2021 PROPOSALS TO COUNTERACT THE HISTORY OF SEGREGA TION
February 10, 2021
TWO PROPOSALS
Expanded Housing Authority Jurisdiction Fair Share Zoning 2
THE ROLE OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES Build affordable and mixed income housing (generally moving away from traditional “public housing.”) Place project-based subsidies, usually in existing multifamily housing. Government-funded affordable housing in Nashville
Administer tenant-based voucher called Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8. 3
HOUSING AUTHORITY JURISDICTION CG S S ec . 8- 40 – A town ca n e sta b li sh a hou si ng a u thority if it c an show: (1) t ha t i nsa nit a ry or u n sa fe i nha b it ed d w el li ng a c com m od a tions e xi st in th e m u ni cip a li ty or (2) t ha t t he re is a sh orta ge of sa fe or sa ni ta ry d w e ll ing a ccom m od a ti on s i n the m u ni cip a li ty a va i la b le to f a m ili e s of low in come a t re nta l s the y ca n a fford or (3) t ha t t he re is a sh orta ge of sa fe or sa ni ta ry d w e ll ing a ccom m od a ti on s i n the m u ni cip a li ty a va i la b le to f a m ili e s of m od e ra te i ncom e a t re ntals the y c an a ff ord . B U T – W he re c a n hou sing a u th orit ie s op e ra t e? “The a re a of op e ra ti on of su ch a u thorit y sha ll i nc lu d e the m u nic ip alitie s for whi ch su ch a u thorit y is cre a te d .”
4
HOUSING AUTHORITIES AND HOUSING VOUCHERS
78% of voucher holders are Black or Latino
Almost 70% of voucher holders are living in lower opportunity areas
43% of voucher households are female headed
5
LAYERS OF BARRIERS Several factors contribute to where voucher holders live: -
Where affordable housing is located = something housing authorities can help with
-
Value of the voucher = influenced by housing authorities
-
Information voucher holders have about neighborhoods = role for housing authorities
-
Housing authority requirements that a voucher holder must live in their town for the first year = housing authority discretion
-
Red tape and moving costs after the first year = eliminated with bigger jurisdictions
-
Typically, the housing authority loses $ if a family leaves town = not an issue with bigger jurisdictions
BUT – if housing authorities could operate across town lines it would help address most of these.
6
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN In 1967 a Hartford legislator introduced a bill to c r e a t e a r e g i o n a l h o u s i n g a u t h o r i t y, s h a r i n g responsibility for building government-subsidized public housing beyond Hartford. Prior to hearings on the bill, the town council of Glastonbury, a neighboring suburb, had passed a resolution in opposition to the measure. That town’s chamber of commerce and local housing authority also went on record as opposing the bill. Representative Jean Thornton of Glastonbury stated, “We are violently opposed to this and we believe that the town should determine for itself what it will do in this housing and not have it taken over by someone else.” This policy would “be more than an erosion, it would be a complete washout of the town government.”
7
NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN Opposing suburban legislators spoke about “erosion of local government” and the “denial of home rule.” State Representative Elmer Mortenson, (D), Newington a Democrat Newington has “its own problems.” Public housing “just invite[s] these type of people.” The bill was the “worst” he had ever seen in the “many years” he had been a legislator.
Where suburban towns had housing authorities, they applied residency preferences limiting tenants to town residents.
Source for historical information: Susan Eaton: A Steady Habit of Segregation, issued by OCA and partners 8
EXPANDED HOUSING AUTHORITY JURISDICTION – FIXING THE LAW Expand housing authority jurisdiction for all municipal housing authorities to higher opportunity areas 30 miles from each town’s border. Ensure this new jurisdiction does not apply to existing housing authority rights to eminent domain and the creation of a police force, which would remain powers only within the housing authority’s municipal borders.
9
EXPANDED HOUSING AUTHORITY JURISDICTION – REPARATIVE ELEMENTS More fully fund the state’s mobility counseling program at a level that serves 2.5% of voucher holders across the state annually [est. $3.3 million]. Ensure mobility program voucher rent levels are calibrated to allow access to all municipalities in the state. Provide housing authorities with financial support for three years to offset any higher rent levels. Provide technical assistance, facilitation, and training to housing authorities to allow successful implementation.
10
REVERSING EXCLUSIONARY ZONING Woodbridge example. Proactive measures are critical. = Fair share zoning
11
STEP 1: ASSESS THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
12
STEP 2: ALLOCATE THE REGIONAL NEED TO TOWNS IN A FAIR WAY
13
STEP 3: CONVERT THE MUNICIPAL FAIR SHARE BASE INTO ACTUAL PLANNING AND ZONING GOALS
14
MUNICIPAL PLANNING 10-YEAR GOAL N o m o r e t h an 5 0 % o f F a i r S h a r e un i t s m a y c o m p r i se d e e d r e st r i c t e d af f o r d ab l e ho m e o w n e r s hi p ho us i n g u ni t s. A t l e a st 1 0% o f r e st r i c t e d u n i t s m u st b e d e e d r e st r i c t e d f o r E x t r e m e l y L o w I nc o m e h o u se ho l d s ( 30 % S t at e M e d i a n I n c o m e ~ $ 30 k f o r a f am i l y o f 4 ) A t l e a st 5 0% o f r e st r i c t e d u n i t s m u st b e d e e d r e st r i c t e d f o r Ve r y L o w In c o m e ho us e h o l d s (5 0 % S M I ~ $ 5 0k f o r a f am i l y o f 4 ) N o m o r e t h an 2 0 % o f r e st r i c t e d un i t s m a y b e e f f i c i e nc y /s t ud i o u ni t s.
Rental Units No more than 30% of rental units may be age-restricted. At least 30% of restricted rental units must be at least two-bedroom units. At least 20% of restricted rental units must be at least three-bedroom units.
15
MUNICIPAL PLANNING GOALS Extra Points One unit per bedroom in non-age restricted permanent supportive housing; replacing one unit per housing unit One unit per bedroom in non-age restricted Extremely Low Income 2+ Bedroom rental units; replacing one unit per housing unit. (30% of SMI) .75 of a unit per bedroom in non-age restricted Very Low Income 2+ Bedroom rental units (50% of SMI)
Municipalities shall require for each development submission of an Affirmative Marketing Plan c onforming to CGS Sec. 8-37bb and any related regulations and outline the process whereby the Municipality will verify that the plan is carried out. A substantial portion of p lanned units shall be located outside of census tracts with rates of poverty higher than the municipal average to ensure that planned units do not create or perpetuate poverty concentration within the municipality.
16
CASE STUDY: MARLBOROUGH, CT 10-year fair share goal: 503 units Or ~ 50 units a year Extremely Housing Low Very Low Low Sample with the following # of Type Income Income Income units: Allocation (80% SMI) (50% SMI) (30% SMI)
50
Family Rental Housing (min) Family Rental Housing (over min) Family Homeownership (min) Family Homeownership (over min) Age Restricted Rental Housing (max) Other Supportive Housing Veterans Housing Total (must = 100%)
12.50
6.00
0 12.50
6.25
12.50
12.50
12.50
0.25
(family 3.25 minimum)
3.25
2.50
3.75
0 0 50.00
Bedroom Mix Efficiencies & 1-bedrooms 2-bedroom 3-bedroom (20%) (30%) (20%)
6.25
9.00
25.00
18.50
2.50
(age restricted 3.25 maximum) 6.50
3.75
3.75
3.75
17
UNACCOUNTED FOR NEED If a court declares that towns do not need to produce a portion of their fair share goal due for any legitimate reasons e.g. environmental reason, the unaccounted-for need is: Initially allocated out to other towns in the region, and if there are legitimate reasons for a reduction of those town’s obligations, Required to be met by the state in the form of new construction dollars for affordable housing or housing vouchers. (Important to counteract recession pressures.)
18
MUNICIPAL FAIR SHARE PLANS Each town must submit to the Department of Housing and the Office of Policy and Management: A plan for meeting its Fair Share Goal over 10 years. An updated zoning ordinance An updated Plan of Conservation and Development
Plans must create a “realistic opportunity” for the development of the town’s fair share, including 2, 3, 5, and 10-year benchmarks and designation of specific lots and developers at least 18 months before each benchmark.
19
(1) IF TOWNS DON’T DO A PLAN Developers can skip zoning if they do a development with 15% of units affordable to families at 50% of State Median Income or below with court approval. Developers, low-income individuals, and non-profits representing them can sue to compel a town to allow housing and/or complete a plan – and get attorney’s fees. The town cannot get a moratorium under 8-30g.
20
(2) SAFE HARBOR Towns can seek court approval of their Fair Share plan to avoid exposure to litigation. As part of this they may request a reduction of their Fair Share Goal for legitimate environmental or infeasibility reasons. A town’s fair share goal may also be extended by up to 10 years to accommodate the need for infrastructure development. Town must file reports at least annually on performance of its Fair Share Plan. Developers, low-income households and non-profits representing them can intervene.
The safe harbor disappears if the town’s plan is not actually working.
21
A PLAN, BUT NO SAFE HARBOR DESIGNATION If towns have a plan but don’t seek a safe harbor a developer, potential resident or non-profit representing them can sue the town asserting that it does not create ”realistic opportunity” for the town to meet its fair share.
22
Erin Boggs, Esq., Executive Director Open Communities Alliance 75 Charter Oak Avenue, Suite 1-210 Hartford, CT 06106 Tel. 860.610-6040 eboggs@ctoca.org Check us out and join the coalition at: http://www.ctoca.org 23