This report isn’t as much a further examination of the housing needs of people with disabilities as it is a discussion of the surveying methods and an explanation of present and past differences in data.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Worst Case Housing Needs of Households with Disabilities
I discussed the Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress previously on a blog, and you may want to review my summary first. I mentioned that the Department of Housing and Urban Development was not very confident of their disability data, and that they would be following up with another report. That day has arrived, and the 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People with Disabilities has arrived.
Cool Visual Example of Global Urban Water Costs
A neat site that shows the changes in water costs globally in urban areas and links to articles on local water issues. Milwaukee isn't included in the map, but the Midwest and much of the United States are seeing increased water costs.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Streetcars!
An article from Architect magazine regarding streetcars in New Orleans that very much reminded me of Milwaukee's planning process to add streetcars to the downtown area.
But contrary to Milwaukee's initial focus on the East side commuters, New Orleans apparently took a different tack:
If Milwaukee followed the same process, the initial streetcar route would run along the vacant lots of the former Park East Freeway, although a planned route extension does run to this region. One can only hope the initial route of the streetcar is successful enough to attract additional funding for extensions that would run to the Parkway East lots and to the Brady Street area.
But contrary to Milwaukee's initial focus on the East side commuters, New Orleans apparently took a different tack:
This past January, the Federal Transit Administration signed an agreement with the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority for $45 million in federal economic stimulus funds to build a new, 1.5-mile streetcar line. It would link Canal Street with the Union Passenger Terminal, a 1954 structure that’s now home to the Amtrak and Greyhound stations.
Skeptical New Orleanians wondered why. Of course, connecting to a regional transportation center was a sensible thing. But the line passed block after block of bleak, asphalt-savanna surface parking that flanks partially filled office towers. Why not route the new streetcar through communities that already had a denser residential population?
The answer came pretty quickly. Routing the streetcar through an underused part of the city, it turned out, was like adding water to sea monkeys. The blocks came to life almost immediately.
If Milwaukee followed the same process, the initial streetcar route would run along the vacant lots of the former Park East Freeway, although a planned route extension does run to this region. One can only hope the initial route of the streetcar is successful enough to attract additional funding for extensions that would run to the Parkway East lots and to the Brady Street area.
"Earning" Your Way into Communities
A great opinion piece on the recent complaint by Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council (MMFHC) against Waukesha County. What just as interesting, though, is the comment section of the article. There one see the familiar statement about people having to "earn their way" into Waukesha County.
Let's be clear here; I'm not opposed to communities with high housing price because it's such a desirable place to live. That's the market. But when communities artificially inflate housing prices by only zoning for larger lots, larger units, having all kinds of requirements in the ordinance, and basically doing their best to prevent multi-family housing, that's when I have a problem.
Suburban communities are heavily subsidized through a variety of methods, including roads (not free), home mortgage interest deduction (which is vastly larger than rental housing assistance programs), tax breaks, etc. For suburbanites to sneer at subsidized housing or tax-credit housing is the very height of hypocrisy.
That is essentially what communities in Waukesha County (and many other places) have done for years with the intention of limiting the number of people with low income able to live in the County. At the same time, the County has a growing number of jobs centers, with commercial, retail, industrial growth in many communities. When communities benefit from the growth of their tax base through employment centers and high cost housing, yet at the same exclude possible costs such as services to people with disabilities, people with extremely low-income, people who are homeless, etc., that's just...selfish. Certain populations are disproportionately low-income, such as people with disabilities or people of color, so the net effect is that of being discriminatory, whether intentional or not. The law doesn't just look at what the intention is, but also what the effect is. There is a very valid reason for MMFHC to file the complaint.
Let's be clear here; I'm not opposed to communities with high housing price because it's such a desirable place to live. That's the market. But when communities artificially inflate housing prices by only zoning for larger lots, larger units, having all kinds of requirements in the ordinance, and basically doing their best to prevent multi-family housing, that's when I have a problem.
Suburban communities are heavily subsidized through a variety of methods, including roads (not free), home mortgage interest deduction (which is vastly larger than rental housing assistance programs), tax breaks, etc. For suburbanites to sneer at subsidized housing or tax-credit housing is the very height of hypocrisy.
That is essentially what communities in Waukesha County (and many other places) have done for years with the intention of limiting the number of people with low income able to live in the County. At the same time, the County has a growing number of jobs centers, with commercial, retail, industrial growth in many communities. When communities benefit from the growth of their tax base through employment centers and high cost housing, yet at the same exclude possible costs such as services to people with disabilities, people with extremely low-income, people who are homeless, etc., that's just...selfish. Certain populations are disproportionately low-income, such as people with disabilities or people of color, so the net effect is that of being discriminatory, whether intentional or not. The law doesn't just look at what the intention is, but also what the effect is. There is a very valid reason for MMFHC to file the complaint.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Clarification
I wanted to go back to my previous post on the use of Tax Incremental Financing(TIF) Districts in towns. I realize that blight that does exist in many smaller communities and is a serious problem. I regret the mocking tone at the end of the post.
Currently, Wisconsin's TIF law only allows cities and villages to use the TIF tool. What changed with the exemption for the Town of Brookfield is that they are now allowed to use the TIF as a tool for development. Under no stretch of imagination would I use the word "blighted" in association with Brookfield, so this apparent abuse of the law angered me.
I'm not opposed to smaller municipalities having the ability to use TIF as a tool, as many towns have been hard-hit over the decades with downtown areas virtually abandoned. However, this does pose a substantial risk as small towns typically don't have the staff to implement a TIF district, although I suppose it's possible they could contract it out. It's also a financial risk should the TIF district not take off and they'd have done all those improvements paid with TIF money with no or very little increase in their tax bases. Can town budgets take that fiscal hit?
Currently, Wisconsin's TIF law only allows cities and villages to use the TIF tool. What changed with the exemption for the Town of Brookfield is that they are now allowed to use the TIF as a tool for development. Under no stretch of imagination would I use the word "blighted" in association with Brookfield, so this apparent abuse of the law angered me.
I'm not opposed to smaller municipalities having the ability to use TIF as a tool, as many towns have been hard-hit over the decades with downtown areas virtually abandoned. However, this does pose a substantial risk as small towns typically don't have the staff to implement a TIF district, although I suppose it's possible they could contract it out. It's also a financial risk should the TIF district not take off and they'd have done all those improvements paid with TIF money with no or very little increase in their tax bases. Can town budgets take that fiscal hit?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Apparently Some Subsidies Are Awesome
After the never-ceasing outrage over some the fact some housing might be subsidized (funny how the outrage is directed only at rental housing not homeowners that use mortgage interest deduction subsidy), it's refreshing to read of a suburban community embracing a subsidy.
Brookfield is pretty blighted, isn't it? Isn't that what Tax Incremental Financing districts were supposed to help with-blighted areas?
Update: I never realizes blight was such problem across the state as other towns might be interested as well in doing what the Town of Brookfield is doing.
Brookfield is pretty blighted, isn't it? Isn't that what Tax Incremental Financing districts were supposed to help with-blighted areas?
Update: I never realizes blight was such problem across the state as other towns might be interested as well in doing what the Town of Brookfield is doing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Waukesha County Legal Happenings
As I'm sure many of you know, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council (MMFHC) has filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding Waukesha County's lack of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as required by the federal funding Waukesha County received.
Waukesha's Consolidated Plans are reportedly similar to Westchester County's, and the wealthy suburban New York county had an expensive settlement for a lawsuit against them.
New Berlin is also facing their own legal woes as MSP Real Estate finally filed their long-anticipated lawsuit against the city for their efforts to deny them the use of the City Center property for development.
I think it is very clear why people were opposed. They were vehementely opposed to the "workforce housing" portion of the proposal, but stated that they hoped the senior housing component would remain. Why? It's the same income limit. The opponents tried to cloak their rationales in issues such as parking, density, building type, and even risk of children falling into the ponds! Many stated their preferences for condos. Yet when MSP essentially stated, "OK, you want condos, we'll do condos", New Berlin still refused to let them proceed.
The Waukesha County complaint and the New Berlin lawsuit have a common theme to them, best expressed by MMFHC President & CEO:
A bad habit I've acquired is cruising the comment section of articles, and in both Journal-Sentinel articles, people are so livid, full of anger, and very defiant. I had to chuckle at a statement that appeared in both, stating that "There are plenty of affordable housing in Waukesha/New Berlin!" I've become overly fond of the saying "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The fact is, there is a lack of affordable housing in Waukesha County for many people, with zoning policies and ordinances deliberately designed to make housing more expensive. This has been recognized for decades-there's even a study on the topic of housing barriers in Waukesha County!
Finally, in the latest chapter of the saga of the unfortunate YMCA (Or "Y" as they're known now) property with the "landmark" gas station on it, we find that there may be a way out for the Y. As I previously wondered:
The answer is that if the Y makes a good-faith effort to sell the gas station and cannot do so, they can ask that it be delisted:
The Y probably does not want to keep the property as the financing they've set up for the development likely are no longer in place. What I believe will happen, if they do not try to reassemble the financing, they'll have it delisted, then try again to sell it. It would be pretty startling if someone buys it as is, with the landmark designation in place.
In the complaint, the fair housing council contends that since 2006 Waukesha County has received more than $12.5 million in federal community development block grants, HOME funds and stimulus dollars that it has distributed to 35 communities in the county "without adequate consideration for its impact on fair housing choice by people of color."
The complaint also says the county's "deliberate actions to limit housing development contribute to racial segregation, in that the county and several of its municipalities have blocked the development of affordable housing in order to avoid the effect such housing would have on majority white communities, where it would be perceived to promote integration on the basis of race, color and national origin."
Waukesha's Consolidated Plans are reportedly similar to Westchester County's, and the wealthy suburban New York county had an expensive settlement for a lawsuit against them.
New Berlin is also facing their own legal woes as MSP Real Estate finally filed their long-anticipated lawsuit against the city for their efforts to deny them the use of the City Center property for development.
"It is clear that the City has violated our rights as the property owner to develop housing needed in New Berlin for working families and the disabled, choosing instead to give in to the racial prejudice and bigotry expressed by some citizens," Milo Pinkerton, president of MSP Real Estate, said in a statement released Monday afternoon.
I think it is very clear why people were opposed. They were vehementely opposed to the "workforce housing" portion of the proposal, but stated that they hoped the senior housing component would remain. Why? It's the same income limit. The opponents tried to cloak their rationales in issues such as parking, density, building type, and even risk of children falling into the ponds! Many stated their preferences for condos. Yet when MSP essentially stated, "OK, you want condos, we'll do condos", New Berlin still refused to let them proceed.
The Waukesha County complaint and the New Berlin lawsuit have a common theme to them, best expressed by MMFHC President & CEO:
"Communities do not become and remain all-white by accident," said William R. Tisdale, president and CEO of the fair housing council, in a release announcing the complaint. "They get that way and stay that way because local governments and private actors erect barriers to racial and ethnic integration."
A bad habit I've acquired is cruising the comment section of articles, and in both Journal-Sentinel articles, people are so livid, full of anger, and very defiant. I had to chuckle at a statement that appeared in both, stating that "There are plenty of affordable housing in Waukesha/New Berlin!" I've become overly fond of the saying "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The fact is, there is a lack of affordable housing in Waukesha County for many people, with zoning policies and ordinances deliberately designed to make housing more expensive. This has been recognized for decades-there's even a study on the topic of housing barriers in Waukesha County!
Finally, in the latest chapter of the saga of the unfortunate YMCA (Or "Y" as they're known now) property with the "landmark" gas station on it, we find that there may be a way out for the Y. As I previously wondered:
(I)t's unclear to me what the City expects to happen next. The Y has argued that the building is in disrepair, and I cannot imagine why the Y would spend any money to repair it when they have no use for it. Their ability to sell the lot is now limited because potential buyers probably won't have any use for it, either.
So what happens to the gas station now?
The answer is that if the Y makes a good-faith effort to sell the gas station and cannot do so, they can ask that it be delisted:
In a memorandum discussed at a special Landmarks Commission meeting Monday, Assistant City Attorney Miles Eastman said if a good-faith effort to sell the property is made but it can't be sold because of the preservation requirements, the owner can petition to have the property's landmark status removed. After 60 days of the petition's filing, if a good-faith effort by both Landmarks Commission and the owner to find a buyer is unsuccessful, the commission must delist the property as a landmark.
The Y probably does not want to keep the property as the financing they've set up for the development likely are no longer in place. What I believe will happen, if they do not try to reassemble the financing, they'll have it delisted, then try again to sell it. It would be pretty startling if someone buys it as is, with the landmark designation in place.
Monday, March 14, 2011
New Census Data
Some of the census data is out for Wisconsin. Currently, there are only data on population numbers, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and occupancy. You can find the numbers at American FactFinder.
The metro area grew by 55,385 people. All numbers are comparing the 2000 and the 2010 censuses.
Looking more closely at Wisconsin, we see that it is slowly becoming more diverse, going from 88.9% white to 86.2% white (nationally, it was 75.1% white in 2000, probably lower now), and in Waukesha County, we see that statistic changing from 95.8% to 93.3% white. But what's remarkable to me, is that even though Waukesha County grew substantially, is close distance to the biggest concentration of minority population (City of Milwaukee), it still remains largely white. One would think with all the employment opportunities in Waukesha County, there's be more people leaving high-poverty (and likely minority) areas toward job opportunities.
The Hispanic population in Waukesha County went from 2.6% to 4.1% , an increase of 6,620 (remember that Hispanic is considered an ethnicity rather than a race) compared to Wisconsin's 3.6% to 5.9%.
Just so there's no confusion, I consider segregation to be undesirable, and the fact that metropolitan Milwaukee is one of the most heavily segregated area in the country should be embarrassing to us all. Further analysis of Census data should soon tell us how the metro area is doing on that front.
Note: Missing word added after initial posting.
The metro area grew by 55,385 people. All numbers are comparing the 2000 and the 2010 censuses.
- City of Milwaukee was previously 596,974, but lost 2,141 people and are now at 594,833. Mayor Barrett has pointed out that this is a loss of just 4/10th of a percentage, while other Midwestern cities have seen far steeper losses, such as Chicago at -7% and Cleveland at -17%.
- Despite the City of Milwaukee's slight decline, Milwaukee County gained 7,780 people going from 940,146 to 947,935.
- Waukesha County went from 360,767 to 389,891 (+29,124)
- Ozaukee County from 82,317 to 86,395. (+4,078)
- Washington County from 117,493 to 131,887 (+14,394)
Looking more closely at Wisconsin, we see that it is slowly becoming more diverse, going from 88.9% white to 86.2% white (nationally, it was 75.1% white in 2000, probably lower now), and in Waukesha County, we see that statistic changing from 95.8% to 93.3% white. But what's remarkable to me, is that even though Waukesha County grew substantially, is close distance to the biggest concentration of minority population (City of Milwaukee), it still remains largely white. One would think with all the employment opportunities in Waukesha County, there's be more people leaving high-poverty (and likely minority) areas toward job opportunities.
The Hispanic population in Waukesha County went from 2.6% to 4.1% , an increase of 6,620 (remember that Hispanic is considered an ethnicity rather than a race) compared to Wisconsin's 3.6% to 5.9%.
Just so there's no confusion, I consider segregation to be undesirable, and the fact that metropolitan Milwaukee is one of the most heavily segregated area in the country should be embarrassing to us all. Further analysis of Census data should soon tell us how the metro area is doing on that front.
Note: Missing word added after initial posting.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Integrated Housing Example Feedback
In a recent blog post, I asserted regarding a proposed mixed-income development in Milwaukee using bonds:
A consultant disagreed with me, responding:
I stand corrected, noting that many of the developments I'm more familiar with in Milwaukee used supportive housing financing, so I had a false impression of the prevalence of the lack of market-rate units overall.
Folks, if you disagree with me, feel free to say so in the comments, or to e-mail me directly.
One reason I'm very supportive of this type of development is that the affordable units financed with the bonds are more integrated than many of the typical tax-credit developments you see done through WHEDA. Even though the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program doesn't require that ALL of the units use tax credits, there often is a financial benefit to developers in doing so.
A consultant disagreed with me, responding:
Although it is financially beneficial to have all units be LIHTC, for a number of years, WHEDA and other housing authorities award extra points to those projects that have mixed income housing. Since the application process is highly competitive, most developers that I’m familiar with now include a required number of units that are market rate in the unit mix, (15-20%, as I recall). Usually the market rate units are larger with possibly an extra amenity or two.
In the one bond project I worked on, bonds require a very limited number of units to be at 30% to 40% level. In that project, all these units were clustered together on one floor. I know with tax credits, the units need to be spread throughout the building and have the same basic workmanship in all.
I stand corrected, noting that many of the developments I'm more familiar with in Milwaukee used supportive housing financing, so I had a false impression of the prevalence of the lack of market-rate units overall.
Folks, if you disagree with me, feel free to say so in the comments, or to e-mail me directly.
UK Study on Cash to Homeless
Matthew Yglesias points to an article in The Economist about a pilot program in London to help end homelessness by providing cash to people who are homeless.
In a way, this program mirrors the thinking behind Housing First-get people into housing first, & then everything else can follow as needed. It is very important that the person being assisted "buy in" into the program and services as that often produces the desired results. The key element in this buy-in is giving the person some control, rather than, as stated above, coercing the person with demands.
The City of Milwaukee and the County of Milwaukee have cooperated closely on providing new Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units along with using Shelter Plus Care vouchers to provide assistance to the chronic homeless.
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority also created a new set-aside in their application process for supportive housing units.
The principles of Housing First, as listed in Wikipedia, are:
Of the 13 people who engaged with the scheme, 11 have moved off the streets. The outlay averaged £794 ($1,277) per person (on top of the project’s staff costs). None wanted their money spent on drink, drugs or bets. Several said they co-operated because they were offered control over their lives rather than being “bullied” into hostels. Howard Sinclair of Broadway explains: “We just said, ‘It’s your life and up to you to do what you want with it, but we are here to help if you want.’”
In a way, this program mirrors the thinking behind Housing First-get people into housing first, & then everything else can follow as needed. It is very important that the person being assisted "buy in" into the program and services as that often produces the desired results. The key element in this buy-in is giving the person some control, rather than, as stated above, coercing the person with demands.
The City of Milwaukee and the County of Milwaukee have cooperated closely on providing new Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) units along with using Shelter Plus Care vouchers to provide assistance to the chronic homeless.
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority also created a new set-aside in their application process for supportive housing units.
The principles of Housing First, as listed in Wikipedia, are:
1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance;
2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion;
3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services;
4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community;
5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitments to recovery;
6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law;
7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site mode
Subsidies, Subsidies, Subsidies everywhere
I link to this story not as a slam on those politicans involved, but to remind people that there are many forms of subsidies in our society, more than many are willing to acknowledge.
I've mentioned the home mortgage interest deduction in the past, and there's subsidies for economic development (tax incremental financing, etc.).
To protest only subsidized housing, whether it is subsidies for renters (Sections 8, 202, 811) or subsidies for housing developers (tax credits, bonds), and to ignore all the other forms of subsidies that exist is quite...hypocritical.
From 1995 through 2009, state Sens. Luther Olsen, Dale Schultz and Sheila Harsdorf all had stakes in farms that received between them more than $300,000 in taxpayer funds.
I've mentioned the home mortgage interest deduction in the past, and there's subsidies for economic development (tax incremental financing, etc.).
To protest only subsidized housing, whether it is subsidies for renters (Sections 8, 202, 811) or subsidies for housing developers (tax credits, bonds), and to ignore all the other forms of subsidies that exist is quite...hypocritical.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Integrated Housing Example
The Journal-Sentinel's Tom Daykin brings us an example of a mixed-use and mixed-income building that includes some "affordable" units. This proposed Shorewood development by Mandel will have 84 units on upper floors with a Walgreen's on the street level. Due to the rules regarding the tax-exempt bonds Mandel is attempting to use, 20% of the units (17) will need to be affordable to those at or below 60% of the Area Median Income.
One reason I'm very supportive of this type of development is that the affordable units financed with the bonds are more integrated than many of the typical tax-credit developments you see done through WHEDA. Even though the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program doesn't require that ALL of the units use tax credits, there often is a financial benefit to developers in doing so.
It is my belief that integrated housing is better for persons with disabilities, who won't be segregated into a separate building, better for low-income (moderate, really) employees who will have a chance to live in an area closer to employment opportunities, better for low-income families to have an opportunity to live in school districts with good schools for their kids, etc.
Updated Here.
One reason I'm very supportive of this type of development is that the affordable units financed with the bonds are more integrated than many of the typical tax-credit developments you see done through WHEDA. Even though the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program doesn't require that ALL of the units use tax credits, there often is a financial benefit to developers in doing so.
It is my belief that integrated housing is better for persons with disabilities, who won't be segregated into a separate building, better for low-income (moderate, really) employees who will have a chance to live in an area closer to employment opportunities, better for low-income families to have an opportunity to live in school districts with good schools for their kids, etc.
Updated Here.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
More thoughts on GAO Recommendations
Yesterday I pointed to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on improving the efficiency of the government by eliminating duplicative, wasteful, or fragmented programs. Some of the programs they looked at involved homelessness people and some involved transportation, education, etc.
Today, Ezra Klein printed a response on this topic:
This sort of echoes my thoughts as I've been mulling this. Much of the funding given to communities to deal with homelessness, for Community Development Block Grant program, etc. have flexibility so that communities can tailor the services and programs to fit their needs. Milwaukee's needs are not going to be the same as La Crosse's. La Crosse might want to spend some CDBG funding on, for instance, transportation for the elderly and persons with disabilities to medical appointments & such, while Milwaukee might want to spend more CDBG programming on youth & employment programs.
Does this mean that LaCrosse should seeking funding only through the Department of Transportation, or that Milwaukee should be seeking funding only through the Department of Labor? What if a grant seeker wants to operate an eviction prevention program that would provide funding for either rent (in case of lost employment, to give tenant time to find another job), or energy assistance (to help with weatherization or energy payments). Does this mean that the grantseeker has to go to the Department of Energy to find funding for energy assistance in a separate grant application?
Sometimes some overlapping and fragmentation isn't such a bad thing.
Today, Ezra Klein printed a response on this topic:
Ezra, I appreciate the posts about program duplication. I work at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and we spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to eliminate duplication and redundancy. As you say, there are a lot of good reasons to have multiple programs. Most homeless people need a housing subsidy. Some homeless people have a mental illness. Some homeless people are kids who need to go to school. Should all of these needs be met with one program? At which department? Do you want HUD to operate an education program? Or should you just make the programs that typically provide these services to people who are not homeless do a better job of serving homeless people? These are all questions we grapple with, and I think we do a good job of identifying the best policy solutions....
This sort of echoes my thoughts as I've been mulling this. Much of the funding given to communities to deal with homelessness, for Community Development Block Grant program, etc. have flexibility so that communities can tailor the services and programs to fit their needs. Milwaukee's needs are not going to be the same as La Crosse's. La Crosse might want to spend some CDBG funding on, for instance, transportation for the elderly and persons with disabilities to medical appointments & such, while Milwaukee might want to spend more CDBG programming on youth & employment programs.
Does this mean that LaCrosse should seeking funding only through the Department of Transportation, or that Milwaukee should be seeking funding only through the Department of Labor? What if a grant seeker wants to operate an eviction prevention program that would provide funding for either rent (in case of lost employment, to give tenant time to find another job), or energy assistance (to help with weatherization or energy payments). Does this mean that the grantseeker has to go to the Department of Energy to find funding for energy assistance in a separate grant application?
Sometimes some overlapping and fragmentation isn't such a bad thing.
Waukesha's Housing Policy Improves
The City of Waukesha improved its housing policy last night by allowing residential units in commercial districts, although it would still be conditional upon the Council's approval. Essentially, this would allow mixed-use buildings with retail or commercial units on the ground floor and residential units on the upper floors.
This was done at the request of a developer interested in developing two parcels. Kudos to her, but how will this affect the City's regrettable housing mix policy created by the ad hoc committee? Waukesha has rejected some proposed developments because the housing mix of single-family units to multi-family units were not at the desired 65%-35%. What makes those mixed-use buildings different?
This was done at the request of a developer interested in developing two parcels. Kudos to her, but how will this affect the City's regrettable housing mix policy created by the ad hoc committee? Waukesha has rejected some proposed developments because the housing mix of single-family units to multi-family units were not at the desired 65%-35%. What makes those mixed-use buildings different?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
GAO Recommendations on Housing
Via Ezra Klein, I learned that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report on how the government can improve its efficiency by removing duplicative, overlapping, or fragmented programs.
I took a look to see what their recommendations were on housing. Most housing programs are under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It does discuss some military housing, but I'll ignore that for now.
This is exactly the sort of process that I support to make the government more effective, rather than randomly picking a number to cut as many politicans tend to do. As Ezra Klein states:
I took a look to see what their recommendations were on housing. Most housing programs are under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It does discuss some military housing, but I'll ignore that for now.
- In addition to fragmented programs possibly duplicative of other programs in other Departments, the GAO also had criticism of Section 108, which is a loan guarantee provision of Community Development Block Grant program. Apparently HUD has no way to track long-term performance outcomes for this program, so its effectiveness is unclear.
- GAO recommended that HUD, the Department of Education, and Health & Human Services develop a more consistent vocabulary to better coordinate services and programs for the homeless population. GAO notes that the Departments have agreed and have already begun to take some steps.
- GAO discovered that "in July 2010 that at least seven federal agencies administered more than 20 programs that provide some type of shelter or housing assistance. Similarly, five agencies administered programs that deliver food and nutrition services, and four agencies administered programs that provide health services including mental health services and substance abuse treatment. This range of programs has resulted in a fragmented service system. " While the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) was created to deal with this (with the goal of ending homelessness within the decade), significant barriers still exist. The USICH is also attempting to use a common data standard and to have consistent performance measurements.
- GAO noted that transportation is fragmented, with HUD having 11 programs that have allocated money to transportation programs (bus tokens, transit vouchers, etc.) to assist low-income persons with trips to medical appointments, job-training, etc.). Recommended better coordination among agencies on transportation issues, but recognized this is a difficult area to coordinate on.
- GAO believes that some taxes are not being paid as should be on certain forgiven mortgage debts, which results in lost revenue. While forgiven mortgage debts on principal residences are not taxed, GAO feels that some mortgages (such as on non-primary residence, etc.) are not being properly taxed. GAO is urging IRS to change some forms to help them better determine the amount of lost revenue on this. IRS is being resistant, not believing that the gained revenue will be worth the effort to develop new procedures & processes for tracking this.
This is exactly the sort of process that I support to make the government more effective, rather than randomly picking a number to cut as many politicans tend to do. As Ezra Klein states:
People will argue, of course, whether every item in here really is waste, fraud or abuse. But the GAO is considered pretty good at its job, and I think it's safe to say that most of this stuff is low-hanging fruit in terms of saving or raising money and making the bureaucracy work a little bit better. It won't solve our budget problems -- we need to get health-care costs under control to do that -- but it'd do some good. And that should be enough.
Housing to WHEDA not WEDC
Reviewing the proposed budget, it appears that, as I thought, the housing programs under the Department of Commerce will be transferred to the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA). For a while, people were saying the housing programs would be going into the new Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC).
WHEDA is a far more logical place for the housing programs than WEDC.
Update: Apparently the Secretary of the Department of Commerce is still working on transferring programs and services to WEDC as previously planned, so perhaps this is not set in stone yet.
WHEDA is a far more logical place for the housing programs than WEDC.
Update: Apparently the Secretary of the Department of Commerce is still working on transferring programs and services to WEDC as previously planned, so perhaps this is not set in stone yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
