Continent: North America

Promoting local building cultures in Haiti

0

Promoting local building cultures in Haiti

Mismatches Functional adequacy Services Vulnerable groups Demographic/Urban growth
Policies and regulations Local policies Regulation Building capacity Governance
Promotion and production Public promotion Participatory processes Innovation Cooperatives Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Rebuilding Haiti

Rebuilding a country that has been devastated by natural disaster is a huge job. Rebuilding it in a way that reduces future risk to human life and dependency on external aid is an even bigger one. This is the task the organisation CRAterre set itself following the catastrophic earthquake that hit Haiti in January 2010.

The magnitude-7 tremor and subsequent aftershocks killed hundreds of thousands of people, left millions homeless and destroyed much of Haiti’s infrastructure. CRAterre – which leads global research, training and action in the field of earthen architecture – was enlisted to lend its technical expertise to multiple international and local organisations involved in the post-disaster rebuild.

The lack of national building standards and poor construction methods needed to be addressed urgently to cope with future natural disasters. CRAterre recognised this need for a more unified approach and favoured improving existing local construction techniques over the standardised industrial methods typically employed in post-disaster rebuilds.

By studying and then adapting local building practices, training Haitian construction professionals and distributing educational materials, CRAterre promoted safer, more effective and locally sustainable building techniques.

When Hurricane Matthew hit in 2016, thousands of homes and dozens of public buildings constructed using these practices suffered less damage than other buildings, demonstrating how CRAterre’s methodologies can improve resilience and response to natural disasters and ultimately save lives.

Date

  • 2013:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: Haiti, Port-au-Prince

Description

In January 2010, a devastating earthquake shook the Caribbean nation of Haiti to its core. The disaster and subsequent aftershocks killed an estimated 250,000 people, injuring 300,000 and displacing 1.5 million people, whose homes collapsed. Much of the country’s infrastructure was also destroyed as the magnitude-7 tremor reduced schools, hospitals, government buildings and roads to rubble. The country was left in crisis, its people living in makeshift accommodation, vulnerable to food shortages, poverty and rapidly spreading disease.

International humanitarian organisations responded en masse to help with the enormous relief effort. CRAterre – an organisation leading international research, training and action in the field of earthen architecture – already had a presence in the country and was asked to provide technical assistance to multiple local and international organisations involved in the post-disaster response and rebuild.

Rethinking construction

Prior to the earthquake, no building codes were enforced in Haiti. Many of the country’s structures were poorly built and simply disintegrated when disaster struck, leaving a massive death toll in their wake. The fragmented response efforts of numerous aid agencies and difficult terrain meant the rebuild process was particularly challenging.

Against this backdrop, CRAterre recognised the need for an alternative approach to the standardised industrial building techniques usually employed by international aid agencies involved in post-disaster response. Rebuilds are typically a very top-down process, where big aid organisations come in and build houses with a standard approach, all too often ignoring local traditions and techniques, and creating a secondary ‘aid’ economy, which excludes local workers.

CRAterre used its research to promote a more unified approach that took into account the hugely varying physical, social, environmental, economic, cultural and governance factors across the country. It believed that by promoting improved local building techniques – known as Techniques de Construction Locales Améliorées, or TCLA – the country could become more resilient to natural disasters and improve its response when they occurred. The organisation was directly involved with 25 contracts for technical assistance and training and was asked to collaborate on numerous other projects, giving it scope to influence a wide range of organisations.

CRAterre’s focus was mainly on rural areas across Haiti, where resources and needs differ greatly according to the availability of materials, transport, facilities and climate. The hugely varied geography of Haiti also affects the approach to building foundations and the supply of water and sanitation. CRAterre’s team of experts began by evaluating traditional local building techniques, which vary widely, then refined them using the findings of their scientific research and local observations. Haitian builders were therefore able to apply their existing knowledge with improved techniques, resulting in safer buildings that they could construct themselves.

While most organisations became convinced of the benefit CRAterre’s TCLA approach, some resisted dialogue about these methods. In some areas NGOs continued to propose building larger houses with reinforced concrete and concrete blocks, rather than using local building techniques.

Environmental and social impact

The environmental impact of the rebuild was a key factor in CRAterre’s work. Materials used in the building process – mainly earth and stone – are low energy and only a small amount of cement was used where necessary. Timber was imported when not locally available or abundant enough for sustainable use. In mountainous areas 95 per cent of materials were extracted locally, reducing transport and greenhouse gas emissions.

Throughout the process, care was taken to preserve the traditional mutual support culture in Haiti known as ‘Kombit’ to encourage community resilience and avoid future dependency on external aid. CRAterre’s participatory approach also paid special attention to the inclusion of women. By embracing and building on local knowledge, the organisation was able to strengthen social ties and support local people to make informed choices.

It is estimated that the total cost of the work CRAterre was involved in is around USD$19.8 million, however, because it linked to multiple projects with many partners that were funded from a variety of sources, a ‘traditional’ budget is hard to obtain. The results of its work, however, can be seen on the ground. Technical support provided by CRAterre enabled the construction of 1,150 new buildings and the repair of 500 following the 2010 earthquake. Twenty-five community and public buildings were delivered with support from the organisation and 850 local building professionals were trained in addition to staff in 15 international organisations. The reconstruction and repair projects were carried out in communities where people could not afford to rebuild themselves.

CRAterre also developed teaching materials, which were made available to vocational schools, and wider adoption of building techniques promoted by the organisation by self-builders and wealthy individuals has led to the repair or rebuild of around 6,000 homes since 2010. The team also helped develop and shape advocacy campaigns, carried out educational activities and supported professional networks across Haiti.

By providing technical assistance to a spectrum of different organisations involved in the rebuild, CRAterre was able to achieve some much-needed continuity in rebuilding methods with far-reaching results. Local building techniques have been widely accepted and adopted throughout Haiti, including by government departments. In 2012 the Ministry of Public Works Transport and Communications certified a system for building timber frame houses, which was promoted by CRAterre.

The effectiveness of CRAterre’s approach was put to the test when Hurricane Matthew hit Haiti in 2016. Homes rebuilt using TCLA methods suffered significantly less damage than others, leading to wider adoption of the techniques by UCLBP, the government body responsible for national housing policy. Following the hurricane, a further 800 households were supported by CRAterre to repair their homes.

The future

Since 2010 Haiti’s recovery has been compounded by further hurricanes, storms, drought, disease, and political, economic and social disruption. The country’s recovery and efforts to rebuild continue under intense scrutiny.

While no further funding is in place to extend CRAterre’s TCLA project in its current form, the concept has been adopted by UCLBP, the Global Shelter Cluster (a global platform coordinating post-disaster response) and other humanitarian organisations working in Haiti. Its influence is also being felt at policy level and it has submitted documents to the Ministry of Public Works Transport and Communications to establish national construction standards across a range of building types.

CRAterre is still working in Haiti, collaborating with government authorities, universities and vocational centres and providing technical support, training and expertise to projects led by its partner organisations. Recognition and adoption of TCLA is expected to increase across Haiti and CRAterre continues in its quest to promote the TCLA approach at a global level.

View the full project summary here – available in English only

Authors:

Fundació Mies van der Rohe Barcelona
World Habitat

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake

0

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake

Policies and regulations Local policies Governance Participatory processes
Urban Design Services and infrastructure Equity Regulación Técnica Procesos Administrativos
Promotion and production Participatory processes Progressive housing Transformation and adaptation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake offers permanent year-round housing to agricultural workers in the state of California, USA. Based in the city of Woodland, Yolo County, it is also the first 100 per cent Zero Net Energy ready rental housing development in the country. Spring Lake was designed to support agricultural workers to enjoy the benefits of ‘green living’, often only available to high-income homeowners. As the homes use around the same amount of energy as they produce, utility bills for residents are extremely low.

The estimated 6,000+ agricultural workers in the county have traditionally had to put up with some of the worst housing conditions and most dangerous jobs in the country. Seasonal employment means accommodation is usually only available at government-funded migrant centres during the farming season. Living in appalling conditions in privately rented housing is often the only other alternative for workers.

Mutual Housing’s work with residents goes well beyond providing energy efficient homes. Through a range of opportunities including leadership development schemes, peer lending circles and digital literacy classes, residents gain skills and confidence. For many this has opened up new opportunities in education and community life. New leaders have emerged from the community who now work to advocate for the rights of agricultural workers.

Date

  • 2017:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America

Description

Project Description

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake is based in the city of Woodland in Yolo County, California. It is the first permanent, year-round housing built for agricultural worker families in the county, most of whom are of Hispanic heritage. Agricultural workers have traditionally suffered some of the worst housing conditions and most dangerous jobs in the country. A survey of agricultural workers in the region in 2010 showed that people reported living in garages with mould and cockroaches and often in overcrowded conditions. Many workers are employed only seasonally and some government-funded migrant centres provide accommodation at these times. However, most agricultural workers stay in the community all year.

This is the first 100 per cent Zero Net Energy rental housing development in the USA to be certified by the US Department of Energy. A Zero Net Energy building uses around the same amount of energy as it produces so is very sustainable and better for the environment than traditional housing. Environmentally sustainable homes are often only available to higher income homeowners. This project was developed specifically to cater for agricultural workers, a community which makes a huge contribution to an area where the economy is largely sustained by agriculture, but is not catered for by the local housing market. This development by Mutual Housing California promotes equality by enabling low-income families to rent a home with strong eco-features. Mutual Housing California is a non-profit housing developer and a member of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. It was established in 1988 as a partnership of neighbourhood residents, business representatives, housing advocates and local government to improve housing opportunities for lower income families. It now owns and operates 1,071 homes for over 3,200 residents in California, USA. Resident involvement and leadership are key aspects underpinning and driving all their work. Residents of Mutual Housing developments are supported from day one to identify and develop their own skills and capacity for leadership. They are supported with training and mentoring to take control of their own lives as well as to advocate for their fellow residents and the wider community. Mutual Housing California provides similar services in its other developments, which include providing affordable rented housing for Housing First and other low-income residents.

The work to help residents achieve ‘green living’ doesn’t just stop with environmental features. Residents at Spring Lake are also trained in how to use the energy efficient equipment installed in their homes and are involved in learning and sharing ideas on other ‘green behaviours’ such as recycling and water saving.

After overcoming obstacles to access a plot of land and establish its use for multi-family housing (see details in the Context section), in 2010 land was purchased and construction began in 2013. The housing was completed in March 2015 and was fully occupied by June of that year. All applicants for housing at Mutual Housing at Spring Lake had to demonstrate that they meet the established income limits for the housing and that they were or had been employed in agriculture. A total of 62 highly energy-efficient homes have been built in five buildings. The homes have between one and four bedrooms and house 196 people including 90 children. Out of these housing units, seven are for families that have incomes at 30 per cent of area median income (AMI) or below, 13 units are for families that have incomes at 40 per cent of AMI or below, 25 units are for families at 50 per cent of AMI or below, and 16 units are for families at 60 per cent AMI or below. One of the units is reserved for the manager.

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake has a very strong focus on community development and the empowerment of individuals. Community organising is a core activity – the project has really been about building a whole community, not just constructing houses. Residents are actively involved in education and training programmes and the development runs several different facilities and programmes for residents. Personal development opportunities delivered through one-to-one mentoring, group sessions and on-the-job training have included financial education and budget management, green issues, leadership development and health education. As well as learning opportunities residents are able to use the community building and an activity room for meetings and celebrations. They can enjoy outdoor recreation spaces, with shared gardens and green spaces throughout the site.

A Spanish-speaking community organiser has been appointed and they have an important role in developing the leadership potential of adults and young people. They help local people to form resident councils and committees to address any specific issues or to shape ideas and plans for community activities and events. In fact leadership development is a very strong focus within the wider work of Mutual Housing. One of their key aims is to create ‘lifelong leaders’ by supporting the personal development of adults and young people alike across a wide range of activities. Some of the residents have shown that they are particularly interested in sustainable living and they have formed a ‘Green Leaders’ team. This group helps educate fellow residents with activities like composting and understanding electricity bills with solar rebates.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

0

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

Mismatches Services
Urban Design Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Innovation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: Canada, Ottawa

Description

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable and environmentally sustainable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site. It was commissioned in 2007 to the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) by the City of Ottawa through the Action Ottawa programme – the City’s primary programme for increasing the supply of low-income affordable housing in Ottawa. The programme is designed to facilitate the development of mixed income communities that are appropriately designed and managed, and built on a scale that ensures integration within the neighbourhood. The Beaver Barracks innovatively integrates a mixed housing model with environmentally sustainable building design and operations. In fact, Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective. The development is mixed in terms of incomes – with market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents – as well as access requirements, age and household composition.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

CCOC is a community-based, tenant and member directed, private non-profit housing organisation whose mission is to create, maintain and promote housing for those on low and moderate incomes. It is one of the largest private non-profit affordable housing providers in Canada. In 2007, CCOC won a competitive Request for Proposals from the City of Ottawa to develop the Beaver Barracks site,  which is the biggest and most sustainable single development CCOC has done to date. Beaver Barracks aims to increase the supply of long-term affordable rental housing in downtown Ottawa and show that high performance energy-efficient buildings can be attractive, accessible, and affordable.

Context

Key problems faced in downtown Ottawa before the redevelopment of Beaver Barracks were similar to those in many other North American cities – the vast majority of new residential construction is private condominiums, which are unaffordable to a growing low and moderate income population. Older privately owned rental housing stock is in disrepair, providing poor quality housing, and is at risk of conversion and redevelopment. Specifically, there is a lack of affordable housing stock for families, older people living alone and people with accessibility needs.

At the time of the commissioning of the Beaver Barracks redevelopment, there were approximately 10,000 households on the City of Ottawa Social Housing Registry waiting list for subsidised housing, and a need for all household unit sizes from bachelors to large family sized homes. There was a gap to fill in terms of developing affordable rental housing that would regenerate the existing site, improve the quality of life of its tenants and keep families in the downtown area. The area where the development is located had previously been in decline throughout the 80s and 90s as residential and commercial development stagnated and parking lots proliferated. The influx of condominium developments in the last 10 years has threatened the mixed-income nature of the area, eroding the existing social fabric through gentrification.

Key features

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site that was formerly occupied by WWII military barracks and which was sold by the Federal Government to the City of Ottawa in the early 1990s. It was earmarked for controlled rental housing and was the first site to be developed when a jointly funded government affordable housing programme was re-established.

The development comprises 254 dwelling units in five buildings, offering a blend of market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents for people on a range of incomes. Units range in size from studio flats to three bedrooms, for single persons and families, including older persons and those with accessibility problems. There is also ground floor commercial space in two buildings and meeting space for community groups. Tenants on subsidised rents are drawn from the City’s pre-qualified waiting list. The market rental tenants are selected on a first-come first serve basis. Market rents are capped to be no higher than the average market rent for the neighbourhood. It is one of the few affordable rental buildings in Ottawa’s core because of the gentrification pressures to build more profitable condominium developments.

During the design phase, integrated design workshops, known as charettes, were found to be an effective way of encouraging communities and their building professionals to think in a positive, innovative and collaborative way about building design, construction, operations and lifestyles.

Built to a high environmental standard, the development includes geothermal heating and cooling, a green roof, tenant-run gardens and a high performance building envelope, including triple glazed windows. Beaver Barracks is also wheelchair accessible and smoke free, with residents committing through their lease not to smoke in their apartments or on the property. Responsible waste diversion (recycling and organics) is encouraged by not providing rubbish chutes and having all waste sorted in a common room. Tenants are actively involved and sign a Green Commitment Pledge to reduce their environmental impact through lifestyle and consumer choices (although these green commitments are not legally binding).

Fifteen per cent of all the apartments are reserved for tenants who benefit from additional daily living support, and CCOC partners with several organisations to deliver that support, including to tenants with intellectual and physical disabilities, mental illness, or who have recently experienced homelessness. At Beaver Barracks there are 25 wheelchair-accessible units, and over 90 per cent of remaining units as well as all building amenity spaces are ‘visitable’ to people in a wheelchair.

Covering costs

  • The total capital budget for the development of Beaver Barracks was US$64 million. CCOC used a combination of public and private financing, including CCOC equity (three per cent), government grants (35 per cent) and mortgage financing (62 per cent). Over 70 per cent of Beaver Barracks revenue comes from rent, either by tenants (42 per cent) or rent subsidies paid through the City (30 per cent). The remainder comes from a small mortgage subsidy from the Province of Ontario (16 per cent) and fees from various services (12 per cent).
  • Over 80 per cent of CCOC’s total operating revenue in its full portfolio comes from rent (either paid by the tenants themselves or with state assistance,) 13 per cent from state operating subsidies, with the remainder coming from miscellaneous revenue from parking, laundry and commercial rent. A surplus of US$10,000 is anticipated on the US$20 million budget in 2013.

Impact

Although only recently fully completed, there has been a noticeable change in the neighbourhood. For 15 years the site was unoccupied and had been an eyesore. With 254 households including over 100 children, the development has helped reinvigorate the immediate neighbourhood. Local schools and day care centres which used to struggle with declining populations now have a permanent new source of families and children to use the available services.

CCOC is working with the City of Ottawa to develop financial templates and projection tables that will help the city and other local housing providers plan new affordable housing developments.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Integration of a mixed housing model with environmental building design and operations.
  • Offering a blend of market, below market and deeply subsidised rents within one project.
  • The sites and buildings have a reduced environmental footprint, including the materials and technologies used but also the active engagement of the residents in the process.
  • Comprehensive waste recycling managed by residents is innovative in the Canadian context.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective.

Resource efficient design features include:

  • A geothermal heating/cooling system, an energy recovery ventilator, tight building envelope; and triple glazed windows ensure that the buildings use 40 per cent less energy than comparable buildings.
  • Waste diversion is encouraged by not installing garbage chutes and using a common sorting room for waste, recycling and organics.
  • Energy efficient washing machines, low-flow plumbing fixtures and drought-resistant xeriscaping (water-wise landscaping) help save water.
  • The building envelope and floor include 40 per cent recycled material, and reclaimed wood was used for architectural details in the common areas.
  • Promoting a sustainable lifestyle: All tenants sign a pledge to commit to greening their lifestyles and reducing their environmental footprint. During their annual lease renewal, tenants will be provided with a summary of their past year’s pledges; a calculation of the reduction in their carbon footprint as a result of their green commitments. Each building has signs in common areas that promote the environmental design aspects of the building and reinforce green norms of behaviour.
  • CCOC facilitates a tenant-run Green Team to engage other tenants in green lifestyles, such as growing food in the on-site organic community gardens and providing workshops on harvesting fruit and nut trees.
  • CCOC sees gardening as a step toward food sovereignty. Summer 2013 will see the grand opening of Victory Gardens – a central tenant garden which will include a children’s garden, an accessible garden and a plot for donation to the Food Bank.
  • A variety of local food and food security programmes have been developed, including giving out ‘Buy Local’ food guides to all new tenants, with maps and lists of local farmers markets, helping start the Ottawa Good Food Box programme, providing free meeting space for gardening groups and working with local food security and gardening groups to increase participation.

In addition, the project also has wider environmental impacts:

  • Reuse of a brownfield site reduces the need for urban sprawl and the destruction of natural habitat.
  • The site’s central location enables tenants to walk to local shopping amenities, or use their bikes, take public transport or participate on a car-sharing programme which is located on site. Secure indoor bike parking and accommodation for e-bikes is provided. Car parking is available to less than 40 per cent of units.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The initial work relied upon grants being available from the government. However, an independent audit by the City of Ottawa found that Beaver Barracks may begin to generate a modest surplus after the first five to ten years of operations.
  • Although the project was not conceived as one of community economic development, having an affordable home helps residents to live within their means and opens doors to education, employment and training.
  • Beaver Barracks provides high quality rental housing to many households that would not otherwise be able to afford it. Over the full development, 45 per cent of tenants will pay ‘rent geared to income’ (30 per cent of their gross household income); 15 per cent of tenants will pay ‘below market rent’ (70 per cent of the full rent) and 40 per cent of tenants will pay no more than the average market rent for the neighbourhood, which in itself is significantly lower than typical rent for newer condominium apartments.

 

What is the social impact?

Community co-operation and social integration:

  • Adding outdoor amenity space on balconies, rooftops or decks increases the available living area and provides a natural meeting spot for neighbours.
  • Planter boxes and gardens provide a launch point for discussion, which CCOC facilitates by distributing free flower, vegetable and herb plants to tenants, and by setting up tenant-run gardens.
  • As tenants get to know each other, they have organised pot lucks, games nights and kids’ clubs. They have also worked together on community issues, for example, leading the fight to restore a neighbourhood park after it was turned into a parking lot.

Skills development and resident involvement:

  • CCOC has developed partnerships with a number of community groups to provide opportunities to tenants to increase their skills, two of which are Resilient Kitchen which provides workshops on cooking, canning and preserving and, more recently, knitting; and Just Food, which provides free workshops on seed saving, organic gardening and pest control.
  • In addition to participating in CCOC governance, tenants are encouraged to get involved in their building at a practical level, taking advantage of green education programmes, gardening, composting, and participating in waste diversion initiatives.
  • Further opportunities for social engagement have been facilitated, including Ottawa School of Art (provides bursaries to tenants for art classes), YMCA-YWCA (provides reduced membership fees for recreational programmes).

Combatting social inequality:

  • All apartments are of the same quality and design, regardless of whether they are for market or subsidised rent.
  • CCOC has always worked to meet the housing needs of those who struggle with issues that make their housing more difficult or precarious, such as mental health and addiction issues and physical disabilities.
  • An accessible community garden is being designed in conjunction with tenants from ‘The In Community’, the agency that provides attendant support to people with complex physical disabilities.

 

Barriers

  • As this project represented a 20 per cent growth in CCOC’s portfolio, it found itself absorbing a proportionate growth in staff, new tenants and new technologies in a short period, complicated by changes in the senior staff team. CCOC had to carefully manage transition and integration of new staff.
  • This was the first multi-residential unit building in Ottawa where the entire development (indoor and outdoor) is smoke free. CCOC had to provide notice of eviction to some tenants who violated this policy, but in all cases tenants changed their behaviour and no one was evicted.
  • There was a significant increase in construction material costs during the development that challenged the financial viability and affordability of the project. CCOC learned that a significant risk analysis when doing such an expensive project as well as redesign of the project is necessary in order to adjust the budget.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Accessible unit design had to be adjusted in order to address individual resident concerns. CCOC realised after the first stage that tenants with accessibility issues need to be accommodated to address their individual needs and revised the design of the accessible units for the second stage to accommodate individual tenant accessibility concerns.
  • CCOC invested a large amount of capital in the geothermal technology. Although this is innovative, it was expensive and complex, causing increased costs to operate. As a result, CCOC will put an emphasis on passive design in future development to decrease a building’s environmental footprint rather than active technology such as geothermal.

 

Evaluation

CCOC is monitoring several environmental and social performance indicators, including the utility consumption and waste diversion, as well as tenants’ fulfilment of their green commitments. Data is currently being collected on solid waste, energy use and electricity consumption to understand whether the designed energy savings can be achieved.

 

Transfer

Beaver Barracks serves as a model for future CCOC affordable housing developments, and has served as a pilot for many CCOC ‘green living’ tools: tenant working groups, environmental building signs, no smoking policy, waste diversion, community gardens, biking parking, and car sharing.

One of CCOC’s partners has used their experience of being involved in the Beaver Barracks development to go green in their other properties.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

0

The 100,000 Homes Campaign

Mismatches Services
Policies and regulations Regulation
Promotion and production Self-promotion
Ownership and tenure Shared ownership

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Ganador

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: New York, United States of America

Description

The 100,000 Homes Campaign is part of the strategy of the NGO Community Solutions (CS) to end homelessness in the USA, advocating and transferring the proven ‘Street to Home’ method pioneered in New York to communities elsewhere. A network of almost 100 organisations is committed to this work at the local or national level in addition to implementation teams in 190 participating communities. The Campaign started in July 2010 and ended in July 2014.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The Campaign intends to build a national grassroots movement with the purpose of finding and permanently housing 100,000 of the most long-term and vulnerable people experiencing homelessness by 2014. The objective is to change the way that communities respond to homelessness and to shift efforts away from emergency responses to long-term solutions.

Context

Around 650,000 people are homeless in the USA on any given night, and from 1.5 to 2 million over the course of the year. For most, homelessness is short-term, but for roughly 100,000 it becomes chronic. They have complex needs that prolong homelessness and make them dependent on costly government services that fail to deliver lasting or cost effective results. The 17 per cent chronically homeless consume over half of the resources dedicated to homelessness. Long-term homelessness seriously affects health; the average lifespan of a chronically homeless person is 25 years less than that of the average American. Previously, communities often provided housing on a first-come first-serve basis, rather than targeting those most in need.

Key features

The Campaign employs an innovative process of movement building and quality improvement methods to create two significant changes at the community level: a registry of all homeless persons and a plan to move 2.5 per cent of the chronic and vulnerable homeless population into permanent housing each month. In this context, a community is a multi-faceted term defined locally, encompassing a definition of space, but also of participating organisations and resources. This involves the following process:

  • CS recruits prioritised communities into the movement; 190 communities have now enrolled and this number is still growing.
  • A team is built from as many local sectors as possible. Free training is provided in Registry Week Boot Camps for a two-day orientation to the tools of the Campaign and the variety of resources available. Additionally, Veteran specific Boot Camps, hosted with the Rapid Results Institute, have trained 20 communities during three days and further coached during 100 days to rehouse veterans more quickly.
  • A Registry Week in which hundreds of volunteers canvas the streets between 04.00am and 06.00am for three consecutive mornings to survey each person sleeping outside using the Vulnerability Index, a tool created by Community Solutions. This creates a by-name and by-photograph registry of all homeless persons, ranked by risk of premature mortality. This information enables data-driven negotiations about housing and support systems. So far, over 100 communities have completed a registry of homeless persons.
  • The needs of individual homeless people are matched with housing options, necessary health and employment support, as well as Critical Time Intervention support to enable them to maintain their independence in their own home. Enrolled communities across the USA have found innovative ways to line up housing and services, and of discovering resources they had so far not tapped into. The Campaign has a national network of like-minded communities and mentors to find new ways to secure units, funding and support.
  • Each community receives a monthly progress report that compares their progress against standard benchmarks.

The Campaign has a full-time director of strategic partnerships based in Washington D.C. who connects the grassroots work with high level officials and organisations. This person works closely with several central government departments and over two dozen strategic partners with whom CS synchronises efforts to move vulnerable homeless persons into permanent housing.

Covering costs

  • The cost of the Campaign is US$1.5 million per year, funded mostly by foundations (12 in 2012) and corporations (KNO Clothing). In 2013, CS will receive more significant funding from the federal government and from a national veterans’ advocacy project, but much of the Campaign’s costs will still be funded from philanthropic contributions. No capital investment was required to launch or operate the Campaign.

There currently is no cost to the participating communities. At the conclusion of the Campaign, CS plans to continue many of the consultancy services to communities for a fee. Sixty per cent of income in 2015 is projected to come from fees for turning real estate into housing for homeless persons with donations and government grants contributing 20 per cent each.

Impact

Over 44,000 long-term and medically vulnerable homeless people have been permanently housed to date. Twenty-eight communities are currently meeting their 2.5 per cent monthly placement targets, up from 13 half a year ago. The Campaign advocates strategies that have a proven retention rate of 85 per cent; a survey showed an actual retention of 90 per cent after one year in housing. Hospital costs were vastly reduced, as was return to jail. Levels of income and employment increased. Some of the innovative tools are effective, e.g. the ‘Rapid Results Housing Placement Boot Camp’ has already helped four (out of 20) communities double their placement rate. Nine communities reduced the time it takes to move veterans into housing, some by 75 per cent. Three communities improved their targeting of chronically homeless veterans; e.g. from 26 to 93 per cent in Atlanta. Such boot camps will be rolled out to 40 communities focusing on non-veterans in 2013. Rapid-results teams also report changes in mindset, behaviours and processes that carry the effect beyond their lifespan, e.g.

  • Unprecedented levels of collaboration between and across agencies and not-for-profit organisations active in the community.
  • Various versions of ‘one-stop shops’ for housing solutions have been implemented to streamline housing placement efforts.
  • More staff has been involved in going directly to homeless persons, with more delegation to these frontline staff.
  • Heightened awareness about the need to focus on chronically homeless individuals.
  • Deeper engagement of the local mayor’s office in the process and resulting support.

Beyond that, it has enabled data-based dialogue between national leaders and grassroots leaders, partnering to identify solutions to chronic homelessness based on what actually works at local level. In over 189 communities there has been a transformation of their response to homelessness resulting in a wider ‘can-do’ attitude to tackle complex social problems. Some communities have gone on to address other issues as well.

Additionally, there have been many policy changes that have taken place as a result of the project; some of the most important include:

  • Dozens of public housing authorities have created ‘local limited preferences’ which enable homeless people who meet the criteria for chronic or vulnerable homeless to effectively move to the front of the waiting list for housing.
  • Multiple government agencies created a ‘one stop’ model where veterans could be issued with a voucher for permanent housing on the same day they applied.
  • Local Public Housing Authorities’ Administrative Plans were amended to prioritise chronically homeless persons.
  • Local agencies have condensed administrative paperwork, creating a Unified Application between agencies.

Why is it innovative?

  • An overarching goal that helps mobilise groups into action and quickly captures attention and support. It also changes the focus from providing housing on a first-come, first-serve basis to medically fragile and chronically homeless persons.
  • The Continuous Quality Improvement approach uses data collected on a large scale to feed into the entire human services and housing sector.
  • A unique set of simple replicable tools to gather and assess data, monitor progress and quality, and help communities transform their response to housing vulnerable people, overcome barriers and improve their housing placement.

What is the environmental impact?

  • The Campaign does not undertake building work itself. In most cases, existing buildings have been used by participating organisations to provide housing for homeless persons. The Campaign is respectful of environmental principles. For example, communities are trained on how to use existing resources efficiently, and that ending homelessness needs resource coordination, not building new facilities.
  • Taking people off the streets into secure accommodation has positive public health impacts.

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The Campaign is funded from public and private sources. It is now building relationships with federal government partners to establish a fee for service arrangement that could expand its reach. When it ends, CS intends to continue to provide improvement and data management services at a modest fee. The Campaign is already demonstrating a series of cost-efficient solutions that could be suggested as alternatives to government.
  • The Campaign believes that the best way of ending homelessness permanently is to provide an integrated but tailored package of housing + health + employment support.
  • Where relevant, homeless people receive employment support, which has increased income and employment. Having a permanent address is important in being able to access employment.
  • Housing is made much more accessible to chronically homeless persons.
  • The involvement of communities and a wide range of partners has enabled the development of innovative solutions and the pooling of resources that have made the provision of housing to homeless persons more cost-effective.

What is the social impact?

  • There is more engagement and collaboration, both within and between communities (e.g. by over 7,000 people volunteering) and with external support agencies on the issue of homelessness, of the ‘can-do’ attitude this generates. Communities are able to apply the methods for collective problem solving used to tackle homelessness to other problems in society.
  • The Campaign provides capacity building and support to enrolled communities, and has developed various tools to help communities tackle homelessness, e.g. boot camps, self-assessment tool, barrier-jumping toolkits, and provided more intensive support to the low-performers. As a result, communities have performed much better in dealing with homeless persons.
  • Moving people from the streets, where their health and safety are at great risk, to stable housing almost always has a positive impact. Over half of homeless adults struggle with mental illness. Data of 2011 put the average annual cost of providing supportive housing to an adult at US$24,190, as against a cost of US$56,350 for emergency, inpatient and crisis services to a homeless individual with mental illness. Philadelphia now has a programme that targets Medicaid funds to support housing for homeless people and there is a growing effort to make that happen at national level.
  • The Campaign is ensuring that the needs of medically vulnerable and chronically homeless persons receive greater priority. As these are the most marginalised of homeless persons, and arguably of society, this has the effect of reducing social inequality.
  • There is some evidence of individual people, who were previously homeless, reducing or eliminating their dependency on drugs or alcohol, becoming employed, staying in schools, etc. with the effect of them becoming less isolated and taking a more active role in society.

Barriers

A study of community performance in 2012 identified the following barriers and challenges:

  • Local laws, culture and customs, geography and climate, and politics and feelings regarding race and class, often present a unique set of barriers in each community. Such differences make comparisons difficult and can make a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing barriers fail. Tools that can be customised in the unique context of each community are needed.
  • While all communities could provide examples of ‘Housing First’ (the practice of helping homeless persons from the street directly into housing, without conditions), no community has yet been able to adopt Housing First as a uniform standard. Similarly, while most communities were able to offer examples of programmes that use a harm reduction approach (the practice of gradually weaning a person off drug or alcohol abuse), no community is close to using it consistently.
  • While each community was able to demonstrate high-performing programmes, only one showed evidence of a truly unified homeless and housing placement system. For the most part local ‘systems’ consist of many semi-autonomous efforts.

Lessons Learned

In addition to the above points, the following lessons were noted:

  • The vulnerability registries provide communities with actionable data and a practical method for targeting their efforts.
  • The power of data and regular sharing helps leaders understand their system and provide targets for improvement.
  • Higher performing communities appeared to have ‘champions’, who are placed at a sufficiently high level to affect systems or programmes. Lower-performing communities still had champions, but less powerful, or had lost their leading advocates.
  • It was critical to ensure that all key players attended the Boot Camp Launch, participated in setting local goals and building the 100-day local work plan. National and regional partners were also needed, to clarify policies and enable local success.
  • The Campaign aims to move chronically homeless people to the top of waiting lists, thus moving short-term homeless people down. But the housing sector has evolved and they now have access to less expensive and equally effective interventions that were previously unavailable, such as rapid rehousing support.

Evaluation

  • The Campaign currently provides enrolled communities with monthly feedback reports against the 2.5 per cent homelessness reduction target and in comparison with four similar communities.
  • The Centre for Urban Community Services is retained as Quality Assurance provider for the Campaign, providing third party monitoring of data. It also conducted a qualitative study in 2012 of three high and three low performing communities that identified 19 factors associated with successful placement performance. A self-assessment tool by which communities can identify performance gaps against 19 indicators is being tested and will then be shared with enrolled communities. Barrier-jumping toolkits have been developed to help communities implement improvements in each of the 19 factors.
  • Funding has been received for an evaluation in the final year of the Campaign (2014).

Transfer

The Campaign is a scaling-up process in itself, taking a proven approach in New York, to the USA as a whole and beyond. The Campaign team itself attempts to accept as many invitations as possible to visit external organisations in the USA and abroad to discuss and advocate the Campaign’s methodology.

The Campaign now works on a regular basis with 190 local coalitions across the USA.

The approach has been discussed with political and community leaders in Canada, Australia, Ireland and Belgium. In the first two, this has now led to similar campaigns; support has been provided to five cities or regions. In Brisbane, the Vulnerability Index and Registry Weeks methodologies were applied to triage flood victims and rehouse them very rapidly. Take up in Ireland and Belgium is imminent.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Milton Park Community

0

Milton Park Community

Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity Governance
Urban Design Services and infrastructure Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Self-promotion
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
City: Montreal
Country/Region: Canada, Montreal

Description

Milton Park is one of the oldest and most characteristic neighbourhoods in Montreal. Located just outside the Downtown area, Milton Park was known as a vibrant neighbourhood, but the lack of maintenance caused buildings to fall into disrepair. In the 1970s, the whole neighbourhood was targeted for regeneration which would gentrify it and make it unaffordable for original residents. In response, the community mobilised to find a long-term solution and avoid evictions, resulting in the creation of the Communauté Milton Parc (Milton Park Community – CMP). With time and support, the buildings and land were bought and organised into a condominium structure governed by a Declaration of Co-Ownership involving 25 members made up of cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations. These regulations secured the tenancy for all residents, and created the largest renovated cooperative housing structure in North America.

The aim of the CMP is to collectively own, renovate and manage the buildings of the Milton Park area that were under the threat of being bought and demolished through a cooperative approach, in order to:

  • preserve the architectural value and local identity;
  • prevent speculation and safeguard affordability in the long-term; and
  • build a cohesive and mixed community.

Context

Milton Park is one of the oldest neighbourhoods in Montreal, and is located on prime land in the city centre. It is made up of approximately 150 old buildings, mostly erected at the turn of the 20th century and converted throughout the years into 600 dwellings let to a few thousand low- and middle- income residents. Milton Park was known as a vibrant neighbourhood, despite the increasingly run-down physical conditions. In the 1970s, a private developer bought 90 per cent of the area and planned to demolish the buildings and replace them with the creation of a ‘modern city’, with high-rise structures, offices and commercial buildings. Housing in the area would have become unaffordable for the original residents. In response, the community mobilised to find a long-term solution and avoid evictions. This led to the creation of the CMP that, with the help of public authorities, bought the buildings and land destined to be held in trust through a condominium structure governed by a Declaration of Co-Ownership. These regulations secured the tenancy for all those living in the housing – every tenant was handed back their home after renovations.

Key features

The CMP was created through various stages:

  • Initial social mobilisation to save the area through non-violent social activism (demonstrations, marches and building occupations) and through negotiations with the developer when faced with the threat of neighbourhood destruction.
  • Feasibility study, with the help of experts, on the possibility of buying the buildings, the legal requirements to create housing cooperatives and the evaluation of political support for the project at local, regional, and national levels.
  • Acquisition of the buildings and land by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in 1979, along with a commitment by the CMHC to sell the properties to the Société du Patrmoine Urbain de Montreal (SPUM). The buildings were previously all owned by the same developer and buying them en bloc safeguarded them from speculators.
  • Elaboration of an Action Plan designed to preserve the area and guarantee the right for the residents to remain.
  • Transfer of the properties in the 1980s to the Société d’Amelioration de Milton Parc (Society for the Improvement of Milton Park – SAMP) who became the temporary owner of the properties with the goal of overseeing refurbishment works and eventually transferring properties to the cooperatives.
  • Signing of the Declaration of Co-ownership. By law, the content and mission of the declaration are protected from modifications.

The structure that resulted presents the following characteristics:

  • The residents of Milton Park are organised into 15 cooperatives which comprise the members of CMP, along with six non-profit housing corporations, two community organisations, one commercial entity and a community development corporation. These residents, characterised by mixed socio-economic backgrounds and with a high proportion of low- and very low-income families, are the main beneficiaries of the project.
  • Land and buildings are held in trust, and are therefore communally owned by the members (cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations) and their overarching syndicate. All residents are tenants – not owners but ‘guardians of a common good’. The individual dwellings therefore cannot be resold. This system prevents prices and rents from being driven up, thus ensuring long-term affordability.
  • Under Quebec law, the CMP is classified as a condominium whereby the syndicate owns common spaces (such as lanes), and individual cooperatives own land beneath their buildings and semi-private spaces (e.g. gardens).
  • If a member is facing financial difficulties, the property can only be sold to another co-owner.
  • CMP is comparable to a Community Land Trust (CLT), although it differs in that in the CLT model all of the land is generally owned by the trust only, instead of being subdivided under the ownership of different members bound by an agreement. It can also be considered a very large cooperative, where the members are the housing cooperatives and non-profits rather than the individual residents.
  • Each of the 25 co-owners is responsible for the maintenance of its buildings and its internal functioning, but shares certain common services and responsibilities (e.g. information, training, insurance).
  • As members of the syndicate, each group must ensure that its activities comply with the principles of the agreement and do not infringe upon or cause damage to other members.

Covering costs

The total cost of the development was US$30 million, which was met primarily through public funds made available at all three levels of government. For the original acquisition, the total costs amounted to US$7.5 million, of which US$ 5.4million were obtained from a cross-Canada program to help tenants form cooperatives. Subsequently, the CMHC, the City of Montreal, and the Quebec Government contributed US$ 5.8 million in capital subsidy for renovation. The remaining amount (US$2.2 million for acquisition, US$10.8 million for renovation and US$4.1 million for development) was borrowed on mortgage loans. Each co-owner held a 35 year mortgage guaranteed by the CMHC, with 10-15 year renewals. The CMHC subsidised the difference between the market interest rate at the time and two per cent. Rents were therefore kept low, based on the original rent with a small increase calculated to cover the mortgage at two per cent, property taxes, maintenance, insurance and utilities.

Impact

Residents have been able to remain in the homes they occupied, which has promoted financial and social stability and continuity. Evictions for non-payment of rent have been extremely rare. The protection of the demographic mix against gentrifying forces, and the safeguarding of quality of life have all had a positive effect on Downtown Montreal, making the city centre a safe and liveable space for people, which is not the case in many North American cities.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Community-initiated and community-driven innovation, management and governance processes, born out of mobilisation to save the neighbourhood.
  • CMP is the first project of this scale involving co-ownership by cooperatives and non-profits with land held in trust, governed by a Declaration of Co-ownership. It remains the largest cooperative housing project in North America.
  • Housing and land use are prioritised for living rather than for profit through a system that ensures long-term affordability and prevents gentrification, with the safeguarding of local heritage and inclusiveness as a common good.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • The project involves the renovation of existing buildings rather than demolition and reconstruction, making use of existing resources and maintaining original structures where possible.
  • Improved insulation and piping has had an impact on the amount of energy and water used. Some cooperatives have initiated their own projects to reduce energy consumption, including installing solar panels, green roofs and cool roofs.
  • The Urban Ecology Centre was created in 1996 as an ‘ecological laboratory’ aiming to turn Milton Park into a catalyst for the experimentation of innovative urban ecological solutions such as green-roofing, recycling and organic composting.
  • Individual cooperatives have agreed to maintain and create green spaces.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The CMP structure allows the cooperatives and non-profit housing corporations to have a stable source of income deriving from the rents of the housing units, which go towards paying the mortgage, the repairs and community investments.
  • The end of the mortgage repayment period for all cooperatives is drawing near (2017-2018), placing CMP in a position of reinforced financial security. In the future, this disposable income will be dedicated to a new cycle of refurbishment or to offer supplemental aid to certain families who currently depend on government support to cover housing costs.
  • The guarantee of long-term affordable rents decreases financial insecurity, and allows residents to allocate resources to fulfil other pressing needs as well as allowing for savings and investments.
  • Rents at CMP are significantly more affordable than in surrounding areas (on average twice as low). Access is facilitated for very low-income people that wish to move into Milton Park, as only disadvantaged socio-economic groups are eligible to take up freed or new apartments.
  • The community development corporation Société de Développement Communautaire (Society for Community Development – SDC) was created to manage the commercial spaces in the community and control the type of businesses so that they reflect resident needs. Surpluses are either reinvested or given as subsidies for projects that benefit the whole community.

    What is the social impact?
    The CMP prides itself in having maintained a demographically mixed community that facilitates integration between diverse groups. Long-term social sustainability was ensured to residents, as the risk of eviction or relocation to areas that offer fewer social, economic and educational opportunities was eliminated. Furthermore, training and education workshops offer families with limited means the possibility of acquiring new skills.
    The setting up of the CMP has built the capacity of residents to develop solutions, to organise, and to manage the neighbourhood. The cooperative structure itself becomes a place for capacity-building, where members learn how to chair meetings, draft minutes, keep books, maintain properties and understand renovation and urban planning processes. In fact, the residents are responsible for managing all of their affairs according to the Declaration and the specific constitution of each member.

    In addition, volunteers are engaged in contributing to the running of the CMP, and individual or group initiatives by residents are encouraged and supported. By providing a space for dialogue and action, a strong sense of solidarity has developed around housing, green spaces and democracy, resulting in community cooperation through social events, and regular community activities (street markets, community meals, workshops).

    The project has also provided a healthier environment for the residents of Milton Park. The houses are no longer in a state of disrepair, and strong incentives were created to ensure long-term maintenance, as cooperatives received the CMHC;s financial support conditional upon buildings being in a good state of repair and meeting health and safety requirements. Additionally, the Urban Ecology Centre focuses on promoting healthy lifestyles through training and seminars, neighbourhood greening and increased pedestrian and cyclist activity.

    Initially CMHC would not guarantee that rents would remain affordable in the long-term or that residents would not have to leave their homes. In response, the community mobilised against this decision and the federal government agreed to the community’s terms to avoid unpopularity.
    CMP and other housing organisations in Canada are confronted with the possibility of losing financial assistance for tenants on very low incomes. CMP is involved in a coalition to put pressure on the government and search for alternatives.

  • Occasionally there has been significant disagreement between residents, though these were resolved through democratic processes.
  • Maintaining a level of active interest and involvement of the community is challenging when not faced with immediate threats. The origins of the CMP might be taken for granted with time, and redefining a new type of leadership to bring the project forward is essential. Tours and talks are organised to keep the story of Milton Park alive, and residents are kept informed of the regulations governing the project to enable a better democratic functioning and understanding of the Declaration of Co-ownership.
    Strong market forces can be countered if there is significant social mobilisation by residents and sympathisers, supported by professionals such as architects, urban planners, social workers, lawyers, accountants, etc.
    In order to ensure the perpetuity of the project the process will tend to be comprehensive and elaborate, which will necessarily require a significant amount of time and commitment there are no easy ways.
    For the underpinning social and political value to remain, there must be a constant process of renewal and education.
    No formal monitoring or evaluation process has been carried out on the project.

    The project has not expanded physically, as the focus has been geared towards keeping the existing project robust. The establishment of the Urban Ecology Centre has enabled the project to develop further, as well as ensuring that the ideas of building a sustainable, cohesive and democratic environment are spread to other areas of the city.
    CMP has been consulted on their cooperative model with restricted resale, which has been adapted and transferred to the Benny Farm project and the Chambreclerc rooming housing for homeless and mentally ill persons in Montreal.
    CMP is recognised as a positive example of cooperative housing and has influenced the expansion of cooperatives in Quebec and Canada. In Quebec alone there are currently 1,200 housing cooperatives, which are organised in networks and federations involved in constant exchange and communication.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Genesee County Land Bank Authority – Land banking to revitalise distressed areas in the United States

0

Genesee County Land Bank Authority – Land banking to revitalise distressed areas in the United States

Mismatches
Financing
Urban Design
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

Stakeholders

  • Microcredit Foundation HORIZONTI
  • Habitat for Humanity

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America

Description

The Genesee County Land Bank Authority (GCLBA) is an example of a Michigan state land bank.Michigan State has suffered from widespread and long-term abandonment which accelerated following the global financial crisis. Between 2005 and 2015 GCLBA took responsibility for over 14,000 abandoned tax delinquent homes. To determine what to do with all these homes it consulted with the neighbourhoods via a citizen advisory council and outreach officers. This process has built trust with the residents and engaged them in developing solutions. These solutions include not only demolishing unsafe unsightly properties and creating green spaces, but also renovating selected homes and selling them to local tenants for affordable home ownership. Context

In the United States of America (United States), land banking has been used to revitalise economically distressed areas. Their role has become even more important since the global financial crises and subsequent foreclosures. Public land banks acquire distressed, foreclosed or abandoned properties with the intent of redeploying them for more productive use. Rehabilitation and resale regenerates neighbourhoods and increases property tax revenue, and importantly redistributes properties to meet specific community needs, such as affordable housing.

For a guide for establishing a land bank in the United States, see Frank S. Alexander, Land Banks and Land Banking, 2nd ed. (Flint, Michigan, Center for Community Progress, 2015). Available at https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/report-alexander15.pdf.

Results

Home sales were offered to first time home purchasers, under favourable contracts. The average home in 2015 cost only USD 6,500 (approximately EUR 5,500) with monthly payments of USD 200 (about EUR 170) for five years. Purchasers negotiate feasible and sustainable conditions with the land bank to ensure their long-term stability as residents, thus strengthening the community and improving local safety and dignity. Non-governmental not-for-profit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity sometimes act as intermediaries for renovating the homes and finding suitable purchasers.

Links

Authors:

Low Income Housing Tax Credit in the United States

0

Low Income Housing Tax Credit in the United States

Mismatches
Policies and regulations

Main objectives of the project

In the US, most housing subsidies are provided indirectly via the tax system rather than direct public spending. One of the tax subsidies provided for affordable housing is Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) which were introduced by the Tax Reform Act in 1986.

Date

  • 2018:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: United States government

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America

Description

Since their introduction LIHTCs have helped to fund three million units of affordable housing. They cost the United States government some USD 9.9 billion per year in tax foregone.[1]

LIHTCs are available to both non-profit and for-profit housing developers. Once a housing developer has identified a site and been allocated tax credits, capital is raised by selling the credits to investors. Investors include banks, which have financed 43 per cent on average, 30 per cent from government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, 19 per cent from insurance and other finance companies, and 8 per cent from non-financial companies. Tax benefits only flow to investors if the scheme remains compliant for 15-30 years with the rules set when the tax credits were allocated.[2] Notably LIHTCs usually finance around 42 per cent of the costs of a typical housing project. Therefore, to deliver affordable housing this finance must be complemented by public grants and lower-cost financing.

To help fund additional dwellings from the USD 10 billion provided via LIHTC, since 2018 LIHTC projects can offer dwellings with higher income ceilings – up to 80 per cent of the local median income, with rents at 30 per cent of this level. Other dwellings in the same housing development must have lower income ceilings and the overall average of all dwellings in the development must be 60 per cent of area median income.[3]

Links

Authors:

In the United States most rented dwellings are provided by private landlords and this sector has a small affordable rental housing segment

2

In the United States most rented dwellings are provided by private landlords and this sector has a small affordable rental housing segment

Mismatches
Policies and regulations
Financing
Promotion and production
Ownership and tenure

Main objectives of the project

Date

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America

Description

Housing vouchers (HVs), funded by the central government and allocated locally, are the most common United States mechanism to ensure rents are affordable. HVs aim to increase purchasing power and improve housing choices for very low-income renters, and more recently have used to encourage poor households to move to areas of greater labour opportunity. The voucher is provided to eligible tenants according to a waiting list maintained by city or county housing agencies, who are searching for housing of a defined quality and cost. When a suitable dwelling and willing landlord is found, the HV can be used to help pay the tenant’s rent[1]. This HV payment reflects the difference between a Fair Market Rent (FMR) which is calculated locally, and affordable rent defined as 30 per cent household income. If an HV recipient cannot find suitable housing within 60 days, the voucher must be returned to the issuing local housing authority.

The budget for HVs is capped and both demand and need outstrips availability. HVs are targeted strictly based on income – 75 per cent of recipients have a very low income.[2] It is estimated that only 25 per cent of eligible households are actually assisted by HVs due to limited supply, leading to long waiting lists and occasional government crises measures.[3] Voucher recipients also face discrimination when searching for suitable homes. Only a few local governments have passed “source of income laws”[4] to combat this problem.

Links

Authors: