President Promotes Renting
Published August 18, 2009 @ 04:33PM PT
At least $8B, and possibly more than $10B, in stimulus and federal budget funds will be used to (re-)invest in affordable renting housing in the U.S. The Boston Globe describes this as an "ideological shift" away from Bush's Wild West Ownership Society; Calculated Risk points out that the Obama Administration is harnessing an existing trend: the supply of rental housing has been increasing since 2004, mostly due to conversions of ownership properties.
There's two elements to this initiative that I like: $4B to upgrade existing public housing (a drop in the bucket, but a drop, nonetheless!) and the purchase of foreclosed homes to be converted into affordable rental units.
Commenter Lori raises an interesting point over at Suburban Guerilla in response to this announcement: why aren't we pursuing more radical, less costly innovations to seriously expand the stock of affordable housing - including homeownership - in the US? Her actual statement reflects why Bush's unregulated, overzealous ownership dream went so awry: "If you want to have a nation of home owners, you have to build housing that people on the bottom can afford to buy." And is it really a good idea to leave renters at the mercy of landlords? She voices support for the re-use of shipping containers as low-cost (and roomy by my condo's standards) rent-to-own housing.
Concerning landlords, I think tenants' rights is a related but separate issue here. One thing I would emphasize is that federally rental initiatives like this will partner mostly with local non-profits and municipalities to refurbish and improve rental housing, which to me is a necessary alternative to the current private market purchasers of foreclosures who are using them as investment properties (29% of the homebuying market). From living in a neighborhood with an owner-occupancy rate of only 25%, moving the rental inventory from the hands of absentee landlords to community-based non-profits sounds like a great idea to me.
(Photo by TheTruthAbout...)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
25% NOLA Public Housing Residents Lost
-
Stimulus $$ Bypasses High-Poverty Neighborhoods
-
Tax Credits for Affordable Housing Dry Up
Comments (9)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
88 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
This is a very important shift the Obama administration had to make and given his choice for HUD secretary, almost inevitable. Bill Apgar, who is advising Donovan, has been really pushing for a rental-based housing policy for some time (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w04-11.pdf).
Something that Apgar suggests that really resonates with me and the research of my colleagues is the idea of the government securing multi-year leases of rental housing in low-poverty neighborhoods. By not building new, permanent structures and retaining the option of relocation of units, the government can help curb the trend of solidifying poverty at the neighborhood level the way we know housing projects have done so in the past. The government leasing of pre-existing buildings would not alter the community in any noticeable way, but would ensure that low-income families would not need to navigate, as you said, a market of corrupt landlords who have shown a tendency towards treating low-income voucher holders with prejudice and neglect.
At any rate, Agbar's policies are innovative and he's someone whose opinion I highly respect with this issue. I really recommend some of the things he's been writing about.
Posted by Holly Wood on 08/18/2009 @ 05:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
*Apgar (sorry!)
Posted by Holly Wood on 08/18/2009 @ 05:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A return to an investment in renting is something long overdue - IF it's being done correctly. This means that it needs to be done in a way that "come hell, highwater or NIMBY-ism" we who are poor can find a place to live and one that's appropriately maintained, appropriately built, etc. TOO not just merely existing on this plane of reality (like my current owned by a slumlord who repeatedly figures out what maintenance is by swift kick reminders from the housing authority over violations of code in a building that's had repeated issues with everything from gangs to prostitutes to drug users and dealers). Just because it has a roof, doors and plumbing doesn't mean it SHOULD qualify as "housing". I do agree that smaller projects that don't put the poor in what's effectively a "ghetto of poverty" are a much better idea if for no other reasons than they give the poor access to services like stores and good schools and they expose others to what we're really like (meaning NOT Reagan's mythological "welfare queen").
And the poster at Suburban Guerilla raised an issue that really can't be separated. A good part of how slumlords like my apartment building's own got to exist and stay in existence is the lack of effective tenants' rights since there's almost no chance that all of us will ever be housed in public housing. We who are poor NEED tenants' rights because without them, we have no justice. It's not like we can run out and hire an attorney to enforce fair housing, housing codes (like the time I went almost a month without a working stove), or anything else. As things stand, in many locations, it's like you're a mouse renting a mouse-hole from the local cat. Everybody knows that doesn't work, but there's no other choice but homelessness. If new buildings are built and better laws aren't put in place, there's nothing to protect us from swiftly devolving right back into this swamp.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 08/18/2009 @ 07:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's why I said tenants' rights are related; but for the purposes of this conversation I wanted to just get to the focus back on rental housing. Focusing on tenants' rights and fair housing enforcement is a key step.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 08/18/2009 @ 07:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm just used to so many thinking it's two completely separate issues. Like fix one and when everybody has housing that "wants" it, THEN we can "think about tenants' rights" or something along these lines. I certainly didn't mean to imply you'd said they were totally separate, more to emphasize that when you get to the lower income brackets they're more inseparable than many realize.
It's been a long day. I'm going to go check my Farmville crops and watch a DVD. Figure that's safer than doing any more posting anywhere that requires coherent, accurate communication.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 08/18/2009 @ 08:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
D - no worries! I may have been a bit frosty in my response! I hear you, believe me!
Posted by Leigh Graham on 08/19/2009 @ 05:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It probably wasn't just you. The day before and the day after a migraine, my ability to communicate isn't quite what it ought to be. Words make sense inside my head but don't come out the same.
To explain my point, here's a great local example. We've had a long ongoing argument here in Seattle about what to do about condo conversions. Many argue about "owner's rights" or "property rights" and say that a 90 or even 30 day notice should be enough. A lot of the buildings that are "converted" are moderate to low rent. Someone who's moderate to low income is going to have more trouble saving up - even long term - to move, forget 30-90 days. Supposedly there's a provision for renter's assistance, but the way it's written, you could drive a fleet of trucks through it - side by side. It's largely voluntary and doesn't have to be done until after you've moved - plus it's often only payed (get this) when someone goes after them to legally require them to pay it or at least part of it. So ultimately, you just kind of fiercely hope that your building is never one of those converted or that your landlord has a brief moment of kindness and willing provides assistance - the full assistance - BEFORE time to leave. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck with 3 choices hope relatives or friends will take you in, find a cheap motel and move in or join the ranks of the ones that statistics count as homeless.
Now admittedly, this maybe can't ALL be blamed on Seattle. It sure doesn't help that the FPL is so out of touch that many in this group are like me and paying around 50% of our income to rent so there's a greater chance of flocks of flying pigs than our saving towards moving. Doesn't help either than the amount of savings necessary TO move is enough that if the "assistance" programs ever found out we had that kind of cash, they'd want us to spend it on things like medical care and food so even if we COULD save it - we most certainly SHOULD NOT under the current rules.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 08/19/2009 @ 08:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Twenty-five or 30 years ago years back I had a landlord Evicted. I paid rent. They did not pay mortgage. The new owner was intimidating me to get out then. He refused to put heat in, the apartment in the middle of Dec.
It was easier to move, then to stick up for my rights. I was recovering from an operation. I needed heat.
Are you talking about tenants who federally have a right to remain at their location for 90 days after the bank takes over? This law is Slated to stop unless reinstated, in Dec. of 2012.
The new federal law gives the tenants 90 days to vacate. The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, PL 111-22 became effective May 20, 2009. It will expire in Dec. of 2012.
That is unless the bank resells the building and the landlord moves in to the building. Then state Due Process Laws Apply.
Sionce I discovered this newer law in the past moth or so have not had any tenants calling telling me they have to be out with the foreclosed building owner. So I want to tell as many people, including service providers about this law
Its time for a call from a tenant who is being Bullied by the Bank. Often the tenants are Current upon their rent. Before I knew about this federal law I would tell tenants of forecloses that they have the protection of their state laws. In Maine that would mean the must take procession and on the next due date of the rent give a 30 eviction notice. Not one week.
The federal law IS the law to be applied in foreclosures upon tenants. In many cases they did not cause the relaiming of the house.
I have had a landlord call me saying he got a notice he does not understand it had in it the 90 day notice of eviction for tenants. I felt good about that, bad for the guy losing his home.
I did give him generalized information That Maine has three methods of evictions. One they send out a letter saying be out by such a date. If you intimidates into moving and leave the bank owns. If not the other two involves taking the owner to court.
I only understand evictions in generalized fashion who ever heard of 3 ways to get former owners out. But I gave the same advice to the former owner as I give to tenants do not move at the first notice make them take you to court.
One home I would buy if bill gates or someone like him gave me the money is Rosemary Williams in Minn. She has is a black reverend, a 55 year old grandmother who lived on that block for decades moved back into her home reposed home to fight. The Courts put up what I would call Unconstitutional Ruling that she puts up a $49,000 "Bond" To appeal her case.
While the court might have a right to a "reasonable bond" If Rosemary has $49,000 she would have paid off her mortgage.
She will become a new rallying point of the New Civil Rights Movement going on today But Unreported by the News.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 08/19/2009 @ 08:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
See that's a great example of the absurdity of trying to get "justice" in a lower income bracket. You're right you know, if she'd had that sort of money she would have just paid the bill - which makes the "reasonable bond" totally UNreasonable.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 08/20/2009 @ 09:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.