Housing and Urban Development Policy

1. Housing and Urban Development Policy

2. Public Housing Policy Public Housing Policy in America implemented the way it has over the last century has imposed contradictory pressures that are not well understood and lead to false understandings of how it operates today and how it can be improved.

3. Background

4. WWI Housing for defense contractor workers United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation The United States Housing Corporation

5. Great Depression Put people to work by doing construction and remove blight Public Works Administration (PWA) 22,000 units built majority built in the north and large cities most tenants were White and working (WWII stimulated the economy)

6. Housing Act of 1937 Set the Foundation for permanent public housing Allowed the creation of local public housing authorities that took over PWA housing

7. Economic Efficiency of Public Housing Housing subsidies No new construction Stimulated demand too much for pre-existing low quality housing Conventional Public Ownership Construction spending put people to work New structures removed dilapidated buildings

8. Housing Act of 1949 Additional construction Limited to very low income Fewer units built than originally planned

9. Economic Efficiency Argument falls apart--1950s and 1960s No limit on price of land for public housing, but limit on cost per unit construction Result: Politics determined location. Shoddy projects built Rents collected were linked to income of residents: 30% Result: Not enough money to keep up the projects

10. Devolution starting in the 1970s Federal government owned 1 million units in 1974. Types 80% Conventional Public Housing: Government Built, Government Run 20% Turnkey: Private sector built, Government Run Budget cuts new emphases Home Ownership: 1990 Act encourages residents to buy their unit Decentralization: Section 8

11. Section 8 Vouchers for poor to give to landlords for housing provision Long Waitlists Example: Orange County Housing Authority (http://www.oc.ca.gov/housing/index.htm) Over 7,200 vouchers (66% for the elderly or disabled) Waitlist over 5,000 Received grant to offer 740 additional certificates starting in June 2001.

12. Challenges for Public Housing Authorities More pressure to be �competitive� Public Housing Management Program Criteria Ability to perform modernization, maintenance, inspections Ability to collect rent Ability to fill vacant units Ability to work with residents to provide programs Rating of 60 or less and authority is put on the troubled PHA list

13. Public Housing Elements (Quercia & Galster) Motive: Maximize provision of affordable, decent housing for very poor Financial structure: Deteriorating buildings, inability to raise rents Characteristics of stock: in big cities they tend to be aging, high rise, high density Characteristics of tenants: Very poor, frequently single headed households with children Management approach: Follow federal regulations

14. Private sector building of low-income housing Motive: Maximize profit Financial structure: Expect subsidy to house very poor who cannot pay market rate rents Characteristics of stock: Unknown Characteristics of tenants: Tend to be 50-60% of the median income ($49,583 in OC) Management approach: Asset management and competition=response to tenants

15. Public Housing Reinvention Motive: Provision of affordable, decent housing as well as improve tenants socio-economic wellbeing Financial structure: Demolish bad units. Use the money to upkeep occupied, habitable units Characteristics of stock: Smaller �human-scale� developments Characteristics of tenants: Mixed income Management approach: Asset management and cost effectiveness strategy on site to site basis

16. Public Housing Quadrilemma Conflict 1: Investors see public housing as a risky investment due to delays by cities in making approvals, zoning, etc. Maximize geographic and social integration of poor and non-poor households vs. Maximize the amount of private capital invested in public housing authorities thereby reducing reliance on public subsidies

17. Conflict 2 Non-poor may not want to live with poor so benefits of having non-poor onsite are undercut Maximize geographic and social integration of poor and non-poor households vs. Maximize the value of cross-subsidies of non-poor subsidizing poor.

18. Conflict 3 Investors see poor tenants as risky prospects: inability to collect rent, higher maintenance, etc. Maximize number of poor assisted by decent, affordable housing vs. Maximize the amount of private capital invested in public housing authorities thereby reducing reliance on public subsidies

19. Conflict 4 Too many non-poor tenants means fewer poor being helped Maximize number of poor assisted by decent, affordable housing vs. Maximize the value of cross-subsidies of non-poor subsidizing poor.

20. Responses to Quadrilemma Accept the fact that not all of the goals of Public Housing can be accomplished Section 8 vouchers have strong potential for filling the gap This is a decision matrix to help identify what happens in which kinds of situations

21. Residents of Public Housing Satisfaction Ambivalence