All Over the Map

Lessons learned from a conversation with Vanesa Valiño, Chief of Staff of Barcelona’s Housing Councillor from 2015 to 2023.

My key takeaways from Barcelona:

• Local affordable housing markets can be dramatically impacted by regional, national, and international policies, even when those policies are not about affordable housing on their face.
• Geographic constraints can be a key determinant in whether a city can scale its development to meet demand or not.
• Participatory processes that engage people outside of government are fruitful and necessary for developing innovative policy solutions. There is important strategy involved with designing effective avenues for civic engagement.

What makes Barcelona’s story about affordable housing unique?

Barcelona’s geography limits its ability to expand development and, therefore, inevitably limits the supply of affordable housing. The Mediterranean Sea is to the immediate south, and it is bordered by mountains to the north and rivers to the east and west. This specific geographic constraint makes Barcelona’s affordable housing crisis different than other European cities like Madrid, Berlin, or Vienna, that have more land to expand into, as needed. In Barcelona, housing solutions are restricted to adapting land and buildings that have already been developed. Creative solutions for the affordable housing crisis are limited in Barcelona because there is so little undeveloped land.

An important caveat to this question is acknowledging that Barcelona’s housing crisis is not unique in many ways; there is a global housing crisis, and similar challenges are reflected in many metro areas.

What is the state of affordable housing in Barcelona today?

Many housing policies that impact Barcelona’s housing crisis cannot be addressed by local government, and are instead under the policy realm of the national Spanish government or even governed through European Union agreements. Policymakers in Spain prioritize homeownership policies (such as mortgage policies) rather than rental housing policies (such as rental contract policies). It is challenging to direct the national government’s attention to rental housing topics that are under their purview because the majority of Spanish constituents are homeowners (approx. 80%). While larger Spanish cities have a higher percentage of renters (approx. 40% in large metro areas vs. 20% nationally), local municipalities must still defer to national government for rental policy. This slows progress on affordable housing policy in Barcelona.

In Barcelona, there’s a historic lack of publicly owned housing, as is typical for southern Europe. Currently, less than 2% of housing is publicly owned social housing. Land that was previously public in Barcelona has been privatized, and the remaining public housing is in the city’s outskirts rather than in the more desirable downtown areas. Further, there are no rent control policies in Spain.

As a result of the combined factors, Barcelona’s city government has limited options for shaping affordable housing policy. One option under their purview is to adjust zoning regulation. A recent affordable housing policy success was changing the local zoning laws. Inspired by similar “inclusionary housing” zoning policies in the US, a new local law was passed that requires 30% of residential units to be guaranteed as affordable housing in any new housing development or renovation in Barcelona. Though this was a very controversial measure that developers did not support, the policy successfully passed. This was an important win for Barcelona’s affordable housing because there is so little land or public social housing to otherwise adapt. However, private developers have been able to avoid the new requirements by moving their work elsewhere and developing in nearby cities, reinforcing the need for cooperation among regional cities.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

As new policies move through the approval process, studies that determine their likely impact on affordable housing should be required. Any identified negative consequences for affordable housing should then be mitigated as part of the policy’s proposal. These “impact studies” are done for other topics, like considering gender or environmental impacts, and could be expanded to consider affordable housing, too.

There are many examples of economic or urban planning policies that were designed with a positive intent but had unexpected negative consequences for housing affordability in Barcelona. For example, a plan to prevent cars in a certain area made the neighborhood healthier, more beautiful, and more environmentally friendly – all of which led to increasing rents. Another example includes the City of Barcelona promoting tourism, which makes popular areas more expensive for renters and limits rental supply due to increased visitors. Even EU policy decisions can impact local housing affordability: when Barcelona was chosen to house 2,000 public EU employees, it was impossible to identify appropriate and affordable housing for them without impacting the local market. In each of these examples about policies that were not directly affordable housing-related, local renters were negatively impacted over time. Requiring an impact study about new policies’ local, regional, and national impacts on housing with the requirement that negative impacts on affordable housing be mitigated would be a valuable step forward.

What makes you hopeful about housing in your city?

Even though Barcelona’s current affordable housing situation is challenging, the prevalence of strong neighborhood housing advocacy organizations creates hope for progress. These groups consistently demand attention to affordable housing topics by advocating for housing issues, asking important questions, and proactively researching ways to improve the situation by learning about what other cities are doing. The key zoning measures described above were approved because of these groups’ advocacy and social pressure! There will always be powerful lobbies on both sides of any issue, and it is hopeful that groups advocating for affordable housing in Barcelona are so committed and impactful.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

It’s important to provide multiple ways for people to engage and participate with affordable housing policy. Proactively inviting people to participate is one key. Making meetings and research papers easily accessible is another. Creating different levels of engagement is also important for the participatory process; some people may only have the capacity to engage quickly and through their computer, like to vote on a City Council-proposed project that allows for citizen-level voting participation, while others are eager to commit to more in-depth projects. Organizing avenues for the people who are willing to dedicate more time and energy to housing issues is important. Barcelona had great success organizing a collaborative participatory assembly on housing topics with more than 90 social entities, professional workers, and citizens, which then proposed a format for working groups that dove into more specific housing topics, such as focusing on industrialized buildings or comparing Barcelona’s housing to other cities.

Lessons from an in-person conversation with Hawaii State Senator Stanley Chang. This special edition post is based on my discussion with Sen. Chang at his Honolulu office on January 16, 2023. We discussed his unique affordable homeownership policy that created the ALOHA Homes program and the inspiration behind it. I’m grateful to Sen. Chang for meeting with me to share about his in-depth housing research, creative policy platform, and perspective as a Hawaii legislator. I’m deeply inspired by his innovative example of applying proven affordable housing strategies to state policy. 

My key takeaways from Sen. Chang: 

• Other countries have cost-neutral models for developing affordable housing where revenues from housing residents cover housing expenses, unlike the affordable housing model in the US that relies heavily on subsidies and tax credits, making it relatively expensive for taxpayers.
• The US’s income limitations for affordable housing residents has segregated poverty and, inevitably, created harsh stigmas against affordable housing. Countries without income limits have widely accepted, and even celebrated, affordable housing programs. 
• Hawaii is well-suited to borrow from Singapore’s affordable homeownership model due, in part, to its relatively similar geography and population size. (See Singapore post for more detail about Singapore’s model.) 

What is Sen. Chang’s Affordable, Locally Owned Homes for All (ALOHA) Homes program? 

Sen. Chang’s ALOHA Homes policies create affordable homeownership opportunities for Hawaii state residents, modeled after affordable homeownership developed and managed by Singapore’s government. ALOHA Homes is designed to be a self-sustaining model for affordable housing that is unique in the US. This innovative ALOHA Homes legislation includes the key components outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1
ALOHA Homes policy	Why this matters
Senate Bill 2583: This policy allows Hawaii Housing Finance & Development Corporation (HHFDC), the state’s housing development agency, to build 99-year leasehold condos. Through this policy, HHFDC is exempt from the State’s 65-year maximum public land requirement that otherwise applies to State-level housing development.	Offering a 99-year leasehold to a resident effectively provides them with permanent affordable housing based on a typical human lifespan, providing a very stable housing option.
Senate Bill 2251: Public Housing Authorities typically build only income-restricted, federally regulated housing. Through this policy, the Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA) can build housing that is not income restricted or federally regulated.	Income restrictions in public housing have segregated poverty and created stigmas against affordable housing. Removing this requirement will make ALOHA Homes accessible to more Hawaiians and engender public support.
Senate Bills 2583 and 2251, above, enable two key Hawaii state housing agencies to build 99-year leasehold condos akin to Singapore’s homeownership model. This is the primary aspect of the ALOHA Homes program that the agencies did not already have the authority to conduct. With the passage of these two bills, the agencies can enact the entire ALOHA Homes program. Further details about the program are below.
Senate Bill 2456: Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA) can offer 99-year leasehold condominium units.	As described above, a 99-year term effectively offers permanent housing. A leasehold rather than outright sale allows the State to maintain its public assets and revenue-neutral affordability model.
Senate Bill 2456: Eligible ALOHA Homes residents: -Hawaiian resident -Must not own any other real property -Must use the unit for owner-occupied residential use	This ensures that Hawaii residents, specifically, will benefit from this affordable homeownership as intended.
Senate Bill 2456: The leasehold will be priced to minimum levels necessary to ensure that the arrangement is revenue neutral for the relevant State/Counties.	This aligns with the cost-based model of affordable housing, which is a more financially sustainable and responsible model for affordability than the income-based model that is standard in the US. See below for more detail about the cost-based model.
Senate Bill 2456: HPHA has a right of first refusal if a resident chooses to sell their ALOHA Homes unit.	This ensures the longevity of ALOHA Homes through HPHA’s option to maintain its affordable assets.
Senate Bill 2456: The ALOHA Homes program has a revolving fund that collects all revenues for the ALOHA Homes programs. All revenues are used for ALOHA Homes purposes.	The revolving fund further ensures that the ALOHA Homes program is financially sustainable and responsible, following the cost-based model.

Sen. Chang understands that the policy system is not designed to make changes quickly. This large-scale change to affordable homeownership has been met with resistance. There were challenges with various steps of the process to pass the relevant legislation. Engaging low-income communities about the benefits of the program, learning about and translating complicated financing and ownership structures that make these policies work, and setting up new frameworks for new agencies in departments within state government were all important and time-consuming steps. 

Sen. Chang first proposed legislation to create the ALOHA Homes program in 2019, and key components (Senate Bills 2583 and 2251) passed in 2022, granting the authority to do income blind, revenue neutral 99 year leasehold housing to two state agencies, the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) and the Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA). The Hawaii State legislature also appropriated $10 million for HPHA to develop the first tower through ALOHA Homes. In 2023, the ALOHA Homes bill (SB 865) passed the Legislature and was signed by the Governor as Act 97.  The bill authorizes one 99 year leasehold pilot project, to be built by a third state agency, the Hawaii Community Development Authority.  Additionally, the University of Hawaii is pursuing revenue neutral, income blind housing at multiple sites, both for affiliated students/faculty and also for the general public.

What inspired Sen. Chang’s ALOHA Homes policy? 

The confluence of cycles of inequality, prejudice associated with rental housing, and narrative of the “American Dream” motivated Sen. Chang to develop his affordable homeownership policy. Sen. Chang understood that local US jurisdictions couldn’t solve affordable housing issues just by cracking down on Airbnbs; the issue required policy innovation at a grander scale. 

Sen. Chang’s ALOHA Homes housing policies are inspired by other countries that have successful and long-standing models for affordable housing. In particular, Singapore and Austria are acclaimed for providing affordable housing to large portions of their populations, made possible by creative federal-level housing financing strategies. 

Rather than focusing on affordable rental housing, like most of the US affordable housing industry, Sen. Chang prioritized developing policies for affordable homeownership through ALOHA Homes. Singapore’s model for affordable homeownership on a national scale served as a primary inspiration. Convenient similarities between Hawaii and Singapore as small islands with some shared elements of Asian culture also supported the vision and messaging for Hawaii to borrow from Singapore’s example. 

Before developing ALOHA Homes, Sen. Chang dedicated himself to conducting thorough research about how other countries have made their affordable housing programs successful for large portions of their populations. He traveled to various countries, like Singapore and Austria, to learn from local experts and visit relevant sites and better inform his perspective before drafting his own policies. For Sen. Chang, understanding what made affordable housing policy so successful elsewhere highlighted what was lacking with housing policy in the US. The ALOHA Homes program incorporates proven concepts about what makes affordable housing – affordable homeownership, in particular – scalable and sustainable. 

Three primary components of ALOHA Homes that contrast with standard affordable housing in the US and were inspired by international housing models are described in more detail below. A comparison of policy strategy by country is summarized in Table 2. 

The below narrative is informed by the Cost-based social rental housing in Europe publication and Singapore blog post.

• Eliminating eligibility restrictions for affordable housing residents. In Singapore, income restrictions end after residents move into their unit, allowing them to remain as residents even as their incomes change and grow over time. Additionally, there are no income restrictions for purchasers of resale public housing units.  There are no income restrictions whatsoever in Denmark and Finland’s affordable housing. This allows for greater diversity within affordable housing buildings and neighborhoods and, critically, engenders an acceptance for affordable housing because so many citizens benefit from and choose to live in affordable housing. Comparatively, in the US, public housing with its income limits notoriously created segregated poverty and, along with it, stigmas against public housing and low-income groups. ALOHA Homes policy specifically removed the requirement for the HPHA to include income restrictions, allowing them to create affordable housing available to Hawaiian residents at any income level. In addition to resolving a key problem with historic public housing in the US, Sen. Chang believes this approach to housing is more aligned with American values. 

• Financing affordable housing so that it covers its own costs, i.e. a cost-based model of financing. Countries like Austria, Denmark, and Finland that finance affordable housing projects without reliance on government subsidies have more sustainable and scalable financing models. They operate on a “cost-based model,” meaning that rents are set at prices that allow the affordable housing owner to meet their development costs and operating expenses. In the US, where affordable housing is “income-based,” meaning that rents are set based on what residents can afford, and only low income residents are eligible, rents do not cover expenses. Because of this, affordable housing owners and developers in the US rely greatly on taxpayer dollars in the form of rental subsidies and tax credits (primarily the Low Income Housing Tax Credit). Sen. Chang believes this inefficient use of taxpayer dollars can and should be revised to create more sustainable and effective affordable housing infrastructure using the cost-based model. Affordable homes created through ALOHA Homes will be priced using the cost-based model to ensure that resident payments cover HPHA and HHFDC’s costs, so the agencies will not have to rely on other significant subsidies. ALOHA Homes also created a revolving fund for revenues from residents that will be used for the program’s expenses to ensure program sustainability. 

• Creating organizational structures that enhance investment in affordable housing. In Vienna, the majority of affordable housing is owned by Limited Profit Housing Associations (LPHAs). LPHAs can be structured as limited liability companies, public liability companies, or cooperatives, but all must meet the same legal requirements for providing affordable housing. One key LPHA policy outlines the requirement that LPHA housing is cost-based per the explanation in the (b) paragraph above; LPHAs do not have the option to charge rents at a particular building that would not cover the building’s planning, construction, financing, and management costs. This effectively requires that LPHA buildings are structured to be financially viable and self-sustaining in the long-term. In contrast, typical affordable housing in the US is owned and managed by non-profits who are not required, structured, or incentivized to develop self-sustaining buildings. While US non-profits are required to spend 5% of their excess revenues annually, there are no requirements dictating what that should be for. Non-profit funds can exit the affordable housing industry, contributing to the reliance on government subsidy. To create a more self-sustaining affordable housing model, ALOHA Homes intends to borrow from the LPHA organization structure over time.

Table 2
Country	Eligibility restrictions	Financing model	Organizational structure
ALOHA Homes	No income restrictions.   See Table 1 for other eligibility requirements.	Cost-based model: leasehold rates will be set at levels to ensure the housing is revenue-neutral for the State/County.	State and County ownership. Goal to work toward Austria’s LPHA model.
US	Income restrictions throughout tenancy	Income-based model: rents are set based on what is affordable for residents, using federal Area Median Income calculations, even if it does not cover real costs for development and operations   Development relies on complicated capital stacks with significant government funding from Low Income Housing Tax Credits (which is exchanged for equity) and subsidy from government sources	Non-profit housing owners are not required to spend excess revenues on housing-related projects
Singapore	Income restrictions end after residents move in on Day 1 Requirements related to age and marital status   Strategies to ensure ethnic diversity among neighborhoods	Affordable homeownership model: national government Housing and Development Board (HDB) offers mortgages and takes income into account for affordability, offering grants to lower-income households. Homes are priced below market, in part because HBD acquires land at below-market prices.	National-level housing ownership and development through HDB
Austria	Income thresholds allow for approx. 80% of population to be eligible for tenancy     Housing is not restricted to certain groups, though “needs” can be taken into consideration   Tenants have right to live in units forever	Cost-based model:  rents are set at rates that cover a limited-profit housing association’s (LHPA) development and operations costs. Therefore, LPHAs are self-sustaining over the long-term.   Building maintenance funds are established as part of tenant payments   LPHA profits must be used for reinvestment in housing, acting as a revolving fund	LPHAs are private enterprises with independent management boards. Their purpose is to construct and manage affordable housing, and they are required to abide by a cost-based model.
Denmark	No formal income restrictions, though there is a priority for the most in need   Specialized housing available to elderly, people with disabilities, and youth	Cost-based model: rents are set annually at rates that cover the non-profit owner’s operating budget (including administration costs). Non-profit debt repayments are maintained annually at 2.8% rates to ensure predictability. Government repays higher interest to banks, if needed. Therefore, non-profit housing providers are self-sustaining over the long-term.   Limitations on development costs per square foot ensure affordability   Income-based elements:  If tenants are unable to meet rent payments, local municipalities offer individual allowances that are largely refunded by the national government	Non-profit housing providers get permission for development from local municipalities, who also have oversight of their spending and budgets   Tenants have a right to the majority of the seats on the management board for their building
Finland	No formal income restrictions, though there are local considerations related to need and income   No monitoring of income after move-in to allow for long-term tenancy	Cost-based model:  Tenants are charged rents up to amounts that cover costs of social housing provider. The provider can even out rents across their buildings. Non-profit debt repayments are maintained annually at 1.7% rates to ensure predictability. Government offers subsidies to repay at higher rates, if needed.    Cost-based rent is required for 40 years, which is the time it takes to repay development loans and subsidies.    Limitations for land prices ensure affordability   Income-based elements:  Rental subsidies are available for low-income tenants. Approx. 50% of social housing tenants receive a housing allowance and 1/7 receive a basic social assistance.	75-80% of social housing is managed by a municipality-owned housing association rather than a non-profit housing association

Lessons from a conversation with Dr. Sock-Yong Phang, Celia Moh Chair Professor of Economics, Singapore Management University. Supplemented by detail from Policy Innovations for Affordable Housing In Singapore by Dr. Phang. 

My key takeaways from Singapore:

• Large-scale, publicly funded affordable homeownership is possible! Where there is a will, there is a way. Even so, policies are created and celebrated based on a unique set of circumstances; even winning policies are not easily replicable. 
• When a government prioritizes affordable housing for all from its inception, affordable housing (and even “public housing”) can become an uncontroversial aspect of a population’s social contract. 
• Strategic land use policy can proactively combat not-in-my-backyard development attitudes, instead promoting high-density affordable housing in integrated communities. 
• Scale matters: Singapore’s government-led housing development, mortgage financing, and mortgage savings agency and policies are effective and efficient for a city-state with a population of 5.6 million on a small island, but the same strategies have risks at larger scales. 

What makes Singapore’s story about affordable housing unique?

Singapore’s precision with policymaking and its government’s focus on affordable housing supply is unique; there is significant state control and guidance around housing development strategy in Singapore. Singapore’s Master Plan is created for the entire city-state rather than compartmentalized municipalities, as is common in larger geographies. The government owns more than 90% of the land in Singapore, facilitated by exceptionally strong policies allowing government purchases of private land at below-market rates during a period of rapid economic growth, so the government has great control over their planning decisions. 

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is Singapore’s government-run housing developer (a 100% state-owned entity) which, for example, developed a remarkable 73% of the new housing stock in Singapore in 2016. HDB’s development decisions are sophisticated enough to adjust with supply and demand. 

An impressive 80% of Singapore residents live in HDB-developed housing. Unlike in the US, there is no negative stigma associated with “public housing” (i.e. housing developed and subsidized by the government).  

Approximately 90% of homeowners in Singapore own homes built by HDB. Singapore prioritizes affordable homeownership rather than rental models. In 2017, only 5.7% of HDB units were reserved for rental rather than homeownership.

• How does this work? HDB develops housing units on government-owned land and sells units to Singaporeans at affordable prices with 99-year leases. Under this homeownership model, ownership rights are limited by several regulations that would not apply in the private market, such as rules around subletting and resale. Singapore has a required savings account system in place through the Central Provident Fund (CPF), where employees and employers contribute a certain percentage of an employee’s monthly salary (17% for employers and 20% for employees in 2017) that individuals can draw from in specific circumstances: for most households, down payments and mortgage payments are paid through these compulsory savings accounts, which can also be drawn from for specific uses like education, investments, retirement, and medical coverage. To supplement housing costs, HDB acts as a mortgage lender and provides affordable loans at 2.6% rates. CPF and HDB work together to create a stable country-wide homeownership program. 

Singapore’s total population is only 5.6 million and its land mass is only 720 square kilometers (or 278 square miles), which is why the government can sustain their extreme involvement with supply and demand development decisions, large-scale land and zoning policies, and financial savings programs to prioritize affordable homeownership. 

What is the state of affordable housing in Singapore today?

Singapore’s government takes many steps to ensure there is sufficient supply of their government-developed housing. Every quarter, HDB announces new units for purchase so, while there are waiting lists, there is also consistent supply. Though there is a range of housing catering to different income levels.

There is a lot of financial support for young couples to take advantage of HDB homeownership, including housing grants. Ownership options are structured based on a couple’s income level, and are tailored so that couples can reasonably afford to buy their first home from the government, then sell it five years later to upgrade for another HDB purchase or make their next home purchase in the private market. 

The secondary market for the resale of public HDB units is very active. In particular, there is significant demand from permanent residents who are not citizens and aren’t eligible to buy a unit directly from HDB.

Single non-married individuals have to be 35 years or older to apply directly for HDB housing, though this constituency is increasingly getting more rights for homeownership opportunities. (This is one example of how Singapore’s conservative values shape policy.)

Singapore’s policies have been intentional about forcing integration (in direct contrast to the US’s free housing market, which results in income and racial segregation). While there are low-income households in Singapore, there are no low-income neighborhoods. Also, each neighborhood is required to include certain proportions of each of the major ethnic groups to avoid ethnic segregation. The population quotas are regulated by HDB to maintain careful ethnic ratios on a block-by-block and neighborhood level. 

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

Singapore has carefully crafted policy with affordable housing in mind since its independence, so it’s hard to identify a housing policy that requires an overhaul. HDB was created in 1959 (when Singapore gained self-governance after British colonization) with a priority to build housing for the lowest income groups and reduce chronic overcrowding. Every few years, deliberate changes have been made to housing policies, with an explicit shift in 1964 to include homeownership as part of an expanded mission to support middle income citizens and, later, upper middle income groups. Unlike other countries, where affordable housing is a highly politicized issue, Singaporeans understand the importance of affordable housing for all and that value is part of a de facto social contract. Singapore’s model has been so successful that other governments aim to replicate it (Malaysia, Mexico, China, and Hawaii, for example. See Hawaii State Senator Stanley Chang’s ALOHA Bill!).

There are intentional policies in place to integrate households of different income, race, and religious background, but there is room for improvement to desegregate the rental housing market. Those who cannot afford homeownership reside in blocks of HDB rental units, and become segregated by income. 

What makes you hopeful about housing in Singapore?

Singapore’s government is proactive about planning for the future. Every ten years, Singapore’s land use planners review the land use Concept Plan to anticipate the many developments planned for Singapore’s small land mass. With Singapore’s limited geography, planners have no choice but to build up, tunnel down, and undertake land reclamation, which requires especially careful land use planning. The exercise is taken very seriously, with zoning specialized for airports, various industries, etc. Transportation planning and green spaces are also prioritized. Singapore’s planners adopt a “city in the garden” planning mentality rather than a classic “garden city” vision, which is a key reframing for such a high-density city. 

The Prime Minister gives an annual speech about the state of the economy. He most recently reassured the public that, while Singaporeans are sometimes worried that they’ll run out of space for housing, “No need to worry. We have done our studies and planning. We will have enough space for future generations. Our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats, nor keeping homes affordable for Singaporeans. We know how to do that. Our problem is having enough babies to grow up and live in them!” His conclusion is a comment on Singapore’s aging population as a primary issue, rather than access to affordable housing. 

Singapore’s government (including HDB and CPF segments) are highly efficient and have zero tolerance for corruption. The World Bank’s rating system has recognized Singapore as having particularly low corruption. 

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

Housing policies in Singapore have evolved over time, and the government is attentive to citizen feedback. Feedback is given to the government most directly during sessions where Members of Parliament meet citizens, learn about their challenges, then raise those exact issues for discussion in Parliament. For example, for many years, single individuals were not eligible to participate in HDB’s homeownership. After citizens voiced their frustration, laws have changed so they can purchase resale units or apply for new units at age 35. Similarly, single mothers have been left out of housing ownership opportunities. Questions about this issue have been raised, and Singapore’s government has been responsive. 

Lessons from a conversation with an interdisciplinary urban planner from Cairo who shared their perspective based on their personal experience living in Cairo with an eye toward bottom-up social change. Because their expertise is not housing-focused, this urban planner chose to remain anonymous.

My key takeaways from Cairo:

• Housing choices are greatly determined by social expectations – not just policy.
• While homeownership can be empowering, it can also severely limit equality, particularly when there are restrictive norms and rights around homeownership.
• When people don’t feel that they have political agency, they are more likely to accept unfavorable conditions and less likely to critique or engage with government processes or policies.

What makes Cairo’s story about affordable housing unique?

The intersection of gender, class, and relationship status in relation to real estate in Cairo is important to understand; patriarchal values are perpetuated through social norms and financial rights related to housing. For example, it’s not socially acceptable for women to live alone in Cairo, so accessing housing (at any cost) as a single woman is a challenge. Married couples are expected to own their homes, which is a social norm perpetuated directly through media messaging, and places great social and financial pressure on young couples. The financial burden of buying a home is placed solely on men. Women do not receive ownership rights, but their social status can improve with marriage. In turn, if a couple divorces, women are left without any financial benefit from homeownership. This patriarchal system imposes challenges for both men and women: women’s rights are limited, and men and their families have significant financial expectations. Also, social capital in Cairo is tied strictly with class status as perceived by neighborhood residency, placing an outsized emphasis on purchasing a home in a well-regarded neighborhood.

What is the state of affordable housing in Cairo today?

Under socialist housing policies in the 1970s, more people in Cairo rented than do now and there were protections for lifetime rents as low as $1/month. Governmental policies have since changed and, as described above, attitudes toward housing in Cairo today are largely driven by the standard that couples buy their own apartment units upon getting married; renting is not a socially acceptable option and is not promoted by government policies. With this strong culture of homeownership (including owning apartment units) in Cairo, there are not many renters. Most units are designed for families or young couples because of the social expectation that married couples must purchase their own units with an eye toward investment, though there have recently been some compounds designed with smaller units affordable for younger people.

Cairo is generally divided into areas considered to be the “old city” and “new city.” New Cairo has many new large-scale gated residential communities with services that are expensive housing options. These communities are considered to be higher class, perpetuated by media and advertisements, and these high class labels hold incredible social capital. Even though living in these areas in new Cairo is unaffordable to most people, the housing in those neighborhoods is still considered to be an aspirational goal for most people rather than being critiqued for how unattainable it is or as an example of inequality.

The housing market in Cairo is unstable, and the housing supply is too great. There are many vacant units that are investment properties for Egyptians who live abroad. Prices for new units are greatly determined by marketing phenomena, creating buying frenzies for people who will buy units without seeing them in person. Especially in these instances, quality of construction is not guaranteed. A housing bubble is growing that will eventually burst when supply of quality housing and demand must normalize.

Some housing requires car ownership, which further limits housing choice. Only 9% of Egyptians own cars and transit is not well developed (e.g. there are only three transit lines in Cairo).

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

Rigid definitions of class are problematic throughout Cairo. Government ID cards list personal details including religion and occupation in addition to addresses, all of which lead to class stereotyping. Addresses hint at the neighborhoods people live in, which directly leads to class assumptions. These class stereotypes have real-life implications in encounters with police; for example, having no occupation and residing in an “informal area” can lead to worse police treatments.

What makes you hopeful about housing in Cairo?

• Newly established government programs allow for youth to access more housing opportunities.
• Housing quality in new construction is improving, though it’s unclear whether the quality can be maintained at a great scale.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

Ideally, a participatory planning process would be established to prioritize including citizens in government-level decision-making, but the housing market is currently driven by powerful actors and investors and a participatory process would be challenging to establish. Literacy rates in Cairo are as low as 25%, which inevitably hampers engagement, and people tend to focus on short-term decision-making with immediate results rather than long-term planning processes. Notably, people in Cairo don’t feel empowered to advocate for affordable housing or other issues tied with equality, and see affordable housing as a favor from the government rather than a right.

Lessons from a conversation with Nefertitti Jackmon, Community Displacement Prevention Officer, Displacement Prevention Division, City of Austin Housing & Planning Department

My key takeaways from Austin:

• Developing and implementing equity-focused solutions requires deep collaboration with the community at every stage of policy and development. No step is too small to engage the community in decision-making.
• A top-down commitment to equity begins with the hiring and interview process, and extends to trainings and even creating new equity-focused positions and departments.
• When we think about affordable housing issues, we typically think about renters. Low-income homeowners are deserving of our attention, funding, and creative problem-solving, too.

What makes Austin’s story about affordable housing unique?

Austin is a small city that’s been forced to grow up quickly. The booming tech industry led to extreme population growth, whether Austinites like it or not. Such rapid growth has posed huge affordability challenges in Austin’s housing market. Housing costs have reached high peaks (a recent report indicated that the average home sale is $500k, up from approximately $200k just 10 years ago), and non-tech industry incomes have not kept pace with these housing price increases. Seattle has faced similar challenges, and Austin hopes to draw lessons from their successes and failures.  

Racialized policies and practices have impacted Austin’s population and housing opportunities through the past and present. Zoning policies that segregated BIPOC communities were documented in city plans as far back as 1928. Now, in a time of economic growth, Austin’s overall population is increasing while its African American population is decreasing. The City of Austin is proactively working to prevent further displacement through dedicated programs, funding, and City departments like Nefertitti’s in hopes of seeing positive results in the next census.

One of Austin’s long-standing cultural mottos is “keep Austin weird.” Keeping the beloved culture intact in the midst of such rapid growth has proven to be difficult. 

What is the state of affordable housing in Austin today?

In one word: challenging. It’s challenging to keep pace with the city’s affordable housing needs while the city is growing. Local affordable housing developers are working at capacity, so the City may need to collaborate with developers that have not traditionally done affordable housing projects. However, the City recently changed its density bonus program so that these developers can pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable housing units, and many are disappointingly opting to pay the fee rather than provide affordable housing units in their market-rate projects. 

Beyond these development complexities, Austin must reckon with the fact that poverty is segregated. Many people resist affordable housing development in their own communities, and these viewpoints must be addressed head on. Many challenging conversations must take place within communities and among policy-makers in order to address housing inequality.

Austin is making serious investments in its affordable housing production to meet goals outlined in the Strategic Housing Blueprint and to prevent displacement. The Blueprint requires that each of Austin’s ten council districts increase access to affordable housing over 10 years. In 2018, a City Council approved a $250 million housing bond, an amount even higher than initially proposed. An additional $300 million bond has been committed to focus on displacement resulting from Project Connect, a large-scale TOD project that will inevitably encourage growth in the developed areas. BIPOC communities, business owners, and homeowners know they have reason to be concerned about displacement in light of this large-scale development project, and the City knows that preventing their displacement is integral to Austin’s success. Community members advocated for the sizeable $300 million bond and probed the City to consider how to put strategic investments in place early to prevent displacement. Taking that call to action seriously, Austin has reviewed models from St. Paul and Seattle to learn how to center equity while successfully implementing displacement measures. Austin has developed an Equity Assessment Tool in partnership with people who have been most impacted by displacement issues, prioritizing their lived experience. Multiple City departments, consultants, and communities worked together to create the tool which, in part, provides a framework for identifying and implementing community-driven solutions for displacement.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

While we know that renters are often more vulnerable than homeowners, sufficient support is not provided for low income homeowners’ needs. Due to budgeting complexities, state policymakers wrongly believe that more funds cannot be allocated to this particular population, and many low-income homeowners are just barely over-income qualified for existing support programs. There are heart-breaking personal stories of homeowners who are in their 80s who continue to work to make ends meet because taxes they owe affect their whole families. After working for so many years of their lives, when elders and long-time community anchors lose their assets or are in danger of losing them, there are devastating emotional and financial ripple effects throughout their communities. 

What makes you hopeful about housing in Austin?

Austin’s citizens advocated for and approved a $300 million bond addressing housing displacement, proving that these issues are a community-driven priority. Citizens want housing equity, not just City Council. 

There are encouraging signs that leadership is taking racial equity and community collaboration seriously within Austin’s Housing & Planning Department. The fact that Nefertitti’s Community Displacement Prevention Officer position exists is hopeful; it takes top-down commitment to get this equity-focused work right. Her position was created in 2020 along with the Office of Civil Rights. They collaborate closely with the Equity Office, which was created a few years earlier, and intend to right some of Austin’s past wrongs through collaboration with community members and Project Connect’s Community Advisory Committee. Hiring practices within the Housing & Planning Department are prioritizing a racial equity lens so that policy and practice both center equity, and everybody working on Project Connect is taking part in an undoing racism class. People agree that Austin must do things radically differently to address housing issues equitably. Building trust and having the necessary tough conversations among community members and government employees is moving beyond hopeful rhetoric. This is an exciting time to be in Austin, even with the present challenges!

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

Engaging stakeholders early and often is crucial. Community engagement during planning, team selection, policy creation, and project development all matter. Sharing minds between community members and City policy makers creates better solutions. All sides should be learning from each other and growing; we all have valuable insights and ideas. Further, community voices should be paid for their expertise and valuable contribution to the process. It’s also necessary for government decision-makers to proactively consider how they receive feedback from communities and pivot based on that feedback. Engaging the community to harness collaborative solutions is only fruitful if policy-makers honor that time and work by adapting based on the community’s messages.

Lessons from a conversation with Jessica Katz, Executive Director, Citizens Housing Planning Council

My key takeaways from New York:

• COVID-19’s dramatic impacts on low-income New Yorkers have brought a renewed sense of urgency to affordable housing policy discussions and decisions.
• The most focused and intentional policy-making would explicitly identify each policy’s goals and metrics of success from the get-go.

What makes NYC’s story about affordable housing unique?

The scale of affordable housing production in NYC is unique: no other city produces affordable housing at same scale as NYC. (That said, it takes the same amount of work to produce smaller buildings in smaller cities as it does to produce huge buildings in NYC!)

What is the state of affordable housing in NYC today?

Now, in 2021, the dynamics around affordable housing in NYC are more political than they’ve been in years. The pandemic has revealed the reaches of housing inequality and the dire need for more affordable housing and tenant protections in NYC, and candidates throughout the city are highlighting affordable housing in their platforms. With so many City Council and mayoral candidates running for office this year, there are round-the-clock political discussions about affordable housing solutions.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

Each piece of legislation should identify what it intends to solve, its costs, and how its success will be measured. Policy challenges stem from lacking value and problem definition, and this approach would create more impactful and implementable policy. Years ago, this suggestion was offered via an anonymous public comment through NYC’s Charter Revision Commission, which was considering potential NYC Charter reforms. (The Charter is like the City’s constitution.)

What makes you hopeful about housing in NYC?

Housing issues seems to be on everybody’s minds right now, which is not always the case. While affordable housing policy work is a social justice movement at its core, sometimes the policy space lacks the drive of its passionate roots. Fresh perspectives about affordable housing issues have surfaced throughout the pandemic, which can be refreshing and energizing for affordable housing professionals.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

In London, public housing residents are formally engaged in decision-making about housing redevelopment that impacts them. There have been real strides in tenant empowerment in London, and CHPC is engaged with modeling a similar approach in New York City Housing Authority-owned housing so that NYCHA tenants can also be part of the decision-making for redevelopment that impacts their homes.

Lessons from a conversation with Philip Payne, Chairman, & Beth Silverman, Executive Director, Lotus Campaign

My key takeaways from the Lotus Campaign in Charlotte:

• The affordable housing industry does not broadly engage market-rate landlords to make use of existing units for people on the brink of homelessness. This is an oversight that the Lotus Campaign is addressing through their innovative financing model and by fostering partnerships between landlords and nonprofit service providers.
• Most existing programs do not prioritize housing people on the brink of homelessness. From an economic and psychological standpoint, it is critical to provide housing before people become homeless and/or develop severe support needs.
• New development is too expensive to solve the housing affordability crisis. Financing tools that are not centered on new development must be created to address the lack of affordable housing.
• Building trust between atypical partners is a necessary step toward addressing a problem as big as homelessness.

While the Lotus Campaign kicked off in Charlotte in 2018, its model was designed to be replicated across the US. The standard set of All Over the Map questions have been expanded in this post because Lotus is not intended to be location-specific. Learn about the Lotus Campaign’s unique approach to addressing homelessness below.

What makes Charlotte’s story about affordable housing unique? / How did you anticipate that the Lotus Campaign model would work well in Charlotte?

The truth is, Charlotte’s story about affordable housing is not unique. There is a shortage of affordable housing in all communities in the US, both large and small, and the problem is becoming more and more visible. While the Lotus Campaign’s creative financing strategies are being tested in Charlotte first, the model was designed to be replicable and there are plans to expand the model to other cities.

To ensure success in Charlotte, the Lotus Campaign worked with market-rate landlords to understand why they weren’t involved with affordable housing already. Landlords listed a consistent series of legitimate concerns that were not based in ill will. Lotus recognized that they could play an important role as a mediator and translator of sorts between market-rate landlords and mission-driven non-profits to create new opportunities for housing people. Lotus actively invites collaboration between sectors and, in the process, is dispelling myths about the private sector being uncaring, government being too dull, and non-profits being too slow.

Lotus’s approach to tackling the problem of housing affordability is unique in the way it engages the private sector. The housing affordability crisis is too large for non-profits or municipalities to solve on their own, and there’s no use in ignoring the valuable experience and capital that the private sector can offer.

What is the state of affordable housing in Charlotte today? / How is the Lotus Campaign addressing housing affordability and homelessness in Charlotte?

There are approximately 3,052 homeless people in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg county area according to official metrics, but this is inevitably an under-count. Local schools indicate there are 4,400 homeless people within their districts; the 3,052 point-in-time count of homeless people on the streets and in shelters is just the tip of the iceberg.

In Charlotte, as with the rest of the country, homelessness is largely due to a lack of affordable housing. This is a supply issue. Workforce housing (available to people earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income) is diminishing as it ages (being bulldozed or becoming slumlord properties). New development is relatively high-end due to current development costs, making it unaffordable for the workforce housing population. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is an important federal financing tool to incentivize new affordable housing development but, with development costs around $350,000/unit and years-long pre-development and construction periods, development cannot be the primary way to solve the housing supply problem. Recognizing this, Lotus developed a new model for providing housing for quickly those in need with much simpler and cheaper financing.

The Lotus Campaign engages landlord/developer owner entities and pairs them with nonprofit partners, providing financial support and services to incentivize landlords to offer leases to people on the brink of homelessness. Thus far, Lotus’s Landlord Participation Program has housed over 275 people for less than $800/year per unit. Sixty residents have renewed leases and some have successfully have moved into other permanent housing. There have also been less quantifiable successes, such as genuine rapport created between residents, non-profit sponsors who provide services, and landlords.

This uniquely designed program supports high-functioning chronically homeless folks and people in imminent danger of being homeless. (In contrast, many existing supportive housing programs are intended to support chronically homeless people with the greatest needs.) A key component of the Lotus model is that nonprofit sponsors provide ongoing support to Lotus-sponsored residents. Residents who opt into this program must abide by strict rules, such as permitting monthly walkthroughs of their units and required participation in services provided by non-profit sponsors. Lotus is not simply providing housing. It is a “housing plus” program.

While Lotus-sponsored residents are responsible for their own rent payments, Lotus provides financial guarantees to landlords. This $800/year per unit is security against a loss of rent, damages, and a year of renters insurance. An upfront “participation payment” of approximately $1,000 (8.5-12% of annual rent) is also offered to landlords for taking a chance on this new Lotus model. After an initial trial with Lotus leases, two out of five landlords are no longer accepting this participation payment due to Lotus’s proven ability to identify and support excellent tenants.

Other unique components of the Lotus Campaign model include the following:

• Landlords are required to give Lotus thirty days notice prior to filing an eviction so that Lotus can try to mediate with a resolution and prevent any realized eviction filings. Under this agreement, the Lotus Campaign offers to pay landlords’ court fees if an eviction is realized. Through now, there have been no evictions of Lotus-sponsored residents.
• The goal is not to have a building with 100% Lotus-sponsored residents; diverse neighborhoods and buildings are important. The Lotus Campaign has up to 10% or, in one case, 20% of units in a building reserved for their residents, who would likely be homeless if not for Lotus.
• Legal liability matters. Lotus does not ask that landlords waive criminal record checks. Thus far, only one potential resident has failed a criminal record check.

Landlords have found that the Lotus Campaign’s model is cheaper, faster, and better! One landlord entered the Landlord Participation Program with only one or two units rented to Lotus-sponsored residents, skeptical of its promise. Now, seeing the success that is built by collaboration between the Lotus Campaign, non-profit sponsors, and residents, they’re planning to expand their partnership from one to five properties! Lotus-sponsored residents have made for great tenants. As an additional benefit to landlords, the Lotus Campaign’s housing outreach, application, and move-in process is 1.5 weeks faster than the standard landlord-driven move-in process.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government to improve affordable housing in Charlotte, what would it be and why? / How is the Lotus Campaign creating solutions for problems that stem from government affordable housing policies?

The affordable housing market lacks a financing tool that is both catalytic and easy to implement. LIHTC catalyzes much of the affordable housing development in the US but, as discussed, new housing development only addresses one piece of the puzzle and is a costly solution for homelessness. The Lotus Campaign intends to address this identified gap in the industry and create new housing opportunities for people on the brink of homelessness by providing straightforward financing directly to landlords for units that already exist.

Another policy issue in the affordable housing industry is that municipalities are hyper-focused on long-term affordability. With so many people worried about where to sleep tonight, municipalities have been misguided by prioritizing perfectly formulated 30-year (or longer) housing affordability commitments between building owners and government funders. If the private market can secure 7-year financing terms for affordable housing, that should be welcomed. In contrast, Lotus understands the practicality of shorter-term successes for both residents and landlords. The Landlord Participation Program secures leases for tenants for one year at a time, which has proven to be a successful strategy for all parties involved. Any policy that speeds up somebody’s ability to be housed is positive. With the services provided by Lotus’ nonprofit sponsors, residents can gain stability they need during that one-year period to be able to transition into stable housing.

Lotus is also challenging industry norms around who support-oriented housing programs can help. Existing supportive housing models focus on providing housing and services for chronically homeless people with the greatest needs. Lotus recognizes that there are many people who need both housing and support, but are not served by the supportive housing models designed for people with more severe challenges. Lotus’ nonprofit partners provide relevant support to Lotus-sponsored residents, who are often left to fend for themselves while navigating economic, health, emotional stressors.

What makes you hopeful about housing in Charlotte? / What next steps does the Lotus Campaign looking forward to in Charlotte or beyond?

The Lotus Campaign offers an inexpensive way to keep people out of homelessness compared to costly homeless shelter systems or new construction. Nearly 300 people in Charlotte that might have otherwise been homeless have secured housing through their model. Landlords, non-profit partners, and -most of all- Lotus-sponsored residents have all benefited from life-changing successes through Lotus’ pilot in Charlotte. The Lotus Campaign plans to expand in Charlotte throughout 2021, serving an additional 400 people and engaging more non-profit sponsors. A pilot in another community is likely to begin this year, too. A necessary step for expanding this work is raising additional philanthropic money.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making? / What will it take to foster more creative solutions to homelessness like the Lotus Campaign model?

Often, the topic of housing affordability and homelessness does not include much discussion about solutions. Real problem-solving begins with dialogue. Through their own professional experience, founders of the Lotus Campaign knew that it was rare to invite developers to the table for problem-solving within the affordable housing industry. It’s also rare for developers, non-profits, government, and low-income people to interact in spaces that foster collaboration. Decision-makers must be educated about who homeless people truly are and what their needs are to be motivated to brainstorm and implement appropriate solutions.

Knowing this, an important and strategic part of the Lotus Campaign’s work is focused on education. Lotus is well-positioned to shift the dialogue toward innovative solutions due to their unique collaboration with the private, public, and non-profit sectors, and their deep understanding of their residents’ situations.

Lessons from a conversation with Eran Fowler Pehan, Director, City of Missoula Housing and Community Development

My key takeaways from Missoula:

• Conversations about affordable housing are actually conversations about values. Engaging with the public about their values is an important and authentic way to explore support for and resistance to affordable for housing.
• Economic booms in small towns increase demand for affordable housing and, with it, the need for a swath of new housing policies, programs, and financing priorities. Small teams of committed and creative city employees play a critical role in imagining, researching, and implementing innovative initiatives.
• Single-family zoning has a long and racism-fueled history in the US. Single-family zoning can also be detrimental to long-time locals with average incomes when economies change and supply cannot meet demand due to zoning restrictions.

What makes Missoula’s story about affordable housing unique?

The following two issues have created long-standing challenges for developing affordable housing in Missoula.

1. Developing housing of any kind in mountain towns like Missoula is often complicated and expensive due to environmental factors. Missoula’s topography calls for costly environmental mitigation measures, such retaining walls to manage stormwater on hillside slopes. As a result, many homes are sold at high price points to cover the costs of the development, making them unaffordable for the average Missoulian. Also, Missoula has more brownfield sites than average due to the past prevalence of timber mills, tanning operations, and coal mines. Those sites require costly “clean up” to be environmentally safe for construction.

2. Single-family zoning reigns supreme throughout Missoula and covers approximately 70-80% of the city. This limits the city’s ability to develop affordable housing to meet current supply needs. While changing the zoning code in the current political climate will be an uphill battle, momentum is building as demand for affordable housing increases.

What is the state of affordable housing in Missoula today?

Missoula’s strong sense of community has been challenged by population growth in recent years. Now, Missoula is consistently on lists of “top 10 places to live” and the tech industry has discovered Missoula’s merits. (Have you heard about their microbrew scene?!) There has even been an uptick in migration to Missoula during COVID. As Missoula’s economy and population grows, its citizens have confronted new questions about how to keep the mountain town affordable for locals.

Missoulians pride themselves in living in a town where everybody can thrive, but this value has been challenged in the last several years. High-income out-of-state professionals are buying homes in Missoula and increasing the market value. The average family of four in Missoula has a $50,000 income. They would have to earn twice that to afford the $300,000 homes that are on the market. Relatedly, approximately 8,000 people in Missoula could afford to buy a median-priced home if there was one available. As mentioned, single-family zoning has inevitably limited supply. Another reason that housing supply is low is that development halted during the great recession and, when there was an oil boom in East Montana, 90% of the construction industry relocated to that job market. The construction industry in Missoula did not fully recover until 2017.

Local families are being priced out and displaced, calling attention to the need for more affordable housing options in Missoula. In response to the increasing demand for affordable housing, Missoula’s current city government has committed time, energy, and resources to affordable housing development like never before. They’re backed by 90% of residents that are interested in local government taking a more active role in investing in affordable housing. This incredible public support even surprised Missoula’s policymakers! However, people want fast, easy answers, but all aspects of affordable housing creation – between financing, politics, and construction – are slow.

Missoulians are learning that generating affordable housing involves compromise. Missoula is having big city problems, but locals still want Missoula to feel like the small town they know and love. As with many mountain towns, in Missoula, there are countless tradeoffs between maintaining natural beauty and developing an urban interface. Missoulians want to know all their neighbors and have beautiful views of nature through their windows. They are realizing that values around maintaining their standard of living and making changes to allow for more affordable housing development do not realistically align. People are thoughtfully reflecting about the conflict in these values and the NIMBYism that is inherent with maintaining the status quo. Missoulians’ strong values around community and equity are adapting with the recognition that affordable housing will require the look and feel of their community to change.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

The most impactful way to create affordable neighborhoods will be to revise Missoula’s zoning code to allow for multiple housing types throughout the city . While waving a magic want to make zoning code changes would be an efficient shortcut for this controversial policy change, building collective support to decrease the prominence of single family zoning is an important part of this values-driven work. Maybe seven years down the line, sentiments will have shifted so that necessary zoning code changes will be politically feasible. In the meantime, Missoula’s city government has made clear that every neighborhood should be part of the affordable housing solution and by including affordable housing in one form or another, even though it is not possible to implement all housing typologies throughout Missoula due to the restrictive zoning code — yet.

What makes you hopeful about housing in Missoula?

Missoulians have engaged in wonderful, vulnerable conversations about their values related to affordable housing development. It’s inspiring to realize how important it is to Missoulians to provide equal opportunities throughout the town. Through rich dialogue, people are also slowly accepting that there are tradeoffs between things that they care about like affordable housing, pedestrian space, and open space. The genuine engagement in these difficult conversations is hopeful. Further, Missoula’s executive and legislative leadership are invested in affordable housing and believe that housing is a human right. Knowing that there are challenging choices ahead with a City Council that is already supportive of affordable housing in Missoula contributes to a spirit of optimism for the cause.  

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

Standard civic engagement is welcoming to white middle class Americans. Missoula has been intentional about removing barriers to civic engagement and creating ways to for people to engage on their own time. City government makes better choices when they hear from their full constituency.

A Citizens Advisory Committee was created that reflects the city’s demographics for ethnic and gender diversity, and has an equal number of renters and homeowners. This model of citizen oversight was part of the recent recommendation for Missoula to establish an affordable housing trust fund. The Advisory Committee provides insight even more valuable than data could provide, helping to answer questions about a variety of housing types or the importance of aging in place measures, for example. 

Lessons from a conversation with Honolulu City Councilmember Kymberly Pine, Chair of the Committee on Zoning & Housing

My key takeaways from Honolulu:

• Policymakers must understand developers’ perspectives and their work to appropriately incentivize affordable housing development.
• Unwieldy bureaucratic systems can be a true strain on development. Simplifying standard protocol could go a long way in incentivizing affordable housing creation.

What makes Honolulu’s story about affordable housing unique?

While Honolulu’s natural beauty has been ever-present, affordable housing has been historically lacking. These points are not unrelated: Honolulu is a desirable and expensive place to develop. Development there centered around projects like hotels that had reliably high cash flows for foreign investors. In response to booming development, affordable housing production was unwelcome due to general concerns of over-development. As a result, affordable housing was built so far out of the city’s center that the sprawl has led to some of the worst traffic in the country.

Affordable housing development was also stifled by various regulations. ADA requirements limiting heights of buildings without elevators made it nearly impossible for developers to build enough affordable units to create sufficient income, for example. And, with the creation of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program in the 1980s, Honolulu tried to incentivize the development of apartment buildings by requiring 50% of their units to be affordable for residents 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or below. Only 10 units were built under these guidelines.  A later Honolulu bill changed the 50% minimum to 30%, without much success. The “solutions” to lacking affordable housing over a few decades had not involved working with developers to understand the challenges.

Honolulu’s history shows that developers were never going to build affordable housing if they were going to lose money in the process. Something needed to shift.

What is the state of affordable housing in Honolulu today?

Developing in Honolulu is still extremely expensive, and the city has some of the most expensive housing costs in the nation. Housing has been Councilmember Pine’s priority throughout her City Council term, and she has worked with developers and partners to make affordable housing a feasible development choice. Recognizing that developers have a crucial role to play in creating more housing for her low-income constituents, she learned about what would make more affordable housing projects pencil. What regulations would need to shift to allow for the creation of more affordable units?

Councilmember Pine learned that developers were willing to engage and, like many of us, prefer to have choices. New ideas were generated collaboratively. Honolulu has since tested and adapted new policies to incentivize affordable housing development. For example, a program was established to allow buildings to exceed the standard FAR if more than 50% of units were 140% AMI or below. Under this policy, a lot of not-so-affordable housing for the higher income levels was built. Legislation course-corrected and now limits this to 120% AMI.

Other great strides have been made recently to welcome affordable housing development in Honolulu. For affordable housing in particular, there are fewer parking requirements, set backs requirements are more flexible, and there are no property taxes or sewer hookup fees. Five-story walk-ups are allowed once again. Affordable housing units are allowed in certain areas that had been zoned for single-family homes only. A commitment to fifteen-year affordability is required rather than affordability in perpetuity. Today, Honolulu policymakers and affordable housing developers understand how to work together to achieve the same end goal.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

Two ideas:

The Department of Planning and Permitting should innovate beyond their current regulatory role. As is, the Department reviews in such detail that it can take two years for projects to receive permits. Projects are lost that way. The Department could provide permits efficiently by focusing their review only on health and safety and by trusting architects and engineers’ stamps. This change would benefit Honolulu’s economy; construction jobs could start earlier, shipping companies could plan accordingly, and people would be housed sooner.

Allowing tiny homes to be developed on agricultural land for farmworkers would help Hawaii invest in its own economy. While Hawaii historically had a thriving agricultural economy, today Hawaiians primarily rely on imported food. To bridge the desire for a robust local food economy and more affordable housing, Councilmember Pine is eager to work with people who claim opposition to tiny homes on agricultural land for environmental reasons.

What makes you hopeful about housing in Honolulu?

Honolulu’s affordable housing development industry is focused and eager to build. Even throughout COVID, with many industries unable to continue business as usual, development teams are working toward building more affordable housing and preparing their permits. As planned, the recent policy shifts are encouraging more affordable housing development in Honolulu.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

Toward the beginning of her term, Councilmember Pine held a meeting with approximately one hundred stakeholders, ranging from housing developers to dedicated housing advocates. Typically on opposite sides of the aisle, those groups arrived at the meeting without trusting the “other side.” Councilmember Pine facilitated an eye-opening conversation that engaged stakeholders to think through what it would take for all parties to come together to develop more affordable housing. Developers were given the opportunity to teach about the complexity of developing affordable housing. Advocates were given the space to share stories that demonstrated the value of affordable housing in real people’s lives. In this collaborative format, foes became friends. All stakeholders contributed to the creation of the Bill 59 bill that passed the Honolulu City Council with a unanimous vote.

Lessons from a conversation with Eva Bauer, Head of Housing Economics, Austrian Federation of Limited Profit Housing Associations

My key takeaways from Vienna:

• The prevalence of social housing in Austria is uniquely tied to its history, and its successful model would be difficult to replicate in most countries today without major political shifts.
• National policies should hold affordable housing owners to strict financial responsibility standards and regulate affordable rents for many levels.
• Economic policies can be structured to enable citizens to accumulate sizeable savings, which can in turn contribute to maintaining social housing without as much subsidy.
• Even with a robust social housing system, it can still be challenging for disadvantaged groups like immigrants and refugees to secure affordable housing.

What makes Vienna’s story about affordable housing unique?

For over a century in Vienna and throughout Austria, affordable housing has been widely available for much of their low- and middle-income populations. In the early 1900s, the population in Austria was increasing while its already-horrible housing conditions were worsening. Taking matters into their own hands, twenty cooperatives were founded in 1910 with the mission to develop new housing. The co-ops were well-organized but needed funds to build new housing at the necessary scale for its members. In response, the Austrian government established its first loan program providing subsidies develop housing. In exchange for the subsidy, the co-ops agreed to maintain housing affordability and limit their profits. These founding co-ops required a commitment of 2,000 hours of labor per family member to be eligible for lotteries of the newly developed units.

While the co-op housing model of the 1910s was likely driven by a small middle class, they set a precedent for government-subsided housing that grew to serve a broader majority of the population. Following their lead and recognizing the need for affordable housing, Vienna’s government established its own public housing program in the 1920s. Its development outpaced the co-ops’ through the start of WWI in 1939.

The successes of citizen-led housing co-ops and government-led public housing from the beginning of the 20^th century wove the fabric for affordable housing regulation and industry throughout Austria. Federal Limited-Profit Housing regulation outlines rules for later-established “limited-profit housing association” models (akin to non-profit housing ownership in the US), cementing the crucial role limited-profit housing plays in Austria today. (While municipalities continue to manage their own public housing, government-owned housing hasn’t been developed for 20 years because limited-profit owners build and manage housing so efficiently.)

As further proof that Austria’s policies have consistently prioritized housing affordability, it’s worth noting that the Austrian Constitution even addresses social housing affairs (i.e. provision of affordable housing) in its Volkswohnungswesen clauses, and the Wohnbauförderungsbeitrag tax requires that 1% of an employee’s gross income is contributed toward housing subsidies. The legacy of early 1900s housing co-ops in Austria have had profound effects, leading to today’s robust limited-profit housing market that provides permanently affordable housing to many income levels.

What is the state of affordable housing in Vienna today?

Approximately 43% of housing in Vienna is considered affordable “social housing,” the second highest rate in Europe. Tenants pay an average of only 20% of their income toward rent due to effective social housing and rent control measures in place to ensure affordability. 43% of Austrians are renters (the third highest rate in Europe) and 60-80% of the population is eligible for social housing.

In exchange for low rents, many limited-profit housing residents pay a down payment of $20,000-$40,000 per unit, which is calculated to mirror the 2,000 hours of labor that co-op members were required to contribute in the early days of Austria’s social housing. Public funds provide low-interest loans to lower-income groups for these down payments. The down payments contribute to building operations and debt service payments, and are returned to residents when they move out. There is evidence that a positive side effect of incentivizing citizens to save toward down payments for rentals rather than home ownership shielded Austria from experiencing a severe financial crisis in 2008; the subprime mortgage crisis had less of an impact in Austria, where there are far fewer home mortgages (and, conversely, more rentals) relative to other countries.

While social housing is widely available throughout Austria compared to other countries, today’s housing associations today are challenged by limited land and subsidy resources. One specific challenge is that units in new buildings are not very affordable for lower-income residents due to an upward trend in land values and construction costs. These market shifts are creating a wider spread in rents between new and old buildings, which has led to concerns that ghettos will result in areas with older (more affordable) social housing stock;  lower-income residents can afford units in older buildings, where rents and down payments are cheaper. The government has attempted to address this issue by creating an initiative to build smaller, more affordable units in new market-rate buildings.

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one policy at any level of government, what would it be and why?

In many countries, developers and building owners are accustomed to more profitability and freedom than Austria’s structure allows, so it likely would take a magic wand for policy makers to put affordability measures in place that could rival Austria’s. The prevalence of affordable housing in Austria is unique to its history and replicating its model elsewhere would be challenging. Most other national governments would need to start from scratch to create limited-profit housing models that maintain affordability for the life of the building and limit profits for owners, as is the case in Austria.

What makes you hopeful about housing in Vienna?

Social housing isn’t stigmatized or controversial, and powerful laws ensuring affordability are backed by the historical success of housing co-ops. The Limited-Profit Housing Act requires that social housing remain affordable indefinitely and that rents remain low. The limited-profit organizations that manage today’s social housing are required by the Limited-Profit Housing Act to meet strict financial responsibility metrics. Austrian policies incentivize responsible management of affordable housing and all profits must be reinvested. In exchange, owners are incentivized by corporate income tax exemptions and access to government subsidies. Many Austrians are proud of their stable and well-regulated affordable housing industry, which serves a large percentage of the population.

What are effective ways to include the people most impacted by affordable housing issues in government-level decision making?

There are a number of NGOs that act both as social services agencies for people in need and as lobby institutions for those populations.  These NGOs work with Austria’s limited-profit housing associations to execute rental contracts that allow NGOs to sublet units to refugees or other groups. They also develop affordable housing for particular populations in partnership with limited-profit housing associations. NGOs use this housing experience and exposure to to create programs and lobby for policies that benefit those with the greatest needs.