14 June 2010
Worst Case Housing Needs in 2007 The twelfth in a series of annual HUD reports to Congress, Worst Case Housing Needs 2007 finds that in that year, 5.91 million unassisted very low-income households ― or almost 13 million individuals ― paid more than half their monthly income for rent, lived in severely substandard housing, or both. Although relatively stable from 2005 to 2007, there was a 19.6% increase in worst case needs (WCN) households between 2001 and 2005. These families were located in all regions of the country and across central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. The report shows that the supply of affordable and available rental units was insufficient for meeting the housing needs of extremely low-income (below 30% of the area median income) renters.
Follow us on:
93% (5.48 million) experienced severe rent burden; 73% (4.33 million) had extremely low incomes; 37% (2.19 million) had at least one child under 18. Nearly half of these were working the equivalent of full-time and earning at least minimum wage. 404,000 of families with children had an adult with a disability; 20.5% (1.21 million) were elderly, 10% (602,000) were non-elderly disabled, and 32% (1.9) million were classified as other; 2.92 million were non-Hispanic white, 1.35 million were non-Hispanic black, and 1.23 million were Hispanic; and More than 40% of the city dwellers lived in higher poverty neighborhoods, while those living in suburbs and nonmetropolitan areas were in low-poverty neighborhoods. 
You were sent this HUD USER News update because you expressed interest in receiving a weekly email to stay informed of new HUD research and resources. If you no longer wish to receive this email, please send an email to hudusernews@huduser.org with "unsubscribe" as the SUBJECT.
HUD USER
P.O. Box 23268, Washington, DC 20026-3268
1-800-245-2691 | 1-800-927-7589 (TDD) | 202-708-9981 (fax)
HUD USER | P.O. Box 23268 | Washington D.C | DC | 20026-3268
Monday, June 14, 2010
HUD: Worst Case Housing Needs
FYI - NY Times Editorial
Excellent editorial in today's NY Times:
Washington too often looks the other way as state governments rob low-income victims of their fair share of federal disaster aid. The Department of Housing and Urban Development did the right thing recently in forcing Texas to revise a $3 billion spending plan for aid provided in the wake of the 2008 hurricanes Ike and Dolly.The storms ravaged the coastal and near-coastal counties, especially Harris, Orange and Galveston. They destroyed thousands of homes, including a large number owned by poor families that didn't have the money to rebuild. Instead of directing the aid to the most-damaged regions and the people with the fewest resources, the Texas plan spread it across the state and gave local planning agencies near carte blanche on how to spend it.Two prominent fair housing groups, Texas Appleseed and the Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, filed a complaint with HUD charging that the plan did not adhere to the most basic condition of federal disaster aid, which requires that half of the money be used to benefit low- and moderate-income people. They also argued that it would violate federal civil rights and fair housing laws.After the HUD secretary, Shaun Donovan, took the extraordinary but justified step of rejecting the initial proposal, the state negotiated an agreement with the advocates. The new plan will ensure that 55 percent of the money will be spent to help low- and moderate-income families. More than half the fund will be spent on rebuilding homes, with a fair share allocated to the poorest residents.The state will rebuild all of the desperately needed public housing units that were destroyed in Galveston. Local opposition groups had pressured the city not to rebuild. As part of the agreement, Texas will also create new programs to help low-income and minority residents find housing in less-segregated or storm-vulnerable areas.Thanks to tough bargaining by Secretary Donovan, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent as Congress intended and fairness requires: helping to rebuild devastated communities and helping the most vulnerable residents rebuild their lives.
David Grabill
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Backyard Cottages as Affordable Housing?
Seattle's backyard cottages make a dent in housing need
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY 5/31/2010
SEATTLE — John Stoeck is building a one-bedroom, 437-square-foot cottage on the spot where his garage stood before a tree fell on it. Construction costs: about $50,000. When the cottage is finished this summer, he plans to rent it for at least $900 a month, which will make a nice dent in his mortgage payments.
His is just one of about 50 tiny cottages sprouting in backyards across the city as it tries to expand affordable housing options in established neighborhoods without resorting to high rises and apartment complexes. The city changed zoning rules to allow cottages in single-family neighborhoods citywide, rejected a proposed cap of 50 cottages a year and helped organize a design competition to spur creation of reasonably priced plans. The point is not just to allow the cottages, but to encourage them.
"I want to preserve rural areas around Seattle, and I don't want the suburbs continuing to march on without any limits. One way to do that is to add more density to these inner-city neighborhoods," says Stoeck, 47, an architect.
Backyard cottages are a promising way to address the need for affordable housing without diminishing the character of urban neighborhoods, and they're creating more options for families who want to live near an elderly parent or adult child. "It's harder and harder for working people to live in the city," says former Seattle mayor Greg Nickels, now a fellow at the Harvard University Institute of Politics.
The backyard homes, he says, also help ease traffic jams and reduce pollution.
Seattle tested the backyard cottages initiative in the southeast part of the city starting in 2006, resulting in 28 cottages. It was expanded citywide in December, and 22 more building permits have been issued.
Other cities such as Denver and Faribault, Minn., are allowing for the first time or expanding programs that encourage backyard residences to accommodate growing demand for affordable housing in the wake of the recession and foreclosure crisis.
Unlike attached "granny flats" or basement apartments, backyard cottages are separate buildings, often just a few feet from owners' homes. Once built, owners such as Stoeck either rent out the cottage or rent out their main home and move into the cottage.
Besides expanding housing options, backyard cottages have another benefit: "It's really a way to help people hang on to their homes," says Andrea Petzel, senior urban planner for the city of Seattle. She expects about 40 to be built each year.
The Denver City Council votes next month on a zoning code that for the first time would allow "accessory dwelling units," including detached cottages, in some residential areas.
It would "balance our housing opportunities and at the same time add density" in areas where affordable rentals are scarce, says Peter Park, community planning and development manager.
Faribault, Minn., which has a rental housing shortage, began allowing freestanding backyard dwellings in October.
"It can be a good thing if you have the proper controls in place," zoning administrator Greg Kruschke says.
Santa Cruz, which has some of California's highest housing prices, encourages backyard cottages citywide, and about 40 are built each year. Santa Cruz "did not want to price people out of living here," says Carol Berg, the city's housing and community development manager.
The concept evolved from the carriage houses where employees or extended families lived near grand homes in the early 1900s, says Dana Cuff, professor of architecture and urban design at UCLA. That changed in the 1950s, she says, when the American dream meant owning a single-family home on a big lot.
"We need to adapt our living environment to the kinds of families we have now," Cuff says.
"We have two people working in nearly every household now, so people don't need as big a yard," she says.
Other benefits: Owners' rental income can help fend off foreclosure, and aging parents can move into cottages to maintain their independence, she says.
Backyard cottages "don't suit everyone, but they're really right for some people," Cuff says.
Her view is borne of personal experience: A decade ago, she and her husband moved into one on their property in Santa Monica.
Critics cite privacy concerns
Seattle needs room to grow: Almost two-thirds of the city is zoned for single-family homes. Its population rose from 563,374 in 2000 to 602,000 last year.
Houses are pricey here. The median cost in the fourth quarter of 2009 was $305,500, compared with the national median price of $172,900, the National Association of Realtors says.
Nickels had been intrigued by the idea of backyard cottages for decades before he became Seattle's mayor in 2002 and made it a priority. Opponents argued that it would double the city's density, he recalls, but he felt "there was no excuse other than political cowardice not to move forward."
After the first batch of cottages was built in southeast Seattle, a survey of people who lived near them turned up a surprise: More than half the neighbors didn't know they were there, he says.
Some critics of the Seattle initiative still worry that backyard cottages will clutter neighborhoods, clash with existing homes, create parking shortages and attract irresponsible renters.
Seattle architect and developer Marty Liebowitz says the cottages could rob neighbors of the privacy they want to "barbecue, entertain guests and walk around naked if they're kinky."
Seattle arborist Michael Oxman has another concern: If the idea catches on and many cottages are built, he says, they "would decimate the urban forest of Seattle." Inevitably, he says, trees will be removed to make room for cottages and parking spaces for owners and tenants.
Chuck Cady, who has sold Seattle real estate for 30 years, says cottages probably increase the value of lots where they're built but might hurt the value of homes adjacent to them.
"If you've got a lovely backyard that's totally private, it's worth more than one with a two-story, butt-ugly addition looking down on your backyard," he says.
In Seattle, "none of the worst-case scenarios happened," Petzel says. Getting city permits for a typical single-family home can take about three months, but for cottages the turnaround time can be as short as six weeks, she says.
Seattle City Councilmember Sally Clark, a proponent of the initiative, says design standards were written to help ensure neighbors' privacy.
Backyard cottages can be built only on lots of 4,000 or more square feet, height is limited based on lot width, and entrances must face away from neighbors. At least one property owner must live in the main house or cottage.
"Sometimes they actually improve the neighborhood," says Diane Sugimura, Seattle's director of planning and development. "We don't believe the majority of homeowners will choose to do this, but it really provides another option … and it allows you an income source."
'A great spot'
College student Laura Chamberlain, 20, would love to live in a backyard cottage. She's tired of overpriced apartments near campus, and the expansion of Seattle's light rail system makes living away from school more practical, she says.
"A cottage would be a great spot for me while I save enough money to buy a house, and unlike condo living, I might be able to grow my own vegetables," she says.
Stoeck, who shares the main house with his wife, Jennifer, and son Colin, 9, says that because the cottage is just steps from his back door, choosing the right tenant is important. So is keeping his neighbors happy: He gave them a tour of the cottage and assured the people who live next door that his tenant won't be able to see into their home.
"You have to be careful about the context and scale of the neighborhood, but I think the idea is great, and I'd do it again in a second," Stoeck says.
Clark says the economy helped prove cottages' value.
"In a recession people are definitely looking for ways to pay the bills and for lower-cost housing options," she says. "Seattle had an overheated rental market, so folks who had backyard cottages had something that was desirable."
Patrick Leigh, 57, took a different approach to the cottage initiative. He built a bigger new house in front of an existing tiny one on the back of his lot in West Seattle. The houses are for sale. "If people want affordable housing," says Leigh, a land surveyor, "this is one way to help.
"There are tough choices to be made as population increases. Do we really want to keep building out where people have to commute? I think we're better off getting more density in the city."
Less is more for some
Yolinda Ward and Lynn Watkins bought a four-bedroom Craftsman-style house in Seattle's Columbia City neighborhood four years ago after falling in love with its architectural details and expansive yard. Soon, the couple decided the house was too big, so they built a 600-square-foot cottage behind and over the existing garage and moved into it. They rent the "big house" to Ward's godson, Erik Norwood, his wife Rebecca and their two children. A friend rents the basement.
Although Watkins, 60, had to forfeit part of her garden space to build the cottage, she loves living in it. "It's easier to clean and everything's right here," she says. The bedroom is on the ground level; upstairs there's a kitchen and living room.
Original designs for the cottage included big windows facing the back door and deck of the "big house," says Ward, 61. They decided to move the windows to overlook the garden and eliminated them on the wall with a view of the big house.
Privacy is important, but being close to her godson's family is part of the appeal, Ward says. She can open a window near her desk and chat with almost-3-year-old Jaeda when she's playing outside. There's a big family meal every other Wednesday.
The cottage cost about $135,000, Ward says, and added about $200 to their mortgage payment — an increase covered by the rent they receive, which also covers increased property taxes. The property, appraised at $560,000 before the cottage was added, now is worth $710,000.
The only drawback the couple can think of is that they don't have room for overnight guests. Watkins still has room for a garden, and the "green" elements they added — including extra insulation, a water heater that kicks in only when hot water is needed and the recycling of runoff water — keep expenses low.
"It's a very easy way to get regular income, and it will pay for itself," Ward says. Strangers sometimes knock on their door to ask about the cottage — and how they can build one, too.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2010-05-25-cottages_N.htm
By Judy Keen, USA TODAY 5/31/2010
SEATTLE — John Stoeck is building a one-bedroom, 437-square-foot cottage on the spot where his garage stood before a tree fell on it. Construction costs: about $50,000. When the cottage is finished this summer, he plans to rent it for at least $900 a month, which will make a nice dent in his mortgage payments.
His is just one of about 50 tiny cottages sprouting in backyards across the city as it tries to expand affordable housing options in established neighborhoods without resorting to high rises and apartment complexes. The city changed zoning rules to allow cottages in single-family neighborhoods citywide, rejected a proposed cap of 50 cottages a year and helped organize a design competition to spur creation of reasonably priced plans. The point is not just to allow the cottages, but to encourage them.
"I want to preserve rural areas around Seattle, and I don't want the suburbs continuing to march on without any limits. One way to do that is to add more density to these inner-city neighborhoods," says Stoeck, 47, an architect.
Backyard cottages are a promising way to address the need for affordable housing without diminishing the character of urban neighborhoods, and they're creating more options for families who want to live near an elderly parent or adult child. "It's harder and harder for working people to live in the city," says former Seattle mayor Greg Nickels, now a fellow at the Harvard University Institute of Politics.
The backyard homes, he says, also help ease traffic jams and reduce pollution.
Seattle tested the backyard cottages initiative in the southeast part of the city starting in 2006, resulting in 28 cottages. It was expanded citywide in December, and 22 more building permits have been issued.
Other cities such as Denver and Faribault, Minn., are allowing for the first time or expanding programs that encourage backyard residences to accommodate growing demand for affordable housing in the wake of the recession and foreclosure crisis.
Unlike attached "granny flats" or basement apartments, backyard cottages are separate buildings, often just a few feet from owners' homes. Once built, owners such as Stoeck either rent out the cottage or rent out their main home and move into the cottage.
Besides expanding housing options, backyard cottages have another benefit: "It's really a way to help people hang on to their homes," says Andrea Petzel, senior urban planner for the city of Seattle. She expects about 40 to be built each year.
The Denver City Council votes next month on a zoning code that for the first time would allow "accessory dwelling units," including detached cottages, in some residential areas.
It would "balance our housing opportunities and at the same time add density" in areas where affordable rentals are scarce, says Peter Park, community planning and development manager.
Faribault, Minn., which has a rental housing shortage, began allowing freestanding backyard dwellings in October.
"It can be a good thing if you have the proper controls in place," zoning administrator Greg Kruschke says.
Santa Cruz, which has some of California's highest housing prices, encourages backyard cottages citywide, and about 40 are built each year. Santa Cruz "did not want to price people out of living here," says Carol Berg, the city's housing and community development manager.
The concept evolved from the carriage houses where employees or extended families lived near grand homes in the early 1900s, says Dana Cuff, professor of architecture and urban design at UCLA. That changed in the 1950s, she says, when the American dream meant owning a single-family home on a big lot.
"We need to adapt our living environment to the kinds of families we have now," Cuff says.
"We have two people working in nearly every household now, so people don't need as big a yard," she says.
Other benefits: Owners' rental income can help fend off foreclosure, and aging parents can move into cottages to maintain their independence, she says.
Backyard cottages "don't suit everyone, but they're really right for some people," Cuff says.
Her view is borne of personal experience: A decade ago, she and her husband moved into one on their property in Santa Monica.
Critics cite privacy concerns
Seattle needs room to grow: Almost two-thirds of the city is zoned for single-family homes. Its population rose from 563,374 in 2000 to 602,000 last year.
Houses are pricey here. The median cost in the fourth quarter of 2009 was $305,500, compared with the national median price of $172,900, the National Association of Realtors says.
Nickels had been intrigued by the idea of backyard cottages for decades before he became Seattle's mayor in 2002 and made it a priority. Opponents argued that it would double the city's density, he recalls, but he felt "there was no excuse other than political cowardice not to move forward."
After the first batch of cottages was built in southeast Seattle, a survey of people who lived near them turned up a surprise: More than half the neighbors didn't know they were there, he says.
Some critics of the Seattle initiative still worry that backyard cottages will clutter neighborhoods, clash with existing homes, create parking shortages and attract irresponsible renters.
Seattle architect and developer Marty Liebowitz says the cottages could rob neighbors of the privacy they want to "barbecue, entertain guests and walk around naked if they're kinky."
Seattle arborist Michael Oxman has another concern: If the idea catches on and many cottages are built, he says, they "would decimate the urban forest of Seattle." Inevitably, he says, trees will be removed to make room for cottages and parking spaces for owners and tenants.
Chuck Cady, who has sold Seattle real estate for 30 years, says cottages probably increase the value of lots where they're built but might hurt the value of homes adjacent to them.
"If you've got a lovely backyard that's totally private, it's worth more than one with a two-story, butt-ugly addition looking down on your backyard," he says.
In Seattle, "none of the worst-case scenarios happened," Petzel says. Getting city permits for a typical single-family home can take about three months, but for cottages the turnaround time can be as short as six weeks, she says.
Seattle City Councilmember Sally Clark, a proponent of the initiative, says design standards were written to help ensure neighbors' privacy.
Backyard cottages can be built only on lots of 4,000 or more square feet, height is limited based on lot width, and entrances must face away from neighbors. At least one property owner must live in the main house or cottage.
"Sometimes they actually improve the neighborhood," says Diane Sugimura, Seattle's director of planning and development. "We don't believe the majority of homeowners will choose to do this, but it really provides another option … and it allows you an income source."
'A great spot'
College student Laura Chamberlain, 20, would love to live in a backyard cottage. She's tired of overpriced apartments near campus, and the expansion of Seattle's light rail system makes living away from school more practical, she says.
"A cottage would be a great spot for me while I save enough money to buy a house, and unlike condo living, I might be able to grow my own vegetables," she says.
Stoeck, who shares the main house with his wife, Jennifer, and son Colin, 9, says that because the cottage is just steps from his back door, choosing the right tenant is important. So is keeping his neighbors happy: He gave them a tour of the cottage and assured the people who live next door that his tenant won't be able to see into their home.
"You have to be careful about the context and scale of the neighborhood, but I think the idea is great, and I'd do it again in a second," Stoeck says.
Clark says the economy helped prove cottages' value.
"In a recession people are definitely looking for ways to pay the bills and for lower-cost housing options," she says. "Seattle had an overheated rental market, so folks who had backyard cottages had something that was desirable."
Patrick Leigh, 57, took a different approach to the cottage initiative. He built a bigger new house in front of an existing tiny one on the back of his lot in West Seattle. The houses are for sale. "If people want affordable housing," says Leigh, a land surveyor, "this is one way to help.
"There are tough choices to be made as population increases. Do we really want to keep building out where people have to commute? I think we're better off getting more density in the city."
Less is more for some
Yolinda Ward and Lynn Watkins bought a four-bedroom Craftsman-style house in Seattle's Columbia City neighborhood four years ago after falling in love with its architectural details and expansive yard. Soon, the couple decided the house was too big, so they built a 600-square-foot cottage behind and over the existing garage and moved into it. They rent the "big house" to Ward's godson, Erik Norwood, his wife Rebecca and their two children. A friend rents the basement.
Although Watkins, 60, had to forfeit part of her garden space to build the cottage, she loves living in it. "It's easier to clean and everything's right here," she says. The bedroom is on the ground level; upstairs there's a kitchen and living room.
Original designs for the cottage included big windows facing the back door and deck of the "big house," says Ward, 61. They decided to move the windows to overlook the garden and eliminated them on the wall with a view of the big house.
Privacy is important, but being close to her godson's family is part of the appeal, Ward says. She can open a window near her desk and chat with almost-3-year-old Jaeda when she's playing outside. There's a big family meal every other Wednesday.
The cottage cost about $135,000, Ward says, and added about $200 to their mortgage payment — an increase covered by the rent they receive, which also covers increased property taxes. The property, appraised at $560,000 before the cottage was added, now is worth $710,000.
The only drawback the couple can think of is that they don't have room for overnight guests. Watkins still has room for a garden, and the "green" elements they added — including extra insulation, a water heater that kicks in only when hot water is needed and the recycling of runoff water — keep expenses low.
"It's a very easy way to get regular income, and it will pay for itself," Ward says. Strangers sometimes knock on their door to ask about the cottage — and how they can build one, too.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2010-05-25-cottages_N.htm
Friday, March 26, 2010
State Should Resist the 'Housing Cult'
[Shigley's the co-editor/founder of a respected planning journal, the California Planning and Development Report]
18 March 2010
Gov. Schwarzenegger is going around the state urging lawmakers to approve a measure that would provide $200 million in tax credits for homebuyers. The governor claims the measure will save or add thousands of construction jobs.
His claim is hardly new. But is there any real basis for it?
Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Newmark posted a blog with the headline, “Don’t Be Brainwashed by the Housing Cult” in which he questioned the assumption that homebuilding is a pillar of the economy. If Newmark is right, it demands a reconsideration of how the government subsidizes home construction.
Specifically, Newmark challenged the statement by Toll Brothers CEO Bob Toll that new home construction directly or indirectly provides one-fifth to one-quarter of all jobs in this country. It was the sort of boast that we hear frequently from the industry. Newmark, however, noted that homebuilding accounted for only 2.5% of GDP last year. Even in early 2006, when homebuilding was booming (and, as it turns out, we were overbuilding by a large amount) the industry amounted to 8% of GDP.
Newmark doesn’t think much of the homebuilding industry’s ongoing demand that the federal government provide subsidies to new home buyers, or of the industry’s pressure on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to continue supplying taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages to new home buyers. He notes that 14.5% of housing units in the country are sitting vacant, and he concludes, “It seems that the only Americans who really need more new houses are the American home builders.”
I might expect this sort of commentary from an environmentalist or a greenie masquerading as an academic. But Newmark, although a contrarian and a shit-disturber, is no tree-hugger or slow-growther seeking additional government regulation. He’s an unapologetic capitalist, and he has actual facts behind his argument here.
We Californians like to think our state is different. After all, California reliably adds about 500,000 new residents every year. Even last year, when the California economy was in worse shape than at any time since the Depression, the state population grew by 367,000 people, according to Department of Finance. California, the argument goes, will always need additional housing units.
I tend to accept that argument. But if Newmark’s economic analysis is to be believed, the home construction imperative is social, not economic. We should build housing because people need shelter, not in order to employ people.
One year ago, the California Building Industry Association convinced state lawmakers to provide a tax credit of up to $10,000 to buyers of new homes. About 10,000 buyers took advantage of the program, getting themselves an average credit of about $7,000. The CBIA, state lawmakers and Schwarzenegger touted the program as a job-booster. Heck, even I offered a qualified endorsement. Now the CBIA and Schwarzenegger are calling for $200 million of tax credits for the buyers of any home, new or not.
--------Update--------
The governor signed AB 183, the $200 million tax credit, into law on March 25.
-------------------------
However, all of the evidence says that last year’s program did nothing more than permit homebuilders to unload inventory. According to the Economic Development Agency, construction jobs fell by 18% to 570,000 in 2009. The CBIA itself bemoans that housing starts remained at the lowest level ever recorded in 2009.
I’m going to suggest that if the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should fund the units Californians actually need – and not simply toss money untargeted into the market.
And what we need are not the three- and four-bedroom single-family houses that are the specialty of the CBIA’s members. The average household size has been decreasing for years, and the fastest-growing household segment is one- and two-person households: seniors (by 2030, 20% of Californians will be at least 65 years old), singles, childless couples and single people sharing quarters. What these smaller households want are – this is not a big surprise – smaller housing units in convenient locations.
About 57% of California’s housing units are detached single-family houses, according to the Department of Finance’s 2008 California Statistical Abstract. It’s safe to assume that most of these are suburban-style houses that were originally designed for mom, dad and their two or three kids. But this sort of nuclear family will account for only about 25% of California households by 2020. The one- and two-person household is replacing the Leave It To Beaver family. Give these small households 800 to 1,000 square feet of well-designed living space (or un-designed living space, as in a loft), preferably within walking distance of the grocery, a coffee house, the library, a cinema and a park, and these people are as happy as clams.
If the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should aim squarely at the units that we truly need. And it should do so because people need decent shelter, not for any other reason.
– Paul Shigley
18 March 2010
Gov. Schwarzenegger is going around the state urging lawmakers to approve a measure that would provide $200 million in tax credits for homebuyers. The governor claims the measure will save or add thousands of construction jobs.
His claim is hardly new. But is there any real basis for it?
Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Newmark posted a blog with the headline, “Don’t Be Brainwashed by the Housing Cult” in which he questioned the assumption that homebuilding is a pillar of the economy. If Newmark is right, it demands a reconsideration of how the government subsidizes home construction.
Specifically, Newmark challenged the statement by Toll Brothers CEO Bob Toll that new home construction directly or indirectly provides one-fifth to one-quarter of all jobs in this country. It was the sort of boast that we hear frequently from the industry. Newmark, however, noted that homebuilding accounted for only 2.5% of GDP last year. Even in early 2006, when homebuilding was booming (and, as it turns out, we were overbuilding by a large amount) the industry amounted to 8% of GDP.
Newmark doesn’t think much of the homebuilding industry’s ongoing demand that the federal government provide subsidies to new home buyers, or of the industry’s pressure on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA to continue supplying taxpayer-guaranteed mortgages to new home buyers. He notes that 14.5% of housing units in the country are sitting vacant, and he concludes, “It seems that the only Americans who really need more new houses are the American home builders.”
I might expect this sort of commentary from an environmentalist or a greenie masquerading as an academic. But Newmark, although a contrarian and a shit-disturber, is no tree-hugger or slow-growther seeking additional government regulation. He’s an unapologetic capitalist, and he has actual facts behind his argument here.
We Californians like to think our state is different. After all, California reliably adds about 500,000 new residents every year. Even last year, when the California economy was in worse shape than at any time since the Depression, the state population grew by 367,000 people, according to Department of Finance. California, the argument goes, will always need additional housing units.
I tend to accept that argument. But if Newmark’s economic analysis is to be believed, the home construction imperative is social, not economic. We should build housing because people need shelter, not in order to employ people.
One year ago, the California Building Industry Association convinced state lawmakers to provide a tax credit of up to $10,000 to buyers of new homes. About 10,000 buyers took advantage of the program, getting themselves an average credit of about $7,000. The CBIA, state lawmakers and Schwarzenegger touted the program as a job-booster. Heck, even I offered a qualified endorsement. Now the CBIA and Schwarzenegger are calling for $200 million of tax credits for the buyers of any home, new or not.
--------Update--------
The governor signed AB 183, the $200 million tax credit, into law on March 25.
-------------------------
However, all of the evidence says that last year’s program did nothing more than permit homebuilders to unload inventory. According to the Economic Development Agency, construction jobs fell by 18% to 570,000 in 2009. The CBIA itself bemoans that housing starts remained at the lowest level ever recorded in 2009.
I’m going to suggest that if the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should fund the units Californians actually need – and not simply toss money untargeted into the market.
And what we need are not the three- and four-bedroom single-family houses that are the specialty of the CBIA’s members. The average household size has been decreasing for years, and the fastest-growing household segment is one- and two-person households: seniors (by 2030, 20% of Californians will be at least 65 years old), singles, childless couples and single people sharing quarters. What these smaller households want are – this is not a big surprise – smaller housing units in convenient locations.
About 57% of California’s housing units are detached single-family houses, according to the Department of Finance’s 2008 California Statistical Abstract. It’s safe to assume that most of these are suburban-style houses that were originally designed for mom, dad and their two or three kids. But this sort of nuclear family will account for only about 25% of California households by 2020. The one- and two-person household is replacing the Leave It To Beaver family. Give these small households 800 to 1,000 square feet of well-designed living space (or un-designed living space, as in a loft), preferably within walking distance of the grocery, a coffee house, the library, a cinema and a park, and these people are as happy as clams.
If the government wants to subsidize new housing, it should aim squarely at the units that we truly need. And it should do so because people need decent shelter, not for any other reason.
– Paul Shigley
Thursday, March 11, 2010
City redresses past discrimination - NY Times
With New Homes, Town Makes Amends for Its Bias
By SUSAN SAULNY NY Times - March 10, 2010
HAMTRAMCK, Mich. — Even though more than 50 years have passed since Sallie Sanders was a confused little girl wondering why her family was kicked out of their house for being on the wrong side of the color line here, the pain seems fresh.
“Just abruptly, we had to end up staying with relatives and friends,” said Ms. Sanders, a retired state worker who is black and who, at age 60, still has trouble recounting the ordeal without breaking into tears. “It was kind of devastating. My parents tried to protect us quite a bit, but I knew something was wrong.”
And something was. In 1971, a federal judge found that this old manufacturing town, five miles from downtown Detroit, had deliberately used urban renewal projects throughout the 1950s and ’60s to obliterate black areas from its two square miles, displacing hundreds of families.
Although the judge, Damon J. Keith, ordered a remedy, and Hamtramck agreed to build new housing, it did not. For decades.
Now, though, in a time of deep recession and a housing slump in one of the most economically depressed states in the country, Hamtramck (pronounced ham-TRAM-eck) is at last fulfilling its legal — and what officials now call moral — obligation to provide affordable housing to the mostly poor families who were dislodged generations ago. And if the plaintiffs in the original class-action lawsuit are no longer living, as in Ms. Sanders’s case, children and grandchildren are eligible.
About 100 houses have been completed for rent or sale, and another 100 are on the way, paid for by a mix of local and state money.
In the last five years, the town began building the new houses, but the project stalled because of the recession. It is only now approaching the final stages of construction, thanks to a recent increase in federal stimulus money. The homes, mostly two- and three-bedroom models, cost $140,000 to $160,000, and subsidies can reduce the price to $100,000; most rentals are in the $400-a-month range, after government assistance.
But beyond the building, Hamtramck has changed in another way, too. According to the Census Bureau, it is now Michigan’s most international and diverse city, having evolved from a town that was 90 percent Polish just 40 years ago. With the changes came new attitudes about how to deal with the past.
Just weeks ago, Ms. Sanders moved into a new ranch-style house on the same street where her family once lived, and Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm personally handed over the keys. As a young lawyer, Ms. Granholm was a clerk to Judge Keith in the late 1980s.
“We went full circle, and it’s pretty wonderful,” said Ms. Sanders, whose parents, now dead, were among the 250 plaintiffs who sued the city. “To acknowledge that, O.K., they were wrong, that gives me a little satisfaction because my parents were mistreated so. I just wish they were here to see it.”
The home building is also what experts call a bittersweet finale to one of the longest-running housing discrimination suits to weave its way through court, having begun in the civil rights era. Beyond its age, the case is also distinctive in that it happened at all. While Hamtramck may be an extreme example, experts said housing discrimination against blacks in the mid-1900s was common, but class-action lawsuits were rare because of their expense and complexity.
Some contend that urban renewal projects were routinely used to demolish black areas, and that most of the housing was never replaced.
“This case is unusual in a good way,” said Victor Goode, a lawyer with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Michael Barnhart, an expert on fair-housing law and the lead lawyer in the Hamtramck case, agreed. “This kind of discrimination happened all over the country,” Mr. Barnhart said, citing Chicago, Detroit and other cities.
Over the last 10 years, as the settlement appeared to be coming to fruition, Mr. Barnhart and a local minister, the Rev. Joseph R. Jordan, met with surviving plaintiffs and their families just about weekly, spending hours trying to work out the details of moving hundreds of families back to town, most from Detroit.
“We had tried several times over the years to get something started, but really couldn’t find the funding,” Mr. Barnhart said.
Judge Keith, who now sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, called the case “difficult” and “depressing” in an interview. But, he added: “I was there to see Sallie Sanders get the keys. It was meaningful to me as a human being.”
Charnita Monday, 64, is renting one of the new houses. She moved to Hamtramck from Bessemer, Ala., looking for factory work in the late 1960s. The home she bought was among those condemned.
“The judge just kept hammering on the case, and all those years, they wouldn’t let it go,” said Ms. Monday, who is black. “I think an injustice has been righted.”
“I had gotten physically tired, mentally tired and even tired of praying,” she said. “But now, it’s like you got a new life, you know?”
In his 1971 opinion, Judge Keith wrote that testimony showed that Hamtramck officials were well aware of the difficulties their actions caused for blacks, but that they “ignored their requests for assistance, failed to investigate complaints and in no way compensated such displacees for the loss suffered.”
He also chastised the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for approving Hamtramck’s plans and failing to protect the plaintiffs’ rights.
After decades, Hamtramck has an opportunity, however painful, to come to terms with itself.
“Nobody with a conscience wants the burden of this enormous charge of racial discrimination to be hanging over them and who they are,” said Mayor Karen Majewski. “It’s important that we do whatever we can to redeem ourselves, our history and reputation.”
“And it’s been very hard to find a way to do that,” Ms. Majewski said, “because you know what this economy is like.”
Hamtramck, despite its size, has always had a large sense of self and pride — so much so that it refused to be annexed by Detroit like so many other small towns were in the early 1900s, forcing the city to grow around it. As a result, Hamtramck, originally a homogenous village, is now a city within a city, and in the last few decades it has become a first stop for immigrants from Bangladesh, Yemen, Albania and Lebanon, among a host of other countries. As of the 2000 census, 41 percent of Hamtramck’s population of 23,000 was foreign-born.
Alongside church bells, the Muslim call to prayer is broadcast by loudspeakers every day. Twenty-five languages are spoken in the public schools.
To Mr. Jordan, the minister, Hamtramck is almost unrecognizable as the same place that tore down his friends’ neighborhoods. “We have made tremendous progress,” he said.
Ms. Monday said she had been distraught after her house was demolished and she had to move her five young children into a small apartment in Detroit, where she lived until her new home became available in 2008.
“When I left, I was bitter,” she said. “It’s a different place now. It’s been good to me, and I’m happy.”
Monday, March 1, 2010
HUD Will Enforce Obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing!
Cities and counties that receive federal funding for housing and community development activities are required to sign a pledge to "affirmatively further fair housing." But that pledge has rarely been enforced by HUD in the roughly 40 years that it's been required. Recently, in a case brought by a fair housing enforcement group, a court found that wealthy Westchester County outside of NY city violated its pledge by allowing areas within the county to restrict development of affordable housing. The court ordered the county to develop a plan to build affordable housing in some of its more exclusive areas like Scarsdale, and to set aside $70 million in funding to assist with the development. The plan proposed late last year by the county provided for 750 units of affordable housing, but was unclear about where the housing would be located, and advocates feared that the county would continue to exclude affordable housing from wealthier neighborhoods, and that HUD would continue to look the other way.
But in a remarkable op ed piece in today's Westchester Journal News, Assistant HUD Secretary John Trasviña slammed the county for continuing to try to evade its affirmative housing pledge. This is a big step forward for HUD. From the op-ed:
"Our nation's commitment to equality can be found in many places in our society — in our history books, in our polling places and our places of employment. Among the most important places it can be found are our homes and neighborhoods, the latter of which fundamentally shape our futures by determining where our children go to school and what jobs are nearby.
"Diverse, inclusive communities offer the most educational, economic and employment opportunities to their residents. They cultivate the kind of social networks our communities and our country need to compete in today's increasingly diverse and competitive global economy. Indeed, studies have proved that students of all races and backgrounds are better prepared for the work force and engage in more complex and creative thinking when they learn in a diverse environment.
"Despite these documented benefits, we know that racially segregated neighborhoods of concentrated poverty resulted not in spite of government — but in many cases because of it. And not just at the federal level. That is why in order to receive federal funds local jurisdictions must analyze and take action to address residential segregation and discrimination. It is this obligation that the court found Westchester County failed to fulfill in a recent case brought by a civil rights organization. To ensure the county did not lose access to millions of federal dollars, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development brought the parties together to reach an agreement in which Westchester would provide 750 affordable, accessible homes over the next seven years in neighborhoods with little racial diversity.
"In the settlement, Westchester agreed to use its legal and financial resources to end practices, such as exclusionary zoning, that limit diversity and follow through on its commitment to promote stable, inclusive communities. HUD expects the county to carry out the letter and the spirit of the settlement."
That's progress!
But in a remarkable op ed piece in today's Westchester Journal News, Assistant HUD Secretary John Trasviña slammed the county for continuing to try to evade its affirmative housing pledge. This is a big step forward for HUD. From the op-ed:
"Our nation's commitment to equality can be found in many places in our society — in our history books, in our polling places and our places of employment. Among the most important places it can be found are our homes and neighborhoods, the latter of which fundamentally shape our futures by determining where our children go to school and what jobs are nearby.
"Diverse, inclusive communities offer the most educational, economic and employment opportunities to their residents. They cultivate the kind of social networks our communities and our country need to compete in today's increasingly diverse and competitive global economy. Indeed, studies have proved that students of all races and backgrounds are better prepared for the work force and engage in more complex and creative thinking when they learn in a diverse environment.
"Despite these documented benefits, we know that racially segregated neighborhoods of concentrated poverty resulted not in spite of government — but in many cases because of it. And not just at the federal level. That is why in order to receive federal funds local jurisdictions must analyze and take action to address residential segregation and discrimination. It is this obligation that the court found Westchester County failed to fulfill in a recent case brought by a civil rights organization. To ensure the county did not lose access to millions of federal dollars, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development brought the parties together to reach an agreement in which Westchester would provide 750 affordable, accessible homes over the next seven years in neighborhoods with little racial diversity.
"In the settlement, Westchester agreed to use its legal and financial resources to end practices, such as exclusionary zoning, that limit diversity and follow through on its commitment to promote stable, inclusive communities. HUD expects the county to carry out the letter and the spirit of the settlement."
That's progress!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
NJ Governor Tries to Block Affordable Housing, Fails
From today's Philadelphia Inquirer. All praise to Fair Share Housing Center!
Gov. Christie's 90-day suspension of New Jersey's affordable-housing regulations has been lifted temporarily under a stay granted by the Appellate Division of Superior Court.
Judge Stephen Skillman yesterday granted a motion by the Fair Share Housing Center to stay the section of a Feb. 9 executive order that banned the Council on Affordable Housing from enforcing its rules for 90 days while a five-member task force develops recommendations on state policies for providing affordable housing.
The court will make a final decision after hearing oral arguments March 16.
Within hours of Christie's order, the center filed an appeal claiming a violation of separation of powers that went far beyond the governor's limited role in COAH, which was created by the Fair Housing Act in 1985 to enforce Supreme Court rulings that towns have a constitutional obligation to provide low- and moderate-income housing.
Legal papers filed by the center called Christie's move "a sweeping assertion of executive power" that "sets a dangerous precedent for the entire operation of state government."
"I think this is a recognition that what Gov. Christie has been trying to do in governing by executive order is out of the norm with past governors, both Democrats and Republicans, in New Jersey and is not consistent with our constitution and our laws," said Adam Gordon, an attorney for the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center.
The governor's office did not return a message seeking comment yesterday.
Sharing the view of many local officials, Christie's executive order called state affordable-housing procedures "excessively complex and unworkable, resulting in delays, inefficiencies, litigation, and unreasonable costs to municipalities and the private sector without appreciable progress being made for our citizens."
COAH calculates the "fair share" of housing each town must provide. Municipalities that file plans with the council for how they will meet those requirements are protected from lawsuits by developers to force higher-density building.
The stay does not affect the task force, created under the executive order to assess the effects of New Jersey's affordable-housing regulations and their degree of success in meeting obligations under the Supreme Court rulings of 1975 and 1983, known as the Mount Laurel decisions.
Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, expressed surprise at the stay.
His organization is awaiting a decision on a legal challenge it filed on behalf of many towns to the latest round of COAH rules in 2008, and Dressel said the league's attorneys were not told they could have filed a response to the Fair Share Housing Center filing.
"We think it was very reasonable for a newly elected governor to be able to do a review of what has transpired in the legislative area, to take a fresh look at the regulations and to . . . take 90 days, as he referred to it, a time-out, and come up with a plan of action on how to address the problems with COAH," Dressel said.
The court denied other motions by the Fair Share Housing Center, including a request for an appointment of a special master to oversee COAH's operations and "ensure that there are not attempts to surreptitiously accomplish what the executive order aims illegally to do."
COAH, for its part, shares Christie's view: the council's board voted, 5-2, in support of Christie's executive order on Tuesday.
Gov. Christie's 90-day suspension of New Jersey's affordable-housing regulations has been lifted temporarily under a stay granted by the Appellate Division of Superior Court.
Judge Stephen Skillman yesterday granted a motion by the Fair Share Housing Center to stay the section of a Feb. 9 executive order that banned the Council on Affordable Housing from enforcing its rules for 90 days while a five-member task force develops recommendations on state policies for providing affordable housing.
The court will make a final decision after hearing oral arguments March 16.
Within hours of Christie's order, the center filed an appeal claiming a violation of separation of powers that went far beyond the governor's limited role in COAH, which was created by the Fair Housing Act in 1985 to enforce Supreme Court rulings that towns have a constitutional obligation to provide low- and moderate-income housing.
Legal papers filed by the center called Christie's move "a sweeping assertion of executive power" that "sets a dangerous precedent for the entire operation of state government."
"I think this is a recognition that what Gov. Christie has been trying to do in governing by executive order is out of the norm with past governors, both Democrats and Republicans, in New Jersey and is not consistent with our constitution and our laws," said Adam Gordon, an attorney for the Cherry Hill-based Fair Share Housing Center.
The governor's office did not return a message seeking comment yesterday.
Sharing the view of many local officials, Christie's executive order called state affordable-housing procedures "excessively complex and unworkable, resulting in delays, inefficiencies, litigation, and unreasonable costs to municipalities and the private sector without appreciable progress being made for our citizens."
COAH calculates the "fair share" of housing each town must provide. Municipalities that file plans with the council for how they will meet those requirements are protected from lawsuits by developers to force higher-density building.
The stay does not affect the task force, created under the executive order to assess the effects of New Jersey's affordable-housing regulations and their degree of success in meeting obligations under the Supreme Court rulings of 1975 and 1983, known as the Mount Laurel decisions.
Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, expressed surprise at the stay.
His organization is awaiting a decision on a legal challenge it filed on behalf of many towns to the latest round of COAH rules in 2008, and Dressel said the league's attorneys were not told they could have filed a response to the Fair Share Housing Center filing.
"We think it was very reasonable for a newly elected governor to be able to do a review of what has transpired in the legislative area, to take a fresh look at the regulations and to . . . take 90 days, as he referred to it, a time-out, and come up with a plan of action on how to address the problems with COAH," Dressel said.
The court denied other motions by the Fair Share Housing Center, including a request for an appointment of a special master to oversee COAH's operations and "ensure that there are not attempts to surreptitiously accomplish what the executive order aims illegally to do."
COAH, for its part, shares Christie's view: the council's board voted, 5-2, in support of Christie's executive order on Tuesday.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NY Times Editorial on NY Housing Discrimination Case
Westchester’s Word
NY Times - 2/17/10
Six months ago, New York’s Westchester County agreed to spend slightly more than $50 million in the next seven years to build at least 750 units of affordable housing — more than 600 of them in towns and villages where the black population is 3 percent or less and the Hispanic population is less than 7 percent.
It signed the deal to settle a federal lawsuit accusing it of violating the False Claims Act — that is, of taking tens of millions of federal dollars for affordable housing and other projects while falsely certifying that it was doing all that it must to promote integrated housing. It signed only after a federal judge declared that Westchester had ”utterly failed” to meet its obligations.
Last week, the monitor overseeing the settlement rejected the county’s affordable-housing plan, saying it was deficient on details, accountability and enforcement. Instead of specifying what the county would do to meet certain desegregation bench marks, Westchester had simply restated the bench marks. The plan didn’t specify where and how the money would be spent. It had no “concrete time frame” for finding and buying properties to develop and was “unnecessarily vague on the whole.”
Worst of all, the plan did not explain how or even whether it would overcome not-in-my-backyard resistance and compel cooperation by municipalities that have used exclusionary zoning laws and other devices for years to keep out lower-income people and minorities. The monitor also said the plan needed “real enforcement mechanisms” — “a clear strategy for how the county will employ carrots and sticks to encourage compliance by municipal governments.” We await the county’s response, which should be to fix the plan and then seriously and swiftly put it into action.
When one thinks about segregation, Westchester isn’t the first place that comes to mind. But the poor and minority residents desperately looking for an affordable place to live know the bitter truth. It is past time for Westchester’s leaders to do what they’ve promised.
NY Times - 2/17/10
Six months ago, New York’s Westchester County agreed to spend slightly more than $50 million in the next seven years to build at least 750 units of affordable housing — more than 600 of them in towns and villages where the black population is 3 percent or less and the Hispanic population is less than 7 percent.
It signed the deal to settle a federal lawsuit accusing it of violating the False Claims Act — that is, of taking tens of millions of federal dollars for affordable housing and other projects while falsely certifying that it was doing all that it must to promote integrated housing. It signed only after a federal judge declared that Westchester had ”utterly failed” to meet its obligations.
Last week, the monitor overseeing the settlement rejected the county’s affordable-housing plan, saying it was deficient on details, accountability and enforcement. Instead of specifying what the county would do to meet certain desegregation bench marks, Westchester had simply restated the bench marks. The plan didn’t specify where and how the money would be spent. It had no “concrete time frame” for finding and buying properties to develop and was “unnecessarily vague on the whole.”
Worst of all, the plan did not explain how or even whether it would overcome not-in-my-backyard resistance and compel cooperation by municipalities that have used exclusionary zoning laws and other devices for years to keep out lower-income people and minorities. The monitor also said the plan needed “real enforcement mechanisms” — “a clear strategy for how the county will employ carrots and sticks to encourage compliance by municipal governments.” We await the county’s response, which should be to fix the plan and then seriously and swiftly put it into action.
When one thinks about segregation, Westchester isn’t the first place that comes to mind. But the poor and minority residents desperately looking for an affordable place to live know the bitter truth. It is past time for Westchester’s leaders to do what they’ve promised.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
UN Releases Report on Housing Rights Violations in the U.S.
The United Nations has released the final report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing’s U.S. mission , making both broad and specific findings and recommendations about housing rights violations in the U.S.
The UN Special Rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik, visited six cities in the U.S. from October 23-November 8, 2009 in her mission, co-coordinated by National Law Center on Homeless Rights and Poverty, the National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, and local partners including
New York, NY – Rob Robinson, Picture the Homeless
Wilkes Barre, PA – Frank Sindaco, Northeast Pennsylvania Organizing Center
Chicago, IL - JR Fleming, Coalition to Protect Public Housing
New Orleans, LA – Sam Jackson, Mayday New Orleans
Pine Ridge, SD – Bill Means, Oglala Tribal Community
Los Angeles, CA – Becky Dennison, Los Angeles Community Action Network
Washington, DC – Debra Frazier, Family and Friends of Arthur Capers and Carrollsburg and Eric Sheptock
After an extremely participatory visit , many of the concerns homeless and low-income communities across the country expressed to her are included in the report.
The Rapporteur’s report recommends, among other things:
Increasing resources for public and affordable housing;
The Protecting Tenants At Foreclosure Act should be extended beyond its 2012 sunset;
Vacant properties should be made available to housing organizations for the provision of affordable housing;
Constructive alternatives to the criminalization of homelessness should be developed, and where adequate shelter is not available, homeless persons should be allowed to shelter themselves in public areas;
The HUD definition of homelessness should be expanded to include those living doubled up with others due to economic hardship.
Congress should pass H.Res. 582 and devote increased resources to the Family Unification Voucher Program.
The Rapporteur will present her report to the UN Human Rights Council on March 5th in Geneva, Switzerland.
Next steps for advocates should include 1) publicizing the report, 2) demanding and action plan from legislators and HUD for implementing the report’s recommendations, and 3) using the report recommendations and findings in local advocacy.
The UN Special Rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik, visited six cities in the U.S. from October 23-November 8, 2009 in her mission, co-coordinated by National Law Center on Homeless Rights and Poverty, the National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, and local partners including
New York, NY – Rob Robinson, Picture the Homeless
Wilkes Barre, PA – Frank Sindaco, Northeast Pennsylvania Organizing Center
Chicago, IL - JR Fleming, Coalition to Protect Public Housing
New Orleans, LA – Sam Jackson, Mayday New Orleans
Pine Ridge, SD – Bill Means, Oglala Tribal Community
Los Angeles, CA – Becky Dennison, Los Angeles Community Action Network
Washington, DC – Debra Frazier, Family and Friends of Arthur Capers and Carrollsburg and Eric Sheptock
After an extremely participatory visit
The Rapporteur’s report recommends, among other things:
Increasing resources for public and affordable housing;
The Protecting Tenants At Foreclosure Act should be extended beyond its 2012 sunset;
Vacant properties should be made available to housing organizations for the provision of affordable housing;
Constructive alternatives to the criminalization of homelessness should be developed, and where adequate shelter is not available, homeless persons should be allowed to shelter themselves in public areas;
The HUD definition of homelessness should be expanded to include those living doubled up with others due to economic hardship.
Congress should pass H.Res. 582 and devote increased resources to the Family Unification Voucher Program.
The Rapporteur will present her report to the UN Human Rights Council on March 5th in Geneva, Switzerland.
Next steps for advocates should include 1) publicizing the report, 2) demanding and action plan from legislators and HUD for implementing the report’s recommendations, and 3) using the report recommendations and findings in local advocacy.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Napa needs affordable housing...
From the Napa Valley Register, 1/3/10.
____________________________________________
Providing places for workers to live
Thousands of people who work in Napa County have to drive here each day from other counties. These are the workers who pick the grapes, the dishwashers and waiters in our restaurants, the store clerks, the office workers, construction workers, truck drivers, house cleaners, auto mechanics and many others. They live in Vallejo, Clearlake and other places where housing is more affordable and commute many miles back and forth each day.
The economy of Napa County depends on these workers. Our local governments have approved dozens of expensive new hotels, wineries, restaurants and other businesses in recent years but have done nothing to make housing available for all the people who work in these businesses. Wineries provide some bunkhouses where farmworkers can sleep, but the workers have to leave their families behind. That's a big hardship for the farmworkers and for their families. It's also not fair to the other counties that have to provide schools and public services for the families of workers in Napa County. And anyone concerned about the environment should ask why thousands of cars are driving all those miles back and forth to work each day. More than 20,000 cars commute into the county each day to work. That's a lot of greenhouse gas.
The economy of Napa County depends on these workers. Our local governments have approved dozens of expensive new hotels, wineries, restaurants and other businesses in recent years but have done nothing to make housing available for all the people who work in these businesses. Wineries provide some bunkhouses where farmworkers can sleep, but the workers have to leave their families behind. That's a big hardship for the farmworkers and for their families. It's also not fair to the other counties that have to provide schools and public services for the families of workers in Napa County. And anyone concerned about the environment should ask why thousands of cars are driving all those miles back and forth to work each day. More than 20,000 cars commute into the county each day to work. That's a lot of greenhouse gas.
Many of the workers who are driving long distances to work in Napa's vineyards, hotels and restaurants are Latino. Our group, Latinos Unidos de Napa, has been trying for years to get more affordable housing built in Napa County. The county promised us in 2004 that they would provide sites for affordable housing, but most of the sites they designated were not allowed to have water service, so no housing could be built there except for million-dollar mansions. Not a single unit of affordable housing has been built in the unincorporated areas of the county in many years, and very few affordable units have been built in the cities.
The lack of affordable housing discriminates against Latinos and the thousands of other lower-income families who would like to live in Napa County but can't afford to do so. Latinos Unidos has filed lawsuits to try to stop this discrimination. Persons working in Napa should be able to live here, also. We harvest the grapes, clean the hotel rooms, prepare the gourmet restaurant meals and contribute in so many other ways to the economy of this county. We shouldn't be forced to live somewhere else because there's no affordable housing allowed here. Housing choices should be available to all persons working in the county — whatever their income or their race. We hope the courts and elected officials in the county will agree.
The lack of affordable housing discriminates against Latinos and the thousands of other lower-income families who would like to live in Napa County but can't afford to do so. Latinos Unidos has filed lawsuits to try to stop this discrimination. Persons working in Napa should be able to live here, also. We harvest the grapes, clean the hotel rooms, prepare the gourmet restaurant meals and contribute in so many other ways to the economy of this county. We shouldn't be forced to live somewhere else because there's no affordable housing allowed here. Housing choices should be available to all persons working in the county — whatever their income or their race. We hope the courts and elected officials in the county will agree.
This letter is written on behalf of Luis Vera, Ignacio Garcia, Oscar Caceres and others.
(Olvera lives in Napa.)
(Olvera lives in Napa.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
