Another Round in the Debate Over Who Is Truly Homeless

August 25, 2014

The National Alliance to End Homelessness has again raised objections to the proposed Homeless Children and Youth Act — the formal title of a pair of bills now pending in Congress.

As I earlier wrote, they would expand the definition of “homeless” that controls uses communities may make of their federal homeless assistance grants.

They would, among other things, extend eligibility to homeless children and youth if they’re living doubled up with friends or relatives or in a cheap motel, just as they’re already eligible for services from public schools that receive funds under another part of the same law.

Families and children could become eligible in other ways as well, as could youth who are out in the world by themselves, without a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”

NAEH argues that federal funds for homeless people can’t even meet the needs of those already eligible. “Tens of thousands of families and unaccompanied youth go unsheltered every night,” it says, “because there is not enough money to serve them all.”

No one, I think, would say otherwise. Funding for homeless assistance grants has remained virtually flat since Fiscal Year 2010. And they will get either no increase or a very small one when Congress gets around to agreeing on funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

NAEH also notes egregious under-funding for programs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers for unaccompanied youth who’ve run away from home or are homeless for other reasons.

These programs, plus HUD’s serve barely 14% of these youth now, according to the Alliance’s estimates.

But NAEH goes further. “[M]ost people in doubled up households are not homeless,” it says. And the HEARTH Act, which governs HUD’s homeless assistance program, already covers those who are.

Some of them are people who’ll have no place to stay at the end of two weeks. Others are those who’ve fled — or urgently need to flee — the place they’ve been living because of domestic violence or some other dangerous situation, if they don’t have the resources or networks to move into other housing.

For the rest, NAEH says, the answer is HUD-funded rental assistance. But, it continues, there’s not enough money for that either. Indeed.

Only about one in four very low-income households receives rental assistance, according to HUD’s latest (somewhat outdated) assessment. And the prospects for the remainder are dismal.

In fact, we may be looking at a loss of even more than the 72,000 or so housing vouchers local agencies retired to deal with the across-the-board cuts in 2013, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

Like as not, the agencies will also have to keep more public housing units vacant because they won’t have the funds to make essential repairs.

So NAEH is right in saying that we need a significant increase in funding for affordable housing.

What divides the Alliance from the large coalition that supports the bills is its view that we need to preserve the current restrictive definition of “homeless” so that “the very limited resources” available remain “dedicated to children, youth, and families who are without any housing at all.”

It essentially pits their needs against those of families and youth who are living doubled up. The proposed legislation, it says, “asks people living on the street and in shelter to compete with them.”

Not really. The bills would merely allow communities to include services for the newly-eligible families and unaccompanied youth in the plans they must submit to receive homeless assistance grants — and prohibit HUD from denying them grants merely because it has other priorities.

The larger issue, I suppose, is whether we should draw a bright, white line between families who are living with Aunt Suzy one month and a charitable friend the next and those who’ve exhausted such options.

Should we put families living in motels through two extra weeks of acute anxiety and stress before we offer them HUD-funded rapid re-housing, knowing they won’t have enough money to stay where they are?

And do we really want young people who’ve left their families, been kicked out or aged out of foster care to bounce from one couch to another when we know this puts them at risk of abuse, problems (or worse problems) in school and more?

NAEH apparently feels we must because the Homeless Children and Youth Act doesn’t increase funding.

The National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth vehemently disagrees. It’s “nonsensical,” the Association says, to define a problem by the funding currently available to address it.

That just gives policymakers “an unrealistic view of the scope of the problem.” Congress “needs to know who and how many people are without housing in order to define effective solutions,” NAEHCY contends.

This seems to me as incontrovertible as what NAEH says about insufficient federal funding for both homeless and affordable housing programs. Yet Congress already knows more than enough to know it’s short-changing them.

Amending the HEARTH Act to include doubled-up families, motel-dwellers who can’t afford their rooms, couch-surfers and others precariously and perhaps unsafely housed would give communities more flexibility to develop plans based on their own assessments of local needs.

But until we have a Congress that’s prepared to spend more on our safety net, every dollar spent on the newly-eligible will be a dollar less for other homeless people — at least so far as federal dollars are concerned.

That much, I think, NAEH is right about. Whether dollars spent to keep doubled-up families and the rest from joining the already-eligible on the streets or in shelters is another matter.


New Rule Shows Need to Rename DC’s Rapid Re-Housing Program

August 7, 2014

The District’s Department of Human Services has issued another emergency rule* for its rapid re-housing program — formally named the Family Re-Housing and Stabilization Program. The notice says that the agency intends to make this one permanent.

It’s got me wondering what DHS has in mind for its rapid re-housing program — and what we should have in mind. Here’s why.

DHS has, in the past, looked to rapid re-housing as its main tool for getting homeless families out of the DC General shelter quickly so as to free up space for more. That has never worked out as planned, but it’s still apparently reflected in the agency’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

The budget assumes only 150 families at DC General and allocates no funds whatever for hotel rooms if this assumption proves egregiously over-optimistic.

So you’d think that DHS would give its all to make rapid re-housing an attractive option for homeless families — and to get all takers rapidly re-housed. You’d also think its recent experience with the Mayor’s 500 Families in 100 Days campaign would have made an imprint.

I’m thinking here about how the campaign managed to identify something pretty close to the targeted 500 acceptable units landlords would rent to families with only short-term housing subsidies.

Lots of outreach by nonprofits that had relationships with potentially willing landlords. Efforts to acquaint them with rapid re-housing — something hopeful parents couldn’t always do on their own. Reassurances that reportedly included promises of financial help if tenants defaulted.

Yet the FRSP rule instead requires homeless families to find suitable units, sign leases for them and actually move in within 30 days.

As a fallback, they can attempt to prove they’ve done their best to find a unit that a landlord will rent to them at a rate consistent with the applicable affordability standard — and one that can pass inspection.

Only then can the service provider they’ve been assigned to offer them a unit that’s already been identified as suitable and available, assuming such exists. The rule makes no provision for maintaining an inventory of units.

The burden on homeless families is consistent with what the emergency rule says FRSP will do — “provide District residents with financial assistance for purposes of helping them become rapidly re-housed” (emphasis added).

Staying re-housed is a whole other matter. DC Fiscal Policy Institute analyst Kate Coventry notes that families must initially pay 40% of their rental costs, rather than the 30% that’s used for public housing and indefinite-term housing vouchers — and more generally, as the maximum for housing affordability.

Families will then become responsible for increasing shares of their rent every four months, when their provider decides whether they’re still eligible for rapid re-housing. Or at the very least, their ability to pick up a bigger share will be a factor.

This is consistent with initial eligibility, as the rule defines it. Only families providing information leading to “a reasonable expectation” that they “will have the financial capacity to pay the full amount at the end of the FRSP assistance period” can qualify.

So in one respect, shifting the rent burden to them at four-month intervals might seem reasonable, especially because they’ll get no subsidy at the end of a year — unless their need for further assistance is “caused by extraordinary circumstances.” What those might be the rule doesn’t say.

We can assume, however, that merely lacking enough money to pay the rent won’t suffice. So a reality check seems in order.

Families who’ll get top priority for FRSP are those in a publicly-funded shelter or transitional housing and those who’ve been designated Priority One because they have no safe place to spend the night.

A large majority of those at DC General are enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This means they are dirt poor and relying, at least officially, on benefits that wouldn’t begin to cover rental costs in the District.

By way of reference, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three will probably be about $438 come October. A modest one-bedroom apartment costs, on average, roughly $1,240 a month, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rent calculations.

So a family that’s relying on TANF would have to rapidly bootstrap its way up the income scale to avoid becoming homeless again when its FRSP subsidy expired. And I do mean up. A full-time minimum wage job would leave the parent in our three-person family with about $305 for expenses after s/he paid the rent on the FMR apartment.

In short, FRSP, as now designed, may rapidly re-house homeless families. But it shouldn’t lay claim to stabilization. And though the name still does, the new rule doesn’t.

DCFPI’s comments on the new rule observe that the one it replaces defined the purpose of the program as “assisting … [families] to obtain and remain in a new rental unit.”

Now “and remain” is gone. And the rule is utterly silent on services that might help some rapidly re-housed families become stably housed, though one infers they will receive case management of some sort.

Arguably, even a year (or less) in a reasonably decent private apartment is better than enduring conditions at DC General. But respite from shelter isn’t what rapid re-housing is supposed to be about.

It’s undoubtedly all that some families need to get through a bad patch, e.g., an injury that sidelined the breadwinner for awhile, an over-long break between contracts.

And it’s altogether possible that some other families will overcome barriers that have made them unable to afford market-rate rents for a long time. But I doubt we’ll find all that many of them at DC General — or entitled to shelter, if it’s freezing cold, because they’re designated Priority One.

And I suspect DHS shares these doubts. How else to explain the retreat from the goal of stabilization?

* Unlike ordinary rules, emergency rules become effective immediately, rather than after the public has had an opportunity to comment. The District’s Administrative Procedures Act says they are for occasions when “the adoption of a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, welfare, or morals.”

 


New Insights Into Housing (In)security for DC’s Lowest-Income Residents

July 24, 2014

Nobody who lives in the District of Columbia — or follows housing issues — needs to be told that rents are too damn high here. Nor that they consume an inordinate portion of low-income residents’ budgets.

A just-released study by the Urban Institute is nonetheless newsworthy because it provides many and diverse figures on our affordable housing situation, along with details on our homeless population and its needs — met and unmet.

The full study covers not only the District, but other jurisdictions in the Washington metro area. So we get comprehensive figures and interesting opportunities for comparisons.

As is always the case, however, the figures for the District understate affordability problems because they’re based on the median income for the entire area.

For the 2009-11 period covered by the housing portion of the study, that was $106,100 for a family of four. By way of rough comparison, the median income for four-person D.C. families was $84,400 last year.

But we’ve got to go with what we’ve got. So here are a few of the many things one can extract about what the study labels housing security in the District. As you’ll see, it might more appropriately be labeled housing insecurity for the lowest-income residents.

Housing Burdens

The Urban Institute, like most analysts, uses the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s affordability measures.

HUD sets 30% of household income as the affordability cut-off. A household that pays more is said to have a housing-cost burden. A household that pays more than half its income has a severe housing-cost burden.

Slightly more than half of all District households were, to some degree, cost-burdened — and 28% severely so. But housing-cost burdens were vastly more common for the District’s 63,700 or so extremely low-income households, i.e., those with incomes at or below 30% of the area median.

All but 16% of them paid more than 30% of their income for housing — generally rent, plus basic utilities, though 18% were classified as homeowners.

And nearly two-thirds (66%) had a severe housing-cost burden. This is nearly three times greater than the percent for very low-income households, i.e., those in the next income tier.

Rental Housing Availability

The rental housing market was — and still is — extremely tight. Of the total rent units the Urban Institute identified, only 8% were vacant during the 2009-11 period.

So the old law of supply and demand helps explain the housing-cost burdens for lower-income residents, as well as the cost burdens for some much better-off households.

Only 26% of the units rented for less than $800 a month — roughly what an extremely low-income family of four could afford.

But the story is more complicated. About a third of these units were occupied by higher-income households. And only 0.9% of them were vacant.

So the rental housing market was shy 22,100 units that extremely low-income families could have lived in without a cost burden.

More units affordable for very low-income households were occupied by those with higher incomes. But because the District has more such units — and because more were vacant — the Urban Institute finds no shortage.

Subsidized Housing

In 2012, HUD subsidized roughly 33,900 housing units in the District. Housing Choice (formerly Section 8) vouchers accounted for 41% — some of them vouchers awarded to developers so they could charge affordable rents and some given directly to eligible households, which could then rent on the open market.

Public housing accounted for an additional 25% of the affordable units. Subsidies for the remaining 11,600 units came from a mix of programs. It’s not clear that all these units were affordable for the District’s lowest-income households.

What is clear is that there were far more extremely-low income households than HUD-subsidized units — and that the District’s own voucher program fell far short of closing the gap.

Looking only at renter households, the Urban Institute reports 43 subsidized units for every 100 extremely low-income households during the 2009-11 period. This, recall, is before HUD’s budget got hit by sequestration.

What’s Missing

As informative — and depressing — as all these numbers are, they tell only part of the story. We need also to consider where the affordable units were.

As the Urban Institute says, “they may not be in neighborhoods of opportunity that were transit accessible, close to jobs, or had amenities like grocery stores.” For the District, this is probably more apt now as gentrification has spread.

We need also to consider whether the affordable units were livable. The recent Washington Post exposé of conditions at Park Southern tells us that some surely weren’t. Leaks, mold, rotting dead birds on the stairwell, etc.

Not a unique case, by any means, as a recent NPR story indicates.

What Now?

It would be nice to end this long post with a policy solution. The best I can do isn’t good enough.

Clearly, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute says, we need to invest more in affordable housing. Like the Urban Institute, it also says we should increase the total number of housing units, since this could relieve the demand pressures that are driving up costs.

The”we” here ought to be the federal government, as well as our local government and private sources. But it almost surely won’t be any time soon — even if the House doesn’t altogether get its way on what the HUD budget should be.

We need also to help extremely and very low-income households join the higher income tiers. An obviously large and varied agenda here.

 


Should DC Support More Affordable Housing … or Less?

July 7, 2014

The DC Council has two bills pending that force decisions on how — and to what extent — local taxpayer dollars should be used to create and preserve affordable housing in our increasingly unaffordable market.

One bill quite clearly would increase the stock of housing affordable to low and moderate-income residents. The other would, over time, have the opposite effect, though it’s doubtful that’s what the sponsors intend.

Leveraging Public Land

A bill introduced by Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie would require private-sector developers that buy or lease District-owned land for multi-family housing to make a specific portion of units affordable for specific categories of low-income residents.

The requirements would apply to both rental housing and condos, but in both cases, only those with 10 or more units.

For housing near a Metro station, major bus route or streetcar line, at least 30% of the units would have to be affordable. A 20% minimum would apply to housing less convenient to public transit.

Those who know how dicey affordable housing requirements can be will be pleased to know that the bill sets quotas. These are all based on the customary 30% of household income and, as is also customary, the Washington-area median income, adjusted for family size.

The affordable unit requirements differ according to the type of housing, as well as where it’s located.

For rental housing, 25% of the set-aside units would have to be affordable for what the bill defines as very low-income households — those whose incomes are no greater than 30% of the AMI. (Those familiar with U.S. Department of Housing standards know them as extremely low-income households.)

The rest of the units would have to be affordable for households in the next tier — 31-50% of the AMI. For a four-person household, this would currently mean a maximum monthly cost of about $1,338 a month.

Half the set-aside for ownership units would have to be affordable for households in this tier. The remainder would have to be affordable for households with incomes between 51% and 80% of the AMI.

These restrictions would remain in place “for the life of the building,” which I assume means for as long as it’s used for housing. (Keep reading to see why this is so important.)

The District would subsidize the affordable units by selling or leasing the land at less than its appraised value. Developers could request waivers from the affordable unit requirements if that, plus other subsidies wasn’t enough.

Cutting Back of Affordability Requirements

A bill introduced by Councilmember Anita Bonds would change rules designed to ensure that condos and single-family dwellings developed with Housing Production Trust Fund subsidies remain affordable for a goodly number of years.

As things stand now, owners of subsidized units generally must sell them at a price that’s affordable to other people in the same income bracket until 15 years have passed — or longer if their purchase agreement says so.

Once the time limit expires, they can sell to anyone at any price. But they must reimburse the Trust Fund for the subsidy that made the home affordable for them. The time limit drops to 10 years if the home is in a high-poverty neighborhood. The repayment requirement remains the same.

The Bonds bill would cap the affordability limit at 15 years, making some types of homeowner affordability programs ineligible.

More importantly, it would reduce the affordability requirement to five years for homes in “distressed neighborhoods.” Owners could then sell at whatever price they could get.

They’d still have to repay the Trust Fund. So it might seem that the subsidy were merely being recycled — repaid by one owner, available for the next.

But in a housing market like the District’s, the second subsidy would often have to be larger. And the cost of subsidizing the creation of a new affordable unit would generally have to be larger yet.

So the repayment wouldn’t fund a replacement in either case — or at least not in the same neighborhood as the unit that got sold at market rate. At best, the Trust Fund would be re-creating affordable homeownership units, rather than expanding the shrunken stock.

Which brings us to the second big problem with the Bonds bill — the definition of “distressed neighborhoods.” It would reduce the definition used for the current 10-year time limit from a 30% to a 20 % poverty rate.

For technical reasons, the rate wouldn’t reflect the current poverty rate, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s Jenny Reed has explained. So we’d have many “distressed neighborhoods” that haven’t been distressed for some time, e.g., Columbia Heights, Logan Circle, parts of Penn Quarter.

The five-year limit would also apply to neighborhoods that will soon be wholly redeveloped — and pricey. I see condos sprouting up near the Navy Yard every time I walk down that way.

The end result would be affordable housing losses in nearly 40% of the District’s Census tracts — the technical definition of “neighborhoods.”

And as housing advocate Angie Rodgers points out, it’s not only prospective homeowners who’d be affected. Any new Trust Fund money invested on their behalf would mean less to subsidize affordable rental housing, which we’re already so short on.

Preserving the current affordability requirements wouldn’t deny homeowners the opportunity to build wealth, as homeownership is said to do. It would merely ensure that future homeowners can benefit from subsidies we’ve paid for to preserve some modicum of diversity and opportunity in our community.

The current law probably isn’t the best way to do this, as Urban Institute housing and community policy expert Brett Theodos (and others) have explained.

But it’s a whole lot better than shrinking the time limits — and over-defining neighborhoods that prospective homeowners might shy away from if they couldn’t turn a maximum profit for 15 years.


HUD Budget Bill Shortchanges Homeless and Affordable Housing Programs

May 29, 2014

The DC Housing Authority figures it will need $1.3 billion to preserve all the public housing units it operates. It’s not expecting anything like that any time soon, as Dena Levitz at The Atlantic reports.

In fact, its share of what Congress provides for public housing development and maintenance is currently about $11 million less than in 2000. And it’s short on funds for operating costs too.

At the same time, DCHA has an affordable housing waiting list so long that it decided to close it somewhat over a year ago.

This reflects an acute shortage of federal funds not only for public housing, but for vouchers, including the kind that extremely low-income people can use to help pay market rate rents.

These shortages help explain the very high number of homeless people in the District, though they’re certainly not the only factor. We must also look to soaring housing costs and inadequate local funding for affordable housing programs.

These aren’t problems for the District alone. New York City, for example, had more than 64,000 homeless people during last year’s one-night count. There too, low-income residents face skyrocketing rents, relatively stagnant incomes, a voucher shortage and public housing in disrepair.

A nationwide study conducted four years ago estimated a $26 billion backlog in public housing capital needs. And that was before the Budget Control Act tightened the screws on federal spending — in part through sequestration.

Well, the December 2013 budget deal provided some temporary relief from sequestration. Non-defense discretionary programs, i.e., those that depend on annual appropriations, have $9.2 billion more for the upcoming fiscal year.

Yet key programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development are in trouble. Homeless assistance grants and major affordable housing programs stand to lose $510 million, in inflation-adjusted dollars, under the bill the House Appropriations Committee approved last week.

The subcommittee for HUD and Transportation Department appropriations got $1.8 billion more than it had to work with last year. But this was more than offset by a projected $3 billion or so reduction in revenues from mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

The subcommittee chairman says, “Like appropriators do, we made choices.” They’ll force some very tough choices on state and local agencies — and setbacks for the homeless and other low-income people they serve.

Here are some of the specifics, summarized from a new Center on Budget and Policy Priorities brief.

Housing Choice vouchers. The 2013 across-the-board cuts forced agencies to reduce the number of households receiving rental assistance through these vouchers by an estimated 72,000 nationwide.

This year’s budget provided enough money to restore about half. But the House appropriations bill could more than undo the improvement, leaving 12,000 fewer low-income households with vouchers than before.

The problem here is partly that vouchers issued to veterans under a separate program no longer have their own funding stream and so would have to be renewed out of the overall Housing Choice budget.

That would leave agencies without sufficient funds to cover expected rent and utility cost increases for all vouchers now in use.

So they can again cut back on vouchers for non-veterans. Or they can shift the cost increases to voucher holders by freezing the value of the subsidies. One of those tough choices.

Note that we’re talking only about preserving the rental assistance Housing Choices has recently provided — not about addressing the needs of 11.3 million households that are probably paying more than half their income for rent, including at least 50,150 in the District alone.

Public housing capital investments. The House appropriations bill cuts the under-funded public housing capital fund by $100 million, leaving DCHA and other housing authorities with only half the funds they need to cover new development and renovation needs.

Public housing operations. Not enough funding for public housing operations either — about  86% of what HUD said was needed.

Agencies can cope with the shortfall in various ways, e.g., by cutting back on routine maintenance, passing on more of their utilities costs to residents, exercising their discretion to impose a $50 minimum rent on the very poorest families. More tough choices.

Homeless assistance grants. The House bill level-funds homeless assistance grants, rejecting the Obama administration’s request for additional funds to support 37,000 new units of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people.

It’s not clear that the $2.1 billion in the House bill would even be enough to sustain all the PSH units supported by federal funds, since it would leave at least some grant recipients with less.

What is clear is that the House bill — in this area, as well as others — dumps responsibility for a major national problem on state and local governments and on nonprofits, whose resources are already stretched thin.

HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS) grants. A particular special needs population would lose out under another part of the House bill. Funds that help state and local agencies provide housing for people living with HIV/AIDS would be cut by more than 8%.

That would leave this relatively small, but vital program with less than it had after sequestration — and so less able than ever to meet the needs of more than 145,000 vulnerable people who reportedly need housing assistance.

This isn’t the whole story — and happily not the end. The Senate Appropriations Committee has just decided how to parcel out funds among its subcommittees. And Transportation-HUD has about $2.4 billion more than its House counterpart had to work with.

Now let’s see what it does.

 

 

 


Another DC Affordable Housing Bill

May 26, 2014

My last post probably should have noted that Councilmember Orange and three cosponsors also have a bill to provide $100 million a year for affordable housing, though not indefinitely.

The funds would assist with construction, renovation and/or emergency maintenance. They’d be generated by bond sales — up to $1 billion over 10 years, backed by revenues from the DC lottery and other games.

The annual $100 million would be split equally among housing for seniors, homeless people, households with annual earnings between $30,000 and $60,000 and four-person households defined as low-income, based on the area median. These would currently be households with incomes up to $68,500.

The Department of Housing and Community Development is to develop a 10-year plan to implement all this, including specified details for each proposed project. Obviously extremely complex — if for no other reason, because of the overlaps among the target groups.

The Council’s Economic Development Committee will consider the Orange bill, as well as the Bowser bill I wrote about at its hearing this Thursday.


DC Affordable Housing Program Needs Funding Guarantee

May 22, 2014

So Mayor Gray kept his promise to invest $100 million a year in affordable housing — or so it seems. The DC Fiscal Policy Institute reports that his proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget includes a total of $145 million for affordable housing programs.

This includes some that I personally wouldn’t put in the bucket, e.g., funding to help homeowners deal with lead hazards and other housing code violations, grants to support storefront improvements in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

And as the eagle-eyed DCFPI analysts note, $5 million of the total (for the Department of Behavioral Health’s subsidized housing program) is merely money that used to be in the District’s capital budget, rather than proposed additional spending.

A lot of money nevertheless. How much of it will provide housing that’s affordable for the District’s very lowest-income residents remains to be seen. Some we know won’t.

In addition to the programs I’ve cited, there’s funding for the Home Purchase Assistance Program, a similar smaller program for D.C. government employees and a bit of money to promote homeownership in the east end of the city.

Needless to say (I hope), a couple whose annual income is less than 30% of the area median — currently $25,752 — can’t conceivably afford a house (or a condo) here.

It’s also the case, as I’ve said before, that the Housing Production Trust Fund doesn’t support only development and preservation of housing affordable for the very lowest-income residents, i.e., those with incomes no higher than 30% of the AMI.

It is, however, supposed to spend at least 40% of its money each year on housing for them. And it’s generally viewed as the District’s single most important affordable housing tool.

It not only helps finance construction and renovation, but has helped tenants buy their buildings when the owners put them put for sale — even tenants at the lower end of the income scale. This typically ensures that the housing will remain affordable for 40 years, as DCFPI explains.

So the Fund’s capacity is worrisome — and has been for a long time. We see the problem in the Mayor’s proposed budget, especially as compared to District budgets over the past several years.

In 2002, the DC Council gave the Fund an ongoing revenue stream — 15% of certain taxes collected in connection with real property transactions.

That was fine until the housing bubble burst and the ensuing recession put a damper on the commercial property market.

Then, adding injury to injury, Mayor Gray, with the Council’s concurrence, shifted money from the Fund to the Local Rent Supplement Program, i.e., the District’s locally-funded equivalent to the federal Housing Choice voucher program.

Then the city was flush with cash again. And the Mayor had gotten an earful from nonprofit developers and advocates — and from residents convened for his highly-orchestrated One City Summit.

Some months later, he committed $100 million to affordable housing. Most of it went to the Trust Fund, more than doubling what it would have had from only its share of property transaction taxes.

He now wants the Council’s concurrence to put another $30.1 million into the Fund, using part of the large projected surplus for this fiscal year. It would still have only about two-thirds of what it had last fiscal year, however.

And next fiscal year, only its dedicated tax revenues, estimated at $40 million. Or at least, that’s all anyone can count on.

The Mayor has borrowed an idea from a bill pending in the Council and put it into his Budget Support Act, i.e., the package of legislation paired with the budget proper. In his version, half of any end-of-year money left over after the District has fully funded all four of its reserve accounts would go to the Trust Fund.

Better than nothing, but no substitute for funding that’s both sufficient and reliable.

Mayor-hopeful Muriel Bowser has proposed a bill that could meet both needs. It would establish a baseline for the Trust Fund, i.e., a guaranteed annual minimum, of $100 million. The Fund would still get money from the sources the current law specifies, but also from an appropriation of general revenues if needed to maintain the baseline.

This was one of the options that the executive directors of DCFPI and the Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development teed up in 2008, when Trust Fund revenues had dwindled.

And my heavens, they cited a bill introduced by Councilmember Marion Barry that sounds rather like the Bowser bill.  Reportedly overwhelming support from advocates and low-income residents.

I suppose we’ll see something similar at the hearing on the Bowser bill late this month. Perhaps a better outcome this time round.

 

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 161 other followers