DOCSLIB.ORG

Agenda for Meeting 1585 a Special Public Hearing Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agenda for Meeting 1585 a Special Public Hearing Of POSTED June 16, 2021 | 10:11 AM EDT CPC 1585 Page 1 of 6 AGENDA FOR MEETING 1585 A SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NEW HAVEN CITY PLAN COMMISSION Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 6:00 PM To view meeting materials, visit: city-plan-commission- newhavenct.hub.arcgis.com/pages/june-9-2021-meeting Attendance Regular Members Present: Leslie Radcliffe (Chair), Edward Mattison (Vice Chair), Adam Marchand (Alder) Alternates Present: Ernest Pagan (Commissioner) Staff Present: Aïcha Woods (Executive Director, City Plan), William Long (Deputy Director, City Plan), Jaime Stein (Planner, City Plan), Roderick Williams Attorney, Corporation Counsel), Michael Pinto (Assistant Corporation Counsel, Corporation Counsel) I. CALL TO ORDER L. Radcliffe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:07 PM when quorum was achieved. II. PRESENTATION A. Woods gave a presentation on Zoning for Inclusion: Phase 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and minimum lot size. • Background o Zoning determines where housing can be built, the type of housing that is allowed, and the form it takes. Regulations can indirectly or indirectly affect the cost of developing housing, making it harder or easier to accommodate affordable housing. An ADU is a residential living unit that is on the same parcel as a single- family dwelling or a multifamily structure, providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including space for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation. o This project grew from a larger set of initiatives related to the Affordable Housing Task Force recommendations and inclusionary zoning, as well as CT Fair Housing Center, Desegregate CT, Regional Plan Association’s Be My Neighbor, and the Yale Law Clinic, the Frank Legal Services Organization, and AARP. A similar bill is on the Governor’s desk to be signed into law, and efforts are being assessed at the federal level. • Purpose: To increase affordable housing choices for residents of all income levels in all neighborhoods, meeting accessibility and changing family needs while ensuring efficiency, sustainability, compliance, and respect for the historic fabric and neighborhood development patterns. Will also look at landlord relations, connections to affordable housing task force work, and displacement prevention. • Details o Approach is measured into phases: Phase 1 would allow ADU within existing structure, so there would be no modification to the built environment. Owner occupancy required. No additional parking. o Phase 3: Allow new detached structures in accordance with new design guidelines CPC 1585 Page 2 of 6 attentive to historical fabric and developed in collaboration with neighborhoods. o Would also reduce Minimum Lot Size to 4,000 sf which fits into the typical neighborhood lot size and fights against exclusionary zoning. o Next Steps: Submit Phase 1 proposal to Board of Alders, CPC, City Plan, LCI, and Affordable Housing. Solicit public input. Establish timeline for Phases 2 and 3. Develop design guidelines and pilot program for Phase 3. Design incentives and develop partnerships for technical and financing assistance as well as small contractor and work force development programs. Monitor and evaluate. Discussion • A. Marchand: Details on consequences of updated zoning? o A. Woods: Working to make uniform the Minimum Lot Size and allow a +1 density, keeping all other bulk regulations in place and without impact on other requirements (including parking). Noted that last CPC meeting saw 5 ADU applications for special exception for parking relief with additional dwelling, and would not except any denials there – this would simply grant that as a right instead of needing an additional 2 month review process. • E. Mattison: Need a clear, detailed process for how we can actually make this happen so that is not a source of difficulty (especially defining the decisionmakers, expectations, and timeline). III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • J. Stein read into the record a letter from Reverend Heidi Thorsen (950 Chapel St) in support of the City’s ADU proposal. • J. Stein read into the record a letter from Anika Singh Lemar (552 Chapel St, Yale Law School), Erin Boggs (Open Communities Alliance), and Greg Kirschner (CT Fair Housing Center) in opposition to the owner-occupancy requirement. • Ben Trachten (80 Woodside Terrace and 679 State St, Attorney, Trachten Law Firm) spoke in opposition to the City’s ADU proposal: existing mechanism units is sufficient; building officials should be involved in such conversations; the City’s proposal may not create additional affordable units but rather luxury units for single families; and other pathways should be utilized first for addressing affordable housing within the City. • Claudette Kidd (187 Howard Ave) spoke in support of the City’s ADU proposal: majority of evictions in the City are for people of color, shelters in New Haven have extensive waiting lists, has seen firsthand these transformations brought by ADUs for affordability and addressing the homelessness/housing crisis. • Donnell Hilton (116 Parkside Dr) spoke in support of the City’s ADU proposal as someone who built an additional home on his lot for a low-income family. Sees this as a way to give back to the community; emphasized the importance of community outreach. Portfolio available here: sway.office.com/1bVq35no4ZbWNzjR?ref=Link • Chris Ozyck (603 Quinnipiac Ave) spoke in support of the decrease to the Minimum Lot Size but in opposition to changing the rest of the ADU system. Would like to see enforcement and compliance strengthened through fines – is concerned that absent landlords (depending on where owner lives) could degrade neighborhood quality. • Teysha Poindexter (570 Howard Ave, Hill resident) noted the benefits of ADUs given the shortage of single-bedroom units, but raised concerns about parking availability, gentrification, and whether this proposal would truly bring affordable housing to the area (could large companies purchase properties and spike rents?). • Pamela Delerme (48 Rosa St) spoke in opposition to the City’s blanket approach to the ADU question primarily due to concerns over parking availability – adding units without a parking requirement can lower the quality of life and incite conflict between neighbors (also consider needing to move cars for street sweeping, snow plows, etc.). • Kevin McCarthy (171 Bradley St) spoke in favor of increasing affordable housing given CPC 1585 Page 3 of 6 that ¼ owner-occupied housing have 1 occupant. Raised a question about rehabilitation. • Anstress Farwell (New Haven Urban Design League) spoke in favor of the City’s ADU proposal but suggested further public outreach was needed and raised questions about inspections, livability, walkability, long-term parking needs, smart planning (such as developing townhouse units on top of parking garages, like the Humphrey St project). • Caller in spoke in opposition to the City’s blanket ADU proposal, noting that neighborhoods differ across the city and only some will be able to accommodate the consequences of this proposal. The Hill likely cannot accommodate ADUs without a parking requirement. Also raised concerns about fire hazards with increased housing density and new need for inspections, and must improve outreach with CMTs. • Donna Hall (295 Central Ave) spoke in opposition to the City’s ADU proposal – New Haven does not have an issue with affordable housing and noting that New Haven’s broad range of housing choices is one of its greatest strengths. Concerned that this would eliminate single-family zoning and troubled that the proposal makes an owner-occupant requirement that will eventually be eliminated and invite developers. • James Paley (Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven) submitted written testimony with some concerns that ADUs will be abused by investor owners and that this is not a “one size fits all” situation. Public Testimony concluded at 8:00 PM. IV. DISCUSSION • A. Woods: Key priority is creating more affordable housing, increasing property equity, and trying to build intergenerational wealth through both zoning and programmatic initiatives. Agreed that a financing plan must be considered to support low-income homeowners. Can explore the implementation of subsidy programs, tax abatement, and incentives to help keep rent affordable through public funding and private partnerships. On the issue of a blanket approach, City Plan recognizes the necessity of developing design standards through an interactive community outreach process adaptable to each community’s unique needs. Built environment/fire code requirements remain unaffected. This initiative does not aim to solve the City’s varying parking problems, but we can assess parallel pathways for addressing that issue. • M. Pinto: The City believes the owner-occupied requirement is legal and not in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The ADU legislation aims to add rental properties which benefit marginalized and protected classes of people, and such a requirement helps with monitoring of the program. The Special Act of 1937 grants the City authority to create owner-occupied laws for ADUs. Noted that inclusion of this requirement may still be heavily litigated. • E. Mattison: Concerned that litigation on the owner-occupied requirement will overcompliciate this legislation and undermine its potential effectiveness – is it worth it? • L. Radcliffe: Raised concerns about one-size fits all approach being effective in all neighborhoods, and the quality of life/caretaking of properties given that owners may live
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reducing the Cost of Crime Free Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois
    Reducing the Cost of Crime Free Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois A Model Ordinance by Open Communities and The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois In August 2013 the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released The Cost of Being “Crime Free”: Legal and Practical Consequences of Crime Free Rental Housing and Nuisance Property Ordinances.1 This report outlined some of the real costs to local municipalities who enact these ordinances, including the serious fair housing implications of advancing and enforcing such laws. Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois responds to the growing recognition that these local ordinances may harm tenants and landlords, impede fair housing, and expose local governments to liability. It offers municipalities the tools necessary to create rental housing policies that value quality, safe rental housing while also protecting protected classes and respecting the rights of landlords and tenants. Both Open Communities and The Shriver Center are available to provide technical assistance to local municipalities in the drafting of these ordinances. Cover: Multifamily rental buildings left to right Evanston, Niles, Skokie, and Park Ridge: Photos by Brendan Saunders 1 http://povertylaw.org/sites/default/files/files/housing-justice/cost-of-being-crime-free.pdf OPEN COMMUNITIES AND THE SARGENT SHRIVER NATIONAL CENTER ON POVERTY LAW 1 Acknowledgements Open Communities and the Shriver Center would like to thank the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Initiatives Program, for its support of this project’s concept: to strengthen a municipality’s ability to provide for decent and safe rental housing in its jurisdiction while honoring the fair housing and due process rights of tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Statements of Interest and FRAP 29(A)(4)(A) Statements
    Appendix A: Statements of Interest and FRAP 29(a)(4)(A) Statements 1. National Housing Law Project The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) is a nonprofit organization that advances housing justice for poor people and communities, predominantly through technical assistance and training to legal aid attorneys and co-counseling on key litigation. NHLP works with organizers and other advocacy and service organizations to strengthening and enforce tenants’ rights, increase housing opportunities for underserved communities, and preserve and expand the nation’s supply of safe and affordable homes. In addition to various other publications and training materials, since 1981 NHLP has published HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights. Commonly known as the “Greenbook,” this volume—now on its fourth edition and regularly supplemented between editions—is known as the seminal authority on HUD tenants and program participants’ rights by tenant advocates and other housing professionals throughout the country. NHLP also coordinates the Housing Justice Network, a collection of over 1,000 legal services attorneys, advocates, and organizers from around the country. The network has actively shared resources and collaborated on important and complex housing law issues for over 40 years, including through a dynamic listserv, working groups, and a periodic national conference. NHLP has been specifically involved with the implementation of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, including by providing training and developing AFFH materials as a subcontracting technical assistance provider for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). NHLP has also provided training and technical assistance to members of the Housing Justice Network and other stakeholders regarding 1 implementation of the AFFH Rule, including in-depth assistance to advocates in San Mateo County, California, who participated in that County’s regional Assessment of Fair Housing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Segregation of Opportunities (2005)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Studies Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity 2005 The egS regation of Opportunities John Lukehart University of Minnesota Law School Tom Luce Jason Reece Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/imo_studies Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John Lukehart, Tom Luce & Jason Reece, The Segregation of Opportunities (2005). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Segregation of Opportunities The Structure of Advantage and Disadvantage in the Chicago Region A Report of the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities John Lukehart Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities Tom Luce Institute on Race and Poverty University of Minnesota Jason Reece Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity The Ohio State University May 2005 Acknowledgements The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities would like to thank the many contributors to this report. First of all, we want to acknowledge the tremendous contributions made by folks at the Institute on Race and Poverty (IRP) at the University of Minnesota and the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State. Tom Luce, research director at IRP, did the lion’s share of identifying, collecting, and analyzing the data and developing the methods for presenting it in a meaningful and coherent way. Jason Reece, research associate at the Kirwan Institute, provided support in this effort. Myron Orfield, director at IRP, and john powell, director at the Kirwan Institute have provided essential guidance, as well as significant in-kind financial support, to make this study possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Discrimination in Housing
    Cover picture: Members of the NAACP’s Housing Committee create signs in the offices of the Detroit Branch for use in a future demonstration. Unknown photographer, 1962. Walter P. Reuther Library, Archives of Labor and Urban Affairs, Wayne State University. (24841) CIVIL RIGHTS IN AMERICA: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study Prepared by: Organization of American Historians Matthew D. Lassiter Professor of History University of Michigan National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Consultant Susan Cianci Salvatore Historic Preservation Planner & Project Manager Produced by: The National Historic Landmarks Program Cultural Resources National Park Service US Department of the Interior Washington, DC March 2021 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORIC CONTEXTS Part One, 1866–1940: African Americans and the Origins of Residential Segregation ................. 5 • The Reconstruction Era and Urban Migration .................................................................... 6 • Racial Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 8 • Restrictive Racial Covenants ............................................................................................ 10 • White Violence and Ghetto Formation ............................................................................. 13 Part Two, 1848–1945: American
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA DEPARTMENT of HOUSING and URBAN DEVELOP'/ NT OFFICE of ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES the Secretary, United
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP'/ NT OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES The Secretary, United States HUDALJ 05-91-0969-1 Department of Housing and Urban Date:February 10, 1994 Development, on behalf of The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, Charging Party, and The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and Marsha Allen, Intervenors V. Stanley Jancik, Respondent. INITIAL DECISION AND ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Background On November 30, 1993, Intervenors, the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities ("the Council") and Marsha Allen, a Council employee, filed a Petition for Attorney Fees. The Council is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting equal opportunities in housing in the metropolitan Chicago area. Intervenors seek $23,842.50 in attorney fees. Respondent, Stanley Jancik, filed a Response to the Petition on December 6, 1993.' I find that Intervenors are entitled to the amount of fees requested. IOn October 1, 1993, I issued an Initial Decision and Order finding that Respondent had discriminated against Intervenors in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. '' 3601, et seq. I awarded damages to the Council and Ms. Allen, exclusive of legal fees, and imposed a civil penalty and an injunctive order on Respondent. On December 6, 1993, Respondent filed an appeal of the Initial Decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That appeal is still pending. Intervenors seek fees for Edward Voci, the Council's General Counsel and Legal Director, and for Mark Freedman, Mr. Voci's law clerk who was a second year law student at the time of the hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights Organizations Add Cities and New Evidence to Housing Discrimination Complaint Against U.S
    For Immediate Release October 15, 2013 Contact: Naweed Lemar 202-898-1661, ext. 119 [email protected] Civil Rights Organizations Add Cities and New Evidence to Housing Discrimination Complaint against U.S. Bank New Cities: Baton Rouge, Indianapolis, Memphis, and Milwaukee New Cities and New Evidence: Metropolitan Chicago New Evidence: Baltimore WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the National Fair Housing Alliance and six of its member organizations announced that they have amended their federal housing discrimination complaint against U.S. Bank National Association. The civil rights groups allege that U.S. Bank continues to maintain and market foreclosed homes in white neighborhoods in a much better manner than in African-American and Latino neighborhoods. Failing to maintain and market homes because of the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood violates the federal Fair Housing Act. The new metropolitan areas added to the complaint are Baton Rouge, Indianapolis, Memphis, and Milwaukee. Evidence already in the complaint from the Chicago metropolitan area is being supplemented with new properties near Chicago in the cities of Aurora, Dolton, Evanston, Hazel Crest, Matteson, Waukegan and Country Club Hills. NFHA has also provided HUD with new evidence in Baltimore supporting their allegations of a continuing violation by U.S. Bank. The six member organizations that filed the complaint with NFHA are the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, HOPE Fair Housing Center (Illinois), South Suburban Housing Center (Illinois), Open Communities (Illinois), Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council, and Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center. The complaint now brings the total to 24 cities in 11 metropolitan areas where U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of the District of Columbia
    Case 1:17-cv-02192-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OPEN COMMUNITIES ALLIANCE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. Action No. 1:17-cv-02192 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell BEN CARSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:17-cv-02192-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................3 I. Overview of the HCV Program and Fair Market Rents ................................................3 II. Problems with Fair Market Rents Based on Broad Metropolitan Areas .......................4 III. HUD’s Experience With Small Area FMRs and Their Alternatives ...........................10 IV. The Small Area FMR Rulemaking ..............................................................................11 V. The Interim Evaluation ................................................................................................14 VI. HUD’s Sudden Suspension of the Small Area FMR Rule ..........................................16 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Zoning for Fair and Open Communities
    GUIDE A Guide to Zoning for Fair and Open Communities Connecticut Fair Housing Center June 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................. 1 2. Housing ...................................................................................... 3 3. Zoning ........................................................................................ 5 4. Zoning Reform ............................................................................. 6 5. Community .................................................................................. 7 6. Beyond Zoning ............................................................................. 8 Appendices Appendix A — Glossary of Terms ............................................................. 9 Appendix B — Zoning and the Fair Housing Act ............................................ 10 Appendix C — Summary of Fair Housing Laws ............................................. 11 Appendix D — Resources ...................................................................... 12 A Guide to Zoning for Fair and Open Communities 2013, Connecticut Fair Housing Center The Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. (CFHC) is a statewide non-profit organization working to make sure that all who seek housing have an equal opportunity to rent, purchase, finance or insure the property they choose. CFHC identifies and strives to eliminate barriers to fair housing in Connecticut. Because the state’s low-income residents are particularly affected by discriminatory
    [Show full text]
  • Housing & Neighborhood Development Land Use and Development
    Housing & Neighborhood Development Land Use and Development Background Housing Framework The cornerstone of a city’s quality of life is its housing opportunities and Three components of West neighborhood selection. All citizens desire safe, secure, and good quality Melbourne’s Housing and housing and great neighborhoods. Although the provision of housing within the city limits is largely a function of the private sector, the public sector plays Neighborhood a role in helping ensure that the housing needs of all citizens are met. Development Framework Specifically, the city is responsible for ensuring that the city’s housing are: opportunities provide for the diverse need of the community by addition needs regarding housing affordability, special needs, and multi-generational needs. 1) Support the city’s quality of life through highly The most important element that addresses issues involved with the issues of the provision of housing options and protection of quality neighborhoods desirable and distinct is the Housing and Neighborhood Development Element. As the element that housing opportunities establishes the planning framework for the promotion of housing and neighborhoods. opportunities and neighborhood diversity in the City of West Melbourne, this 2) Provide all citizens element is vital to addressing the planning concerns related to housing and neighborhood concerns. desire safe, secure, and good quality housing in Planning Framework great neighborhoods. 3) Promote an array of The objectives and policies established in the Housing & Neighborhood housing options and a Development Element provide the foundation for a planning framework which: variety of diverse . Ensures housing opportunities are available to residents of all income neighborhood in levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Hhc-Packet-20160204
    Memorandum To: Housing and Homelessness Commissioners From: Sarah Flax, Housing and Grants Administrator Subject: February 4, 2016 HHC Meeting Cover Memo Date: February 3, 2016 Attached please find: The meeting agenda Item 2: Draft minutes of the January 7, 2016 meeting for approval Item 4: Affordable Housing Demolition Tax and Affordable Housing Fund, Section 4-18-1 through 4-18-5 and IHO Ordinance 60-O-15 Item 6: Draft Housing and Homelessness Commission Report for 2015 Considerations for updating the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) description/purpose and its eligible uses include: Restructuring the definition of the Affordable Housing Fund to have the Demolition Tax as one of its sources of revenue. Currently fees in lieu of affordable units in developments covered by the IHO are not referenced in the Affordable Housing Fund description. Other sources of revenue for affordable housing that the commission will be evaluate and recommend as part of the 2016 work plan may need to be included. Consider if the current description of eligible uses of funds should be changed or expanded. Currently is “programs including, but not limited to: down payment and/or rental assistance; building rehabilitation and /or construction loans; property acquisition and disposition; and grants to nonprofit organizations that serve households that earn less than 100% of area median income.” Other considerations include: o Emergency/temporary/transitional housing for homeless individuals/families, and tracking and management systems such as the Homeless Information Management System (HMIS) that has been funded from the AHF to meet local matching requirements o Types of programs – landlord tenant, pre- and post-purchase housing counseling, renter training, landlord training, other o Use of funds for administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois
    Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois October 2015 A Model Ordinance by: 1 Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois In August 2013 the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released The Cost of Being “Crime Free”: Legal and Practical Consequences of Crime Free Rental Housing and Nuisance Property Ordinances.1 This report outlined some of the real costs to local municipalities who enact these ordinances, including the serious fair housing implications of advancing and enforcing such laws. Reducing the Cost of Crime Free: Alternative Strategies to Crime Free/Nuisance Property Ordinances in Illinois responds to the growing recognition that these local ordinances may harm tenants and landlords, impede fair housing, and expose local governments to liability. It offers municipalities the tools necessary to create rental housing policies that value quality, safe rental housing while also protecting protected classes and respecting the rights of landlords and tenants. Both Open Communities and The Shriver Center are available to provide technical assistance to local municipalities in the drafting of these ordinances. Cover: Multifamily rental buildings left to right Evanston, Niles, Skokie, and Park Ridge: Photos by Brendan Saunders 1 http://povertylaw.org/sites/default/files/files/housing-justice/cost-of-being-crime-free.pdf 2 Acknowledgements Open Communities and the Shriver Center would like to thank the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Initiatives Program, for its support of this project’s concept: to strengthen a municipality’s ability to provide for decent and safe rental housing in its jurisdiction while honoring the fair housing and due process rights of tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Closing the Divide Creating Equitable, Inclusive, and Affordable Communities
    Closing the Divide Creating Equitable, Inclusive, and Affordable Communities PREPARED BY Regional Affordable and Fair Housing Roundtable Closing the Divide Creating Equitable, Inclusive, and Affordable Communities Prepared by the Regional Affordable and Fair Housing Roundtable Co-convened by Enterprise Community Partners and the Fair Housing Justice Center Published January 2019 Acknowledgements In October 2017, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. (Enterprise) and the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) launched the Regional Affordable and Fair Housing Roundtable. This cohort, comprised of nearly 30 affordable housing, community development, fair housing, for- and nonprofit organizations, set out to achieve several important goals. The first was to educate affordable housing and fair housing organizations on key areas of concern impacting both sectors, a period of engagement that helped to build trust and provide a basic level of understanding among all participants. The second goal was to identify shared priorities affecting both the affordable and fair housing industries that both sectors could collectively work to advance or support in various ways. The third goal was to create a dynamic working group, enabling both sectors to have candid discussions, sometimes around areas of contention, in order to develop a shared policy platform. Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. is a national affordable housing intermediary that works to ensure that every family has a safe, affordable home in neighborhoods of opportunity by incubating programs to create solutions to challenging housing problems; investing capital to support the production of affordable housing; and advocating for policies that transform the system and bring more resources to the sector. The Fair Housing Justice Center is a nonprofit, civil rights organization dedicated to eliminating housing discrimination; promoting policies and programs that foster more open, accessible, and inclusive communities; and strengthening enforcement of fair housing laws in the New York City region.
    [Show full text]