Sunday, July 27, 2008

2008 Election: State Polls Matter Most

In August the Democratic and Republican parties will hold their conventions to formally confirm Senators Barack Obama and John McCain as their respective presidential nominees. Each candidate will also have formally announced his running mate in the hopes it will create excitement among their supporters and a “bounce” in the polls as the final push to the White House begins. Many national polls will be taken offering snap shots of which candidate is leading at that moment in time. However it is our advice to readers of aviewfromdc to be cautious in placing too much emphasis on the national polls.

Observers should focus their attention on state polls to get a true gauge of the race’s final result. For months national polls indicated Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. Her campaign continually pointed to these opinion polls to indicate she was the strongest candidate to win the presidency for the Democrats. However, state polls offered a different assessment and ultimately her campaigned failed for a number of reasons, one of which was the failure to pay close attention to state polls.

To help guide you through the election season we listed some resources which offer some of the best information to track the presidential election.

1. Wikipedia has a great summary of the presidential election; it summarizes the candidates from all of the political parties and leads to excellent information about national and state polling. It also provides an interesting summary of the battleground states as well. A little known movement is described which could impact future elections. It is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact calls for states to award its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.

2. Realclearpolitics is a great web site for all things election including a daily listing of some of the best articles and editorials on the election.

3. The University of Virginia’s Center for Politics includes Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball which features analyses of presidential races, Senate, House and gubernatorial races.

McCain Housing Position

The web site www.VoteGopher.com contains information concerning John McCain’s housing position. According to the site, McCain supports the creation of a Federal Housing Authority "HOME" Plan, which would make it easier for low-income Americans to secure affordable loans in place of the "burdensome mortgages" that cause them financial strain. He has also promised to create a Mortgage Abuse Task Force through the Justice Department, which would investigate criminal activity in the mortgage industry and assist state Attorneys General in uncovering and punishing abusive lending practices.

He also supports a plan to let homeowners struggling to pay adjustable rate sub prime mortgages switch to a 30-year fixed rate mortgage backed by the government. People will be eligible for this plan if they bought a sub prime mortgage after 2005 for their primary residence while they were creditworthy, but cannot pay the mortgage now. If homeowners with the government-backed mortgage see their houses appreciate in value and sell them, they keep a third of the profit and the other two-thirds are split between lenders and the federal government. McCain has also called for the creation of a "Mortgage Abuse Task Force" to investigate the industry.

Potential Senate VP Candidate's positions on housing and community development programs

Aviewfromdc has reviewed the voting record of various senators under consideration for the position of vice president. The voting record was compiled by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) Included are the voting records of John McCain and Barack Obama. There is a guide which explains each legislation voted on by each member.

Of the Democratic senators mentioned as potential vice presidential candidates: Jack Reed (RI), Hillary Clinton (NY), Joe Biden (Del), Evan Bayh (IN) and Chris Dodd (CT) each voted on all the positions recommended by NAHRO when they were present to vote. Independent Joseph Lieberman (CT) also had a perfect record. Lieberman is mentioned as a possible candidate for John McCain. Republican Chuck Hagel (NE), considered a long shot to be selected by Obama as his running mate, voted for two appropriations bill consistent with the NAHRO position out of the nine listed. Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for three measures along the lines recommended by NAHRO.

Interesting reads

Housing Bill Won't 'Perform Miracles'
Senate Approves Measure, but Critics Say Law Unlikely to Prevent Most Foreclosures

By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Hill Budget Chief Weighs Odds, Cost Of Rescue Plan, Fannie, Freddie Could Need $100 Billion or Not a Cent by Lori Montgomery and David S. Hilzenrath, Washington Post Staff Writers

The Fannie and Freddie Follies Spare the rod, spoil the child
by Lawrence B. Lindsey

No sign yet of a bottom in home prices; Rising foreclosures, big new-home inventory push recovery into next year. Analysis by John W. Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC

To Fight Poverty, Tear Down HUD by Sudhir Venkatesh

McCain Makes Significant Gains in Four Key Battleground States
Majority of Voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin Favor Keeping Troops in Iraq, According to Quinnipiac-washingtonpost.com-Wall Street Journal Survey

By Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com staff writer

Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans? By John Blake, CNN

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Philadelphia Housing Authority Receives Second Highest S&P Grade

The Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) was issued an “AA-“rating (ICR) from Standard and Poor’s (S&P) Rating Services due to its strong overall management and strategic plan. This is the second highest rating issued by S&P and the highest rating issued to date to a housing authority. Ratings in the “AA” category are considered high investment grades. This means PHA is considered an attractive option for investors.

“Standard and Poor’s believes the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s management has the wherewithal to balance new development and rehabilitation prudently and in a manner that makes the most use of its limited resources to improve it overall housing stock,” said Valerie White a credit analyst with S&P.

S&P’s ICR is an opinion of the overall financial capacity of an entity to meet its financial obligations. The rating sends a signal to investors of the overall creditworthiness of an entity as an investment partner. In rating housing agencies S&P relies on an overall credit analysis which takes into context the various business types in the public housing sector. Other factors in the rating including the overall history of the public housing industry, the level of government support for public housing, the earnings and financial strength of individual agency, the experience and past performance of the agency and comparison to other agencies based on size, market and business profile.

PHA is the fourth largest agency in the country with 15,000 units in 76 developments including traditional public housing, low income housing tax credit units and scattered site until It also administers more than 16,000 housing choice vouchers. Overall, PHA serves more than 84,000 residents throughout Philadelphia.

In addition to containing a strong overall management structure and strategic plan which supported its mission, the S&P rating found strong demand for PHA services as evidenced by a waiting list of more than 50,000 individuals; a strong development arm which maximizes external resources in developing mixed-finance projects; and additional financial and income support from these mixed income and mixed use sites.

S&P did recognize the trend in reduced federal funding for capital needs and operating subsidies. S&P found that the long-term capital plan needs could require significant resources which could reduce its net working capital and weaken its overall profitability ratios.

Q&A with Valerie D. White, Standard and Poor’s

Valerie D. White is a director in the tax-exempt housing and structured group of Standard & Poor’s Corporate & Government Ratings Division. As the sector leader for public housing ratings, Valerie's role includes the development of ratings criteria for PHA capacity evaluations, credit assessments, securitized capital fund transactions, and issuer credit ratings. Valerie also works on ratings for international social housing providers. In addition to the PHA transactions, Valerie rates issues in the affordable housing program, rates debt for selected large-scale state, local and municipal structured finance transactions, and is the primary analyst for a number of state housing finance agencies.

Valerie came to Standard & Poor’s after more than eight years at the New York City Housing Authority, where she served as chief of the Statistics Department, executive policy assistant for the Board of Commissioners and General Manager, and deputy director for Asset Management and Private Market Operations. Valerie holds both a B.A. in Communications and a J.D. from Fordham University. She is the author of the published note, Modifying the Escalera Consent Decree: A Case Study on the Application of the Rufo Test, 23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 377 (1996); which was cited in Escalera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 924 F. Supp. 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). During her law school tenure, Valerie served as Managing Editor of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. She also holds an M.S. and a Certificate in Organization Development from New School University. In 2007, Valerie was named on the 25 Influential Black Women in Business list for The Network Journal magazine.

1. Why did Standard and Poor’s decide to issue credit ratings for housing agencies serving low-income households?

Standard & Poor's has been rating bonds issued by housing authorities since the early 1990s. Back then, the transactions were primarily affordable real estate transactions that provided additional non-public housing options. Many of these ratings were in markets, like the Pacific Northwest, where there was available land for new construction development for affordable housing. In some cases, housing authorities were able to take advantage of the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) subsidy program which was in its early years at the time. Some were even part of multi-layered HOPE VI development projects. This era seemed to be the early stages of housing authorities finding alternative business means to meet the growing demands of the markets they served.

The 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 provided housing authorities with the authorization to use appropriated funds to back debt issuances. We rated our first Capital Fund Financing Program Bond (CFFP) for the Chicago Housing Authority in 2001. As part of developing the criteria for rating these bonds, we determined that public housing is a low business risk entity with an extremely strong essentiality evidenced by the high level of demand that exceeds the supply in this segment of the housing market. We were also comfortable with the long-standing government support for public housing in the form of subsidy through annual Congressional appropriations. We were able to identify trends of appropriation levels and apply certain stresses based on the recent and current funding environments to get comfortable with rating appropriated back date. Since our first CFFP rating, we have completed almost 30 public ratings for capital fund-backed bonds, including several pool transactions like the Maryland PHA pool issued by the state housing finance agency, and the Puerto Rico Public Housing Administration transaction--for which we just rated its second issuance, a subordinate tranche, a few weeks ago. We have also completed well over 100 CFFP confidential credit assessments for private loan programs for such lenders as Fannie Mae and Bank of America.

Our work rating housing authority issues over the years lead us to believe that housing authorities were strong entities that could qualify for investment grade Issuer Credit Ratings (ICR). We published criteria in November of 2007 outlining our ratings approach for public housing authority ICRs. I am pleased to say we released our first ICR for the Philadelphia Housing Authority ("AA-") earlier this month.

2. In rating housing agencies, what are common characteristics of agencies receiving high ratings from S&P?

Creativity and aggressive business strategies coupled with prudent financial management and planning seem to be a common thread among the housing authorities that have either transactional ratings or an ICR. One of the key strengths in the Philadelphia ICR rating was the agency's strong management and the creative business strategies. The authority demonstrates the ability to plan for the current funding environment and employ alternative strategies to meet demands. This includes attracting LIHTC investment and other subsidies for community redevelopment and the establishment of non-profit subsidiaries to provide the means to carry out development plans. In addition, Philadelphia has established a long-standing and successful partnership with its state housing finance agency--which is the allocating LIHTC entity and has also served as conduit bond issuer on a number of the authority's mixed-finance projects. We have worked with a number of authorities in the West for which we have rated their transactional bond issues--including the San Diego Housing Commission, the Vancouver Housing Authority and the King County Housing Authority. These authorities have issued property-specific bonds to fund the costs of developing affordable housing to create mixed-income communities that help support additional low-income housing in their respective markets.

For the CFFP ratings, those are primarily structured transactions that rely on the appropriations trends coupled with legal protections to the bond holder in the form of certain HUD approval and legal obligations under the bonds documents. However, the past performance of the authority does come into play. Authorities that have a track record of completing modernization projects timely demonstrate one of the elements that are considered a key strength in the rating.

3. How does an S&P’s favorable rating enhance a housing agency’s portfolio in the eyes of an investor?

Standard & Poor's assigns ratings to public housing authorities or to a particular bond transaction and publishes rating reports based upon S&P published criteria. The rating reflects Standard & Poor's independent opinion of the creditworthiness of the issuer or the bonds. Many investors use our rating reports as one source of information to make investment decisions.

4. Public housing authorities have battled the Federal government over the last several years for increased funding to operate its programs. Based on your experience, how much funding must the Federal government provide to housing authorities to calm any concerns expressed by investors?

At present, Standard & Poor's still believes public housing capital fund financing program transactions are strong--however--continued declines in overall Capital Fund appropriations could have a long term impact on the credit quality of bonds in that sector. Creditworthiness for CFFP bonds is not solely a function of the amount of federal funding, but also takes into account the housing authority management performance, as well as the parameters of the HUD approvals and the legal structure of the transaction.
For PHA ICRs, it is likely that housing authorities who rely a great deal on federal subsidies may experience declines in margins as federal subsidies continue to decrease. This trend could be problematic to authorities in analyzing their earnings capacity if there are no additional income streams to supplement the overall revenue of the authority. Authorities that find other earning streams to supplement their income in the face of shrinking subsidies provide a more diverse and stronger financial business model for investor to consider.

5. There are some in the industry who believe housing agencies need to reassess how they are structured and function in order to continue to meet the needs of low income households. What are some of the tools housing agencies should use to help plan for the future?

Successful housing authorities have engaged creative business strategies that are more akin to operating as a real estate owner and operator. This concept includes finding means to augment federal subsidies through developing business opportunities that can provide other income streams including but not limited to developer opportunities, property management functions and asset assessment and sales for other-than-public housing in their communities. Like any business, identifying contingency strategies to counteract revenue declines in the federal subsidy income stream can be an avenue for housing authorities to maintain an effective level of service to the low-income and affordable housing markets in their communities.

Mortgage Crisis Briefing

The National Low Income Housing Coalition will hold a congressional staff briefing on July 23 to review its policy recommendations to help low income families impacted by the mortgage crisis. NLIHC is expected to ask for a one-time supplemental appropriation of a $300 million increase for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.


2008 Campaign

Periodically aviewfromdc seeks to provide information about individuals under consideration for the position of vice president. In this posting we look at Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge.

Currently Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) and former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (R) are considered candidates for the position of vice president for their respective parties. Concerning their support for housing and community development, they are both considered to be supportive of the issues related to housing and community development but have very different approaches to address these issues. Of the two Rendell is considered the one whose star shines brightest.

Under Rendell finding for housing and community development has increased when compared to Ridge’s tenure. There has been more money pumped into improving the development of downtown areas in local communities. Rendell supported smart growth initiatives believing that if you build the core (downtown) you create more effective policies for the surrounding area.

Ridge had an interest and seemed to support housing and community development but took a different approach. He worked to create new initiatives like improving downtown through financial incentives and new technology but not at the same level of dollar support to match. He created a community development bank which was to be funded by private sector dollars versus all public dollars but it never materialized because no funding became available. His support was also not reflective in the budget most program funding levels either stayed stagnant or received cuts. Ridge also enjoyed a Republican legislature while he was in office while Rendell must contend with a bipartisan legislature.

Interesting reads

McCain’s Hillary Problem by John Heilemann


Making It, How Chicago shaped Obama by Ryan Lizza

Flip-Flop Flap by Hendrik Hertzberg

Housing Advocates Have Opportunities to Weigh in on Political Party Platforms

Bank losses not as bad as Street had feared, Midyear corporate results offer some hope, but housing weighs on economy, an analysis by John W. Schoen, Senior Producer, MSNBC

Sunday, July 13, 2008

End of an Era for NNC

An end of era occurred in Washington, DC July 8th when the National Neighborhood Coalition (NNC) closed its door after nearly 30 years of advocating for low income neighborhoods. In announcing its closure the organization released its final report, What’s Happening to the Neighborhood. The report reveals a series of “snapshots” on selected issues such as affordable housing, community development, community organizing and organizations, and neighborhood data and planning.

The National Neighborhood Coalition was founded in 1979 to provide a national voice for lower-income neighborhoods. Its mission was to promote socially and economically vibrant neighborhoods and strong and effective partnerships between community-based organizations and the public and private sector. NNC provided common ground for the nation’s leading advocates for lower-income neighborhoods. It created a role as a convener where disparate national and local leaders came together to discuss issues, generate the resources, public policies and solution-oriented strategies to strengthen and sustain low-income neighborhoods.

NNC was deeply involved in the creation of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), and in the creation of a smart growth tool kit. As a result of NNC’s efforts groups such as the Coalition on Human Needs and the Campaign for Housing and Community Development Funding grew as a result of NNC’s efforts. In its prime, NNC was a great networking resource for new Washington arrivals and seasoned veterans alike. As technology improved and issues and funding for those issues became more defined, NNC’s role as a convener diminished. While the decision to shut down NNC was difficult, its board felt it was time to close its doors.

Its final report seeks to bring awareness to the conditions in neighborhoods and the efforts underway to improve them, according to the NNC Vice Chairs Jane DeMarines, Executive Director of National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations; Conrad Egan, President and CEO of the National Housing Conference; and, Lisa Hasegawa, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development.

Edited by Mark Rom, Associate Professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, the report is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive, according to a statement released by the vice-chairs. According to the vice-chairs, it is written by experienced activists, leaders and scholars, and all chapters offer suggestions for improving neighborhoods through policy and programmatic innovations.

Q&A with Thomas Shellabarger, Co-Chair of the National Neighborhood Coalition

Thomas Shellabarger is a Policy Advisor on Urban and Economic Issues for the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops. He monitors issues related to housing, homelessness, community development, civil rights, employment, and the federal budget. The major legislation involved in these issues are the federal budget process, housing authorization and appropriations, labor and employment, and minimum wage. He was the immediate past co-chair of the National Neighborhood Coalition.

1. How has the National Neighborhood Coalition contributed to the debate in Washington about the need to improve low income neighborhoods?

Covering 30 years of contributions, I’m afraid some will be overlooked! We were deeply involved in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) which really opened up information to neighborhoods about their access to money and other financial services. More recently, we were involved in getting neighborhoods into the conversations about ‘Smart Growth’. Getting people together who work on issues or public policy that affect people in local communities, local neighbors, just generates a lot of good ideas!

2. How would you describe the conditions of neighborhoods today compared to when NNC first opened its doors?

The current foreclosure debacle is having a devastating effect on many low-income communities. They were actually targeted with sub prime loans and mislead, in some cases fraudulently, about the terms and conditions of these contracts. But in the larger picture there is a lot more organizing, a lot more money, and a lot more attention being paid to our neighborhoods.

3. What are the challenges neighborhoods need to overcome in order to be viable entities for the people who live within their environs?

Organize, organize, and organize. Without organization, people are alone, without resources, information, or power. Together, we may not win everywhere or every time, but we can chip away and bring about change.

4. What is the significance of the report recently released by NNC?

I think it demonstrates that there are a multitude of ways to form community and we can learn from every effort of people getting together to overcome the challenges unique to each community. We can actually measure different attributes; data is actually available to measure our progress. We become sophisticated in developing community assets and relationships to other institutions. I think the report is merely a sampling of the great things that are occurring and those that can occur when we organize.

5. What do you think the future holds for low-income neighborhoods?

I hope good things; I pray marvelous things.


Interesting read

Ripple Effects from Fannie and Freddie: Mortgage Giants' Problems Could Mean Higher Loan Rates by Nancy Trejos

Treasury Takes Steps to Bolster Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac by Neil Irwin and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum

American Murder Mystery by Hanna Rosin

Rebuttal to American Murder Mystery article by Sunia Zaterman, Executive Director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA)

Governors await running-mate call by the Associated Press

Monday, July 7, 2008

A View from D.C. Opinion

Congress is expected to resume action on legislation (H.R. 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act) which provides relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. Included in this
legislation is language creating a housing trust fund which provides resources for building of rental housing for extremely low-income house holds.

Congress deserves much credit for moving rapidly to address the mortgage crisis; however, it must also be scolded for not moving as quickly to address the affordable rental needs of many equally distressed families. While homeownership is an admirable goal, it is not one within reach of millions of Americans. They are still in need of affordable rental housing but the cost of rental housing is eerily creeping out of their reach as well.

The affordable housing crisis faced by renters is not new. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) has issued a report, Out of Reach, which documents how much a family earning minimum can afford to rent in local markets. In its 2008 report, NLIHC found that a worker earning the minimum wage can not afford the national average fair market rent (FMR) of $900 a month. The FMR is an estimate of what a household could reasonably expect to pay for rent and utilities. This estimate is determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This same must earn an hourly wage of $17.32 to afford the national average rent. HUD’s worst case needs report determined over five million currently unassisted households face rent burdens which exceed 50 percent of their income. Additionally, the State of the Nation’s Housing 2008 report released by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University earlier this year stated a family with severe housing cost burdens have only $257 a month for food, $29 for clothing and $9 for health care.

Cuts to the public housing programs, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the failure to provide sufficient vouchers for local communities has created a severe shortage of affordable housing units for low and extremely low income families. The housing trust fund will help, some what, to alleviate this problem. But, Congress must take the same proactive approach to meet the needs of families renting homes and apartments. Families in rental properties are impacted just as severely by the downturn in the economy as homeowners. The difference is homeowners carry greater political weight simply because they are homeowners.

Congress must make similar investments in programs which preserve and produce decent, safe and affordable rental housing. In the short term, this investment must include increases in funding for public housing, vouchers, the CDBG and HOME programs; greater flexibility for public housing authorities to develop mixed income communities modeled after the HOPE VI program; changes in the tax code which ensures more money is kept in the pockets of low income families; an energy policy which ensures low income families have access to heat and air conditioning when the need arises; and policies and programs which promote entrepreneurship and job creation in low income neighborhoods.

Long term, serious discussions must begin about drastically restructuring HUD. As long as the HUD Secretary is accountable to the president, and only the president, housing problems will persist in this country. There is no consistency from one administration to the next. Recipients of federal housing dollars must change their approach to administering these funds according to the priorities of each administration. This can be expensive and confusing. By making a few fundamental changes to how the Federal government oversees housing, we can increase the opportunity to successfully provide decent, safe and affordable housing for everyone.

First, there needs to be a housing czar similar in responsibilities and structure to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Board consists of seven members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms of office. Members may serve only one full term, but a member who has been appointed to complete an unexpired term may be reappointed to a full term. The President designates, and the Senate confirms, two members of the Board to be Chairman and Vice Chairman, for four-year terms. The terms of the restructured housing agency should be at least 10 years. This new structure will allow for consistency in planning, administration, funding and evaluation.

Second, there needs to be a consensus that housing is a necessity to establish a foundation for future success. I am not a proponent of housing as a right but I do believe without it the chance for success is minimized.

Third, there should be consolidation of programs. HUD contains too many departments and programs with similar responsibilities and little to no interaction. Consolidating programs and redefining their scope and responsibilities will not be popular and difficult to achieve but is necessary.

Fourth, there must be greater flexibility and responsibility given to local provides to adapt programs to local needs. A one size all approach simply does not work. Combining the best of both the CDBG and HOPE VI programs can provide a model for how these programs should be oversee by the federal government and administered locally.

Campaign 2008

(aviewfromdc is seeking to inform its readers about the positions taken on housing and community development programs by those under consideration for vice president by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). In this issue we provide you with a snap shot of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) who is one name under consideration by McCain).

According to our sources in Minnesota, the governor is more supportive and knowledgeable about the issue than past governors. He has provided some helpful support for affordable housing but with the exception of $10 million to supplement cuts in public housing – just enough to prevent doors from closing – there has not enough support from the state for building affordable rentable multifamily units.

Pawlenty has been very supportive of addressing homelessness in the state. He has supported a model created his housing commissioner, Tim Marx, calling for homeless prevention as a state priority. A business plan was developed which calls for working with the Department of Corrections, and Human Services with the housing commissioner acting as the coordinator. It is a model which is being reviewed by other states.

While the homeless initiative has created discussion on the importance of the topic, it has taken some attention away from the affordable housing issues in Minnesota. There has been some administrative support for the programs and some flexibility to public housing agencies but not enough new resources or incentives to local governments for originating affordable housing as a homeless prevention vehicle. The governor is exploring a CD initiative which will provides funds for localities to match with money based on affordable housing needs.

Q&A with Kurt Creager, Principal, Housing Solutions, LLC

Kurt Creager founded Urbanist Solutions LLC; which is a consulting and development corporation specializing in transit oriented development and development of mixed income, sustainable communities. The firm is active in five western states serving public and private clients, including housing agencies. Creager was CEO of the Vancouver Housing Authority in Vancouver, WA serving the communities in SW Washington for over 15 years. He led the development of 3,500 dwellings, helping transform the agency into a sustainable and dynamic local housing provider. The agency served as a community renewal agency and public development authority and was classified by Standard and Poor's as Strong with a Stable Outlook. Creager is the former chief of Housing and Economic Development for Metropolitan King County in Seattle. There he established the Housing Opportunity Fund, a debt and equity fund which has invested in over 9,000 affordable housing units in over 40 localities to date. He began his career in the private sector where he was responsible for land use entitlements for commercial, residential and industrial developments. Creager is past president of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), Washington, D.C., and currently serves as the representative to the United Nations for NAHRO’s Non-Governmental Organization.

1. You recently left your position as the head of the Vancouver Housing Authority (VHA) to start your own business. How much has changed from when you started in this field?

Housing Solutions After twenty-five years in the public sector I was ready for a change. The work was very rewarding and I never once regretted my career choice. My strengths however, are development and development finance. Therefore, I wanted to produce more housing with the gifts I have been blessed with. I wanted to push myself a bit harder to increase the scale of my development practice and work in multiple markets simultaneously. After serving as Senior Vice President for a private investment and development corporation in Phoenix, I created UrbanistLLC in 2007. To answer your question, when I attended a legislative briefing at the PNW Region Conference in Spokane, Washington this April, I was struck by the fact that some things have not changed much at all. HUD is still under funding local housing authorities and is squeezing them even more than was thought possible a couple of years ago. Embargoed administrative fees, capital funding and public housing operating fund shortfalls are creating a perilous situation in many localities. Some entities are at their wits end with this chronic under funding and are moving to divest their stock of public housing. Others are doing heroic work to sustain their local programs, often using local resources to do so while hoping for a more favorable national housing policy in the next administration. The most profound change, however, in the last two years was the downdraft in equity pricing because of the lack of demand in the market for low income housing tax credits, which occurred in the fourth quarter of 2007. This is a national problem and will persist until private corporations and Government Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie and Freddie especially) are again profitable, stoking their investment appetite. In the meantime, many good projects are not able to go forward because they have an equity gap. Unless they are located in a state or locality with redevelopment and/or housing trust funds, many of these projects are effectively dead in the water. Even if they are financially viable projects, they must be prepared to close in 30-60 days or risk added uncertainty from further repricing. Public and private developers alike took the availability of abundant capital a bit too much for granted and are learning some hard lessons as a result of not having exit strategies in place for each of their transactions. It is indeed a problem, but it will not last forever.

2. What advice would you give to someone just entering the profession?

I recently accepted the position of Executive Director at the Arizona State University Stardust Center for Affordable Housing and the Family, which is part of the College of Design. As a result, and because I am a housing and community development practitioner, I will contribute what I can to their undergraduate Housing and Community Development Program and their Masters in Real Estate Development Program, as appropriate. These programs are well established and what I will aim to impart is a sense of value in public service by helping build sustainable communities and helping families succeed through the provision of well designed affordable housing. The Center itself utilizes several undergraduate, graduate and post graduate students on many design and research projects and they are a great source of enthusiasm and energy. Some of them are foreign students which enriches us as an organization as well. To a person, they are committed to environmental sustainability and design excellence. I would advise young professionals that any time of economic uncertainty is the best time to hone your professional skills. Use this slack time to be more professionally competent and, by all means, look for volunteer opportunities during this economic downturn. These experiences will be rewarded tenfold personally and professionally. ASU is a large institution, with over 64,000 students in a multi-campus setting. We call it a model for the New American University, because through Centers like the Stardust Center we are embedded into the community and are collaborating to create a more sustainable city and region. These students will have a profound and positive effect on our collective future and they need a chance to make a positive difference.

3. There are divergent views on how best to meet the housing needs of the extremely low and low income households. What do you think needs to be done to ensure this population's housing needs are met?

I am a believer that people with low and very low incomes need to be included in mixed income properties which also include a mix of market rate and workforce housing options. This is a large part of my private development practice. As professionals, we know that this works. The body of evidence from HOPE VI projects supports this belief. The experience in Canada shows that when subsidized clients (Rent Geared to Income or RGI) constitute no more than 1/3 of the mix of units, the projects can be financially sustainable without long term operating subsidies. To make this a reality in the USA, however, involves a political compromise which needs to be accepted by advocates for the very poor. Not all the housing needs of low and/or extremely low income people can nor should be addressed within each project. That is because sustainable communities are not homogeneous, they are diversified economically. In this manner, projects can and will provide adequate net cash flow to provide good amenities as well as adequate replacement reserves without requiring a perpetual subsidy. Neighborhoods will accept well designed, well maintained/managed low income housing. They will resent and resist enclaves of the very poor which have proven to be unsustainable financially. We need to embrace local and national housing policy that makes mixed income housing development the norm in my opinion.

4. This is a two for one question. To what extent has the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) been an asset and/or liability in serving the needs of local communities? If you were HUD Secretary for a day, how would you maximize its assets and minimize its liabilities?

Thanks for such a provocative question. For the most part people within HUD chose their career to help people and make a positive difference in local communities. Trouble is, they have not been led nor managed well at all the last 7 1/2 years. That is not their fault, their aspirations have been cut short and their professional talents ignored or discounted. Nor is it a knock on Secretary Preston, I wish him well during his remaining term of office, because he seems to genuinely grasp the internal and external challenges at HUD. That said, many good people inside HUD have seen their career hijacked for ideological purposes and some of the best have simply left, dispirited. The agency has not been a reliable business partner with local governments and local housing agencies, the very organizations that deliver federal programs locally. Indeed the policy and practice within HUD has been to scorn and abuse/neglect the very partners in the local community which deliver the federal resources at the retail level. I cannot think of any other industry where there is as much antipathy between business partners who should be working towards a commonly held vision. American communities deserve better. Cities, Counties and local housing agencies have been victimized by HUD’s policies and practices. I would say states faith based non-profits and tribes have fared somewhat better, but the relationship needs to be totally remade across the board.

On the second part of your question, I hazard to say the collateral damage done by HUD would make community partners skeptical of any prospect for change because they are justifiably wary. That said, the Department has a role to play as the only cabinet-level agency with responsibility for urban policy. Here is what I would do in my time, if I were given the opportunity. First, I would release the unspent backlog of capital and operating funds immediately. The Gulf Coast Communities have been treated in a shameful manner. I would decentralize decision making to the regions and empower staff to make decisions, not excuses, by executive order. I would make public housing asset management a voluntary program for all local agencies and drop the overly prescriptive method HUD has exacted upon local communities. It exists as one model but should not preclude better local, state and private asset management models. I would contact Mayors of America’s ten largest cities and indicate we as a department have let them down by failing to lead a conversation on urban policy and invite their consideration of HUD as a reliable partner in the future. After lunch with HUD employees at someplace big like the Washington Nationals' Stadium, I would invite the Director of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of HHS to caucus about how best to move forward on addressing the growing needs of the homeless including veterans and people displaced due to the recent wave of foreclosures. The Department needs to make project basing of all rental assistance vouchers a local choice and to simplify the means to use available vouchers to help end chronic homelessness.

If invited, I would testify before Senator Dodd's Senate Banking Committee with key stakeholders from his home state of Connecticut and tell Congress what the unmet housing and community development needs of American Communities actually are instead of ignoring the legitimate role of Congress as an oversight body. During the hearing I would voice support, for an emergency Homeowners Bill of Rights which establishes mortgage forbearance (through the GSEs as regulated by OFHEO) for every owner occupied home in America until summer 2009, thereby granting a new administration adequate time to forestall mortgage foreclosures. I would also advocate for a companion effort to increase consumer disclosure of any short term variable interest rate mortgage products including secured home equity lines of credit, to try to prevent the resurgence of poorly documented loans.

After the hearing, I would direct the Federal Housing Commissioner to approve every available and complete mortgage insurance application pending approval, by 5 pm Eastern. Finally, in cooperation with the US Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities, at a joint conclave at the National Press Club, I would commit HUD fully to implementing an environmentally responsible building standard (for FHA-insured homes, HUD funded homes and manufactured housing nationwide) which reduces greenhouse gasses to a rigorous but achievable standard. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels would receive special accolades for pressing the cities on the greenhouse gas and climate change issue. Buildings account for nearly 40% of the green house gas problem, therefore building standards can help alleviate the problem as well.
In parting, I would direct that any unspent administrative money within HUD's internal budget would be released for mortgage default counseling with instruction to the Regional Directors to spend the money before September 30, 2008. I would then go sailing on Chesapeake Bay and watch the sun set over the Blue Mountains.

5. You were very successful during your tenure with the VHA and have an international reputation for your work and vision. If you looked into your crystal ball, what does the future hold for housing and community development programs?

I had a great Board, as well as political, community and business support in Vancouver. We accomplished a lot in fifteen years by completing a project on average every 8 months. I also need to credit the fine staff I had the honor of working with, because we accomplished a great deal together.

I am very optimistic about the future. US Senator, Patty Murray from my home State of Washington is fully cognizant about what appropriations are needed to improve local programs, and she is tenacious. There is bipartisan support for housing solutions that work, and no matter who is elected President, I think it is fair to say that there will be changes in how national housing policy and programs are administered. Money will remain tight but more can be done to create a sense of common purpose and to focus our energy on solutions not political intrigue and strategy.

I am very pleased that talented professionals continue to serve as elected leaders and invest their talents on our collective behalf. I would be remiss if I did not mention my good friends and colleagues such as Renee Rooker (NAHRO President), Kim Herman (NCSHA President), Michael Kelly (CLPHA President), Conrad Egan (NHC President) and Akinola Popoola (NAHRO Sr. VP) who will step up to the challenge of NAHRO President in 18 months. These people are tireless in their advocacy for local communities and housing and community development practitioners, which bodes well for the future. I know our profession is in capable hands, because of the high caliber of these individuals and the staff of each of the professional associations.
The national trend for more progress in green building standards means that we housers can be at the cutting edge of domestic policy, if we show leadership on environmental standards and smart growth strategies. Local homeless prevention strategies are indeed working. Successful local and state strategies need to be replicated with increased funding for permanent supportive housing and services, especially as more combat veterans need housing and services.

I am reminded by why most of us entered this field in the first place and that is because we wanted to make a positive difference. That opportunity exists today, if we agree to move forward together as a country. Tomorrow will be a brighter day indeed.

Interesting reads

Hillaryland at War by Gail Sheehy

Fairfax Will Buy Foreclosed Properties, Affordable Housing Is Part of Focus in Doling Out of Aid by Amy Gardner

Sunday, June 29, 2008

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

 
Design by Wordpress Theme | Bloggerized by Free Blogger Templates | JCPenney Coupons