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 from 9 ]. 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