmentally friendly community.

The first phase expected completion is February 2011 with the entire project being completed by fall 2011, people are excited about the opening of Red Oak Park. Plans for additional  phases which may include commercial units to serve the tenants are also being considered for the future. Keep your eye out for more updates on the progress of this very exciting Boulder Affordable Housing development, at www.boulderhousing.org.  

     From October 6^th to October 15^th, Boulder Housing Partners opened the Waitlist for applications for the Public Housing, Glen Willow Apartments and Broadway East Communities, and it was a big success.  Applications are still being entered and counted, but as of now, there are over 200 applications!   This shows just how much demand for Public Housing exists is in Boulder. 

     Public Housing is a program through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  In this program, the rent is based on 30% of a renter’s adjusted gross income.  Depending on the property, either all utilities are included in the rent or residents are given an allowance to assist them in paying for utilities.  Additionally, for Boulder Housing Partner’s waitlist, priority is given to families, elderly, and people with disabilities who live or work within the city limits of Boulder.

      Two Section 8 Project Based communites whose waitlists were open are the Glen Willow Apartments and the Broadway East Communities.  Glen Willow is located at 3^rd and Pearl and consists of studio, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units, 34 units here.  It lies right by the foothills and is geared towards the family community. The Broadway East Communities sits next to the North Boulder Recreation Center, and has 44 units of both two- and three-bedroom apartments.  Broadway East partners with the I Have a Dream Foundation, the after-school tutoring and social development support.  Broadway East has a new classroom for Dreamers to be tutored (link to other blog).   In both communities, residents pay rent based of 30% of gross income.

Broadway East Community

     Programs like Public Housing allow communities to stay affordable which keeps the community diverse and allows people to live where they work.  It also allows families who are struggling to afford a place to live and give them stability while they work towards self-sufficiency. 

The waitlist closed again on October 15^th, but be sure to check out Boulder Housing Partners website for more updates on the openings of new waitlists.

Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) awards three Partnership Awards three times a year to an individual, business, organization or volunteer that has helped BHP communities create and sustain affordable housing.

This month the third set of awards are being given and one of the highlighted recipients is a nonprofit organization Based out of Denver, Open Media Foundation (DOM). 

Open Media Foundation is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to “put power of the media and technology in the hands of the people in order to enable every person to actively engage in their community and bring about the change they wish to see in the world.”  DOM has been working with BHP for about a year and a half. They started working with BHP as their web developer and currently design and maintain their  Web site, www.boulderhousing.org.

Boulder Housing Partners and DOM become partners through recommendations from other nonprofits who had used their services and with the help of Krystle Brandt at BHP. 

Open Media’s work for BHP has expanded beyond web development and into print design, form building, PR Folders and more. Open Media Foundation has been a great partner to Boulder Housing Partners and is a key asset to their organization.  We look forward to a long working relationship.

For more information on the Open Media Foundation visit their Web site at: www.openmediafoundation.org and check out their awesome work at www.boulderhousing.org