Promise and peril of affordable housing

So I "borrowed" the idea for the title of this post from an obscure book. Who's gonna know, aside from my father? No one. Good. Let's just assume it's my idea and move on.

Following years of exploding home prices, a concerted effort from a coalition of local religious groups, and widespread public support during the charrette, affordable housing has moved onto the radar screens of local politicians. An attempt to provide a quick fix to the problem that would have transferred housing allocations from the county's rural west to its developed east failed in September, but this was probably a good thing.

Quick fixes usually don't help complex problems. And complex doesn't even begin to describe this issue.

Inevitably intertwined with the issue of affordable housing is that of growth. As much as I'd like to delve into that fiery pit of hyperbole and misinformation, I'll try to steer clear of it for now (though I hope--but don't promise--to write a coup de grâce on the topic in the coming weeks? Months? Sometime. Hopefully.).

What I can write now is something about affordable housing's increasing presence on the pages of the local rags and lips of local officials. Just last week, county executive James Robey broached the topic at a luncheon sponsored by the Association of Community Services. Of course, he was prodded into speaking on the matter by Delegate Elizabeth Bobo, who asked a question about including moderately priced housing in Town Center as a part of the charrette/master plan.

Robey's response was nothing special, saying "I think there should be affordable housing in Town Center. This will not be an exclusive area for the rich." However, his willingness to counter the charachteristic bigotry of opponents of inclusive housing was refreshing to hear.

"You're allowing 'those people' to move into our community" is the complaint he has heard, he said.

"To me, those people are cops and teachers, mechanics, carpenters and plumbers," said Robey, who spent 32 years in the Police Department, including seven as its chief, in his native Howard County.

That's nice, but what about affordable housing in Town Center? Certainly, it was an issue discussed and supported by many participants.

Andre J. DeVerneil, a leader of the Coalition for Affordable Housing that has pushed for moderate- income housing in Town Center, said his group wants 10 percent moderate-income and 10 percent middle-income. General Growth has talked about designating 10 percent of the 2,000 to 5,000 living units expected to be built over the next several decades as lower-cost housing.

DeVerneil said the issue was left "vague" after the weeklong planning charrette in October, though he said most participants appeared to support the concept of below-market housing.

"This is just a golden opportunity," and perhaps the last to include lower-priced housing in a large housing development in Howard County, DeVerneil said.

DeVerneil is right about this being a good opportunity to get a lot of affordable housing in highly desirable location--close to employment, entertainment, shopping, transportation, and schools. Beyond Town Center, much of the future development in the county will consist of smaller projects (because of limited land and fear of density), and using the percentage set asides affordable housing types love so much, additional growth under the current county allocation system will yield only minimal, scattered moderately priced units.

(For more information about affordable housing's role in the charrette, click here for a .pdf document written by the Planning department.)

But Town Center is only one part of the county, and clearly affordable housing is an issue throughout the county. Also clear is the fact that the county's existing affordable housing program is not effective, otherwise I wouldn't be writing about it. To counter the hyperactivity in the housing market that is driving up prices, the Planning department is proposing changes to the affordable housing program that would make these units available to wider range of income levels, supposedly to serve the needs of the middle income bracket.

County officials say they want to amend the county's Moderate Income Housing Unit law, which requires developers in the county to construct 10 to 15 percent of the houses they build for moderate-income families, depending on where in the county the houses are constructed.

Under the proposed policy, the county would require developers to use up to half of that 10 to 15 percent allotment to build middle-income dwellings, while using the remainder to construct houses for moderate-income families.

County housing officials say they are attempting to ensure that developers build more houses for teachers, nurses, police officers, retail and office workers, and other middle-income residents.

Affordable housing advocates don't like the plan because they say (and I'm paraphrasing) that it would rob from the poor to give to the middle class. And they're right, kind of. It does seem that some of the affordable housing set aside that would have gone to moderate income households will now go to middle income households, but they're focused on the wrong things.

We can argue all day about percentages and by the time the sun goes down we'll have accomplished close to nothing. The lack of affordable housing is not going to be ameliorated by going from 10 percent set asides to 15 or 20. We're talking about differences of tens of units a year in a county where the median household income is $82,065 and the median home price is over $400,000.

Indeed, a county study last May found that less than six percent of the homes available for sale that month were priced less than $260,000; using the standard assumption that one spends 3x annual income on housing, this means 50 percent of households are competing for less than six percent of the homes (yes I know this statement is fraught with statistical problems, but the point is valid). The profile of our housing stock is so out of touch with our income profile that such small-minded solutions will do next to nothing to help. Look at Montgomery county, a leader in the field of affordable housing with over 30 years of experience. Have they found a panacea for unaffordability?

All that will come of the proposed affordable housing solutions for Town Center and beyond are a couple of moderately priced houses (built who knows when) and a set ofpoliticianss who can rest happy thinking they stood up to developers and did what's best for the county. Gee, thanks.

If we were honest to ourselves about growth, housing, and our future, we would spend more time trying to understand the situation and developing ways to address it that would actually have an impact. Instead, it seems, we're happy with doing the minimum to get by (rather, votes) and calling it a day.

I usually hate it when people complain about something and don't offer any solution. In this case, I'd love to offer a solution, but I just don't have one. I might, however, if I actually had a clearer sense of the scope and scale of the problem, but that would require (for me, but not the county) more information than some Census figures and a search of Pat Hiban's website.

Housing cleaning...

In his first real splash as County Executive, Ken Ulman yesterday appointed a new director and deputy director for the Department of Housing and Community Development.

...Howard County Executive Ken Ulman announced yesterday that he's replaced the county's two top housing officials with his own choices. The firing of 15-year housing director Leonard S. Vaughan, 66, and 10-year deputy director Neil Gaffney, 60, mark Ulman's first moves to replace veteran county officials.

Stacy Spann, 33, of Fulton, an assistant commissioner in Baltimore's housing agency since March 2004, who rose from his teen years as a resident of Howard's Guilford Gardens public housing to live in Maple Lawn, will take over Howard's agency Jan. 15, Ulman said.

...Ulman chose Tom Carbo, 47, of Westminster, a 17-year veteran assistant county solicitor, county labor negotiator and Board of Appeals hearing examiner, as deputy director. Carbo began his new job immediately. Spann will earn $124,134, and Carbo's salary will be $110,573, according to Aaron Greenfield, Ulman's chief of staff.

The changes underscore the sensitivity of the housing issue in Howard, where the county government has struggled to promote units limited-income families can afford as home prices escalated beyond the reach of many working people. At the same time, some residents are increasingly opposed to even housing for people earning between $35,000 and $55,000 a year.

"Housing is a tough issue. Folks want affordable housing, but often times they have different thoughts about where it should be located," Ulman said.

...The new executive has otherwise moved cautiously, hiring a permanent police chief, a new budget director, and a chief administrative officer, all from within county government and without firing anyone. Ulman's predecessor, James N. Robey, a former county police chief who just completed two terms in the top job, didn't fire any appointed department heads when he took office in 1998.

...Ulman, a Democrat, said politics played no role in his decision. Vaughan and Gaffney are both Republicans who served under former executive Charles I. Ecker, a Republican, and Robey, a Democrat.

Ulman made the change, he said, because he wanted "a new director with a sense of creativity and vision" to work on the Affordable Housing Task Force report completed last month.

"As we work through that report, I thought it was very important to have a new direction, a new team in place with a sense of creativity and vision so that we can try to make sure that the policies we have in place are meeting the goals we have set out," Ulman said.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I wholeheartedly support Ulman's decision. And as I said elsewhere, my support has nothing to do with politics.

I’m sure Mr. Gaffney and Mr. Vaughan are great people, but the truth of the matter is that these guys have been running the housing department for over a decade and what do we have: a task force report saying the shortage of affordable housing in this county is somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 (units).

If we really want to make headway on the affordable housing issue, we’re going to need new ideas and energy. The same old same old hasn’t, and won’t, cut it.

Also, here's another good take on the appointments:

The Rev. Robert A. Turner, president of the African American Coalition of Howard County, said, "I think it's a positive move. You need someone not wedded to the status quo."

Much of what the housing department does is adminstrative stuff. It adminsters federal and state programs and funds for affordable housing. And with respect to these activities, I think Vaughan has done well.

But with a problem as large as ours, we need the department to be more active and proactive. And, unfortunately, a lot of what I've heard from Vaughan has been, as Turner said, defense of the status quo or, more accurately, a belief that our affordable housing shortfall is an endemic, intractable problem. See, for instance, this post.

So, in addition to his youth (33!) and high school alma mater (Hammond High!), what else is there for me to like about Spann?

Spann is a former investment banker who moved to the non-profit housing field, Ulman said, as social investment officer for the F.B. Heron Foundation of New York, the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in Boston and the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corporation.

Spann, who grew up in Alabama before moving to Maryland as a teen, became one of five assistant housing commissioners in Baltimore. City housing commissioner Paul Graziano praised him in a statement yesterday.

"Stacy Spann played a key role in this organization and his acumen, energy and enthusiasm will be sorely missed," Graziano said.

Spann said despite the lure of Wall Street, where he worked as an analyst, he was drawn to non-profit service.

"This is something I really wanted to do," Spann said about his career switch. "I want to use some skills to help revitalize a community."

A former investment banker giving up the riches of Wall Street to work in affordable housing? Sounds familiar. But that's beside the point, which is in fact that Spann already has a lot of experience working in a range of capacities in the field and is clearly committed to the idea of affordable housing and the role it plays in helping people move up in society.

Also, his new deputy's credentials don't sound so bad, either.

Ulman said Carbo's experience would benefit the county.

"He really understands the nuts and bolts of the department," Ulman said, noting that Carbo drafted the law that created the Howard County Housing Commission, the county's primary agency for creating lower-priced housing.

The Sun has a couple other stories on affordable housing in today's issue, including this one on the controversial Centennial-area proposal and this one on why its so hard to get affordable housing built in Columbia (hint: because it's not part of the law).

Another ignored study...

Anyone who has read this blog for a while or who knows me personally should be well aware that affordable housing is something I care about deeply.

Accordingly, I’ve been following the work of a county task force charged with addressing housing affordability in Howard County, a problem that many believe is growing. A story in today’s Sun offers a glimpse of some of the possible recommendations the committee will release in its final report, which is due by October 31.

• Permitting greater density, or the number of homes per acre. Developers have long insisted that skyrocketing land costs in the county make it economically infeasible to construct single-family homes for low- and middle-income earners.

• Authorizing taller, multifamily buildings, which also results in higher density.

• Increasing public funds, perhaps by increasing the excise tax, that could be used in unison with developers to make construction of affordable-housing economically practical.

• Revamping zoning regulations, which many developers complain are cumbersome and result in undue delays and higher costs.

• Increasing the number of housing units that can be constructed annually. The county restricts that to about 1,700 a year, but Armiger said perhaps units designed for low- and middle-income earners should be above the regulated cap.

• Making "excess" public lands available for development.

Also discussed is the idea of creating a community land trust – essentially a non-profit entity that buys land, the most expensive component in the cost of housing, and builds affordable units on its property. The buildings – not the land – are sold to qualified buyers, with contingencies to ensure the property is permanently affordable. It is one of the few solutions that offers sustainable affordability, although because of rising costs and diminishing supply of land, it may have limited success in Howard.

Going back to the list of possible solutions, it’s pretty clear that some will be controversial -- in particular, those that relax development restrictions (building heights, density) and even, to an extent, those requiring greater public funding. Over the past few years, the approach with the most widespread support is that which requires developers to set aside a percentage of newly built units for moderate-income households. Not surprisingly, this is also the approach that requires the least amount of sacrifice and acquiescence from existing residents.

The task force, however, seemingly believes (and rightly so, I think) that set asides as described above are not sufficient to fully address the affordability problem. Therefore, they hope to match their beliefs with reality and gain a little political will at the same time.

The complexity of its work is underscored by the fact that it knows neither the scope of the problem today nor what it will be in the future, and by the admission that unanimity among the sharply diverse group might be impossible.

Nonetheless, quantifying the need remains a goal, because without pinpointing the problem the hope of winning broad support for its recommendations becomes more difficult.

Local affordable housing advocates have long maintained, largely via anecdote, that the affordability problem is real and growing. And, as stated above, the truth of the situation is not well known. But how hard can it be to show the problem exists?

I spent a couple minutes today trolling the Census website and came up with a few charts that might shed some light on the situation (this is, pretty much, what I get paid for).

First, let’s look at housing costs as a percentage of income (keeping in mind that to qualify as “rent-burdened” in HUD’s terms or “house poor” in common parlance, you must pay more than 30 percent of your gross income towards housing).

For all households, we have this:


Interestingly, those paying 35 percent of more of their income towards housing increased at the same time those paying less than 20 percent did. Which is not as surprising when you look at these two charts, separating owner and renter households.


So, while the distribution remains basically the same for owners, except for the significant up tick in those paying less than 20 percent of income, the distribution for renters changed pretty dramatically – over a third of all renters now pay more than 35 percent of their income for housing, and the percentage of those paying less than 20 percent dropped by more than ten points.

In a county with considerably more owners than renters (71,577 to 25,684, respectively), it is not surprising that the trends were harder to distinguish when all households were combined into one chart.

Another factor to consider when looking at the chart for owners is that banks will not approve mortgages (for the most part) if your income doesn’t qualify, meaning it’s fairly unlikely that we would see large numbers of owners paying more than 35 percent of income towards housing.

Of course, there are plenty of other charts one could make suggesting that there is a growing affordability problem. For instance, the ratio of median house value to median income:


(The current rule of thumb is that the cost of your house should roughly equal three times your annual income.)

So, after only a couple minutes, I’ve managed to create a series of charts that show a growing disparity between incomes and housing, the definition of an affordability problem. Just imagine what a paid government employee, doing this stuff five days a week, could accomplish.

However, it occurred to me while I was doing this that all the fancy charts and expensive studies in the world probably don’t matter. While a rigorous study demonstrating conclusively that the scope of the problem is large may increase political will to an extent, it will not create the groundswell of support needed to make affordable housing a top priority, let alone to “solve” the issue.

Either people care about affordable housing or they don’t.

As someone who can’t take two steps without falling under the gaze of Jim Rouse, I obviously care about affordable housing. True believers in the Columbia Idea care about affordable housing. Mushy bleeding heart-types and socialists care about affordable housing. But we all care about it regardless of if the problem is growing or shrinking or critical or whatever.

We believe that mixed income communities function best for everyone, that people should have a right to live near where they work, that your future should not be determined the ZIP Code you were born into. And to bolster our beliefs, we point to things like the 1949 Housing Act, which guaranteed a “decent home and suitable living environment for all Americans.”

That statement is often considered by people like me as part of the Bill of Rights: every American has a right to live in a good home.

What’s not guaranteed, and indeed overlooked by local advocates, is the fact that the location of this suitable living environment is left promised. To be sure, nobody wants poor kids growing up in concentrated poverty, but that doesn’t mean they want them growing up down the street either. And that’s their choice, whether you agree or not.

No amount of studies are going to convince everyone that affordable housing is an issue we need to address. As long as we have housing and job markets that stretch across multiple counties and jurisdictions, the will to create more affordable housing in one subset of the market – Howard County – while it’s readily available in other parts will likely never materialize.

So, even if the task force’s study shows low-income families being pushed out or burdened at an alarming (to my sensibilities, anyway) rate, the response from many, perhaps even the majority, will be: So what?

I still support efforts to better understanding the housing, income and jobs imbalance in our county, even if the stated goal for such a study makes it a fool’s errand.

Developing a new way...

Up until now, much of the focus on this blog and elsewhere with respect to affordable housing has been quantifying the need. I don’t want to belabor this aspect of the debate any further. I think it is pretty well established that Howard County has a deficit of affordable housing and the question that now needs answering is: What do we do about it?

A group of smart, concerned people met over several months at the behest of former County Executive James Robey to discuss this question. The task force’s final report (available here in pdf format), offers an array of recommendations aimed at creating a "full spectrum" of housing available to meet the needs of our diverse workforce. (As an aside, it's a little funny that many are now coming to realize the importance of a range of housing options, considering this was at the heart of Columbia's creation over 40 yeas ago.)

Analyzing and discussing all of the task force's recommendations in one blog post is impossible. Instead, I'll try to address each individually in a series of posts, starting with the fairly non-controversial and straightforward idea to "leverage public dollars through public/private partnerships."

Public/private partnerships in the development of affordable housing and the preservation of affordable units need to be encouraged and utilized as a way to leverage public dollars. Neither sector can solve this problem alone.

This concept was echoed by County Executive Ken Ulman during his speech at the installation ceremony on Monday.

"We go further," Ulman said. "We know that a gap exists - and to a certain extent will always exist - between where we are today as a society and where we know we should be. Together we must constantly strive to bridge that gap.

"Government cannot do it alone. But working together with our business community, our nonprofit partners and, most especially, our citizenry, we can strive to close that gap."

What's curious about this idea is how far down the list of task force recommendations it falls. This, I believe, should be the guiding principle of our affordable housing program.

The days of public housing (i.e. government built and managed) are gone, for the most part. Since the 1970s, after it became apparent that government could do little more than warehouse the poor in large, isolated "projects," private developers -- both for- and non-profit -- took over the business, building houses and transforming neighborhoods (for the better) effectively and efficiently. Granted, much of the funding for low-income housing still comes from public sources -- both directly and, more so, indirectly through the tax code.

In Howard County, affordable housing is, for the most part, produced in one of two ways: by the Department of Housing and Community Development (public) or by for-profit developers as part of the Moderate Income Housing Unit program (private). Obviously, neither has been very effective.

Where there's room for improvement is with non-profit developers, a sector that is largely non-existent in this county. Which is unfortunate, given that our county is home to the leading organization committed to helping (financially and otherwise) small non-profit developers build affordable housing in their communities. It is a vast and mostly untapped resource that could help build on the legacy of its founder in the community where he made his name.

A stronger, savvier non-profit development sector has access to financial resources and can accomplish things for-profit developers and public agencies cannot. Furthermore, collaboration between the three sectors can create synergies that are vital to affordable housing development, especially in areas, like ours, where land and development are so expensive.

My thoughts on this aren't complete or very well-developed at this point. But I'm heading out to the transition team public hearing now, so I'll just post what I have and hope it makes sense.

Expect more affordable housing stuff tomorrow.

Mixing things up...

There is a good post over at Howard County Blog #2 (the one focused mainly on the Charrette) about the allocating affordable housing.

I have heard a lot of people talking about percentages of the median income in the county, but this strikes me as an irrelevant number. The median income finds the middle of the income distribution and doesn't tell us very much about the full distribution. To truly have mixed income housing you need housing for the entire range, preferably in proportions matching what people in the community can afford. Thus the starting point for mixed income housing needs to be: what are the incomes earned by the jobs in the community?

…To figure out what income-level mix in housing units we need it is important to get a better sense of the income ranges. How many jobs in the area pay less that $25,000 a year? How many pay $25,001 to $35,000? How many pay $35,001 to $45,000? How many pay $45,001 to $55,000? How many pay $55,001 to $65,000? How many pay $65,001 to $75,000? How many pay $75,001 to $100,000? How many pay over $100,000?

He's onto something. I'’ve heard this concept batted around for a little while now, and it strikes me as one of the better approaches for creating affordable housing. Certainly, as I have said many times before, our current system, even considering the Department of Planning and Zoning'’s proposed changes, is not going to make any meaningful difference in the overall lack of affordable housing. The mix of incomes in this county is (I presume) greatly out of step with the mix of housing choices; however, the actual extent of this discrepancy is unknown, and our lack of understanding of this imbalance is the first and most significant barrier to creating a better affordable housing program.

In developing Columbia, James Rouse understood that the best way to ensure a diverse community with housing choices for everyone was to build a diverse mix of homes—apartments, condominiums, townhouses, duplexes and single family homes are all prevalent in all of Columbia'’s villages. As we approach full "build out" in Columbia, the dwindling supply of new homes, coupled with the insane regional housing market, has increased the total costs of housing in general, pricing many families out of a market that was designed to include everyone. Evan at Howard County Blog #2 touches on this dilemma as it relates to young professionals earning between $30,000 and $45,000 per year:

If the calculation of what a person can afford to purchase is three times their annual income, then these young professionals would be looking for properties in the $90,000 to $135,000 range. You currently cannot find a condo in Howard County in that range, nor are there very many apartments that could be rented by people making this range of income. When I bought my one bedroom one bath condo 2.5 years ago I bought it for $110,500. A couple months ago an identical unit went for $205,000.

Unfortunately, there is no way we can replicate scale and scope of the housing choices created during Columbia's development; there isn't enough land. But we can replicate the concept, which is what Evan is rightly advocating.

To be sure, this approach presents a host of difficulties and would require a considerable amount of effort and political will to be enacted. One of the likely sticking points would be the level of governmental control over housing mixes and how you square that with a developerÂ’s need to make money. Overly restricting the available development options could lead to unintended consequences, particularly in the long-term (remember, we're thinking 30 years out). However, that is not to say that we couldn'’t create a system that is both flexible and prescriptive, in much the same way that New Town zoning was for many years.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who knows whether such an approach has been tried anywhere else. We know that thousands of jurisdictions have used inclusionary zoning (setting aside a percentage, usually around 15 percent, of all new development as affordable housing) to varying degrees of success; Montgomery County, one of the first to use such an approach, has created a significant amount of affordable housing, but has by no means found a panacea, if one even exists (not likely).

Planning pitfalls...

After praising them yesterday, I’m afraid I’m going to say some things members of the new Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown aren’t going to like. First, the good:

“There’s nothing for low-income housing” in the county’s plan for redeveloping downtown Columbia, said Alan Klein, head of the newly formed Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown.

…The Department of Planning and Zoning proposed setting aside 10 percent of units for moderate-income housing and 5 percent for middle-income units, according to the draft plan. Klein said that accounts for those making $50,000 to $100,000 a year and overlooks those who make less.

The group proposed setting aside at least 20 percent of all units for moderate- and low-income housing.

“We simply will not accept the fact that its impossible to have low-income housing in Columbia,” said Del. Liz Bobo, D-District 12B, who spoke at the group’s gathering Monday in Columbia.

Yes, yes, yes. It is not impossible to have housing for those making less than $50,000 a year. In fact, it is essential, despite despicable characterizations to the contrary.

The idea of a jobs-housing balance is one that has gained considerable steam over the past couple years, and it calls for, essentially, a housing stock that is tailored to the income profile of our workforce.

Philosophicaly, the foundation of the concept is that everyone should be able to live near where they work. Pragmatically, reducing the distance between home and work offers many benefits for residents and the community at large – namely, lower traffic volume, increased viability of local transit, decreased pollution, more quality time with families, stronger civic connections, and more.

So, we pretty much agree that affordable housing is a desireable in downtown Columbia. But here’s where we part ways: “The group also advocates fewer residential units to be built downtown — 1,600 rather than the planned 5,500…”

No, no, no. If affordable housing is really such an overriding concern, calling for a 780-unit reduction in the potential number of affordable units doesn’t seem like the best decision. Under their ideal scenario, Town Center would produce over the course of 30 years 320 affordable units, less than 11 each year. Which hardly seems worth it considering the county is faced with an almost 30,000 unit shortage of affordable housing.

I’m not suggesting that Town Center is the panacea for our affordable housing situation, but it is an area with significant development potential where real progress could be made -- and not just on affordable housing, but on many of our other deficiencies (lack of decent transit, cultural amenities, small businesses, etc.).

Because of the vast potential we have in Town Center, I’m hesitant to support proposals that tie its legs before it's had a chance to get out of the gate.

Rather than focus on the numbers -- which as I clumsily said in the past are just abstractions at this point -- we should focus on the equation for the numbers.

Trying to plan in detail the next 30 years of development for Town Center is full of pitfalls, not to mention the fact that such an exercise completely devalues the preferences of future Columbians. Instead of deciding on every last detail now, we should focus on the short term specifics and keep the long term discussion focused on guiding principles.

The real-world manifestation of this idea is to create a visionary, overarching 30-year plan and develop a series of shorter-term, detailed oriented plans with, say, five- or ten-year time frames to implement this vision.

These shorter plans can house our limits, or, in my preferred scenario, they would include incentives and benchmarks to gauge our progress in meeting the longer-term goals -- like affordable housing, environmental quality, transit and infrastructure improvements. So, instead of prescribing the exact number of units to be built within each period, the plans could create a framework where the intensity of development is linked (within a reasonable extent) to the quality of development and the quality of amenities we receive. To make it fair for everyone, these incentives and benchmarks must carry the force of law.

Reward good behavior and good development with more density. Punish failure to meet stated benchmarks with density reductions. In short, create a market for quality development that actually captures the externalities -- both good and bad -- of growth and ascribes financial value to that which previously lacked it.

When solutions become problems...

The Sun yesterday wrote about a programmatic shift in the effort to provide more affordable housing for Howard County's lower income families. While the focus has thus far been on providing homeownership opportunities -- through an entirely ineffective program -- the Department of Housing and Community Development has come to the conclusion that homes are just too damn expensive and we should instead create a de facto Second Class.

Inflation has made low-income housing an impossibility, said Leonard S. Vaughan, the county housing director, and attendant costs such as higher property taxes and community association and condominium fees are crippling the county's efforts to provide moderate housing for families in the $35,000 to $60,000 income range.

Vaughan said that although home ownership always has been a program goal, the high prices may force taking another route. "The best way to keep housing affordable is to make it rental. We may want to do more rental," he said.

Saying the housing department is to blame for the creation of a second, non-home-owning class of citizens is probably a little strong, but Vaughn is essentially raising the white flag because...well, it's just too hard to build affordable homes.

(I fully support the creation of more rental housing for families of modest means -- some people simply can't or don't want to own their own homes, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean we give up on trying to find homes for moderate income families that want to own a little slice of heaven, er, Howard.)

In only a few years, Howard County's affordable housing program has been a resounding failure. And the article, probably unwittingly, explains why.

General Growth Properties Inc. is planning to add an apartment house to fulfill its voluntary obligation for moderate-income units. The county wants the one- and two-bedroom apartments to be for any age occupants, including some young families, while General Growth Vice President Dennis Miller wants to house only seniors.

Too many senior houses, not enough for families? We're getting warmer.

But the county has no legal power over General Growth because the moderate units are a voluntary, self-imposed program of the builders. Neither Emerson nor the nearby Maple Lawn mixed-use project have enough density (homes per acre) to trigger the county's moderate-income housing law.

Exempting the two largest developments in the past decade from affordable housing requirements? Now we're onto something.

Another case in point is one moderate-income townhouse in Cherrytree Park, where a woman who bought a unit in August 2004 sold it back to the housing commission last month to move to Virginia - and made a $112,000 profit - roughly a 50 percent return, according to Vaughan. Inflation drove the price of homes at Cherrytree from $240,000 to $470,000. That means that although the first buyer paid $118,700 for the house, the next one must pay $220,000 or more.

Failing to establish any real price controls and mechanisms to ensure that affordable houses stay affordable? Yes, that's a good way to ensure you never catch up with needs. But wait, there's more.

Vaughan told the board he is seeking County Council legislation that would reduce property tax bills for moderate-income home buyers. Instead of owing taxes on the full value of the house, buyers would pay only for the percentage of the building they own - usually 51 to 60 percent. The nonprofit county housing commission owns the remaining portion.

Forcing moderate income buyers who participate in the program to pay the full taxes on something they own only half of? Although it's not the main reason why our program is a complete and utter failure, it's the dumbest part of any otherwise dumb policy. How did this ever seem right/fair.

All of this would be excusable if this was a ground breaking approach to affordable housing. But it's not. Not even close. Montgomery County, among many, many others, has had a similar program for over 30 years (a few years less than 30 when Howard developed it's program). Surely there was enough information about what works and what doesn't. It's too bad nobody, apparently, bothered to actually look into that.

Mama I'm coming home...

Back in the good old days of this blog, an editorial like the one in today's Examiner was pure gold.

Seriously, it has more holes than a donut shop and my previous, more antagonistic self would have loved the opportunity to point out every single one.

In today's climate, however, I should probably take a more conservative tack.

Bor-ing!

Alas, this is the path I've chosen and the price I must pay for the wealth fame power…uh, benefits of my job.

Anyway, the editorial in question attacks Howard County's inclusionary zoning policy, also known as the Moderate Income Housing Unit program. This program is nearly identical to many others around the country, so in reality, the editorial's target seems to be inclusionary zoning itself.

The Examiner's problem with inclusionary zoning seems to be that "it discriminates against everyone else as it drives prices up on other homes."

In Howard County, a family of four with a household income of $75,408 qualifies to apply for the moderate-income housing program. Once approved, that family can purchase a condo or town home for a discounted rate in area developments.

At Ryan Homes' Elkridge Crossing, the moderate-income housing condos sell for $178,067 and town homes for $204,044. Regularly, those properties sell for about $260,000 to $330,000. Any way you slice it, that is a huge discount on a luxury home. Condos at Elkridge include a sun room, two full baths, an open kitchen and patio.

This is patently unfair to other county residents. How would you feel If you were a family of four with a household income of $94,260 — the median household income in the county? Why should the extra $18,852 you make each year force you to sometimes pay more than $100,000 more for the same property?

The program has other repercussions. A number of studies, including one from the California-based Reason Foundation, find that inclusionary housing policies, like rent control policies, reduce the supply of housing — driving demand up with prices.

(Huh. No mention of the patently unfair nature of the biggest housing boondoggle of them all and a bigger cause of increased home prices, the mortgage interest deduction?)

Rather than untangle the arguments from the outrage in this editorial, I'm going to focus on the source of its claims. In this case, the Reason Foundation and its free market dogma.

Reason has long been an opponent of affordable housing policies. The study mentioned by the Examiner is one of several produced by the libertarian think tank criticizing inclusionary zoning because, mainly, it distorts the "free market." These studies throw around numbers detailing the supposed costs of inclusionary zoning, which are always -- surprise! -- frighteningly high.

But what, then do you do when the market is clearly failing to provide the optimal outcome -- in this case an adequate mix of housing for people of all incomes  -- like the textbook says it always does? 

Thankfully, Reason has a bunch of recommendations in their handy report New Approaches to Affordable Housing: Overview of the Housing Affordability Problem (PDF). Here they are:

• Modify explicit and implicit land use and growth controls to allow homebuilders and developers the opportunity to meet demand quicker.
  
• Increase civil service compensa tion in select areas where incomes do not reflect high housing costs.
  
• Encourage the use of market innovations such as location-efficient mortgages.
  
• Assist and leverage grassroot, volun teer organizations such as Habitat for Humanity (HFH).
  
• Use local flexible housing vouch ers to EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) eligible households.
  

I don't know whether to laugh or cry: Several of those recommendations demonstrate a stunningly poor understanding of economics, markets and development.

For instance, while the basis for the first – that land use and growth controls raise the cost of housing – is true, removing such controls would then cause another, perhaps worse market distortion.

Why?

Because growth imposes costs on existing communities, and as everyone who has ever taken Econ 101 knows, actions that impose costs on others are known as "negative externalities." In order for markets to work as wonderfully as they do in theory, the costs of these externalities need to be paid for both those who create them. The report singles out "impact fees" as a problem, but such fees are perhaps the perfect example of compensation for negative externalities, yet Reason doesn't like them because they screw up the market. I don't get it.

But why don't we just raise civil service pay to bring it in line with housing prices? That's a solution I can get behind, but it probably won't help the affordable housing situation because…because…throwing more money into the economy causes inflation ( i.e. increase in prices). Oh, well.

There is also the location-efficient mortgages idea, which would allow higher income-to-debt-payment ratios in certain high cost areas. Right, because screwing with mortgage practices hasn't contributed to any housing bubbles or problems in the credit market.

As for leveraging volunteer groups like Habitat to build more affordable housing, I'm all for it. Habitat does great work – 50,000 houses in 30 years across the U.S. I'm not sure how much of an impact it can have on prices, however, when for-profit residential builders knock out just shy of 2 million houses…each year.

I'm not even going to comment on the last one, because, well, I didn't really bother reading about it. But I think I've made a point in here somewhere…

Hmm…

Oh, yeah…This affordable housing stuff is hard. Drawing supply and demand curves helps illustrate basic points, but in our complex reality, "X" rarely marks the spot.

In the middle of our street...

I don't really want to gripe about this story on affordable housing in Town Center from today's Sun. It's generally pretty good and includes a ton of quotes from one of the VPs at my organization. But it does have a few flaws (the first sentence, for instance).

Rather than nitpick, however, I want to make a general point about affordable housing in Columbia. The story mentions that the "obstacle" of "public resistance" to affordable housing doesn't exist in our city because of our shared values. Indeed, I would say two of the Founding Four Principles – "a complete city" and "a garden for growing people" – are directly related to the idea of a full spectrum of housing.

So, it's pretty important, or should be anyway.

But I think there's a critical divide among us that doesn't come through in the piece. On one side you have Sherman Howell, who "has said that without the density now proposed, it is misleading to suggest the county can make an appreciable addition to the housing stock for low- and middle-income families."

On the other you have groups like the Coalition for Columbia's Downtown, which is described as having "demanded that the final master plan for the area include housing for moderate- and low-income families."

The groups could best be described as affordable housing advocates and Columbia-values advocates.

Howell sees an opportunity in Town Center to make "an appreciable" difference in the county's housing imbalance while adhering to the shared values of the community, and CCD sees affordable housing in Town Center as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to our founding principles while providing housing for poor people.

Not so different on paper, but significantly so in practice.

Also, by the way, there is considerable public resistance to affordable housing in Columbia. Such sacrilege is generally not spoken of in public, however.

A housing parable...

ATTENTION: This is an extremely long and somewhat personal blog post. It is by far the longest yet and the one post that took me the longest to write. I know it’s not easy to read long stuff on a blog, but since I don’t have any other medium, this is what I have to use. Copy and paste it into Word if that helps. Or, you can always just scroll past it – I promise I won’t be offended.

We’ve been over the fact that I have a tendency to write about my personal life on this blog. I try to stick with Howard County stuff, but since one of my main motivations for starting this was to make myself a better writer, any practice is helpful. What’s more, anecdotes are a good way to convey a message and -- though I am a strong believer in backing up claims with real data -- sometimes can be used to make inferences about broader topics, such as Howard County.

So why the preface/disclaimer? I’m going to talk about something that is both personal and potentially revealing. Revealing in the sense that if you know me but don’t know I’m Hayduke, chances are you’ll make the connection after reading this (if not, you’re sure to find out soon enough). This will also explain where I was during the well-attended (by bloggers, at least) candidate forum last Wednesday.

April 5, 2006 was a pretty big day in the Hayduke household. It involved one of those “big steps” in life -- a suburbanite’s rite of passage, like graduating from high school, getting married or buying your first house, which is what we did.

Affordable Housing? But how?

The housing market in Howard County has gone gangbusters over the last five years. And for a young married couple with negative wealth (student loans) and earning, uh, less than Howard County median household income, finding an affordable house is not easy. But, if you read the papers or talk to just about anyone, you probably already know that. You probably also know that creating more affordable housing in this county has become a priority for many, including me.

Though support for affordable housing is strong, there is little consensus about how it should be created. Some say we need to force developers to provide it by setting aside a certain percentage of all the new houses they build for buyers in predetermined income brackets. This method, known as inclusionary zoning, is pretty popular in the affordable housing world, but I’m not completely sold on its ability to make a significant dent in the overall need.

Others say we need more publicly financed affordable housing, which in order to make a real impact would seriously tax our local government’s resources. By all means, however, lobby the Feds to throw more money at housing.

Still more claim that we should focus on building a wider range of housing, so options are available and affordable for everyone, regardless of their income bracket. This is the approach I am most supportive of, and not surprisingly, it was the same approach used by Jim Rouse when he built Columbia.

And, yet again, I have Jim Rouse to thank for making my life better. But first, some more background.

The Long and Winding Road

The path we took to purchasing our home seemed, for a time, endless. Abbzug and I were in the market for a house for a long while, but considering our financial position, “in” the market might not be the best description. More appropriately, we watched housing prices spiral upwards for a few years, losing a little bit of hope with each new day.

Renewing the lease on our apartment last year was a concession, of sorts – a personal admission that either we’ll be stuck renting in Howard County – where we’ve both lived for more than half our lives and where we both consider we “grew up” – or be forced to move somewhere else, which neither of us really wanted to do for the obvious reason that Howard County, or more specifically, Columbia, is The Greatest Place on Earth. Well, it’s at least one of them. Also, this blog is about Howard County, and it would be pretty lame to write about a county that I don’t live in, right?

Maybe our standards were too high, though. Certainly, we could find something, right? A condo, perhaps? An older house that needed some TLC? Although the prices of both were not really in our budget, there were other reasons we didn’t go for one. Perfect for some, condos were pretty much out of the question for us because, well, we’re products of the suburbs. It’s hard wired into our very existence to have a garden/yard, and we both are fond of our privacy – in case you couldn’t tell. Moreover, we’re both pretty handy and enjoy the work involved in maintaining a home. And finally, there’s the dog, who has grown weary of only having a small balcony on which to enjoy the outdoors. Since we’ll always have a biggish dog – another one of those hard wired things – having a yard, even a small one, is essential.

As for older houses, we looked at a bunch online but only one in person. The only one we could reasonably afford, the older house we toured was built in 1813, had a shower with 5 foot ceilings, and was in need of significant work, much of which we couldn’t do on our own and couldn’t afford to pay someone else to do.

Our rental concession notwithstanding, Abbzug still spent the bulk of her free time over the last few years trolling the websites of realtors, an exercise that was at once informative and discouraging. We also had realtor friends who kept an eye out for us, but to no avail. In short, we knew what was out there and none of it was for us.

The problem, however, was that we were going about it the wrong way. The free market clearly wasn’t for us. But what if we left the market out of it?

Dumb Luck, Divine Intervention or Part of the Plan?

How about all three? Dumb luck presented us with an opportunity to buy a house that met our “high” standards at a discounted price; discounted because the sellers are people we know, and realtors, who I have nothing against, were thankfully left out of the equation entirely. Fate – or rather my employer – also played a role in making all the numbers work – a raise came through at the most perfect of times.

But how was it part of the plan? Enter the vision of Jim Rouse.

Rouse, as most of us know, planned Columbia as a place where everybody could live. He built single-family homes, townhouses, apartments, condos, duplexes and anything else that would serve his goals of creating a diverse community, one where ZIP codes didn’t determine who lived where. While offering a range of different housing types was essential to realizing this vision, equally important was providing an array of sizes. As made clear above, Abbzug and I wanted the suburban dream (still more on that later), a single-family house. Size was, for the most part, irrelevant – it’s just the two of us and the dog (for a couple years, anyway).

It used to be there were housing options known as starter homes. Maybe you’ve heard of these relics. As is pretty clear from the name, they were designed for people like Abbzug and I and as such, are small, inexpensive and offer the chance for first-time buyers to build some equity and learn the ropes of homeownership. Sadly, they’ve gone out of favor, as developers focus on building bigger and bigger houses, regardless of type (see: 3000 square foot townhouses). Of course, developers aren’t entirely to blame, our zoning system makes it difficult to build – much less turn a profit on – small houses on small lots. Fear of density, I suppose.

Anyway, because Rouse wrote the zoning for Columbia, he could pretty much do what he wanted. Which he did when he built the neighborhood I’m moving into – the same one my parents almost moved into when they were at the same stage in life that I’m at now. Our section of Oakland Mills (that’s right, I’m coming to your neck of the woods, OMers) is comprised of small, contemporary, but not flashy, houses. Some of the models are larger and many folks have expanded, but the house Abbzug and I purchased is smaller than our apartment, a perfect-for-us 850 square feet, give or take a few, with two bedrooms and one bath. In short, it is the elusive, extinct starter house.

The idea that first time homebuyers need thousands of square feet of living space strikes me as completely misguided and the source of so much of our struggles in making housing more affordable in Howard County. The affordable housing programs we have in place require developers to build their reduced-price houses to almost the exact specifications, including size, of their market rate units. But this is the same program that developers claim is killing their profits and that the rest of us claim, rightly, is barely making a dent in the need. The new proposed affordable housing bill (I think) even spells out rather large minimum sizes for the reduced-rate units.

So, we press on but make no progress, and those who can’t afford housing and aren’t lucky enough to have their name drawn from the hat to buy one of these few reduced-price houses are left out.

“It’s not profitable.” “Density is unacceptable.” “We can’t change the zoning.” “We’re out of land.” Hogwash.

Do you want more affordable housing? Do you want places for young professionals, teachers, fire fighters, service workers, and the next generation to live? Do you want to extend the benefits of homeownership to as many people as possible? Do you want a county that includes rather than excludes? Well, then it’s time to stop rearranging deck chairs and start building more, and more truly diverse, houses in more appropriate locations (read: not the rural west).

Jim Rouse was onto something – something that was later tainted by those who replaced him. (You don’t see any starter houses in the newer villages. Trust me, I looked.) Why have we yet to learn what he knew over forty years ago? Why have we failed to see that what worked in the past – at least until Columbia approached build-out and development came to a halt in the county – is the same approach we should be using now? My story alone isn’t proof enough. But it is something, and I guarantee you, it is not unique. It was, after all, part of the plan, with a little luck and fate thrown in. But it’s time fate threw us – well, Abbzug – something more than just monkey wrenches.

What Really Matters?

In every life, there should be balance. Good things happen, bad things happen, and we just deal with it and move on. It’s all you can do, I suppose. There is no one who has not endured difficulties, regardless of who they are, where they’re from, or how much they make. Comparing one person’s trials with another’s is, at best, foolhardy. But we still do it.

At the risk of providing too much information or being too foolhardy, I’ll just say that Abbzug’s been through her share of life’s trials. Only through her astounding personal strength has she been able to cope and persevere. Someone like me would have given up long ago. It is a testament to my good looks and tremendous sense of humor that she bothered marrying someone as weak-willed as me. I thank her daily for this.

Buying this house meant more to Abbzug than I could possibly express on a blog. Despite the constant letdown of the Homes For Sale section of the classifieds, she pressed on, taking what we had and what we hoped (and a little bit of good luck…for once) and making it reality.

My debt to her will surely outlast our debt to the mortgage people. Never, however, have I been so happy to owe so much.

Odds and ends...

I'm working on a post about small, locally-owned businesses, their place within our community and ways we can help level the playing field to make them more competitive with large chain stores and restaurants. Feel free to share your thoughts about these in the comments section. I'm interested to hear, specifically, whether you think we have too few, too many or just the right about of them; whether you're willing to pay a premium or endure minor inconveniences to patronize them; and whether you think we should be doing more to ensure they have a chance to thrive.

Or, feel free to talk about these odds and ends...

First, People Acting Together in Howard (PATH) -- a local coaltion of religious organizations -- recently announced its proposals to create more affordable housing in Howard County. Among them are requiring developers to set aside 25 percent of all new housing units for moderate income households and creating a $30 million trust fund that the county would use to bolster its affordable housing efforts, both for renters and owners.

Both of these ideas are very ambitious, but that's what is needed to truly make a dent in this problem. Montgomery County, despite being a leader in the inclusionary zoning/affordable housing field and having a 15 percent set aside for decades, is still struggling with affordability problems. Getting the developers to go for a 25 percent set aside -- which is higher than any other jurisidiction I've seen -- is going to be tough.

When thinking about housing affordability, I tend to ignore ideas predicated on large amounts of public money. Public housing has a troubled history (to say the least), and funding for housing is often one of the low-hanging fruits during budget season. But this shouldn't discredit PATH's idea.

The county's housing department has an annual budget of about $14 million, with a good amount coming from federally mandated programs. An infusion of $30 million annually could do a lot of good, assuming it's used for programs that work, like, say, vouchers.

Housing vouchers are not perfect, but since they've been reappropriated as tenant-based rather than project-based, they've been pretty successful (tenant-based means the vouchers belong to the families and not landlords). Under the voucher program, families pay 30 percent of their income to housing and the voucher covers the rest. Naturally, demand for the vouchers far outstrips supply.

But what if Howard created its own voucher program? I don't want to delve too far into the specifics, but something that supplements the federal program could build off of a proven system and extend affordable housing to a much larger group of people, especially if we've got $30 million to work with. A back of the envelope calculation (assuming a per voucher cost of $7,600 -- the federal government's per voucher cost [which includes overhead]) shows that almost 4,000 families could escape the burden of high housing costs with this level of funding. It's not a solution, but it's more than a start.

Certainly, this isn't the only way the money could be used. But it's one that would be effective and one that would surely deliver results.

------------

The second item comes to us from the Financial Times. Robert Putnam -- author of the book Bowling Alone, which described an America becoming more and more disengaged -- has some thoughts on diversity, something Columbia prides itself on.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

Interesting, no? Thoughts?

Master plan meeting recap

The Sun provides the play-by-play from Monday's master plan meeting.

A proposal to transform the heart of Columbia into an urban downtown drew polite support in general but also pointed criticism as officials faced the public for the first time with a broad blueprint on how to achieve the plan.

The response was not unexpected, but it may nonetheless force officials to abandon their time schedule for enactment of legislation that is critical for the plan to advance.

Indeed, that schedule was a principal point of contention during a 3 1/2 -hour presentation and discussion Monday night.

But Marsha S. McLaughlin, planning director, said after the meeting that the time schedule might have to be adjusted.

"We have to look at that," she said. "We have to keep answering questions. I'm not suicidal. I don't want to take something to the Planning Board or the Zoning Board that's going to be a big shouting match."

Well, it's good to see McLaughlin's maintained her sense of humor (and self-preservation).

Slowing things down may well turn out to be the best thing to do with the plan. However, there's a difference between slowing the plan down to get it right, and slowing it down in hopes of derailing it altogether, which is the aim of at least some of the plan's current opponents.

Later in the article, the problems some have with the plan are addressed -- specifically, the lack of affordable housing, traffic studies, and a plan for who will pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements and how. Traffic studies will come -- DPZ assured us of that on Monday -- and infrastructure will be paid for somehow -- here's my suggestion. But what about affordable housing?

Concern over escalating housing costs and the resulting effect of Columbia becoming increasingly exclusive were a major theme of the meeting.

The county's plan includes a provision to require developers to set aside 10 percent of all housing units in downtown Columbia for moderate-income families and 5 percent for middle-income earners.

"We're trying to accommodate different housing needs," Lafferty said before the meeting. "Jim Rouse had that as part of his commitment" when he envisioned the creation of the planned community decades ago.

I hope that the No Growth folks aren't the same ones pushing for more affordable housing, as this is about as dishonest a stance as you can take. The reason Rouse was able to provide a wide range of housing options to meet the needs of everyone was because he was able to build A LOT of houses. The more we restrict the supply of (new) housing, the more exclusive we'll become, and with the spigot all but turned off for Columbia, we're probably looking at increasing income-class gentrification.

To be sure, developers, when given the right to build houses, need to build a range of housing options, including apartments, townhomes, small detached, large detached, and (shudder) McMansions. However, the only way they can do that is if we structure a plan and zoning regulations that allow them to. Rouse didn't need a 10 percent, 15 percent, or any percent set aside for affordable housing. He built enough houses in enough sizes and iterations for every income bracket.

So instead of arguing about percentages -- thereby creating an hourglass distribution of income in Town Center (with a bunch of expensive housing, some moderate income housing, and nothing in between) -- we need to compel developers to build a more balanced distribution.

Of course, another solution to stem the increasing exclusivity of Columbia is convincing existing homeowners to sell their houses for less to people of certain income brackets.

Care to implement that policy?

Another toothless animal

On the heels of the failed committee studying farmland preservation, another county "task force" seems poised to address a big problem--increasingly unaffordable housing--with small solutions.

The task force has made no formal recommendations but is examining initiatives to aid first-time homebuyers and the developers the county is relying on to build the housing.

The inducements include:

• A deferral of county property taxes for several years, perhaps as many as 10. The taxes would be paid at the end of the grace period or when the residence was resold.
• Levying property taxes only on the percentage of the home owned by the resident. It is presumed that many of the units built will be partly owned by the Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Allowing developers to build affordable units immediately, despite county restraints that typically delay construction for several years. The number of units built would not increase, but developers could build lower-priced housing sooner.

Property tax exemptions? When the county council voted against a plan to transfer 100 units of housing from the west to the east to be used for affordable housing, I thought the outcome would be for the best. The 100-unit transfer program was another temporary solution to an endemic problem, and would likely have exacerbated the affordable housing mess by providing politicians with the false belief that they had actually accomplished something when in fact a comprehensive approach to affordable housing and growth is the only way we can make any headway into this problem. The idea that property tax exemptions are going to have any impact on housing affordability is preposterous and doesn't recognize the immense power of the real estate and development market right now.

Granted, there may be a larger plan in the works for affordable housing, but it doesn't say so in the article, which is the only source of news I have. I hope that this post is completely off-base, that the task force dealing with this problem is actually thinking about meaningful solutions, but something in me thinks that they are approaching this as another consensus-building exercise, producing yet more watered-down solutions in a county that's been diluted enough.

That's right...

It's Round Up time.

I'm looking at about 15 news stories from today that merit some kind of comment. As much as I'd like to get through them all, I'm not that prolific (who am I kidding, I'm not even partly prolific). Well, I probably could if I gave each story as little attention as I do in the Round Ups. However, since many of the stories are related and all deal with important issues, that wouldn't be very fair. The following stories, meanwhile, absolutely deserve a short shrift.

A proposal to change the county's affordable housing program has drawn the ire of local affordable housing advocates, who claim that the plan--which would make reduced cost housing available via a tiered system to a wider range of households--amounts to taking from the poor to give to the less poor. In an abstract sense, they're right. But the housing market ain't abstract. The problem with the county's proposal is not it's lack of fairness; the problem is that it won't work, just like the current system doesn't work. While the affordable housing advocates focus on the trees, the forest is being clear cut around them. Creating a housing stock to match families of all incomes cannot be accomplished alone by the county's existing or proposed program, which is just a rip-off of the same type of ineffectual program used by cities and counties around the country. As I've said before, we need more information and we need to look at affordable housing in a broader context--in much the same way James Rouse did.

Here's a possible solution to affordable housing: take money from candidates and give it to lower-income families to use as downpayments on houses. If we take just the money raised by our county executive candidates, we could give 40 families $20,000 each. That would probably have more of an impact than the county's current proposal. Seriously, the county executive race (as well as the other local ones) are going to cost A LOT of money, which, in case you couldn't tell, is something I don't particularly care for.

CA, meet your competition.

Finally, the crime wave continues. Only this time, it's the, uh, non-violent kind (unless, naturally, you're willing to pay more).

Coming to you live from...

The central branch of The Greatest Public Library system in the country. (Apparently the internet is working at my house, but there are some many boxes piled in my office that I can't get to the computer.)

Anyway, how about some affordable housing?

I’m glad to see folks pushing for increased allocations of affordable housing, though I still think the predominate affordable housing paradigm – inclusionary zoning – is structurally flawed. But it is the predominate paradigm, and you know how hard it is changing long distance carrierers, let alone paradigms.

A plan to increase the number of affordable apartments in Howard County doesn't go far enough, a representative from the Howard County League of Women Voters said this week.

The plan increases by 100 annually the number of one- and two-bedroom apartments for moderate-income residents that developers can build in areas of the county zoned for affordable housing.

Grace Kubofcik, co-president of the voters league, said county officials should up the number to 250 annually in order to more closely meet the county's true need for affordable units.

"What we are suggesting is to seriously consider forgetting the 100 and (devote a larger number of affordable units)," she said.

Well, that’s a start, right? But how does it compare to the overall need?

"In the income category of $27,000 and below, Howard County has a deficit of 17,000 units," said Rev. Robert Turner, president of the African American Coalition of Howard County, a citizens group. "There is a surplus of available housing for families earning more than $100,000 a year."

Hmmm…looks like we’re still coming up a little short. Oh, wait, looks like we’re not even talking about this need.

Based on the county's current $82,065 median income, officials define moderate-income households as those earning between $32,826 and $65,652 annually.

So, you have to earn at least $32,826 to qualify for our affordable housing program. If you earn less than that, apparently, you’re a lost cause. Good to know.

Movin' on up...

From the 14th floor of my hotel in San Francisco, I’ve got a pretty good view of a couple high-rise buildings currently under construction. Both appear to be about 20 stories in height and obviously don’t seem out of place in this town, where land is at a premium, to put it mildly. Here, they certainly don’t seem out of place, but what about in Columbia?

A Florida developer's plan to build a 22-story condominium building in Columbia's Town Center is progressing despite concern among some residents that its height would be out of character with a new, emerging master plan deigned to guide downtown's redevelopment.

If built as planned, the roughly $60 million Plaza Residences would be the tallest building in Howard County. The largest buildings in Town center are 12 stories.

…The plan for the high-rise foresees 160 units with private elevators that would whisk occupants from parking garages to the doors of their condos. It also would feature retail shops and dining on its ground floor along with social rooms, club rooms, a juice bar, guest suites, a business center and a theater.

It is interesting that in the Baltimore Sun’s story on this (the above link is to an article in the Flier) a picture of the full building was included. See here. But in the Flier’s story, the building is shown from a different angle and the top 14 stories are cut off, which is strange but understandable given the public’s expressed desire to not have large buildings near the lake. When was this desire expressed? Oh yeah, at the charrette.

The draft plan, which county officials still must approve, is designed to guide downtown's redevelopment over the next 30 or so years. It suggests prohibiting the construction of buildings of more than six stories along Lake Kittamaqundi and 20 stories in the rest of the town.

"We just put a lot of energy and time into the charrette process," said Del. Elizabeth Bobo, a Democrat from Columbia. "The (high-rise) is in the study area and it goes against the plan. I don't know why we did the charrette if what comes out of it is counter to what we proposed."

If only it were that easy. The problem, at least in my mind, is that this plan was proposed long before the charrette. In fact, the county has been reviewing plans for it since last January. And to say that public input at the charrette was not shaped to some degree by this proposal is ludicrous.

Therefore, it is only fair that we review these plans according to the zoning that was in place when it was proposed. If this is the case, there is nothing to stop construction. Apparently, the Flier’s editorial board agrees.

The Flier article goes on to quote General Growth vice president Dennis Miller as he explains how this building will help spur the “revitalization of downtown.” It is interesting that he’s now referring to downtown development as revitalization, almost as though he is admitting that his company failed to develop it properly in the first place. After all, they own all the land.

I’m not so sure about his statement, but the building would certainly be symbolic of the changes taking place in Town Center. My hope is that in the future, developers hire better architects.

The final part of the article worth mentioning is one of the most sensible quotes I’ve seen in a while. It speaks to the challenges and opportunities present in developing affordable housing. In the words of Columbia Association’s Town Center board member Jud Malone:

"It's not fair to say that this project has to introduce affordable housing for everyone, but people in the community are starting to wonder at what point will there be affordable housing," he said. "In order for it to proceed, there ought to be some requirement that affordable housing in another part of town be available."

There is a belief that every development project should include some provision for affordable housing. Generally, I support this concept, as I believe mixed income communities are the most productive and benefit the most number of people. But in certain instances, mixing incomes is not appropriate, and this building is one of those instances.

However, this doesn’t mean that the developer shouldn’t be responsible for providing affordable housing—preferably in the general vicinity—as part of the costs of doing business in this county. After all, who’s going to work in the retail shops, theater, restaurants, and other establishments in this building?

But political incompatibility led to their downfall...

My boss and I were talking today about problems – specifically, how we approach them. Although, as in everything, there is a continuum and not a dichotomy, we agreed that there seem to be two camps: one that seeks to fully and accurately describe the problem and one that does something about it.

The point of this is, of course, not to bore you with the philosophical discussions my boss and I share, but rather to put it in the context of Howard County. Accordingly, our conversation got me thinking about this article from a couple weeks ago (read it quick before the Sun makes you pay for the privilege). For the sake of this post's context, here are a few key excerpts:

John Liparini walked in from a snow flurry at 7:30 p.m., armed with facts and figures in support of two modest developments in Elkridge to aid moderate-income families. Less than 90 minutes later, he bowed to unrelenting opposition from residents and scrapped both projects, at least temporarily.

That experience encapsulates a broader issue for the county: The divergence between public policy and public will.

The conflict, some say, may be the county's single largest problem because it pervades discussions on many of the most critical issues.

"I think it is true that there is a conflict between what the general public wants and what the politicians want or the government believes should happen," says Katherine L. Taylor, an attorney who has represented residents opposed to development. "Unless the public policy is one to benefit the people who are directly affected by the land-use changes, I think there will always be that conflict."

…"It's a challenge," says Marsha S. McLaughlin, director of the Department of Planning and Zoning. "The county is a wonderful place to be, and we have a great quality of life. ... But there is a very limited amount of land. One option is to sprawl all over western Howard County, but we're trying not to do that."

McLaughlin says a "larger public dialogue" might be beneficial to shape development policy.

…Taylor faults elected officials with too often fashioning policy with no thought of public response to implementation.

"The error that politicians make, and the developers as well, is not stepping into the shoes of the people who live there and saying, 'What would we want here? What would we expect?' " Taylor says.

"The big problem is that the people who are affected have no input or no choice. The only way they have input is to be protestants -- opposing something."

That has been especially evident in the efforts to provide housing for moderate- and low-income families.

While the need for those units is rarely disputed, that has not translated into acceptance for specific developments in many cases.

Indeed, the problem was underscored recently when a report to County Executive Ken Ulman noted that providing affordable housing "is one that the community supports in principle, but often opposes in implementation."

I rather enjoyed the article when I first read and have thought about it several times since, but whenever I considered writing about it, the only thing I could come up with was: So what? It's a perfectly articulated description of the big picture problem, but that's it.

These discussions, debates, contrasts and such are clearly evident to anyone who's ever paid attention to the local news or read the local blogs. We're dealing with them every day, hopefully groping towards something resembling common ground but, more likely, solidifying further the divide.

So, in order to make some use of what is truly decent journalism, let's look at it as a springboard to something more -- a "larger public dialogue" perhaps. And though I know it's been an idée fixe on this blog for some time, affordable housing seems like as good a topic as any.

Since the article is inherently about the disconnect between preferences and will, we should home in on that – specifically, as it relates to affordable housing, something that's popular to support in theory but oppose in practice.

I think the case has been made that the county is sorely lacking in affordable housing opportunities (but, please, feel free to refute this) and, therefore, the discussion should start with the question: "What do we do about it? Specifically?"

Here's a list of some of my thoughts. It's not fully developed or explained, but it's a start. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

• Public subsidies? Probably not on the local level, but if we're talking about really low income housing (which we should), then state or federal funding should come into play.
  

• Greater density, where appropriate? Absolutely.
  

• Creative redevelopment projects, including village centers, to increase the amount of available land? Yes.
  

• Less restrictions on growth (i.e., increased annual housing allocations)? Perhaps.
  

• A smoother development process? Likely, especially for projects including affordable units.
  

• Mandatory set asides/Inclusionary Zoning? OK, but this approach strictly proportional to the total amount of annual development and therefore is limited in its capacity to make any progress. It's much more of a "treading water" approach.
  

• Fewer restrictions on housing type and size (i.e. allowing developers to build smaller houses)? Certainly.
  

• Quasi-public money (housing trust funds, tax increment financing, housing bond issuances)? Yes, depending on feasibility.

There are more options to choose from here.

Growth controlled?

Controlling growth is a messy, contentious exercise, full of unintended consequences and counterintuitive outcomes. Which is why I’m heartened to read this:

The latest enrollment projections, beginning in 2009, forecast only Manor Woods Elementary will be chronically overcrowded, or "closed," meaning home construction will be sharply restricted in that part of western Howard County.

And that school is expected to slip into the "open" category the next year because of an expansion program that will add room for 100 more seats.

While officials might never formally declare victory over the problem, their progress in easing school overcrowding in the past six years has been extraordinary.

Two factors have driven the improvements:


• A sharp reduction in the rate of growth in the schools. For the academic year just concluded, for instance, there were 350 more students, compared with about 1,900 a year the system had in the 1990s.
• An aggressive, multimillion-dollar expansion program that will have produced eight schools in as many years.

What’s not said in that first bullet is that reductions in school attendance growth is a direct result of drastic reductions in the rate of residential growth.

I’m well aware that these are projections and they are bound to change, but as a preliminary signal, the data indicate that growth in Howard County – despite perceptions to the contrary – is pretty well under control.

And, with respect to school overcrowding, our growth control measures – namely, the allocation limits – should be applauded. However, to say they have been unmitigated successes fails to acknowledge the broader, unintended side of things.

While we’ve made things better for students today – classes are less crowded, teachers can spend more individual time with them, etc – tomorrow could be a different story. Although many will move away, those who decide to stay in Howard might look back and wonder if lower enrollments were worth the tradeoffs.

When discussing growth controls, it’s easy to point out why they’re good: less traffic, less students in our schools (or decreased need for new schools), less degradation of “natural” land.

But what the negative side of things? “Residential units,” in the parlance of planners, are in reality homes for families that want to be a part of our community -- not traffic-generating, child-producing earth destroyers. When we restrict residential growth, we restrict entry into our community, perhaps to the point of keeping out people we’d otherwise value as neighbors. Growth restrictions don’t just limit the construction of new units, they increase the prices of existing ones.

I’ve long tried to point out the connection between our growing affordable housing problem and our growth control measures on this site. To be sure, a significant portion of the increased unaffordability of housing was the result of a super hot real estate market, which has since cooled. And though the affordability issue over the last few years was illustrated dramatically by these rapidly rising home prices, the problem will continue to simmer, albeit with less dramatic anecdotes, until something meaningful is actually done, which, fortunately (hopefully), could be soon:

The Robey administration is taking one more stab at the complex problem of providing affordable housing at a time of sky-high home prices with a 25-member citizens task force named yesterday. 

The group is to come up with creative suggestions by Nov. 1 -- one month before County Executive James N. Robey leaves office.

Robey said the failure to find ways of providing homes that low- and middle-income people can afford was his "greatest disappointment" after his first term in office and remains so today.


Prices for all ranges of housing have more than doubled since 2001, he said yesterday at a news conference, and only about 5 percent of the homes for sale in Howard are affordable for nearly half the county's households.



His efforts to raise salaries for police officers, firefighters, teachers and other county employees have not helped them find homes they can buy where they work, he acknowledged.



"The more they earned, the more housing costs increased," he said. Now, with the federal base-closing program due to bring thousands of new employees to Central Maryland, the impetus to do something is also greater, he said.

Of course, a similar task force last year basically accomplished nothing. But, perhaps, the community will wasn’t strong enough then, whereas now it might be. Or maybe the committee make-up was all wrong. Whatever the case, I’m optimistic that this committee will make good on its charge.

My hope, as it has always been with respect to affordable housing, is that we don’t settle for small things, for marginal increases in percentage set asides or miniscule, developer-funded “trust funds.” Instead of targeted, small-minded approaches, we need to address affordable housing not as an issue separate from growth, but as an integral part of our entire housing and community development landscape. As such, the committee, I believe, must address the impact controlling growth (i.e. limiting supply) has had housing affordability. Perhaps they can even recommend changes to the process that will bring about positive results – without cramming our schools.