The Conservative Case for Rail

While I have plenty of problems with some of what William Lind, the Director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation, is saying, the interview is a good example of why it's silly that rail is perceived as a liberal policy position that conservatives oppose.  There are plenty of reasons on both sides of the party line to support rail.

William Lind argues that national security concerns should cause conservatives to support rail-we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil, and discusses the fact that there's a myth that rail is subsidized and highway isn't.  He refers to the fact that property values have risen near rail stations in many cities, yet the opposite is true of highway interchanges. 

And the interview doesn't shy away from race and class issues.

PETRA Discussion

In the Creating Communities blog, I've discussed Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Act (PETRA) here and here.  But I haven't gone in-depth into PETRA because it's an incredibly complicated topic.  Basically PETRA would-among other things- allow public housing to be privatized (sort of), which would bring in new funding for improvements and replacement, but also with it risks and other changes.

ShelterForce takes a look at PETRA in their Summer 2010 issue with a variety of articles, interviews and analyses. 

Peter Drier, author of one of the articles, summarizes it as thus:

Since 1973, Congress has failed to provide adequate funding to maintain and repair these (public housing) developments. In the past 15 years alone, about 200,000 units have been torn down. Only about 50,000 of those units have been, or are planned to be, replaced. After years of neglect, the nation’s remaining public housing projects now need $20 to $30 billion of critical repairs. Current subsidies aren’t enough to pay for decades of deferred maintenance.

The best solution would be for Congress to simply allocate the funding for a one-time infusion to make long-neglected repairs. But because there are so few people who live in public housing, and because they are not well organized, Congress has little incentive to do so.

So HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, who has spent his career improving housing for the poor, has proposed that local housing authorities be permitted to borrow money from private lenders to help fill the funding gap. Some tenant groups and their allies worry that, if PETRA passes, private lenders will care more about the bottom line than about tenants’ needs, and put their lives, and their housing, at risk. They worry, too, that private investors might be careless stewards of this valuable housing resource. As one public housing tenant activist testified to Congress in May: “Make no mistake, the private market’s only motivation here is profit, and let us not forget that this is the same private market that just crashed our economy, took billions in taxpayer funded bailouts, and aren’t fixing the mess they created.”

The End of Public Housing article is harsh in their analysis.  After pointing out that PETRA is virtually identical to a previous proposal, “Public Housing Reinvestment Initiative” (PHRI), during the Bush Administration that was roundly rejected twice, the authors state:

TRA does not enable more funding for the existing public housing program. It opens up public housing as a new source to feed the addiction to credit. Under the banner of preservation, public housing ceases to be public as it passes into the cradle of debt and leverage with its future mortgaged off to banks for profit. As such, TRA, like the preceding shifts in federal assistance to Section 8, is not meant to truly help poor households and individuals, but is a means of getting the federal government out of the low-income affordable housing business.

While the Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee has been very fortunate in being the recipient of numerous HOPE VI awards which have enabled them to replace many of their aging buildings, there are many aging public housing buildings around the state and the nation that are in bad shape.  From a disability perspective, many of those buildings continue to be very inaccessible, and new funding would enable more accessible housing to be created in many communities.  But the risks (as summarized by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)) includes:

• Subsidized units being lost in 30 years
• Units not being replaced on a one-by-one basis with some units being replaced by vouchers
• Weakened resident participation and tenant protections
• Residents would have the right to move out after two years using a voucher, but there are not additional money for vouchers meaning they would bypass people currently on waiting lists for vouchers

NLIHC also points out that HUD has never asked for additional funding to cover the capital needs of public housing.

I have been pleased with Secretary Donovan's HUD under President Obama.  While I have not agreed with some of their proposals and been disappointed by some of their efforts, the very fact they're making dramatic far-ranging proposals and sustainability planning which includes collaboration with other agencies show that they take their mission seriously.  The current status quo is not good enough for them, and they believe HUD and the U.S. government can, and should, do better.  They're willing to look for new ways to do things.  The question is, will they listen to the input from communities and advocates, especially on something as dramatic as PETRA?

Changing neighborhoods around new transit stations

Not very relevant to Waukesha County (especially if general opposition to high-speed rail results in no stations being built in the county), but here's an interesting look at new or improved transit stations, and the changing neighborhoods around them.  Some of those changes seem very contradictory to the transit stations!

By evaluating changes in 42 neighborhoods around new transit stations in 12 metropolitan areas, the researchers found that:

• 64% of new transit neighborhoods saw higher population growth than the region as a whole
• 62% saw a larger increase in owner-occupied housing
• 62% saw a larger increase in median household income
• 74% saw a larger increase in rent
• 71% saw a larger increase in automobile ownership

As paradoxical as it sounds, new transit stations resulted in higher auto ownership in those neighborhoods.  The thinking is that as more affluent people move in attracted by the new development(s), auto ownership rises.  This is reflected by the fact that 40% of the new transit stations actually saw a drop in ridership (57% saw an increase).

A concern is that the gentrification of neighborhoods pushes out people who depend on transit to get around.

It should be noted that some of these effects may be in a city’s interest, whether or not transit ridership increases. Having higher-income residents move into a neighborhood may increase the local tax base and reduce negatives like crime and blight. At the same time, displacement of poor people may reduce their ability to get around easily by public transportation.

That makes it more important that proper planning take place in communities.  There is a toolkit that assists in this process.

To give you an idea of how far behind the Milwaukee metro area is behind other metro areas, San Francisco Bay area is planning 100 new public transit stations by 2015.  No, that is not a typo.  One hundred new stations.  In the meantime, Atlanta is developing a 25-year effort totaling $2.8 billion (yes, with a 'b') to "create a network of public parks, multi-use trails and transit along a historic 22-mile railroad corridor circling downtown Atlanta and connecting 45 neighborhoods directly to each other."

But here in metro Milwaukee, people can't even agree to rail.  While we're squabbling over whether to or not have rail, other communities are using rail to revitalize communities, to provide alternatives to the automobile. 

From a disability perspective, this is important-a healthy public transit system with transit-oriented developments provide more opportunities for independence for people who cannot drive for a variety of reasons.  It allows people to live, work, shop, and play more easily.

Update on Waukesha shelters

It looks like the shelter for the homeless being rebuilt by Hebron House will be delayed until past Thanksgiving.  Hopefully the mild weather will continue long enough so that families and individuals will not be at additional risk. 

Unfortunately, the search for the temporary overflow shelter during the winter has not been very successful (yet), but when they do find a site for it, if you live in the City of Waukesha, contact your alderperson and let them know that this is an important issue that they should support and ensure that it happens.

States investigate mortgage lenders

Many of you may have already heard that all fifty states are investingating the allegations of mishandled documents during this foreclosure crisis. 

"What we have seen are not mere technicalities," said Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. "This is about the private property rights of homeowners facing foreclosure and the integrity of our court system, which cannot enter judgments based on fraudulent evidence."

Wisconsin's Attorney General has sent letters to Ally Financial (most of you probably knew it as GMAC), Chase, and Bank of America.   The letters were sent October 7, with a response requested by Oct 15.

What strikes me as rather depressing about this is that advocates have been warning about this for years, warning about the impending crisis, about the sloppy practices, and about possible illegal activities, only to be brushed off by those in power until now.  And now those in power (not just in Wisconsin) will get the credit for "taking action" on this when the question should be, "why did you wait so long?"

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

Because a cause of housing instability is domestic violence, mostly impacting women and children, I want to call attention to Domestic Violence Awareness Month.  From President Obama's proclamation:

Ending domestic violence requires a collaborative effort involving every part of our society.  Our law enforcement and justice system must work to hold offenders accountable and to protect victims and their children.  Business, faith, and community leaders, as well as educators, health care providers, and human service professionals, also have a role to play in communicating that domestic violence is always unacceptable.  As a Nation, we must endeavor to protect survivors, bring offenders to justice, and change attitudes that support such violence.  I encourage victims, their loved ones, and concerned citizens to call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1 800-799-SAFE or visit:  http://www.thehotline.org/.

Wisconsin created a plan to end domestic violence, Forward To A Domestic Violence-Free Wisconsin notes that domestic violence is defined as:

the threatened or actual use of physical force or power against another person, against oneself, or against a group or community which either results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death or deprivation.

The statewide plan notes that Wisconsin District Attorneys handled over 25,531 domestic violence incidents in 2006,and there were 19,333 incidents of abuse of older people or vulnerable people.  Domestic violence organizations fielded 75,922 crisis calls, and served 50,652 individuals in programs in 2006.  Clearly this is not acceptable.  Beside the human cost, particularly on children who are victims or witnesses, this is a drain on our resources as a society in responses (police, health & legal) to those incidents, as well as lost work and school time.

The plan also cited an estimate from the The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the annual cost of domestic violence was $5.8 billion nation-wide in 1995 (adjusted for inflation to $7.8 billion in 2007).

The strategies that Wisconsin is taking are:

1. Strengthen and spread shared commitment to primary prevention of domestic violence.
2. Engage diverse institutional partners and allies in the primary prevention of domestic violence.
3. Conduct and use surveillance, evaluation and research to inform the development and continuous improvement of primary prevention policies and programs.
4. Catalyze action at every level of government.

Know the resources in your community.  Waukesha's resources can be found here.

Breaking News-WHEDA Director to Leave for HUD

HUD just announced that Antonio Riley, current Director of WHEDA, has been appointed by President Obama to be the new Region V Administrator of HUD.  Region V covers Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  The Region V office is based in Chicago.

The announcement included a short description of Director Riley's career:

Antonio Riley is currently the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA). As the first African American to head the agency, Riley oversaw what is considered the second largest bank in the state, with a $3 billion mortgage portfolio. Under Antonio’s leadership, WHEDA helped develop hundreds of units of affordable housing and implemented new strategies that increased jobs, made homeownership affordable, and helped to renew and invigorate depressed neighborhoods. Riley was also very successful in creating greater opportunities for minority-owned businesses. Recently, Riley’s peers elected him to a two-year term on the Board of Directors of the National Council of State Housing Authorities. Before joining WHEDA, Antonio served 10 years in the Wisconsin Legislature representing Milwaukee’s 18th Assembly District. Earlier he worked for Milwaukee’s Department of City Development.

In 2009 Riley earned the prestigious Legacy Award for being a person who passionately promotes, supports and invests in efforts that increase entrepreneurial opportunities; and, consistently reflects passion through his actions in bold and innovative ways creating wealth-building opportunities for everyone.

Congratulations to Director Riley!

Update:  The Business Journal also reported on this.

Looking at Social Security

For many people with disabilities and for many older adults, Social Security is an important source of income, so I've been following Social Security reporting for a while, and came across this blog post from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It discusses what Social Security does, how it is funded, and some of the myths about it. A good summary for those of you who are not familiar with it, and have heard that it is going bankrupt.

Jumping Around

In the past couple of days, some new materials popped up into my In Box, and rather than going into them in-depth, I thought I'd summarize and link.

The National Housing Conference (NHC) has issued ten wonky recommendations relating to reform of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac).  After noting the key role both has played in the development of multi-family housing, not just single-family homes, NHC discusses the need for capital and the important role the government plays in multi-family housing financing.

The Center for Housing Policy (which is affiliated with NHC) focuses on researching solutions to housing issues.  They reviewed current research on housing affordability and and summarized them as thus:

Key Findings

• For every three units added to the rental stock between 1995 and 2005, two units were demolished or permanently removed from the inventory. Many of these new units target the higher end of the market and are unaffordable to lower-income renters.

• Only one in three poor renters benefits from housing assistance; as a result, nearly half of all renters pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

• For every 100 extremely low-income renter households, only 44 units were affordable to and occupied by such households (or vacant) in 2007.

• By 2013, more than one million subsidized units will reach the end of their use restrictions, giving property owners the opportunity to “opt out” of their contracts and threatening the loss of critically-needed affordable rentals.

I would like to call attention to the third point; one argument I've often heard in communities is "we already have enough affordable housing here" meaning housing with lower market rates than average, not those that are subsidized or tax-credit.  Unfortunately, they often don't consider how many are actually rented to people with low income.  People with disabilities living on limited benefits or who are underemployed, for example, often are priced out of the market because other households with higher incomes are more attractive to landlords.  I discussed this previously.

Finally, the Center for Housing Policy also looked into the question of whether or not home ownership is really better for children.  Reviewing some recent studies, data indicates that perhaps it's not the act of home ownership itself that benefits children, but the fact that the type of  parents who become homeowners are also the type of parents that have other characteristics that benefit children.  Other factors include school quality, neighborhood quality, and residential stability.  This is interesting because the heavy promotion of home ownership over the years both by federal government and by local communities are based on the belief that, well, to put it bluntly, homeowners are better people.  Or maybe a better way to put it would be home ownership makes people better. 

I've been arguing recently that not enough resources are devoted to renters.  Society works hard to help people become homeowners through housing counseling workshops, etc. but not as much is done on helping people become better renters.  Or making people better landlords.

Update: Missing link added in.

Will Detroit be the future of Milwaukee?

Via The Political Environment at Gregory Sanford:

In short, unfettered suburban sprawl has played a key role in hollowing out Detroit. One problem with sprawl is the suburban habit of walling out poor people through snob zoning and other means, thereby putting the burden of poverty on the city, which, due to the flight of wealth to these very suburbs, have a declining ability to deal with the problem.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?  I especially like the term "snob zoning" which I think describes perfectly what has been happening in communities (I'm lookin' at ya, New Berlin!).

I've never understood the anti-Milwaukee mentality in the suburbs and elsewhere in the state.

In the long run, though, the hollowing out of Detroit, the metro area’s flagship, hurts the suburbs, too. A shabby main city tends to keep corporations away from the entire area, not just the city. What’s more, a vibrant hub acts as a magnet for the young creative class, which urban planners regard as vital to an area’s future prosperity.

Detroit has lost half of its residents, down from a peak of 1.85 million in the 1950s to 911,000 today.  Despite its losses, it is still 11th largest city in terms of population.  But it still has the expensive infrastructure of a much larger city.  Milwaukee has lost 5% of its population in the 1990s alone (although this has been reversed somewhat by the recent downtown boom), and is now ranked #26.  As reported recently, Milwaukee is ranked as fourth poorest.  Only three cities, including Detroit, has a higher poverty rate.

The question is, where do we go from here?  Will the suburbs and the state recognize that a healthy and prosperous Milwaukee is in their best long-term interest, or will they continue the short-sighted policies of the past?

Poverty Rates Across America

Check it out.  Wisconsin's poverty rate was 12.4% with 683,408 Wisconsinites living in poverty.  This is a bit under the United States average of 14.3%.  The highest rate was 21.9% in Mississippi while New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate with 8.5%.  I found it interesting that, with the exception of Michigan, the high-poverty states were all southern states.  Any thoughts?

Disappointing

In April, HUD announced the availability of vouchers for non-elderly persons with disabilities.  I believe the Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee and Kenosha Housing Authority both applied. HUD has awarded nearly $33 million to Public Housing Authorities that will fund nearly 4,300 vouchers.  Unfortunately, no Public Housing Authority in Wisconsin received the awarded vouchers at this time.

The program had two categories; one for what might be called "normal" housing vouchers for persons with disabilities, and the second category is specifically to assist persons with disabilities in transitioning out of nursing homes and other health care facilities. The announced awards cover the first category, and the second category which should be up to 1,000 vouchers, will be announced later in the year. 

Delinquent Mortgages Map

To follow up on a recent post, here is a map of delinquent mortgages in metropolitan areas in the United States.

WHEDA, Where Are You?

I've been meaning to get around to it for quite a while now.  First, go read this article about the "WHEDA Kiss of Death."  Matt Hrodey discusses the recent backlashes against development funded with tax credits from the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) in Kenosha that "...mirrors the fiery one in New Berlin earlier this year...."

Keep in mind that recently there also have been community protests against tax-credit developments in New Berlin, West Bend (which eventually passed), Bayview, etc.   Journal-Sentinel columnist Tom Daykin also has noted the increasing number of opposition to proposals.

In some cases, residents and elected officials balk at the potential of a WHEDA housing development, saying it will bring with it higher crime, lowered property values, and overcrowded schools. My biggest frustration of the public discourse surrounding this issue are the level of misinformation about the WHEDA Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program which is relayed so frequently and fervently that some resident opponents quote it as fact.

First of all, the LIHTC program is NOT a social program, as many affordable housing opponents describe it. It is an IRS program (Section 42 of the IRS code), developed as a tax shelter program in the Reagan era. The legislature was able to get it passed by including some aspect of public good (affordable housing) in exchange for sheltering taxes. Not-so-coincidentally, this was also when the government drastically cut the funding of new project-based subsidized housing. Second, of all the tools that enable housing to be built affordably, LIHTC is the LEAST affordable, it serves the highest income population of all the affordable housing tools. In essence, the government stopped funding new housing for the very low-income and started funding housing for people that just qualify as low-income.

Many opponents of affordable housing like to bust out their Cabrini Green, tenement, or other Chicago public housing analogies. Really?! Have you seen the Park East Lofts, Blue Ribbon Apartments, Majestic Loft Apartments, Fifth Ward Lofts, Teweles Seed Apartments? These are all tax credit developments in or around downtown Milwaukee which brilliantly complement the downtown Milwaukee upscale condo market.

WHEDA does a lot of good work, both in home ownership and rental housing.  What's puzzling to me is WHEDA's absence in defending their good name.  They're being slandered in many communities as funding housing no different than Chicago's Cabrini Green.  Where are their representatives at the public meetings?  Where is the education & outreach campaign?  Where are the puff interviews?  The billboards? Their silence is puzzling.

I'm not asking for much-some basic outreach (letters to the editor, presentations to plan commissions, simple brochures) explaining the vast difference between developer subsidy and rent subsidy and between Cabrini Green and tax credit developments; informing us of the benefits that this housing development provides in terms of neighborhood property values, economic development and job growth; and educating people on the strict maintenance and screening standards to which LIHTC property managers must adhere.

WHEDA, where are you?