210 likes | 575 Views
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.. Background. . WWI. Housing for defense contractor workersUnited States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet CorporationThe United States Housing Corporation.
E N D
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