U.S. Public Housing and the Challenge of Housing the Poorest Americans. Lawrence J. Vale Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Transcription

1 U.S. Public Housing and the Challenge of Housing the Poorest Americans Lawrence J. Vale Massachusetts Institute of Technology Wilson Center, Washington, D.C. July 2013

2 A Housing Crisis for the Lowest Income Americans 41 million U.S. households are renters (35% of all households) 10.1 million of these have extremely low-incomes (ELI) 7.7 million of that subset spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs For every 100 ELI households, there are only 30 affordable and available housing units 4.5 million housing units are needed that are affordable to ELI households Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach, 2013

3 Nationwide, Low-income renters fall short of earning the Housing Wage

4 Low wage jobs yield low access to affordable housing

5 Reframing Public Housing History Conventional View: Public housing as humanitarian assistance to improve the living conditions of the lowest income Americans; a program that failed as policy and as environments, and is being torn down. An Alternative View: Public Housing as three phases of evolving attitudes towards the American poor: 1. Purging the Poorest ( ) 2. Consolidating the Poorest ( ) 3. Purging the Poorest, again (1990-present)

6 Public Housing as a Triple Social Experiment Clearing Slums/Building Public Housing Welfare Housing Clearing Public Housing/Mixed Income Communities

7 From Slums to Public Housing

8 From Public Housing Slums to.???

9 Reframing Public Housing Terminology Conventional View: U.S. Public housing is government-owned and government-managed housing for those with the lowest incomes. An Alternative View: U.S. Public Housing has become public-private housing, most of which is neither government-owned nor governmentmanaged.

10 Rethinking the Mode of Public Housing Conventional Public Housing Units Housing Vouchers Source: Vale and Freemark, Journal of the American Planning Association, December 2012

11 Projects to Vouchers: A National Housing Transition In most major U.S. cities, except New York, vouchers now exceed the # of units in public housing projects Source: Vale and Freemark, 2012

12 Rethinking the Mode of Public Housing Conventional Public Housing Units Housing Vouchers

13 Rethinking the Mode of Public Housing Conventional Public Housing Units Housing Vouchers

14 Tearing Down Projects, and Now Cutting Back on Vouchers?

15 Other Projects on the Rise: Privately Developed Public Housing Source: Vale and Freemark, JAPA, 2012

16 The Emergent Public-Private Housing Landscape: 25 Years of Dramatic Change Source: Vale and Freemark, JAPA, 2012

17 Source: Vale and Freemark, JAPA, 2012 Public Housing and Beyond: Trends in Deep Subsidies for Federally Assisted Rental Housing

18 Deeply subsidized Rental Housing in the United States: A Declining Commitment? Source: Vale and Freemark, JAPA, 2012

19 From Public Housing to Mixed-Income Housing The changing composition of public housing tenancy The case for moving to a mixed-income model The downsides

20 The Myth of the Mixed-Income Panacea: A Three-Part Problem 1. Mixed-Income is an ill-defined category; 2. Many assumed benefits of Mixed-Income developments don t seem to hold true in practice; 3. Some public housing redevelopment has proceeded successfully without resort to income mixing.

21 Public Housing Redevelopment: Fixing Without Mixing Boston s Commonwealth Development: Strong Management, Creative Design, and Active Informal Control By Residents (most of whom returned)

22 Built in 1958; redeveloped in 2005 North Beach Place, San Francisco: All 229 PH units replaced on site, plus 112 additional affordable units (LIHTC) = Mixing In

23 Why Should We Want Mixed-Income Communities? Who benefits from mixed-income development? How can benefits for the poorest be maximized? Who is the we that should be deciding this?

24 Which Question Is Being Asked? 1. How can the number of very lowincome households that need to be accommodated be kept to a minimum so that redevelopment will remain financially appealing to private developers and investors? OR 2. What is the maximum number of well-screened very low-income households that can be accommodated in a mixed-income development while still ensuring a safe and stable community?