Campaign 2008

Last week we provided you with a summary of the housing and community development proposals offered by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. We planned to provide you with a summary of similar proposals offered by Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain (R0AZ), the presumptive Republican nominee for President. Unfortunately we could not get information in time for this edition. The McCain campaign has no information on his housing and community development recommendations on its web site nor could we find comparable information on his web site in the Senate. Calls made to members of his campaign and personal staffs were not returned. A View from D. C. will continue to investigate this matter and will report to you our findings as it becomes available.

We have; however, been scouring the countryside to gather information about the individuals under consideration for the position of vice president and their views and/or actions on housing and community development actions. As the information becomes available, we will share it with you. Thanks to our friends at the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (MASSNAHRO), we were able to learn about the man considered to be the favorite to be McCain’s running mate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Romney was Governor of Massachusetts for four years from 2003 to 2007. He decided not to seek reelection when he decided to run for president on the Republican ticket. According to MASSNAHRO, he was not a friend of affordable housing. Here are some actions he undertook:

• In January 2003, he cut the Affordable Housing Trust Fun by $7.5 million (a 38% cut) as part of his emergency cuts and eliminated the program from the state’s operating budget. The program was moved to the state’s capital budget, but no longer has a guaranteed revenue source to ensure its annual funding.
  
• In FY ’05, the Governor vetoed the extension of the state low income housing tax credit program, which has been used to produce new housing for low income households. The Legislature ultimately overrode the Governor’s veto and the program was extended for five years.
  
• The Governor’s smart growth criteria failed to recognize the need for affordable housing in suburban and rural areas such as Cape Cod, Central Massachusetts, and Western Massachusetts. The Governor’s smart growth criteria has made it much more difficult to obtain state approval and funding for new affordable housing because available sites in these communities are not located near public transit or in town centers.
  
• The Governor eliminated funding for the Capital Improvement and Preservation Fund. Since 1999 the programs has helped to preserve more than 2,600 low income housing units which were at-risk of being converted to market rate housing. The Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F) also said it no longer wanted to use state or Federal funds to preserve existing privately-owned housing which is currently used by tenants. A&F also floated a proposal to begin “selling off” state public housing to residents although no legislation was filed.
  
• The Governor cut funding for the Public Housing Modernization Program from $61.3 million in the FY2003 capital budget to $50.45 million in FY2005, an 18 percent cut. He also cut $5 million from the public housing operating subsidy as part of his emergency cuts in the FY03 budget and under funded the program in his budgets for FY04 and FY05 by as much as $10 million each year.
  
• In his FY 05 budget, the Governor proposed raising rents for families in state public housing from 30% of income to 38% of income for rent. The Legislature ultimately approved a smaller rent increase to 32%.
  
• In FY 04 the Governor eliminated the Rent Escrow Program which matched savings accumulated by public housing tenants for the purchase of a new home, education, or work training.
  
• The Governor cut the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities from $3 million in FY03 to $2.3 million in FY04 and FY05.
  
• The Governor cut the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) from $26.6 million in FY03 to $22.6 million in FY04. The Legislature modestly increased MRVP to $24.2 million in FY05, but no new vouchers were issued.
  
• In the FY05 budget, the Governor eliminated funding for the Individual Self-Sufficiency Program, which provided housing assistance for homeless individuals.
  
• In the FY06 budget, the Governor proposed a three-year limit and strict work requirements for 4,500 households receiving MRVP assistance. As a result, thousands of low income tenants with average incomes of approximately $15,000 would be displaced and the tenant-based voucher program would cease to exist in three years. The Legislature rejected this proposal.
• In the FY06 budget, the Governor vetoed much-needed funding increases of $2 million for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) and $2 million for the Residential Assistance for Families in transition (RAFT) Program. The Legislature overrode these vetoes.

Source: Massachusetts NAHRO

Q&A with Sheila Crowley, President of the National Low Income Housing Coalition

Sheila Crowley is President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). NLHIC is dedicated solely to ending America's affordable housing crisis (www.nlihc.org). NLIHC believes this is achievable because it is a problem which Americans are capable of solving. While NLIHC is concerned about the housing circumstances of all low income people, it focuses its advocacy on those with the most serious housing problems, the lowest income households.

Sheila joined the staff of the National Low Income Housing Coalition in December 1998, after two decades in Richmond, Virginia in organizational leadership, direct service, policy advocacy, and scholarship. She is a social worker with a bachelor’s (1976), master’s (1978), and Ph.D. (1998) from the School of Social Work at Virginia Commonwealth University. She has worked in staff, board, and consulting roles with organizations that focus on family housing, AIDS housing, senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, and homeless services. She is an adjunct faculty member for the VCU School of Social Work and for George Mason University Department of Social Work, teaching social policy, social justice, policy advocacy, and community and organizational practice. NLIHC has been the lead organization pursuing a national housing trust fund which is included in the mortgage relief bill under negotiation in the Congress.

1. Congress is negotiating a housing bill which includes the creation of a housing trust fund. What are some of the key elements to the trust fund which will benefit low income families?

The basic premise of the trust fund is that part of the population is left out of the housing production mix, namely the extremely low income household. We need to expand the supply of affordable housing for this population and be able to add a variety of new resources into the production mix. The trust fund will be treated as a direct grant so that some portion of the apartments being built will be for the extremely low-income population.

2. NLIHC was at the forefront in the effort to secure passage of the housing trust fund. What was the difference in getting the trust fund passed now versus three or four years ago?

The key was the change in leadership with the Democratic Congress and the change in leadership on the Financial Services Committee. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said he would place this at the top of his agenda. There was a window of opportunity created by the foreclosure crisis and subsequent legislation. We had a feeling we had a chance to insert the trust fund bill into the larger foreclosure bill. We were able to stick to it because our funders stuck with us. They continued to stick with the housing trust fund campaign so when we needed people to act we had thousands who knew what we were talking about and could act quickly on our behalf.

3. Affordable housing programs, particularly public housing, have seen their funding levels reduced over the last eight years. Will these funds compete with existing housing programs for funding?

The trust fund was designed specifically to be outside of the appropriations process so it doesn’t compete with the other programs.

4. What can be done to bring in private sector dollars to compensate for the losses in public housing dollars?

That is a tough one because I believe public housing is at a crossroads. It has been battered about badly by the Bush Administration, starved without resources, its stock is aging; there is no investment in new stock or in adequately maintaining the current stock. We need to think about what public housing will look like in 50 years versus the next five years. It is a hard conversation to have in the middle of the struggle with the diminishing resources and in some communities, particularly the smaller ones, good stock. What do we do to keep the stock in good condition and what do we do to replace what has been lost. We have to figure out what to do with the stock which is past its useful life. It is a very hard conversation to have when you are immersed in it with the tenants who have public housing as their lifeline, and workers who built a career in the field. It can be hard to see the forest through the trees.

5. Your organization represents a large number of tenants and community housing activists; whereas, groups such as CLPHA, PHADA and NAHRO represent housing providers. Oftentimes both parties are at odds on issues. What can be done to bridge the differences between these parties?

I am not sure how to answer that. With a new administration a lot of people want to reconsider the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entity. HUD has been left wit poor leadership and a demoralized staff. What is the next step in the reconsideration of HUD? This view will look at the quality of person leading HUD the different sectors and departments at HUD. We need to think of the future of the agency and the program departments. Right now it is too silo oriented. There are different departments controlling the Federal housing stock and the Federal assisted stock with common problems but no discussions between them.

Interesting reads

This is an article which appeared in the New York Times which discusses how the mortgage crisis continues to snowball.

"As Housing Bill Evolves, Crisis Grows Deeper" by by Vikas Bajaj

This is an article in the Boston Globe which points out that assisted housing in Sen. Barack Obama’s former state Senate district is in bad shape.

"Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy" by by Binyamin Applebaum

Posted in: barrack,development,housing,hud,mortgage,obama,senate