Re-imaging Tribal Housing Development for Pueblo Indian TDHEs

TDHE Tribal Housing Development & Federal Indian Housing Policy: Reimagining Tribal Housing Development for Pueblo Indian TDHEs Author: Prince Osemwengie I June 2020 Client: MASS Design Group Advisor: Ananya Roy

A comprehensive project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master in Urban & Regional Planning.

1

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urban and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of [insert client name] as a planning client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis advisor Professor Ananya Roy for her guidance, wisdom and support throughout this report. I would like to thank my graduate advisor Danielle Maris Lacob for her technical support and aid. I would like to thank Erin Collins and the Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. Social Justice Award’s committee for funding my research. I would like to thank the entire UCLA Luskin Department of Urban & Regional Planning for their understanding and flexibility with guidelines and deadlines during the midst of a global health pandemic.

I want to give a special thanks to my capstone client advisor Joseph Kunkel for allowing me to take on this project and his wisdom. To all my interviewees, especially Pueblo TDHE housing director interviewees, thank you for your time and willingness to share your experiences and knowledge with me. With that said, I would like to give a big thank to Tomasita Duran (Ohkay Owingeh), Floyd Tortalita (Acoma), Andrew Martinez & Christina Brass (Nambe), Brook Kristovich & Kevin Esquibel (Santo Domingo), and Francisco Simbana (Santa Clara).

I would like to give a special thank you to my mother for all the sacrifices you made to get me here. I truly appreciate your continued support and encouragement to pursue my masters at UCLA. Lastly, I would like to thank my fellow MURPs at Luskin and UCLA friends for the support and encouragement along this graduate school journey; I couldn’t have done it without you all.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Introduction Local Context Literature Review Introduction to Federal Indian Regulatory Policy & Background HUD & Tribal Housing Policy Overview Research Design Case Study: The Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo Tribe and the Owe’neh Bupingeh Project: Leveraging Support via Cultural Development Case Study: The Pueblo of Nambe:

5 7 12 19 22 26 39 41 47

Lessons in Leveraging Funds and Creating Opportunities for Homeownership Case Study - The Pueblo of Acoma:

51

Lessons in Maximizing LIHTC and Preserving Culture Analysis & Findings Recommendations Conclusion References Appendix

55 63 66 67 71

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the court ruling of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Indian tribes have been explicitly recognized as sovereign dependent nations to the United States of America. The court ruling established a trust responsibility and defined the ward to guardian relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government of the United States. The trust responsibility guarantees Indian tribes federal support for services, program development, and financial assistance to operate as sovereign nations. Additionally, the trust also provides tribes legal protection from state and local police powers.

Despite the United States’ trust obligation to protect and assist Indian tribes’ best interest.

The federal government continues to negate its duty to provide adequate funding and selfdetermination driven policy for Indian housing development programs. Historically federal Indian housing policies have not only been ineffective to provide adequate housing, but destructive to Indian culture and social structure as well. Federal Indian housing policies such as the Indian Appropriations Act, Dawes Allotment Act, and the Indian Relocation Act were complicit to the erasure of American Indians lives and the dispossession of millions of acres Indian land. While the United States no longer overtly pursues Indian housing policies to terminate American Indians. Paternalistic Indian housing programs and lack of adequate federal funding for Indian housing development heavily impacts the livelihoods of American Indians and leads to poor housing conditions. Poor housing conditions on tribal land, such as overcrowding, dilapidated houses, and lack of access to plumbing and electricity in units pose a public health safety concern.

The focus of this research is to holistically understand the challenges contemporary federal Indian housing policies present to Pueblo TDHEs’ ability to develop and provide housing to tribal members. I seek to understand how Pueblo TDHEs are adopting innovative solutions to address restrictive paternalistic clauses and funding challenges imposed by Indian housing policy and programs. In this research I will examine the weaknesses of contemporary federal Indian housing policies and programs. I will analyze the experiences of Pueblo TDHEs utilizing federal Indian housing programs and their efforts to cover project cost, complying with construction regulations, design standards, rent and mortgage limitations. Additionally, I will analyze Pueblo TDHEs’ experiences ensuring tribal members have access to mortgages and loans to acquire housing.

This research builds upon the analytic framework of scholars Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs. Wilkinson and Biggs have observed the historical pendulum shifts in Indian housing policy and its tendencies to fluctuate between assimilation and self-determination driven initiatives. Scholars Virginia Davis and Susan J. Ferrell have written extensively about the overall shortcomings of federal Indian housing policy. Presently there is a research gap exploring how the shortcomings of Indian housing is being experienced and addressed from the perspective of Pueblo TDHEs, in New Mexico, as they seek to develop tribal housing.

I utilize case studies of Pueblo TDHEs as a primary source of qualitative data to understand the challenges Indian housing policies pose to housing development and how TDHEs adjust

5

to challenges. I conduct interviews with Pueblo TDHEs’ Executive Housing Directors for my case studies. The case studies indicate that historic inactive federal Indian housing policies have significantly disrupted traditional Puebloan spatial arrangement of housing units on site and design of housing units. What was surprising to find was despite recent policies such as NAHASDA’s departure from overly paternalistic clauses. Pueblo TDHEs find it increasingly more difficult to leverage funds to cover project costs. For Pueblo TDHEs the primary Indians housing policy challenges encountered are leveraging very limited federal funds, complying to competitive housing programs and restrictions on intended tenants, and securing tribal members access to credit lines for mortgages.

My recommendations call for a set of initiatives geared towards HUD and Pueblo TDHEs respectfully, that seek to address the challenges of lack in funding and constricting policies.

My recommendations to HUD include strengthening support to NAHASDA non-competitive block grant funding, eliminating max rent cap and restrictions on household AMI eligibility, making housing case studies more accessible, and waiving Davis-Bacon fees. Moreover, I recommend Pueblo TDHEs develop an in-house or multi-Pueblo tribal collaborative construction team, self-report rent payments to the Credit Bureau, utilize the HEARTH Act, establish strategic partnerships with institutions that can further supply additional skilled research and labor support, and lastly develop a multi-tribal Pueblo bank.

6

INTRODUCTION BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HISTORY The very existence of American Indians has systematically been under attack, since the arrival of European settlers in North America. It would be remiss to discuss housing development challenges Indian tribes are facing today without first acknowledging the structural erasure of Indians tribes in relation to the formation of the United States of America. Scholar Patrick Wolfe categorizes the United States’ structural erasure of Indians and dispossession Indian land as a form of settler colonialism. The end goal with settler colonialism, is to remove and erase existing populations [i.e. Indians] from a territory and replace them with the settler society [i.e. English] via assimilation, spatial sequestration, and genocide.1 English settlers have sought policies to erase and remove Indians from their land in efforts to claim territory for the United States of America, since the establishment of the first English colony in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. Of the 2.5 billion acres of land Indians originally owned, only 55 million acres remain in Indian Trust [Note: Land trust refers to land the federal government holds the title for the protection and benefit of an individual tribe member or a tribe] and managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the US Department of Interiors.2 It is important to draw a connection between the federal government of the United States relationship to Indian tribes and the chronological order of federal Indian housing policy.

Historically federal Indian housing policy has supported the dispossession of land from Indian tribes and the assimilation of Indians. In 1831, Indians tribes were explicitly recognized as sovereign nations under the court ruling of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). The court ruling established a trust responsibility and defined a ward to guardian relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government of the United States.3 The trust responsibility guarantees Indian tribes federal support for services, program development, and financial assistance to operate as sovereign nations. Additionally, the trust also provides tribes legal protection from state and local police powers.4 Despite the United States federal government trust responsibility to support and protect the best interest of tribes; for the past 150+ years the United States has fallen short delivering adequate housing development support to Indian tribes. Even more so up until the late 1960s, the federal government of the United States has pursued anti-Indian housing policies that secluded tribes to reservations devoid of natural resources and/or far from economic centers of employment opportunities, or forced tribes to assimilate in white American culture in urban areas.5 Much of the systemic impacts of these anti-Indian housing policies can be observed today. Approximately over 75% of American Indians reside in urban areas today and an estimate 24% of American Indians

1 Wolfe, Patrick. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native, Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387- 409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240

2

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST). (2020, February). [Federal]. Retrieved from https://www.doi. gov/ost/about_us/Statistics-and-Facts 3 West, W. Richard. (1990). Address: From “Cherokee Nation v. Georgia” to the National Museum of the American Indian: Images of Indian Culture. American Indian Law Review, 15(2), 409-420. www.jstor.org/stable/20068685 4 Wilkinson, Charles., Harris, LaDonna., Unger, Steven., Peterson, Helen., & Reifel, Benjamin. (1986). The Trust Obligation. In O’Neil F., Joseph A., & Hart E. & PHILP K. (Ed.), Indian Self Rule: First-Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan (pp. 302-310). University Press of Colorado. doi:10.2307/j. ctt46nr85.30 5 Keeler, Kasey. (2016). Putting People Where They Belong: American Indian Housing Policy in the Mid-Twentieth Century. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 3(2), 70-104. doi:10.5749/natiindistudj.3.2.0070

7

live in poverty.6 According to the US 2010 census, in large cities such as Albuquerque, NM, American Indians account for over 44% of the homeless population.7

BRIEF OVERVIEW PUEBLO INDIAN TRIBES OF NEW MEXICO Pueblo tribes of New Mexico are regarded as a rare case amongst the 574 federally recognized American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) tribes who have been able to remain and control portions of their original tribal land. Even more so, some Pueblo tribes still have and use ancient ancestral architecture going back as far as 750 CE.8 There are 23 tribes in the state of New Mexico, and Navajo Nation accounts for being the largest tribe with over 300,000 enrolled members [Note: Enrolled or tribal members are formally and legally recognized individuals by a tribe, in which they claim heritage from9]. In total there are 19 Pueblo tribes consisting of over 54,000 enrolled members, which is less than 2% of New Mexico’s population.10 The population size of each Pueblo tribe varies from at the smallest 695 enrolled members to the largest tribe having an estimate of 10,000 enrolled members.11 It is important to understand every Pueblo tribe is their own distinct sovereign nation. Each tribe occupies their own geographic territory and has their own tribal government respectfully.

Additionally, each Pueblo tribe has their own host of dominant economic generators ranging from casinos, tribal art production, eco-tourism, and agriculture. Despite Pueblo tribes’ diverse qualities and shared resiliency to maintain control of their culture and original lands.

Pueblo tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) are unanimously experiencing challenges in their effort to develop and maintain housing units for tribal members. [Note: Tribally designated housing entities (TDHE) are tribal housing organizations that annually receive federal funding from HUD to apply towards a range of low-income housing activities on tribal land.12]

6 SAMHSA. (2012). Homelessness among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians (Federal). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

7 U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.cabq.gov/census2020/u-scensus-information-for-native-americans 8 The Special Case of Pueblos. (2006). In Britton S., Thorson J., & Colby B. (Eds.), Tribal Water Rights: Essays in Contemporary Law, Policy, and Economics (pp. 61-68). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/j.ctt1g0b950.10 9 Durand, Cassandra. (2015). Native American Housing: Federal Assistance, Challenges Faced and Efforts to Address Them. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

10 US Department of Commerce. (n.d.). United States Census Bureau [US Government]. Retrieved from https://www. census.gov/tribal/ 11 Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020).

12 Ibid. Durand, Cassandra. (2015)

8

Figure-1: Map of the 19 Pueblo Indian Tribes of New Mexico

(Source: Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. (2019). Map to the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. Retrieved from https://www.indianpueblo.org/19-pueblos/)

Pueblo TDHEs are pushing for a variety of new culturally sensitive housing developments, such as duplexes, triplexes, rentable 2-3-bedroom apartments, and restoration of ancestral pueblo homes. Pueblo TDHEs face challenges pertaining to lack of funding to support project development cost, abiding to construction and design standards, setting rent and mortgage limits, and ensuring tribal members have access to mortgages and loans. These challenges are further exacerbated when Pueblo TDHEs must abide by restrictive Indian housing policies that limits tribes’ self-determination in housing development.

9

The focus of this research is to holistically understand the common challenges contemporary federal Indian housing policies present to Pueblo TDHEs ability to develop and provide housing to tribal members. As well understand how Pueblo TDHEs are adopting innovative solutions to work around common Indian housing policy challenges. The following questions will be addressed in the research:

1.) How has HUD’s implementation of Indian tribal housing assistance programs (i.e. design standards, funding allocation, construction processes) created challenges for Pueblo TDHEs ability to develop or maintain housing on tribal land?

Programs: 1937 Mutual Housing Act 1996 National American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

2.) How do Pueblo Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs) adapt to HUD construction and funding regulations and develop housing units on tribal land?

This research builds upon the analytic framework of scholars Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs. Wilkinson and Biggs have observed the historical pendulum shifts in Indian housing policy and its tendencies to fluctuate between assimilation and self-determination driven initiatives. Scholars Virginia Davis and Susan J. Ferrell have written extensively about the overall shortcomings of federal Indian housing policy. Presently there is a research gap exploring how the shortcomings of Indian housing is being experienced and addressed from the perspective of Pueblo TDHEs, in New Mexico, as they seek to develop tribal housing.

I utilize case studies of Pueblo TDHEs as a primary source of qualitative data to understand how contemporary Indian housing policies impact housing development on tribal land and how Pueblo TDHEs respond to challenges. I conduct interviews with Pueblo TDHEs’ Executive Housing Directors for my case studies to gather insights of the unique Indian housing policies challenges individual Pueblo tribes face. In addition to gather a historical overview of traditional housing characteristics and cultural attributes centered around housing in a tribe. I supplement interviews conducted with Pueblo TDHE housing directors with interviews of New Mexico tribal planners, Indian policy analysts, Indian lawyers, and non-Indian Santa Fe County planners, to further ground my understanding Indian housing policy and socioeconomic conditions.

The challenges Pueblo TDHEs are facing is not a fight to demand at hand is not entirely a fight to demand more funds from the federal government. Rather it centers on the principle of a tribe’s right and ability to exercise self-determination and pursue housing development practices that best suit the needs of the tribe. Self-determination in housing is not feasible without adequate support and compliance from the federal government to honor their trust responsibility.

10

My recommendations call for a set of initiatives geared towards HUD and Pueblo TDHEs. These recommendations seek to address the challenges of lack in funding and constricting policies. My recommendations to HUD include strengthening support to NAHASDA noncompetitive block grant funding, eliminating max rent cap and restrictions on household AMI eligibility, making housing case studies more accessible, and waiving Davis-Bacon fees. Moreover, I recommend Pueblo TDHEs develop an in-house or multi-Pueblo tribal collaborative construction team, self-report rent payments to the Credit Bureau, utilize the HEARTH Act, establish strategic partnerships with institutions that can further supply additional skilled research and labor support, and lastly develop a multi-tribal Pueblo bank.

This study first provides contextual overviews of Pueblo tribes of New Mexico socio-economic conditions and history, an overview of the evolution of Indian housing policy in the United State, and a literature review of the current state of research of federal Indian policy. The second half of the study will proceed with case studies of Pueblo TDHEs, findings, and will end with policy recommendations for HUD and program recommendations for Pueblo tribes.

11

LOCAL CONTEXT BRIEF ORIGINS HISTORY: FROM TO INDEPENDENT VILLAGES TO SOVEREIGN NATIONS The 19 Pueblo tribes in present day geographically spans across nine counties in the state of New Mexico and borders large cities such as cities of Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

Cumulatively the Pueblo tribal land encompasses over 3585.44 square miles.13 Historically ancestral Puebloan civilizations date back to 7000-1500 BCE and spanned across the present-day territories of New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado.

Prior to Pueblo tribes contact with European settlers in the 16th century. Puebloan communities lived dispersed amongst approximately 40+ villages predominantly clustered along the Rio Grande River, in present day New Mexico. Villages were generally composed of members of the same family lineage and linguistic group.14 According to scholars it is believed the Taos Pueblo first encountered the Spanish in 1540. In 1598, the Spanish established their first settlement in Pueblo Country.15 Interestingly enough, the word “Pueblo” comes from Spanish origins and means “village or town”, in reference to the permanent dwelling complexes Puebloan communities built and lived in.16 From 1598 to 1680, the Spanish promoted Christianity and over time began to brutally punish Puebloans, who practiced their traditional religion and customs. It is important to note the Spanish Crown also claimed title to Pueblo Country land. The Spanish Crown land title provided Puebloans ownership of land and legal protection from conquest from other colonizers, as wards and vessels of the Spanish Empire.17 Mounting pressure to assimilate to Christianity practices and brutality from the Spanish ultimately led to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The Pueblo Revolt resulted in the Spanish being ousted from Pueblo Country.18 Scholars believe much of modern-day Pueblo settlements and unification of multi-clan tribes came about as a result of Pueblo villages uniting together to oust the Spanish.19 Almost two centuries following the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, the Mexican Republic would come to rule over Pueblo Country from 1821-1848. Unlike the Spanish, the Mexican Republic granted full citizenship to Puebloans which enabled non-Indian Mexican Republic citizens to purchase and encroach on Pueblo land.20 This is important to note because following the Mexican Republic defeat in the Mexican-American War of 1848. A clause of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo-Article IX, stated all Mexican Republic citizens shall have the choice to choose citizenship between the Mexican Republic or the United States, and maintain control of their land.21 The question of what to do with the Pueblo Indians following the Mexican13 Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020).

14 Liebmann, Matthew., Ferguson, T.J., & Preucel, Robert. (2005). Pueblo Settlement, Architecture, and Social Change in the Pueblo Revolt Era, A.D. 1680 to 1696. Journal of Field Archaeology, 30(1), 45-60. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/40025825 15 Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994). American Indian Reservations and Trust Areas. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

16 Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994) 17 Lucero, Robert. (2007). State v. Romero: The Legacy of Pueblo Land Grants and the Contours of Jurisdiction in Indian Country. New Mexico Law Review, Volume 37, Issue 3 18 Brown, Tracy. (2004). Tradition and Change in Eighteenth-Century Pueblo Indian Communities. Journal of the Southwest, 46(3), 463-500. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40170299 19 Ibid. Liebmann, Matthew., Ferguson, T.J., & Preucel, Robert. (2005) 20 Ibid. Lucero, Robert. (2007) 21 Ibid. Lucero, Robert. (2007)

12

American War left the United States government divided on a decision. Pueblo Indians had full citizenship from the Mexico Republic, titles to their land from the Spanish Crown, permanent complex dwellings and agricultural systems on their land, and non-Indians on Indian land. Following the ruling of United States v. Lucero (1869), the New Mexico Territorial Supreme Court implied that the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 is not permitted to Pueblo Indians, which protected Indian tribal land against encroachment from non-Indians. From this case it was implicitly implied Pueblo Indians were considered citizens of the United States.

The court holding even went on to even emphasize Pueblos were not “a wild, savage, and barbarous race”. The official recognition of Pueblo tribes as Indians and sovereign nations didn’t occur until the admission of the state of New Mexico, in 1912, in the union of the United States. Additionally, the court ruling of United States v. Sandoval (1913), explicitly found Pueblo tribes to fall under federal superintendence and could be considered sovereign nations. Following the recognition of Pueblos as sovereign nations, Congress passed the 1924 Pueblo Lands Act to validate Pueblo tribes’ claim to land, resolve land conflicts between non-Indians, and compensate Pueblo tribes for loss of land that federal protection could have prevented.22 The history of Pueblo tribes’ evolution from independent villages, ousting the Spanish Crown, absorbed into the Mexico Republic, becoming dependent sovereign nations of the United States, is unlike no other tribe in the States. The Puebloan story illustrates a rare scenario of an American Indian tribe’s ability to resist colonization and assimilation from three non-Indian nations, and effectively remain in control and reside on their traditional land.

CULTURE Pueblo tribes by and large have been successful in preserving their traditional culture, languages, art, and religion from centuries of pressure to assimilate from Spanish and English colonizers. Linguistically Puebloan languages in New Mexico are partitioned into three families: Kerenan, Tanoan, Zunian, and five dialects: Keres, Tiwa, Towa, Tewa, and Zuni.23 Traditionally Puebloan last names also help serve as a marker to indicate family lineage and clan.24 Moreover, religion plays a vital role in Pueblo tribes’ culture, and is expressed through various aspects of social structure, art, festivals, and architecture. It is important to re-emphasis every tribe and even clan is different. Thus, the nuisances and between religious practices and beliefs amongst every tribe and/or clan can vary. Nonetheless there are several commonalities amongst Pueblo tribes regarding the importance of kachinas and kivas.

Kachinas are understood to signify supernatural beings which serve as messengers between man and the deities. Kachinas are believed to be ancestors that can either bestow blessings or discipline to tribes. To honor kachinas, Pueblo tribes make kachina dolls or carvings, hold ceremonies/rituals in their plazas, with detailed face masked dancers who serve as hosts for kachinas to return to the Pueblo.25 Moreover, kivas commonly refers to both as space 22 Ibid. Lucero, Robert. (2007) 23 Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. (2020). History & Culture. Retrieved from https://www.indianpueblo.org/19-pueblos/ history-culture/ 24 Hodge, F.W. (1896). Pueblo Indian Clans. American Anthropologist,9(10), 345-352. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/658901 25 Grugel, Andrea. (2010). Culture, Religion and Economy in the American Southwest: Zuni Pueblo and Laguna Pueblo.

13

used for assembly for ceremonial and ritual purposes or a specific religious group. For Pueblo tribes it is important that kivas be accurately placed on a site to ensure that ceremonies work as intended to bring wellbeing to the tribe and world at large.26 Lastly Pueblo tribes also maintain different levels of multiculturalism and religious syncretism. According to scholars Pueblo tribes have adapted various elements from Catholicism for celebrations such as Feasting Day, in which tribes honor Patron Saints through music, dance, and meals.27 Depending on the tribe Feasting Days might be open to non-Indian visitors through invitation.

ART & POTTERY Pueblo tribes are renowned for their pottery and art making traditions with contemporary practices extending back hundreds of years.28 The selling of art related products such as necklaces, earrings, dolls, pottery, and paintings, provide a viable source of income for tribal members and support tribal economies. Additionally, these art related goods can carry religious significance and connotations as well. Puebloan art and crafts often use materials such as wood, bone, leather, clay, stone, feathers, and various other fibers. Surrounding cities such as Santa Fe, which has one of the largest art markets in the United States with international attraction, provides over 1000 tribal artists the opportunity to sell their work and promote tribes’ tourism during the annual Indian Art Market in August.29

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT Prior to the arrival of Spanish and English settlers, Pueblo civilizations were traditionally permanent agrarian societies utilizing ditch irrigation techniques as early as 1300. Traditional crops grown include corn, beans, squash, and melons. In modern times agriculture production in addition cattle and livestock farming helps contribute to tribal economies.30 Besides agriculture additional tribal economic activities include casino gaming, in which tribes such as Pojoaque, Santa Clara, Taos, Tesuque, San Felipe, and Santa Ana own and operate. Cultural tourism, eco-tourism and art production and selling, in which nearly all tribes actively part-take in.31 The unemployment levels amongst the tribes at lowest sits at 2.6%, highest 22%, median 10%, and average 12%.32 Lastly it is also important to note, many tribal members work off as well as live off tribal in surrounding cities such as Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Acomita Village, McCartys, and Anzac Village.33

GeoJournal, 77(6), 791-803. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23325388?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 26 Ibid. Grugel, Andrea. (2010) 27 Blake, Kevin., & Smith, Jeffrey. (2000). Pueblo Mission Churches as Symbols of Permanence and Identity.

Geographical Review,90(3), 359-380. doi:10.2307/3250858 28 Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994) 29 Tourism Santa Fe. (2020). Santa Fe Indian Market (SFIM). Retrieved from https://swaia.org/ 30 Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994) 31 Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994) 32 Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020) 33 Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994)

14

According to the 2018 US Census Bureau the highest Pueblo household median income was $52,5000 of Pueblo of Pojoaque and the lowest was $28,393 of the Taos Pueblo. In contrast to surrounding cities such as Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Rio Rancho, the median household income of every tribe besides the Pueblo of Pojoaque.34 Figures-1 and figure-2, illustrates the median income of the 19 Pueblo tribes in contrast to surrounding cities and the national household median income poverty line for a household of 4.

Figure 2. Pueblo Tribes & Surrounding Cities Median Household Income (2018)

(Source: U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.cabq.gov/census2020/u-s-censusinformation-for-native-americans)

34

Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020)

15

In regard to income per capita, most Pueblo tribes barely sit above the 2019 poverty line of $12,140 and are well below the per capita income level of surrounding large cities such as Santa Fe: $37,994, Albuquerque: $51,099, and Rio Rancho: $27,989. Amongst the Pueblo tribes, the Pueblo of Zia has the lowest per capita income of $12,020 and Nambe has the highest of $28,663, according to the 2018 US Census Bureau.35 Figure 3. Pueblo Tribes & Surrounding Cities Per Capita Income (2018)

(Source: U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.cabq.gov/census2020/u-s-censusinformation-for-native-americans)

TRADITIONAL PUEBLO HOUSING TYPOLOGY According to studies Pueblo dwellings have involved overtime to incorporate different uses of materials, shapes, and sizes. Even more so, Pueblo dwellings form and story height can vary by tribe. Historically ancient pueblo dwelling ruins going back to early as 1250 AD were predominantly composed of stone blocks.36 It is believed following the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and the ousting of the Spanish. Pueblo tribes adopted adobe clay as their primary material dwelling material, as well as shifted to constructing dwellings on top of mesas for better defensibility against raids and reconquest.37 Pueblo dwellings are typically conjoined and share retaining wall and/or outdoor space.

Spatially dwellings clusters are arranged in a rectangle and/or square masterplan which 35 Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020) 36 Cameron, Catherine. (1999). The Construction and Use-Life of Pueblo Structures. In Hopi Dwellings: Architectural Change at Orayvi (pp. 21-34). University of Arizona Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1814g1s.7 37 Ibid. Liebmann, Matthew., Ferguson, T.J., & Preucel, Robert. (2005)

16

overlooks a central plaza or surrounding plazas. Plazas serve as community spaces where tribes can hold space for celebrations, rituals, and recreational activities. Dwelling’s proximity to plazas are also important because they facilitate high social interaction and communication amongst tribal members, as well as historically provide security in numbers.38 The primary shape of a pueblo dwelling is a large rectangular room and a flat roof. The size of a room varies depending on the availability of timber, which is used roof joist and columns. Studies have found on average the size of a pueblo dwelling is approximately 103 sq. ft, with some cases large dwellings exceeding 300 sq. ft.39 Below a historical photograph taken in 1904, shows Pueblo dwellings and the main plaza in the Pueblo of Acoma, during a celebration.

Figure 4. Pueblo of Acoma (1904) - Feast Day

(Source: Curtis, Edward. S. (1904). Feast Day at Acoma)

Pueblo dwellings can range between 1-5 stories; each additional floor stepped back which creates a roof terrace on the proceeding level. According to studies, the step back of each proceeding level enabled Pueblo tribes to quickly build separate rectangular units and join them with an internal system of ladders to allow movement between levels. Access into multi-story pueblo dwelling is only accessible from the upper levels via exterior ladder that can be stored when not being utilized. The usage of ladders also provides an additional defense mechanism against raids and prevents entry from the base.40 It is important to note as the need for defense decreased, overtime doors and windows were added to the first floor.41

38 39 40 41

Ibid. Cameron, Catherine. (1999) Ibid. Cameron, Catherine. (1999) Ibid. Liebmann, Matthew., Ferguson, T.J., & Preucel, Robert. (2005) Ibid. Cameron, Catherine. (1999)

17

Contemporary pueblo dwellings are built with adobe. Adobe is a building material composed of a combination of sand, silt, clay, and straw that is mixed with water and left out into the sun to dry. Depending on the water mixture, adobe can be utilized as a mortar or casted as a brick.42 Figure 5. Taos Pueblo multi-story dwelling (2012)

(Source: Juno Kim. (2012). Taos Pueblo)

Figure 6. Village of Acoma Pueblo (2019)

(Source: Kate Nelson. (2019). Pueblo of Acoma) 42 Brown, Paul., & Clifton, James. (1978). Adobe. I: The Properties of Adobe. Studies in Conservation, 23(4), 139-146. doi:10.2307/1505842

18

LITERATURE REVIEW PATTERNS OF AGGRESSION: THE TENSION BETWEEN ASSIMILATION AND SELFDETERMINATION POLICY Existing literature on Indian housing policy typically details the specifics of a particular policy, such as the Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887, and its impacts on Indian tribes as a silo event. Scholars such as Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs help extend analysis of Indian housing policy beyond a silo event by observing federal Indian policy eras and extract common themes amongst policies. According to Wilkinson and Biggs, Indian housing policy leading up to 1977 is predicated on the foundation of assimilation and separatism.

They define assimilations as a means to limit or extinguish altogether the special federaltribal relationship through either rapid or gradual assimilation tactics. Rapid assimilation involves the immediate termination of Indian property rights and the obligation of the federal government’s trust to provide programs or funding to Indian programs. Gradual assimilation involves the process of introducing Indians to non-Indian life, which would gradually influence Indians to actively select to assimilate in non-Indian culture. In regard to separatism, it is framed as a means for Indian Country to exist and assisted by the federal government without being dominated.43 They argue assimilation rooted policies tend to destroy Indian land and culture, while separatism or self-determination policies tend to preserve Indian rights. On a base level, Wilkinson and Biggs provides an appropriate framework to analyze the impacts of federal Indian housing policy.

SETTLER COLONIALISM: THE UNITED STATES EXPANSION AND THE INDIAN PROBLEM The expansion of the United States of America from a small English colony in Jamestown to a massive conglomeration of 50 states is intrinsically tied to the dispossession of American Indian land. While scholars Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs put forth the analytical framework of observing patterns of assimilation and self-determination in Indian housing policy. They fall short in connecting federal Indian housing policy to the overall agenda of the United States expansion through dispossession. Outside the field of policy, anthropologist and ethnographer Patrick Wolfe and historian Lorenzo Veracini, introduce the concept of settler colonialism. According to Patrick Wolfe, settler colonialism is a logic of elimination that seeks to destroy to replace.44 In the context of the formation of the United States and Indians; settler society represents English settlers who are seeking to eliminate or remove Indians from their original land in efforts to reclaim territory for the United States. Thus, by default, the very existence of Indians on land becomes a problem to the United States government as settlers try to expand their territorial claim.

According to Wolfe and Lorenzo, a major difference between colonialism and settler colonialism, is that colonialism is predicated on the notion colonizers attempt to maintain lasting control over a population to extract value in form of labor exploitation (i.e. slavery). In 43 Wilkinson, Charles., & Biggs, Eric. (1977). The Evolution of the Termination Policy. American Indian Law Review, 5(1), 139-184. doi:10.2307/20068014 44 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006)

19

contrast, settler colonialism’s ultimate goal is to extinguish itself; the main premise of settler colonialism is for a settler society to replace indigenous populations, who are perceived as a threat to settler expansion. Wolfe deposits a prime example of a settler colonial act, was the 1838 forced relocation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia to Oklahoma, so southern settler society can utilize Cherokee land for slavery and cotton production.45 The removal of Cherokee Indians from their land in Georgia further illustrates the key principle of settler colonialism is to remove an indigenous population so settler society can take possession of land and establish a society of their own. Another important attribute of settler colonialism is that its “impervious to regime change” and can manifest in multiple forms over time whether it be through genocide, forced relocation, spatial sequestration, assimilation, and other forms of paternalistic control. Additionally, settler society polities can actively shift from repression of indigeneity to its incorporation by recognition as a form of control. For instance, in the United States, Indians are recognized as a distinct population and are given sovereignty, however ultimate dominion of land remains in the power of the settler society.46 The concept of settler colonialism in relation to Indian housing policy is important to understand because it further helps provide context of why and how anti-Indian federal Indian housing policy is produced and reproduces itself over time. The implications of settler colonialism driven policies for Indian tribes are severe and include loss of land, forced assimilation resulting in loss of culture and/or relocation.47

LAST PRIORITY: GOV’T AGENCIES DOING THE BARE MINIMUM & LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY Davis and Ferrell put forth the notion that government agencies, such as HUD and the BIA, lack of commitment to follow through on project and funding implementation contributes to poorly designed Indian housing policies. Davis tries to examine federal reports and treaties from as early as the 1880s following the relocation of Indian tribes to reservations. In the study Davis finds the United States federal government’s acknowledgment of inadequate housing conditions on reservations and promises to multiple tribes in treaties to provide housing support. Davis also highlights the 1912 report from the BIA entitled the Sanitary Homes for Indians and the 1928 Meriam Report, which both outline the dire need of Indian housing support. Davis works critiques federal government agencies inability to provide adequate housing to Indian tribes’ despite over a century of documented reports acknowledging the need to provide adequate housing to tribes. Davis further goes on to critique current and active policies such as NAHASDA. Davis claims NAHASDA’s lack of adequate funding support to assist tribes meet their housing needs follows the 150+ years of government agencies under funding Indian housing programs.48 Similar to Davis, scholar Susan Ferrell critiques federal government agencies inability to provide adequate housing for Indian tribes. Ferrell studies examine the internal management structures of HUD and the BIA and draws from internal agencies reports to gather insights 45 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006) 46 Veracini, Lorenzo. (2011) Introducing, Settler Colonial Studies, DOI:10.1080/2201473X.2011.10648799 47 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006) 48 Davis, Virginia. (2002). Discovery of Sorts: Reexamining the Origins of the Federal Indian Housing Obligation. Harvard Blackletter Law Journal, 18, 211-240.

20

on internal inefficiencies. Ferrell’s studies conclude high staff turnover in both the BIA and HUD creates a gap of knowledge on complicated government initiatives needed for housing development. Staff biases and lack of understanding Indian Country challenges leads to poorly designed programs and unforeseen challenges. Lastly historical swings of the federal government support for Indian sovereignty and self-determination vs assimilation has led to an array of inconsistent policy development to support long term success.49

49

Ferrell, J. Susan. (1995). Indian Housing: The Fourth Decade. St. Thomas Law Review, 7(3), 445-460.

21

INTRODUCTION TO FEDERAL INDIAN REGULATORY POLICY & HISTORY To best understand the present housing regulatory obstacles impeding Pueblo TDHEs ability to supply and maintain housing units for tribal members. It is imperative to understand the evolution of the federal Indian policy and the shifting government to government relationship between the United States and Indian Country. The following section will provide a brief historical outlook of the 7 eras of federal Indian policy. Traditionally in the study of Indian law, scholars break down the evolution of federal Indian policy in a chronological order based on thematic patterns that encompass the zeitgeist of an era, such as assimilation or relocation.

In this section I reference NYU professor of Indian law, Stephen L. Pevar’s The Rights of Indians and Tribes (2012) division of eras as a starting basis to my overview of the evolution of federal Indian policy.

TRIBAL INDEPENDENCE (1492 - 1770S) The Tribal Independence spanning between 1492 - 1770. This era begins at the arrival of Christopher Columbus and the Spanish, in addition to the arrival of the early Dutch, British, and French settlers. During this period Indians maintained full independence and international sovereignty. Early settlers depended on Indian nations for trade and knowledge of land and agriculture to establish colonies. Early settler and Indian interaction were often costly for Indians, who often fell victim to new diseases brought over by Europeans.50 Additionally the growth of settler colonies and their mission to acquire land and promote Christianity increasingly grew which threatened the well-being of Indian tribes.51

SOVEREIGN NATION INDEPENDENCE ERA (1770S - 1830S) The era Sovereign Nation Independence Era spanned between 1770 - 1830s. During the period the United States of America was officially formed July 4, 1776 following the signage of the Declaration of Independence.52 According to Pevar, Indian tribes still posed a military threat to the newly United States of America, thus treaties with Indian tribes were sought by the US government to encourage peace.53 The United States would eventually seek to establish itself as the dominant power entity amongst the Indians as time unfolded and the military strength of the United States grew. In 1819, the US Congress passed the Civilization Fund Act, which allocated $10,000 amongst missionaries and philanthropists to educate Indians on American governance and Christianity. The intent of the program was to persuade Indian leaders to create a tribal government that can obtain direction from the federal government.54 Although the Civilization Fund Act was generally unsuccessful, it put forth the ideology that the federal government of the United States should manage all Indian tribes.

50 Pevar, Stephen. (2012). The Rights of Indians and Tribes. New York, NY [etc.: Oxford University Press.

51 Ibid. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006) 52 USAGov. (2020). History and Historical Documents. Retrieved from https://www.usa.gov/history 53 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012) 54 Nichols, David. (2016). Civilization versus Commerce. In Engines of Diplomacy: Indian Trading Factories and the Negotiation of American Empire (pp. 151-172). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/10.5149/9781469626901_nichols.13

22

The ideology of managing tribes officially came into fruition in 1831, with the Supreme Court ruling was Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). This case ruling officially established the status of Indians as sovereign nations dependent nations to the United States. Additionally this ruling established a trust between the Indian tribes and the federal government’s assurance to protect Indian tribes against state and local police powers, and assist and fund programs that are in the best interest of Indians.55 Lastly in 1834, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was created out of the Department of War to serve as the federal governing body to maintain relationships with Indians tribes and enforce federal policy and program compliance amongst tribes.56

RELOCATION AND REMOVAL (1830 - 1880S) The Relocation and Removal Era from the 1830 - 1880s, is defined by the era of Indian policies anti-Indian policies designed to remove Indian tribes from their land and relocate to a pre-selected area chosen by the federal government. The prevailing figure of this era was President Andrew Jackson, who championed the idea of Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny encouraged western expansion of the United States from east coast to west coast, in efforts to spread “civilization” i.e. white American culture across North America.57 A major bill passed during this era was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Removal Act authorized the right of the federal government and the BIA to purchase land from tribes and relocate them to designated reservation areas. Reservations acted as containment areas for tribes to further be monitored by the BIA and federal government. According to historian Alfred A. Cave, the Indian Removal Act had no provisions to forcibly seize land from tribes if they were to refuse to sell. Despite this provision, the federal government violently removed Indians from their land to claim territory for the United States.58 The most prominent instance of Indian removal was the Trail of Tears, in which the Cherokee Nation alone lost more than 5000 members in their forced migration outside west of Mississippi.59

ALLOTMENT AND ASSIMILATION (1880S - 1930S) The Allotment and Assimilation era spanned from the 1880s - 1930s. According to scholars the goal of the federal government during this era was to “save” the Indian with the transformative power of private property i.e. It was understood by the federal government, Indian tribes championed a social structure that encouraged communal land ownership which was holding Indians back from economic propensity.60 In 1887, Congress passed Dawes General Allotment Act. The Dawes Act set out to encourage tribes to adopt a nuclear family living structure by giving heads of households 160 acres and single persons over the age of 18 approximately 80 acres to farm and build a single-family home. Initially allotted 55 Ibid. Lucero, Robert. (2007) 56 McCarthy, Robert. (2004). The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Trust Obligation to American Indians. BYU Journal of Public Law, 19(1), 1-160.

57 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012) 58 Alfred A. Cave (2003) Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830, The Historian, 65:6, 1330-1353, DOI: 10.1111/j.0018-2370.2003. 00055.x 59 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012) 60 Kennth H, Bobroff. (2001). Retelling Allotment: Indian Property Rights and the Myth of Common Ownership.

Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(4), 1557-1624.

23

land to Indians were prohibited by the BIA from being sold for a minimum of 25 years in which Indians were expected to assimilate and absorb American values and culture during the time. However, in 1906 the Congress passed the Burke Act, which permitted Indians to sell their land earlier if deemed “capable enough to handle their affairs” by the BIA. Land that wasn’t allotted was sold by the BIA as surplus land to non-Indians. At the inception of the Dawes Act, Indian Country owned 138 million acres of land by the end Indian Country owned 52 million acres.

In regard to Pueblo Indians it is important to note, upon the initial inception of the Dawes Act, Pueblo tribes were still technically considered full citizens of the United States of America, until 1912. Following 1924, the Pueblo Land Grant Act protected Pueblo tribes from further land loss and validated their claims to land under the Spanish Crown land titles.61

INDIAN REORGANIZATION (1930S - 1940S) Leading up to 1934, a series of long-term congressional studies on the socio-economic conditions of Indian tribes were issued. These reported detailed high mortality rates, disease, housing conditions and economic hardships on reservations as well as assessed the impact of the Dawes Act.62 In 1934, the federal government officially suspended the Dawes Act after assessing its socio-economic and cultural damage to Indian Country. Following the suspension of the Dawes Act, Congress passed the Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA). The main goal of the IRA was to encourage tribal self-governance by permitting tribes to adopt a tribal constitution which will be approved by the Secretary of Interiors.63 Tribes who created IRA approved constitutions obtained access to a revolving line of credit to fund economic development. Additionally, the IRA created the ability for tribes to create a tribal court to apply their own form of justice over tribal members. Lastly the IRA created preferred hiring preference for Indians seeking employment within the BIA.64 Many of these key features of the IRA are still active today such as tribal constitutions and tribal court.

TERMINATION ERA (1950S - 1960S) Following the short-lived Reorganization Era, which promoted self-governance. The Termination Era, spanning from the 1950s - 1960s, is marked by an era of aggressive antiIndian policies focused on assimilation. The majority of IRA Indian programs designed to assist Indian tribes as sovereign nations were abolished almost overnight when President Eisenhower took office in 1953.65 The driving theory behind Termination Era policies was to subjugate tribes and tribal members to the same state and federal laws of non-Indians and end the US trustee relationship with tribes.66 Three prominent policies that emerged were as follows: Resolution 108 of 1953, Public Law 280 of 1953, and the Urban Relocation Act 61 Ibid. Lucero, Robert. (2007) 62 Ibid. Davis, Virginia. (2002) 63 Ibid. McCarthy, Robert. (2004) 64 Koppes, Clayton. (1977). From New Deal to Termination: Liberalism and Indian Policy, 1933-1953. Pacific Historical Review, 46(4), 543-566. doi:10.2307/3638162 65 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012) 66

Ibid. Koppes, Clayton. (1977).

24

of 1956. Resolution 108 called for the official termination of tribes that were believed to be economically sufficient enough to be immersed into American society. The termination of a tribe meant the immediate withdrawal of all federal aid, services, protection and the cessation of a reservation, which was sold off to non-Indians. All tribes in states of California, New York, Florida, and Texas terminated addition to select tribes across the nation, approximating to 109 tribes in total. Moreover, Public Law 280, gave the states of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin police powers to govern tribes.67 Lastly, the Indian Relocation Act provided small stipends of a couple hundred dollars and one way ticket for tribal members on reservations to relocate to large urban centers such as Los Angeles, New York, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, and many more. However according scholars such as Kasey Keeler, many Indians who relocated to cities faced discrimination from white Americans and were routinely denied access to loans from lending institutions who under the assumption the federal government provided support for Indians.68 Tribal Self-Determination (1960s - Present) According to scholars, President Nixon was amongst the first presidents to embrace selfdetermination for Indians following the Termination Era and pressure for the American Indian committee after a series of marches and demonstrations.69 The Tribal Self-Determination Era, kicked started in the late 1960s and it is currently ongoing today. The driving justifications behind self-determination policies is that tribes can better and efficiently use federal resources to cater to their own needs than an outside governing body. Since the late 1960’s numerous Indian federal policies have been passed to give Indians more say in education curriculum, religious expression, tribal governance structure, as well as more leverage to allocate funds for economic and housing development.70

67 Ibid. McCarthy, Robert. (2004) 68 Ibid. Keeler, Kasey. (2016) 69 Washburn, K. Kevin. (2017). What the future holds: The changing landscape of federal Indian policy. Harvard Law Review Forum, 130(6), 200-232.

70 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012)

25

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) & TRIBAL HOUSING POLICY OVERVIEW The following section will provide an overview of three prominent HUD housing policies that are either actively being utilized to facilitate housing development on tribal land or being factored into HUD formulas for grant dispersion. The following policies and programs will be overviewed: The Housing Act of 1937, the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, LIHTC, and the HEARTH Act of 2012. I conclude each overview of a program with an analysis of the program under the analytic framework scholars Wilkson and Biggs in efforts to measure a program’s likelihood to facilitate assimilation or encourage self-determination.

I. HOUSING ACT OF 1937 Description The Housing Act of 1937 was signed into law on September 1, 1937 under President Roosevelt during the tail end of the Great Depression. The main intent behind the Housing Act of 1937 was to address the housing conditions of “slums” and provide safe and sanitary conditions for low-income families whose needs were largely being ignored by the market. It is important to note initially at the signing of the 1937 Housing Act, American Indians were excluded as being beneficiaries of the act until 1961, when HUD and BIA determined Indian tribes can part-take in rental assistance programs for low-income families and amended it to incorporate public housing development on tribal land. To better serve Indian tribes the 1937 Housing Program expanded to include upwards of 14 programs under its umbrella. Following the passage of the Native American Housing Assistance and Determination Act of 1996, the Housing Act of 1937 was suspended. The last round of 1937 housing units was completed in 1997. Public housing built through Mutual Housing and Turnkey programs initially maintained through HUD will receive funding for upwards of 25 years of their completion or until a unit is paid off by the tribal member applicant.71 Key Characteristics Management & Governance • Pre-NAHASDA: Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) & Indian Housing Authorities (IHA) • Top-Down Management: Tribes submit a list of households seeking housing units to an Indian Housing Authorities in their area; the IHA submits a list of households seeking housing to HUD. HUD awards housing to select households on the list.

Project Development & Maintenance • Pre-NAHASDA: HUD financed the entire development process of a project from predevelopment cost, construction cost, and maintenance and operation cost.

71 United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Challenges Facing HUD’s Indian Housing Program. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105.pdf

26

Eligibility Requirement • Enrolled tribal members living on trust or tribal land of tribe of membership.

• One Household • Nuclear Family: Husband, Wife, Children (Avg. 2.5) • Project Occupancy Types • Single Family Units (Purchase or Rent) Housing Unit Standards • Single - Family detached • Avg. 822 - 1000 sq. ft • 2 – 3 bdrm • Avg. 1 - story • Pitched gable roof • Material: Aluminum sidings and/or stucco. Wood or concrete finished floors.

Housing Act of 1937 Programs (As of Feb. 2020) Program Name

Description

Tenant/Homebuyer Financial Obligation

Additional Info

Turnkey III Homeownership Opportunities for Indian Families72

Competitive application in which IHA’s submit plans to assist low-income Indian families purchase a home on tribal land.

30-year mortgage payments to IHA. Payment can’t exceed 35% of applicants adjusted income.

Inactive as of 1997; TDHE will receive funding for maintenance for 25 yrs. after completion of the unit.

Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program73

Assist low-income Indian families purchase a home on tribal land.

Contract between the IHA and homebuyer avg. 15 to 25 years.

Inactive as of 1997; TDHE will receive funding for maintenance for 25 yrs. after completion of the unit.

Households pay 15 30% of their adjusted income, minimum contribute of $1,500 towards cost of home.

72 Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development Part 950 - INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development, 25 U.S.C. 450e(b): 42 U.S.C. 1437aa1437ee and 3535 § (1998). Retrieved from https:// www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-1998-title24-vol4/pdf/CFR-1998-title24-vol4-part950.pdf 73 Ibid. Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development Part 950

27

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program74

Designed to encourage private mortgage lending in Indian Country. This program provides 100% federal guarantee to private lenders for home loans made to tribal members, tribes and TDHE. Can be used for single family housing (1-4 units).

Tribal members make payments to privatelenders.

Loans can be used on and off tribal and trust land.

Low down payment 2.25% on loans over $50,000 and only 1.25% on loans under $50,000

No minimum credit score required but borrowers must be creditworthy.

Interest is based on market rates, not credit score.

Low down payment.

Can offer 50-year leases.

Program Analysis - 1937 Housing Act The 1937 Housing Act was implemented on tribal land in the 1960s, at the start of the Tribal Self-Determination Era, when federal Indian policies sought to provide tribes selfdetermination without assimilation.75 The overall objective of the Housing Act of 1937 programs was to provide tribes access to affordable housing on tribal and/or trust land, without displacing or relocating Indians to cities. Upon analyses under Charles F. Wilkinson and Eric R. Biggs’s assimilation and self-determination tension framework. The Housing Act of 1937 programs: Turnkey III and Mutual Help programs tend to overall gravitate towards policies predicated on gradual assimilation, while the Section 184 Indian Home Loan tends to gravitate towards self-determination driven policy.

Turnkey III Homeownership & Mutual Help Homeownership - Analysis Although the Turnkey III and Mutual Help Homeownership fully covers cost of construction.

These programs are restrictive due in part to limitations of tribes’ ability to have input in overall design of a unit and most importantly household size eligibility. From the family selection process down to the design and construction process, HUD assumes full control over a project in which Indian tribes and tribal members can either accept or make do with nothing. The implications of HUD’s control design can produce a scenario where aesthetically a HUD unit doesn’t fit in with a tribe’s vernacular aesthetic. The implications of HUD’s stipulation on household size, which was based on a traditional American nuclear family, can produce a scenario where a tribal household doesn’t qualify for a HUD unit. This can potentially influence a household to split up in efforts to obtain a unit, which can be argued as assimilating to survive. Although this form of assimilation is not rapid i.e. immediately 74 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). Borrowers Section 184 Loan Resources. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/homeownership/184/borrowers 75 Ibid. Pevar, Stephen. (2012)

28

terminating an Indian program/policy or forcing relocation to a reservation or a city. It can be perceived as a form of gradual assimilation that overtime influences Indian tribes to maintain household sizes to the criteria of a typical American family. Lastly in regard to the household selection process, tribes are not able select applicants nor determine the order in which applicant receives their house. The implication of having HUD approve applications raising the possibility of selection bias and targeting niche applicants HUD deems eligible based on their metrics. This can ultimately leave out a large pool of households who need access to housing but do not meet HUD’s criteria.

Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program - Analysis Section 184 Indian Home Loan program tends to gravitate more towards self-determination driven policy by providing interest tribal members opportunities to acquire a loan for a house both on and off tribal land. One interesting clause of this program is that it does not assess applicants by credit score. This is important to note because historically Indian Country lacks access to capital and financial institutions and many tribal members do have a credit history.76 However, given this program enables private lending institutions to determine creditworthiness. This can potentially create a scenario where lending institutions are reluctant to lend to tribal members resulting in no one receiving loans.

Previous Indian housing policies such as the Relocation Act of 1956, have shown how private lenders can obstruct Indians from obtaining loans when given the authority to determine creditworthiness. Lastly Section 184 provides private lenders the authority to set mortgage rates which can also create a situation where private lending institutions requirements are too high for tribal members to afford. According to scholar Ferrell, historic BIA assessment reports found numerous cases where suggested mortgage and rental rates failed in Indian Country due to socio-economic factors such as lack of access to consistent employment opportunities to support suggested mortgage and rental rates.77

II. NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1996 (NAHASDA) Description The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, also referred to as NAHASDA, was signed into law under Bill Clinton in 1996 during the Self-Determination Era. NAHASDA is predicated on the principles of self-determination for tribal housing development. NAHASDA provides tribes the authority and decision-making power to create their own housing authorities called tribally designated housing entities or TDHE. TDHE’s serve as tribal housing development agencies that operate as housing developers most predominantly for low-income tenants on behalf of their tribe. TDHEs’ duties range from serving as primary contact agency for HUD, submitting project proposals for competitive and noncompetitive HUD applications, allocating funds from HUD in addition to public and private 76 Miriam, Jorgensen, & Randall, Akee. (2017). Access to Capital and Credit in Native Communities: A Data Review.

Tucson, AZ: Native Nations Institute.

77 Ibid. Ferrell, J. Susan

29

entities for housing projects, commissioning repairs and rehabilitation of damaged units, and collecting rent and sometimes mortgages from tenants.78 In addition to giving tribes the ability to dictate what type of housing typologies development gets built and where it’s located on tribal and trust lands. NAHASDA consolidated all the previous housing programs (Mutual Help Homeownership, Turnkey III Homeownership) into a singular housing annual block grant called Indian Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG), in effort to streamline funding sources to tribes.79

Key Characteristics Management & Governance • Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) & Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) • Flat Organizational Structure: TDHE are managed by an Executive Director who oversees a small team of usually 5-6 full or part-time employees. TDHE submit annual housing assessment reports and housing development reports to HUD to obtain non-competitive IHBG funding in addition to competitive funding.

Project Development & Maintenance • TDHE are responsible for budgeting and leveraging funds to complete projects and cover maintenance and operation costs.

Eligible Activities • Indian Housing Assistance, Development, Housing Services, Housing Management Services, Crime Prevention and Safety, Model Activites.

Eligible Recipient Requirement • Enrolled low-income tribal members living on trust or tribal land are eligible for IHBG projects.

Eligible Household are determined by whether households fall under national 80% AMI levels. Below is the national 2019 median family income limits; TDHEs can also determine household limits by their County AMI, if the limits are higher.

2019 Median Family Income Limits80

(MFI for 4-person household is $75,500, which is the base for estimates) AMI

1-Person

2-Person

3-Person

4-Person

5-Person

6-Person

7-Person

8-Person

80%

$42,280

$48,320

$54,360

$60,400

$65,232

$70,064

$74,896

$79,728

100%

$52,850

$60,400

$67,950

$75,500

$81,540

$87,580

$93,620

$99,660

78 Ibid. Durand, Cassandra. (2015) 79 US Department of Housing and Urban Development. NAHASDA Final Rule - 24 CFR Part 1000 (2012). Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/nahasda#:~:text=The%20Native%20American%20 Housing%20Assistance,with%20a%20block%20grant%20program.

80 Office of Native Programs. (2019). Indian Housing Block Grant - 2019 Program Guidance. US Department of Housing & Urban Development.

30

Project Development Types • Single Family or Multi-Family Units (Purchase or Rent) Housing Unit Standards • Varies - TDHE’s have the ability to pursue any type of housing typology they deem fit to serve low-income tribal members.

NAHASDA Non-Competitive IHBG Formula NAHASDA IHBG formula used appropriate funds each year to tribes is based off 7 factors, which can be seen below in figure-7. Each factor is weighted accordingly by percentage based on its overall impact on funding amount.

Figure 7. Non-Competitive IHBG Formula Factors Weighted

(Source: United States General Accounting Office. (2015), IHBG Formula)

31

NAHASDA Programs (As of Feb. 2020) Program Name

Description

Tenant/Homebuyer Financial Obligation

Additional Info

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) / Non-Competitive81

Annual IHBG allocation to TDHE. TDHE must submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP) which details affordable housing needs to HUD at least 75 days before the start of their tribal programming year.

Rent and mortgage payments for IHBG funded units can’t exceed 30% of the adjusted monthly income of the household.

Funding Limits: Varies per tribe, minimum possible: $50,000

Rent and mortgage payments for IHBG funded units can’t exceed 30% of the adjusted monthly income of the household.

Funding Limits: Minimum: $100,000 Maximum: $5,000,000

1-Year Notice of Funding Cycle.

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) / Competitive82

Adopted in 2017, the competitive IHBG distributes as of 2018 over 200 million to select successful TDHE applicants. TDHE must submit project proposals that are a part of a comprehensive plan to address issues of overcrowding and dilapidated units.

Notice of Funding Announced According to Funding Availability.

81 Jones, K. (2015). The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/ R43307/8 82 Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program--Competitive Grants. (2019). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/Modified_IHBG_NOFA_7.3.19.pdf

32

Indian Community

Development Block Grant (ICDBG)83

Competitive grant designed to assist tribes improve housing stock, provide community facilities, repair and expand infrastructure, and fund economic development initiatives.

2-Year Notice of funding cycle.

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program84

Enables tribes or TDHE to pledge current and future IHBG funding as insurance to HUD, who provides a 95% guarantee on loans to private investors and lenders. This program helps tribes and TDHEs obtain additional granteligible construction and development at today’s cost.

Funding Limits: Minimum: $50,000 Maximum: $7,000,000 Exclude Activities: -Construction and improvement of government facilities.

-General government expenses: maintenance, operation cost, income, political activities.

Eligible Funding Activities: -Create new housing.

-Rehabilitate housing.

-Build infrastructure.

-Construct community facilities.

-Acquire land to be used for housing.

-Prepare architectural and engineering plans.

-Fund financing costs.

Funding Limits: Minimum: None Maximum: 5x a TDHEs’ annual IHBG.

Program Analysis - NAHASDA When analyzing the NAHASDA programs under Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and selfdetermination framework. Overall NAHASDA skews more towards the Indian housing policy predicated on self-determination. However, it is important to note several NAHASDA programs 83 Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages - FR-6300-N-23. (2020).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/ CDBGforIndianTribesandAlaskaNativeVilliagesFY19FY20.pdf 84 Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination, Pub. L. No. 25 U.S.C. 4101 (2020).

33

have limitations pertaining to rent levels and project implementation oversight that can be interpreted as gradual assimilation driven clauses.

Non-Competitive & Competitive Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) - Analysis The non-competitive and competitive Indian Housing Block Grant programs offer Indian TDHEs the ability to take ownership of housing development and design of units on tribal/ trust land that better responds towards the needs of their respected tribe. Furthermore, the main differences between the two programs are the non-competitive IHBG is distributed annually, while competitive IHBG is distributed whenever funds are available. In 2018, the first competitive IHBG funds were disturbed and they derive from recaptured unused funds and carryover funds. Although both the competitive and noncompetitive IHBG enable TDHEs to pursue projects that are better aligned to tribes’ housing needs. HUD’s ability to approve all project submittals and the right to initiate disciplinary actions and revoke funding if tribes do not abide by regulations can be interpreted as paternalistic. If in the event Indian housing policy regresses to being overtly anti-Indian again, similar to historical regression from the Indian Reorganization Era to the Termination Era. If such a scenario were to occur again HUDs’ oversight of project submissions can be co-opted and force either gradually or rapidly force TDHEs to assimilate to a particular housing regulation. From a settler colonial framework, Wolfe and Lorenzo would make the case that the power dynamic between HUD and Indian Country positions the federal government to maintain power over the quality of housing services provided to Indian Country. Although relations between Indian Country and federal government are seemingly peaceful in present times. History has shown settler colonialism is imperious to regime change and expresses itself differently in different times depending on the agenda. Thus, until Indian tribes are able to own the trust land in which IHBG funds is applicable towards, TDHEs do not have to get plans approved by HUD, and tribes can decide whether they want to use the housing solely for affordable housing or not.

The settler colonialism framework puts forth IHBG funds are complicit in providing settler society a means of controlling Indian Country.

Moreover, since the first allotment of non-competitive IHBG funds to TDHEs in 1998 of $592 million USD, the median disbursement for IHBG going up for 2020 has been $641,406,705.

This is troubling to note given inflation has been rising annually, and upon initial glance NAHASDA funding doesn’t appear to be keeping pace with inflation. Scholars such as Virginia Davis argue historically all Indian housing programs tend to be underfunded. If NAHASDA funding fails to keep pace with inflation rates the entire program itself can present itself as ineffective in providing adequate housing to Indian Country. Additionally, given the fact that historically Indian housing programs have been significantly underfunded or anti-Indian. The competitive-IHBG program should not have Indian tribes competing for a limited pool of funds the federal government should be providing regardless to uphold their trust responsibility.

34

Title VI Loan Guarantee Program - Analysis Title VI Loan Guarantee Program provides TDHEs the opportunity to borrow upwards of 5x their annual IHBG needs outright by guaranteeing upwards of 95% of future IHBGs funds as repayment. A benefit of the Title VI Guarantee Program is that it enables tribes to cover project expenses in present value construction cost and inflation rates. When analyzing the program under Wilkson and Biggs’s assimilation and self-determination framework, overall Title VI is predicated on self-determination values. However, Title VI enables tribes to access larger pulls of IHBG funds upfront. The deduction of upwards of 95% of future guaranteed funds can heavily impact a TDHEs able to maintain yearly operations dependent on IHBG funds. This can ultimately create a situation where TDHEs must choose between obtaining present value construction cost or sacrificing operation and maintenance funds for a couple of years, which could lead to further dilapidated housing conditions for tribal members who need adequate housing immediately. If Indian housing were adequately supported in the first place, scholars such as Virginia Davis would make the argument that VI Loan Guarantee Program wouldn’t be necessary.

III. LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS (LIHTC) Description Low-Income Housing Tax Credits or LIHTC was enacted as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. LIHTC enables state and local agencies to authorize federal tax credits to private investors who provide equity to housing agencies for the construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of affordable housing. LIHTC is divided into two funding mechanism pools, 4% and 9% credits.

Affordable housing projects are eligible to pursue one funding mechanism per project.

For over the duration of 10 years, every year a tax credit equal to roughly 4% and 9% of a project’s qualified basis (cost of construction) is claimed by the private developer. Within the 4% tax credit project, a subsidy equal to 30% of the present value of a project’s qualified basis is created. Within a 9% tax credit project, a subsidy of 70% of the present value of a project’s qualified basis is created. LIHTC funding is competitive and proposed projects are analyzed by state housing agencies who allocate funds to selected projects.85 In the state of New Mexico, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA) administers 4% and 9% tax credit applications. Annually the state of New Mexico receives on average between 5 - 6 million dollars to allocate to projects. MFA conducts one allocation cycle a year, with deadlines typically due in February and approved projects awards by June. MFA accesses projects accordingly based on 22 different criteria in which they use to award project points to determine if they qualify for LIHTC equity funds. At a minimum 9% projects need 85 points and 4% projects need 70 points out of a maximum of 168 points. Generally speaking, the more affordable units a project creates the better a project is scored.86 Overall the 22 criteria used for assessment can be broken down into 7 categories: 85 NOVOGRADAC. (2020). About the LIHTC. Retrieved from https://www.novoco.com/resource-centers/affordablehousing-tax-credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc 86 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (n.d.). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved from http:// www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc#:~:text=The%20development%20must%20be%20 maintained,approximately%20%245%20to%20%246%20million.

35

General Partner & Management Company Characteristics • Housing Needs • Site & Service Amenities • Sustainable Building Methods • Lowest Income • Readiness to Proceed • Efficient Use of Credits Rent levels are determined by HUD rent levels which abides by counties AMI and is specified according to unit size.87 Although LIHTC is a non-Indian housing policy it has increasingly become more common in Indian Country to supplement IHBG funds.

Key Characteristics Management & Governance • New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA) Project Development & Maintenance • TDHE are responsible for budgeting and leveraging funds to complete projects and cover maintenance and operation costs.

• Rent levels are determined by HUD’s County area median income (AMI) Index.

• Tenants must be selected according to AMI selected for the project proposal.

• LIHTC projects are technically owned by equity investors upwards of 15 years until equity is paid off.

Eligible Recipient Requirement • Low-income tribal members rent levels vary according to HUD’s household AMI per county.

Project Development Types • Single family, Duplexes, Townhouses, Apartments, Mix-Use (Rent to Purchase or Rent) Housing Typology • Varies - TDHE’s have the ability to pursue any type of housing typology they deem fit to serve low-income tribal members.

Program Analysis - LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) offers Indian TDHE the ability to leverage IHBG funds with LIHTC programs to develop housing. Upon analysis borrowing Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and self-determination framework, generally speaking LIHTC is predicted on gradual assimilation principles. LIHTC’s highly competitive nature, rent limitations by AMI, 87 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (2020). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved from http:// www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc

36

supplementary program limitations make LIHTC projects assimilatory by nature. In the state of New Mexico, the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority regulates LIHTC project criteria and administers funds to success project applicants under their guidelines. The MFA oversight of projects can produce a situation that encourages TDHEs to adopt their standards in effort to produce competitive projects to win when tax credit equity funding. In regard to rent AMI levels needed to finance LIHTC projects, depending on the AMI level chosen to make a LIHTC project financially feasible. High AMI could potentially make “affordable housing” projects unaffordable for tribal members who are accustomed to paying 30% of their adjusted monthly income, which is counterproductive to the mission of TDHEs to serve lower income tribal households. Provided LIHTC is not designed solely for Indian Country, challenges that could arise out of AMI requirements are to be expected. However, if LIHTC is to be encouraged by HUD in Indian Country it is critical HUD amends AMI requirements for TDHEs. If left unchecked, LIHTC development could ultimately create a scenario similar to the Dawes Act of 1887, where assimilation driven policy can leave tribal members worse off than before and have less access to affordable housing.

IV. HEARTH ACT OF 2012 Description The HEARTH Act of 2012 granted Indian tribes the ability to lease Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases without the approval of the Secretary of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Through the HEARTH Act tribes are able to lease their land out for a primary period of 25 years, with the ability to renew leases up to two times with leases of 25 years each. This act ultimately tries to champion self-determination and give more power to tribes to govern their own land use and leasing affairs by removing federal oversight. For tribes to utilize the HEARTH Act, first they must develop their tribal regulations that are consistent with the Department of Interior’s leasing regulations. Secondly tribes must submit their leasing regulations to the BIA who will confirm whether their leasing regulations are valid or not.88

Key Characteristics Management & Governance • Indian Tribe Eligibility Requirement • Develop their tribal regulations that are consistent with the Department of Interior’s leasing regulations 25 CFR Part 162.

• Submit their leasing regulations to the BIA who will confirm whether their leasing regulations are valid or not

88

H.R.205 - HEARTH Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. Public Law 112-151 (2012).

37

Program Analysis- HEARTH Act The HEARTH Act of 2012 when analyzed under Wilkinson and Bigg’s assimilation and selfdetermination framework illustrates an Indian policy that is predicated on self-determination.

The elimination of the requirement of the BIA to approve every single Indian land lease removes paternalistic oversight on tribes’ ability to govern their own land use. This act encourages tribes to create regulations to abide by similar to the Reorganization Act of 1934, that encouraged tribes to create constitutions that if approved by the BIA grants tribes’ additional authoritative powers. If this bill were to be extended further to building upon the principles of self-determination it should seek to provide tribes the ability to renew their leases to their own discretion rather than being capped at three lease renewals.

38

RESEARCH DESIGN The research methodology is centered around qualitative data gathered from a series of interviews from Pueblo Tribally Designated Housing Entities - housing directors. Additional interviews with Indian architects/urban design consultants, Indian law lawyers, and a tribal bank CEO help further provide contextual information on socio-economic conditions in Indian Country. All Pueblo TDHEs in New Mexico were initially contacted via email and phone to arrange interviews and dates to visit tribes in person. Select interviews with Pueblo TDHE Housing Directors doing innovative tribal housing development are presented as case studies in this report. I analyze the experiences of Pueblo TDHEs utilizing federal Indian housing programs and their efforts to cover project cost, complying with construction and design standards, setting rent and mortgage limits, and ensuring tribal members have access to mortgages and loans.

The focus of this research is to holistically understand the challenges contemporary federal Indian housing policies present to Pueblo TDHEs’ ability to develop and provide housing to tribal members. Additionally, I seek to understand how Pueblo TDHEs are adopting innovative solutions to address restrictive paternalistic clauses and funding challenges imposed by Indian housing policy. In this research I will examine the weaknesses of contemporary federal Indian housing policies and programs in contrast to suspend historical Indian housing policies and programs.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.) How has HUD’s implementation of Indian tribal housing assistance programs (i.e. design standards, funding allocation, construction processes) created challenges for Pueblo TDHEs’ ability to develop or maintain housing on tribal land?

Programs: 1937 Mutual Housing Act 1996 National American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) 2.) How do Pueblo Tribally Designated Housing Entities adapt to HUD construction and funding regulations and develop housing units on tribal land?

CASE STUDIES Case studies of Pueblo TDHEs act as a primary source of qualitative data to understand the challenges Indian housing policies pose to housing development and how TDHEs adjust to challenges. Interviews were conducted over the phone and ranged on average between 1.5 - 2hrs. Interviewees were asked a range of questions pertaining to HUD’s policies impacts on housing development and tribal members access to home loans. The structure of the interviews enabled Housing Directors to expand on questions to uncover information that would put the responses in context.

39

LIMITATIONS Due to COVID19, an unusual global health pandemic, I was restricted from traveling to New Mexico. Additionally, I was revoked permission onto Pueblo tribal land due to risk of contaminating tribal members and/or being contaminated by individuals during travel. Stay at home/work from home ordinances in Pueblo Country disrupted 3 remaining scheduled interviews. These remaining interviews were ultimately cancelled at the request of Housing Directors, who were trying to adjust to working from home and rapidly changing COVID19 conditions. As a result, I was not able to further engage in person with Pueblo TDHE Housing Directors or document on site conditions in person. Despite outreaching to all 16 Pueblo TDHEs, 10 out of 16 Housing Directors agreed to an interview, and 3 of the 10 were ultimately cancelled due to COVID19. That being said, it is important to note, the limited number of Housing Director voices can potentially have an impact on findings from Pueblo TDHEs. Last but not least, it is important to understand every tribe is different, even amongst the Pueblo tribes. The challenges Pueblo tribes face are particularly unique compared to other federally recognized tribes given the fact that pueblo tribes were never forced to relocate, and they had built permanent structures spanning back hundreds of years that were being occupied long before HUD’s intervention. Additionally, even within Pueblo tribes, every tribe has unique housing typologies and inheritance customs and communal religious practices.

Not being Pueblo Indian or having had experience growing up in Indian Country will limit my understanding of the on-ground conditions experienced by tribal members outside of housing challenges.

40

CASE STUDY: THE OHKAY OWINGEH PUEBLO TRIBE AND THE OWE’NEH BUPINGEH PROJECT - LEVERAGING SUPPORT VIA CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT Interviewee - Tomasita Duran | Housing Director

THE PUEBLO OF OHKAY OWINGEH TDHE BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The Ohkay Owingeh tribe, whose name translates from their native language Tewa to English means “Place of the Strong People”, resides in Santa Fe, New Mexico and is one of the eight northern pueblo tribes. The Ohkay Owingeh has a population of 2700 enrolled members and growing and has over 2700 acres of tribal land. The per capita income in 2018 of the Ohkay Owingeh tribe sits at $13,051 which is less than 7% higher than the 2018 national poverty line of $12,140.89 Traditionally the Ohkay Owingeh tribe developed flat-roofed attached duplex clustered in close proximity to one another around the village plaza. The village plaza serves as the primary social hub for the tribe where gatherings where held, people bonded, and supporting businesses and services could be found. The Ohkay Owingeh, used adobe clay to construct pueblo houses which date back as far as 700 years old. The typical Ohkay Owingeh pueblo size ranges from 1,200 to 1,600 sq. ft on average with the largest being 3,000 sq. ft. Ohkay Owingeh pueblo homes feature a large multi-purpose room used for sleeping and cooking, and on average range from 1 to 2 stories in height.

Since the passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and creation of TDHEs in 1997, Tomasita Duran has served as Ohkay Owingeh’s TDHE housing director. According to Ms. Duran, in her own words “serving as a housing director for more than 3 years in tribes is rare, let alone for someone to serve for over 20+ years.” Duran notes the fact she has been in her position for an extended amount of time has afforded her the opportunity to learn by trial and error and learn the nuances of HUD programs and find ways to work around some challenges they pose for housing development on Ohkay Owingeh tribal lands. She also notes that for many tribes experiencing consistent routine turnover of housing directors makes it even more difficult to plan and implement necessary housing development for their tribes.

1937 HOUSING ACT Upon assuming the position as housing director in 1997, Duran received 146 units built

by HUD under the Housing Act of 1937. Today Duran now manages 26 units that will soon be conveyed in the next couple of years. Duran describes the Housing Act of 1937 units as single family detached units averaging 810 sq. ft. Within the Ohkay Owingeh tribe the 1937 units are referred to as “scattered sites”, mostly due in part to the fact they are scattered across tribal land and away from the tribal center plaza. Duran notes maintenance expenses and cultural adjustment to the introduction of a group of single-family detached housing as two key challenges with the 1937 Housing units. The introduction of new materials and housing typologies in the late 1960’s, such as side paneling, gable roof, garages, led to poor maintenance upkeep of homes from tribal members unfamiliar with new materials.

89

Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020)

41

Additionally, Duran notes, an adverse effect of the construction of HUD 1937 units was it prompted families to relocate to new units and leave behind their traditional Pueblo dwellings. Tribal members usually only return to Pueblo dwellings during the summer months for feasting celebrations. As a result, traditional Pueblo dwellings have and continue to deteriorate as more tribal members spend more time occupying new units.

Today the Ohkay Owingeh is facing a situation where traditional Pueblo dwellings, 1937 housing units, and planned new construction all need funding. The non-competitive IHBG current allotment alone is not enough to cover all simultaneously. In regard to the cultural impact of the 1937 housing units. Duran states the scattered housing units located away from the plaza center” heavily impacted the social network within the tribe”, since families and individuals are not in close proximity to one another. According to Duran, living in a close proximity to center plaza helped tribal members build bonds and hold each other accountable. Duran continued to express: “Ohkay Owingeh tribe saw a degradation of morality from individuals who were accustomed to living in close quarters went to live by themselves and fell to their own vices to cope such as domestic violence against women.”

Despite Duran’s criticisms of the 1937 HUD program, she expresses at the very least HUD covered project cost in their entirety.

NAHASDA The Ohkay Owingeh tribe in the past year 2019 received $800,464 from the NAHASDA non-competitive IHBG, which has also been the general average annual allocation for Ohkay Owingeh since 1999. According to Duran: “NAHASDA was a step in the right direction for tribes, however it still can be improved. One on hand it enables tribes to develop housing types they want, but there is never enough money to complete a project [with NAHASDA funds] alone. On another end, it also forced tribes to learn how to leverage money which is needed in Indian Country.”

- Tomasita Duran (Ohkay Owingeh TDHE)

Duran reflects amongst one of the hardest initial challenges she faced assuming the position as director in 1997, was understanding how to leverage funds and stretch NAHASDA IHBG farther. She notes given there was relatively little training from HUD on how to utilize the fund, she had to learn quickly trial and error. Duran believes NAHASDA can be improved is if HUD provides innovative training on how to leverage funding. Duran expresses leveraging funds is the most complex challenge introduced by HUD recently, that also tends to drive housing directors away after a year. Overall Duran remained positive about the NAHASDA itself but emphasized more funding can be allocated to Ohkay Owingeh to help build a project without having to leverage so many additional funding sources.

42

LIHTC Duran describes learning the specifics and regulations around LIHTC housing early on was one of her hardest experiences as a housing director. Several factors made learning and implementing LIHTC projects more difficult than usual, such as producing a competitive application for the state of NM and understanding specific regulations to leverage HUD programs to cover project cost. However, Duran notes, gaining internal support within the Ohkay Owingeh tribal council was by far “incredibly difficult”. One conditionality of LIHTC projects enables an investor seeking tax credits who puts forth equity on a LIHTC project to own 99% of a project for an average of 10-15 years. The other 1% of the project is owned by a non-profit agency or in this case the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE. Although technically speaking, the Ohkay Owingeh tribe manages and collects rent from enrolled tribal members inhabiting units, the majority of rent collected goes towards borrowed equity from private investors who own 99% of the project until their principle is returned.

In 2001, Duran attempted to construct Ohkay Owingeh first LIHTC project on tribal land, which caused uproar within the tribal council, the governing body in the Ohkay Owingeh tribe.

“The tribal council was skeptical and against the idea of constructing a project that would give ownership away to a non-Ohkay Owingeh entity. Before I could even begin developing LIHTC projects I had to convince the tribal council that these [LIHTC] projects were not going to take anything away from the Ohkay Owingeh tribe. After a series of internal conversations, training on LIHTC projects, and bringing in outside experts on LIHTC to education the tribal council and housing authority on the process, LIHTC projects were permitted on Ohkay Owingeh land.”

- Tomasita Duran (Ohkay Owingeh TDHE)

Duran expresses upon coming into her position, initially HUD offered almost zero training on LIHTC projects. Duran sees the lack of knowledge around LIHTC projects in Indian Country as a major roadblock for many TDHEs, especially those with inexperienced housing directors.

Besides convincing the tribal council to permit LIHTC projects on tribal land; Duran notes initially understanding the competitive application process and regulations was challenging.

In regard to construction cost, rent cost structure, environmental review protocol and cost, and abiding to design regulations put forth by LIHTC, Duran is neutral to whether they pose challenges for her, but she can see other tribes having various issues with the structure of LIHTC.

TDHE INNOVATION: CULTURAL REDEVELOPMENT & MENTORING Cultural Redevelopment Despite the various challenges imposed by HUD regulations and programs. Housing director Tomasita Duran’s leadership and ability to leverage competitive grants and donations has enabled Ohkay Owingeh to pursue an unprecedented historical cultural redevelopment project. In 2005, the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE announced the Owe’neh Bupingeh project which sets out to renovate at least 25 homes in the Ohkay Owingeh historical plaza, which dates

43

back to over 700 years. The Owe’neh Bupingeh provides culturally significant housing to the Ohkay Owingeh tribe. Renovated Pueblo dwellings reside along the historical plaza and feature updated amenities and appliances in addition to traditional use of adobe building material. The estimated cost of the project is roughly 14 million dollars, in which as of March 2020, Ohkay Owingeh is seeking the remaining 4 million to complete the last phases of remaining units of the project. Most recently in 2019, Ohkay Owingeh was awarded the maximum 5 million dollars allocation from the competitive IHBG, in which a large portion will go towards completing the Owe’neh Bupingeh project. Additionally, Duran has found success in celebrating and championing Ohkay Owingeh TDHE’s cultural redevelopment project from non-Indian and non-HUD sources. Foundations such as the Kellogg Foundation awarded Ohkay Owingeh with $100,000, as well as assisted Ohkay Owingeh raise over $300,000 through the private sector in 2016. Duran notes soliciting support from the private sector was a new territory for the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE, that took a lot of learning and assistance from the Kellogg Foundation. Since announcing the Owe’neh Bupingeh project, the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE has garnered international attention from government officials as far as Morocco and China, who are interested in the cultural tourism potential impact this project has.

Figure 8. Owe’nah Bupingeh’s Pueblo dwellings and main plaza (2020)

(Source: Minesh Bacrania. (2020). The Architect’s Newspaper)

44

Figure 9. Owe’nah Bupingeh’s Pueblo dwelling exterior (2019)

(Source: Atkin Olshin Schade Architects. (2019). Owe’neh Bupingeh)

Despite the growing interest around the Owe’neh Bupingeh project. The Ohkay Owingeh TDHE encountered several challenges rehabilitating traditional Pueblo dwellings pertaining to past HUD cultural misunderstanding. Upon HUD’s arrival to the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh, HUD introduced stucco as a new material that was marketed to be a better material replacement to Ohkay Owingeh adobe clay building material. Through the development of the Owe’neh Bupingeh project, Ohkay Owingeh TDHE and building consultants have discovered stucco does relatively little to seal Pueblo dwellings from water from seeping through wall foundations which has led to the accelerated deterioration of original dwellings. To address this issue the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE has returned to the usage of traditional adobe clay, which was once deemed insufficient for construction by HUD regulations prior to NAHASDA. Another challenge that became more apparent during the rehabilitation of the Owe’neh Bupingeh sorting through the complicated claims of ownership of renovated units. The introduction of HUD units from the Housing Act of 1937 inadvertently complicated traditional housing inheritance management systems. Ohkay Owingeh households who moved into new HUD projects often neglected to appropriately document inheritance of their original Pueblo dwelling. Duran notes in some pueblo tribes a daughter would inherit a pueblo property in its entirety. However, within the Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh, rooms and portions of a pueblo dwelling are assigned to a child. This unique inheritance structure creates situations where the oldest daughter might get the kitchen, the youngest son might get the back bedroom, the second oldest daughter the front area, and etc. Duran notes that one of the initial challenges the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE faced in pursuing the Owe’neh Bupingeh project, was figuring out the inheritance titles and resolving land claims.

45

Figure 10 & 11. Owe’nah Bupingeh’s Pueblo dwelling interior (2019)

(Source: Atkin Olshin Schade Architects. (2019). Owe’neh Bupingeh)

Mentoring In addition to pursuing cultural redevelopment housing projects, Duran is taking steps to close the knowledge gap within housing development in the Ohkay Owingeh TDHE. Historically up until the passage of NAHASDA, Indian housing development was managed by the BIA, followed by HUD and Indian Housing Agencies outside of tribes. As a result, this created a knowledge gap of necessary skills needed to fulfill the duties of a housing director within tribes. This knowledge gap has also given way to high housing director turnover rates, which equates to inefficient performing TDHEs. To combat the high turnover rate and gaps of knowledge in housing development. Duran, who hopes to retire soon, has taken upon herself to mentor and groom her current project manager who will assume the position of housing director once she retires.

Ultimately while Duran affirms NAHASDA is a step in the right direction for tribes across the nation. Duran cautions that nothing can prepare one to take on the roles and expectations entrusted upon a housing director: “It’s [being a housing director] challenging because of what you have to deal with, and it’s hard to maintain a consistent Director. A lot of tribes housing director positions have a high turnover rate because of what one has to deal with on the job. As a result, many new directors are inexperienced and do not understand the complexity in building housing or utilizing LIHTC.”

- Tomasita Duran (Ohkay Owingeh TDHE)

46

CASE STUDY: THE PUEBLO OF NAMBE - LESSONS IN LEVERAGING FUNDS AND CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP Interviewee - Andrew Martinez | Housing Director, & Christina “Tina” Brass | Co-Housing Director/Former Housing Director

THE PUEBLO OF NAMBE TDHE BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The Nambe tribe or the “People of the Round Earth” translated in Kewa, is almost one of the smaller Pueblo tribes of New Mexico of approximately 700 enrolled members and approximately 19000 acres. The income per capita in the year 2018 for the Nambe tribe sits around $ 28,663.90 Tribal economic activity is centered around tourism around the Nambe Falls Recreation Area. Of the 19 pueblo tribes, the Nambe were amongst the first to accept HUD development assistance in 1967. Following the passage of NAHASDA, the Nambe departed from the Northern Pueblo Housing Authority to create their own Tribally Designated Housing Entity in 1998. Currently Andrew Martinez serves as Housing Director, proceeding Christina “Tina” Brass who served for 13 years from 2007-2019 and is currently Co-Director with Andrew Martinez.

Traditional Nambe pueblo dwellings feature attached units, with some shared spaces. Pueblo dwellings are clustered around 10-12 plazas and families live next to one another. The average pueblo unit size ranged from 800-1000 sq. ft, 1-story in height and composed of mud/clay exteriors and with either wood or dirt floors. Pueblo units were traditionally built by people within the community and till this day families are still living in pueblo dwellings along the plaza.

1937 HOUSING ACT According to Housing Director Andrew Martinez and Co-Director Christina Brass, from 19671980, less than 5-10 single family units were built in Nambe Tribal land. The first round of HUD 1937 housing units was detached single-family homes, approximately 800-1000 sq. ft, 2bdrm/1ba and flat roofed and featured unfinished floors. From 1980-1991 an additional 129 homes were built of various different layouts that featured gabled roofs, ranged from 1000-1600 sq. ft, and were typically 2bdrm/1ba to 2bdrm/2ba, and included various different features such as front porches, back porches, and fireplaces. In regard to the 1937 Housing Act producing a cultural impact on housing development in the tribe. Neither Martinez or Brass expressed any significant positive or negative impacts of the 1937 units homes, but agreed they brought a new design language into the tribe. More specifically the introduction of 1937 HUD units brought about the rapid acceleration of scattered homes.

Lastly both Martinez and Brass noted from a developer’s standpoint, they appreciated the fact HUD covered the entirety of a project when constructing a 1937 Housing Act unit.

90

Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020)

47

NAHASDA The passage of NAHASDA was well received and praised within the Pueblo of Nambe, for its efforts to promote self-determination in housing. However according to Co-Director Brass, it also created a new host of challenges for the Nambe TDHE. The biggest challenge NAHASDA presented was the issue of leveraging funds to complete a project. Leveraging funds for the Pueblo of Nambe proved to be incredibly difficult due to the fact they were annually allotted on average $380,000 USD from NAHASDA’s non-competitive IHBG. “From 1999 to 2007, absolutely nothing was constructed unless it was from individual people doing their own finances.There was absolutely no housing built through the Pueblos of Nambe TDHE, because we [Nambe] were pulling our money. We didn’t know which way or housing projects to go [build].” - Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

According to Brass early on there was also confusion and differing voices within the tribal council on what housing development initiatives should be pursued. It would not be until 2007, a decade after the passage of NAHASDA. A tribal council member would ultimately decide no new development should occur on scattered sites and housing should be built in a subdivision lot parcel. In addition to learning how to leverage funds, Brass stresses the importance of being able to network and build a working relationship with the tribal council, who gives final approval project proposals. Although Brass champions the freedom NAHASDA offers TDHEs to develop housing choices they deem fit for the tribe. Brass also underscores from her experience as solo housing director, TDHEs’ are at mercy of tribal councils who give final approval of projects.

“NASHADA is really big on networking and that was a learning curve we [Nambe TDHE] had to learn....Initially there were three toxic board members that tried to micro-manage projects that made it difficult to carry out my duties and develop projects” - Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

Now that those toxic board members are gone, both Brass and Martinez agree developing projects utilizing NAHASDA funds is much easier. Although tribal board members are not necessarily HUD’s creation, NAHASDA emphasizes on self-determination gives tribes the freedom to develop and govern their own housing development practices. Martinez notes this freedom can at times inadvertently create scenarios where TDHE’s are repressed by their own tribal council, who don’t understand housing development. This could leave to housing directors vacating positions to avoid the stress and pressure.

“The life of an [housing] executive is about 2 years because dealing with tribal boards can be a real challenge. I met other directors at conferences who told me stories of board members pulling funds from the housing authority.”

- Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

Besides internal tribal management struggles overall Martinez and Brass believe NAHASDA is a step in the right direction. To take NAHASDA to the next level, Martinez and Brass believe HUD needs to amend their environmental review restrictions on projects and reduce

48

cost. Martinez inserts “the environmental review process is only good for 5 years and cost $13,000 to complete. It’s unfair and too costly [for the Pueblo of Nambe] to conduct environmental review twice on a site that takes us years to save and leverage enough funds to begin a project.” Additionally, both agree that the application for a tribe to obtain block grant funding is too demanding in regard to paperwork.

LIHTC For a smaller tribe like the Pueblo of Acoma, both Martinez and Brass believe LIHTC projects are too complicated and hard to complete.

Brass retorts “at one point we applied to it [LIHTC] and wasn’t successful. Our tribe is too small and getting the right people to fill units would be a disaster.”

- Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

Small tribes such as the Pueblo of Nambe, are finding getting the right tenants that meet HUD’s household AMI index challenging. Even more challenging, Brass and Martinez do not see how to construct a LIHTC project and set rent limits that are both affordable to their tribal members and high enough to yield a margin of return to pay off a project’s equity provider within a 15-year loan period. Martinez also deposits enrolled tribal members with successful jobs that can afford higher rent. Typically chooses to live in a house on the tribal land they own or move off the tribal land if it is closer to their job and their children to have access to good schools.

TDHE INNOVATION: IN-HOUSE MORTGAGE FINANCING & MODULAR CONSTRUCTION In-House Mortgage Financing For the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE, Martinez and Brass took initiative in creating opportunities to provide more home ownership to enrolled tribal members and exploring cost saving construction techniques to save on cost. Access to credit for bank loans to build or acquire housing is still a major challenge impacting Indian Country today. Although in theory the Section 184 Home Loan program is designed to provide more opportunities for Indian Americans to get approved for home loans. According to Martinez many Nambe tribal members, with no credit history, are being denied the 184 program from banks. To work around this challenge, the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE created an in-house financing program to provide loans to tribal members.

“What bankers and backers of the 184 program do not understand is that we are working with low to moderate income people. Any monthly payment over 400 dollars would devastate someone here.”

- Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

To develop the Nambe TDHE in-house mortgage financing program. Martinez and Brass applied to and was awarded over $800,000 from the 2019 Indian Community Development Block Grant program and $3,025,760 from the 2019 competitive Indian Housing Block

49

Grant. Portions of the competitive grants were used to create an MFA loan program for Nambe tribal members to acquire housing loans. For tribal members to qualify for the TDHE loan program. Martinez and Brass developed an 8-month program in which applicants attend a minimum of 8 hrs. of financial classes and counseling to learn about building credit, managing a mortgage, penalties of late payments, and the positives and negatives of credit cards. Another core requirement is applicants must have a job at the time of applying to be a part of the program. Most importantly, Martinez and Brass pride themselves the most on the fact that through their in-house mortgage program reports tribal member’s payment history to the US Credit Bureau. This is important to note because it helps tribal members build a credit history and access more credit opportunities in the future. According to Martinez, the HUD’s 184 program requires on average 2 years of counseling and training, monthly payments upwards of $700 USD, and it doesn’t report payments to the US Credit Bureau.

“Early on a lot of [Nambe] people were discouraged trying to get a 184 approval, and we [Nambe TDHE] were losing too many people to fact they couldn’t get a bank loan” - Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

Modular Construction: After conducting a community housing assessment survey amongst tribal members. Martinez and Brass discovered an overwhelming majority of tribal members expressed interest in having more opportunities to obtain a single-family home to own. This is interesting to note, because it breaks away from multi-generational housing units that are historically vernacular to the Pueblo of Nambe. Furthermore, according to Brass, managing rental properties are in more cases than any other a liability for TDHEs, who must absorb the maintenance fees, repair fees, landscaping fees. Since the community assessment survey, the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE has recently shifted gear to develop single family housing units and has been utilizing modular construction techniques to save on cost.

The adoption of modular construction housing development has enabled the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE to drop the minimum development cost of $150 psf. down to $98. Even more so according to Martinez and Brass, the TDHE has been able to drastically reduce the building time of a housing unit from 18-20 months to down to 6-8 months. Martinez expressed: “Right now [in March 2020] we’re [building] 10 [modular] houses that will be done September or October, they’re [modular homes] are just faster, better, and can be built very well with AC, and great insulation.”

-Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

By converting over to modular construction, Martinez states that the TDHE is able to construct quality gable-roofed stucco single family housing units, with 10ft high ceilings, quality drainage systems, front and back porches. Additionally, the modular homes offer flexibility in design customization and the ability to construct at max 3bd/2ba units.

50

CASE STUDY - THE PUEBLO OF ACOMA - LESSONS IN MAXIMIZING LIHTC AND PRESERVING CULTURE Interviewee - Floyd Tortalita | Executive Director of Pueblo of Acoma Tribally Designated Housing

THE PUEBLO OF ACOMA TDHE BACKGROUND & CONTEXT The Pueblo of Acoma or the “Place That Always Was” when translated from Keres, consists of over 2784 enrolled members deriving from 13 clans and occupies over 431,664 acres of land. In 1970 after several decades of litigation the Pueblo of Acoma won $6,000,000 from the Indian Claims Commissions over land title disputes. Although Pueblo of Acoma didn’t win back their original land, since 1970 the Pueblo of Acoma has been purchasing back surrounding land and to this date has purchased back over 182,627 acres of land in effort to reclaim their original 500,000 acres of tribal land.91 The AMI per household of the Pueblo of Acoma sits around $42,813, and per capita income $13,895 which sits 12.7% above the national poverty line of $12,140.92 The Pueblos of Acoma is considered to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in North America dating back to 1180 BC. According to Floyd Tortalita, housing director of the Pueblo of Acoma TDHE. The original estimated 250 Old Acoma Pueblo dwelling units are maintained but largely unoccupied year-round in the central plaza, which is a frequently visited tourist attraction. (*Old Acoma refers to the original village formerly occupied by the tribe).

“Acoma [people] only inhabitant them [traditional pueblos] less than 2 times a year during festivals and ceremonies. Old Acoma Pueblos are without electricity, water, and sewers.The majority of people live about 11 miles north of the pueblos and closer to the river because we need access to the river to maintain our two farming villages.

Also, with the expansion of the railroad that runs near the river and the interstate, many moved from the pueblo to be in the valley near the railroads and found employment through railroad construction during the late 1800s.”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

Tortalita describes traditional pueblo housing similar to that of townhouses of some sort.

“Early on main materials used were adobe, then sandstone, and nowadays more modern materials are used like cinder blocks.Traditional pueblos were typically 2-3 stories in height, and accessible through the third floor via ladders that could be lifted up. Historically third floor accessibility was designed that way to prevent raiding from the Navajo and Apache tribes. Acoma pueblos were multi-generational, and the house was divided accordingly to the level.The bottom level was used for storage since it maintained the most consistent temperature year-round.The second floor and above were used for bedrooms, and the third floor were used as living rooms, play space for children and main entrances to the pueblos. When Pueblo people came down to the 91 92

Ibid. Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994) Ibid. U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020)

51

villages Acomita and McCartys to be near railroads they brought building methods down from Old Acoma pueblos.”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

Acoma culture is based on a matriarchal society, where property is passed down to the youngest daughter.

“We follow our mother’s clan, for instance when I [Floyd Tortalita] got married my wife and her uncle came to my mother, my aunt, and uncle to ask for my hand.

When it comes to property it’s passed on to a family’s youngest daughter who gets everything, the land, the house, cattle and so forth, everything. It then becomes her [the youngest daughter] responsibility to maintain the home and provide for her grandparents.”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

The Pueblo of Acoma TDHE came into existence in 1997 following the passage of NAHASDA. Floyd Tortalita has been serving as Executive Director for the Pueblo of Acoma since 2009.

Tortalita also serves on the Region 8 representative on the National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) Board of Directors as well as president-elect to the Southwest Tribal Housing Alliance (SWTHA) since 2013.

1937 HOUSING ACT “A home for the Acoma, is more than just a shelter over our head, we believe the center of our lives are in that home. What is taught in these homes itself is our culture and who we are. When you think about who taught you how to talk in our native language, who taught you how to cook, who taught you about your history, it’s not our mom and dad, it’s grandma and grandpa. When mom and dad had to go out into the fields and work and fix the homes, the ones left in the house were grandma and grandpa with the children teaching them” - Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE) The reclassification of the meaning and definition of a home was one of the biggest challenges presented by HUD upon their arrival in the late 1960s. The Pueblo of Acoma understood the home as a multi-generational structure, where culture is built and preserved.

HUD in contrast understood a multi-generational home as overcrowded.

“HUD believed a home was made up of a mom and dad, 2.4 kids, and a dog. HUD saw our multi-generational housing as overcrowded since we had three family cells in the home. Here [Pueblo of Acoma] we were never one family per unit”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

In total HUD built over 200 units through the 1937 Housing Act program in the Pueblo of Acoma. With HUD’s reclassification of a home to accommodate a nuclear family, Tortalita argues a cultural shift occurred and the sense of community that used to exist amongst the tribe took a hit as families were split up.

52

“Since HUD’s arrival, demand for single family homes has become the normal with lot sizes of 150ft by 150ft. Everyone maintains their own home, which changes our culture and now we don’t have that traditional apartment style complex in the pueblo where everything around in the village was community oriented, where the community shared responsibility in cleaning the village, serving the village, and maintaining the village. Now everything is about maintaining your own yard.”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

Additionally, in regard to design, the 3-story traditional structure with entry through the 3rd floor was replaced by 2-story units accessible through the ground floor. Tortalita notes the relocation of the entry to the ground floor bore no real impacts, since the era of invasion by enemy tribes or outsiders is over. Also, the removal of the storage for food on the ground floor bore no real impacts, since refrigerators provide a modern way to store food.

NAHASDA Tortalita believes NAHASDA is overall better than the 1937 Housing Act program. However, Tortalita inserts there is still a mismatch of culture and values embedded within some NAHASDA’s programs. For instance, the Section 184 Home Loan program still operates under the western notion of a house being a commodity to be bought and sold. When Tortalita commissioned a community gathering in 2014 to gather input on what type of housing the TDHE should pursue. There was a general consciousness of displeasure in the notion of selling a home: “The 184 program forces tribal members to put a dollar value on their home instead of a sentimental value of their home. For us the home is where we derive our culture from and pass it on to future generations. For you [HUD] to tell us if you want a bigger home, to sell our home [and take out another loan] is like you telling us to sell our children. You don’t sell your children, you don’t sell you family, you don’t sell your heart. So, what do you mean now we can sell our homes to get a bigger home?”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

Nonetheless, Tortalita appreciates tribes having more say in what gets built and doesn’t through NAHASDA. However, he notes the decrease in NAHASDA IHBG over the years from $1.5 million to $1 million USD, increasingly makes completing a project in its entirety more difficult.

TDHE INNOVATION: MAXIMIZING LIHTC DEVELOPMENT The first serious talks of LIHTC development came about in 2014, following a community meeting. At the meeting tribal members expressed interest in developing rental properties for small young families. In January of 2016, the Pueblo of Acoma TDHE submitted their first LIHTC application and was allocated $7,215,076 of investor equity, equating to 94% of the total project cost of $7,599,653. The Cedar Hills Development, the first LIHTC project, added a total of 30 units, 16 2-bdrm and 14 3-bdrm, with 20 units allocated for households

53

up to 50% AMI, 3 units up to 30% AMI, and 7 units allocated for 60% AMI. Keeping true to Acoma tradition of fostering community through shared space, the project features additional amenities such as a playground, basketball court, and walking path. In terms of design, the units are 1 to 2-stories, with each unit opening up to a courtyard, and the building facade is covered in textured stucco to resemble natural stone and dirt used in the original Pueblo dwellings. In January of 2019, Tortalita submitted a 2nd LIHTC project and is awaiting approval from the New Mexico Mortgage Family Finance Authority.

For the Pueblo of Acoma, LIHTC offers opportunities to provide young families a starter home to grow their credit history. Despite the overall general acceptance of LIHTC development within the tribe. Tortalita puts forth LIHTC poses two challenges for the tribe at large. First while the majority of the tribe is composed of moderate to low income earners. The highincome earners seeking new LIHTC units to own are not able to qualify for HUD’s 30-60% AMI limits. As a result, high income earners, who didn’t inherit a property from their mother, often move off the tribal land and find a larger house to settle in Albuquerque, NM. Secondly, originally 1937 Housing Act units maintained no household should pay more than 30% of their income to obtain a unit. Given LIHTC rent level abides by HUD’s AMI, tribal members are now finding themselves paying more than 30% of their monthly income to rent a LIHTC unit.

Although Tortalita would like to ensure no Acoma member would have to pay more than 30% of their monthly income. He must also make sure rent levels balance out enough to make a LIHTC project feasible.

Figure 12. Cedar Hills Apartments and community space (2018)

(Source: Chelsea Donoho. (2018). Pueblo of Acoma)

54

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS The following figures and key findings derive from case studies and interviews with Housing Directors of Pueblo TDHEs. Supplementary interviews from Indian architects/urban design consultants, Indian law lawyers, and a tribal bank CEO, non-Indian Santa Fe planners also help inform findings. Interviews from Pueblo TDHE - Housing Directors in addition to supplementary interviews allow for a holistic understanding of the challenges Pueblo tribes face conforming to the rules and regulations the Department of Housing and Urban Development has laid out.

From the case studies and supplementary interviews, I concluded five themes that speak to the challenges in housing development for Pueblo tribes: (1) HUD’s cultural misunderstanding of Pueblo tribes living arrangements, (2) leveraging funds to complete projects, (3) adapting to competitive housing programs, (4) access to credit, (5) internal management dilemma.

I. LEVERAGING FUNDS TO COMPLETE PROJECTS IS CHALLENGING Interviewed housing directors unanimously cited their biggest present challenge stemming from Indian housing policies, such as NAHASDA, leveraging enough funds together to complete a project. When questioned about the financial challenges of NAHASDA, Ohkay Owingeh TDHEs’ housing director - Tomasita Duran stated: “NAHASDA was a step in the right direction for tribes, however it still can be improved. On one hand it enables tribes to develop housing types they want, but there is never enough money to complete a project [with NAHASDA funds] alone. On another end, it also forced tribes to learn how to leverage money which is needed in Indian Country.”

- Tomasita Duran (Ohkay Owingeh TDHE)

Francisco Simbana, housing director of the Santa Clara Pueblo TDHE, echo a similar sentiment of the difficulties of leveraging funds: “NAHASDA [IHBG] is not enough to build new homes or maintain old homes that people weren’t prepared to maintain in the first place when HUD initially built them...the formula used to determine funds is poor and inadequate. Large tribes like the Navajo Nation get upwards of 18-22 million a year, while smaller ones like Santa Clara get less than 750k.”

Francisco Simbana (Santa Clara TDHE)

Prior to the passage of NAHASDA in 1997, HUD’s 1937 Housing Act program completely funded housing units in their entirety. Although all interviewed Pueblo TDHE housing directors agreed NAHASDA was a step in the right direction towards self-determination in Indian housing policy. They find NAHASDA’s IHBG financially restricting and increasingly difficult to utilize to fund new construction in addition to repairing 1937 housing units under the TDHEs authority. While experienced housing directors such as Tomasita Duran of the Ohkay Owingeh tribe and Andrew Martinez & Christina Brass of the Nambe tribe are finding

55

success in leveraging IHBG funds with other Indian housing programs. They all expressed the extraordinary struggles and years of trial and error they went through early on to get to this point.

Nonetheless they all interviewed Pueblo TDHE housing directors still agree with each additional year that passes, leveraging IHBG funding grows increasingly more difficult. HUD’s reluctance to increase IHBG funds, despite rising inflation, and the conveyance of remaining 1937 housing units which decreases a tribe’s IHBG allocation. As a result, Pueblo TDHE must allocate more time to submit applications to competitive grants or opt to pursue LIHTC development. However, neither competitive grants or LIHTC is guaranteed and both options are difficult to obtain for inexperienced housing directors.

NAHASDA IHBG Funding Analysis: Since the first allotment of non-competitive IHBG funds to TDHEs in 1998 of $592 million USD, the median disbursement for IHBG going up for 2020 has been $641,406,705 USD. According to construction analyst Ed Zarenski, total construction inflation (including both resident and non-residential) on average has been growing at a rate of 4.2% since 1993.93 While the US average annual inflation rate has been growing at a rate of 2.02% since 1998.94 If we were to use RS Means, the construction industry leading standard for approximating construction cost of buildings. RS Means construction cost historical cost indexes enables one to approximate the construction cost of a building in one year to in another year based on construction inflation rates, building material cost, and contractor and subcontractor fees.95 We can use RS Means historical cost index to approximate NAHASDA’s IHBG initial allotment in 1998 and median allotment figure into 2020 figures, assuming we keep both figures constant over the years.

Minimum IHBG-2020 Estimation: Using RS Means historical cost index - If we were to assume the non-competitive IHBG were to be used entirely for construction cost and use $592 million USD as the base cost to convert to 2020 cost, we get the following below: Variables: 1998 Index: 115.1, 2020 Index: 239.1, 1998 Construction Price: $592M

93 94 95

Zarenski, Ed. (2020). Construction Inflation 2020. Retrieved from https://edzarenski.com/ OECD. (2020). Inflation (CPI). Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/price/inflation-cpi.htm 2020 Building Construction Cost with RS Means Data. (2020) (78th ed.). Gordian.

56

Median IHBG-2020 Estimation: If IHBG were to adjust according to RS Means historical cost index from 1998 to 2020 using $641,406,705, the median funding allocation from 1998-2020, as the starting base in 1998, we will get the following.

Variables: 1998 Index: 115.1, 2020 Index: 239.1, 1998-2020 (Median) Construction Price: $641,406,705

Based on the RS Means construction cost indexes of the 1998 allotment of $592 million and the median $641 million derived from the past allotment figures of the past 22 years. If either figure were to remain the standard allocation standard and adjust annually to inflation, construction cost, and contractor fees. For 2020 HUD would need to allocate approximately $1.2 billion USD at minimum or $1.3 billion USD to be constant with the median. According to these figures this indicates NAHASDA-IHBG is approximately half the amount it should be.

The lack of funding to support IHBG further reaffirms scholar Virginia Davis’ argument that historically Indian housing programs have always been vastly underfunded. Similar to Virginia Davis, Pueblo TDHE housing directors stated IHBG’s lack of funding heavily impacts their ability to produce adequate housing for tribal members. The last NAHASDA - IHBG allotment for 2020 was $655,449,938 USD, even with the additional $200 million competitive-IHBG offered to TDHEs in 2019. NAHASDA’s IHBG are still unfunded at a minimum of $400 million USD. Also, it is important to note, 52 of the 574 or less than 9% of the federally recognized Indian tribes were allocated funds from the competitive IHBG.

II. CULTURAL MISALIGNMENT & MISUNDERSTANDING - FINANCING PAST MISTAKES Interviews with Pueblo TDHE - housing directors exposed HUD’s Indian housing policies misunderstanding of Puebloan customs and traditions posed not only a cultural challenge for Pueblo tribes but an ongoing finance challenge as well. Traditional Pueblo dwellings were composed of attached multi-generational housing that were spatially clustered around a village plaza(s). However, upon HUD’s arrival to Pueblo County, HUD used a one size fits all approach and developed detached single family units. Pueblo TDHE housing director and construction manager describe the introduction of the 1937 Housing Act units in their tribes.

“HUD believed a home was made up of a mom and dad, 2.4 kids, and a dog. HUD saw our multi-generational housing as overcrowded since we had three family cells in the home. Here [Pueblo of Acoma] we were never one family per unit”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

57

“The [1937 Housing Act] homes looked like a copied and pasted American suburban home, they don’t look like a Santo Domingo home” - Kevin Esquibel (Santo Domingo TDHE)

The arrival of HUD in the late 1960s helped spur an end to multi-generational housing and gave way to the adoption of detached single-family housing in Pueblo Country. The detached single-family houses built by HUD are commonly referred to as “scattered sites” by housing directors, due in part because they tend to be spatially dispersed throughout the land and away from the village plazas. Although HUD is no longer building 1937 Housing Act Units, these units still present major challenges for Pueblo TDHEs today. The dispersed geographic arrangements of the detached single-family units around the tribal land drives up infrastructure cost according to interviewed housing directors. As a result, TDHEs must allocate additional funds to build roads, sewer systems, and power lines across the tribal land to connect scattered sites and new development to a primary source. Secondly, as HUD built scattered homes throughout tribal land, tribal members neglected their traditional pueblo dwellings to resettle in new 1937 Housing Act units. Tomasita Duran, housing director of Ohkay Owingeh TDHE, notes that as families relocated to new housing units, they increasingly spent more time away from their traditional pueblo dwellings. As a result, pueblo dwellings began to rapidly deteriorate due to negligence and abandonment. Even more so, the introduction of 1937 Housing Act units brought in new building materials and housing typologies that Pueblo tribes were not accustomed to at the time. Initial limited knowledge on the maintenance and upkeep of the new units which led to dilapidation of HUD units as well.

Last but not least, the introduction of 1937 Housing Act units inadvertently heavily impacted the inheritance custom surrounding housing in Pueblo tribes and clans. In the case of the Ohkay Owingeh who is heavily invested in restoring traditional pueblo houses. Duran noted that one of her initial early challenges she faced was trying to figure out inheritance titles of the original pueblo dwellings, which were not properly recorded by either HUD or the tribe and/or clan. As a result, Duran spent months resolving a complicated web of pueblo dwelling inheritance claims who now reside in 1937 HUD housing units. Similarly, Floyd Tortalita, housing director of Pueblo of Acoma, has expressed internal family disputes of original dwelling ownership has stalled rehabilitation efforts.

While HUD believed at the time the development of 1937 Homes Act single family detached homes were the right thing to do for Pueblo tribes. HUD’s efforts to push Pueblo tribes to assimilate to nuclear single-family detached homes has inadvertently created a new host of financial and cultural challenges for Pueblo TDHEs. Lastly HUD’s coercing of Pueblo tribes to adopt detached single-family typologies follows the Wilkinson and Biggs’s theory of Indian housing policing tending to push tribes to assimilate.

58

III. ADAPTING TO COMPETITIVE HOUSING PROGRAMS Leverage limited non-competitive IHBG is an ongoing challenge for Pueblo TDHEs. Competitive housing programs such as LIHTC offer some TDHEs a way to leverage funds while for others it proves to be too complicated and costly to pursue. Since 2001, three years after the first allotment of IHBG funds to TDHEs. New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority awarded 133 projects with LIHTC funding; less than 9 projects or 6.8% of the awarded projects have been developed by a Pueblo TDHE.96 Even for interviewed TDHEs housing directors that have successfully won LIHTC funding, such as Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo and the Pueblos of Acoma. Both housing directors, who have been in position for over 16-20+ years, have expressed the extreme learning curve it took to acquire LIHTC funding. Moreover, other TDHEs from the Pueblo of Nambe and Pueblo of Santa Clara, opted to forgo LIHTC funding. Both TDHEs expressed the difficulty in trying to find appropriate tenants in their tribe, who can afford to pay HUD’s regulated AMI rent levels.

Even more specifically, finding tribal members that can afford rent levels that will make a project financially feasible to build and competitive enough to earn enough points from New Mexico’s MFA project evaluation. Christina Brass, co-director of the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE, in regard to LIHTC development expressed: “At one point we applied [LIHTC application] and wasn’t successful. Our tribe is too small and getting the right people to fill units would be a disaster....looking back we’re lucky we didn’t win [LIHTC] because now we have a much more effective approach that works better for us where we don’t have to manage properties and carry the [operation maintenance] cost.”

– Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

While LIHTC has proved useful to some tribes such as the Pueblo of Acoma, where they were able to cover over 95% of their project cost through LIHTC. For several Pueblo TDHE, finding the right tenants and requiring them to pay more money for rent is difficult, because they are accustomed to paying no more than 30% of their adjusted monthly income. Even more so, attracting tenants who can afford to pay higher 70-79% AMI rental levels is hard to obtain, who might opt to construct a new house on tribal land or buy property off tribal land.

IV. ACCESS TO CREDIT Access to capital and mortgage loans has been a serious issue plaguing Indian Country for decades. Internal BIA assessment reports going back to the 1960s, document numerous reported cases being denied mortgage loans for the Indian Relocation Act of 1956.97 Similar to the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, following the passage of NAHASDA in 1996 and the creation of TDHEs. Tribal members and TDHEs experienced difficulties obtaining loans from banks, who were reluctant to finance housing projects due in part to not being able to repossess tribal/trust land as collateral and lack of understanding of Indian law. To encourage financial institutions to loan to tribal members, HUD developed the Section 184 96 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (2020). 2001 - 2019 LIHTC Awards. Retrieved from http://www.housingnm. org/assets/content/pub2001-2019_Awards.pdf 97 Ibid. Ferrell, J. Susan. (1995)

59

Indian Home Loan program. The 184 program targets first time home buyers and guarantees lenders 95% of their initial investment if a borrower were to default on their loan.

While on paper HUD’s 184 program provides a viable option for tribal members to access loans to purchase and/or build homes. 7/7 Pueblo TDHE housing directors and staff proclaimed HUD’s 184 program is “very limited” and not really effective or utilized by tribal members for several reasons. First, banks’ metrics of credit worthiness is exclusive and not obtainable for most tribal members. Monthly payments are too high for the majority of tribal members to take on. Last but not least, according to housing directors the 184 program is not well known amongst tribal members, and so applications for the 184 program have been generally low. Upon further analysis, according to studies nationally more than 90% of 184 program approved applications occur off tribal land and more than 46% of on tribal land applicants are denied.98 One interesting finding corroborated from all interviewed housing directors, was HUD never reported tribal member payments for 1937 housing units to the US Credit Bureau nor kept any records of payment histories that could be submitted to the US Credit Bureau. This is important to note because many tribal members are rejected from mortgage loans because they do not have an established credit history. Christina Brass, co-director of the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE expressed in regard to the constant rejection of her tribal members with no credit history from the 184 program: “What bankers and backers of the 184 program do not understand is that we are working with low to moderate income people. Any monthly payment over 400 dollars would devastate someone here…early on a lot of [Nambe] people were discouraged trying to get a 184 approval, and we [Nambe TDHE] were losing too many people to the fact they couldn’t get a bank loan.”

- Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

Floyd Tortalita, executive director of the Pueblo of Acoma TDHE expressed a similar issue accessing credit on tribal land.: “Prior to NAHASDA many of us who could afford mortgages weren’t able to get loan approvals to build new housing on reservations, so they ended up moving because very few of us had $250,000 laying around in the bank to build ground up.Then there was an issue with HUD not reporting housing [1937 Housing Act units] payments to the bureau so people had no credit history.”

- Floyd Tortalita (Acoma TDHE)

Despites HUD’s best efforts to provide tribal members access to credit through the Section 184 Home Loan program. Pueblo TDHE housing directors are still reporting tribal members are routinely being denied mortgages from private lenders. As a result, Pueblo TDHEs must find creative ways to provide access to credit to their tribal members through competitive grants.

98 Housing Assistance Council. (2018). Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Mortgage Finance in Indian Country. Washington DC.

60

V. LACK OF INTERNAL SUPPORT Beyond direct challenges imposed by HUD’s Indian housing policies and programs. A surprise finding derived from interviews with Pueblo TDHE housing directors, was the importance of having internal support from the tribal council. A good relationship and trust from the tribal council can play a significant role in a TDHEs success in housing development. Although tribes have greater self-determination in housing development through NAHASDA. Pueblo TDHEs abide by their tribes’ rules and regulations, in which they must get final approval on projects from internal tribal governing agencies. The typical chain of management of authority housing development authority is as follows: Housing Entity → Executive Director → Board of Directors (or Commissioners) → Tribal Council Before any project breaks ground, TDHE’s plans must also be approved by an internal tribal board of directors which usually consist on average 4-7 people. The board of directors are the legislative and policy making board, who have authority in managing the performance and operations of the housing authority and retain accountability to tribal members and the tribal council. After a plan is approved by the board of directors, the tribal council which can consist on average between 8-10 people, has ultimate say if a project is a go or not. The tribal council generally serves as the legislative authority of a tribe. That being said, it is important directors have a good working relationship with both the board of directors and tribal council, otherwise projects could be stalled or derailed. Pueblo of Nambe’s co-housing director, Christina Brass, described her early experience working as housing director: “NASHADA is really big on networking and that was a learning curve we [Nambe TDHE] had to learn. One thing I had to deal with before Martinez got here was handling 3 toxic board members who were anti-housing and anti-building.

– Christina Brass (Nambe TDHE)

Andrew Martinez current acting executive director of the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE, affirmed Brass’s statement and added: “.... What Tina had to deal with was ridiculous, those toxic board members who are now removed now, had her doing pointless time-consuming tasks and micro-managing her.”

– Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

Tomasita Duran, housing director of the Ohkay Owingeh, also reaffirmed Brass and Martinez’s experience dealing with toxic board members. Duran also added just how significantly harder it is being a woman housing director and trying to develop trust with her tribal council, who routinely second guesses her plans. According to Duran, till this day even after serving over 22 years as director, she still has issues earning the tribal councils respect despite her success and follow through on projects.

61

VI. DIRECTOR’S LIFE: HIGH TURNOVER & INEXPERIENCE Another surprising finding from interviews with housing directors, was the frequency of high turnovers of housing directors. Not having a consistent housing director can significantly impact a TDHEs’ efficiency in developing and providing housing units for tribal members.

The overall nature of tribal housing development is challenging from leveraging funds, coordinating with contractors, analyzing policies, and managing internal relationships with the board of directors and tribal council, and outreaching to tribal members. According to Martinez of the Pueblo of Nambe TDHE, in conversation with HUD consultant representative was told: “The life of an executive [director] is about 2 years. It is hard to come by directors who have stayed past 2 years.”

– Andrew Martinez (Nambe TDHE)

Furthermore, during my outreach process to Pueblo TDHEs. 6/16 Pueblo TDHEs who declined to be interviewed had within the past month just recently hired or are in the midst of searching for a new housing director to fill a vacancy, as of February 2020. The rapid turnover of housing directors produces a knowledge gap with a TDHE that is incredibly difficult to fulfill in tribal housing development. Housing directors such as Tomasita Duran, who has held her position since passage of NAHASDA and first allocation of IHBG in 1998, is extraordinarily rare and a testament to her impact and endurance to handle immense pressure.

62

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings and analysis above, the following recommendations proposed for (1) The Department of Housing & Urban Development and (2) Pueblo TDHE in New Mexico.

The Department of Housing & Urban Development Recommendations:

I. STRENGTHEN NAHASDA NON-COMPETITIVE BLOCK GRANT FUNDING The funding capacity for NAHASDA non-competitive block grants must be strengthened and take into consideration the rise in construction cost and inflation rate today. Without proper funding support, TDHEs are not able to provide adequate housing support to tribal members.

Although in 2019, HUD has attempted to offer competitive-IHBG funding as a means for TDHEs to acquire upwards at max $5 million USD. The competitive-IHBG allocation cycle is sporadic and applying is a time-consuming process in itself. Thus far less than 9% of 574 tribes have been awarded funds. In lieu of uplifting the competitive-IHBG; I propose HUD allocates at minimum $1,229,775,847 to noncompetitive IHBG funds for 2021 and makes a valid effort to adjust funds annually to keep pace with construction material cost and inflation.

II. ELIMINATE MAXIMUM RENT LEVELS CAPS FOR IHBG PROJECTS Pueblo TDHEs are developed to primarily serve low income households on tribal land.

According to HUD guidelines, any IHBG funded project has a rent cap of 30% of a household’s income and households who fall under the national or county 80% AMI are eligible for IHBG projects. The only expectation to this rule is if a TDHE provides housing to a higher income essential worker, such as a police officer or firefighter, in which they must get approved by HUD. I propose HUD seeks to offer tribes and TDHEs more self-determination in providing housing services to middle/high income tribal households who currently are not eligible for IHBG units. By permitting TDHEs to allocate at least 30% of IHBG funds to provide housing to middle/higher income households. TDHEs will be able to develop housing for households who might opt to relocate off tribal land to find built housing in surrounding cities in lieu of building new on tribal land. Lastly servicing middle/higher income households will enable TDHEs to generate more revenue collected through rent or mortgage payments that can be saved or utilized for maintenance or infrastructure development projects.

III. MAKE ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO TDHE Create an online database featuring tribal housing development categorized by sections such as cultural development, in-house financing, LIHTC, building construction by type, cost, and more, that TDHEs can access online. For featured innovative projects, I propose financially compensating respected TDHE staff to travel and present their work to other tribes and/ 63

or at conferences. Creating an online platform of innovative approaches to tribal housing development, will give TDHEs around the nation exposure to new approaches to housing development they can potentially reference in their projects.

Lastly, I propose HUD provide upon either in person or online training of tips and strategies of housing development for tribal councils and boards. These in person and/or online training will help educate tribal boards of directors and councils of housing development methods and challenges that will better enable them to work efficiently with TDHEs. Providing tribal boards and tribal councils workshops on housing development can potentially help bridge the disconnect between TDHEs and internal tribal governing agencies.

IV. WAIVE DAVIS-BACON FEES To better encourage more Pueblo TDHEs to pursue LIHTC. I propose HUD removing the Davis-Bacon wages requirement for Indian tribes pursuing federal funds via LIHTC. Cutting construction cost for tribes will better allow them to budget projects and make more projects feasible at a lower cost. Removal of Davis-Bacon construction wages has the potential to reduce construction cost anywhere between 10 - 26%.99 The savings in construction cost will better enable tribes to develop more units at a lower cost.

Pueblo of Tribally Designated Housing Entity Recommendations:

I. IN-HOUSE OR MULTI-TRIBAL COLLABORATIVE CONSTRUCTION TEAM I recommend Pueblo TDHEs seek to develop an in-house construction workforce team.

This will help TDHEs mitigate rising cost of construction as well as provide employment opportunities for tribal members. For smaller TDHEs, I recommend partnering with surrounding Pueblo TDHEs and leverage funds together to develop a multi-tribal construction workforce.

II. SELF-REPORT RENT PAYMENT TO CREDIT BUREAU To help tribal members establish credit histories, I recommend TDHEs explore credit reporting services. I recommend selecting a credit reporting service that can be shared with tribal members, who are interested in reporting their rent or mortgage payment histories.

Reporting rent and mortgage payments to the Credit Bureau can help raise tribal members’ credit scores. A strong credit score provides tribal members more access to financial resources which further helps acquire a new home or repair an existing home.

99

Dunn, Sarah., Quigley, John., & Rosenthal, Larry. (2005). The Effects of Prevailing Wage Requirements on the Cost of

Low-Income Housing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(1), 141-157. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25063019

64

III. UTILIZE THE HEARTH ACT The HEARTH Act provides tribes the ability to lease tribal land for public, religious, educational, recreational, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases without the approval of the Secretary of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. This selfdetermination rooted policy offers tribes the opportunity to accelerate economic development and generate revenue that can be captured through lease agreements. Through the HEARTH Act, tribes can potentially create construction regulations standards that explicitly waive all Davis-Bacon wage fees on all project types. Waiving Davis-Bacon wages can help a tribe save upwards of 10-26% on construction cost.100 I recommend tribes immediately begin the procedures to apply for approval from the BIA to utilize the HEARTH Act.

IV. ESTABLISH STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES The challenges faced by TDHEs are unique and vary by tribe. The high expectations of TDHEs to execute and perform in a historically anti-Indian field and with increasingly limited funds can be overwhelming. To help ameliorate some of these complex challenges, I recommend Pueblo TDHEs consider partnering with universities. Universities or research institutions can potentially provide TDHEs additional skilled researchers/labor to help address complex issues as well as connect TDHEs to other additional resources.

V. MULTI-TRIBAL PUEBLO BANK Despite HUD’s efforts through the Section 184 Home Loan program, that incentivizes private lenders to provide tribal members mortgages. Pueblo TDHE housing directors and national studies are showing many tribal members are routinely denied housing loans. As a result, Pueblo TDHEs find alternative solutions to provide tribal members access to capital and loans through funds acquired from grants. To better collectively assist all Pueblo tribes in the region, I propose within the next 8-10 years all 19 Pueblo tribes seek to establish a Puebloan tribal bank. Furthermore, I recommend the all 19 Pueblo tribes take cue from Pinnacle Bank, located in Iowa and owned by Sac and Fox tribe of the Mississippi, and opt to purchase a local small bank if possible, in lieu of starting from scratch. According to David Burnell, CEO/ Chairman of Pinnacle Bank, starting a new bank would require between 15-20 million in equity upfront.101 Moreover, a Puebloan owned tribal bank could potentially provide several benefits to all Pueblo tribes and tribal members. For instance, a Puebloan owned tribal bank can work exclusively with tribal members on Section 184 Home Loan approval and help more develop housing on tribal land. Secondly, smaller tribal governments can invest at minimum between $300-$400K in investment portfolios, which is typically denied for being too small of an investment in non-Indian banks. Last, tribes can create a trust account similar to an IRA for tribal members at youth and disperse trust funds to members upon reaching a set age. A trust can further help tribal members acquire a house or repair inherited property on tribal land once they come of age.

100 101

Ibid. Dunn, Sarah., Quigley, John., & Rosenthal, Larry. (2005).

Burnell, David. (2020, March 16). Pinnacle Bank Interview [Phone].

65

CONCLUSION The housing development challenges Pueblo TDHEs face today resulting from lack of federal government financial support, assimilation driven policies, lack of access to capital are not entirely new. Many of the challenges Pueblo TDHEs face today stem from the implications of centuries of Anti-Indian housing policies, designed to dispossess Indian land and control Indian Country. Although HUD’s passage of NAHASDA in 1996, signaled a new era of selfdetermination in Indian housing that seeks to give tribes the power to develop tribal housing that best suits their needs. NAHASDA’s IHBG funding is significantly underfunded and is gradually becoming weaker each passing year as inflation and cost of construction all while IHBG funding remains stagnant.

This report recommends a set of actions to be taken both by HUD and Pueblo TDHEs in effort to resolve housing development challenges for TDHEs and better enable tribal members access mortgages. The implementation of these recommendations can potentially provide more funding to TDHEs to complete projects and ultimately enable tribes to become more self-reliant and establish their own financial institution(s) to administer mortgages to tribal members.

My goal of this research is to holistically understand and shed light on the unique challenges contemporary federal Indian housing policies present to Pueblo TDHEs’ ability to develop and provide housing to tribal members. To understand the present challenges, it is crucial to understand the evolution of federal Indian policy in the United States to avoid enacting the same paternalistic driven policies based on non-Indian mainstream customs. Adequate funding support is the main challenge impacting TDHEs, that can be resolved by the federal government who owes a trust responsibility to Indian tribes. If the federal seeks to continue championing self-determination driven Indian housing policies, it is vital the federal government provides adequate funding to make Indian housing programs effective.

66

REFERENCES 2020 Building Construction Cost with RS Means Data. (2020) (78th ed.). Gordian.

Alfred A. Cave (2003) Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830, The Historian, 65:6, 1330-1353, DOI: 10.1111/j.0018-2370.2003.00055.x Blake, Kevin., & Smith, Jeffrey. (2000). Pueblo Mission Churches as Symbols of Permanence and Identity. Geographical Review,90(3), 359-380. doi:10.2307/3250858 Brown, Paul., & Clifton, James. (1978). Adobe. I: The Properties of Adobe. Studies in Conservation, 23(4), 139-146. doi:10.2307/1505842 Brown, Tracy. (2004). Tradition and Change in Eighteenth-Century Pueblo Indian Communities. Journal of the Southwest, 46(3), 463-500. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40170299 Burnell, David. (2020, March 16). Pinnacle Bank Interview [Phone].

Cameron, Catherine. (1999). The Construction and Use-Life of Pueblo Structures. In Hopi Dwellings: Architectural Change at Orayvi (pp. 21-34). University of Arizona Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/j.ctt1814g1s.7 Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages - FR6300-N-23. (2020). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https:// www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/CDBGforIndianTribesandAlaskaNativeVilliagesFY19FY20. pdf Davis, Virginia. (2002). Discovery of Sorts: Reexamining the Origins of the Federal Indian Housing Obligation. Harvard Blackletter Law Journal, 18, 211-240.

Dunn, Sarah., Quigley, John., & Rosenthal, Larry. (2005). The Effects of Prevailing Wage Requirements on the Cost of Low-Income Housing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(1), 141-157. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25063019 Durand, Cassandra. (2015). Native American Housing: Federal Assistance, Challenges Faced and Efforts to Address Them. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Ferrell, J. Susan. (1995). Indian Housing: The Fourth Decade. St. Thomas Law Review, 7(3), 445-460.

Grugel, Andrea. (2010). Culture, Religion and Economy in the American Southwest: Zuni Pueblo and Laguna Pueblo. GeoJournal, 77(6), 791-803. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/ stable/23325388?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents H.R.205 - HEARTH Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. Public Law 112-151 (2012).

67

Hodge, F.W. (1896). Pueblo Indian Clans. American Anthropologist,9(10), 345-352. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/658901 Housing Assistance Council. (2018). Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Mortgage Finance in Indian Country. Washington DC. Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program--Competitive Grants. (2019). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/SPM/documents/ Modified_IHBG_NOFA_7.3.19.pdf Jones, K. (2015). The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA): Background and Funding. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https:// crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43307/8 Keeler, Kasey. (2016). Putting People Where They Belong: American Indian Housing Policy in the Mid-Twentieth Century. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 3(2), 70-104. DOI:10.5749/ natiindistudj.3.2.0070 Kennth H, Bobroff. (2001). Retelling Allotment: Indian Property Rights and the Myth of Common Ownership. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(4), 1557-1624.

Koppes, Clayton. (1977). From New Deal to Termination: Liberalism and Indian Policy, 1933-1953.

Pacific Historical Review, 46(4), 543-566. doi:10.2307/3638162 Liebmann, Matthew., Ferguson, T.J., & Preucel, Robert. (2005). Pueblo Settlement, Architecture, and Social Change in the Pueblo Revolt Era, A.D. 1680 to 1696. Journal of Field Archaeology, 30(1), 45-60.

Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40025825 Lucero, Robert. (2007). State v. Romero: The Legacy of Pueblo Land Grants and the Contours of Jurisdiction in Indian Country. New Mexico Law Review, Volume 37, Issue 3 McCarthy, Robert. (2004). The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Trust Obligation to American Indians. BYU Journal of Public Law, 19(1), 1-160.

Miriam, Jorgensen, & Randall, Akee. (2017). Access to Capital and Credit in Native Communities: A Data Review. Tucson, AZ: Native Nations Institute.

Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination, Pub. L. No. 25 U.S.C. 4101 (2020).

New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (2020). 2001 - 2019 LIHTC Awards. Retrieved from http:// www.housingnm.org/assets/content/pub2001-2019_Awards.pdf New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (2020). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved from http://www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority. (n.d.). Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Retrieved 68

from http://www.housingnm.org/developers/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc#:~:text=The%20 development%20must%20be%20maintained,approximately%20%245%20to%20%246%20million.

Nichols, David. (2016). Civilization versus Commerce. In Engines of Diplomacy: Indian Trading Factories and the Negotiation of American Empire (pp. 151-172). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469626901_nichols.13 NOVOGRADAC. (2020). About the LIHTC. Retrieved from https://www.novoco.com/resource-centers/ affordable-housing-tax-credits/lihtc-basics/about-lihtc OECD. (2020). Inflation (CPI). Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/price/inflation-cpi.htm Office of Native Programs. (2019). Indian Housing Block Grant - 2019 Program Guidance. US Department of Housing & Urban Development.

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST). (2020, February). [Federal]. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/ost/about_us/Statistics-and-Facts Pevar, Stephen. (2012). The Rights of Indians and Tribes. New York, NY [etc.: Oxford University Press.

SAMHSA. (2012). Homelessness among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians (Federal). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

The Special Case of Pueblos. (2006). In Britton S., Thorson J., & Colby B. (Eds.), Tribal Water Rights: Essays in Contemporary Law, Policy, and Economics (pp. 61-68). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1g0b950.1 Tiller, E. Veronica. (1994). American Indian Reservations and Trust Areas. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development Part 950 - INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS Subtitle B Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development, 25 U.S.C. 450e(b): 42 U.S.C. 1437aa1437ee and 3535 ยง (1998). Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-1998-title24-vol4/pdf/ CFR-1998-title24-vol4-part950.pdf Tourism Santa Fe. (2020). Santa Fe Indian Market (SFIM). Retrieved from https://swaia.org/ U.S. Census Information for Native Americans. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.cabq.gov/ census2020/u-s-census-information-for-native-americans U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020). Borrowers Section 184 Loan Resources. Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/ homeownership/184/borrowers UNESCO. (n.d.). Taos Pueblo [Government]. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/492/ 69

United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Challenges Facing HUD’s Indian Housing Program.

Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105/ pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-97-105.pdf US Department of Commerce. (n.d.). United States Census Bureau [US Government]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/tribal/ US Department of Housing and Urban Development. NAHASDA Final Rule - 24 CFR Part 1000 (2012). Retrieved from https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/codetalk/ nahasda#:~:text=The%20Native%20American%20Housing%20Assistance,with%20a%20block%20 grant%20program.

USAGov. (2020). History and Historical Documents. Retrieved from https://www.usa.gov/history Veracini, Lorenzo. (2011) Introducing, Settler Colonial Studies, DOI:10.1080/220147 3X.2011.10648799 Washburn, K. Kevin. (2017). What the future holds: The changing landscape of federal Indian policy.

Harvard Law Review Forum, 130(6), 200-232.

West, W. Richard. (1990). Address: From “Cherokee Nation v. Georgia” to the National Museum of the American Indian: Images of Indian Culture. American Indian Law Review, 15(2), 409-420. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20068685 Wilkinson, Charles., & Biggs, Eric. (1977). The Evolution of the Termination Policy. American Indian Law Review, 5(1), 139-184. doi:10.2307/20068014 Wilkinson, Charles., Harris, LaDonna., Unger, Steven., Peterson, Helen., & Reifel, Benjamin. (1986).

The Trust Obligation. In O’Neil F., Josephy A., & Hart E. & PHILP K. (Ed.), Indian Self Rule: First-Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan (pp. 302-310). University Press of Colorado. doi:10.2307/j.ctt46nr85.30 Wolfe, Patrick. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native, Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387-409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240 Zarenski, Ed. (2020). Construction Inflation 2020. Retrieved from https://edzarenski.com/

70

Appendix Interviews Andrew Martinez & Christina Brass - Pueblo of Nambe Brook Kristovich & Kevin Esquibel - Santo Domingo Pueblo David Burnell - Pinnacle Bank Floyd Tortalita - Pueblo of Acoma Francisco Simbana - Pueblo of Santa Clara Lauren Van Schilfgaarde - San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Legal Development Clinic Director at UCLA School of Law Marcus Lopez - Pueblo of Nambe Randall Akee - Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Policy and American Indian Studies Theodore Jojola - Indigenous Design + Planning Institute Tomasita Duran - Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo

Case Study Interview Questions Can you touch upon traditional pueblo housing within the [tribe name]?

What were traditional dwellings like in terms of design, size, material, and where were they geographically located? Are they being occupied right now, if not why?

What type of housing is usually built and how long has that kind been built? (Single family detached, complexes, mixed used) Has there been any new housing development on tribal land?

Is [TDHE name] trying to build more rental properties or homes to encourage homeownership?

How do you feel HUD has impacted housing development in the 1970s during the public housing era on tribal land? • Construction Process?

71

• • • •

Environmental Review?

Financing?

Rental Rates?

Design?

How many houses did HUD build for the 1937 Housing Act? (General size, # of bdrms, style, location on tribal land) How do you feel NAHASDA has impacted housing development on tribal land?

• Construction Process?

• Environmental Review?

• Financing?

• Rental Rates?

• Design?

Roughly speaking how much of NAHASDA block grant funding does [TDHE name] normally receive?

When did [TDHE name] start developing LIHTC projects, and why?

How many LIHTC projects does [TDHE name] currently have?

What initial challenges did you face with developing LIHTC projects, and what challenges do you face today?

How do you feel LIHTC has impacted housing development in tribal land?

• Construction Process?

• Environmental Review?

• Financing?

• Rental Rates?

• Design?

How do you think LIHTC development can be improved?

What type of housing would you like to see in [tribe name] and do you think HUD limits that possibility? (i.e. affordable, duplexes, single detached homes, etc.)

Do you believe housing HUD rental rates on tribal land is affordable? Or would you rather set your own rates for affordable housing using IHBG and/or LIHTC? Can you touch upon current housing conditions/challenges within the Pueblo of [tribe]?

How much are you able to save if any from the NAHASDA’s IHBG? How much do you allocate for maintenance of existing housing and how much for construction of new housing?

72