Creating Communities Blog

Communities, Planning & Activitism

2011-12-19T07:32:00.002-06:00

The Atlantic Cities has an article by Anthony Flint, "How the Tea Party is Upending Urban Planning". It looks at the activism of the Tea Party in local communities. It begins, fittingly enough, with a recounting of how legendary urban activist Jane Jacobs spoke at a planning meeting insisting that the community have a real voice in the process, rather than the usual rubber-stamping that typically happened back then.

Flash forward to today's Tea Party. Given the libertarian tendencies of the Tea Party, it's not surprising that those activists are opposing planning efforts. Environment safety? Nah. Growth management? Forget about it. Rail? Not a chance in hell. Climate Change? No such thing. Smart Growth? Why, that's Communism!

Of course, give the bias in the article, written by a planner, it's natural that the author would cast a critical eye on people that are opposed to the very work he does.

But, still...it's hard to take seriously people who ramble about "Agenda 21" and call people UN Agents. See this (particularly comments) for a taste of their perspective on this.

The way I've seen planning work in many hearings often involves making changes to proposed developments or projects to satisfy community concerns. Sometimes this unnecessarily drives up the cost ("those homes must be brick or stone all the way around") and sometimes objections may be based in prejudice and misinformation (New Berlin). The author wrote at the end:

Yet, as in national politics, the Tea Party view doesn’t leave room for compromise. Even the most open-minded and free-speech supporting planner can’t operate when the framework for the dialogue itself has been invalidated. Where does one go from there?

So what's the answer? Ignore them? That presents a peril of its own as planning commissions often have elected officials on them in addition to citizen members.

In the words of Jane Jacobs in 1952:

The other threat to the security of our tradition, I believe, lies at home. It is the current fear of radical ideas and of people who propound them. I do not agree with the extremists of either the left or the right, but I think they should be allowed to speak and to publish, both because they themselves have, and ought to have, rights, and once their rights are gone, the rights of the rest of us are hardly safe …

I left out the other half of the ending paragraph from the author, Anthony Fllint, a while ago. The othe half was:

The skirmishes at town halls around the country over the past year or so means that planners will have to try even harder to make their case. But in the mean time, the chairman of that sleepy planning board hearing might be eying the exits, looking for a black helicopter, to make a run for it.

"Compassionate Conservative" in Action

2011-11-29T08:04:00.001-06:00

I wonder what people like this think will happen to the homelessness when there are no funding?

As near as I can figure, their thinking goes like this:

1. Funding for social programs cut

2. Pull own bootstrap

3. Success!

That kind of wishful thinking isn't good policy.

Phew!

2011-11-26T12:01:00.001-06:00

Phew! So glad Wisconsin went ahead with more rail. Oh, wait...

If not now, when?

2011-11-26T11:33:00.001-06:00

Interesting look at the issue of sex education in the Wisconsin State Journal. Apparently in 2010, a comprehensive sex education curriculum was passed, and this year's Republicans want to reverse that. Leaving aside the whole issue of abortion funding which the article also covers, I've never gotten a real answer to my question: When exactly do Republicans think that today's teens will receive the comprehensive sex education they need? And from who? Clearly many parents aren't doing it, which means teens are getting their information from potentially unreliable sources of information.

Today's teens are tomorrow's adults. If we want to cut down on unplanned pregnancies, on sexually transmitted diseases, etc. then kids need to be educated. Now, that's good policy.

Cuts For Thee and None for Me

2011-11-26T10:53:00.000-06:00

The Republicans are trying to renege on their deal. There's no other way to look at this; Republicans agreed that if the so-called Super-committee failed to reach a deal, there would be painful cuts to defense. Now they're trying to renege on that deal. But they're still perfectly happy to continue with cuts to social programs.

I especially loved this quote:

“If you look at these cuts, it is not just the amount of the dollars that is a concern, but also the arbitrary way the cuts are done,” said Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), whose district includes huge military installations in Hampton Roads. “The worst thing you can do is reach up and pull a figure and say you are going to cut without any strategic review.”

Why not? They've been pushing cuts for years, if not decades, without thought as to the impact they'd have.

Food Insecurity

2011-11-25T22:18:00.000-06:00

As we recuperate from our Thanksgiving meals, it's important to remember that many Americans did not have the same opportunity to, well, gorge as we just did.

Think Progress has a post on food insecurity in America using data from last year. Food insecurity means that a person does not always know where his/her next meal will come from. Shockingly, over 17 million households faced food insecurity in 2010, or 1 in 7 households.

Most people,such as yourself, upon hearing this, would probably say, "how can we ensure that those households, especially those with children, have access to their daily nutritional needs?" But you're probably not a Republican in Congress. And you would definitely not be Representative Paul Ryan, whose budget slashes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $127 billion (yes, with a "B") over the next decade. Even with the additional number of families struggling in this economy.

The farm bill is not yet finalized, so the final budget for food assistance programs are not known (at least, by me), but with it under attack by Republicans in Congress and likely pressure on Democrats from agricultural states to protect farm subsidies, outlook is not good. For some annoying reason, nutritional assistance programs are in the same budget pot as farm subsidies, which means that food assistance tend to suffer first.

Studies have shown the importance of good nutrition for families-from pregnant women to kids in school, so it's simply inexcusable that we are sabotaging our future by not ensuring that our children receive the proper amount of nutrition.

Faux Outrage

2011-11-25T21:06:00.001-06:00

The only thing more tiring than the faux outrage of the day is the insistence of the stenographers in reporting it dutifully. Come on, media-at some point, you gotta say, "here's the latest idiocy that they're pretending to be upset about.

Addition: Needless to say, we would be better served if the press would focus on substantive follow-up questions such as: Why is it so important that Obama thank God? Why are some acting so outraged when some in the same party had a similar omission? Did previous presidents always thank God? And finally, does anyone actually care?

Regulations

2011-11-25T10:45:00.000-06:00

One thing I've commented on-if not here, then elsewhere-is that very often regulations are pushed by businesses and industries rather than the government as a way to lock out the competition. Matthew Yglesias over at his new home, Slate's Moneybox, has a great illustration of this.

So how do you prevent this? Mostly by making sure that the need for licensing is justified, and making sure that the foxes are not in charge of the hen house; in this case, the Commission ruling on the justification of the regulation are controlled by those who would benefit from it.

Housing Policies & Advocacy

2011-11-25T10:21:00.002-06:00

Affordable housing, in some ways, is very difficult to do advocacy on. The people most directly impacted by poor housing policies very often are unable-for various reasons-to do any advocacy on the national level, which is where much of funding for affordable housing happens. People who are searching for housing, people who has to work two jobs to make ends meet, etc. simply do not have the time or background to educate themselves on housing issues, which can be complex. The idea of calling their Senator and/or Representative can be intimidating, especially when you're not sure of what the difference between Section 811, Section 8, Section 202, Section 42, etc. are, or what SEVRA, SESA, PETRA, etc. are.

Service providers, the organizational staff that very often work with segments of the low-income population, such as those who work with people with disabilities, people who are elderly, struggling families, etc. are often overwhelmed. Many non-profit organizations are also often confused at where the line between advocacy and lobbying is, so they err on the side of caution.

So often it falls to people whose job is to learn about housing issues-the finances, the budgeting, the regulations, etc. to do the advocacy on behalf of the low-income population. Of course, there are people who represent tax-credit developers, public housing authorities, etc. but they have a different perspective than the people who would actually occupy the units.

Representing the low-income population are a number of national organizations-the one I'm most familiar with is the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). And then there are other organizations who focus on community/neighborhood development such as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). Some work on homelessness issues such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness.

Those and other organizations (feel free to suggest additional ones in comments) do policy analysis and distribute that information to legislators and other policy makers. They also often freely share their results with the public. Many, if not all, have newsletters and/or advocacy alerts for people. In other words, it can be easy to just sign up for some alerts, and then start advocating almost immediately even if you don't know much about the issues-those alerts often explain what's at stake.

So what I'm saying is, get off your duff, go sign up for the newsletters, and start advocating for better housing policies on the national level. And while you're at it, help out those under appreciated organizations by becoming a member-I'm a member of NLIHC-to help support them financially so they can continue their fine work.

(Yes, I know, unfortunately, much of this information sharing is almost entirely Internet-based, so it can be difficult for people without reliable access to the Internet to participate. )

Update: How could I forget the Technical Assistance Collaborative?

Serious Question

2011-11-20T17:08:00.001-06:00

Let's look at two groups. The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street.

Both groups protest what they see as injustices.

The Tea Party protest taxes-even though taxes are at a historic low.
Occupy Wall Street protest the disparity between the financial elite and the rest of us, which is statistically demonstrated in a number of ways.

Both groups received media coverage.

The Tea Party received extensive corporate media coverage-very often disproportionate at some events to the actual numbers of Tea Party members present. Much of coverage-in particular from one network-has been very positive.
Occupy Wall Street initially received very little coverage, and much of the coverage from the "mainstream" media has been negative.

Both groups received police attention.

The Tea Party members had polite police attention-even when Tea Party members were openly carrying weapons.
Occupy Wall Street protesters were attacked by the police-very often when protesting peacefully. In some instances, they were sprayed with pepper spray while sitting on the ground.

Both groups receive financial support.

The Tea Party received extensive financial support from right-wing billionaires and other moneyed people.
Occupy Wall Street relies heavily on individual and online donations.

So we have one group that is protesting tax rates that are already low, and receiving favorable attention and support from the media-to the extent that one network (FOX) even quite literally promoted an event. And are funded by moneyed people. The other group, despite facts on their side, have been attacked both by the corporate media and the police (who take commands from the Mayor). The second group relies on individual support.

So the question is-which group do you think will actually create societal change? And which one is merely a cat's paw for the moneyed elite?

Update: Just saw this, which indicates that Wall Street fears the Occupy Wall Street to the extent they're willing to spend money to smear the movement.

I Pay More State IncomeTaxes than Rockwell Automation

2011-10-29T16:46:00.000-05:00

And you probably do, too. Details from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

More on Senator Johnson and Regulations

2011-10-29T16:42:00.001-05:00

I blogged recently about Senator Johnson's obession with the mythical regulation problem and how misguided his actions are.

Two more articles on this from Kevin Drum and Tanya Somander which add to a series of posts and articles around the web on the convenient timing of the Republican war on regulations (in that they only seem to worry about it when the President is a "D").

....And how could I forget the definitive smack-down on this? Somehow, I doubt this and other documentation will persuade the good Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Johnson's Misguided War on Regulations

2011-10-23T17:12:00.001-05:00

Week after week, Senator Johnson in his newsletters lambastes the supposed effect of regulations on jobs. He has even introduced a bill, S1438, Regulation Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act of 2011, which would "Prohibits any federal agency from taking any significant regulatory action until the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports a monthly unemployment rate equal to or less than 7.7%. "

Senator Johnson apparently is firm in his belief that regulations are, to use a favorite Republican phrase, "job-killing." The truth? Not so much.

First up, the Washington Post fact-checked a recent Republican presidential debate in which this issue was brought up. Their conclusion?

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

Mother Jones did a similar investigation into this, finding that the effects of regulation on jobs are likely not great, and ended with:

"The issue in regulation always should be whether it delivers benefits that justify the cost," said Noll. "The effect of regulation on jobs has nothing to do with the mess we're in. The current rhetoric about regulation killing jobs is nothing more than not letting a good crisis go to waste."

Senator Johnson, in discussing his bill, stated:

Under the Obama administration, each year the government implements an average of 84 "economically-significant" new regulations, ones that each cost the economy $100 million or more annually.

There are more than 4,000 new regulations now being written, including hundreds of economically-significant ones, but any one of them is significant if it's the one that overturns your business model. If you were a worried entrepreneur, would you be eager to hire amid such uncertainty?

But what he leaves unsaid is that President Bush had a higher pace of economically significant regulatory activities.

Let's see: President Obama isn't doing as many regulations as his predecessor did, and regulations rarely are "job-killing" in the first place. Plus they often deliver public benefits! That isn't to say that there aren't regulations that are outdated or ill-thought, something the Obama administration is already tackling.

Update: An inappropriate remark was removed.

Just Think

2011-10-23T16:28:00.000-05:00

Less money on housing and transportation = more money on useless junk that fuels the economy! Plus charity to support all those sick people that Republicans are saying should depend on charity not taxpayers.

Highway Priorities

2011-10-17T07:56:00.000-05:00

According to this study, via Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 43% of the average state transportation budget went to repairing 98.7% of roads, meaning that 57% of the budget went toward highway expansion and new construction for just 1.3% of the roads. The study, Repair Priorities, from Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, analyzed that Wisconsin spent $429 million annually in road repair and preservation between 2004-2008, but that $685 million annually was needed.

Using highway data, it estimates that 51% of Wisconsin's roads were rated as being in good condition. While 51% isn't that great, it's better than the national average of 47%. That "the nation as a whole earned a D- for road conditions on the 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report card" is not a good sign.

As the Wonkblog's Brad Plumer noted, there was another paper with a more detailed case for "Fix It First" by Matthew Kahn( UCLA) and David Levinson (University of Minnesota). Titled Fix It First, Expand It Second, Reward it Third, the paper outlines a new strategy for the nation's highways. What's interesting is that it discusses how roads tend to stay in good quality for a long time, then its quality drops suddenly as it starts to fall apart. If enough funding is provided to maintain roads, that period of good quality can last longer. Replacing a road costs substantially more than the cost of repairing it.

As Governor Walker is so fond of saying, Wisconsin is broke. So shouldn't we prioritize our highway funding to get more bang for the buck?

Another aspect is that new highway construction and expansion adds more sprawl, more inefficient land use.

Imagine This in Milwaukee

2011-10-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

Can you imagine something like this happening in the Milwaukee metro area? Even though we've seen some major highway work, there's still plenty of work that could be done, particularly with bridges, dams, and tracks. Not to mention the fact that Atlanta area is spending so much money, 52% of $6.14 billion (yes, "b") on mass transit.

Shut Out, Priced Out & Segregated

2011-10-15T14:46:00.000-05:00

The Metro Fair Housing Services in Georgia published a report, Shut Out, Priced Out, and Segregated: The Need for Fair Housing for People With Disabilities. It looks at housing issues that people with disabilities face-accessibility, affordability, and integration.

It, in particular, does a thorough job of documenting the need for Visitability, which is no surprise as Atlanta is home to the "Mother of Visitability", Eleanor Smith and the organization she founded, Concrete Change.

Check it out.

Vouchers in Wisconsin-Responses

2011-10-15T08:27:00.000-05:00

A while ago I blogged about some data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). To summarize, CBPP published data on Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") that Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) have, showing that many vouchers are being unused. While some PHAs were using all, or nearly all, of their vouchers, others had relatively low voucher usages.

This provoked a response from two housing authority directors (not of the PHAs that CBPP listed as among the lowest voucher usage), who correctly pointed out that just because a PHA had the authority to issue X number of vouchers doesn't mean they have funding for those vouchers. They point out that a few years ago, HUD changed their policies so that instead of authorizing a PHA to issue X number of vouchers, HUD now says "here's a pot of money that 'should' give you X number of vouchers." The problem is, that pot of money is an estimate, and when you have rising rents (higher rents) and families needing even more housing assistance (lower income = more voucher needed to cover the rent), that pot of money may not be enough.

I asked Barbara Sard, Vice President for Housing Policy, to comment on those responses. Below is her response:

Your blog using our data is excellent. It’s great to see the data used so effectively, and obviously you got some PHAs to take notice. We’re going to post a background piece that will help provide context for the data. But the short answer to your question is that it is correct that some PHAs do not receive enough funding to use all their authorized vouchers. At the same time, many agencies do receive sufficient funding, or have sufficient funding in reserves, to assist more families. That’s the point of the third bullet at the top of the state fact sheet, which says that Wisconsin agencies had sufficient funds available in 2010 to use 1,276 of the approximately 2,800 total vouchers that were unused. This estimate is based on a calculation that Wisconsin agencies had unspent funding reserves of close to $10 million at the end of 2010. While we agree (as noted on the sheet) that it is prudent for agencies to hold modest funds in reserve to meet unanticipated costs, it is also the case that a significant portion of these funds could be used to assist additional families. Let me know if you have additional questions.

I don't see the background piece she mentions on the CBPP site, but I will post it when I see it.

Interesting Experiment in Sweden

2011-09-29T00:30:00.003-05:00

According to this, many drivers will like mass transit more than they think. I, of course, fully support getting more drivers off the roads into the buses and the trains. Less traffic for me.

Vouchers in Wisconsin

2011-09-29T00:21:00.001-05:00

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, always an indispensable source of information on federal issues, has released some new information.

First up is a state-by-state summary of federal rental assistance. The Wisconsin fact sheet points out that only a small number of Wisconsin's renters are assisted by federal assistance, and with that comes additional risk:

When housing costs consume more than half of household income, low-income families are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Point-in-time surveys suggest that at least 6,525 people are homeless in Wisconsin.

The housing voucher data for Wisconsin shows that 91% of vouchers were used in Wisconsin, in line with the national average. But that missing 9% means that 1,824 less families received assistance. This page shows data over the past few years for each public housing authority.

The top public housing authorities in terms of voucher usage for 2010:

Chippewa County at 100% (382 Vouchers)
Eau Claire at 100% (405 Vouchers)
Fond Du Lac County at 100% (430 Vouchers)
Eau Claire County at 99% (219 of 221 Vouchers)
Dodge County at 99% (151 of 152 Vouchers)
Beloit Community Development at 97% (577 of 598 Vouchers)
WHEDA at 97% (1,326 of 1,366 Vouchers)
Winnebago County at 97% (401 of 413 Vouchers)
Portage County at 97% (242 of 250 Vouchers)

And the public housing authorities that are not doing so well at voucher utilization:

Platteville at 79% (101 of 128)
Oconto County at 78% (57 of 73 Vouchers)
Marshfield Community Deveopment at 76% (72 of 95 Vouchers)
Sauk County at 74% (220 of 298 Vouchers)
Burnett County at 73% (24 of 33 Vouchers)
Taylor County at 70% (21 of 30 Vouchers)
Dodgeville at 70% (56 of 80 Vouchers
Wausau at 61% (265 of 435 Vouchers)

While I'd like to offer my kudos to the housing authorities that are doing a good job of utilizing their vouchers, especially year after year, the housing authorities that are not fully utilizing their vouchers simply has to do a better job. That's something the local advocates need to take a part in.

Wausau's 61% is simply horrenous when there is so much demand for vouchers, and all the more puzzling since they were at 98% in 2004 and kept utilizing less and less each year. Same with Sauk County, going from 100% in 2004 to 74% in 2010. Taylor from 97% to 70%. What's going on with those and other housing authorities?

Update: I'm getting some pushback on this, pointing out that the budget authority for the vouchers can be very different than the number "allocated". A few years ago, HUD changed to a different system in which PHAs are given a specific budget number rather than a commitment to fund the assigned number of vouchers. I'm trying to follow up with CBPP on this, and I should have a fuller explanation on this in the near future.

Update 2: New blog post on this.

Freeloaders & Mooches

2011-09-28T23:27:00.000-05:00

In the comment sections in newspaper websites, which are ruled by cruel people, I constantly see people complaining about freeloaders and moochers.

I doubt this is what they had in mind, but I also doubt they'll be nearly as outraged.

Family Self Sufficiency Award announced

2011-09-25T08:02:00.001-05:00

On Thursday (Sept 22), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced awards for the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program. FSS programs are designed to assist people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") obtain employment that would eventually lead them to be more economically independent. There is a similar FSS program for public housing residents.

FSS program services may include, but are not limited to:
child care
transportation
education
job training and employment counseling
substance/alcohol abuse treatment or counseling
household skill training
homeownership counseling

HUD awarded $60 million across the nation, including $566,120 in Wisconsin.

Appleton Housing Authority $49,600

Brown County Housing Authority $135,462

City of Kenosha Housing Authority $67,266

Dane County Housing Authority $38,572

Dunn County Housing Authority $18,698

Housing Authority of Racine County $66,190

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee $69,000

Sauk County Housing Authority $52,332

Winnebago County Housing Authority $69,000

HUD believes that the program works, and issued a new report evaluating the program.

After 4 years in the FSS program, 24 percent of the study participants completed program requirements and graduated from FSS. When the study ended, 37 percent had left the program without graduating and 39 percent were still enrolled in FSS. Program graduates were more likely to be employed than other exiters or the still-enrolled participants. Program graduates also had higher incomes, both when they enrolled in FSS and when they completed the program, than participants with other outcomes.

At first take, having more drop-outs than graduates isn't exactly a picture of a rousing success. The report states that 31 of 63 who left the program did so involuntarily; they were removed due to violations of either FSS agreement (such as showing up for review meetings) or due to voucher program violations. Others left the program for various reasons, usually due to family & work obligations making it difficult to keep in contact with the FSS staff person. The fact that keeping in contact seems to be a big factor for those who leave the program involuntarily and for those who leave voluntarily makes me wonder if the FSS program couldn't have better outcomes if the FSS staff showed more flexibility. My limited experience with the rental assistance program is that they tend to tell people, "show up at this date & time, or else."

Outcomes were generally positive for those who graduated from the program, with some clues for improved program efficiency.

This study finds that the financial benefits are substantial for participants who remain in and graduate from the FSS program. The study also highlights certain personal and program characteristics that tend to make families more successful in FSS. (For example, those with higher levels of education at enrollment did better.) These findings suggest approaches that program administrators can take to target FSS services more effectively.

Policies & Babies

2011-09-25T07:20:00.000-05:00

Reading this Journal-Sentinel article about premature babies, I was struck by how expensive they are.

In Wisconsin, prematurity cost BadgerCare Plus, the state health plan for families and pregnant women with limited incomes, $81 million in the 2010 fiscal year and more than $300 million over the past four years

.
When one realizes that caring for an infant born at 24 weeks can exceed $630,000, and that in totality, including special education, lost productivity, etc., premature babies cost at least $26.2 billion (as of 2006) nationally, one has to think that there has to be a way to reduce all this cost.

While medicine has not arrived at a single prescription to prevent prematurity, experts say there are measures that have been shown to reduce rates and save money.

Programs that help women stop smoking, stay off drugs, maintain a healthy weight and reduce rates of chronic illness ultimately translate into fewer preterm deliveries. Medications, such as progesterone gel for women with a short cervix, have also shown great promise in reducing prematurity.

This is the sort of thing that a program I pointed to yesterday can help with. Efforts to help guide people through the confusing health care system, to ensure they receive preventive care and are educated, can save us money down the road.

But in the eyes of some, that'd be big government and socialism.

Better Policies Lead to Better Results

2011-09-24T17:53:00.000-05:00

One of the things I hope to stress in this blog is that policies have an impact, even if one does not always realize it. In the past, I've pointed to bad policies, usually in housing. But this time, I'd like to point to a policy in San Francisco that has led to improved results and lower costs.

Via Ezra Klein, I read about a program designed to ensure that people with low income have access to health care, and to nip problems in the bud before they become larger (& more expensive) problems.The website for Healthy San Francisco describes the program as:

Healthy San Francisco is not insurance, but a reinvention of the San Francisco health care safety net, that will enable and encourage residents to access primary and preventive care. It provides a Medical Home and primary physician to each program participant, allowing a greater focus on preventive care, as well as specialty care, urgent and emergency care, laboratory, inpatient hospitalization, radiology, and pharmaceuticals.

Better access to preventive health care leads to fewer emergency room visits, which are much more costly to the community.

A Humble Suggestion

2011-09-15T08:33:00.002-05:00

With this Tom Daykin article describing Harley's decision to back out of developing offices on 6th & Canal, I have a humble suggestion to make.

Tom writes:

If approved Sept. 20 by the Common Council, Harley would not be obligated to develop the buildings, totaling 100,000 square feet, on the parking lots it owns west of S. 6th St., across from the museum.In return, Harley would pay the city $700,000.

Also, if Harley gets an offer to sell the parking lots over the next five years, it must first give the city an opportunity to buy the 3.5-acre parcel for $535,000. The city could then sell the land to a developer, or hold it for future development prospects.

If you look at the location:

View Larger Map

You can see it offers immediate bicycle & pedestrian access to the Hank Aaron Trail as well as downtown area and the lakefront.

I suggest that instead of simply accepting $700,000 from Harley, the City negotiate with Harley to turn over those two parking lots, and then the City use those lots for visitors wishing safe access to the trail. One of my pet peeves in the past has been than it can be difficult to access bike paths and trails in other communities. The City could even figure out if it'd be worthwhile to install meters (in affordable hourly increments).

This Book Looks Interesting

2011-09-15T07:55:00.002-05:00

I think The Gated City will be next on my reading list, as well as Matthew Yglesias' forthcoming The Rent Is Too Damn High. Those two e-books will cover, indirectly and directly, issues affecting housing in America.

Well Deserved Award

2011-09-15T07:34:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee Director Tony Perez on his well-deserved honor of being the 2011 receipent of the Frank Ziedler Public Service Award.

Update on Odious Wall Street Article

2011-09-05T08:54:00.002-05:00

A while ago, someone with an agenda wrote a very slanted article for the very conservative Wall Street Journal op-ed pages. This article, Raising Hell in Subsidized Housing, showed that the author, James Bovard, was confused about the difference between project-based housing and tenant-based vouchers. Very often he cited studies that included project-based housing units to argue against tenant-based vouchers, even though the studies he refers to argues in favor of tenant-based vocuhers. I do a take-down here.

The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) wrote a response to the article, and I'm finaly getting around to linking to it. NAHRO points out (as I did) that Mr. Bovard cherry-picked the facts that he thought would support his point, ignoring contradictory evidence. NAHRO points out that there are studies and evidence in support of positive outcomes of the housing assistance programs:

In an attempt to characterize Section 8 voucher-assisted households as engaging in a greater percent of criminal acts than the general populace, he also cited an article by Hanna Rosin ("American Murder Mystery," from the Sept. 2008 issue of The Atlantic). However, this article was rebutted by Susan Popkin, who notes that "Rosin’s summary understates [the] positive results [of the research] and distorts the facts" and that she also disregards Stefanie DeLuca and colleagues’ recent findings that 15 to 20 years later, more than two-thirds of the families are still in better neighborhoods, and many mothers continue to enjoy employment gains and fewer require welfare." Claims from the Rosin article were also debunked by Xavier de Souza Briggs and NHI board member Peter Dreier.

Smaller Homes & Zoning Issues

2011-09-05T08:41:00.003-05:00

A Journal Sentinel article by Paul Gores covers a builder, Miracle Homes, that is building a smaller home, "Mi-Pad" (I think that's Apple's lawyers on the other line), with a 3 bedroom and 2.5 bathrooms that supposedly sells for as low as $89,000. Here's a hint-you don't need 2.5 bathrooms for a 3 bedroom home!

I don't see this on Miracle's website, but the article says they'll have two Mi-Pads for this year's Miracle Tour of Homes (apparently not to be confused with the Parade of Homes).

Here's what jumped out at me.

Not every community welcomes small homes, but Hignite said he's found that Mount Pleasant, Belgium and West Bend are among those that do.

My question is-why doesn't other communities welcome smaller homes (on, presumably, smaller lots)? Smaller homes offer more affordable options for people, as well as options for lifestyle preferences.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission offers a list of communities and their zoning policies. As you can see, there are quite a range in the minimum sizes of single-family homes and minimum lot sizes.

I've heard jokes that very often many older dense areas would be illegal under modern zoning policies, and that's true to a large degree. Zoning for new developments very often have larger requirements than older parts of the community. To some extent, this is intended to bring in more upscale housing for more property tax revenue, but I suspect this will come back to bite many communities in the backside years later when those homes are no longer upscale, yet the community has to spend money to maintain the infrastructure and services for those homes.

Super-Pinocchio alert!

2011-09-03T11:32:00.002-05:00

What is this? Why, it's our old friend, the inspiration for the Pinocchio series of posts, Senator Ron Johnson! I'm going to have so much fun with his most recent newsletter! Blogger really sucks at copying/pasting, so I'm going to have to fix the formatting. Do you suppose if I send him a note asking him nicely to put his newsletters online so it's easier for me to mock him, he'll do it? I don't suppose so.

Senator Johnson Outlines Plan for Economic Recovery

In the Washington Times this week, I outlined my plan for economic recovery. Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction. His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Until these policies are reversed, the lack of confidence that dampens consumption, business investment and job creation will be the order of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Fortunately, some in Congress understand the harm his agenda is causing and are working hard to reverse course.

As the former chief executive officer of a midsized manufacturing business, I do understand the value of the real job producers in America. I also understand how Mr. Obama’s policies affect their ability to expand their businesses and create new jobs. What we need to do to get our economy moving again is pretty obvious. Here’s a short outline of the necessary components of a solution:

Repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank: Neither of these laws fixed the problems they were designed to solve, and instead, they do far more harm than good.
Regulation moratorium: The $1.75-trillion-per-year regulatory burden is making the United States a very unattractive place for global business investment. Imposing a moratorium on new regulations is a necessary first step in reversing the damage. A bill I introduced last month would do just that.
Credible plan to control spending: The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people. Once consumers and investors are convinced we have spending under control, confidence will return to our economy.
Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. Reforms should make the system more streamlined in a way that promotes rather than harms economic growth.
Budget reform: I will work with House members to pass legislation that will:

1. Replace “base-line” budgeting with “zero-based” budgeting.

2. Require Congress and the administration to make all entitlements structurally solvent for 75 years by fiscal 2014.

3. Require all spending to be authorized regularly by Congress. (Currently, 70 percent of the budget is on automatic pilot.)

4. Replace the annual budget process with a biennial budget process that authorizes spending in Year 1 and conducts spending oversight in Year 2.

Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government.
Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources.
Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution.

I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will begin to realize the harm his agenda has caused and work with Congress to reverse course quickly.

Let's go through this step by step.

Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Below, courtesy of Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, a graph of monthly job gains/losses:

Red is toward the end of the Bush presidency, when the economy crashed. Blue is the Obama presidency. Is the good Senator saying he wants a return to the direction of the economy under Bush?

His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Whoa, that's quite a mouthful. Let's unpack that a bit.

Stimulus: I don't know, this looks like the stimulus saved our butts. Too bad we don't have another one for another jump-start.

Obamacare: Does Senator Johnson understand that one cannot do a reform overnight? That any reform takes time? That it won't be fully implemented until 2020, with many of the major reforms occurring in 2013? He brags about running a company, so even he should understand it takes time to line up all the elements. He can't just go out on the floor and say, "You know what, toss those into the trash, we're going to do it this way instead." No, he has to design products, line up new suppliers, figure a thousand details before the first new product rolls off the assembly line.
Dodd-Frank: I'm frankly mystified by his, and other Republicans', position on financial reform. Wall Street nearly trashed our country, and we spent massive amounts on bailouts. Why wouldn't we, as taxpayers, want some kind of protection? Just like health reform, it takes time to implement the financial reform.
Explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations: Republicans really love that turn of phrase, don't they? "Job-killing regulations!" They do toss it around at every chance they get. Unfortunately for them, the truth is something else. A survey of small businesses found that they weren't worried about regulations. Indeed, some even welcomed them, and expressed a willingness to close some tax loopholes. Guess who hates regulations? Big corporations.

The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people. Does Senator Johnson mean this CNN poll that, if you go into the gritty details, showed that 64% of respondents supported both spending cuts and tax increases? The one that says 63% of Republicans have not acted responsibly in the debt ceiling debate? The one where responses to Question #24 on potential cuts are virtually the opposite of Senator Johnson's positions? Oh, that poll.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Projection, baby, projection.
Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. We actually agree on the special treatments thing, although I imagine our definition is different. After all, it was Senator Johnson's party that vigorously defended the tax loophole for corporate jets. You know, the same corporate jets that corporate executives seem to be using as a personal perk for vacations rather than solely for business.
Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government. The same federal workforce that's already at a relatively low level even though our population has grown?
Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources. Well, perhaps companies should start fully utilizing the drilling permits they do have, rather than leaving 2/3 idle in 2010?
Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution. Isn't plagiarizing unethical?
I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. I think the past few months have shown that Senator Johnson isn't.

Phew!

Thoughts on Fear, Inc.

2011-09-03T09:44:00.000-05:00

Somebody decided to trace the money behind the rising anti-Islam activities, and came up with a network of moneyed folks who seem to like funding people who specialize in trying to scare people. The result is Fear, Inc.

Seven foundations, including Milwaukee's own Bradley Foundation, has largely funded what the authors call "misinformation experts" to the tune of $42.6 million over the past ten years. Those misinformation experts' work, in turn, is amplified by what is called the echo chamber, people who find it convenient to use the misinformation, which in turn is spread to the public through a larger number of sources. Quite a bang for the buck. See page 4 for a graphic of this in effect (and some names).

The "top seven" foundations funding Islamophobia between 2001-2009 are:

Donors Capital Fund ($20,768,600)
Richard Mellon Scaife foundations ($7,875,000)
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation ($5,370,000)
Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations & charitable trust ($1,136,000)
Russell Berrie Foundation ($3,109,016)
Anchorage Charitable Foundation and William Rosenwald Family Fund ($2,818,229)
Fairbrook foundation ($1,498,450)

Who is the Bradley Foundation? The report describes them as (with citations removed):

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation serves as a legacy for two brothers, Lynde and Harry Bradley, co-founders of the Allen-Bradley Company, a manufacturer of factory automation equipment. The Bradley Foundation is an established supporter of conservative causes. Its programs “support limited, competent government; a dynamic marketplace for economic, intellectual, and cultural activity; and a vigorous defense, at home and abroad, of American ideas and institutions,” according to the foundation’s website.

The Bradley Foundation has contributed millions of dollars to mainstream conservative think tanks and groups that are not Islamophobic, including the Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Institute for American Values, and the Hudson Institute, to name a few. Between 2000 and 2005 the foundation also contributed more than $1.2 million to the Project for the New American Century, a highly influential think tank during the George W. Bush administration that helped develop his military and foreign policy.

The Bradley Foundation’s board comprises well-known conservatives and some lesser-known names, including columnist George Will; Terry Considine, chief executive of AIMCO Apartment Homes, who serves as the foundation’s chairman; David V. Uihlein, president of Uihlein-Wilson Architects; Michael W. Grebe, the foundation’s president and chief executive officer; Princeton University Professor Robert P. George, whom The New York Times describes as “this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker;” Marshall & Ilsley Corporation Chairman Dennis J. Kuester; Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corporation Chairman San W. Orr Jr.; attorney Thomas L. Smallwood; and the president of Milwaukee’s Messmer Catholic Schools, Brother Bob Smith.

The Bradley Foundation from 2001 to 2009 provided $5,370,000 in funding to the Islamophobia network. These funds went to the Middle East Forum ($305,000), the Center for Security Policy ($815,000), and the David Horowitz Freedom Center ($4,250,000). The Bradley Foundation, however, also supports organizations that seek to explain mainstream Islamic thoughts and values. The foundation, for example, provides funding to the American Islamic Conference, an organization that began for the purpose of “promoting tolerance and the exchange of ideas among Muslims and
between other peoples.”

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation did not respond to requests for comment by time of publication.

Looking at the lists of their 2010 awards, they have typical conservative priorities and bias, and supports quite a number of organizations and programs. They apparently fancy themselves as policy makers with nothing going toward stuff like, you know, feeding the hungry.

But let's look at those organizations that were identified by the Center for American Progress as anti-Islam and anti-Muslim.

The Middle East Forum
The Center for Security Policy
David Horowitz Freedom Center

The report documents activities that those three are engaged in that actively promote Islamophobia, even using falsehoods and manipulated data to further their cause. Those organizations, and others, share misinformation and promote each other's work.

So why would the Bradley Foundation fund activities designed to spread fear? ThinkProgress' focus on Bradley Foundation's role offers an explanation, emphasis mine:

When not funding some of the key groups responsible for propagating misinformation about Muslim-Americans, the Bradley Foundation uses its financial resources to promote a militarist foreign policy, most notably through their $1.2 million in support for the Project for the New American Century, a highly influential group which helped promote a neoconservative foreign policy during the Bush administration.

And what do neoconservatives believe in? Let's look at Wikipedia, again, emphasis mine:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries.

It's hard to topple enemies without any enemies, isn't it? But if you can prop up some unlucky bastard as an enemy, why, that'd work just as well, wouldn't it?

(As a side note, I doubt most neo-conservatives care much about promoting liberal democracies. There are better policies for this than freedom bombs.)

Look, if you truly believe that Islams are going to overrun America, fine, then do your research and document it. Don't make up stuff, or fund people who make up stuff. Bad information leads to bad policies. Bad policies lead to bad results.

Article Which Supports My Selfishness

2011-08-26T07:27:00.000-05:00

I've argued that, from a viewpoint of pure selfishness, drivers should be supporting bicycle lanes and mass transit. After all, every person on a bicycle or a bus/train is one less person on the road in front of you.

Now comes along a writer who supports my viewpoint.

Every additional trip we take on foot, on a bicycle or by public transit frees up significant space for drivers, since the “footprints” of these other modes are so much smaller. The cyclist beside you is not the car in front of you; the bicycle locked to a ring at curbside means one less parking space is taken.

What's Your Ideal City?

2011-08-26T07:19:00.000-05:00

A kinda cool game, Urbanology, that identifies the city you most identify with. They ask you just ten questions, but apparently have plenty more in stock, so each time you take the quiz, you won't see the same questions-or the same results. A bit odd because the first two times I took it, it said I placed a low priority on innovation, but the third time, a high priority.

Go check it out.

The point of the quiz seems to be to make you think about issues that communities face. The fun part is seeing how many people agreed-or disagreed-with you after each question.

Schools & Budgets

2011-08-26T07:15:00.000-05:00

Some of my recent posts included discussions on the impact of state budget cuts on school budgets and the "budget repair bill" that allegedly would've offered schools a way to fix that.

I don't know about you, but I think it's weird for schools to ask parents for wipes and other classroom supplies. What's next, toilet paper?

Tax Breaks for My Buddies and None for You

2011-08-25T06:57:00.000-05:00

Apparently the Republican Party's Golden Boy likes his tax loopholes for people who give him money.

But a look at Ryan's record since he was elected to Congress in 1998 shows that he has tried to create an array of special loopholes for his top contributors, whose interests range from air fresheners to fraternity housing to beer.

But remember, it's those greedy poor people with Social Security and Medicare that's the problem!

Uh-oh, Someone's In Trouble

2011-08-25T06:53:00.000-05:00

Really, how do you not know your actions were wrong?

Update on Pinocchio Watch & Nygren (Part II)

2011-08-25T06:49:00.000-05:00

In a recent post, I conceded that Representative Nygren's claims about the effect of the budget repair bill on school districts seemed to be bearing out, no matter how I disagree with how it was done.

However, Representative Mason shared an article by Susan Troller for Capital Times that seems to explain what actions schools were forced to take in order to make ends meet.

Anecdotal evidence, backed up by a recent survey The Capital Times sent to school superintendents across the state, shows that a majority of those who responded, from districts large and small, are now operating with considerably fewer teachers and other staff. Only a small percentage have increased staff, reduced class size —shown to improve student achievement — or added programs.

Many responding districts report that savings from newly imposed employee benefit contributions — 12.6 percent of health insurance premium payments and a 5.8 percent salary contribution toward their pensions — have not been sufficient to get district school budgets to balance, and have required cuts elsewhere to offset the losses in state aid. In any case, the savings of these “tools” only provides a big boost once.

Go read the article. It's quite depressing.

Fairness Doctorine Amusement

2011-08-23T20:57:00.000-05:00

Kevin Drum discusses the conservative belief that liberals are just itchin' to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, obessing about it far and wide despite the current apparent utter lack of interest on the part of liberals in doing it. FCC formally laid that to rest on Monday, axing this and other "outdated" rules.

But first, let's look at what Wikipedia says the Fairness Doctrine (in use 1948-1987) means:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Kevin Drum points to Google image search results on the topic of Fairness Doctrine. Many are from conservative political cartoonists. I was highly amused that the Fairness Doctrine, which required that contrasting views be presented, was interpreted repeatedly as meaning that conservative voices would be silenced, that they would be gagged. Go take a look for yourself.

In case Google search results change eventually, here's a few examples.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Either they don't understand the Fairness Doctrine-which would be odd considering how long right-wingers have howled about it-or they truly believe that the presence of dissenting voices is the same as silencing their own voices. What that says about their beliefs or ideals, I don't know-that it's so weak?

Update on Pinocchio Watch & Nygren

2011-08-23T20:01:00.002-05:00

I previously criticized Representative Nygren for boasting about how certain school districts benefiting from the "budget repair bill." I noted that Kaukana and Pewaukee were the only two school districts I could find that benefited from the repair bill, although the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that 410 of 424 will receive less public aid. I pointed out that both are school districts from affluent communities.

In the interest of honesty, I have to share that Representative Nygren's latest newsletter now reports that the Marinette school district will also have a balanced budget. Marinette is by no means an affluent community, so my theory that the richer school districts benefits more has taken a blow, although my point about none of those three school districts dealing with a voucher program like Milwaukee and Racine does still stands.

An earlier newsletter from Nygren also points to a Fox6 report (I have my doubts about anything FOX-related, but I'll give the local station the benefit of doubt) on this topic which seems to confirm his assertion that forcing teachers to contribute to their health care insurance and pension plans costs are a good thing.

Maybe it is financially for the district, maybe it's "fair." But I know that many, many, many teachers spend their own money on school and classroom supplies without reimbursement from the school district. Where's the "fairness" on that? Not many of our employers expect us to spend our own money on job-related duties. Funny how "fairness" only seems to operate one way.

Update Here with a better picture of what else school districts had to do to make their budgets work.

HUD & Rural Communities

2011-08-23T19:26:00.000-05:00

With a name like Housing and Urban Development, it's easy to forget that HUD does work in rural communities as well. They recently announced $28 million in grants for rural communities. The Rural Innovation Fund is designed to "to address distressed housing conditions and concentrated poverty" in rural communities.

HUD awarded Rural Innovation Fund grants in three categories:
Comprehensive Grants – 7 Comprehensive grants, in which grantees have examined the social, housing and economic needs and resources of their target areas and made proposals that address these needs through activities that will have sustained benefit and resources after HUD assistance is used. The maximum grant amount was $2,000,000 for this category.

Single Purpose Grants – 31 Single Purpose grants, for more targeted initiatives, which typically focus primarily on either housing or economic development. The maximum award amount was $300,000 for this category.

Economic Development and Entrepreneurship for Federally Recognized Tribes – 8 Indian Economic Development and Entrepreneurship grants, awarded from $5 million set aside for applications for federally recognized Indian tribes. The maximum award amount was $800,000 for this category.

Congratulations to two Wisconsin grantees.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Hayward which received $789,063 "to enhance the tourism-based economy by creating a visitor’s center, museum, and gift shop located in former Kinnamon School, which will be renovated. The visitor’s center will promote tribal businesses and will provide a venue for the work of local crafts and tradespersons."

The Ho-Chunk Housing and Community Development Agency, in Tomah, received $300,000 for rehabbing 20 homes in Black Rivers, which includes geothermal heat-pump system and new basement insulation to increase energy efficiency by 63%.

Strange Standards

2011-08-23T19:00:00.000-05:00

I had to laugh at this.

In a statement issued late Sunday, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they regretted that "this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

Look, I get that Republicans don't want to credit any part of the successes in Libya to the United States, and by extension, President Obama, especially with an election coming up. But the degree to which they're abstaining from crediting our role is ridiculous.

Never mind the fact that the NATO forces were literally running out of targets in Libya. The double standard here is breathtaking. Remember that the rebellion in Libya began in Feburary, and apparently is concluding in September, an impressive timeline. I don't pretend to know what happens next-probably nobody does. But without the loss of American lives, compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been a resounding success.

Yet by the good Senators' standards, this isn't good enough. No, we have to wait and see what happens next. Fine, maybe that's a fair standard, but certainly not one they held President Bush to as he invaded two countries, both which still are ongoing, incidentally, costing us billions of dollars and many lost lives.

Untouchables

2011-08-22T07:06:00.000-05:00

I'm starting to think we have a new class of "Untouchables" in this country. We have regulatory agencies like Moody's and SEC conspiring to, respectively, give higher ratings to make clients happy (remember those ratings are supposed to be rational and objective), and to literally shred/delete preliminary investigations, despite a law requiring them to archive all of their information. Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone did a great story on the SEC cover-up. Go check it out.

Balloon Juice asks a good question regarding the Moody's situation;

Again, I am not a lawyer, but what exactly has to happen before this stuff falls under RICO. How is this not an organized crime situation?

In an earlier article for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibi opens with this:

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I've said before that it's not that the poor commits more crime like everyone believes, it's that the rich have more options. And apparently they have a Get Out Of Jail Lifetime Pass as well.

Follow Up

2011-08-21T16:40:00.000-05:00

As a follow up to my previous post, I'd like to note, once again, the biggest housing subsidy is the home mortgage interest deduction program (and other smaller homeownership-related programs). But there are no oversight or requirements associated with owning a home with that subsidy like there is for renting a home using rental assistance. Evidently it doesn't matter what crimes I commit if I own a home, but if I rent...then hell breaks loose.

Odious Wall Street

2011-08-21T12:27:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal, infamous for its blindly conservative leanings in its editorial pages, has come out with an odious editorial by James Bovard on Section 8 Housing, "Raising Hell in Subsidized Housing", which unfortunately is walled off behind a subscription.

I'll quote from it as much as I can without violating the "fair use" principle, although I fear there is so much odiousness in it that I might very well end up quoting it in its entirety.

James Bovard starts off with "Section 8 rental subsidies have long been one of the most controversial federal social programs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Obama administration is making a troubled program worse." Leaving aside the fact that he does not inform us with whom it is "controversial", there is little evidence Obama's Administration is making things worse.

He then goes on to talk about how the budget for the housing vouchers have "skyrocketed" since 1994. Last time I looked, there were a few other presidents between then & now. He whines that "Section 8 recipients receive monthly rental subsidies of up to $2,851 in the Stamford-Norwalk, Conn.,area, $2,764 in Honolulu and $2,582 in Columbia, Md." Maybe because those are very expensive places to live in?

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the Section 8 voucher program, although not increasing as an overall proportion of HUD's budget, is costing more because housing costs are higher and because the families it assist are poorer, as well as the fact that project-based housing contracts are expiring and not being renewed. Rather than simply being tossed out on the street, the households living in buildings no longer under contract to HUD are given Section 8 vouchers. The President actually is requesting less for 2012 than he did for 2011 with the tenant-based voucher programs. For project-based housing, he is requesting only an 1% increase, probably just enough to fund current contracts.

Mr. Bovard refers to a Louisville study by Geetha Suresh that found crime hot spots followed Section 8 vouchers as they move into other areas. What Mr. Bovard is not clear on here is that it is the Section 8 residents that very often are the victims not the perpetrators. After all, old relationships, both good and bad, are not broken just because someone changes a zip code.

Mr. Bovard makes the same omission when citing a Dubuque, Iowa study by Northern Illinois University's Center for Governmental Studies. First, let's look at what he said about this:

Dubuque, Iowa, is struggling with an influx of Section 8 recipients from Chicago housing projects. Section 8 concentrations account for 11 of 13 local violent crime hot spots, according to a study by the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies. Though Section 8 residents account for only 5% of the local population, a 2010 report released by the city government found that more than 20% of arrestees resided at Section 8 addresses.

Dubuque's city government responded by trimming the size of the local Section 8 program. HUD retaliated by launching a "civil rights compliance review" of the program (final results pending).

The reality? Leaving aside the Chicago influx which he seems to have imagined (note that Chicago is on the opposite side of Illinois from Iowa) as well as the 20% which I can't find, Dubuque was panicking over what they perceived as a crime wave. But the group from NIU concluded that Dubuque wasn't statistically different than other similar communities. In fact, from the City of Dubuque's press release:

Dubuque does not have uniquely high rates of violent crime, with the only exception being aggravated assault, the most common violent crime. When analyzing UCR violent crime, Dubuque reported the third-highest average UCR violent crime rate and this difference from the average was statistically significant. This can be attributed to the misclassification previously mentioned.
However, when simple assault and aggravated assault rates are added together for all of the communities, Dubuque's average violent crime rate is in the middle instead of in the top three.

The press release goes on to state:

As part of the study, NIU/CGS reviewed research that has been done regarding general causes and characteristics of crime in mid-sized communities, the relationship between Section 8 housing and crime, effective crime prevention strategies, and the factors that contribute to perception of increased crime and ways to alleviate those perceptions. They did not review research on the causes of poverty or the reasons poverty and crime tend to be interrelated. In general, the research they reviewed shows:

Section 8 housing projects that are smaller, more dispersed garden-style, have defensible space, and are located in less resource poor neighborhoods tend not to be linked to crime and crime dispersion, while large high-rise towers that are concentrated in resource poor neighborhoods do tend to affect crime rates....

Areas with high levels of concentrated disadvantages (high levels of poverty, unemployment, female-headed households, and minority concentrations) tend to also have high violent crime rates.

Hmm. So housing assistance should be smaller, more dispersed, in more affluent neighborhoods...why, that sounds like the very thing the Mr. Bovard is arguing against!
But let's dig deeper. Remember how Mr. Bovard wrote about the relationship between Section 8 Housing and crime hot spots? What was it that he wrote? More than 20% of arrestees resided at Section 8 addresses?

Authorized Section 8 participants on average represent 5.2 percent of Dubuque's population; 5.8 percent of Dubuque's unique adult arrestees were, on average, Authorized Section 8 participants.
Authorized Section 8 participants experience slightly higher victimization rates than non-Section 8 residents (5.9 percent on average compared to 5.4 percent) and somewhat lower complainant rates than non-Section 8 residents (5.7 percent on average compared to 6.2 percent).
When adding in the persons who gave Section 8 addresses at the time of a crime incident but who were not matched as an authorized Section 8 participant at that time, the rates of victimization overall are 1.6 times greater for Section 8 residents than non-Section 8 residents and the adult arrest rates are overall 2.49 times as high as the rates for non-Section 8 residents.

So the problem isn't necessarily the Section 8 residents, but very often people who give their addresses as a Section 8 address that are not authorized to live there. This can be a relative staying because he/she has nowhere else to go (how many mothers can say to their children, "go forth and be homeless?"), or even a relative giving a family member's address without actually living there. Unauthorized residents are already against Section 8 Housing rules, so greater enforcement would be called for.

Mr. Bovard also seems to gloss over the fact that the majority of Section 8 project-based housing are older more dense and concentrated buildings, and the spatial maps from the NIU study indicates that they are clustered around downtown area very close together, so the problems very well could be due to concentrated poverty in that area rather than being Section 8 specific. After all, the NIU study concluded that 82.5% of Section 8 "hot spots" do not overlap with crime hot spots. Mapping shows no apparent problem with the more scattered locations.

The NIU group actually recommends greater dispersion, "Although not densely concentrated, Section 8 housing remains largely centered in the downtown area of Dubuque. Further efforts are necessary to disperse Section 8 housing units into neighborhoods with greater social resources in order to avoid the cumulative disadvantage negative effects discussed above" which is the opposite of what Mr. Bovard rails against at the end of the editorial. "The Obama administration is now launching a pilot program giving local housing authorities wide discretion to pay higher rent subsidies to allow Section 8 beneficiaries to move into even more affluent zip codes. Hasn't this program helped wreck enough neighborhoods?"

It's almost like he hasn't read any of the studies he cites. His premise seems to be against the voucher program, but just about every study he refers to includes, to a large part, public housing and project-based buildings. In fact, some actually promote the voucher program as a good tool.

But let us move on to other cities! In Indianapolis, the housing authority used a federal grant of $1.3 million to conduct a thorough investigation into a variety of programs, resulting in an impressive decline in crime connected to housing assistance as well as good number of arrests. This investigation just about paid for itself in over $1.2 million in recovered federal funds. But Mr. Bovard, instead of concluding, "Golly, perhaps we should give housing authorities more administrative funds so they'll have staff resource to do a decent job?" simply rattles off some cherry-picked statistics and moves on.

Mr. Bovard criticizes HUD for going after communities such as Cincinnati, Antioch, and Antelope Valley that pursued policies designed to make life unpleasant for Section 8 voucher holders. Mr. Bovard seems to think that Section 8 residents should be held to a different standard than other city residents, losing their housing assistance over minor offenses (eviction over loud music!).

But the most odious thing Mr. Bovard wrote may be this, emphasis mine:

Earlier this year, the agency decreed that Section 8 tenants (as well as other renters) who are evicted because of domestic violence incidents may sue for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act because women are "the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims." In essence, this gives troublesome tenants a federal trump card to play against landlords who seek to preserve the peace and protect other renters.

Domestic violence is a serious issue that is finally starting to receive the attention it deserves, but an issue is often landlords will often evict tenants who have been abused. Sometimes this is because of chronic nuisance policies in communities and landlords are pressured by the police to "solve the problem" which can result in eviction. (Note: The City of Milwaukee recently revised its chronic nuisance ordinance so that domestic violence-related incidents will no longer be a trigger for the letters.) It's appalling that he calls them troublesome tenants, but apparently Mr. Bovard thinks that a woman who is battered by her ex-boyfriend should be evicted as well.

Mr. Bovard is a Libertarian which means that by nature he is opposed to many federal programs, and, indeed, seems to have created a career for himself in criticizing federal programs (never mind that you'd find many of the same problems elsewhere-human nature), which explains his cherry-picking of statistics and facts to "prove" his premise, which is that Obama is wrecking neighborhoods (I didn't bother getting into some of what he says on this). He does not seem to care what best practices would be for better outcomes. He simply rails against those programs rather than thinking, "how do we better assist people who are elderly, who have disabilities, and/or low-income households while preventing problems documented here?"

Update: Misspellings of Mr. Bovard's name corrected.

Something Cool

2011-08-21T09:29:00.000-05:00

"The 5 Most Incredible Stories of Pimped Out Wheelchairs!"

Wow.

2011-08-16T07:31:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an article on California's Lancaster and its deplorable response to an influx of Section 8 Voucher holders seeking cheap housing in the community after the market crash. Lancaster, a L.A. suburb, is a city with a population of 157,000, and the market crash doubled its number of the Section 8 (from the county housing authority) voucher holders to 3,700 which by my math is .02% of the population. Palmdale, another city in the Antelope Valley, had a similar influx, and a similar response. But because they apparently had the good sense to keep their mouth shut with media, the article focuses mostly on Lancaster.
Lancaster had such an extreme response that they were actually doing frequent check-ups on the households using Section 8 in an effort to catch them at a rule violation. And that's not all.

She said that in the last few years, her Palmdale home had been the target of intense investigations, with dozens of sheriff’s deputies showing up at her door repeatedly and intimidating her four children. After neighbors learned that the family received a housing voucher, a group of boys threw urine at her youngest son and yelled racial epithets when he was walking to school one morning.

“It turned into a nightmare where we were just afraid to leave our house,” said the woman, who is black. “The reason we came out here some years ago was so we didn’t have to be afraid.”

There is a widespread resentment against the influx of Section 8 participants in the area. The local newspaper, The Antelope Valley Press, prominently features stories about people with any kind of Section 8 violation. “I hate Section 8” became almost a rallying cry — a Facebook page by that name featured pictures of some rental homes. In January, the garage of one such home was spray painted with a racial epithet and the “I hate Section 8” message.

And why does Lancaster hate Section 8? Apparently they're destroying neighborhoods (again, .02% of population) and Lancaster contends that Lancaster and Palmdale have a disproportionate number of vouchers from the county in their community. They contend that there is a lack of social services and there is no real safety net for the voucher holders in the Valley.

He said that by not providing the city with more money to provide social services or warning potential residents that there is little public transportation, the county was “just sending people here to die.” He has repeatedly said that the program simply “moves the urban poor to the hard-working suburbs.... People come here with no support network, no family at home to help them, nothing but just a house to live in,” Mr. Parris said. “It makes no sense to encourage them to come.”

Now, because this blog is all about better policies, let's examine this from a policy perspective.

Would the correct response be to limit the number of Section 8 vouchers permitted in the community? No, because the Section 8 voucher allows people to live wherever they can find an affordable home in the housing authority's service area (county in this case). Section 8 also allows people to move to other communities-it's called porting.

Aggressive enforcement like this is, in the larger picture, a useless action because one of the goals of the program is to move people closer to job opportunities, better schools, etc. so that the households can improve their lives to the extent they are no longer poor. Kicking people out of the program needlessly simply ensures that they remain poor.

So instead of allocating funding toward enforcement, they should've hired people to work with the households, to help them integrate better into the community. Ensure that they have access to the resources in the community-for example, one of the items in the article mentioned a rising crime rate until the aggressive enforcement began (and I'd want to see real statistics before I believe that). Perhaps ensuring kids get involved in after-school programs, connecting other household adults with jobs programs, community college, etc. would've helped.

This is hardly the first time that an influx of voucher holders have moved from urban areas into the suburbs, so a search for best practices would've been a step. Did that happen? A quick search led me, within seconds, to Baltimore's Housing Mobility Program which does exactly what the Mayor talked about-it provides a support system.

Applicants who pass back-ground checks and meet other eligibility criteria enroll in MBQ’s counseling program, where they are prepared to succeed as tenants in more competitive housing markets. Participants are taken through budgeting and financial education and are guided by counselors who serve as motivational coaches. Bus tours introduce participants to the myriad of employment, education, and health-related amenities in high-opportunity neighborhoods. Participants save for a security deposit and, when they are ready to move, work with their counselor to find a house or apartment that suits their needs.

I really wish that people would look for better policy responses to perceived problems rather than simply trying to make it go away one way or another.

Rental Housing Policy Articles

2011-08-16T06:49:00.000-05:00

I think something many people don't realize is just how much work there is being done to find the best approach, the best policy, the best way, etc. in various programs and services. Housing is no different. HUD's current Cityscape issue has a focus on rental housing policies. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but if you're interested in rental housing policies, this is a good issue for you.

Regulatory Effectiveness and the Environment

2011-08-15T08:14:00.000-05:00

Two Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel articles, unintentionally, started me mulling on my thoughts for this post.

The first, an article by Dan Egan, "The Lake left me. It's gone." looks at the decline and death of commercial fishing in Lake Michigan, focusing on the departure of Milwaukee's last commercial fishing boat to Alaska. The article notes that although the fishing stock began to decline due to the overfishing, the death blow was the arrival of the quagga mussels that pretty much took over the lake bottom, estimated in numbers at 900 trillion (yes, that's the number in the article, with a 't'!). The invasive mussels arrived in ballast tanks that were discharged into the lake waters.

What could've saved commercial fishing? As noted in the article, there were two factors; the overfishing and the mussels. Both are situations where stronger regulatory efforts could've preserved those jobs.

Better controls (or other solutions) on catchs allowed by commercial fishers could've preserved the fishing stock. Overfishing is an ongoing problem all around the world. Unfortunately, fishing interests and sympathetic lawmakers have stymied efforts worldwide.
Better regulations on ships entering the Great Lakes from other parts of the world could've prevented the entry of mussels into the eco system. Part of the problem is shipping interests that dislike regulations (just like any other industry), and part of the problem is resistance on the part of some ("Republicans" ) to any regulatory efforts.

The second article that caught my eye was Sand mines create jobs, concern by Lee Bergquist. It covers the growth of mines extracting sand in western Wisconsin. Those mines have a special type of sand used to extract oil and natural gases.

But there are concerns:

Opponents have raised concerns about air and groundwater pollution, and residents living near sites have objected to truck traffic and concerns over falling home values....

Questions are also being raised over whether the industry needs more regulation. A chief concern is crystalline silica, an air particulate of sand mining that has prompted public health concerns.

A decision on whether Wisconsin should limit silica emissions has not been made, and there has been little progress since it was first considered seven years ago, a DNR report acknowledges.

"It's an emerging situation with plenty of questions that deserve to be answered," said John W. Welter, an Eau Claire attorney who recently ended a six-year term on the state Natural Resources Board and now serves as conservation coordinator in the western Great Lakes region of Trout Unlimited.

"There isn't a lot of regulatory oversight and now is the time for research and vigilance to find out what level of protection is necessary."

As someone who looks at housing issues frequently, I am very familiar with the issue of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) and doubtless that may be motivating some of the opponents, but when you have a large scale operation like a mine with potential environmental problems (one might even say proven instead of potential), there are valid concerns.

But because those mines are moving into rural areas with little zoning oversight, it's unlikely that there will be much resistance. After all, what county board is going to fight this:

"Anytime you can inject $100 million in capital in a 50-mile area, that's huge," (president and chief executive officer of the Chippewa County Economic Development Corp)Walker said.

It seems that jobs always truimph.

A spokesman for a company, Unimin, said "I don't think that people are focused on the fact that silica is one of the most prevalent substances on Earth - it's sand." Guess what? Water is also one of the most prevalent substances on the earth, but if you try to breath water, you're going to have problems, too!

Who Does Not Pay Taxes?

2011-08-12T06:45:00.000-05:00

I've been enjoying the "Who Does Not Pay Taxes?" series of newsletters from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future. Their August poster child is a well-known multinational corporation based in Racine that does not pay any state taxes-not a single cent between 2000 and 2008. But I bet it used plenety of state infrastructures, services, and had plentiful access to politicos.

The newsletter also takes a slam at the non-profit tax exemption given to large health care systems.

Evil

2011-08-12T06:37:00.000-05:00

Evil. Just Evil.

Sad thing is, this makes perfect sense from the bank's perspective.

Group Homes Approved in Waukesha

2011-08-12T06:33:00.000-05:00

Waukesha's Plan Commission approved two group homes by St. Coletta. Initially the Catholic service organization wanted to build two group homes in Welsh Oaks, but later modified it after opposition to one in Welsh Oaks (approved in a previous meeting) and one in Rolling Ridge South (approved in the recent meeting).

I always have mixed feelings about city ordinances limiting the number of group homes, or limiting how close they can be to each other. It's a unquestionable violation of the Fair Housing Act in my view since it limits the choices of people with disabilities, so I'm mostly against those types of ordinances.

But I wouldn't want to see multiple group homes in neighborhoods creating "ghettos of disability" either, since providers tend to like to cluster their facilities for easier staff transit.

New Approach to Foreclosed Homes

2011-08-11T07:02:00.000-05:00

A while ago I discussed the City of Milwaukee selling foreclosed houses that they own to Gorman & Company, who then will use tax credits to rehab the properties and rent them out. Since then, the City has entered a similar agreement with developers Maures and Brinshore.

Now the federal government is getting into the action-sort of. They're looking at ways to convert foreclosed houses into rental housing, and easing the pressure on home sale prices that are depressed by the glut of foreclosed homes on the market.

I'm of mixed feelings about this. On one hand, actions like what the City has done, and what the federal government might do, could be seen as subsidies to investors. With the City, because of the involvement of tax credits from the state, it's a double bonus; they get affordable rental housing, and they get run-down houses that will be rehabbed and improved, as well as maintained for the next thirty years.

But a program like the City's is unlikely to be replicated on a national level, which means that there likely will be no affordability requirements, and who knows what will be involved regarding maintenance. This could very well end up being a new generation of slumlords who put the bare minimum into the properties. There'd have to be some kind of upkeeping requirement and oversight, which won't be popular.

Pinocchio Watch

2011-08-10T08:32:00.000-05:00

In my ongoing Pinocchio Watch, I noticed that Senator Johnson had the following in his August 5 newsletter:

Senator Johnson Answers Constituent Calls During Debt Ceiling Debate

Um, no. As a constitutent, I called his office, spoke to Senator Johnson's staff and asked specifically which programs he would cut if the Cut Cap Balance that he supported so much was passed. I received a form letter telling me quite literally nothing. If that's his idea of "answering" then millions of students would've gotten better grades in school!

Freeman Comes Out for Mortgage Interest Deduction Reform

2011-08-10T08:20:00.000-05:00

In this period of debt hysteria, the home mortgage interest deduction has come under some attention. A subsidy previously considered untouchable is now being examined for its impact and effectiveness. Detractors argue that it disproportionally benefits the well-off, and people would've bought homes anyway.

The Waukesha Freeman, hardly a liberal rag, has taken a cautious stance on the issue, arguing that "... as part of a resetting of federal taxing and spending, Congress should carefully trim the deduction, keeping a meaningful break where it does the most good."

I've previously covered this question, latest entry here, In a different one, I noted that

The president's fiscal year 2010 budget reports that, in 2012, the MID will cost the federal Treasury an estimated $131 billion, much more than the total of all outlays by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($48 billion). Homeowners also benefit from other federal tax preferences, including deductibility of residential property taxes on owner-occupied homes ($31 billion), and exclusion of tax on the first $250,000 ($500,000 for joint returns) of capital gains on housing ($50 billion).

Deregulation and Pollution

2011-08-07T20:35:00.000-05:00

Want to know what a world with minimal and lax regulations would look like? Try this cheery article about the massive oil pollution in Nigeria. There you have a climate where corporations have free reins\ in a country with little accountability. The situation in Nigeria was finally brought to London because the Nigeria justice system was not holding corporations accountable.

That'd never happen here, right?....Right?!?

Look, I'm not saying regulation is always the right answer-there has to be a balance and sometimes we'll go too far in one direction or another, which is why it should be an open transparent process with hearings and input from stakeholders. We should give agencies the authority to determine the reasonable standard, without interference from grandstanding politicos.

Pinocchio Watch

2011-08-07T11:54:00.000-05:00

A few days I talked about a new recurring feature that would look at what legislators are saying in their newsletters and calling them on misstatements. I very nearly named it Johnson Watch in honor of Senator Johnson who inspired this feature. But given the ahem...double meaning of the word...I decided to search for a new name. This now will be known as the Pinocchio Watch! Up at bat this week is Wisconsin State Representative Nygren.

Budget Repair Bill Yields Lower Class Sizes for School Districts

It has only been a month since Governor Walker has signed the new state budget, yet we are already seeing positive results from reforms that we have put in place.

We are seeing the media report across the state that local governments and school districts have already saved more than $220 million in operating costs with millions more likely savings yet to be reported.

The Kaukauna School District, who reported major savings due to changes in the budget repair bill, is now reporting they will have the ability to hire additional teachers. This will reduce the projected class sizes from 26 to 23 students at their elementary schools and an astounding 31 to 25 students at the high school level.

Offering smaller classroom sizes will give teachers the ability to have more one on one time with their students. The school district is also reporting they will have money to set aside for merit bonuses for good teachers.

This is, yet again, another case in which Madison special interests continued to spread lies to the public to save their six-figure union salaries. The head of the teachers’ union Mary Bell, who each year makes $173,466 (2009 WEAC 990 Form) (IRS.gov) from taxpayer funded union dues, said that class sizes would be threatened under the budget repair bill.

These claims were flat out lies, yet Madison special interests were more than willing to preach them like the Gospel. For once, the majority party in Madison has put this state’s taxpayers before the liberal special interests in Madison.

Indeed, the whole conservative movement seems to be flogging the Kaukana example online, as if it was-how did Rep. Nygen put it?-Gospel.

First...don't you love how he conflates "local governments and school districts" to show the $220 million in savings but headlines it as school districts alone? The fact is, I'm only able to find ONE school district that had a surplus-the school district he named, Kaukana, and not all of the credit goes to the budget repair bill. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post noted that teachers already offered concessions that would've produced similar savings-if not more.

In April, the school board rejected a proposal from the Kaukauna Education Association to extend the union’s contract and incorporate pension and healthcare concessions along with a wage freeze, a move the union projected could save the district about $1.8 million next year.

Rep. Nygren pretends that Kaukana is representative of all school districts, but the truth is, Kaukana is an outlier. The Journal-Seninel notes that 410 of 424 school districts will receive less public aid. Because of caps to property tax levy also passed in the budget repair billl, many communities do not have much flexibility to attempt to balance out the cuts with other funding.

Kaukana and Pewaukee, the two communities mentioned in the article, are both communities with household income above the average. In the meantime, school districts like Milwaukee and Racine, both cities with lower household income, are two school districts that get hit with a double whammy-state budget cuts AND school voucher program requirement which takes money away from their schools.

Media Still Doesn't Get It

2011-08-07T11:07:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I criticized a writer who made no attempt to discover whether or not someone (Matt Damon) wsa right, or to find quotes from a source supportive of that person, resulting in an article that was entirely about people bashing someone.

Now I have to criticize an article that desperately seeks balance where none exists. In an article about S&P's downgrading of U.S. credit, CNN Wire Staff discusses the rebuttal by the Treasury Department, and then goes into the "blame game." CNN gathered quotes from various politicos from both sides, and left it at that. But it could've gone the extra step and, you know, read the damn report. It pretty much implicates the Republicans in Congress for the mess.

Media, it's okay to show that one side is wrong once in a while by pointing to facts contradicting the person who is in error.

Unions & Income Inequality

2011-08-05T07:35:00.000-05:00

As much as commenters on the Journal-Sentinel's articles like to refer to union members as a "thugs" there's no denying that unions have had a very positive role in the rights and safety of workers, both in America and around the world. Yes, they've had problems-but so have companies and corporations (child labor, anyone?).

The decline of unions in America has seen a correlation with a rise in income equality. Kevin Drum looks at a study in the American Sociological Review that seems to show it's not just a correlation-it's cause and effect to a degree. The decline of unions doesn't explain all or majority of the rise in income inequality, but there is a visible effect, up to a third in non-union members (apparently unions create an environment that lift all wages, not just for union members).

Kevin Drum closes with:

In other words, deunionization has allowed income inequality to rise partly because unions are negotiating wages for fewer people than they used to, and partly because unions no longer have the power to force the political system to pay attention to the needs of the middle class. But if income inequality has to be reduced in order for middle class wages to grow—and it does—and if robust middle class wages are a key driver of the liberal project—and they are—then we're all in big trouble. Mass unionization is gone, and it's not coming back. This means we still need something to take its place, and we still don't have it. Until we do, the progressive movement will continue to tread water.

I think that in absence of a worker union comeback, what takes its place has to be a consumer union. The average consumer now has access to an incredible amount of information, much of it useless, but if enough consumers who care get together and collect information (or pay someone to do it via a membership fee), you could see an effect on how businesses treats its employees. I suppose the best model might be Consumer Reports-not focusing in the quality of product, but the quality of the company. This also would hold companies accountable for their policies around the world, not just in the United States.

PS-note that Drum is saying here that he believes protection of the middle class is a function of union, and that Progressives are supportive of protecting the middle class. Which political party has declared a virtual war on unions?

Sad State of Media

2011-08-05T07:09:00.000-05:00

Apparently there's a viral video of Matt Damon delivering a well-earned smack-down to a reporter who asked a stupid question. I haven't seen it yet, but I did see an article on it from The Hollywood Reporter. The article is titled Matt Damon Is Suddenly The Hollywood Liberal That Conservatives Love to Hate and it made me deplore for the state of dialogue in our culture.

The writer has great fun quoting multiple conservatives mocking Matt Damon's assertion that teachers aren't in it for the money, so financial incentives may not work as well-that they'll do a good job regardless.

I counted twelve people quoted-11 mockingly-but zero analysis of whether or not what he said was actually true or not. Come on, this is a professional reporter not a unpaid blogger pounding away at the keyboard for fun. I typed in "Financial Incentives for Teachers" and the top entry was this. And then a bit further down, there was an opposing this.

So maybe the reporter doesn't want to get into education policy for an entertainment article. I get that. But would it have been so hard to find a couple of quotes in support of Damon for "balance" (as much as I deplore reporters who seek false balance when there is none) even though the article is about how conservatives are piling on to Damon? I mean, a quote from a neighbor that "he is very classy is not exactly a rebuttal.

Yet Another Housing Study Proving Housing Ain't Affordable

2011-08-03T20:36:00.000-05:00

The Center for Housing Policy has come out with a report, Paycheck to Paycheck, that documents the lack of affordable housing across the country. They even have a cool interactive database. Go check it out.

This joins other studies such as the National Low Income Housing Coalition's Out of Reach and the Technical Assistance Collaborative & Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities' Priced Out in 2010 report.

An interesting feature of Paycheck to Paycheck is that they look at the jobs that are growing during this anemic recovery, and analyze if they're enough to afford a median 2-bedroom apartment.

New Rule

2011-08-03T20:24:00.000-05:00

New rule: If you have no frakin' idea what you're talking about, you're no longer allowed to participate in any discussions related to the subject, including votes, let alone sponsoring bills.

Yes, Representative Ed Royce, elected by the fine folks of California's 40th District, has no idea what he's talking about. If he had any shame, he'd immediately withdraw his bill and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

The Obvious Thing

2011-08-03T07:47:00.000-05:00

Matthew Yglesias points out that Americans do a poor job of maintaining and upgrading our infrastructures. We spend about 2.4% of our gross domestic product on infrastructure, compared to 5% in European counties (which I should add are not as car-oriented as the United States is). We're spending less than we were in the 1960s.

Whenever I drive around, I see communities that can't keep up with repairs on local roads, I read about our aging sewer infrastructure, the number of bridges that will need to be replaced. When I went on a Illinois river, I was told about a decaying dam that had jurisdictions arguing for years over who bears the responsibility of repairing it.

Obviously we have a lot of local projects that need work. Obviously at the moment we have a good number of unemployed people, many of them in construction. Obviously with the construction industry feeling the pain of a slow economy, prices are competitive. Obviously with interest rates at near-zero at the moment, now would be a good time to start borrowing and funding some local projects that will have to be done anyway at some point in the future, probably when interest rates are higher.

So obviously the logical thing to do is cut spending. After all, a chance to fund projects at extremely low interest rates at very competitive prices and putting people to work at a time of high unemployment is simply a fantastic opportunity that must be passed up.

If you don't agree with that, call your Senators and Representatives and ask why the best chance to do a lot of local infrastructure projects at the best price in years is being passed up.

Where's the Outrage? #2

2011-08-01T22:56:00.000-05:00

Earlier today I discussed the lack of outrage over the over engineering of roads and the misuse of funds toward that end. I gave an example, and I have an additional example.

Below in the map, zoom in as close as you can to Hwy 100 at Shepard Avenue. Now follow it eastward all the way to Hwy 32 near the lake. Speechless, aren't you? Keep in mind they cut off the east segment of Ryan Road so it is longer connected to the rest of the road in order to create this monstrosity. What possible justification did they have for this? What was wrong with simply staying with Ryan Road?

View Larger Map

Like the intersection of Airline Road and Spring Street, there is no apparent rationale for the vast overbuilding of Highway 100 in this segment.

Where's the Outrage?

2011-08-01T13:14:00.000-05:00

Many advocates for mass transit have noted that as much as anti-rail and anti-bus people like to complain about the cost of mass transit, there is a definite lack of outrage at misuse of road funds.

I give you Exhibit #1, the grossly oversized intersection of Airline Road and Spring Street in Mt. Pleasant. Be sure to zoom in to see that the Westbound Spring Street has two left turns into southbound Airline Road, which immediately narrows to one lane and then ends into a quiet residential area served by what can only be described as country roads. There is nothing in the area to justify this oversized intersection. I'm sure there are many more examples-send 'em to me.

View Larger Map

Where's the fiscal conservatism and the outrage on this?

Interesting post

2011-07-31T09:00:00.000-05:00

So, umm...somebody...wrote a post over at the National Low Income Housing Coalition's blog, On the Home Front.

New Feature

2011-07-31T08:45:00.001-05:00

I've been mulling over starting a new feature on this blog. Since this was inspired by Senator Johnson, I thought of calling it The Johnson Watch, but as I'm sure I'll want to include other legislators in the joy, I'll have to find a different name. Suggestions, please.

Here is Senator Johnson in his newsletter of Friday, July 29:

Senator Johnson Introduces Regulation Moratorium & Job Preservation Act

According to the White House, we’re now into the third year of the 'recovery.’ But job growth is anemic, and companies are still laying off workers. You would think that Washington would be focused on job creation. Instead, the White House is intent on adding new layers of job-killing regulation.

With unemployment at 9.2 percent, and employers nationwide fearful about the Obama agenda, regulators should take a pause. The EPA’s Boiler MACT rule for example, would cost as much as $20.7 billion, and risk 338,000 jobs. There’s no reason for the EPA to go forward with such a costly new rule when the economy is in terrible shape. My legislation gives workers and employers a break.

During the Obama Administration, the unemployment rate has never been lower than it was the day the President was sworn in, when it was at 7.8% My legislation prohibits federal agencies from implementing any new significant regulatory actions until the nation’s unemployment rate falls to 7.7%. It allows the President to waive the rule for regulations dealing with national security, or national emergency. It is cosponsored by 19 Senators.

Let's go through his statements individually.

You would think that Washington would be focused on job creation. Instead, the White House is intent on adding new layers of job-killing regulation. And how many bills related to job creation has the Republicans in Congress written? A cursory search in the Thomas site reveals that when it comes to jobs, Republicans in Congress are more interested in scoring political points (HR 182) or advancing their agenda (repealing health care reform, deregulation) than actual job creation. But really, what do you call the "Stimulus"? It was intended to preserve jobs & to create jobs. Economists generally credit the Stimulus for the fact the economy isn't worse than it is now. Doesn't anybody get any credit for that? Certainly not the Republicans-they insisted on tax breaks and cuts in the Stimulus which were the most ineffective part of the bill. But the Stimulus-always intended to be temporary-is fading, and the economy is still in crisis. Republicans apparently are more interested in a bogus debt ceiling debate than actual job creation.
"Job-Killing Regulation" is a favorite catch phrase tossed around to justify deregulation (despite the fact that deregulation itself causes problems-such as the financial crash that caused the economic crisis we are in). In this context, though, he's referring to the EPA's MACT regulations. He doesn't bother to explain how they will impact people, so I took the liberty of looking it up. Apparently it has to do with air pollution regulations covering boilers and incinerators. There were many hearings held, many opportunities for feedback, and apparently the final rule has been delayed. While I'm no expert-the word "toxic" tends to make me all for the MACT rule-it does appear that there is widespread controversy over this rule. Industries have always opposed new regulations, and they're always going to destroy the industries. But somehow industries go on. Remember seat belts and other safety features? Auto industries fought those, too. So I tend to take those protestations with a barrel of salt. I, however, would like to point out that many corporations and businesses are sitting on sackfuls of cash that they are not using to hire people. Requiring them to upgrade and/or replace equipment would be one way of forcing them to make investments that would create jobs. So this might actually be beneficial.
My legislation prohibits federal agencies from implementing any new significant regulatory actions until the nation’s unemployment rate falls to 7.7%. Since it is predicted that it will be a slow recovery, this would have the effect of preventing the government from performing its duties in any significant way for years. Maybe he looks at that as a key feature, but I'm sure the Chesapeake Bay fishermen wouldn't look at it that way as their fishing stock is being decimated by dead zones in the bay resulting from agricultural pollution runoff. In that instance, EPA action is called for. But Senator Johnson apparently would prefer to see hundreds, if not thousands of sea food-related jobs lost in that region than to have the EPA act.
I gotta return to this line, "employers nationwide fearful about the Obama agenda". Republicans love to imagine that people are so fearful of Obama, but let's look at what are employers fearful about right now. Why, that Republican hostage-takers will send this country into a default as they refuse to compromise during the debt ceiling negotiation. Essentially the Republicans have triggered a pseudo crisis that is turning into a real crisis through their own actions. If the "fear" of employers were a genuine concern, Senator Johnson and other Republicans wouldn't have took our economy hostage. They are about to do much more damage than EPA's MACT rule ever would.

Update: As noted here, EPA is hardly to blame for the economy-as much as some would like to. This points to a graph showing that industries regulated by EPA-such as mining, oil & gas, are actually producing jobs. Facts matter, and facts don't support the assertion that the EPS is at root of all of our economic woes.

2011-07-25T14:07:00.000-05:00

The more I read of the tragic case of Raquel Nelson, the more outraged I am at the prosecutor who apparently filed charges only when a story on jaywalking mentioned her, the jury that convicted her, the unsympathetic public in Atlanta, and the city planners who did such a poor job of placing the bus stop.

The jury that convicted her was a jury of white people who all had replied that they never took public transportation. (Incidentally, this makes me question the defense attorney's expertise.) The jury was unsympathetic to the fact that the bus stop was right across from her home, with the nearest cross-walk 3/10 of a mile away (keep in mind that's a walk both ways, so 6/10 of a mile lugging bags and young children).

Let me tell you right now; if you're going to tell me you've never jaywalked once in your life, I'm going to flat-out call you a liar. But somehow, this woman ended up charged with-let's see, what was it? "Reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle." Each is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. In the meantime, the person who killed her son, who previously was convicted of two hit & runs, is already out of prison after serving six months of a five-year sentence. As Radley Balko noted, she could serve three times more time in prison than her son's killer.

So we have an over-zealous prosecutor (I'm lookin' at ya, Barry Morgan, although Barry Moron would be more fitting), an unsympathetic jury who has never taken public transportation and does not understand the frustration of poorly placed bus stops, an indifferent public in Atlanta region, many that blamed her, and the planners who thought it'd be a good idea to place the bus stop in the middle of a block rather than at the intersection.

What's interesting to me, though, is this sentence, emphasis mine: "She and the children crossed two lanes and waited with other passengers on the raised median for a break in traffic." Were those other passengers charged with two of the three charges that Ms. Nelson was? Surely they were listed as witnesses to the hit & run? No? Then that's a good indication of a grandstanding prosecutor.

There are many levels of good policies needed for a good community; we need good design (better bus stop placement), a justice system that is not abused by grandstanding prosecutors, and a public that actually cares. For Rachel Nelson, society has failed her on so many levels.

Debt Ceiling Thoughts

2011-07-24T07:51:00.000-05:00

After reading this, I'm wondering about something. Historically, Congress has passed debt ceiling increases with little fanfare. To be sure, the minority party usually votes symbolically against the debt ceiling, just as they vote for it when in power. Even though the Congress is divided between the Republicans in House and the Democrats in the Senate, it shouldn't have mattered.

And yet, this year for the first time, the Republicans have decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to policies they want to see passed. Hostage may seem like a strong word, but how else do you describe it? All of sudden, after numerous negotiation attempts have broken down because the Republcians have flat-out refused to increase revenue (even by changing the deprication chart for private jets to be in line with commercial jets), the ability of United States to pay its bills is suddenly in doubt.

Standard & Poor has now said that it's not good enough that the United States pass a debt ceiling vote-Congress has to show that it can work together in the future. The impact of a possible downgrade in America's rating is that it will be more costly to borrow money in the future, not just for the United States, but also for many states, and perhaps even municipalities. As Ezra Klein notes, "So S&P is literally saying that America is not acting like a country that deserves a AAA-credit rating. Nice job, Congress."

Except, of course, it's not the "Congress" but the Republicans that are causing this.

Let's see; something that unncessarily costs the United States a tremendous amount of money, out of political spite.

How do you not use the word treason? A strong word that Democrats, to their credit, have not used, but consider how often the Republicans tossed it around after 9/11 against any doubters. If they can toss it around so blithely against people who simply disagreed with their policies, can we not use the word when there is actual harm to the United States?

Ezra Klein Nails It

2011-07-22T09:20:00.000-05:00

Exactly what I've tried to tell people.

It's about what you prioritize. Labels doesn't matter when it's money going toward something rather than a different policy option. But because it happens to be labeled one way, it's somehow treated differently.

New Berlin Irony

2011-07-22T07:05:00.000-05:00

By now, I am sure most of you have heard about the New Berlin settlement with MSP Real Estate to allow construction of 102 tax-credit units in a condo format. Key point of irony:

The development is smaller in scope than the 80 affordable residences, termed workforce apartments, and 100 senior apartments that the City's Plan Commission approved in May 2010 and then rescinded two months later after public opposition erupted over MSP's plans.

It was never the senior apartments that the people objected to, even though parking issues was used as one of the rationales for the rejection. So all that the protesting and moaning accomplished was a net increase in 22 "workforce housing" units. Precisely the kind of units they found so objectionable.

What was it that David Letterman used to say? Ah, yes. How do you like them apples?

Produce & Health

2011-07-22T06:49:00.000-05:00

Matthew Yglesias' intern points to an initiative by First Lady Michelle Obama who is working with a number of supermarket chains to bring fresh food options to what are called "food deserts." Food Deserts are places-typically inner-city-that has no easy access to grocery stores, and thus, no healthy options such as fruits & vegetables. Often the only access is either a long trip or the local gas station or corner store.

He wonders if simply bringing those options to areas will result in actual improvements in the number of produce consumed. I had similiar thoughts; after all, studies (that I'm not going to bother trying to find and link to) have shown that as matter of economics, especially for low-income people with a limited budget, food typicaly found in the middle aisles of a grocery store make more sense financially than fresh produce. Not only is a Mac & Cheese cheaper, it's more filling compared to a similar cost in produce. And it's nowhere as perishable.

Fortunately, he was able to find a study that indicates that, yes, having easy access to grocery stores does result in better food outcomes.

After controlling for confounding variables, easy access to supermarket shopping was associated with increased household use of fruits (84 grams per adult equivalent per day; 95% conﬁdence interval). Distance from home to food store was inversely associated with fruit use by households. Similar patterns were seen with vegetable use, though associations were not signiﬁcant.

Oconomowoc Urgent Needs Fund

2011-07-22T06:32:00.000-05:00

Nice article by Donna Frake about a new fund put together by concerned people in Oconomowoc area to help those who are experiencing housing problems. It's nice seeing a community recognizing a problem and working toward a solution.

More on Mortgage Interest Deductions

2011-07-19T07:42:00.000-05:00

A favorite blog post of mine is one I wrote in response to the New Berlin & MSP fracas in which many people were moaning about how horrible subsidized housing is. I pointed out that the biggest housing subsidy is the mortgage interest deduction.

I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here. Homeowners receive a total subsidy nearly three times larger than renters does, just from the mortgage interest deduction. Throw in the other tax preferences & we're talking' real money.

Later I pointed to a Kevin Drum blog on who benefits from this mortgage interest deduction. the answer seemed to be higher-income groups who probably don't need it, rather than low-income homebuyers who presumably would need that incentive.

Via Kevin Drum, we have an answer to this question as he calculates that the benefit comes to about 2% of the income, no matter what the income level.

So why is the mortgage interest deduction so popular? Because homeownership is pretty widespread even at low incomes and the amount of the deduction is about the same for everyone as a percentage of income. $283 may not seem like much, but to someone with an income of $10-20,000, it's as valuable as $2,856 is to someone with an income of $100-200,000. Result: everyone loves the mortgage interest deduction.

The actual dollar disparity remains as the upper-income groups benefit disproportionately, but as a percentage, everyone's pretty much pleased. Except for the renters, of course, who don't benefit. This makes reform tricky as many people will have a financial stake in it, even the lower-income groups who might benefit more from the reform. People often prefer to stick with a proven benefit rather than an unproven idea.

Crime in the...Suburbs?

2011-07-19T07:23:00.000-05:00

Study by Brookings showing overall trends of crime in metro areas, showing that crime rates are falling in core cities and inner-ring suburbs while increasing in the outer suburbs. Although the city crime rates are still higher, the gap between the suburban and city crime rates have narrowed.

In general, the nation’s largest metropolitan areas are much safer today than they were in years past. Within metropolitan areas, older, more urbanized, poorer, and more minority communities have benefited the most from these trends, narrowing the disparities between cities and suburbs and underscoring that crime is not a uniquely urban issue, but a metropolitan one.

I'm sure that's reflected in reporting by the media, right?

Victory of Computers is Inevitable

2011-07-19T07:13:00.000-05:00

If there was one thing that I counted on in all possible Terminator-style scenarios, it was that computers couldn't possibly read anything not specifically written in computer language (yeah, I'm ignoring the fact that in the original, the Terminator read a phone book). Furtively passed paper notes and sprayed graffiti were how we were going to beat them.

But even that small comfort is gone.

Man Plans, Gods laugh, Housing-Style

2011-07-02T08:42:00.000-05:00

I remember a saying, "Men make plans and the gods laugh." In 2008, after years of hard work and endless advocacy, the National Housing Trust Fund passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and signed by President Bush. By law, it would serve the lowest income category-75% of the funding going to units for those under 30% of Area Median Income. It initially was meant to be funded through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Apparently this is when the laughing began.

Shortly after the Trust Fund was signed into law, the housing market collapsed, putting an end to any thoughts of a portion of the profit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going into the Trust Fund. Hilarious.

So a new search began for a new funding source. That was the topic of a webinar hosted by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). President Obama's 2012 budget request includes $1 billion in the HUD budget to capitalize the Trust Fund. Bills HR 1477 and S489, both primarily bills aimed at the foreclosure crisis, also includes $1 billion for the Trust Fund. Those are one-time requests, with the funding in the Congressional bills coming from the sale of TARP warrants (I look at it as the sale of stocks in banks & companies that were given to the government in exchange for stimulus money. Or, rather, sale of the right to buy those stocks at a specific price.).

But again, that'd be just one-time funding, which means a permanent ongoing source of revenue is needed. A possibility is a change to the home mortgage interest deduction subsidy that given mostly to the well-off; Only 25% of taxpayers benefit from it, and the top 32% of those taxpayers receive 72% of the benefits. As a housing subsidy, it's remarkably ill-designed, in 2009 costing over $80 billion, or 2% of federal spending, according to this article.

There are already proposals to modify or remove the deduction, and NLIHC is saying that a slice of this should go to the Trust Fund-particularly since the Trust Fund, when originally proposed, included this funding source.

NLIHC supports a proposal that includes the following:

Reduce the size of eligible mortgages from $1 million to $500,000. Keep in mind that if your mortgage is $500,001, you'd still see a benefit on that first $500,000-that extra $1 won't qualify for the deduction. This has the benefit of ensuring that the $1 million home is not subsidized needlessly.
Convert the deduction to a non-refundable tax credit (15%) available to everyone. Basically this reduces the taxpayer's tax bill-no matter if you're a renter or an owner. Hard to argue against that-reduce ineffective subsidies benefiting mostly the well-off and lowering everyone's tax bill.

NLIHC estimates that those the proposal can save $30 billion a year, if wholly directed to the Trust Fund, would provide enough housing units for every person with extremely low income. 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 year-imagine the number of jobs that'd create and the boost to the economy!

Of course, there's always someone who has to play the spoilsport. Rep. Royce (R-CA) is proposing to eliminate the Trust Fund. He believes it'll be a "slush fund" for special interest groups.

As NLIHC notes from a recent hearing on the issue:

In his opening statement, Mr. Royce said that the NHTF should be abolished in order to ensure that funds do not flow “to activist organizations who dabble in housing and rental assistance as well as dabble in political activism.” The NHTF statue prohibits the use of NHTF dollars for political activities, lobbying, counseling, outreach, and project administration. Mr. Royce did not stay to hear Ms. Crowley’s testimony.

Don't let facts confuse ya, Royce!

Couples Negotiations-Washington Style

2011-07-01T19:08:00.000-05:00

As the debt ceiling looms, both sides are still far apart in negotiating an agreement on raising the debt ceiling. Keep in mind the debt ceiling isn't for future bills, but for bills already incurred by the United States that will need to be paid.

Some politicans are fond of comparing the federal budget-both the deficit and the national debt-to budgets faced by families. Running a deficit, or having a debt, they declare, is clearly a sign of irresponsible planning. Never mind that it's exactly what many households do. Households take out mortgages, take out car loans, charge stuff to the credit card, use installment plans, etc.

But let's take the negotiations metaphor all the way.

My wife and I have an anniversary coming up in a few months. She's a vegetarian, while I enjoy a nice juicy steak. Obviously this presents some difficulties in choosing a restaurant.

Rational negotiations might look something like this:

Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Already? Uhhh, yes, sure, I knew that. Where would you like to go for dinner, dear?
Mrs. Max: How about that new Italian restaurant? I hear they have a nice eggplant pasta dish.
Max Max: Let me look at the menu online...sure, they have a fabulous crocodile steak. (I'm more adventuresome in my imagination.)
Mrs. Max: Good, it's settled.

Easy, right? Maybe we might go through two or three restaurants before finding the right place that's good for the both of us.

But let's look at it again, copying what's happening in Washington.

Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Sure, I knew that. Why don't we go to that House of Prime Rib?
Mrs. Max: Seriously? That place is all meat, they don't have anything for me. How about Olive Garden? They have some nice meat dishes.
Max Max: I'll give you my veggies at the House of Prime Rib.
Mrs. Max: Oh, come on-I'm asking for a nice place for the both of us-maybe something like Applebee's?
Max Max: No, it's House of Prime Rib or nothing else.

Obviously, I'm going to look like an unreasonable jerk.

But let's take it a step further.

Mrs. Max : Fine, we'll go to that stupid place. I'll have a side salad & some steamed veggies.
Max Max: No, I want to go to Raw Bloody Steaks 'r Us.
Mrs. Max: What? But you wanted House moments ago?!?
Max Max: No, I didn't.
Mrs. Max: Yes, you did! Look, here's the texts from you earlier!
Max Max: Don't believe what I text.

I'm beyond being a jerk, right?

So how is this any better?

Scattered-Site Rental Housing

2011-06-30T07:30:00.000-05:00

People with disabilities has historically been sent to institutional-like settings, and people with disbilities, families, friends, and advocates have fought that mentality for decades, and the trend is toward greater integration into the community. But many of the housing units available to people with disabilities that have some kind of subsidy such as HUD/USDA funding or Low-Income Housing Tax Credit tend to be apartment buildings or townhomes. Nothing wrong with that, but it's nice to have options.

So I read with great interest the partnership between the City of Milwaukee and Gorman & Companies on scattered-site rental housing. Gorman in the past has worked on scattered-site housing, the Metcalf Park Owner Initiative, which is lease-to-own. This new project has the City selling 21 foreclosed duplexes to Gorman for $5,000 each to create 40 rental units (one will be a leasing office). Gorman has funding for the project, including tax credits, federal neighborhood stabilization funds, and a bank loan.

It's nice to see tax-credit developers exploring alternatives to the apartment/townhouse models, especially given the high number of foreclosed homes in Milwaukee. Single-family homes, including duplexes, are difficult to make accessible, especially Milwaukee's older homes with exposed foundations on small lots with a steep drop to the sidewalk level. It'll be interesting to see what homes were selected, and what steps Gorman will take to make them more accessible for persons with mobility disabilities.

Other organizations and individuals interested in scattered-site rental housing might want to check out Neighborworks' webinar on this topic.

July 14, 2011, 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT. This NeighborWorks America-sponsored webinar offers participants a tour of the new online Scattered Site Rental Toolkit, and will hear presentations by two organizations that manage successful scattered site programs.

P.S. To Tom Daykin: I especially enjoyed the dig at those making negative comments on your first article on the Gorman purchase.

I would note that no one from the public spoke at today's committee meeting in opposition to the $7.4 million project, which still needs full council approval. Nor did committee members receive any emails or letters opposing the sale, according to the City Clerk's office. That's worth mentioning, I think, given the number of negative comments that appeared in my blog item from Monday when I first reported the proposal.

Autos & Foreclosures

2011-06-29T07:14:00.000-05:00

This article looks at the cost of transportation and how significant costs (car payments, insurance) can affect the ability of a household to withstand the mortgage crisis.

“The mortgage crisis was more intense in less location-efficient areas,” Bernstein said at a panel discussion on regional transportation planning for equity at the National Building Museum Monday. “I’m not saying car ownership caused it. But a precipitating factor was a lack of flexibility to tinker with your household budget because you had fixed costs for transportation.”

South Milwaukee Settlement

2011-06-29T06:56:00.000-05:00

In what is an obvious parallel to the New Berlin case, South Milwaukee has settled the complaint against it for its action against an development which included some units with affordable housing units. Note that this is a 18-year old legal battle that must've been very expensive for South Milwaukee (and I'm willing to bet they had to pay the other party's legal fees as well), and the end result is that the buildings stand. Well, they do get a new 10-acre park out of it, but it's probably not an even trade against the cost.

Special Tax Credit Round for Marinette County

2011-06-28T23:01:00.000-05:00

WHEDA has announced a special round of tax credits intended to create more workforce housing in Marinette County after U.S. Navy awarded a new contract to Marinette Marine Corporation (MMC) which will create more than a thousand jobs.

The concern is that all the new employees will flood the housing market, creating housing shortages. Although the linked press release doesn't mention it, a different e-mail announcement included an executive summary of a report on Marinette housing market by Baker Tilly. Baker Tilly only looked at actual MMC jobs, ignoring multipler effects (i.e. increased employment elsewhere in retail, restaurants, medical, etc.) and estimated that of the 923 MMC new employees, slightly over a third of the employees will live within the community, or 350 workers. Of that 350, 83 would rent and 232 would own, creating a shortage of 82 rental units and 90 homeownership units. Baker Tilly suggests the construction of 24-40 family tax credit units and 60-70 market-rate units. WHEDA offers incentives for mixed-income housing, a mix of tax credit units and market-rent units that could be used to meet both categories.

The most intersting thing to me about this is that because WHEDA considers this unexpected and special circumstances (the influx of 500 new workers in 2011 and 2012 alone), "The Current Qualified Allocation Plan allows WHEDA to waive any conditions not mandated by Section 42 to address unforseen circumstances, and determined by WHEDA to be in the best interests of the citizens of the state of Wisconsin."

Essentially, WHEDA is saying they can toss out any scoring requirements that are not mandated by the federal tax-credit program. The 2011 Qualified Allocation Plan outlines the scoring categories. The question is, what will WHEDA toss out? Given this is in response to a workforce housing shortage, one might argue WHEDA might be justified to remove the scoring categories for elderly assisted living or supportive housing for persons who are homeless, or are at risk of being homeless. But they might be hard-pressed to explain why it would be necessary to waive those for energy efficiency, Universal Design, Large Families, etc.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that not all new tenants of those new units would be MMC workers; it's inevitable that employees with higher wages will be more desirable for current landlords and will push out those in the workforce with lower wages ("renting down" effect). Some of the new tenants could very well be those who used to live in market-rate housing that are now occupied by a new employee.

More Changes to Creating Communities

2011-06-28T21:52:00.001-05:00

As many of you will remember, I mentioned recently that this blog would be undergoing changes. Because my agency is moving forward with its blog, where I will post occasionally in my official capacity, it was agreed that this blog would evolve further into my personal blog.

Fear not, I'll still talk about housing issues. Since this is now my personal blog, I'll be more frank than I have been in the past as it's only my own reputation I can damage.

For instance, during the recent campaign for the Senate, I wanted to call out a candidate on an erroneous statement (echoed by many others) on a housing issue. I ended up deleting that post because I had to be cautious about appearing to endorse a particular candidate or party, no matter how factual the post was.

You'll notice that my blogging name has changed to Max Max, in honor of my cat. Not that I'm trying to hide who I am-after all, if one goes far enough back in this blog, one can find enough clues. But this is done as to further divide the line between my opinions and any other agency/organization/coalition I am affiliated with. All opinions are my own. Unless I'm quoting or paraphasing someone, of course. But you should be able to figure that out.

Welcome to Creating Communities, where I'll be giving my inexpert opinion about policies on housing, transportation, and disability issues, with some other fun stuff thrown in.

Update: Speaking of inexpertence, I didn't realize that changing my profile name now would also change the profile name in all past posts. Ain't time travel grand?

Finally.

2011-06-23T22:22:00.000-05:00

About time it happened. The Feds finally moved on New Berlin. Regular readers of the blog will recall me often discussing the MSP-New Berlin fracas and the Department of Justice's curosity about New Berlin's motives in denying MSP's applications.

Fox Point Hates Religious Sisters

2011-06-15T18:00:00.000-05:00

Affluent Fox Point rejected a request by the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul to rezone a parcel to allow five sisters (but not in the literal sense) to live together in a home. Currently zoning does not allow more than three non-related persons to live within a single-family home. If I were a bombastic radio or TV personality, I would say that clearly Fox Point hates sisters of religious orders.

Fox Point Now reported that the request was rejected because the Fox Point Village Board feared that it would be setting a precedent allowing group homes and "similar establishments" within the Village boundaries. This is a village of 6,870 residents with a 2009 median household income of $100,000 (but the mean household income was $154,303) and a median value of owner-occupied homes at $307,500. With the high cost of housing combined with relatively few options (less than 3,000 housing units), the likelihood of many group homes moving into the neighborhood is extremely low. But hysterics shall rule the day!

Think about it for a moment. Those residents and Board members opposing this feel they are so privileged that only people like themselves are allowed to move into the community.

"I think this gets down to the basis of how this community defines itself," Trustee Eric Fonstad said. "Any way you cut it, this is a group home. I think we would be bound to consider other group homes in the future. It could erode the residential character of the village, and I'm very uncomfortable with that."

So a resident's adult son with, say, developmental disabilitiess, would not be able to live semi-independently in a small group home setting of four persons within Fox Point. Is it any wonder why cities are aggravated by communities like Fox Point that essentially dump people they consider undesirable into the cities?

Oddly, based on my quick skimming online*, Fox Point actually may be positioning itself well to defend future Fair Housing complaints** should a provider attempt to open a group home with four or more unrelated persons. By not having existing exemptions, they can point to equal treatment of everyone.

*This statement shall not be constructed to be a valid legal analysis and/or opinion.
**Fox Point recently updated its Fair Housing ordinance in March, so they may have been more aware of the potential pitfalls.

HUD's Annual Report to Congress on Homelessness

2011-06-14T17:47:00.000-05:00

HUD announced their 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress.

In the press release, HUD points to some interesting trends including a 17% decrease of homelessness in principal cities accompanied by an increase of 57% in suburban and rural areas. There are also more and more homeless families, but overall a decline in total homelessness since 2007 (even with a jump in 2010 due to the economy). But this is largely due to a steep drop in Los Angeles, so I'm suspecting they may have some bad data out there.

HUD collects data in the following ways:

The annual Point in Time Count in January with a massive effort to count as many homeless persons that can be found in a single night.
The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) which tracks uses of programs over the year.
Reported use of housing inventories such as emergency shelters, transitional housing, etc.
Reports from grantees under the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)

I doubt many people realize just how much data collection is happening nowadays in an effort to track efforts, document outcomes, and to study ways to improve future efforts. HMIS is a relatively new system which agencies can access limited data on people who access services at different points (i.e. emergency shelter at one location, employment assistance at another location, then another shelter days later) and reduces the time and effort to repeatedly enter their intake information. I had concerns about privacy when I first heard about HMIS, but my understanding is that for most agencies, access to data is controlled on a "need to know" basis beyond the basics.

HMIS shows that more than 1.59 million people spent at least one night in an emergency shelter or a transitional housing in 2010, a 2.2 percent increase. Interestingly, single men in shelters tend to be white males over 30 with a disability, while homeless adults in sheltered families tend to be African-American females without a disability. That latter bit shouldn't be surprising for those familiar with the high rate of eviction among low-income African-American women.

I mentioned the decrease in urban areas and the increase in suburban and rural areas. Perhaps because of more economic opportunities, "...emergency shelter stays in suburban and rural shelters have shortened, which allows these programs to turn beds over faster and serve more people over time. Conversely, occupancy rates in principal cities have not changed but stays have become longer, and these programs are serving fewer people."

Milwaukee has seen some new Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) developments, and HUD reports on the success of those developments across the country. Nearly 295,000 people nation-wide used PSH units in a year, with 18% exiting to rental housing and just five percent exiting to a homeless shelter, transitional housing, or the streets. Tenants typically stay between 1-5 years. Most PSH programs have a disability requirement, so 79% of adult PSH tenants have a disability.

HUD reports that while the 2009 U.S. adult population has a 15.3% disability rate, 24.6% of people living in poverty has a disability. But 36.8% of those sheltered in 2010 reported having a disability. So the disability rate of homeless adults is over double that of the general population! (A small caveat; HUD includes substance abuse as a disability, while the Census doesn't.) The most common disability is substance abuse, 34.7%, followed by serious mental illness at 26.2%, although there often is an overlap. The rate of HIV/AIDS in general population is less than .05%, but among the adult homeless population, it is 3.9%.

Domestic violence continues to be a problem, with 12.3% of Point-in-Time counts reporting surviving domestic violence. This is not collected by the HMIS system since domestic violence programs cannot participate in HMIS by law.

The number of people who are homeless tend to be concentrated in coastal states, particularly California, New York, and Florida, those three states having 40% of the total homeless population, despite having only 25% of the US population. California and New York have a third of all PSH beds. Throw in just four more states, and those six states have half of all the PSH beds in America. Wisconsin has less than 1% of the total PSH beds.

A new approach is to prevent homelessness and rapidly re-house those who become homeless. This is the goal of the HPRP program, and more than 690,000 received assistance in the first year of the program, with 77% receiving assistance to prevent homelessness (such as temporary rental or utility assistance), while others received assistance in being housed permanently. The success rate of this approach is at 94%.

HPRP is being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or the "Stimulus" which Secretary Donovan credits with preventing numerous instances of homelessness.

For the first time, HUD’s annual report reveals how the Recovery Act’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) helped to mitigate homelessness in America, assisting nearly 700,000 persons in the first year of the program.

“It’s clear that had it not been for President Obama’s Recovery Act, many hundreds of thousands of persons may have fallen into homelessness or remained there ,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. “During the height of our nation’s economic hardship, we’ve managed to stabilize and even prevent homelessness as we work to find permanent housing solutions for the most vulnerable among us.”

Wisconsin receives $81 Million in community & housing dollars

2011-06-14T15:50:00.001-05:00

The Journal-Sentinel reports that HUD has awarded Wisconsin $81 million. The article, unfortunately, is vague on what program(s) the money is for.

The funding amounts include: State programs, $39.9 million; Milwaukee, $22.7 million; Madison, $3.4 million; Racine, $2.4 million; Dane County, $1.6 million; Green Bay, $1.5 million; La Crosse, $1.3 million; West Allis, $1.3 million; Janesville, $1 million; Sheboygan, $981,553; Oshkosh, $775,244; Wausau, $639,968; Beloit, $614,916; Appleton, $565,033; and Fond du Lac, $531,468.

Puzzlingly, the County of Milwaukee is not listed above, nor is Waukesha County, so I am not quite certain what program(s) this announcement covers. I will update this when I find further information.

Update: Paul Gores, who wrote the article, was kind enough to send me a copy of the press release. As I suspected, this is for CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG programs. But my puzzlement remains as Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties are still absent.

At Least The Prices Aren't Falling As Fast!

2011-06-14T15:11:00.000-05:00

Via Americablog, a CNBC story on how housing prices have fallen lower than even during the Great Depression.

"The only comfort is that the latest monthly data show that towards the end of the first quarter prices started to fall at a more modest rate," he said. "Nonetheless, prices are likely to fall by a further 3 percent this year, resulting in a 5 percent drop over the year as a whole."

HUD Testifies on HOME

2011-06-03T16:11:00.000-05:00

The National Housing Council's Open House Blog reports on the House Financial Services Committee hearing today in which HUD staff testified about the HOME program and Washington Post's article on the "stalled and delayed" projects.

Interestingly, HUD notes that they only identified 108 projects delayed, rather than the 700 the Washington Post claimed. Futhermore, they noted that Washington Post has refused to share data on which of the 28,000 developments they believe make up the 700 stalled developments.

While the media has a proper role as watchdog, the media has to be willing to back up their allegations, particularly ones as splashy as this.

Housing Funding Availability from Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago

2011-06-03T11:49:00.000-05:00

Even banks need banks, and in the field of home loans, the bank's banker is the local Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB). Each FHLB is required to "do some good," not just lend to local banks. Two ways that the FHLB serves communities are through the Community Investment Program (CIP) and the Affordable Housing Program (AHP). AHP is funded with ten percent of the local FHLB's profit.

Of the 12 FHLBs, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (FHLBC) serves Illinois and Wisconsin. FHLBC recently announced the availability of $23 million for their AHP program. Interested organizations should go to to FHLBC's calendar for the traning opportunities. The AHP funds typically fund homebuyer grants and rental housing development.

Incidentally, they also fund a DownPayment Plus program which in Wisconsin is operated by the Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development.

As you can see from this comparison, there is a significant increase from 2010 to 2011. The AHP program went from $4.6 million to $23 million, with the maximum subsidy per project also increasing from $300,000 to $750,000. This increased amount should improve the ability of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit developers to attract investment and also cover the gap between what the tax credit funds and the actual cost of the project. The DownPayment Plus program also saw a large increase from $1.7 million to $11.6 million.

Side Note: Charles M. Hill, Sr., FHLBC's first Community Investment Officer when the AHP program was created, is the inspiration behind the annual Charles M. Hill, Sr. Award at the A Home For Everyone Conference. The current Community Investment Officer, Eldridge Edgecombe, is retiring after almost a decade in that position. Both Mr. Hill and Mr. Edgecombe reportedly will make an appearance at the conference, so if you see either of them (You are going, right?), please thank them for their years of involvement with affordable housing. FHLBC has announced that Mr. Edgecombe's replacement will be Sam Nicita, currently a Senior Vice President at the Bank.

Updated Fair Housing Guide

2011-06-03T10:54:00.000-05:00

The Bazelon Center on Mental Health Law has an updated guide on Fair Housing and how it affects people with disabilities. Check it out. Order the booklet or download a free pdf copy.

Bazelon is a good resource on legal issues affecting people with mental illness.

HUD Announces Income Limits For Programs

2011-06-02T12:04:00.001-05:00

The new 2011 Income Limits are up on HUD's website, effective May 31, 2011.

Remember that income limits are based on the median, not the average, income in the area. In short, you start with every household lined up from the poorest to the richest, and then you count 'em off from both ends until you find the household exactly in the middle. Or you can find the actual answer here. That's the median income.

Then they figure the various income percentages of that median household, adjusted for household size, area, etc. Then they tinker with it some more. But that's the basic idea of how they find the income limits under which people can qualify for various housing programs. HUD's 2011 Briefing Material states that "There are currently several legislated income limit standards (e.g., 30%, 50%, 60%, 65%, 80%, 95%, 100%, 115%, 125%) that were intended to have progressive relationships." The briefing material goes into a complicated explanation of the different standards, how the numbers are calculated and adjusted, etc.

When housing programs are discussed, those are the terminology used.

Low Income (LI) means no more than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).
Very Low Income (VLI) means no more than 50% of AMI
Extremely Low Income (ELI) is no more than 30% of AMI

Here's a long list of what the various income limits are for housing-related programs, not just HUD's. From Page 13-16 of the briefing material. As you can see from the descriptions below, the housing assistance does not necessarily go to those who need it the most, people with the lowest income.

Income Limit Applications

A. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Public Housing: Very low-income or low-income standards

All Section 8 Programs: Very low-income or low-income standards

Indian Housing (1996 Act): "Low-Income" is defined as the greater of 80% of the median family income for the Indian area or of the U.S. national median family income

Section 202 Elderly and Section 811 Handicapped programs: Very low-income or low-income standards

Section 235 (Homeownership program): “95 percent” of area median income, or higher cost based income limits

Section 236 (Rental program): Low-income standard

Section 221(d)(3) (BMIR)(Below Market Interest Rate) rental program: “95 percent” of area median income, defined as 95/80ths of low-income definition

Community Planning and Development programs: Very low-income or low-income standards for current
programs under management

HOME Investment Partnerships Act of 1990: “60 percent of median” and “65 percent of median” are used as income targeting and qualification requirements; both limits are tied to Section 8 income limit determinations

National Homeownership Trust Act of 1990: “95 percent” of median is referenced as the eligibility Standard, with a “115 percent” of median standard for high cost areas

Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990: Affordability of units for current occupant of “moderate income” affects terms under which mortgage may be prepaid; “moderate income” is defined as 80-95 percent of median, with “80 percent” defined as the Section 8 low-income standard

B. Rural Housing and Community Development Service

Rental and ownership assistance programs: Assistance based on HUD Section 8 very low-income or low-income standards, or income limits tied to these standards

C. Treasury Programs

Multifamily Tax Subsidy Projects: Current standard is Section 8 very low-income standard or 120% of that definition (i.e., the “60%” of median standard) for projects determining income eligibility and rents who haven’t used income limits prior to FY 2011. Income Limits for projects using income limits in FY 2010 or before will no longer be Section 8 Income Limits. A separate income limits publication will be produced for this program.

Tax-exempt Mortgage Revenue Bonds for homeownership financing: Generally set at 115% of area median income, with “115%” defined as 230% of the Section 8 very low income standard

“Difficult Development Area” Designation (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit): Areas with the worst housing cost problems as measured by the FMR to 60% of median family income ratio; this designation is awarded to 20 percent of the metro and non-metro areas (using HUD area definitions) with the most severe problems and is recalculated annually; such areas receive special additional tax benefits under this program

“Qualified Census Tract” (Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program Definition): Areas, as defined by the Census and designated by HUD, where 50% of all households have incomes less than 60 percent of the area median family income, adjusted for household size, or the poverty rate is 25% or higher; such areas receive special additional tax benefits under this program; this calculation is based on 2000 Census data and income limit policies and area definitions in effect as the date estimates are prepared

“Qualified Census Tract” (Mortgage Revenue Bond Program): Areas, as defined by the Census, where 70% of all families have incomes less that 80 percent of the state median family income, based on 2000 Census data

D. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Disposition of Multifamily Housing to Non-profit and Public Agencies: Not less than 35 percent of all dwelling units must be made available for occupancy and be affordable for low income families, and at least 20 percent must be made available for occupancy and be affordable for very low income families. An “affordable rent” is defined as the rent that would be paid by a family paying 30 percent of income for rent whose income is “65 percent of median”. This 65 percent figure is defined in relation to the very low-income standard (i.e., normally as 65/50ths of the standard)

Disposition of Single Family Housing: For rentals, priority is given to non-profits and public agencies that make the dwellings affordable to low income households. Households who intend to occupy a dwelling as their primary residence whose adjusted income does not exceed 115 percent of area median income, as determined by the Secretary of HUD, are given a purchase priority for the first 3 months a property is for sale.

E. Federal Housing Finance Board

Rental program funding Priorities: Very low-income, “60 percent of median” (defined as 120% of very low-income), and low-income standards used

Homeownership funding priorities: 115 percent and 140 percent of median family income limits are used

F. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s)

Income-based Housing Goals of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: Goals for percentages of loans are established for households with incomes at or below specified percentages of the HUD-published median family income for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, as detailed in 12 CFR, Part 1252. The area definitions used relate to OMB metropolitan area definitions and the median family income estimates for the nonmetropolitan portions of each state.

G. Other Federal Banking Regulatory Provisions

Targeting of loan funds to low-income households and areas: Varies by agency

H. Uniform Relocation Act

Reimbursement to households forced to relocate from their residence by Federal agency: Extent of replacement housing assistance dependent on qualifying as Low-income, as defined by HUD; Act applies to all Federal agencies that initiate action that forces households to relocate from their residence

I. Department of Veterans Affairs

Eligibility for disability income support payments to veterans: Eligibility for non-service related income support payments is restricted to families with incomes below the HUD low-income standard

Family Care & Tax Breaks for Wealthy

2011-05-31T19:01:00.000-05:00

Something I've been saying lately is that politics is about choices and how they show the person's priorities.

Latest case in example:

The Legislature froze funding for Family Care, allocating just $5 million for individuals in urgent need of long-term care. This will serve only an additional 400 persons-even though the waiting list is over 9,000 for Family Care and IRIS. This freeze is particularly foolish in light of the fact that it costs an average of $2,800 per month for Family Care while the average cost in a nursing home can cost $4,000! More details on the need for, and benefits of, Family care in a report by the Survival Coalition of Wisconsin Disability Organizations, Keeping the Promise: Lifting the Cap on Long-Term Care in Wisconsin.

"Wisconsin is broke" insists the Governor and others in justifying budget cuts and other funding freezes. In fact, when Wisconsin unexpectedly received a revised estimate of an additional $600 million (over three years) in revenues, the insistence was that the new revenue be used to pay off debt, such as restoring over $200 million to a medical malpractice fund that was illegally raided in 2007, as well as paying back Minnesota over $50 million.

Fine, fine, fine, we're broke.

Why, then, does AB 85 propose to give over $213 million during the 2011-2013 budget cycle to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers? AB 85 would restore tax breaks on capital gains such as investment income, sale of expensive assets like art, etc. Homes are not included unless the profit is over $500,000 (that is, not the sale price, but the profit).

Now, let's go back to people in need of long-term care. We're talking about people (including children) with severe disabilities, the elderly, etc. who need assistance with daily life-physical, mental, or medical. If $5 million could fund 400 people, $10 million could fund 800, $100 million could fund 8,000, which a major chunk of the waiting list of 9,000.

Based on simulations using the 2008 Individual Income Tax Model, the bill will reduce revenue by $118 million in fiscal year 2012, $113 million in fiscal year 2013, and $127 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2014.

Why, by not passing this tax break, we could serve most people who are on the waiting list to receive much-needed care!

You know what the insulting part is? The Institute for Wisconsin's Future estimates that the average extra income for the super-wealthy would be just $5,400, and for middle-class households, it would be just $88.

Are we really going to tell the parents of a child with severe disabilities that the child can't get the care that is needed just so some guy who sell stocks can pocket an extra $5,400? Sure, to me, and probably to you, that's alot of money. But to the top 1% of taxpayers? Chump change.

Politics is choices, and those choices show priorities.

This Is What Planning Looks Like!

2011-05-31T13:14:00.000-05:00

Kudos to former Mayor Daley and Chicago for thinking ahead and planning for climate change. Take a look at the Chicago Climate Action Plan.

Wouldn't it be great of Wisconsin communities thought about this sort of stuff? If only there was some sort of entity that could assist with this kind of planning, perhaps even a regional one? How about it, SEWRPC? But really, steps one would take in Racine should also, more or less, work in LaCrosse, so there's no reason why the state of Wisconsin and/or the various Regional Planning Commissions can't collaborate on a planning template that communities could use.

Better Answers Needed to Transit

2011-05-31T10:47:00.001-05:00

The Brookings Institute, a "nonprofit public policy" institution, through its Metropolitan Policy Program, has published a study of transit and jobs in metropolitan areas of America. Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America examines data from 371 transit providers in 100 metropolitan areas and found that while transit coverage is highest in western metro areas and lowest in southern metro areas, there typically is a disconnection between where the poorest residents live and where the jobs are.

It notes that as metropolitan areas grow, employment opportunities are increasingly decentralized.

Spatial mismatch and the costs of transportation. As economies and opportunity decentralize, a “spatial mismatch” has arisen between jobs and people in metropolitan America. In some metro areas, inner-city workers are cut off from suburban labor market opportunities. In others, low- and moderate-income suburban residents spend large shares of their incomes owning and operating cars. While owning a car improves chances of employment, a growing body of work quantifies the large combined impact of housing and transportation costs on households’ economic bottom lines.

Looking at the tables and charts, Milwaukee metro area actually compares well to its peers in terms of median frequency (under 9.2 minutes), and is #8 at share of jobs reachable in 90 minutes which is 48.6%. Yet it is in the middle of pack regarding share of working-age residents with access to transit, or between 57.7% to 67.4% of the working-age population. Milwaukee's combined ranking of access to transit and employment ranks it at #14, edging out Madison at #15.

In Wisconsin, for example, the state’s two major metro areas, Milwaukee and Madison, rank 14th and 15th on our combined score of transit coverage and job accessibility. The average neighborhood in these metros can reach 49 and 58 percent of the metro areas’ jobs, respectively, via transit. Both metro areas rank in the top 20 nationwide for the share of their commuters using public transportation. Yet the program cuts proposed statewide are expected to lead to increased fares and the reduction or elimination of certain transit services in these places. One analysis shows that the funding reductions to the Milwaukee County system alone would make 25,000 currently served jobs “inaccessible by transit” and would be directly burdensome to low-income workers. This would be on top of the estimated 40,000 jobs made inaccessible in that metro due to transit cuts from 2001 to 2007.

Yet Milwaukee County Transit System's ridership is at a 35-year low, plunging 9% just in 2010. Other suburban transit options also saw higher declines in their riderships. Clearly, despite the metro area's relatively better transit coverage, it is not seeing the same increases that other metro areas are seeing. This is quite a change from the 1990's, when Milwaukee saw a 21.8% increase 1995-1999. Clearly MCTS has to make some changes to reverse this decline.

Back to the Brookings study, it discusses two strategies for a better approach to transportation systems linking people to jobs. Both approaches, unfortunately, requires a regional collaboration that has been lacking for a long time. Until communities start working together, the Milwaukee metro area will continue to decline in ensuring its residents have access to jobs, and without that, there will continue to be a poverty problem.

Local Control & Ordinances

2011-05-26T17:28:00.000-05:00

So glad to see that the sanctity of local control continues to be a priority.

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill prohibits a city, village, town, or county from enacting an ordinance that does any of the following with respect to a residential landlord: 1) prohibits or limits the landlord from obtaining or using various types of information about a tenant or prospective tenant, such as household income, occupation, court records, rental history, and credit information; 2) limits how far back in time a prospective tenant’s credit information, conviction record, or previous housing may be considered by the landlord; or 3) prohibits the landlord from showing a rental property to a prospective tenant, or from entering into a rental agreement for a rental property with a prospective tenant, while the current tenant is living there.

This is squarely aimed at ordinances such as Madison's limiting the degree that landlords can discriminate against a tenant because of his/her criminal background, and prevents other communities from adopting similar ordinances. If you read Madison's ordinance, you'll see that landlords cannot refuse to rent to someone because of a minor offense years ago such as, say, being arrested smoking pot. But if the offenses have a substantial relationship to the tenancy due to the frequency or the nature of the crimes, if there is reasonable cause to fear for the safety of the landlord and/or tenants, as well as the property, the landlord can still refuse to lease the unit to the person. Keep in mind the landlord can also reject a prospective tenant for other legitimate reasons such as credit history, past evictions, etc.

The City of Appleton also has a similar ordinance. Dane County, too.

There are already some limits on employment opportunities for ex-offenders, and allowing landords to discriminate willy-nilly against tenants for crimes years ago makes it harder for people to be rehabilated, to have a second chance. The increasing marginalization of people leaving prison makes it more likely they'll live with friends & families off-lease, creating instability in their lives, increasing the chances they'll turn once more to crime. Is that the policy that we should be going for? Driving people "underground" as they can't find employment or housing?

When you consider there are racial disparities in the prison population, as well as a high number of people with mental illness, this sort of policy has other implications as well.

Olga Village

2011-05-26T16:43:00.000-05:00

It's too bad that cheap shoddy projects like this attract so many undesirables. Imagine the horror if this was near you! (Sarcasm intended)

Seriously, though, I attended the groundbreaking of this building and, although I'm generally not a fan of segregated (elderly-only) buildings, this is a very nicely designed building, using both environmentally sustainable design and Universal Design.

Washington Post Follow Up

2011-05-25T12:33:00.000-05:00

I commented on the Washington Post article on HUD's HOME program last week, and the National Housing Conference (NHC), a national non-profit organization focused on housing issues and advocacy, has also responded to the story on their blog, pointing to the overall success of HOME program.

NHC also provides some helpful graphs showing that the private industry, too, had slowdowns not only in housing starts, but also housing completions. It provides helpful context.

I was reminded by NHC that the Washington Post article is part of a series of reports, including this puzzling one that does its best to imply something nefarious happened.

But I'm sensing a consistent trend in those stories-that the "government should've done something." But it says nothing about the decades of cuts to staffing of HUD as well as the fiscal pressures often felt locally, which makes it difficult to hire and retain qualified staff to provide oversight.

At no point does the articles say, "there is no need for affordable housing" which means that the collary is "there is a need for more administrative funding so HUD and local communities can provide adequate oversight." Yet that does not seem to be what many people take away from those articles. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the HOME program is successful, people see those articles and say, "HUD can do nothing right, therefore we must defund this."

Which makes those kinds of articles so infuriating because, yes, we want programs to be operated efficiently, yes, we want fraud and waste identified, but we also know that exposure of problems in the media will lead to calls for cuts and defunding rather than improved efficiency.

In an e-mail sent out, Ethan Handelman, the Vice President for Policy and Advocacy, mentions that there is a "hearing now scheduled for May 31 in front of the full House Financial Services Committee at which Mercedes Márquez, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development is expected to testify."

The legislative majority of the House has been hostile to many programs as they search for ways to cut spending. You can bet the Washington Post reports put a big red bulls-eye on the HOME program.

Homes for Our Troops

2011-05-20T11:49:00.000-05:00

The Waukesha Freeman has a story on a veteran receiving the keys to a new home built by Homes for Our Troops and many local volunteers.

I previously blogged on this with what was apparently a surly mood, although I stand by my words. There shouldn't be a need for a completely new home to be built in order to provide accessibility. Minor changes to today's building practices would make future accessibility revisions much less costly.

Washington Post "Expose" on HUD's HOME Program

2011-05-20T11:25:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post has published an investigative report on HUD's HOME program which reveals some problems with oversight of the developments.

Nationwide, nearly 700 projects awarded $400 million have been idling for years, a Washington Post investigation found. Some have languished for a decade or longer even as much of the country struggles with record-high foreclosures and a dramatic loss of affordable housing.

You can see a Wikipedia summary of the HOME program here and the HUD page here for some background information.

The HOME Program is one of many programs under the HUD umbrella of programs. Unlike, say, Section 811 and Section 202 which are supportive housing programs for, respectively, persons with disabilities and older adults, and are directly supervised by HUD, the HOME Program is a block grant program that is left largely to the discretion of local communities, much like the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. It is the local community that decides how the money will be used (home purchase or rehab, rental construction or rehab, and some other activities), and are supposed to provide the initial oversight. So to a large degree, mismanagement of HOME funding is largely a reflection on the local community rather than HUD. That does not absolve HUD of its ultimate responsibility, of course.

The Post appeares to focus only on the rental housing portion in the examples it cites. There does not seem to be national data showing the overall percentages, but HUD has helpfully provided dashboard reports on local and state HOME programs and in Wisconsin, the vast majority of the funding is used for homebuyer assistance and homeownership rehabilitation. Even in the City of Milwaukee, only 34% of the cumulative funds since 1992 has been used for rental housing. The totals are far less elsewhere in the state. A sampling across the country shows that in many places, the HOME Funds are used maily for homeownership-related activities although, in some regions, the funds are used mostly for rental housing.

This kind of investigative reporting is always difficult because often one is accusing someone of something, and if all the ducks are not in a row, the reporter will look bad. In this case, the Washington Post article set off some alarm bells because they did not release a list of developments that were supposedly stalled. This seems to indicate that the Post may not be confident of their overall data and was cherry-picking the examples. Hard to blame them-even if the article was 99.99% factually correct, just that .01% (such as, say, one project the Post said was stalled turned out to be fully occuped) can cast doubt on the whole article. They provided a graphic of the number of projects and dollar amounts across the states, but it seems to require a CRAY computer to run. Even so, information is limited to "3 projects in Metropolitan Milwaukee area, $1 million" with no further details.

HUD analyzed the Post's claims on the number of delayed and stalled projects and responded:

This claim is false and reflects significant factual errors. Initially, the Post reviewed data on all 28,000 HOME developments that were pending as of late last year. The Post’s total of approximately 700 projects that showed signs of delay actually represents only about 2.5% of the total HOME projects, not one in seven. In addition, the Post’s analysis of these specific projects is not borne out by the facts, which demonstrate that many of the “delayed” projects counted by the Post are not delayed at all. HUD has so far analyzed about 70% of 797 projects that appear to meet the Post’s criteria for delayed projects. 132 of these projects, more than 16% of the 797 total, were not in fact delayed, but simply were not reported as complete. Another 165, or 20.7%, have been completed since last November. Only 169 projects, less than 30% of those reviewed by HUD so far, genuinely appear delayed, and 109 of those (almost 65%) are delayed due to market conditions, such as unavailability of financing and inability to sell completed units. Overall, at least 300 of the 797 “delayed” projects, more than 37%, are actually completed and occupied.

HUD also responded that they have taken more vigorous action since 2009 to prevent misuse of HOME funds.

In today's development world, it's increasingly rare to have funding from just one source. Very often developers have to do what some have called "lasagna funding" meaning that multiple funding sources are needed to make a project work. HUD, the developer, or even the local HOME Partner may not have control of the timeline and the delays.

For example, suppose a local developer wanted to develop a new apartment or rehabilitate an older building. The HOME Partner might allocate some HOME funds but not enough to cover the whole development.

HUD’s money typically doesn’t cover all construction costs. The program is meant to provide partial funding for developers who are expected to draw additional financing from banks and other sources.

So the developer goes looking elsewhere for more funding. Maybe a bank is willing to provide a conventional loan, but the developer can't quite make the numbers work. So the developer applies for tax credits from the state housing finance authority. But it's a very competitive process, and the developer might not succeed the first time. So maybe some tinkering is done with the proposal to increase the potential score in the application, and then resubmitted for the next round.

It can be months, if not years, before the actual groundbreaking happens. Then throw in the bad economy and all of sudden the tax credits are worth less, or maybe investors are reluctant to jump in. Nevertheless, the Partner could think that this is a really good development at a great location, and is willing to stick it out for longer rather than re-allocating the funds. So the development is "stalled" but that doesn't mean it will fail.

That doesn't excuse, of course, the fact that there have been misuse and abuse of funds in some places, and HUD should respond appropriately when those occurences are identified. Clearly some changes will need to take place for better oversight, but the local partners have to do their part as well. You can see a Q& A with the reporter, Debbie Cenziper, here which has this:

Unfortunately, HUD often doesn't know when construction projects stall or die. The agency relies on local housing agencies to accurately report on the status of projects. In case after case, we found that local authorities weren't alerting HUD when construction projects ran aground. We found empty lots and abandoned buildings all over the country.

Keep in mind, however, that for all the potential problems identified in the article, there are many, many more succes stories associated with the HOME program.

You & Mortgage Disclosure Feedback

2011-05-19T10:16:00.000-05:00

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is tasked with the duty of protecting American families from unethical lenders, banks, and other financial institutions. The CFPB is currently working on an improved disclosure form for home mortgages. You have an opportunity to provide feedback on which of the two forms work better.

I think it's a significant step in improving how American homebuyers understand what they are getting into. Will this be the last step? Of course not. At the moment of closing, the average family has already made arrangements to leave the former residence into the new home, and very often feel trapped when there are unexpected changes or details. They're hardly in a position to protest or simply walk away. But at least with this, they'll have better information earlier.