Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing

1
Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing

• Stuart Meck, FAICP
• Hamilton County Planning Commission
• Cincinnati, Ohio
• March 2, 2005

2
Briefing outline

• The federal role in housing planning
• Federal studies on affordable housing
• State or regional programs for affordable housing

3
The federal role in housing planning

• Section 701 of federal Housing Act of 1954
• Provided money for local comprehensive planning,
  including land use and housing
• Comprehensive plan requirement part of workable
  program for urban renewal
• Program expanded to address regional planning in
  1965

4
The federal role in housing planning

• Housing and Community Development Act of 1968
• Required federally-funded comprehensive plans to
  consider regional housing supply and needs

5
The federal role in housing planning

• Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968
• Provided authority for OMB Circular A-95
• A-95 review procedures gave regional agencies and
  states authority to serve as areawide
  clearinghouses for federal grant applications
• Consistency with local and regional plans

6
The federal role in housing planning

• Fair-share housing allocation plans
• Emerged in 1970s as response to federal laws and
  regulations
• Intended to deconcentrate and disperse low- and
  moderate-income housing
• Racial integration in suburbs also a goal
• Voluntary programs, later supported by HUD
  regulations

7
Examples of early fair-share plans

• Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission
  (MVRPC), Dayton, 1970 to 1978
• Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, 1971
• Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
  1972
• Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission,
  Philadelphia, 1973

8
MVRPC Housing Plan

• Covered five counties in southwest Ohio
• Used allocation formula to establish fair-share
  housing goals for planning units by county
• Addressed both federally assisted new housing
  production and rehabilitation
• Eventually added element to address racial
  barriers to housing choice

9
MVRPC Housing Plan

• Used in preparation and review of local Housing
  Assistance Plans, requirement of Housing and
  Community Development Act of 1974
• Used in A-95 review function for federal
  assistance

10
MVRPC Housing Plan

• Occasionally used as device to compel acceptance
  of new assisted housing
• Prior to plan, 3,200 units of l/m housing existed
  in region, 95 of which were in Dayton
• By 1977, 12,000 additional units had been built
  or committed

11
MVRPC Housing Plan

• Of the new 9,300 assisted units, 73 were outside
  Dayton
• More than 80 of the rehabilitated units were in
  Dayton

12
MVRPC Housing Plan

• Strong support of HUD Secretary George Romney
• Cited in New Jersey Mt. Laurel anti-exclusionary
  zoning decision (1975)
• Did not expressly address regulatory barriers to
  affordable housing
• No acceptance elsewhere in Ohio, and MVRPC no
  longer maintains plan

13
The federal role in housing planning

• Housing and Community Development Act of 1977
  authorized Areawide Housing Opportunity Plans
  (AHOP)
• Voluntary program under HUD guidelinesAHOPs were
  framework for Local Housing Assistance Plans
• 31 AHOPs in existence by 1980 when program was
  terminated

14
The federal role in housing planning

• 1980sFederal government gradually withdraws from
  large-scale production programs
• Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act
  of 1990
• Set forth requirement for comprehensive housing
  assistance strategy/consolidated plan for CDBG
  monies

15
Federal studies on affordable housing

• National Commission on Urban Problems (Douglas
  Commission), 1968
• Presidents Commission on Urban Housing (Kaiser
  Commission), 1968
• Presidents Commission on Housing, 1982
• Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to
  Affordable Housing, 1991

16
Federal studies on affordable housing

• Millennial Housing Commission, 2002

17
National Commission on Urban Problems

• Local governments must prepare plans showing how
  they would provide adequate sites for housing
  modify zoning purposes
• Multicounty or regional agencies should prepare
  housing plans
• Establishment of a state policy on housing near
  employment centers

18
Presidents Commission on Housing

• Recommended federal legislation giving HUD
  Secretary power to exempt l/m housing projects
  from local zoning codes, unless vetoed by
  governor
• Acknowledged impact of local regulation on
  housing costs

19
Presidents Commission on Housing

• Generally critical of over-regulation through
  local zoning
• Recommended leaving density of development to
  market, except where lower density was justified
  by vital and pressing governmental interest

20
Presidents Commission on Housing

• Eliminate minimum or maximum limits on the size
  of dwelling units
• Streamline permit processing
• Avoid use of growth controls that limit housing
  production
• Eliminate discrimination against manufactured
  housing

21
Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing

• State barrier removal plans
• State-sponsored conflict resolution
• Coordinating and streamlining multiple regulatory
  responsibilities
• Enactment of state impact fee standards to fund
  facilities that directly serve development

22
Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing

• Local housing plan subject to state review
• Housing affordability as primary objective of
  zoning regulations
• State authority to override local barriers to
  affordable housing
• State-established fair-share housing targets

23
Millennial Housing Commission

• Address regulatory barriers to housing
• Grants to states and local governments to develop
  strategies to remove regulatory barriers
• Establish demonstration programs for local
  balanced growth code with workforce housing
  affordability as key ingredient
• Streamline state planning for community
  development

24
State or regional programs for affordable housing

• HUD/Fannie Mae Foundation study by APA Regional
  Approaches to Affordable Housing, PAS Report
  513/514 (2003)
• Regional approach makes greatest sense
• Highlight pivotal role of states
• Emphasis on housing production, not just
  planning, barrier removal

25
State or regional programs for affordable housing

• Approximately 23 states address housing or
  affordable housing in local or regional
  planning enabling legislationsome mandatory
• Language in acts greatly influenced by HUD 701
  regulations
• Some states further elaborate on housing planning
  through rulemaking

26
State or regional programs for affordable
housing--examples

• New Jersey
• California
• Massachusetts
• ARCH, Seattle
• Columbus, Ohio Affordable Housing Trust Fund
• Chicago Metropolis 2020/Local Planning Technical
  Assistance Act/ Affordable Housing Planning and
  Appeal Act

27
New Jersey

• Program prompted by Mount Laurel decisions, 1975
  and 1983
• N.J. Constitution all municipalities share in
  obligation to provide realistic opportunities for
  l/m income housing
• Created court-granted builders remedy

28
New Jersey

• N.J. legislature created Council on Affordable
  Housing (COAH) in 1985
• COAH provides voluntary administrative
  alternative to court supervision
• Establish regional fair-share allocations for
  local governments
• Grant substantive certification to local
  housing plans that meet state standards

29
New Jersey Results (2001)

• 271 of 566 municipalities (48) participating
• Opportunities created for 60,731 l/m units from
  1980-2000
• Includes
• 28,555 units that have been built or under
  construction
• 13,231 units that are result of realistic zoning
  in place or approvals
• 11,249 units that have been rehabilitated
• Program modified during McGreevey administration
  (2004)

30
California

• Housing element law dates from 1980
• State Housing and Community Development
  Department (HCD) oversees fair-share system
• HCD projects statewide housing needs, allocates
  them to regions
• Allocations address full range of housing needs

31
California

• Regional councils of government prepare regional
  housing needs assessments (RHNA)
• COGs have considerable latitude in designing
  allocation formulas five-year updates required
• Local housing elements must reflect allocations
  and are reviewed by HCD

32
California Results 2002

• Of 530 cities and counties, 52 had adopted
  housing elements in substantial compliance with
  state law
• 29 had elements that were out of compliance or
  had submitted elements to HCD but had not adopted
  them
• Limited consequences for local noncompliance

33
California Results 2002

• No clear statewide total on l/m housing
  production related to goals
• No uniform method for collecting production data
  by income level or data on housing opportunities
  (e.g., zoned land) available as consequence of
  approved housing elements

34
Massachusetts

• Housing appeals act, Chapter 40B, 1969
• Qualified developer of state- or
  federally-subsidized housing project applies to
  local zoning board of appeals for a comprehensive
  permit (CP) to build housing
• ZBA either approves, conditionally approves, or
  disapproves permit

35
Massachusetts

• If denied or approved with conditions that make
  project uneconomic, developer can appeal to state
  housing appeals committee (HAC)
• HAC reviews decision, can modify, overturn it
• Burden is on local government to justify actiona
  valid health, safety or other concern that
  outweighs regional housing need

36
Massachusetts

• Act sets uniform statewide standard for
  affordable housing
• Greater than 10 of local housing stock is
  subsidized housing
• Local governments that exceed standard are immune
  to appeals

37
Massachusetts Results 1999

• 635 applications for CPs to build over 50,000
  units of housing submitted to at least 221 cities
  and towns
• 21,000 units of housing, of which 18,000 are
  affordable units, have been built with 373 CPs
• Affordable housing has been built in
  approximately ½ of MA municipalities

38
Massachusetts Results

• No. of municipalities that meet 10 goal (of 351
  total)
• 3 in 1972
• 23 in 1997
• 27 in 2002

39
Massachusetts Results

• Appeals
• 300 appeals broughtnegotiation occurs
• Local ZBA upheld in 18 cases, overruled in 94
  cases
• Some local governments have adopted
  affordability zoning

40
ARCHSeattle, Washington

• Seattle areahigh cost region
• A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH)
• Regional trust fund created in 1992
• Voluntary
• Includes 15 communities in east King County
• Executive board and citizens advisory board

41
ARCHSeattle, Washington

• Trust fund uses for affordable housing
• Acquisition
• Financing
• Rehabilitation
• New construction
• On-site and off-site costs
• No rental assistance

42
ARCH

• Long term goals
• Families, including single households56
• Homeless and transitional13
• Elderly19
• Special needs12

43
ARCH Sources of funds, 1999-2002
44
ARCH Results 2002

• 1,783 beds/units constructed between 1993 and
  2001
• Family housing--1,218 units
• 44 projects, 16 in Bellevue
• Average 198 beds/units per year
• Meeting 28 of overall goal of developing or
  preserving 700 units /yr.

45
Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio, Affordable
Housing Trust Fund

• Established 2000
• Initially funded by Columbus (4.1 million) and
  Franklin County (2.0 million)
• 11-member board
• Funding directed at projects benefiting low- and
  very-low-income households

46
Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio, Affordable
Housing Trust Fund

• Partially finance for-sale and rental units in
  city and county
• Since 2001 has supported 860 homes and
  apartments, leveraged 70.0 million in private
  sector monies
• Advocacy group Fund is not focusing on poorest
  residents

47
Illinois

• Chicago Metropolis 2020 plan (2001)
• Includes strategies to address race and poverty,
  build strong neighborhoods
• Does not directly address affordable housing

48
Illinois

• Metropolis 2020 Workforce Housing Report (2002)
• Proposes state, regional, local actions
• State needs to give more high-level attention to
  affordable housing
• Local governments need to expand land available
  for affordable housing, reduce regulatory delay,
  use uniform building codes

49
Illinois

• Local Planning Technical Assistance Act (2002)
  requires housing element as part of local
  comprehensive plan
• Document present and future needs for housing
  including affordable housing
• Take into account housing needs of larger region
• Identify regulatory barriers

50
Illinois

• Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act
  (2003-2004)
• Establishes statewide goal of 10 percent
  affordable housing
• Housing plan requirement for non-exempt
  communities
• Housing appeals board

51
Observations

• No single approach works best
• Need more emphasis on housing production in high
  cost areas
• Federal legislation influenced states
• State is key actor
• Removal of regulatory barriers elusive
• Possible federal rolelink affordable housing
  with transportation funding

52
Affordable housing a tough nut to crack