USC Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Spring, 2016

PPD 531L – Domestic Lab in Affordable Housing Section 51329R - 4 units

Days & Time: Fridays, 9:00 – 12:20. Room: TBA Instructor: Jan Breidenbach, PhD. Email: [email protected]. Phone: 323-662-7512. Office Hours: By appointment.

BACKGROUND What is affordable housing? What housing? Affordable to whom? What makes it affordable (if not it’s market price)? These are questions that arise when simply referring to affordable housing. In fact, affordable housing used to be called ‘low-income housing’, a more specific term but one that many felt was too restrictive—and engendered too much opposition given the obvious target population for the housing. Today, affordable housing is a normative term for housing that has some form of subsidy or restriction that allows it to be available to low-income households. Subsidies may be included in the building, may be direct payment to a renter, may be a reduced mortgage payment or other mortgage assistance. The “low-income” population involved is generally identified as households whose annual income is some degree less than the area median income (AMI) for a given geography. Low-income has more refined definitions: low-income is a household with an annual income that is less than 80% of the AMI. Very low-income is a household with an annual income that is less than 50% of the AMI. Extremely low-income is a household with an annual income that is less than 30% of the AMI. Some affordable housing programs (generally homeownership programs) address “moderate income”, encompassing households whose annual income is between 80% and 120% of AMI. In each of these cases, the housing cost to the renter (or buyer) does not exceed 30% of the household income. Hence, an example might be a family of four in Los Angeles with an income of $30,000 ($2,500/month) would be a very-low-income household; if they move into affordable housing (i.e., subsidized) their rent will be approximately $800/month (30% of $2,500). With two-bedroom apartments in Los Angeles asking over $2,000/month, this is clearly a major benefit to the household.

While the term affordable housing is quite ambiguous, the process and population served are quite specific. In addition to the determination of eligible households, the type of subsidy (the support that makes the housing affordable) varies. Public subsidy may be in the actual housing itself, i.e., the buildings, which have been constructed partially (or wholly) with public funds, thus reducing the necessary rent required from the residents. It may be in the form of direct tenant assistance; i.e., a “voucher” which a renter receives and can offer to a landlord. Acceptance of the voucher provides the landlord with a specific amount of the rent, the renter pays that portion which is 30% of the renter’s income, the landlord receives the rest up to a set rental amount.

While most affordable housing is, in fact, publicly subsidized, there are forms that receive private subsidy. Inclusionary housing is a policy that requires developers of multi-unit projects (multi-family buildings or subdivisions) to set-aside a certain percentage of units to be offered at reduced rents/price; again, to households with incomes below a given level of AMI. In exchange the developer often receives some form of incentive: increased density, reduced parking requirements, expedited permitting and others. The policy assumes that these benefits make the project feasible even as the developer receives less income for the identified units. In some cases, the developer may pay a fee “in lieu” of including the units; this money generally goes into a fund to build affordable housing elsewhere.

Affordable housing programs differ in the length of time the unit remains affordable. The first housing program introduced by the federal government is public housing. Public housing is paid for by the federal government, built and managed by local Public Housing Authorities. Although public housing has fallen from policy favor, it is the only subsidized housing program that is not term-limited. As public housing lost support, other, smaller production programs were introduced in the 1960s-1970s. This housing utilizes federal support but is privately built and owned—and have terms of affordability, generally 30 years. While a valuable process, having a term limit creates a problem down the road when the contract terminates. The third major federal housing support for low-income people is the Housing Choice Voucher program, much more often referred to as Section 8 housing (its original name). Section 8 is the major tenant-based program. Here there is no term, but the landlord may decide at any time that he/she no longer wishes to participate; when this happens the residents have to look for another home.

There are many other housing programs: at the federal level there are targeted production programs; at the state level there are a range of production programs (and sometimes state laws on inclusionary housing); at the local level there is a wide range of smaller programs targeting specific populations. Examples of these are master leases for rapid re-housing where the local homeless agency rents apartments that are available for either short or longer term housing for households who are, or who are at

1 risk of being, homeless. Additionally, there are short-term housing programs, transitional housing programs and permanent, supportive housing programs for the disabled and formerly homeless.

LEARNING GOALS The goals of the course are simple. Students will: 1) gain an understanding of the world of affordable housing and how it sits in the larger universe of housing in the United States, its supporters and opposition, its challenges and successes; and 2) improve their research skills and ability to analyze policy with both compassion and objectivity.

CLASS OPERATIONS Learning in PPD 531L takes place through a combination of readings, in-class discussions, panels and lectures; site visits to affordable housing projects and a practitioner-based research project for a course “client”. The site visits will all take place on Fridays. We may also meet on campus on site-visit days before or after the visits. The site visits are planned so students can meet with individuals and visit their organizations to learn first-hand the range and focus of different affordable housing policies and programs.

The last day of class will include presentations on the client project to the class, clients and other interested parties.

COURSE ASSIGNMENTS PPD 531L is a studio course. This means there is a client and we are doing research to further that client’s work in the field of affordable housing. This semester has two co-clients, Public Counsel and the Southern CA Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH).

 Client report (75% of grade): Students will work in groups to research and compile a report for the client. Information on the clients and details of the research product are outlined on the last page of the syllabus. Grading for the client project are done on both the project and the individual contribution. The product receives an overall grade, each student is evaluated and receives a grade. The two are combined for the total grade.

 Reading & discussion (15% of grade): Students are required to come to class with two discussion questions on each reading each week. You must have the questions and what you consider the answers to be. Submit the questions to BB by 6:00 pm the evening before class (so that I have time to review them). These questions will be the basis of our reading discussion parts of class. Students will take turns leading the conversation. This is an informal conversation, not a formal presentation. The idea is that since this is a small class, we have the opportunity to learn from one another.

 Individual writing assignments (10% of grade): Students will write three short (2 – 3 pp) assessments during the course. 1. The first is your understanding of the larger context for affordable housing as it relates to the people who need/live in it. It is due . 2. The second is your assessment of the challenges and contradictions that are at the core of affordable housing today (mobility? Integration? Inclusion/exclusion?). It is due . 3. The third is your assessment of what affordable housing is and where you think it might/should go.

Note: While it’s true for every class you he or ever will take, reading is vital to the learning in this course. Few people understand affordable housing—or even know what it is. After 25 years in the field, I can tell you a great deal about affordable housing, but the knowledge that is embodied in the readings is where the conflicting ideas, historical analysis and policy presentation will be found. Be sure you do the reading—make it a priority even in your busy schedules.

All the readings are posted in Blackboard. From time to time a new report may be published or I read a chapter that has greater relevance to our conversation so the syllabus may not always be correct. Please remember that it is the posted readings that are required, always check BB if you’re following the syllabus.

Copyright Note. Book chapters provided for students enrolled in PPD 531L, Spring, 2016 are for your use only. Any unauthorized copying or distribution may be a violation of copyright law.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: Students should maintain strict adherence to standards of academic integrity, as described in SCampus (http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/SCAMPUS/). The definition of plagiarism used by the University is:

2

A. The submission of material authored by another person but represented as the student’s own work, whether that material is paraphrased or copied in verbatim or near-verbatim form. B. The submission of material subjected to editorial revision by another person that results in substantive changes in content or major alteration of writing style. C. Improper acknowledgement of sources in essays or papers. The recommendation sanctions for academic integrity violations are attached by reference to this syllabus, as is the “Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism”, from USC’s Expository Writing program. If you have any questions, please ask me.

DISABILITIES & ACCOMMODATIONS Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to me as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open from 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday – Friday. The DSP phone number is (213) 740-0776.

COURSE OUTLINE AND READINGS

Week 1 INTRODUCTION TO COURSE, REVIEW OF SYLLABUS & ASSIGNMENTS Review of the PLEASE READ THE LIST BELOW BEFORE THE FIRST CLASS. EACH OF THEM IS QUITE SHORT. THANK YOU. 1/15/16 course Hartman, Chester (2006). The Case for a Right to Housing. Shelterforce, Issue #148. Introduction to the Roisman, Frances (2015). The Power of the Supreme Court’s Decision in the Fair Housing Act Case, client & project TDHCA v ICP. PRRAC (Poverty & Race Research Council). Review of the Musso, J., Weare, C., Cooper, T & Bryer, T. (2011). Toward “Strong Democracy” in Global Cities? Social background Capital Building, Theory-Drive Reform , & the L.A. Neighborhood Council Experience. Public Admin. material & Review (Theory to Practice: Strengthening Democracy in Global Cities) (71(1). 102-112. discussion Discussion: Do we have a right to housing? If so, why can’t we live where we want? Why do poor Formation of people live in only certain areas? research groups

Week 2 EARLY HOUSING FOR THE POOR – ATTITUDES & IDEAS Where do we get Marcuse, Peter (2001) Housing Policy in the US. Housing Studies, 16(6), 717-736. 1/22/16 our ideas about Vale, Lawrence (2013). Public Housing, Design Politics and Twice-cleared communities. In Purging affordable housing the Poorest: Public Housing & the Design Politics of Twice-Cleared Communities. Williams, Rhonda. (2004). Sunlight at Early Dawn. “The Politics of Public Housing: Black Women’s Ideas about the Struggles Against Urban Inequality. people who live in Goetz, Ed. (2013). The Quiet Successes and Loud Failures of Public Housing. In New Deal Ruins: Race, public/assisted Economic Justice, & Public Housing Policy. housing Discussion: Why is our history of public housing illustrative of how we think about poor people in general?

Week 3 SITE VISIT: PUBLIC HOUSING IN LA Preparation before site visit: Watch The Pruitt Igoe Myth 1/29/16 Jordan Downs (with John R. King, HACLA) Estrada Courts (early LA public housing) Puerta Del Sol (HOPE VI, revitalized public housing)

3 Week 4 THE CONCENTRATION OF POVERTY & MOBILITY The mobility Gill, Andrea (2012). Moving to Integration? The Origins of Chicago’s Gautreaux Program & and the 2/5/16 debate: Limits of Voucher-Based Housing Mobility. Journal of Urban History, 38(4), 662-686. Polikoff, Alexander (2015). Housing Mobility: Why Is It So Controversial? (PPRAC). Gautreaux Rice, Douglas; Dohler, Ehren; & Mazzara, Alicia (2015). How Housing Vouchers Can Help Address California’s Rental Crisis. Center for Budgt & Policy Priorities. Section 8 programs Turner, Margery. (2003). Strengths and Weaknesses of the Voucher. Congressional Testimony of Margery Austin Turner to the Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing & Community Opportunity, US House of Representatives, 6/17/2003. Crowley, Sheila, Pelletiere, Danilo (2012). Affordable Housing Dilemma: The Preservation vs. Mobility Debate 1st assessment due Discussion: Follow-up from site visit; what do we think about mobility?

Week 5 BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 2015 What is our local Ong, Paul et al (2014). Rent Burden in LA. Center for the Study of Inequality, UCLA. 2/12/16 crisis? Payne, Lisa (2015). Housing Crisis in Los Angeles, Tools Ben Hecht. (2006). Introduction, Chaps I, II & III. Developing Affordable Housing: A Practical Guide for How do we build Nonprofit Organizations. affordable housing? Discussion: The Housing Crisis in LA; does producing affordable housing have to be this complicated? Guest panel

Week 6 SITE VISIT TBA (family project, sustainability in affordable housing) 2/19/16

Week 7 THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT – STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES The LIHTC: Schwartz, Alex (2010). The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. In Housing Policy in the U.S. 2/26/16 The good, the bad, Visit the website of ACTION (A Call To Invest In Our Neighborhoods) www.rentalhousingaction.org/ the complicated. The California Fact Sheet from ACTION is on BB.

TDHCA v. ICP LIHTC & fair housing: O’Regan, K.M. & Horn. K.M. (2011). The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit & Racial Segregation. Housing Policy Debate, 21(3), 443-473. O’Regan, K.M. & Horn. K.M. (2012) What Can We Learn about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program by Looking at the Tenants? Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy & Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Rothstein, R. (2015). If the Supreme Court Bans the Disparate Impact Standard It Could Annihilate One of the Few Tools Available to Pursue Housing Integration. Economic Policy Institute

Discussion: Using the tax code as social policy. Why?

4

Week 8 FAIR SHARE AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING - Inclusionary Breidenbach, J. (In print). Land, Justice and a Place to Call Home. Los Angeles Public Interest Law 3/4/16 Journal. Who builds it? Jacobus. R. (2015). Inclusionary Zoning: Creating & Maintaining Equitable Communities. Nat’l Who pays for it? Community Land Trust Network, Cornerstone Partnership & Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. How does it help? Massey, D. (2014). Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Affordable Housing & Mobility in an What does it miss? American Suburb. (sections/chapters TBD). SAJE et al (Strategic Actions for Just Economy) (2015). Assessing Health and Equity Impacts of the Panel discussion Proposed Reef Development Project in South Central Los Angeles Shelterforce (2015). Internet discussion regarding inclusionary policies, fair housing & policy approaches. National Housing Institute (compiled as one document in BB).

Discussion: Exclusion, inclusion and equity – how to get there?

Week 9 GENTRIFICATION & AFFORDABLE HOUSING Gentrification – Governing. (2015). Gentrification (website) (wfile:///Users/Jan/Documents/Articles,Chapters 3/11/16 what is it? %20/Land_Justice.2015/Gentrification%20in%20America%20Report.webarchive Payne, L. & Steckler, B (2012). Hollywood: A Comeback Story and the Lessons Learned. Where does it McDonald, P.R. (2013). Hollywood’s Urban Cleansing: 12,878 Mostly Latinos are Pushed Out by City Hall, happen? High Rents & Hipsters. LA. Weekly, 03 January 2013. Iniguez-Lopez, D., & Carter, R.L (2015). Realizing the Promise: How to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing How does it Domenie, Will (2012). Is Just Growth Smarter Growth? The Effects of Gentrification on Transit Ridership happen? and Driving in LA’s Transit Station Area Neighborhoods. UCLA Public Counsel (2012). Getting There Together: Tools to Advocate for Inclusive Development Near Transit How does it impact Matsuoka, M. (2015). Gentrification, Displacement & Affordable Housing in Los Angeles (powerpoint) affordable housing? Chapple, K. (2009). Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit. Center for Community Innovation, UC Berkeley. Shelterforce (2015). Gentrification. Series of short articles, blogs, regarding issues of gentrification. Guest Panel Discussion: Good, bad or what? Gentrification vs. Revitalization: Which Causes More Displacement? 2nd assessment due

Week 10 SPRING BREAK

Week 11 HOLDING ON TO WHAT WE HAVE Gentrification 2.0: TO BE ASSIGNED 3/25/16 Preservation of Project-based Housing

Ellis Act, moratoria

5 Week 12 ORGANIZING AND PLANNING TOOLS What are TO BE ASSIGNED. 4/1/16 community plans?

How are they a tool for affordable housing?

Guest panel

Week 13 WHEN WE DON’T HAVE HOUSING – BRNGING IT BACK HOME How did we get TO BE ASSIGNED. 4/8/16 here?

Chronic homelessness/ sporadic homelessness

Permanent Supportive Housing & Rapid Re-Housing

Week 14 SITE VISIT (PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING)

4/15/16 3rd assessment due

Week 15 Project presentation

4/22/16

6

CLASS PROJECT:

Background. The basis for the Inclusive Communities Project (ICP) v Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs (TDHCA) lawsuit was that state policy resulted in LIHTC projects being developed in neighborhoods that are predominantly poor— and minority. ICP’s argument was that this state policy violates the Fair Housing Act because it produces a “disparate impact”; i.e., the policy is may not be racially motivated (i.e., it appears as neutral but the results have racial impacts in that they further segregation, rather than supporting integration. TCHCA argued that the siting of LIHTC projects in these neighborhoods did not meet the definition of disparate impact and ICP had no case. ICP won at the circuit court and again at the federal Appeals Court. However, the State of Texas took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June, 2015, that there is, indeed, a disparate impact claim within the Fair Housing Act. The case will now return to the circuit court where the question of whether or not Texas violated the Fair Housing Act will be decided.

This lawsuit has raised a number of questions and debates. One of these has been from developers who argue that it is difficult build in “neighborhoods of opportunity” because land is expensive, and local governments listen to NIMBYs and won’t zone for multi-family housing in these neighborhoods. While the lawsuit was on the siting of LIHTC housing, a group of activists here in Los Angeles are exploring whether or not this lawsuit could be put to use as a tool for fighting NIMBY.

Los Angeles has the worst affordable housing crisis of any city in the nation; the gap between rents and wages is the highest in the nation. We simply do not have enough units. The City of LA needs 100,000 new units in the net five years simply to shelter the households that are already living here (all income levels). For low, very-low and extremely-low income households, the situation is dire. In Los Angeles County the dearth of units affordable to ELI households is over 450,000.

One of the obstacles to building more affordable housing is a deep and abiding history of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) opposition to affordable housing; indeed, to all multi-family housing. There are a number of theories of why this is the case, but one is our land-use and zoning. Neighborhood opposition to dense, multi-family housing has resulted in the following: 58% of all land in the City is zoned residential (as opposed to other big cities where it is generally 25% - 40%). Eighty percent of this 48% is zoned single-family. Only about 10% of all the land in the City of Los Angeles is zoned for multi-family. This has meant that residential growth in LA has been pushed into small areas which are now overcrowded and populated almost completely by low-income people of color.

Los Angeles is also a city that has a system of Neighborhood Councils. These were established by charter in 1999 and first implemented in 2002. The NC’s in Los Angeles have more power than any other system of NC’s in the nation even if they do not have legal land use authority. These organizations have great influence in certain Council Districts, and in some cases can prevent an affordable housing project from being approved and built. We believe that if predominantly white, higher income neighborhoods have the power to refuse multi-family low-income housing, the City may be supporting activity that has a disparate impact.

This year, PPD 531L will look at this issue and research whether or not this assumption that there may be disparate impact could, in fact be true. There are two “co-clients”: Public Counsel, a nonprofit legal organization that provides legal services to low-income communities on a range of issues (www.publiccounsel.org) and the So CA Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), a regional membership organization of nonprofit affordable housing developers (www.scanph.org).

Deliverables. One group of students will:  Use SCANPH’s database on all affordable housing projects in the city and identify the developers of these projects who are also SCANPH members (FYI tax credit projects are often identified by the legal partnership and not the actual developer).  Using the data they get, they will update the survey research SCANPH did in 2006 asking developers what the NC response had been when they proposed an affordable housing project.

At the same time, other students:  Will make a Public Records Act request from the Dept of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) for all agendas and meeting minutes for all NC meetings from 2006 - 2015, as well as research council files for items regarding affordable housing projects.

Together, they will  Map their findings to identify sites accepted/rejected by neighborhood demographics: race, income, etc.

7  Prepare a report on their findings.

8