Hans J. Trip Based on ideology or effciency? Based on U.S. Federal affordable housing policies housing affordable Federal U.S.

H.J.Trip U.S. Federal affordable housing policies a better world for society. About the author Delft the at student master a is Trip J. Hans University He of is Technology. interested After environment. built the and politics in having lived and studied in States the United and internationally Australia orientated. Hans got more Hans enjoys reading policy into issues complicated and contradictions. determined to commit himself He to provide is

Colofon

Title US federal affordable housing policies Subtitle: Based on ideology or effciency? University: Delft University of Technology Faculty: Architecture Mastertrack: Management in the Built Environment Supervisors: G.A. van Bortel, M.G. Elsinga Pages: 173 Date : July-6-2017

Author: Hans J. Trip Email: Student number: 4145801 Table of content Preface ...... 5 6. Conclusion ...... 123 Terminology ...... 6 6.1 Conclusion ...... 124 Readers guide ...... 7 6.2 Recommendations ...... 130 Summary ...... 8 7. References ...... 136 Abstract ...... 8 References ...... 136 Summary...... 9 Appendix 1 ...... 144 1. Introduction ...... 21 APP 1 Input model public housing ...... 144 1.1 Research framework ...... 22 Appendix 2 ...... 154 1.2 Theoretical framework ...... 26 Graph public housing portfolio ...... 154 1.3 Conceptual model ...... 30 Appendix 3 ...... 156 2. Need for housing ...... 33 Result cost effciency research PH ...... 156 2.1 Why housing matters ...... 34 Result cost effciency research HCV ...... 158 2.2 Housing demand ...... 36 Appendix 4 ...... 160 2.3 Conclusion ...... 41 Explanatory notes ...... 160 3. Historical analysis ...... 42 Appendix 5 ...... 162 3.1 Historical analysis federal policies...... 43 Valuation method ...... 162 3.2 Pruitt-Igoe ...... 59 Appendix 6 ...... 164 3.3 Conducted cost effciency studies ...... 63 Interview protocol 2: ...... 164 3.4 Proposal to change the system ...... 68 Interview protocol 3: ...... 165 3.5 Conclusion ...... 72 Appendix 7 ...... 166 4. Policy analysis ...... 73 Summary Interview 1...... 166 4.1 US housing system ...... 74 Summary Interview 2...... 167 4.2 Tenant-based ...... 78 Summary Interview 3...... 168 4.3 Project-based public housing ...... 82 Appendix 9 ...... 172 4.4 Project-based Section 8 ...... 86 Cost effciency study new program ...... 172 4.5 Tax credits ...... 91 4.6 Transformation programs...... 98 4.7 Conclusion ...... 105 5. New York City ...... 106 5.1 Affordable housing in NYC ...... 107 5.2 NYCHA ...... 110 5.3 NYCHA housing portfolio ...... 113 5.4 NYCHA cost effciency research ...... 114 5.5 Conclusion ...... 122 “What you do makes a difference and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make”

- Jane Goodall

4 Preface

Dear reader,

With great pleasure I am presenting to you my fnal master thesis, which is written at the Delft University of Technology. This thesis will describe the cost effciency and ideology of the federal affordable housing policies in the United States of America.

It is often that I am asked: how did a Dutch student end up researching and analyzing the United States affordable housing system. This idea started in the summer of 2016 when I was in charge of company relations at the MBE Studytrip. We went to three different Anglo-Saxon countries to study the housing affordability issues and the national affordable housing policies in England, Canada and the United States. Especially in Canada and the United States we have met some great for proft and non proft organizations that are developing or operating affordable housing units. At the same time we saw a lot of people living on the streets in San Francisco, these people really got my attention and interested me to look further into the affordable housing system in the United States. This trip is almost twelve months ago and this thesis is the result of almost a years work.

Overall I have always been interested in politics and society, it was therefore no punishment to analyze the American affordable housing system and to contribute to a solution of the enormous affordable housing issue in the United States.

Now that I have answered the question of how a Dutch student ends up conducting such research, it is important to emphasize that I could not have done it on my own. I want to give special thanks to my supervisors Gerard van Bortel and Marja Elsinga for all their great support, critical feedback and guidance. The American housing system is not the expertise of my two mentors, however they have read into the subject, let me continue with this subject and have supported me along the way. Another thanks to HUDuser and the NYCHA foil department, both institutions have helped me a lot by providing the information needed for this research and by answering questions when I was stuck. Besides the departments I would like to thank the people who were kind enough to participate in this research through interviews, these interviews were essential for this research and gave me the chance to refect on this research and to improve it. All together I can say that I have put a report in front of you that I am genuinely proud of. I hope you enjoy reading this graduation thesis as much as I have enjoyed writing it.

Hans Trip, July, 2017

5 Terminology

Affordable housing units HCV (housing choice vouchers (Section 8 TBRA)) PBRA (Project-based rental assistance.) Rental housing units that are affordable for the Housing vouchers is a federal tenant-based PBRA is federal assistance that is assigned to certain intended income groups according to HUD program that was previously known as Section 8. projects/buildings instead of to tenants. regulations. HOPE VI (home ownership for peoples (P)HA ((public) housing authorities) AMI (area median income) everywhere) The PHA’s are public organizations that provide Acceptable rents for households are often calculated The HOPE VI program is established to diminish the affordable homes to those in need. The PHA’s get as a percentage of the AMI. AMI is dependent on maintenance backlog and to improve the quality of their funding and policies from HUD and local the area and the household size. public housing units. It demolishes obsolete public governmental institutions. housing and replaces it with new mixed income low CNI (choice neighborhood initiative) rise housing. Public housing The choice neighborhood initiative is the successor Public housing is the oldest US affordable housing of HOPE VI. It renovates or newly builds public HUD (United States Department of Housing and program. Public housing is owned and managed by housing units. The main difference with HOPE VI is Urban Development.) housing authorities. that CNI uses a one for one replacement rule. HUD is responsible for most affordable housing programs PUM (per unit per month) Cost effciency PUM is often used in the cost effciency analysis and The term cost effciency is one of the most important IRS (Internal Revenue service) calculations. It means that the amount is the cost terms throughout this report. With cost effciency IRS is a bureau under the US Department of Treasury. per unit per month The result can be $... PUM. is meant the amount of federal costs to realize an The IRS is the tax administrator and enforcer. affordable housing units. RAD (rental assistance demonstration) LIHTC (Low income housing tax credits) RAD is a cost free policy of HUD. It transforms public FMR (fair market rent) LIHTC are tax credits that investors can receive for housing units into Section 8 housing units. The The fair market rent was prior to 1984 the median building affordable housing. The HCA assigns the Section 8 housing units can apply for a mortgage rent charged for recently leased apartments, and credits to specifc projects. which pays for the maintenance backlog. Therefore was later changed to the 40th percentile in 1995. it is a free policy of HUD to diminish the public NPV (Net present value) housing backlog. HAP (housing assistance payments) This NPV is the sum of the present values of the The housing assistance payments are for Section costs and benefts of an investment. TBRA (tenant-based rental assistance) 8 programs the difference between the tenants TBRA is a federal rental assistance that assigns its rent spendings and the payment standard, the NYCHA (New York City Housing Authority.) funds to tenants instead of projects the HCV is a payment standard is based on FMR. This Housing Authority is used for this report its TBRA program. cost effciency study. HCA (housing credit agency) Worst Case Needs HCA is a state wide agency that falls under the Worst Case Needs are the eligible people for federal IRS, and administrates LIHTC. rental assistance who do not receive assistance yet. 6 Readers guide

This research analyzes the federal affordable housing have previous cost effciency studies concluded?. 6. Conclusion policies in the united stated and the cost effciency At frst the evolution of the housing system from 1937 The last chapter is the conclusion and of multiple affordable housing programs in New York to 2017 will be explained with the characteristics of recommendations. In this chapter an answer will City. In order to bring a clear distinction between the that time and analyzed based on the theoretical be given to all fve sub-questions and therefore the policy analysis and the cost effciency research, the framework. Then the notorious public housing site research question. In the end recommendations will policy analysis is written in red and the cost effciency “Pruitt-Igoe” is further explained and previous cost be given for further research and policies, and a critical research in blue. In total there are six chapters. effciency studies will be discussed. At last in chapter view on the fndings is discussed in the discussion. 3.4 a dramatic system change proposal of 1995 will Summary be discussed and analyzed called “the blueprint for This report will start of with a summary on this research. reinvention”. This summary will include the most important pieces of information from all the other chapters. 4. Policy Analysis The chapter policy analysis is all about the current 1. Introduction affordable housing system and programs. First The introduction will elaborate on the relevance of the affordable housing system will be explained this research, the problem statement, the research and analyzed. Later on the housing programs are questions, the goal of this research, methodology explained, this includes but is not limited to public and in the theoretical framework. This framework will housing, Section 8 TBRA, Section 8 PBRA and LIHTC. be used throughout the report as the basis for the This chapter answers the following research question: analyzes. How is the current federal affordable housing system organized? 2. Need for housing Chapter two will answer the following sub-research 5. New York City question: “Why is affordable housing important?”. Chapter fve will discuss this research its cost effciency This chapter is divided in two sub-chapters: why study of public housing and Section 8 housing in New housing matters and the affordable housing demand. York City at the New York City Housing Authority. The affordable housing demand and the need for Chapter fve will also provide information about the housing will be analyzed based on the theoretical relation between the federal government its affordable framework. housing portfolio and that of NYC, the role of federal policies in New York City, and the characteristics of 3. Historical analysis NYCHA and the NYC real estate market. This chapter Chapter three, the historical analysis will explain and will answer the following research question:” How analyze the history of affordable housing in the United cost effcient have the federal policies been in New States. The sub-question related to this chapter is: York City?” “How did the affordable housing programs develop over time from a welfare state perspective, and what 7 Abstract

Title: U.S. federal affordable housing policies

Subtitle: Based on ideology or effciency?

Abstract: This report analyzes the history of affordable housing policy decision making and the present system of affordable housing in the United States. At the same time, the cost effciency of two affordable housing programs is calculated based on the federal affordable housing portfolio of the New York City Housing Authority. Cost effciency and political and public support (which is also referred to as ideology in this research) are often conficting goals. This report examines what affordable housing policy decisions have been based on and how cost effcient the two considered programs have been. The main research question is: “What has been driving federal affordable housing policy choices in the United States and how cost effcient have they been?”

The information about the bases of past policy decisions and the cost effciency of these programs over the years that this study provides can contribute to future policy decisions and make policy makers more aware of what their decisions are founded on. The history of affordable housing policies is an essential part to understand the current system. Both the history of affordable housing policies and current affordable housing programs are analyzed based on ideology. The cost effciency study can be used to determine how cost effcient different housing programs – and thus affordable housing policies – have been.

Summary This study fnds that cost effciency has not played a signifcant role in decision making related to affordable housing policies in the United States, especially before the 1970s and 1980s; decisions have instead been based mainly on ideology. Over the years, affordable housing policies have moved from public-administered, project-based assistance to tenant-based assistance using the private market

Since the 1970s, multiple cost effciency studies have been conducted; however, they are self-admittedly disadvantageous towards public housing. The cost effciency study conducted as part of this research concludes that public housing has been more than twice as cost effcient as housing provided through the federal government’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. It can thus be concluded that cost effciency has not been a large part of affordable housing decision making, with housing policy decisions instead being driven mainly by ideology – which has resulted in decisions that are not necessarily cost effcient.

Keywords: Federal affordable housing programs, affordable housing policies, public housing, Section 8, housing vouchers, LIHTC, cost effciency, ideology, NYCHA, policy decisions, historic analysis 8 Summary

The United States has a large group of households available for affordable housing for lower classes. cost effcient manner? that are in desperate need of affordable housing; the U.S. government defnes this group those with “worst- The personal implications for families in the worst- Evidence of the cost effciency of different affordable case needs.” Steffen (2015) states that approximately case needs category are clear: they face severe rent housing programs is apparently lacking. Olsen 7.7 million households fall into this category when this burdens and live in severely inadequate housing. and Zabel (2015) even state that evidence of the defnition is employed. In contrast, Bratt (2006) uses However, the lack of affordable housing units has performance of U.S. programs is less researched than a broader defnition that results in approximately 35 an impact on all of society, namely due to poverty’s in other countries. million households falling into the desperate need serious and negative side effects (which include category. criminality, students dropping out of school, starvation “We have no high-quality evidence on the cost- and segregation) (Steffen, Carter, Martin et al., 2015). effectiveness and most other outcomes of the The U.S. government started using public housing People associate these side effects with affordable largest new low-income housing programs, and as a way to provide affordable homes in 1937; at that housing units, which lowers their willingness to pay for we have no recent evidence on the performance of time, the target groups were mainly the working class such units. The lack of funding for affordable housing older programs that still account for a substantial and the submerged middle class (Goetz, 2012). While programs is therefore a problem of society as a whole minority of assisted households.” (Olsen & Zabel, the government-allocated budget has always proven and not just of people in need. As such, this problem 2015:892) to be inadequate for solving the housing problem, is worth researching. over the years the government has introduced more Based on the need for information about programs’ programs to meet worst-case needs. These programs Scientifc relevance of this thesis cost effciency, the current research determines the have included the Low-income Housing Tax Credits At the moment, public housing is decreasing in the cost effciency of two affordable housing programs (LIHTC), Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance United States and the government’s frst LIHTC that have been administrated by the New York City (PBRA) and Section 8 Tenant-based Rental Assistance projects are coming to an end. The future task is to try Housing Authority (NYCHA) in the last 80 years. To (TBRA). Unfortunately, these programs have not been to help as many people suffering under severe rental understand different affordable housing policies over able to provide enough affordable housing units burdens as possible. In the United States, spending on time and identify why four separate affordable housing for the people who are in desperate need. Indeed, welfare programs is not popular. According to Inside programs exist, the political climate is also analyzed. worst-case needs increased by 69% from 2001 to Gov (2016), the U.S. Government’s total spending Policy makers will subsequently be able to use this 2011 (Steffen, Carter, Martin et al., 2015). With the in 2015 was $3.36 trillion; the U.S. Department of new information to ensure that their future policies are demolition of public housing units, the frst tax credit Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notes that based on fnancial factors as well as ideology. programs coming to an end and the expiration of approximately $40 billion (1%) of this amount went Section 8 PBRA contracts, the future of affordable to rental assistance (2015). According to Goetz Public and political acceptance versus cost effciency housing has become even more uncertain. (2012), affordable housing policy decisions seem to and cost savings stem from policy makers their individual governance In its Housing of the Seventies paper, HUD describes Social relevance of this thesis preferences rather than their a thorough research multiple conficting goals within the policy decision In the United States, public opinions on public housing of costs. This is an interesting point of departure: If process. One example is public and political and nation-wide housing assistance have become the choices for affordable housing programs are acceptance versus cost effciency and cost savings. more negative since the 1970s. This decrease in mainly based on one’s ideal form of governance, are In the 1970s, public housing had already existed for popularity has led to a decrease in the federal budget programs actually handling governmental funds in a 40 years. However, according to HUD (1974) before 9 1974 policy decisions were rarely based on “The United States is facing huge shortages and how cost effcient have they been?” effciency and no deep effciency studies had in affordable housing which leads people been undertaken: in desperate need of affordable housing. Subquestions Governmental programs such as LIHTC (low As stated before this research has got two “Generally, the Department’s legislative income housing tax credits), PBRA (project- different parts. proposals to Congress were not based based rental assistance), TBRA(tenant-based 1. The ideology of and basis for policy on a study or reevaluation of the relevant rental assistance) help but are insuffcient to decision making related to affordable policies and legislative authorities. Until help all the people in need. At the same time, housing recently there was not even a continuing the LIHTC contracts are coming to an end, 2. Cost effciency research long-range study looking toward the next Section 8 PBRA contracts are soon expiring year’s legislative program.” (HUD, 1974:22- and public housing is being demolished. The Each part is explored with the assistance of 23) big task ahead is to create more affordable subquestions related to the main research homes within the current fnancial constraints. question identifed above. As these two The department also asserted that it is not In order to do so the frst step is to review the components undoubtedly infuence each unusual for policy decisions to be made on cost effciency of current affordable housing other, this research also closely examines the the basis of what the affected private sector or programs, and to analyze the political climate effect that policies have on cost effciency and public opinion may accept. This was done even for affordable housing programs.” vice versa. though decisions resulted in programs that were not necessarily the most equitable, most Research question Part 1: Ideology effcient or least expensive in either the short The problem statement leads to the following The frst part of this research takes a deeper or long term (HUD, 1974). These observations research question: look at policy makers. It analyzes what has been seem to be similar to those of Olsen and Zabel behind affordable housing policy decisions (2015) and Goetz (2012), as described earlier. “What has been driving federal affordable and the organization of the current affordable Olsen and Zabel (2015:892) even state that: housing policy choices in the United States housing system in the United States. Figure 0.1: Research framework (own image) “The most useful information for housing policy would be evidence on the differences Demand for affordable

Summary housing in the effect of spending the same amount Ideology study Ideology of money to assist the same people by analysis Conclusion History of afforda- Based on the different means.” ble housing outcome of the efficiency study and the ideology study a This research investigates the bases upon Current Housing conclusion can be system written that answers which policy decisions have been made and the main research the effciency of associated policies have been question. calculated. Costs of public housing (1937-2017) Cost efficiency study Problem statement NYCHA Adjusting section 8 and public housing Costs of section 8 Based on the above-stated rationale and social figures to make them comparable (1974-2017) and scientifc relevance, this study’s problem Cost efficiency, statement is formulated as follows: result per unit per Inflation rates, average month (PUM) personal income 10 The subquestions of part 1 are: and conservatives within the current research, with the Two party system • Why is affordable housing important? exception of decommodifcation. Table 0.2 and fgure The United States has two large political parties: the • How have the affordable housing programs 0.3 show the theoretical framework that is for analysis Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats developed over time from a welfare state purposes throughout this research, while the four mainly have a liberal view (Hays, 2012). However, perspective, and what have previous cost aspects of the three views considered are explained this does not mean that all Democrats think exactly effciency studies concluded? in table 0.2. The following subsections explain the the same; some are more socialist and others • How is the current federal affordable housing origins of the three views that are used in the current more conservative. Variation also exists within the system organized? research related to how Hays, Barr and Hoekstra used Republican Party, which includes both quite liberal them in their own work. members and strict conservatives (Hays, 2012). A. Methodology Based on three views on the welfare state, this research Socialists B. Results employs the following terms: socialists, liberals and The socialist view can be compared to the collectivist Right for housing conservatives. These terms, which are all used by view of Barr (2012) and the social democratic welfare The United Nations their basic human right for Barr (2012), Hoekstra (2013) or Hays (2012), are most state of Hoekstra (2010). The social democrats are a housing is based on President Roosevelt’s 1944 State applicable to and recognizable in the United States. part of Barr’s collectivist view. of the Union Address. President Roosevelt’s New • Socialists Deal is a very liberal piece of legislation. At that time, • Liberals Liberals President Roosevelt had the support of the public due • Conservatives The liberals can be well compared to the liberal view to the high poverty rates being experienced as part of of Barr (2012) and the liberal democratic capitalists of the Great Depression. His New Deal was comparable The scale used in this study’s theoretical framework Hays (2012). to social legislation of European countries, which is is the same as the scale employed by Barr (2012): generally more socialist than in the United States. the amount of governmental intervention. This scale Conservatives In his early years in offce, President Roosevelt did ranges from a large government on the left to a The conservatives can be best compared to the try to provide housing for everyone in the country. small government on the right. As explained by Hays libertarians of Barr (2012), the conservatives of Hays However, his public housing initiative appeared to (2012) and Barr (2012), both sides foresee life cycle (2012) and the liberals of Hoekstra (2010). be too socialist for most Americans and a more right- redistribution and state insurance; however, they have Table 0.2 Theoretical framework (own image) wing liberal/conservative view on affordable housing different views about income redistribution. Hays, was adopted. Treating housing a basic right for Barr and Hoekstra based their frameworks on multiple Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives everyone was considered to be to expensive by most aspects Wealth High Low Low-no American politicians, the deceleration was therefore 1. The amount of wealth redistribution, redistribution redistribution seen as “a right to an adequate standard of living.” 2. The target group, Target groups Extremely Extremely low- Extremely low President Carter, who was also a Democrat, later did income low-middle low 3. The position of the government in the market, sign the human rights covenant which made housing 4. The economical system, Position of public Dominantly Public in Mainly Private a basic human right; however, he never passed it to and private parties public collaboration with a passive 5. Decommodifcation in the affordable with private role for public the U.S. Senate for ratifcation, as it was apparent that housing system parties parties. the majority of that body would have been against The same aspects are used to defne socialists, liberals Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic treating housing as a basic right.

Figure 0.3 views on the welfare state own image. Republicans Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives More governement intervention Less governement intervention Large government Small government Housing need identifes the most important events related allowed them to increase rents. A total of 7.721 million worst-case needs to these policies; these events are further 5. President Johnson, who assumed the existed in the United States in 2013 (Steffen, explained below. presidency after President Kennedy’s Carter, Martin et al., 2015). According to the 1. President Roosevelt wanted a public assassination, increased funding for new U.S. government, worst-case needs represent housing system that would assist moderate- the construction of public housing units people who are in desperate need for and low-income households. The liberals from 25,000 to 130,000 units a year. The affordable housing. Steffen (2015) claims that were able to pass progressive liberal – Housing and Urban Development Act of for every person who is provided some kind perhaps even socialist – legislation under 1968 reaffrmed the national goals of 1937 of federal housing assistance, 1.6 renters still the umbrella of the New Deal. President and 1949, namely a decent home and have worst-case needs for such assistance. Roosevelt’s intentions were to build a large suitable living environment for every U.S. This dramatic fgure demonstrates just how public housing portfolio for a broad target family. great the demand for decent and affordable group. 6. When Republican Nixon was elected in 1968, housing is. Between 2001 and 2011, worst- A. The conservatives launched a lobbying he focused more on international politics case needs increased by 69% (Steffen, Carter, campaign with NAREB and succeeded to than on domestic policies. His advisors were Martin et al., 2015). stop funding for new public housing units. quite liberal when he took offce, but in the B. During the Second World War, funds were end he replaced them with conservative The National Low-income Housing Coalition assigned to the army instead of public thinkers. The poor quality of public housing estimated in 2001 that 18.5 million homeowners housing. sites ultimately forced President Nixon and 17.2 million renters faced either moderate 2. Affordable housing was greatly needed both to assign operating and maintenance or severe housing problems in the United during and after the war. In 1949, the liberals subsidies, which is something that previous States (Bratt, 2006). Of all of these 35.7 million authorized new allocations for public Republicans had fought against. households, approximately 19.5 million earned housing: almost 810,000 houses were to be 7. In 1973, President Nixon suspended funding less than 50% of AMI (area median income). built within a few years. for all affordable housing programs. Left-wing Democrats such as Presidents C. President Truman, a progressive supporter E. President Nixon, who was under the threat of Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Carter would of public housing, had to lower funds for impeachment and looking for ways to gain advocate for a broader term than is now used public housing due to the Korean War. popularity, worked with both Democrats as the worst-case needs, which as explained D. The conservatives saw a possibility to and Republicans to pass a new Housing Summary above approximately 35 million households. abolish public housing This was their frst Act. This new Act restarted most affordable Moreover, the worst-case needs are just the tip attempt not to only stop the growth of housing programs and introduced Section of a much larger iceberg of people in desperate public housing but to abolish it entirely. 8. need for housing. Nonetheless, conservatives 3. After the Korean War, Republican President 8. Ronald Reagan became President in 1980 believe in self-suffciency, which dictates that Eisenhower came into power. This president and brought with him a very conservative people in need are self-motivated to move up was a known critic of public housing, which administration. President Reagan was able the social ladder. he saw as a socialist program. He frst wanted to use his political skills to get extensive to abolish public housing completely, but budget cuts passed; for example, in a 1981 History of the development of affordable when he realized that the political price budget coup he succeeded in getting the housing policies of doing so would be too high he instead budget for HUD cut almost in half. Affordable housing policies in the United lowered new appropriations to a minimum. F. A HUD scandal in 1989 decreased the image States have changed signifcantly over the 4. President Kennedy invested heavily in the of affordable housing even further and years, moving from the left (or liberal) side new construction of public housing. To made it hard to sell proposals to increase to the right (or conservative) side. Figure 0.4 solve the authorities’ liquidity shortage, he funds to a “corrupt” organization. 12 9. President Bush had similar thinking to President 13. President Trump’s frst budget proposal of 2017 the private market and would have preferred to abolish Reagan but was more lenient towards affordable included cutting HUD funding by 13%. public housing (namely Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon housing policies; he wanted a kinder and gentler and Reagan). approach to affordable housing policies. Conservatives have always opposed affordable However, after the great fuctuations in presidential 10. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, won the 1992 election housing programs, especially public housing. In policies and outlooks ended in the 1990s, it seems with a mild liberal vision. He believed in affordable contrast, liberals have pushed for more affordable that the liberals and conservatives have reached a housing but also saw the faws of the welfare state; housing units, for those with both low and medium stable status quo. This was possible even though HUD he even stated that the welfare State as the United incomes. From 1937 until the 1990s, almost every was still facing the threat of abolition in the 1990s due States knew it would be no more. President Clinton president felt differently about public housing: some to its bad public image; President Clinton ultimately was not a far-left liberal and instead continued wanted it to become very large (namely Presidents came with a drastic plan to reinvent HUD and improve most of President Bush’s affordable housing Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson), whereas its image in 1995. Moreover, after the 1990s affordable policies. Even though President Clinton tried to some did not believe in governmental intervention in housing policies stopped being so strongly affected give affordable housing a positive new image, for Figure 0.4: Historic affordable housing policies by wars and economic downturn; in the frst decade a Democrat he did very little to preserve it. After Socialism Republicans Capitalism President Reagan’s major budget cuts, President Democrats Clinton did not try to get the budget back up to its Socialists Liberals Conservatives earlier levels. 1935 11. George Bush Jr. was elected president in 2000. Public housing. 1. Although he agreed with many President Reagan’s 1940 A. Roosevelt B. ideas, he had a milder attitude toward welfare 1945 2. Truman programs. President Bush led the United States into 1950 C. D. 3. a war with Afghanistan in 2001 and later into a war 1955 Eisenhower with Iraq in 2003. These wars focused the attention 4. 1960 of his administration on foreign affairs rather than 5. Kennedy domestic policies. He left affordable housing 1965 6. Johnson policies intact, which was different from what 1970 Nixon Section 8. 7. presidents had done during previous wars (such 1975 E. Ford as the Second World War and the Vietnam War, Carter 1980 8. when both Democratic and Republican presidents Termination section 8 NC/SR. New HCV 1985 Reagan supported dramatic cuts in affordable housing LIHTC 9. F. programs). It was thus striking that no large budget 1990 Bush Sr. 10. HOPE VI cuts were made in relation to affordable housing 1995 Clinton policies during the administration of Bush Jr. 2000 11. 12.President Obama came into power during the mortgage crisis of 2008. During previous economic 2005 Bush Jr. CNI 12. 2010 downturns (such as the Great Depression) and RAD Obama problems with public housing in the 1960s, 2015 13. Trump Democratic presidents had increased affordable 2020 housing funds dramatically. However, the Obama Section CNI HOPE VI 8 PBRA HCV administration did not make revolutionary changes New Deal Public housing NYC RAD Worst LIHTC policy case needs to HUD’s budgets or programs. Socialists 13 of the 21st century they instead became quite support of both liberals and conservatives. For The public housing program has received much stable. The main question now is whether liberals it is important that more affordable criticism from both liberals and conservatives. President Trump, who is considered to have homes are made available, and vouchers In general, liberals have wanted more public similar thinking to President Reagan, will supplement the older public housing program. housing and a more diverse tenant group. change the status quo or maintain the system The conservatives prefer housing vouchers In contrast, conservatives have traditionally as it is. over public housing because the federal criticized public housing; they feel it is too Based on the above, it can generally be government plays a more passive role while costly and that housing should be left to the concluded that the ideology behind affordable the private market plays a greater one. private market. housing has shifted greatly over time from Nonetheless, both sides have also criticized the Public housing has proven to be able to help right-wing socialist to right-wing conservative. program. Liberals see that for special families very low-income families over the last 80 years. Each president seems to have focused on (such as those that are exceptionally large or However, units are getting older and funds for what he has believed is right according to his have a member with a disability) it is hard to modernization or substantial renovations are ideology. fnd housing on the private market, especially lacking. Liberals are trying to use programs in tight real estate markets. They also believe such as HOPE VI, RAD and CNI to modernize It is also necessary to consider what was that to many housing vouchers would lead to public housing units, but public housing is still guiding HUD itself at the time. In the Housing rent infation. Under President Clinton, liberals considered a very liberal program and therefore in the Seventies paper, it is stated that HUD’s stopped funding for new additional vouchers receives much criticism from conservatives. legislative proposals to the U.S. Congress were between 1994 and 1999; President Clinton generally not based on a study or reevaluation focused more on rehabilitating public housing Section 8 pbra of relevant policies and legislative authorities. units. The conservatives are worried about The Section 8 PBRA program is the result Until the 1970s, not even a long-range study the increasing costs of the voucher program, of collaboration between liberals and looking at the coming year’s legislative which led President Bush to stopping funding conservatives. The liberals wanted to infuence program was conducted. Typically, each year for new additional vouchers from 2002 to 2007. the production of affordable housing units; was characterized by an effort by the agency However, President Obama reintroduced this they foresaw that the private market would or to meet a deadline for presenting legislative funding in 2008. Overall, it can be concluded could not build enough appropriate housing recommendations for the coming year to the that this program has aspects that appeal to for the lower class. Due to wrong adjustment Bureau of the Budget (OMB) (HUD, 1974:22- both liberals and conservatives. factors, the construction of high quality (and Summary 23). thus expensive) buildings and clientele with Public housing a far lower income, HUD’s costs for Section 8 Current affordable housing system Public housing began as an almost socialist PBRA rose. President Reagan shut the program The current affordable housing system consists policy in the United States; however, in 2017 down in 1983 due to these high costs and what of four different programs adiministrated by public housing is more liberal than it originally he saw as low cost effciency. Overall, Section HUD and the treasury as can be seen in fgure was. It is currently serving approximately 1.1 8 NC/SR is a kind of compromise option 0.5 million households, which is more than 20% between low-income housing tax credits and lower than the 1994 fgure of 1.4 million. Public housing vouchers. Housing vouchers housing is now only focusing on low-income Since the U.S. government introduced the households and leaving medium-income LIHTC housing voucher program in 1974, it has households to look to the private market. The different parties within the U.S. become the second largest affordable housing Public housing is also fully publicly funded and government have long debated how to deliver program and serves approximately 2.2 million operated. affordable homes to the country’s lower households. The housing vouchers have the Figure 0.5: Current affordable housing system 14 Legislative Executive Judicial

Congress President Supreme Court Senate Vice President Other Federal Courts House of representatives Cabinet

United States Secretary United States Secretary Office of inspector of the Department of General of Housing and Urban Development the Treasury

Tenant based housing Project based housing Project based housing assistance assistance assistance

Housing Choice Voucher Public Housing Section 8 LIHTC 2.2 Million 1.1 Million 1.2 Million 2.1 Million

Housing authority Housing authority Housing authority Housing credit agency

15 income population. Project-based assistance up in low-income housing. A. Methodology in the form of Section 8 NC/SR was terminated Previous cost effciency studies have taken a in 1983, but a similar new program – namely Overall, the LIHTC is the largest affordable virtual lifetime of 20 or 30 years into account the LIHTC – was introduced three years housing program in the United States; however, for public housing units. At the same time they later. The main differences are that the initial for it to be truly affordable for households with state: benefts for the developers are higher under incomes below 60% AMI, PBRA payments are “Longer time frames for the life cycle tend the LIHTC and tenants do not receive monthly needed. The LIHTC is also the most private to favor production programs... “ DiPasquale rental assistance. This enables liberals to gain market-based program; it was introduced (2003:151) affordable new housing stock to supplement by conservative President Reagan, which is To compare the cost effciency of public the current stock while conservatives obtain as refected in characteristics such as its rent caps housing and housing vouchers, the current much market infuence as possible and a passive and the passive role of the government it calls cost effciency study: government. In principle, the government only for. All together, it is the most conservative • Takes operational and production costs has to accept or deny projects that apply to housing program in existence in 2017. into account; the LIHTC. • Takes only the federal costs into account; Part 2: Cost effciency • Adjusts the tenant contribution so that However, the program has one faw. Since The second part of this research looks at how it is virtually the same for the different rents are capped at a certain amount and not cost effcient the housing vouchers and public affordable housing programs considered; based on a specifc tenant’s income, in practice housing have actually been in New York City. To • Uses the net present value method; tenants often pay more than 30% or even 50% determine this effciency, this research analyzes • Uses actual lifespans instead of a virtual 20- of their income to rent affordable low-income the affordable housing portfolio of the NYCHA. or 30-year period; and housing under the LIHTC program. To avoid Housing authorities are the organizations that • When units are still in use, takes a rest this situation, many tenants are given additional execute the programs created by the U.S. value into account according to the cost Section 8 vouchers. Approximately 7% to 13% federal government. This research determines value method to account for the remaining of all voucher holders reside in LIHTC housing, the cost effciency of Section 8 units and public years of operation. and 47% of all properties placed in LIHTC housing units administrated by the NYCHA. service from 1995 to 2006 house one or more The NYCHA was established in 1934, before By taking the actual lifetime instead of a fctive tenants with rental vouchers (Schwartz, 2015). federal affordable housing legislation was lifetime into account, this study provides a fair Summary Households that earn less than 60% AMI can passed in 1937. Over the years, the NYCHA comparison that is not disadvantageous to still apply for Section 8 rental vouchers. has built more public housing units, managed either PBRA or TBRA. its funds better and embraced relevant policies For every dollar that the U.S. government on more fully than any other housing authority in Conceptual model tax credits, between 40% and 100% actually the country. The result is that in 2017, its public How this research makes the costs of ended up with the developer; today the fgure housing stock is larger and overall better different policies comparable is explained in is approximately 80%, which means that the maintained than that of any other housing a conceptual model. The steps of this model government spends 20% of its funding on authority. are outlined below; fgure 0.5 presents a visual obtaining better fnancial results for investors. representation. In this case, it might seem easier to simply The subquestion for part 2 is as follows: collect taxes, abolish the tax credit system and • How cost effcient have the federal Step 1 provide active subsidies to developers, as the affordable housing programs been in Step one entails determining the percentage government balance sheet would not be any New York City? of a tenant’s average personal income that is different and more funds would actually end paid in rent. 16 Step 2 costs analyzed: the operating costs of existing studies have taken a maximum lifetime of 30 years The Section 8 HCV tenants need to be (virtually) the housing, the development costs of newly built units into account, while public housing units are often still same as public housing tenants. To this end, step 2 and the total amount of costs for the programs (often operational even after 80 years. involves calculating what (virtual) funds these tenants calculated over 30 years). Different studies have need to reach the same income group for Section 8 provided different results concerning the most cost Existing housing operating costs HCV as public housing. The result of this step is the effcient program. However, it is clear that longer Two cost analyses have been conducted concerning fctive cost that is required to bring Section 8 tenants time periods beneft PBRA programs, especially HUD’s operating costs (HUD, 2000; HUD, N.D.-d). to the rent levels of public housing tenants. public housing. Most previous total cost effciency First, an operating cost study undertaken by HUD Figure 0.6: Conceptual model (2000) based on 1998 data found that public housing Step 3 In this step, the total costs for a certain year are calculated by summing the results of step 2 and Policy 1 Public Housing information 5-6 and 7. The result is the total amount Repeat for years 1937-2016

Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 of costs made in that year. Development Costs(5) Total costs Present value Net present Net present Avarage rent adjustment Total present value of costs value (NPV) of Annual (1A) value Costs Net present Operational for years costs for years (2016) (10) of value costs (13) Step 4 Costs(6a) 1937-2016 + 1937-2016 per Total costs year x To account for the time value of money, funds have to (5)+(6) year x(8) Restvalue unit per month Capital (8)*( 1+(9)) (10)+(11)+(12) (PUM) be corrected by the infation rate over the years. Step Costs(6b) PI(2) Step 1 Rent/PI %(3) Rest value (11) 4 thus entails adjusting all costs by the infation rate to (1)/(2) Inflation (9) (13)/(4)/12 Other years y (12) Total amount of reach their present value in 2017. Households (4)

Step 5 Step 5 involves calculating the net present value of all present values of a program’s historical costs plus, for Interview moment 1. Interview moment 2. Comparison between public housing, the rest value in the year 2017. Withone or more With one representative Public Housing, section 8 NYCHA representative(s) from HUD and one TBRA (HCV) representative from the Step 6 NYCHA In step 6, the net present value of all costs is divided by the total amount of households served for a year divided by 12. This yields the wanted result of the Policy 2 Section 8 (HCV) net present value of the costs and benefts for the Repeat for years 1974-2016 different programs with the same income tenants per Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 HAP Costs(5) Total costs Present value Net present Net present unit per month (PUM). This result can be compared Avarage rent adjustment Total present value of costs value of costs Annual (1B) value Costs Net present Administrative- for years (NPV) for years with the results of other affordable housing programs (2016) (10) of value costs Costs(6) 1974-2016 1937-2016 for a Total costs year x Households (13) to identify which program is the most cost effcient. (5)+(6)+(7) year x(8) public housing Costs ajustment (8)*( 1+(9)) (10)+(12) income income households Rent/ househiold per PI(2) Step 1 PI %(3) Step 2 (7) Inflation (9) Other years y (12) unit per month B. Results (1)/(2) (1A)-(1B)*(4) (PUM)

Previous cost effciency studies (13)/(4)/12

All of the cost effciency studies analyzed for this Total amount of research determined different kinds of cost effciency Households (4) at different periods in time. In general, three different 17 is 18% more expensive per occupied unit than research study. of this research are based on a 30-year lifetime. Section 8 vouchers. However, the study states Under the HOPE VI program, which can As tax credits can expire already after 15 years, that the difference is highly dependent on be seen as offering public housing, it costs two sets can be needed for the full 30 years. the area; some public housing units are twice $143,450 to produce one affordable housing In addition, HOPE VI and public housing units as expensive as vouchers and some public unit in comparison to $73,590 with tax credits. are often in use for a long period of time. In housing units are twice as cheap (HUD, 2000). This is a very large difference in costs, although New York City, all of the original buildings a distinction between these programs has developed in the 1930s are still in operation However, a different picture arises in a later to be made. Whereas HOPE VI units often – which indicates that the lifetime of public HUD study. By 2010, vouchers were 35% remain affordable for more than 80 years housing can be 80 or even 90 years. As such, more expensive than public housing (HUD, (and in principle indefnitely), tax credits can over the course of a 90-year period public N.D.-d). The per unit costs of public housing leave the affordable housing portfolio after 15 housing would only have to face development had increased by 5.5%, whereas the per unit years with a contract expiration date after 30 costs once, whereas 30-year tax credits would costs of vouchers had increased by 51% years. Moreover, the costs for HOPE VI also need three different projects. (HUD 2000; HUD, N.D.-d). This large growth include other aspects, such as costs related in voucher costs is also acknowledged by the to remediation, demolition, the construction Conclusions regarding previous cost effciency U.S. Government Accountability Offce (GAO) of community facilities, relocation and studies (2006) and HUD (2016-b), who state that the community-based planning. Without these The cost effciency of affordable housing costs of vouchers increased by 43% between extra costs, it would take $117,920 to develop programs can be determined in many ways, 1998 and 2004 and by a further 58% between HOPE VI units – which is still far more than what and each method has its pros and cons. 2004 and 2016 (GAO, 2006; HUD, 2016-b). is needed for tax credit units (DisPasquale, However, PBRA programs were generally rated 2003). as less cost effcient than they actually are Since voucher costs have grown so signifcantly, due to the inclusion of subprograms and the it is diffcult to conclude based on these Total costs (development and operating costs) relevant studies’ limited timespans. Different reports which program is most cost effcient A cost analysis of the total costs was conducted cost effciency studies over time have had in 2017. Curhan (1995) also pointed out that by HUD (1974) and GAO (2000)/DiPasquale extremely varied outcomes and are therefore public housing is more expensive because it (2003). The results from 1974 might not be as inconclusive. Most cost effciency studies have has a maintenance backlog; if that backlog did relevant now, but the research is still interesting. stated that considering longer timespans Summary not exist, subsidies for public housing could The direct subsidies for public housing were would favor PBRA, but studies often use very be much lower. However, the drug elimination much lower in 1974 than the rent supplement small timespans to calculate cost effciency. fund must also be taken into account in relation program, although public housing was more This therefore means that most cost effciency to public housing; according to Curhan (1995), expensive than the rent supplement program methodologies are disadvantageous to public this fund is needed for other affordable housing if other costs (such as administrative costs and housing. It would be interesting to know why programs in addition to public housing. forgone taxes) were included. Nonetheless, these studies have used a 30-year lifetime the analysis did show that public housing in their calculations knowing that the actual Development costs new housing yielded more value on the dollar to tenants lifetime of public housing units is much longer Multiple project-based programs that develop than housing vouchers ($0.55 vs. $0.46). and that doing so is disadvantageous to public affordable housing are in existence. Two housing. reports outline the costs of developing new The total costs research of GAO (2000)/ housing: DiPasquale (2003) and GAO (2000). DiPasquale (2003) show that in a metro area, This cost effciency analysis However, as DiPasquale based his fndings on tax credits are the cheapest whereas HOPE VI Of the programs considered, it is the most the GAO records, it can be considered as one (public housing) is most expensive. The results complicated to determine the cost effciency 18 on a monthly basis of public housing. This is because a rather large need for between 7.7 million and 35 range study looking toward the next year’s legislative investments are made for multiple years, sometimes million affordable housing units. According to the program.” (HUD, 1974:22-23) even as long as 80 years – which means it is important federal government’s rather strict and conservative to have information for all years. It is much easier to defnition of demand (which excludes various groups The department also reported that in choosing determine the cost effciency of Section 8 HCV. In and refects only worst-case needs), 7.7 million units a program technique for reaching an established this case, the HAP makes an affordable housing unit are required. However, HUD is aware that the actual objective, it was not unusual for a selection to be available for just one month; as investments are only need is higher (interview 3). made based on what the affected private sector or made for this short period, it is not as important as it In the history of the affordable housing system in the is for public housing to have information for each year. United States, many choices were made based on governance preference of policy makers. The frst Figure 0.7: Sensitivity analysis Net present value affordable housing program, public housing, was 10% decrease in capital/operational costs Overall, providing one affordable NYCHA- introduced for various reasons in 1937. From the start, 10% increase in rest value administered housing unit for one month (PUM) in this policy received much criticism from its opponents. Including maintenance backlog New York City bears the following costs: This criticism has mainly been that the government 10% decrease in rest value • the public housing program: $358 PUM should not interfere with or take over a segment of 10% increase in capital/operational costs • the Section 8 HCV program: $1027 PUM the private market or spend money on poverty relief HCV its net present value and wealth redistribution. Public housing NPV This means that in the past, the public housing Over the years the above-cited criticism has helped program in New York City was far more cost to slow down the growth of public housing. Public $100 effcient (by almost three times) than the Section 8 housing’s target group was changed to only those $0 HCV program. Moreover, it indicates that today’s with very low incomes and newly constructed housing decreasing stock of public housing and increasing units were put on hold. These decisions caused the -$100 amount of Section 8 HCV together pose a threat for cost effciency of public housing to worsen and thus the federal government’s future budget. require additional operating subsidies. In 1974, the -$200 The sensitivity analysis was conducted based on U.S. Congress decided to retrench government -$244 the uncertainties faced in this research as a result involvement in housing production and introduced -$300 Bandwith public housing net present value of the estimated rest value, computed capital and Section 8 to provide affordable homes in the private -$358 operational costs and maintenance backlog. To market. Section 8 was designed to give the government -$400 -$418 validate the end results of the cost effciency research, a more passive role in the affordable housing system a sensitivity analysis of the three discrepancies thus and deconcentrate poverty. -$500 had to be conducted. The results of this analysis are shown in fgure 0.6. The sensitivity analysis reveals that During the 1970s, more attention also started to -$600 the cost effciency of public housing is somewhere be paid to the cost effciency of affordable housing -$700 between -$244 and -$418, which is still far more cost programs. Before that time, HUD (1974) reports that effcient than housing choice vouchers. a thorough cost analysis was not a part of decision -$800 making: Conclusion -$900 “What has been driving federal affordable housing “Generally, the Department’s legislative proposals to policy choices in the United States and how cost Congress were not based on a study or reevaluation -$1000 effcient have they been?” of the relevant policies and legislative authorities. At the time of writing in 2017, the United States has Until recently there was not even a continuing long- -$1100 19 public opinion would accept. This was done exist in 2017: public housing, Section 8 TBRA, affordable housing are based on ideology. even though it may not necessarily have been Section 8 PBRA and LIHTC. Public housing It was already stated in 1974 that political the most equitable, most effcient or least is still the most liberal policy of all, although acceptance and cost effciency do not expensive operation in either the short or long it has become more conservative. Section necessarily go well together and that policies term (HUD, 1974). 8 PBRA is also considered a liberal policy, that are not effcient but do have political although it is more conservative than public support sometimes pass (and vice versa) Conservatives later introduced the LIHTC housing as the government has a more passive (HUD:1974). Moreover, effciency and political in 1980, mainly to limit the government to a role. Section 8 HCV lies somewhere between support were mentioned as primary conficting very passive role and constrain it to providing liberal and conservative, whereas the LIHTC goals in HUD’s Housing in the Seventies paper passive subsidies. In the 1980s, TBRA was then can be considered a conservative program. As (1974). The current research has shown that in considered more cost effcient than PBRA affordable housing is in general a liberal ideal, relation to affordable housing, most decisions (interview 3). However, multiple cost effciency it is no surprise that most affordable housing have indeed been based on ideology rather studies have been conducted between the programs are liberal (with the exception of than cost effciency; this was especially true 1980s and today, with inconclusive results. LIHTC). before the 1970s, when information about cost These variations stem from using different effciency was not even available. methodologies and assumptions, although all Since previous cost effciency studies have only cost effciency studies considered a maximum taken an estimated lifetime period into account Three U.S. presidents (namely Roosevelt, of life period of 30 years while acknowledging: in their calculations; however, it is important Truman and Johnson) wanted housing for all that actual cost effciency is determined. The Americans similar to Article 25 of the United “To account for differences in the timing of current research has determined the cost Nations human rights; they believed that the investments under the various programs, effciency of two affordable housing programs government should actively provide housing the thirty-year life- cycle costs are estimated. in New York City. units. On the other hand, three presidents Longer time frames for the life cycle tend to The desk research conducted on the NYCHA (namely Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan) favor production programs in terms of costs showed that New York City has always put more have gone so far as to try to abolish all federal because of the impact of rent infation over effort into affordable housing than authorities affordable housing programs. The affordable time: DiPasquale (2003:151)” in other cities.The two NYCHA-administered housing policies of these presidents in affordable housing policies researched for this particular were greatly infuenced by their Summary These cost effciency studies thus recognize study are public housing and Section 8 HCV. ideology and views on the U.S. society. that their results would be disadvantageous to It can be concluded that the former is more These major ideology and policy shifts of the PBRA. The reason these studies decided to use cost effcient than the latter, as the PUM costs above named Presidents generally lacked a 20- or 30-year lifespan is not clear. However, are $358 for the public housing program and support from cost effciency studies; as such, the decision could have been made as a result $1027 for the Section 8 HCV program. their fnancial impacts were not known or of political and public preference, as PBRA studied at the time. The frst cost effciency was very unpopular and 20- 30-year lifespans In interview 3, Hardiman was asked the studies were undertaken in the 1970s, but greatly bias results in favor of TBRA. This bias following question: If public housing is so almost all concluded that considering a effect is why it is important to base calculations much more cost effcient than Section 8 HCV, limited lifespan of 20 or 30 years put public on a lifespan that is equal to the actual lifespan is it worth reconsidering the reinstatement of housing at a disadvantaged in the calculations. of affordable housing units; for public housing; public housing? He believed that it would not Whether the choice for such short lifespans this sometimes means more than 80 years. be, because it would not have political and was politically motivated is unclear however public support (interview 3). This reiterates the by doing they did create an advantage for the A total of four affordable housing programs earlier conclusion that many choices related to programs that were popular at the time. 20 1. Introduction

21 1.1 Research framework

Affordable housing in the United States is a When both defnitions are compared to the housing. However, the lack of affordable sensitive subject and at frst sight seems like households that are currently being assisted, housing units impacts overall society since it does not completely ft within the ideology around 7 million, it can be concluded that only poverty has some serious negative side effects of the United States. There is also a large a fraction of the people in need get assistance. such as: criminality, school drop-out, starvation shortage of affordable housing units, showing The government started with public housing in and segregation (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et that politicians do not seem keen on providing 1937 to provide affordable homes, the target al., 2015). People associate these side effects all US citizens with a roof over their heads with groups were mainly the working class and the with affordable housing units, which lowers the tax money. This sub chapter will explain why submerged middle class at that time (Goetz, willingness to pay for affordable housing units. it is important to conduct research in the feld 2012). However, the governmental budget The lack of funding for affordable housing of affordable housing, what this research is has always proven to be inadequate for the programs is therefore a societal problem and all about and the information this report will problem, over the years more programs have not just that of those in need. Therefore, this provide. This sub-chapter (1.1) will explain the been introduced to counter the Worst Case problem is worth researching. relevance, the problem statement, the research Needs, such as low income housing tax credit questions, the goals and the demarcations. (LIHTC), Section 8 PBRA and Section 8 TBRA. Scientifc relevance Unfortunately, these programs have not been As the amount of public housing units is Reader guide chapter 1: able to provide enough affordable housing decreasing and the frst LIHTC projects are 1.1 Discusses the research framework, including units for the people that are in desperate need. coming to an end, the task of the future is to try the relevance and research questions. Between 2001 and 2011 Worst Case Needs to help as many people who suffer under severe 1.2 Discusses the theoretical framework, based households increased 69% (Steffen, Carter, rental burdens as possible. There are multiple on this framework the ideology of different Martin, et al., 2015). With the demolitions ways to counter this problem from both the policies will be discussed throughout this of public housing units, the frst tax credit demand as well as the supply side, examples report. programs coming to an end and the expiration of the demand side are: increasing minimum 1.3 Discusses the methodology for the cost of Section 8 PBRA contracts, the future of wage, creating jobs for the lower educated, etc. effciency study of this research. affordable housing has become even more A lot of research has been conducted in these uncertain. felds. However, not much research has been

1. Introduction Rationale done on the supply side. An easy answer could In the United States, there is a large group Social relevance be to increase federal funding on affordable of households that are in desperate need of In the United States, public support of public housing programs and therefore, the supply. affordable housing. The government defnition housing and nationwide housing assistance Since it is not likely that the government would for the affordable housing demand is the has decreased since the 1970s. This decrease hugely change their spendings, this research “Worst Case Needs”. Steffen (2015) states that in popularity has led to a decrease in the is focusing on the cost effciency of affordable around 7.7 million households fall under the available federal budget for affordable housing housing programs within the current political category of Worst Case Needs. Bratt (2006), for the lower class. constraints. In the United States of America, on the other hand, uses a broader defnition The personal implications for Worst Case spendings on welfare programs are not and comes to about 35 million households in Needs families is clear; they face severe popular. According to Inside Gov(2016), the desperate need. rental burdens and life in severely inadequate total spendings of the US Government in 2015 22 was $3.36 trillion of which about $40 billion(1%) goes to acceptance versus cost effciency and cost savings. need of affordable housing. Governmental programs rental assistance, according to HUD (2015). According In the seventies, public housing had already existed such as LIHTC (low income housing tax credits), PBRA to Goetz (2012), the affordable housing policy choices for 40 years, without, according to HUD (1974), any (project-based rental assistance), TBRA(tenant-based seem to come from a preference of governance, rather effciency studies: rental assistance) help but are insuffcient to help all than a thorough research of costs. This is therefore, the people in need. At the same time, the LIHTC an interesting point of departure. If the choices for “Generally, the Department’s legislative proposals contracts are coming to an end, Section 8 PBRA affordable housing programs are mainly based on an to Congress were not based on a study or contracts are soon expiring and public housing is ideal way of governing, are the programs actually cost reevaluation of the relevant policies and legislative being demolished. The big task ahead is to create effcient in handling governmental funds? authorities. Until recently there was not even a more affordable homes within the current fnancial Apparently, evidence on the cost effciency of the continuing long-range study looking toward the constraints. In order to do so the frst step is to review different affordable housing programs is lacking. next year’s legislative program.” (HUD, 1974:22-23) the cost effciency of current affordable housing Olsen and Zabel (2015) even state that evidence on programs, and to analyze the political climate for the performance of US programs are much more According to HUD (1974), before 1974 policy decisions affordable housing programs.” abundant than in other countries. were rarely based on effciency and that there had not been any deep effciency studies. They also stated Research question “We have no high-quality evidence on the cost- that it is not unusual for policy decisions to be made The problem statement leads to the following research effectiveness and most other outcomes of the on the basis of what the affected private sector or question: largest new low-income housing programs, and public opinion may accept. we have no recent evidence on the performance of This is done even though it may not necessarily be “What has been driving federal affordable housing older programs that still account for a substantial the most equitable, effcient, or the least expensive policy choices in the United States and how cost minority of assisted households” (Olsen & Zabel, program in either the short or long term (HUD,1974). effcient have they been?” 2015:892). These statements seem to be similar to those from Olsen and Zabel (2015), and Goetz (2012), as described *Cost effcient meaning how much federal funds must Based on the need of information about the cost earlier. Olsen and Zabel ( 2015:892) even state: be allocated to provide for one affordable housing effciency of these programs this research will unit for one month. determine the cost effciency of two different “The most useful information for housing policy affordable housing programs administrated by the would be evidence on the differences in the effect Subquestions New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) over the of spending the same amount of money to assist As stated before in the scientifc relevance, the last 80 years. At the same time, in order to understand the same people by different means” problem statement and in the research question, this the different affordable housing policies over time research has two parts: and why there are four different affordable housing The basis on which policy decisions have been made • The ideology and the basis for policy decision programs, the political climate will be analyzed. This and to calculate the effciency of those policies will be making of affordable housing new information could be used by policy makers in studied in this research. • The cost effciency research order to base their future policies on a fnancial as well as ideological root. Problem statement As these two aspects undoubtedly have infuence on Based on the rationale, the social and scientifc each other, this research will take a deeper look into Public and political acceptance versus cost effciency relevance, the problem statement is formulated as the effect that the policies have on the cost effciency and cost savings follows: and the effect that the cost effciency has on policy Of housing in the seventies, HUD describes multiple decisions. conficting goals in the policy decision process. “The United States is facing huge shortages in One of those conficting goals is public and political affordable housing which leads people in desperate This research is split in these two parts to make a clear 23 distinction between which chapters are about • How is the current federal affordable the ideology and which about cost effciency. housing system organized? The results of the ideology study and the The research framework of fgure 1.1 shows the cost effciency study will be combined and different parts of this research. Part 2: Cost effciency compared to each other in the conclusion. The The second part of this research is looking at conclusion will answer the research question. Part 1: Ideology how cost effcient the programs have actually The results of the ideology study and the The frst part of this research is taking a been. In order to determine the cost effciency cost effciency study will be combined and deeper look into the policy makers. It will of the programs this research is analyzing the compared to each other in the conclusion. analyze what has been driving the affordable affordable housing portfolio of the New York housing policy decisions and how the current City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Housing The answers to the sub-questions form small affordable housing system is organized. The authorities are the organizations that execute individual puzzle pieces, but when they are affordable housing policies and programs the programs made by the federal government. put together a clear view arises on the cost will be analyzed according to the theoretical This research determines the cost effciency of effciency of the different federal programs in framework introduced in chapter 1.2 the Section 8 units and public housing units New York City and on what bases affordable administrated by NYCHA. The methodology housing policy decisions have been made. The subquestions of part 1 are: for the cost effciency study is further explained That whole puzzle will answer the main research • Why is affordable housing important? in chapter 1.3. question. • How have the affordable housing programs developed over time from The subquestion of part 2 is: Objectives & fnal product a welfare state perspective, and what • How cost effcient have the federal There are different goals for writing this have previous cost effciency studies affordable housing programs been in research. concluded? New York City? 1. Scientifc goal: To increase information and knowledge about the cost effciency Figure 1.1: Research framework (own image) and ideology of the affordable housing system. This addition of knowledge Demand for affordable housing will be the costs of the cost effciency Ideology study Ideology of two affordable housing programs analysis Conclusion administrated by NYCHA, and insight on History of afforda- Based on the ble housing outcome of the the political ideology behind affordable efficiency study and housing policies. the ideology study a

1. Introduction Current Housing conclusion can be 2. Personal goal: As Jane Goodall said,“What system written that answers you do makes a difference and you have the main research to decide what kind of difference you want question. to make”. I have decided that I want to Costs of public make a positive contribution to society housing (1937-2017) Cost efficiency study with this master thesis. There are so many NYCHA Adjusting section 8 and public housing people in need of decent housing and if Costs of section 8 figures to make them comparable (1974-2017) this research will help policy makers to Cost efficiency, make decisions that improve the United result per unit per States housing policies that would be the Inflation rates, average month (PUM) personal income ultimate personal goal. 24 3. Learning goal: To gain an understanding about wide, especially considering the unique aspects determining present values. the cost effciency of the United States federal of the New York City real estate prices. There are, affordable housing programs and the affordable however, similar cities in the US when it comes to housing system. residential costs. The results of this research could Constraints for this research therefore be relevant to these cities as well, this is • Some information is missing for the model, in This report is written as an analysis and evaluation explained in chapter 5. these cases the information will be computed on past policy decisions and to determine the cost • Only federal policies that are executed by the based on certain assumptions. This is further effciency of multiple affordable housing programs. NYCHA will be compared, however, other federal explained in chapter 5 and in appendix 4. This report can be used by policy makers and the policies will be explained and analyzed. policy executers to improve their cost effciency of • In 2017, project-based rental assistance under the the affordable housing stock and to increase the project 8 program consists of many subprograms awareness of policy decision making. as explained in chapter 4, only Section 8 Nc/SR will be further elaborated on since those two Demarcation for this research programs were initially administrated as Section 8, • This research will focus on the quantity and costs the other programs were added later on. of affordable housing, while acknowledging that there is also a large problem with the quality of Choices for this research affordable housing. As explained in chapter three • The term “Worst Case Needs” will be adopted as the affordable housing sites in the ‘60s, ‘70s and the current demand for affordable housing though ‘80s suffered from tremendous quality issues there are other methods to determine the demand even leading to the demolition of many sites like for affordable housing. Chapter two shows that Pruitt-Igoe. These projects show that there are the Worst Case Needs are only a fraction of the many aspects to take into account during decision total needs for housing in a broader perspective. making. Acknowledging that, this research will From a European perspective, it would make more become too large when both quality and costs/ sense to include homeless people and people quantity are taken into account, therefore, this with severe problems in the freehold sector as research will only focus on quantity and costs. The well and therefore adopt the broader perspective. exclusion of quality does not, however, refect the But since this research is based on United States importance of quality in policy decision making, policies made by HUD, the demand of HUD will because in order for policy makers to come be adopted. to a balanced decision they need information • To calculate the net present value, the CPI regarding quality as well as costs and quantity. infation rates are used. The infation fgures are • This research will focus only on the federal policies calculated and made available by different federal in the United States, acknowledging that there are departments. The Department of Commerce is also many local affordable housing initiatives. measuring the consumption expenditures (PCE) • This research will only focus on the rental segment, at the same time the Department of Labor is knowing that there are also people in fnancial calculating the consumer price index (CPI) and need in the freehold sector. the producer price index (PPI).This research will • Only one Housing Authority will be analyzed, use the CPI index given out by the Bureau of despite the fact that these results cannot be Labor and Statistics (BLS), the same as HUD uses generalized for all housing authorities country- for other calculations and is most common in 25 1.2 Theoretical framework

The frst part of this research is the ideology Hoekstra (2013) states that there are generally the United Nations as a basic human right. study. The ideology study of this research four pillars within the welfare state, social According to Article 25 of the UN Declaration is based on this theoretical framework. assistance, social security, healthcare and of Human Rights, everyone has a right to a Affordable housing is a welfare state provision. housing. Social security falls under the standard of living adequate for the health and When the market does not provide affordable aforementioned insurance and the other three well-being of oneself and one’s family including housing and it is believed in society that aspects under the redistribution of wealth. housing (Bengtsson, 2001). Article 25 is based affordable housing is necessary, then the Affordable housing falls under the frst aspect on President Roosevelt’s New Deal, however, government responds by providing affordable of the welfare state because it provides poverty especially in the United States, the view on the housing. Affordable housing and other relief and expects the redistribution of wealth. right for housing is not clear (Sidoty, 1996). wealth redistributive programs paid by the In 2005, the average spending on social Since housing and other welfare programs government fall under the welfare state. To welfare of OECD (Organization for Economic depend on the government, they are highly understand why countries would choose for Co-operation and Development) countries, dependent on political ideology and their a certain level of welfare state provisions, it related to their net income, was 24.4%, the views on social welfare programs. is important to understand their underlying United States spent only 18.1% of its income ideology. This chapter will elaborate on the to social welfare programs, being one of the Wobbly pillar existing views on the welfare state, the role lowest percentages of all OECD countries Affordable housing is also one the most of affordable housing in the welfare state and (Barr, 2012). This is almost half of what Sweden discussed and criticized aspects of the welfare what ideology exists in the United States. Based spends (33.6%) on social welfare programs state. Housing as a tradable commodity on these theories a theoretical framework is (Barr, 2012). These results show that social occupies a central position in the capitalist made that will later be used to analyze policy welfare programs were not really popular in economy, therefore large scale housing changes and the current affordable housing 2005 in the United States. programs will meet serious resistance from policies in the United States. right wing parties (Hoekstra, 2014). Housing is A social welfare program may be defned as also characterized by a strong and dominant Welfare state theories according to Barr any program that utilizes public resources private market, other welfare programs, First of all it is important to establish what a in the form of direct fnancial aid, in-kind such as health care operate within fully or

1. Introduction welfare state actually is and means. According assistance, or publicly funded expertise to almost fully public markets. Relatively, the to Barr (2012) a welfare state is: solve problems that some individuals and contribution of the consumers for housing and a series of institutions which families cannot solve on their own (Barr, 2012). affordable housing is also much higher than provide poverty relief, redistribute Housing has traditionally been seen as one of the contribution to, for example, health care. income and wealth, and seek to the basic elements of a minimum standard of For these reasons, housing is also referred to reduce social exclusion living and when people cannot afford decent as the wobbly pillar under the welfare state housing, the social welfare system should step (Hoekstra,2013). a series of institutions which in (Hays,2012). Housing is therefore one of provide insurance and offer a the most important aspects of social welfare mechanism for redistribution over together with food, clothes, medical care the life cycle. and education. It has even been adopted by 26 Theories on the welfare state according to Barr and the government can ameliorate those costs. equality one of their major points. This does not Now that it is clear what a welfare state is and welfare This means that their belief is that a combination of mean that they expect complete equality. According programs are, it is logical to look at what theories are capitalism and governmental interventions jointly to Barr (2012) “the urgent claims of all must be met behind the welfare state. Nicolas Barr describes in his maximize cost effciency and equity. The liberal view before we can meet the particular needs of some”. book, economics of the welfare state, three different is derived from two ways of thinking, Utilitarianism Once the basic condition of equality is met, there can theories on the welfare state (Barr, 2012): and writings of John Rawls. Both views fnd that the be differences in reward based on effort or ability. In 1. Libertarian view welfare state is needed to provide the basic needs for order to realize that level of equality they expect a 2. Liberal view the lower and middle class. The wealth distribution will very high level of government action. Nationalizing 3. Collectivist view provide a more cost effcient economic system overall. companies is an important tool to redistributing wealth The Utilitarianism view strives for the greater good of between the people. It is no shock that Marxists are in Libertarian view society, two aspects must be met in order to maximize principle in favor of the aspects of the welfare state; The frst theory is the Libertarian view, which suggests the total welfare: goods must be produced and redistribution of wealth and shared responsibilities. that a free market along with private property would allocated cost effciently and they must be distributed But the welfare state is focused on the faws of the maximize welfare, a principle also known as “Laissez in accordance with equity. Thus, their belief is that capitalistic system whereas the Marxists believe that Faire”. people are most cost effcient for society when they the capitalistic system is wrong to begin with. A natural-right libertarian, Nozick describes a state as receive a certain amount of equity in return. having only one function: protection of their people Rawls view is different from the utilitarian view. He Barr (2012) uses the amount of governmental and their people’s property (Barr, 2012). He considers believes that at frst each person has equal rights to intervention as a scale and has based the differences taxes as theft since it extracts money from people who basic liberty and that social and that economic benefts of the views on multiple aspects: legally acquired that money. Natural rights libertarians should beneft the least advantaged frst. Thus, Rawls • The amount of wealth redistribution see the welfare state as an unacceptable violation of ideas are that the least advantaged should always • The position of the government in the market individual liberty (Barr, 2012). beneft from a choice made whereas utilitarian’s • The economic system, socialistic or capitalistic Empirical libertarians, on the other hand, stand for believe that the society as a whole should beneft. individual freedom, the value of the market mechanism Theories on the welfare state according to and that the pursuit of social justice is harmful. They Collectivist view Hoekstra believe that the state has no distributional role other Collectivists regard resources as available for Hoekstra (2010) states that different views on the than for certain public goods and for strictly limited collective use, and consequently favor governmental welfare-state are based on the following aspects: measures to alleviate destitution. Their view on the interventions. The two differences in the collectivist • Market infuence, the position of public and welfare state is that it should not compete with the view come from the role of the private market. private parties. private market. However, unlike the natural right In Democratic socialism, it is believed that the capitalistic • The amount of decommodifcation, the right that libertarians, they do believe that in a completely system should be tamed, that the government should people have to certain goods that they cannot free market, income would be distributed unequally, have a larger role in the private market system and afford themselves. therefore they support the welfare state to a minimum with it the government would be able to provide • Stratifcation, on which target groups the policies where it provides certain public goods and relieves wealth redistribution and protect of the lower and are based on. destitution when it does not compete with the private middle classes. Socialists regard governmental action Based on these three aspects, Hoekstra (2010) market. as an essential and active component of freedom. describes a distinction between three welfare state The Democratic socialists have similar beliefs on regimes: Liberal view the welfare state as the liberals, although they do The liberal view starts from three premises: capitalism expect more governmental intervention and wealth 1. Social Democratic welfare state is regarded as more effcient than any other system, redistribution than the liberals. 2. Corporatist welfare state but it has major costs in terms of poverty and inequality The Marxists view is a bit more extreme and makes 3. Liberal welfare state 27 Social Democratic welfare state Almost everyone within the democratic • A belief in the active use of the state to The social democratic vision on the welfare capitalistic system agrees with governmental protect the rights of racial and ethnic state would oversee wealth redistribution to a interventions when it promotes overall minorities. large portion of the population. As a result of economic growth or when it is seen as a • An emphasis on international cooperation the wealth redistribution, income differences prevention for massive economic disaster: ”a and negotiation in addressing the would be relatively low. series of institutions which provide insurance international interest of the United States and offer a mechanism for redistribution over coupled with a willingness to utilize military The corporatist welfare state the life cycle.” is how (Hays, 2012) mentions it, power. The corporatist view on the welfare state this is similar to the second point mentioned by • Cultural support for nontraditional families. would expect an active provision of welfare Barr (2012). This is also referred to as reinforcing Liberals in the United States support both services, however would not lead to wealth interventions because most of the time the aspects of a welfare state, to provide poverty redistribution. The preservation of hierarchy is benefts are for the parties that are winning relief and insurance. the starting point for the corporatist view. This within the capitalistic system. However, people would lead to a segmented welfare system often disagree when it comes to ameliorative Conservatives where different groups are entitled to different interventions that seek a redistribution of The conservatives support self-suffciency and services. wealth, this is the second aspect of the welfare small government. The modern conservatives state as mentioned by Barr (2012). Liberals tent are categorized as having the following beliefs Liberal welfare state to be in favor of a redistribution of wealth and according to Hays (2012): The liberal welfare state regime is characterized conservatives against (Hays,2012). • A belief that the state should not intervene by little state interference and a strong market to ameliorate economic inequality except orientation. Private companies are responsible Liberals in the most extreme circumstances. for the majority of the welfare services. The Liberals in the United States are striving for • A belief that unregulated markets provide state only provides help for the people in the greater good for the country, but are not society with maximum total wealth. desperate need as a safety net. There are large forgetting the people that are in the lower or • An emphasis on the aggressive and often differences in income within the liberal welfare middle classes. At the same time, they believe unilateral projection of American military state. that the capitalistic system is the only system and economic power. to promote overall economic growth (Barr, • A belief that, while individual acts of Theories on the welfare state 2012). The liberals are categorized as having discrimination are wrong disadvantaged According to Hays the following beliefs (Hays,2012): minorities should not claim special Hays (2012) states that different views on • A belief in the active use of the state consideration or compensation.

1. Introduction the welfare-state are based on the following to redistribute resources in order to • Cultural support for traditional families aspects: ameliorate the living conditions of those within the Christian religion in American • Economic system who are seriously disadvantaged by the society. • Income redistribution labor market and in order to enhance This means that the conservatives in the United • Individual rights of residents economic opportunity for these individuals. States support minimal poverty relief but do According to Hays, the main political ideology • A belief in the active use of the state support insurance and life cycle redistribution. in the United States is democratic capitalism to regulate markets in order to among (Hays,2012). Since the ideology is named other things, prevent fnancial instability, Theoretical framework for this research democratic capitalism it would be easy to protect consumers and control negative This chapter has explained the multiple views assume that this system is purely capitalistic externalities such as environmental on the welfare state. The different views but unfortunately it is not that straightforward. degradation. initially look different but are, in the end, quite 28 comparable. Based on the three different views on Socialists difference with corporatists compared to the other the welfare state, this research will make use of the The socialistic view can be compared to the collectivist three typologies is that corporatists do not expect following terms that are used by either Barr, Hoekstra view of Barr (2012) and the social democratic welfare wealth redistribution, they focus instead on all income or Hays and are most applicable and recognizable in state of Hoekstra (2010). The social democrats are a groups instead of one in particular. They believe that the United States: part of the collectivist view of Barr. all income groups should receive equal benefts, just • Socialists in different ways. Since this framework is based on • Liberals Liberals governmental interventions with target groups as a • Conservatives The liberals can be well compared to the liberal view variable the corporatist view from Hoekstra (2010) is of Barr (2012) and the liberal democratic capitalists of not included in this theoretical framework. The scale of the theoretical framework is the same Hays (2012). as the one that Barr (2012) uses: the amount of Two party system governmental intervention. On the right side, Conservatives In the United States, there are two large political there is a small government and on the left a large The conservatives can be best compared with the parties: The Democrats and the Republicans. government. As explained by Hays (2012) and Barr libertarians of Barr (2012), the conservatives of Hays The Democrats are mainly aligned with a liberal view (2012), both sides expect life cycle redistribution and (2012), and the liberals of Hoekstra (2010) (Hays,2012). However, that does not mean that all state insurance, however the income redistribution Democrats think exactly the same, as some Democrats is the main difference between them. Hays, Barr and Hoekstra’s (2010) corporatist view is not integrated are more socialistic and others more conservative. Hoekstra based their frameworks on multiple aspects: in this theoretical framework. The framework Within the Republican party there are some quite 1. The amount of wealth redistribution, introduced in this chapter is based on the level of liberal members as well as some strict conservatives. 2. The target group, governmental interventions. Socialists, liberals and The views on the welfare state are quite different, the 3. The position of the government in the market, conservatives can be placed on this scale; however, Republicans believe that poverty serves two aspects. 4. The economic system, corporatists cannot be placed on this scale based on One being that it stimulates people to work hard so 5. Decommodifcation governmental interventions. With corporatists, the that they will not become poor and the second that scale of governmental interventions depends on the it stimulates character and determination, since poor The aspects that defne the socialists, liberals and country, it is not a key characteristic but a variable. The people are poor because of their lack of character conservatives in this research are the frst 4 points. and discipline so if one has discipline and character, Decommodifcation is not used because it comes back Table 1.2: Theoretical framework (own image) they will likely make it (Hays, 2012). Democrats see in the amount of wealth redistribution and the role of it as their obligations to help people on their feet the government in the provision of welfare programs. Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives who cannot do so alone. But the bigger difference Table 1.2 and fgure 1.3 both show the theoretical Wealth High Low Low-no between the two may be the expected governmental framework that will be used throughout this research redistribution redistribution role in solving these problems. Programs that receive for analysis purposes. The four different aspects of the Target groups Extremely Extremely low- Extremely low most resistance from Republicans are those in which three different views are explained in fgure 1.2. income low-middle low the government takes over a segment of the private Position of public Dominantly Public in Mainly Private market and becomes a direct provider of goods and private parties public collaboration with a passive in the affordable with private role for public they rather see the private market providing and the housing system parties parties. government assisting (Hays, 2012). Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic Figure 1.3 views on the welfare state own image. Republicans Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives More governement intervention Less governement intervention Large government Small government 1.3 Conceptual model

The second part of this research is the cost units in the Unites States is older than 37 value method is a good and thorough way to effciency study. As explained in chapter 1.1, years (Schwartz,2012). This means that by just compare multiple projects with each other. the United States does not spend much of calculating the per unit costs for 30 years is not The program with the highest NPV gives the its net income to welfare state programs. fair to public housing, since these investments largest return, or in this case the program with Therefore, it is of great importance that those are made for a longer period. Dipasquale the lowest NPV is the most costly. funds are spent in an effcient way. Multiple (2003) stated that: cost effciency studies were conducted after “Longer time frames for the life cycle tend to Validation of input 1974, as will be explained in chapter 3.3, favor production programs in terms of costs After determining the time period of the however, none of those cost effciency have because of the impact of rent infation over effciency research and determining the researched the actual realized effciency of time. “ method, the input must be validated. A NYCHA the different affordable housing programs. To make a fair comparison the actual life time representative was asked if all the input of This sub-chapter will explain how the cost of the investment needs to be taken into the conceptual model was complete and no effciency study of this research is conducted. account instead of an estimation. This cost information was missing. The representative did Based on the methodology as explained in this effciency research is an historical analysis that have a few comments about the methodology, sub-chapter, the public housing and Section 8 determines the cost effciency of the programs these comments have resulted in some minor portfolio of NYCHA will be examined on its over the whole lifetime. Most of the public adjustments to the conceptual model. He also cost effciency. housing units still have some lifetime left, this stated that all the information in the conceptual is taken into account with the rest value to model was complete (interview 1). Validation of research keep the effciency research as fair as possible. There are multiple ways to determine effciency, The conceptual model chapter 3.3 reviews past effciency studies Most of the previous conducted cost effciency How this research will make the costs of and concludes that there have been three studies have calculated the total costs of different policies comparable is explained different methods to determine effciency. The an affordable housing program including in the conceptual model. Figure 1.4, the effciency of operational costs, the effciency of tenant contribution. But the limiting factor of conceptual model, is meant as a clarifcation the production costs and the effciency of the affordable housing is the federal government, of this text. The conceptual model is divided in

1. Introduction total costs. Previous research from GAO (the therefore only the federal costs are taken into two different parts, on the top public housing General Accounting Offce) has compared the account in this research and on the bottom Section 8 HCV housing. characteristics and costs of housing programs The actual model can be found in appendix 1 throughout the United States (Interview 3) Validation of methodology and 3. (GAO, 2002). This research has analyzed the There are multiple methods to compare costs in the frst year, and for the frst 30 years. effciency of affordable housing programs. Step 1 However it turns out that in NYC some of the GAO (2002) uses the present discounted value The frst piece of information needed is the public housing units are in use for 80 years, method, also known as the present value nominal average rent. and that public housing units seldom stopped method. Adding all the present values of the Since the rent levels for affordable housing serving low income households. Research costs and benefts results in the net present units, and therefore the need for subsidy, is shows that 80% of all the public housing value. Berk (2014) explains that the net present linked to income, the nominal average rent is 30 needed to establish the cost effciency of that policy. value for public housing units. For units that are still in Step 5 The second piece of information needed is the operation, a rest value has to be taken into account. Step 5 calculates the net present value of all the nominal average personal income in New York City. This rest-value is calculated according to the valuation present values of the historical costs of that program Once this information is available, the percentage method as explained in appendix 5. plus, for public housing, the rest value in the year 2017. rent paid from the average personal income can be Information 12 is the present value of all the other determined. years that the policy has been in use. Step 6 Step 6 divides the net present value of all the costs Step 2 by the total amount of households served for a year The Section 8 HCV tenants need to be (virtually) the Figure 1.4: Conceptual model (own image) divided by 12. This gives the wanted result of the same as public housing tenants. Therefore, step 2 calculates what (virtual) funds are needed to reach the same income group for Section 8 HCV as public Policy 1 Public Housing housing. The result of this step is the fctive cost that is Repeat for years 1937-2016

Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 needed in order to get the households from Section Development Costs(5) Total costs Present value Net present Net present 8 to the rent levels of public housing tenants. Avarage rent adjustment Total present value of costs value (NPV) of Annual (1A) value Costs Net present Operational for years costs for years (2016) (10) of value costs (13) The fourth part of information needed is the total Costs(6a) 1937-2016 + 1937-2016 per Total costs year x amount of households served under that program for (5)+(6) year x(8) Restvalue unit per month Capital (8)*( 1+(9)) (10)+(11)+(12) (PUM) Costs(6b) that year. PI(2) Step 1 Rent/PI %(3) Rest value (11) The ffth part of information needed is the (1)/(2) Inflation (9) (13)/(4)/12 Other years y (12) Total amount of development costs for that year, or in case of the HCV Households (4) the HAP(Housing assistance payments) costs. The sixth part of information needed is the federal operational costs to keep the facilities running. For public housing this means the operational and Interview moment 1. Interview moment 2. Comparison between capital costs and for Section 8 HCV it means the HCV Withone or more With one representative Public Housing, section 8 NYCHA representative(s) from HUD and one TBRA (HCV) administrative costs. representative from the NYCHA Step 3 Step three calculates the sum of the costs for that particular year. Thus, adding the sum of step 2 and Policy 2 Section 8 (HCV) information 5-6 and 7. The result is the total amount Repeat for years 1974-2016 of costs made in that particular year. Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 HAP Costs(5) Total costs Present value Net present Net present Information nine is the infation rate. The infation rate Avarage rent adjustment Total present value of costs value of costs Annual (1B) value Costs Net present Administrative- for years (NPV) for years used in this research is CPI (consumer price index). (2016) (10) of value costs Costs(6) 1974-2016 1937-2016 for a Total costs year x Households (13) (5)+(6)+(7) year x(8) public housing Costs ajustment (8)*( 1+(9)) (10)+(12) income income households Step 4 Rent/ househiold per PI(2) Step 1 PI %(3) Step 2 (7) Inflation (9) Other years y (12) unit per month Considering the time value of money, the funds have (1)/(2) (1A)-(1B)*(4) (PUM) to be corrected by the infation rate over the years. (13)/(4)/12

Step 4 adjusts all the costs by the infation rate to Total amount of reach the present value in 2017. Households (4) The eleventh piece of information needed is the rest 31 net present value of the costs and benefts overview of the information available, it policy development and research(PD+R). for the different programs with the same was the right party to ask if the conceptual This department is of interest to this income tenants per unit per month (PUM). This model and cost effciency research was research since they handle the policy result can be compared with other affordable missing any costs. The goal of this interview developments and research the different housing programs to come to a conclusion on is to validate the input of the model. It is affordable housing programs (including which program is most cost effcient. not essential to do a formal interview at program evaluations). Besides that, Mr. this stage since the only information that Hardiman is also one of the (co-)writers Public housing is needed is the validation of the model. of the Worst Case Needs in 2007 and has The public housing policy started in 1937, so to Therefore, no proper interview protocol will “an extensive background that is directly determine the cost effciency the data must go be made for this interview. The summary relevant to this thesis” (Interview 3). The back to 1937. based on the multiple moments of contact goal of this interview is to obtain the • Information is needed of the following with the NYCHA can be found in appendix opinion of a HUD representative on the years :1937-2016 6 under interview 1. results of this research. The full interview • Average annual rent of households that protocol can be found in appendix 6, with live in public housing The second interview moment will be at the the interview summary in appendix 7. • Total amount of households end of this research with one representative of • Development costs HUD and one representative of NYCHA. The interviewees will receive information • Operational costs These two interviews are essential for the beforehand to read into this research. The validation of this research and to receive the interviews will be a semi structured interview Section 8 housing views and opinions of the professionals who where the interviewees will know the topics The Section 8 housing policy started in 1974, work in this feld. beforehand. The approach of the semi therefore the data needed for the Section 8 • The second interview will be held with structured interview is the tunnel method policy data can go back to 1974. a NYCHA representative that works for where broad questions are avoided and the • Information is needed of the following the communication department. The questions are asked only on the wanted topics. years: 1974-2016 interviewee has received the questions This method is appropriate for interviews with • Average annual rent of households that and report up front so that the interviewee limited time. live in Section 8 housing could gather all the needed information The interviews are essential to strengthen • HAP costs from some NYCHA colleagues for this the results and conclusion. It is important to • Total amount of households interview. It would however have been note that while the interviews are supportive • Administration costs preferable to speak with someone directly to the research, this research is not based on

1. Introduction from the policy department, but according the interviews but the results of the interviews Interviews to the interviewee that would not have been are discussed. Therefore, a summary of the The frst interview moment will be at the start possible. The goal of this interview is to hear interviews will suffce and a complete transcript of this research with a NYCHA representative. the opinion of a NYCHA representative on of the interviews is unnecessary. The interview This interview is essential to validate the cost the results of this research. The interview protocols for interview 2 and 3 can be found in effciency model of this research. protocol can be found in appendix 6, and appendix 6. The summary of interview 1, 2 and • The frst interview will be held with a NYCHA the interview summary in chapter 7. 3 can be found in appendix 7. representative at the FOIL department. • The third interview will be held with Mr. This department is responsible for David L. Hardiman from the Department gathering and sharing information to the of Housing and Urban Development. Mr public. Since that department has a broad Hardiman works within HUD at the offce of 32 Introduction2. Need for housing dddddd johan

33 2.1 Why housing matters

This research focuses on the affordable (Bratt,2006). Also the cholera epidemics that especially for low income families and families housing system in the United States. Before occurred in densely populated areas in the of color. Living in substandard housing in a bad the analysis of the affordable housing system mid 19th century showed the relation between neighborhood may deprive children to get starts it is essential to have a clear perception poor housing conditions and health and safety. proper education, reduce chances of fnding why housing is important and why decent Inadequate housing and densely populated a decent job and deprive them of decent affordable housing is worth fghting for. areas showed to be a great threat to the society public services and community facilities(Bratt, This sub-chapter will explain why housing is as a whole. Thus the need for housing does 2006). The quality of ones housing may be an important for the United States its society not only mean just four walls and a roof but it outward sign as well as a part of a persons self and its current need for affordable housing. also needs to be of decent physical quality so image. Housing may refect in some ways the Chapter 2.3 will fnalize with answering the that health and safety is guaranteed. success of that family, thus by living in poor following sub-research question: Why is Although housing conditions have improved quality homes people could feel unsuccessful affordable housing important? dramatically over the years poor quality and unhappy (Bratt, 2006).Housing has always housing is still a problem that millions of been viewed as one of the necessities of life, Reader guide chapter 2: Americans face. Fires due to inadequate wiring a critical element of the food, clothing and 2.1 Discusses the relevance and importance of or faulty furnaces are still commonplace, and shelter triumvirate. affordable housing many households are plagued by infestations 2.2 Discusses the current demand of affordable of vermin and inadequate heating systems The emotional importance of housing housing (Bratt, 2006). Physically defcient housing is Housing is not just needed for the physical 2.3 Answering the sub-research question of associated with many health hazards, ingestion aspects. A home is the primary setting for a chapter 2 of lead paint can cause serious behavioral family and its domestic life, a place of refuge problems, dampness mold and cold can and relaxation from the routines of work and Importance of housing cause asthma, allergies and other respiratory school, a private space. It is also loaded with The physical importance of housing problems (Shwartz, 2015). The lead paint symbolic value as a marker of status and an Homeless people show more than anyone else problems have been researched for the last expression of style (Schwartz, 2015). the importance of decent housing, they are 30 years and a great deal about the impact Housing fulflls a variety of critical functions in exposed to great physical and mental threats, of lead on children has been proven. The US the current society, in 1966 the department of they face illness, abuse, assault and in case of General accounting offce even calls it “ the health, education and welfare researched the children absences from school (Shwartz, 2015). most common and devastating environmental relationship between housing and the feeling Every winter the need for housing becomes disease of young children” (Bratt, 2006:3). and behavior of individuals and families. This 2. Need for housing clear again when homeless people freeze to The center for disease control and prevention research concluded that housing affects the death (Bratt, 2006). But having a roof over your estimates that 434,000 children younger than perception of ones self, contributes to or head does not guarantee safety, the Chicago six have blood-lead levels above the federal relieves stress and affects health (Bratt, 2006). fre of 1871 is a notorious example that the guideline. Bratt (2006), argues that inadequate A more recent research of Evens in 2000 shows quality of housing is an important factor as housing has got a huge share in that problem. that better housing conditions leads to better well. That fre killed around 300 people and Besides health issues the location of housing mental health and lower psychological distress making more than 100,000 residents homeless also determines the families place in society, (Bratt, 2006). According to Chris Sidoty, who was 34 the Human Rights Commissioner, adequate housing is President and the fnal right for housing was adopted his early years to provide housing for everyone, the essential for human survival with dignity (Sidoty, 1996). by the American state, the United States is now low income- and the submerged middle class. Making He states that without the right to housing, other against the right for housing. They believe that when housing as a basic human right possible. However basic human rights will be compromised including the it is a basic right, every resident will demand it, leaving as will be explained in chapter 3 and 4 his vision on right to family life and privacy, the right to freedom of the treasury struggling to pay for it all (Sidoty, 1996). the American welfare state was highly criticized later movement, the right to assembly and association, the The refusal of the United States to recognize the right on. Roosevelt his public housing initiative appeared right to health and the right for development. to housing is a symptom of a wider issue. That issue is to be to socialistic for the American majority, and a giving a higher priority to civil and political rights than more right wing liberal and conservative view on Universal Declaration of Human Rights to economic and social rights. The countries that are affordable housing was adopted. Housing a basic In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal against a right for housing interpret the international right for everyone was considered to be to expensive, Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes a set law as “a right to an adequate standard of living”, this the deceleration was therefore seen as “a right to an of standards for housing. Article 25 of the declaration is quite different and less specifc than the right for adequate standard of living”. His fellow Democratic states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living housing (Sidoty, 1996). However the United Nations President Carter did sign the human rights covenant adequate for the health and well-being of himself and Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly but never let it rectify it in the senate, apparently the his family, including .... housing” (Sidoty, 1996). The and a host of other bodies have regularly referred to majority of the senate would have been against such Universal Declaration is a non-binding declaration, the right to housing in documents, legal instruments basic right of housing. so the right to housing was codifed in binding treaty and other texts since 1948 (Sidoty, 1996). The offcial view of the government depends highly law in the International Covenant on Economic, Hartman (2006) states that there are two main reasons on the President in charge at that time, however as Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. President why the United States did not adopt housing as a basic fgure 2.1 and 2.2 show, President Roosevelt was on Carter signed the ICESR in 1977, but did not rectify it human right; ignorance and costs. He states that the the very left side of the American scale on welfare through the senate. The United States is only required more fortunate citizens don’t experience or even know policy. Meaning that a new government with similar to uphold the “object and purpose” of the treaty, but about the huge issues with affordable housing. And at ideas would be unlikely. is not strictly legally bound (Tars, 2016). the same time that there are a lot of funds needed to What is interesting is that this declaration was based on provide for housing as a basic right. Hartman (2006) a draft made up by the American Law Institute. Since expects that is would costs around $80- $100 billion. the overall American view on the welfare state is more This is more than double HUD its current budget. critical than many European countries as explained in Figure 2.2 Analysis President Roosevelt his New Deal the previous chapter it is interesting to see that they Analysis Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives have had the initiative and made the initial draft. Their The United Nations right for housing is based on Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no draft was inspired by President Roosevelt his State of President Roosevelt his State of the Union Address redistribution the Union Address in 1944 where he addressed the in 1944. President Roosevelt his New Deal is a very Target groups income Extremely Extremely Extremely low right of every family to have a decent home(Sidoty, liberal piece of legislation. At that time President low- middle low- low 1996). Roosevelt had the support of the public due to high Position of public and Dominant Public in Mainly Private Although the draft was inspired by the American poverty rates during the great depression. His social private parties in the public collaboration with a passive legislation of the New Deal was comparable to that affordable housing with private role for public of European countries, which are in general more system parties parties. Figure 2.1 Analysis President Roosevelt New Deal socialistic than the US. President Roosevelt did try in Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic

Pres. Roosevelt New Deal Republicans Article 25 Democrats

Socialist Liberals Conservative

Large government Small government 2.2 Housing demand

The previous chapter has explained the income of an area. The median income means Low income groups importance of housing and that housing is a that from all the input the one in the middle As said before, in the United States poverty basic human right. Now the question arises is chosen as the median income, whilst the and income limits are established based on whether every United States citizen has got average income sums up all the incomes and AMI. At this moment the poverty level is set the housing that they need and deserve, and divide them by the amount of inputs. The AMI for households on 80% or less of their AMI. if not how big the affordable housing demand is established by the Secretary of HUD, and to The poor population is then divided into three is. This sub-chapter will look into the current make it more complicated the AMI that is used categories: low income, very low income and affordable housing demand and will round up to determine income is based on households extremely low income(Steffen, Carter, Martin, by answering the sub research question of this and not on personal income. This means that et al., 2015). chapter: Why is affordable housing important? the AMI is higher for larger households where • Extremely low income(ELI) households: more people work than for smaller households earn 0-30% of the average median income Inadequate housing were only one or two members can work. So (AMI) The necessity of housing is clear. It provides the level of AMI depends on the household • Very low income households(VLI) earn 30% people shelter, safety and a place to come size and the area that they life in. -50% of AMI to rest in private. Insuffcient housing does • Low income households(LI) earn 50%-80% increase the chance of physical and mental of AMI harm to the residents and thats why it is so important for everyone to have a decent home. Geographic very low income renters Unfortunately this is not yet the case after In total there are 18.5 million very low income 80 years of government intervention in the What is a typical Worst Case Needs renters across the big four regions in the United affordable housing market in the United States. household? States. Most of the very low income households Congress asks HUD to prepare a report every A typical Worst Case Needs household life in the south 6.35 million, 4.65 million in the few years on the affordable housing demand is often a minority family headed by both called “the Worst Case Needs” (Bratt, 2005) . parents or a single mother. The family lives Figure 2.3: Trends in Worst Case Needs own image based on:(Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015) in good housing in suburbs and earnings are 9,000 AMI and low income groups their primary source of income. Yet their low 8,475 AMI wages place them below the poverty line 8,000 7,000 7,721 There is a large need in the United States for and in the extremely low income category. 7,095 affordable housing. The households that are Their rent plus utilities cost more than 930 6,000

2. Need for housing 5,992 5,905 in desperate need of affordable housing are per month consuming most of their income. 5,000 5,176 called: “Worst Case Needs”. Worst Case Needs Other needs are met through foodstamps, 4,000 are being determined on multiple aspects, Medicaid, gifts and tax credits (Steffen,2015). 3,000 one of those aspects is income. Household 2,000 incomes as determined by HUD are based on the area median income (AMI). The median 1,000 income of an area is different from the average 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 36 west, 3.8 million in the northeast and 3.69 million in who are in desperate need for affordable housing due There is an explanation why Worst Case Needs need the Midwest (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015). The to severe rental burdens or inadequate housing. Since to comply with these four aspects. very low income renters are very common throughout this research is focused on the federal policies of HUD, all metropolitan locations. the demand for affordable housing is in this report 1. The United States government wants to support also adopted from HUD, the Worst Case Needs. self-suffciency, that is why they only offer support Worst Case Needs as the demand But even above the poverty line there is a large group to the most extreme cases. Even though the low This research focuses on the federal policies that are of people who are in need of affordable housing. income households fall under the poverty line the administrated by HUD. To understand why HUD is Research of the National Association of Home US government considers this group to be able to subsidizing affordable housing policies the demand Builders showed that in total 19.4 million households fnd private housing on their own. for affordable housing is of up most importance. (which is about 49% of all renting households) were 2. When households pay less than 50% of their There are different ways to determine the affordable rent burdened paying more than 30% of their income income to rent and life in decent housing the US housing need. But to understand why HUD is to rent (Black,2014). Government believes that this group will be able administrating affordable housing programs it is to provide for a decent living even though their important to understand the demand from HUD its Constraints of Worst Case Needs ideal is that households do not pay more than perspective. Since 1973 HUD has conducted research For a household to fall under Worst Case Needs they: 30% of their income to rent. on the need for affordable housing, every two years 1. need to have a very or extremely low income; 3. People who do already receive housing assistance HUD publishes a report about the demand for 2. need to pay more or equal than 50% of their should be able to fnd adequate housing with affordable housing called “Worst Case Needs” (Bratt, income to rent or live in severely inadequate the assistance they get. That is why this group is 2006). HUD considers this group as the households housing; excluded from the Worst Case Needs. 3. cannot receive governmental housing assistance 4. Even though homeless people are clearly in need Table 2.4: Worst Case Needs per region (Steffen, Carter, yet; of help, they do not fall under Worst Case Needs. Martin, et al., 2015) 4. cannot be homeless. This is because the Worst Case Needs focuses Region Total on households who are currently renting a home. Northeast (thousands) 3,804 HUD estimates the amount of homeless people Percent with Worst Case Needs 40.5 Figure 2.5: Causes of Worst Case Needs (Steffen, Carter, to be around 578,000. HUD stated that in 2008 Martin, et al., 2015) on a single night 664,414 people were homeless Percent with housing assistance 32.6 (HUD,2008) Midwest (thousands) 3,692 Percent with Worst Case Needs 37.6 Amount of Worst Case Needs Percent with housing assistance 27.3 In 2013 there were 7.721 million Worst Case Needs Severely inade- (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015). Steffen (2015) South (thousands) 6,350 quate housing only claims that for every persons that is assisted with a Percent with Worst Case Needs 41.1 kind of federal housing assistance 1.6 renters have 93.6% 2.9% Percent with housing assistance 23.5 3.5% Both priority Worst Case Needs for such assistance. This dramatic problems West (thousands) 4,654 fgure shows how big the demand is for decent and affordable housing. Over the period of 2011-2013 Percent with Worst Case Needs 46.8 Severe rent burden there has been a 9% decrease of Worst Case Needs, Percent with housing assistance 21.9 which can be explained by the end of the economic Total (thousands) 18,500 depression in 2008. Although this seems like a very Percent with Worst Case Needs 41.7 positive trend it has to be considered that between 2001 and 2011 there was an increase of Worst Case Percent with housing assistance 25.7 Note: N= 13.742 million unassisted very low income renters 37 Needs of 69% (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., Affordable housings stock Case Needs). 2015). The dramatic increase since 2007 is A unit is considered affordable when a tenant When knowing the income of all households refecting on the economic and housing crises, is paying a maximum of 30% of their income and how much (maximum) they could pay for with mortgage foreclosures, unemployment to rent (even though people with rent burdens rent it can be compared to the total rental and shrinking incomes. After 2013 there have between 30% to 50% are not considered Worst stock. Only for 65% of all the extremely low not been any new reports on Worst Case income households affordable housing units Needs, but since the economy is thriving again Table 2.6 Occupation of rental units (Steffen, Carter, exists (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015). That and unemployment numbers have decreased Martin, et al., 2015) means that nationwide, there is a shortage of it would be logical to assume that the amount Rental units per 100 renters 35% of the housing stock for extremely low of Worst Case Needs did not increase again. Income Higher Same vacant total income households. For people who earn Figure 2.3 clearly shows how the Worst Case income income more or equal to 52% of AMI there is a suffcient occupants occupants Needs have developed over time. housing-stock, it can therefore be concluded ELI( 0-30%AMI) 2,950 3,907 371 7,227 that for the very low incomes and extremely On average 41.7% of the very low income VLI (0-50% 4,153 5,726 900 10,779 low incomes there is an insuffcient amount of households have got Worst Case Needs AMI) housing (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015). compared to 4.76 million (25.7%) who receive LI (0-80% AMI) 6,158 10,243 1,502 17,902 However this is only theoretical when every governmental housing assistance (see Figure >80% AMI NA 7,137 934 8,071 household is allocated to a dwelling that fts 2.4). their income perfectly. Unfortunately this is not Table 2.7: Amount of affordable units per rental group a perfect world, what can be concluded is that Figure 2.4 shows how these households are (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015) a fast amount of households rent below what distributed over the four different regions. Rental units per 100 renters they can actually afford, putting even more Overall the south is the poorest area of the Income Affordable Available Adequate pressure on the lower rents. Table 2.6 shows United States and the table clearly shows that that perfectly. Table 2.7 and the research of ELI( 0-30%AMI) 65.3 39.0 34.2 the south has the highest amount of very low Steffen (2015) give three different terms to income households. However the percentage VLI (0-50% AMI) 97.2 65.2 58.1 measure the demand and supply for housing of worst case is higher in the west. This is partly LI (0-80% AMI) 136.4 101.1 91.5 based on income groups; because of the rents in the west of the United States, especially the area of Silicon Valley, Figure 2.8: Available dwellings per 100 renters Affordable houses San Francisco and Los Angeles, are very high (Steffen, Carter, Martin, et al., 2015) This group contains the total amount of contributing on their turn to a high level of ELI VLI Poverty line housing units which rents cost less than 30% of 160 Worst Case Needs. the target group their income. It just measures 140 if a suffcient amount of housing units exist for The cause of Worst Case Needs 120 the target groups. As said before Worst Case Needs have either 100

2. Need for housing got severe rent burdens or live in inadequate 80 Available houses

housing. A majority of 97.1% (7.48 million 60 Available housing units are the units that are households) suffer from severe rent burdens Affordable affordable but also available for use by the 40 and only 6.4% (0.5 million) suffer from Affordable & Availible income group. Some renters who choose to Rental units per 100 renters 20 Affordable, Availible & inadequate housing as can be seen in fgure Adequate spend less than 30% of their income on rent 0 2.5. This means that most of the Worst Case 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 could stay in housing that is meant for a lower Needs are caused by severe rent burdens. income group. A housing unit is available for a Income as percentage of Area Median Income 38 certain income group when two conditions are met: the people in need and estimated the total demand million households lived in housing with moderate or one it is affordable for that income group and two it for affordable housing in 2007 on 28 million (Interview severe problems, and more than 6 million homeowners is rented out to a household of that income group or 3). payed more than 50% of their income to housing it is vacant. Of the amount of dwellings that would (Bratt,2006). in the perfect world be affordable for the extremely In an internal HUD document is stated and underlined: low income households, 40.8% are rented by higher Inadequate subsidized housing income occupants, for the very low income households “Don’t equate Worst Case Needs as sum of all housing The Worst Case Needs determine that households 38.5% is rented by higher income occupants and for problems” (HUD, 2008) that live in severe inadequate housing or pay most of the low income households 34.4% is rented by higher their income to rent should receive rental assistance. income occupants. This means that the federal government is aware of Estimations of the Low Income Housing Coalition in This brings the available existing housing stock from a larger demand for affordable housing than just the 2001 show that around 1.7 million households that 65% to only 39% for the extreme low incomes. For Worst Case Needs. Interviewee 3 also stated that in currently receive federal rental assistance still life in people who earn equal and more than 78% of AMI order to help these people the budget for HUD needs severely inadequate housing (Bratt,2006). This includes there is a suffcient available housing stock. This is also to increase with more than 4 times its current budget public housing sites in desperate need of repairs and considerably higher than the 52% AMI of affordable (Interview 3). privately owned housing with a similar maintenance housing stock. In the end it means that above the backlog or other problems. poverty line there are suffcient affordable homes, Homeless >80% AMI, but under the poverty line there are not Not included in this categorization of Worst Case Under poverty level but above Worst Case Needs enough housing units for the low income families to Needs are the people who are in need the most, the The poverty level in the United States is set at 80% of reside in. homeless. Although estimations are hard to make the AMI. The Worst Case Needs only calculates household national low income housing coalition estimated that who have an AMI of 50% or lower, this means that there Adequate houses around 800,000 people are homeless every night and is a gap between the poverty line and the Worst Case The adequate term is the most strict term of the that over 3.5 million people have been homeless at Needs. About 7.5 million households in the freehold three and in addition to available houses it checks least one night over a one year period (Bratt,2006). This and rental sector life under the poverty level but have weather the houses are physically adequate. The 800,000 estimate is quite different than the estimate an income above 50% AMI and spend more than adequacy refers to the physical state of the housing from HUD being 578,000 as mentioned earlier. Then 50% of their income to rent (Bratt, 2006). Then there unit, the location amount of bedrooms etc. Table 2.6 there are also people who are “pre” homeless or nearly is also the large group of households who pay more shows that for only 34.2 % of the extreme low income homeless, in New York City and other high dense cities than 30% of their income to rent but less than 50% this households adequate housing exists. This clearly there are basements transformed into small cubicles means that also these households are not accounted shows the extreme shortage of affordable housing. rented out to low income immigrants. Estimations of for in the Worst Case Needs. New York City alone are between 50.000 and 100.000 Categories that fall outside of the Worst Case households (Bratt,2006). These small cubicles are a Total housing need Needs fre hazard and provide serious inadequate housing. The national low income housing coalition estimated When a household checks all four boxes they are Closing down these housing units would mean that in 2001 that 18.5 million homeowners and 17.2 million counted as Worst Case Needs. This also means that even more people will become homeless (Bratt, 2006). renters faced either moderate or severe housing a lot of people who do not check all four boxes but problems (Bratt, 2006). Of this total of 35.7 million are in desperate housing need are not represented Inadequate freehold sector households about 19.5 million earned less than 50% within the term Worst Case Needs. Even though the The last two paragraphs mentioned the rental of AMI. In 2003 the Worst Case Needs were 5 million Worst Case Needs are seen as the demand one of the segment and the homeless, but there is also a large households, when the other 4 categories are taken into writers of the 2007 Worst Case Needs David Hardiman problem with costs and quality of the housing units account it comes to a total of 35.7 million households states that the Worst Case Needs are just a portion of in the freehold sector. In the freehold sector in 1999 2 in need. This means that the Worst Case Needs are 39 only a fraction of all the households that are in come out of bad situations by determines and desperate need for housing assistance. hard work. The term Worst Case Needs ends therefore The next chapter will explain how the federal somewhere in the middle of the political government reacted over the years in order to spectrum, however since the Worst Case realize affordable housing. Needs are only the very extreme troubled families it can be considered more conservative Analysis than liberal. First of all the constraints that divine the Besides the amount of Worst Case Needs, the demand for affordable housing are very strict. defnition of Worst Case Needs has got a liberal In reality there are much more people in need and a conservative side. The liberal aspects than the government portrayeds this way. In is that is entails a diverse income group from the original vision of the Democratic President extremely low to very low incomes, although Roosevelt a much broader target group was in their believe there is a huge shortage of envisioned to receive housing assistance. But housing. In a more right wing conservative over the years a view more conservative view view only the extremely low incomes should has been adopted. receive rental assistance. And when affordable Left wing Democrats such as President housing would only target these extremely low Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson would income families there would be no or a very advocate for a broader term than that is now limited shortage. Figure 2.9 and 2.10 show used as the Worst Case Needs that entails where the Worst Case Needs are located on about the 35 million households as explained the political scale. before. The Worst Case Needs are just the After chapter 2.1 and 2.2 an answer can be tip of a much larger iceberg of people in given to the sub-research question. desperate housing need. The conservatives Table 2.9 Analysis defnition Worst Case Needs however believe in self-suffciency, so having people in need will motivate them to move up Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives on the social ladder. The affordable housing Wealth High Low Low-no demand as currently described under the term redistribution redistribution Worst Case Needs is much more right wing Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low than President Roosevelt and Truman and income low-middle low- low Johnson would have determined it. However it Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private public and public collabo- with a passive is also not as conservative as President Reagan private parties ration with role for public would have advocated for, he did not believe in the affordable private parties. housing system parties 2. Need for housing in affordable housing at all and believed that all people have the ability and strength to Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic system

Figure 2.10 Analysis Defnition Worst Case Needs Republicans Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives 40 Large government Small government 2.3 Conclusion

Sub-Research question: Worst Case Needs report, interviewee 3, stated that Why is affordable housing important? the United States faces a much larger group in need Housing is important because it is one of the basic than the Worst Case Needs, around 30 million. elements of life, it provides shelter against the elements, it keeps people safe from mental and In general, affordable and decent housing is important physical problems and crime but it is also of great to provide the population of one of the richest emotional value and infuences thereby the wellbeing countries in the world with the basic need of housing, of the households. But housing itself is not enough, which is legally also their right according to the United tragedies in the past have shown that good quality of Nations. housing is needed to provide safety and wellbeing for the population. In 1948 housing was found so important that it was adopted as a basic human right by the United Nations. Although it was based on an American draft, the United States does not agree with a right to housing. Over the years the right for housing and the implementation of that right by President Roosevelt turned out to be to socialistic for the majority of the country. Left liberals and right conservatives have got a complete different view on what the rights of people should be. And therefore the 1977 convent of the United Nations containing the right for housing has never been rectifed in the United States. This is why there is such a large demand for affordable housing. In the United States there are so many people on the edge of becoming homeless who are close to loosing all the safety they have known in the past. In order to keep providing these people a home, more affordable housing units are needed. Depending on the demand defnition that is used the shortage of affordable housing units is between 7.7 and 35 million. The defnition that determines the Worst Case Needs of 7.7 million households is very strict and considered a lot more conservative than President Roosevelt had called for. Even one of the co-writers of the 2007 41 3. Historical analysis

“I pledge you, I pledge myself to a New Deal for the American people” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“A government its frst duty is to protect people not to run their lives” - Ronald Reagan

“The end of the welfare state as we know it” - Bill Clinton “We could say Democrats spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors... Because the sailors are spending their own money” - Ronald Reagan “If you think education is expensive, wait untill you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century ” - Barack Obama

42 3.1 Historical analysis federal policies

Affordable housing and the need for affordable 1932 was about the “New Deal”. The former President besides that, the 1937 Act did not include maintenance housing is not new. The lack of affordable housing units Herbert Hoover failed to address the problems during and operational costs because it was expected that has been an issue in the United States for centuries, the great depression. The New Deal was all about all these costs could be covered by the rental income but it was only in the 1930s that the U.S. government reform, it embraced the government-regulated (Stoloff, 2004) (Hays,2012). Public housing authorities decided to intervene. In order to understand the economy instead of the traditional attitude of laissez- did not have suffcient funds for the big task that was current affordable housing system in the United States faire. ahead of them. it is essential to know how it has evolved over time. The working class throughout all different races Different eras ask for different measures, this chapter had trouble fnding appropriate affordable private Pre-Second World War developments were mainly will explain the societal aspects and the legislative housing since many of them had lost their jobs. small scale buildings with one or two foors. Income aspects that occurred within the intervening time Federal sponsored housing was therefore accepted levels were limited to fve times the rent, this led to a periods from 1937 to now. as an alternative to the private market. Multiple selection of poor tenants (Hays,2012) (United States, Chapter 3 will answer the second sub-question: How municipalities had started to provide publicly fnanced 1937). have the affordable housing programs developed housing prior to 1937, these programs were the over time from a welfare state perspective, and what foundation for the Housing Act in 1937 (Stoloff, 2004). Legislative aspects of the 1930s till the WWII have previous cost effciency studies concluded? The 1937 Housing Act came relatively late in the new Housing Act 1937 deal period. The frst paragraph of the 1937 amended Housing Act Reader guide chapter 3: Soon after the amendment of the Housing Act of is as follows: 3.1 Discusses the historic events and policies of 1937, the public housing program encountered some “To provide fnancial assistance to the states and affordable housing political diffculties. The head of the United States political subdivisions thereof for the elimination of 3.2 Discusses the Pruitt-Igoe site in St. Louis as an Housing Authority, Nathan Straus, began helping local unsafe and insanitary housing conditions for the example of the impact of federal policies. authorities to develop over 50,000 public housing eradication of slums, for the provision of decent, 3.3 Discusses the previous cost effciency studies that units annually. But due to a growing number of anti- safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low have been conducted public housing rallies (many led by NAREB (National income, and for the reduction of unemployment 3.4 Discusses the “Blueprint for reinvention” a Association of Real Estate Brokers)) congress had to and the stimulation of business activity, to create proposal to reinvent HUD in 1994/1995. cut off funding for public housing programs, Straus a United States Housing Authority, and for other 3.4 Answering the sub-research question of chapter 3 later resigned in 1942 (Hays,2012) (Hoffman, 2000). purposes” (United States, 1937:1). During World War II, Congress funded housing for This frst sentence shows that the Housing Act of 1937 Societal aspects of 1930s till WWII veterans and other military purposes but banned low- serves multiple goals, namely: improving housing Introduction income housing. Until 1949, no more public housing conditions, clearing slums, creating jobs, building During the great depression of the 1930s and the units were authorized and developed. homes for low income families and stimulating period of the second world war there was a great need businesses and reducing unemployment. for affordable housing. In 1932, President Franklin D. Public housing has been underfunded from the start, Roosevelt was elected. His speech on July second, congress funded fewer units than were authorized, With the 1937 Housing Act, the United States Housing

Roosevelt re-elected Housing Act 1937 End Great as President (D) depression

1936 1937 Establishment of 1938 Congress stops funding 1939 1935 Housing authorities and public housing public housing 1940 Authority was established. The Housing area, substantially equal in number to the States, 1937:1). Authority is led by a single administrator number of newly constructed dwellings appointed by the United States President. provided by the project...” (United States, Societal aspects of WWII till the 1960s The headquarter of the Housing Authority 1937:6). After the war, there was a big demand for was based in Washington D.C., although In section 10a and 11f it is stated that no funds affordable housing. And therefore, policies there are sub-divisions throughout the nation. will be made available by the Authority unless were very strict, unwed pregnant woman could The Housing Authority did however function public housing agencies receive funds from be evicted, families needed two parents of differently than the housing authorities of the state as well. And when the Authority does which the head of the household received today. The “Authority” sponsored public build public housing themselves they can only earning through labor and the family needed housing agencies with capital, but it is stated sell it to public housing agencies or to lease it records stating their good housekeeping skills in section 10 and 11 of the 1937 Housing Act out themselves (United States, 1937). (Stoloff, 2004). Despite these strict rules, public that they can only fnancially contribute when housing became quite popular under the white the amount of slum houses cleared are equal The Housing Act of 1937 stated their target working class because the rents were low and to the new houses being built: group as: the landlords were easy to deal with. “Provided that no annual contributions “Families in the lowest income group who shall be made and the authority shall not cannot afford to pay enough to cause private By the mid 40’s, housing became a popular enter into any contract guaranteeing any enterprise to build an adequate supply of politician issue again. The long drought in annual contribution in connection with decent, safe and sanitary dwellings”(United residential developments had created a the development of any low-rent-housing States, 1937:2). shortage that would only become worse after or slum-clearance project involving the “The low-rent housing shall be available soldiers returned from the war. President construction of new dwelling unless the solely for families whose net income at the Roosevelt announced his economic bill of project includes elimination by demolition, time of admission does not exceed fve rights in his union address in 1944 and decent condemnation and effective closing , or the times the rent except for families with three housing was mentioned as a national priority. In compulsory repair or improvement of unsafe or more minor dependents where such ratio 1945, Harry S. Truman took over the presidency or insanitary situated in the metropolitan will not exceed more than 6 to 1” (United after the death of President Roosevelt, he also embraced and continued the economical bill Figure 3.2 Unemployment in the 30’s own image based on (United States History, N.D.) Image 3.1 Slums in Washington (Carl Mydans) Image 3.3: public houses in Greendale (1939, 30% Wisconsin Historical Society

22.5%

15% 3. Historical analysis 7.5%

1929 1932 1935 1938 1941

Roosevelt re-elected United States entering Congress reinstating funds for Roosevelt re-elected Economic bill of as President (D) WWII public housing for veterans as President (D) rights program

1941 1942 1943 1944 44 1940 1945 of rights. In 1945, three senators proposed a new These 500,000 houses would be the frst public houses groups struggled against conservatives to expand comprehensive housing bill the W-E-T bill. The goal of to be built since 1938 (Hoffman,2000). federal funding for public housing. The liberals argued this bill was to realize more affordable housing units to Right after the Housing Act was in place the opposition that it was needed to replace slums and meet the counter the housing shortage, eliminate substandard started a successful anti-public housing campaign, the housing needs for the poor and working class whilst housing through clearance of slums and blighted areas government ended up realizing 810,000 public housing the conservatives saw public housing as expensive, and to provide, as soon as possible, a decent home units 20 years after 1949 instead of the intended 6 unnecessary and socialistic evil. This changed with and suitable living environment for every American years. Actual appropriations never exceeded the the new Housing Act, a bridge was made between family. Their belief was that they could realize this by 90,000 appropriated units in 1950, and even became the two parties, the consensus was that commercial liberating the terms on the FHA mortgages of the zero in 1954 (Hays,2012) (Hoffman,2000). In the south redevelopment was the answer to central city 1934 Housing Act and to revive public housing of the and west, local authorities were becoming more anti- declines instead of public housing. This lead to a 1937 Housing Act (Hays, 2012). public housing, members of real estate agencies dramatic decline of newly built public housing units The Truman administration together with social welfare together with S&Ls mobilized to shut down local (Flanagan,1997). groups, trade unions, housing organizations and the US housing authorities, vetoed public housing projects Conference of Mayors insisted that public housing was and rejected housing appropriations (Hays,2012). American housing production was on the rise and essential for urban revival. But a conservative alliance new affordable housing programs such as VA and of southern Democrats, Republicans, construction-, At the same time in 1950, one of the strongest FHA helped to extend homeownership to millions real estate-, banking organizations and the chamber public housing supporters ,President Truman, cut (Stoloff, 2004)(Goetz, 2012)(Hays,2012). Especially the of commerce opposed new funding for public housing the program only one year after it started due to white population had the chance to proft from this because it was seen as a socialistic intrusion into the the Korean war. Only 30,000 houses, just 22% of the growth, since the programs were targeting whites private markets (Hays, 2012) (Hoffman,2000). originally intended units in 1949, were now to be (mainly in the northeast and Midwest) (Stoloff, 2004) realized annually. This opened the door for anti-public (Goetz, 2012). The white population had their housing In 1946, Republicans gained control in congress. housing congressmen to push for the abolishment needs met after the second world war in private Republican senator Taft, who was also referred to as of public housing, Truman, realizing his mistake, housing in the newly built suburbs. The afro American Mr. Republican, was against the wasteful tendencies increased the amount from 30,000 to 50,000 public population did not have that same chance to proft of the New Deal, however, he believed that only a housing units annually (Hoffman,2000). from this economical boost due to discriminatory government program could end the substandard lending and underwriting practices. Discrimination homes of the lower income classes. Taft was able In 1953, the newly elected President Eisenhower also took place in the job market, afro Americans did to pass the TEW bill through congress but it was came to power. At frst President Eisenhower wanted not get the same chances to proft from the economic stopped in the house of representatives. Although to abolish public housing completely, but due to high boost as the whites did. Both aspects together led to President Truman was not able to pass the TEW bill political costs he lowered the housing production to the fact that the housing options for the afro American he was determined to reintroduce public housing. In 35,000 public housing units annually (Hoffman,2000). population were mainly restricted to public housing. 1949, the Democrats controlled congress once again That meant that in a few years the public housing Given the prevailing racial attitudes in the 1950’s, the and together with the reelection of Harry Truman, the appropriations went from 90,000 in 1950 to 30,000 in process of the white fight from public housing was momentum was there to pass the 1949 Housing Act 1951, 50,000 in 1952 and 35,000 in 1953. self-accelerating. As more blacks moved in, fewer (Hoffman,2000). whites applied for the public housing and more whites They proposed to build 500,000 housing units within At the same time, the Housing Act of 1954 marked a moved out (Goetz, 2012) (Hays,2012). the next 4 years and called for the creation of a historic turn in the national affordable housing policy. By the end of the 1950’s, this led to the fact that most permanent housing agency in the federal government. Before 1954, new deal politicians and liberal interest public housing systems in large cities were dominated

Death of President End of WWII Roosevelt start of T-E-W Bill Truman elected as Housing Act of 1949 Launch of the predident Truman (D) President (D) fair deal program

1946 1947 1948 1949 W-E-T Bill Contracting 135,000 public 1945 housing units annually 1950 by the afro American population. In addition, inadequate housing through the clearance Act of 1937. many cities used public housing deliberately of slums and blighted areas, and the “The authority may authorize the as a tool for racial segregation. One way of realization as soon as feasible of the goals commencement of construction not doing this was to build large high rise public of a decent home and suitable living to exceed one hundred and thirty-fve housing developments in already African environment for every American family thousand dwelling units after July1, 1949, American neighborhoods, Chicago South is thus contributing to the development and which limits shall be increased by further a great example of this, or to simply assign redevelopment of communities and to the amounts of one hundred and thirty-fve whites to white public housing sites and others advancement of the growth, wealth, and thousand dwelling units on July 1 in each of to the black public housing sites (Hays,2012) security of the Nation. The congress further the years 1950 through and including 1954... (Freidrichs, 2011). declares that such production is necessary such limit ... may be increased at any time or to enable the housing industry to make times by additional amounts aggregating Legislative aspects of WWII till the 1960s its full contribution toward an economy not more than sixty fve thousands dwelling Housing Act of 1949 of maximum employment, production units, or may be decreased at any time or Professor Alexander von Hoffman calls the and purchasing power” (United States, times by amounts aggregating not more Housing Act of 1949 the product of a seven 1949:413) than eighty-fve thousand dwelling units, year bitter legislative stalemate and a shotgun upon a determination by the President, wedding between enemy lobbying groups This statement shows that the opinion of after receiving advice form the Council (Hoffman, 2000). congress is that: of Economic Advisers... that such action 1. the welfare and security of the nation is in the public interest” (United States, The declaration of the 1949 Housing Act is as depends on solving the housing shortage 1949:428) follows and the clearance of slums. The Housing Act authorized 810,000 new low “The congress hereby declares that the 2. the housing production is needed for income public housing units over the next general welfare and security of the nation employment purposes. It basically repeats 6 years this means an average of 135,000 and health and living standards of its the 1937 Housing Act. housing units annually. It reinforced the 1937 people require housing production and The major new contribution to national objectives of sum clearance and housing for related community development suffcient urban policy was the program for urban the poor, for every public housing unit build to remedy the serious housing shortage, redevelopment. Title I authorized $1billion in one slum housing unit must be demolished the elimination of substandard and other loans to help cities acquire slums and blighted and rents must at least be 20% below market land for public or private redevelopment rates (Hoffman,2000). Image 3.4 Public housing in the 1949 Pruitt-Igoe (Hoffman, 2000) (United States, 1949). This means that it is possible to conduct large scale Housing Act of 1954 slum clearances without requiring that torn Many historians see the Housing Act of 1954 down houses be replaced (Stoloff, 2004). as a shift from slum clearance to saving down- town areas, allowing the city to compete with

3. Historical analysis Another part of the 1949 Housing Act suburbs (Fairbanks,1993). In the Housing Act of expanded and extended the existing public 1949, it was stated that 135,000 housing units housing program. Title III restarted the housing were to be built annually, that changed in 1950 program established by the Wagner Housing to 30,000 which was later increased again to

President Truman cut public President Truman increased Eisenhower elected as 1954 Housing Act housing to 30,000 annually housing to 50,000 annually President. (R)

1951 1952 1953 1954 Eisenhower decreased public 46 1950 housing to 35,000 annually 1955 50,000. In the period of 1949 until 1955, on average the lower income groups (Flannagan, 1997). The 1954 But by the late ‘60s, many housing authorities about 50,000 housing units were realized, after the Housing Act limited the newly built public housing were facing serious fnancial diffculties. The Nixon 1954 Housing Act this decreased even further to 20,448 even further, it states: administration attacked housing programs, this left units annually between 1955 and 1964 (Hoffman,2000). “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other housing authorities with the choice to either cut The public housing movement would never fnd a law, the Public Housing Administration may ... maintenance costs, increase rents or do both (Stoloff, momentum again afterwards (Hoffman,2000). enter into new contracts agreements, or other 2004). The rising rent and bad service led to discontent arrangements during the fscal year 1955 for loans and strikes in the 1960s. The strikes in the ‘60s led Title III of the 1954 Housing Act replaced the words and annual contributions pursuant to the United to the Brooke Amendment which restricted rents to “community development and redevelopment” to States Housing Act of 1937 ... with respect to not 25% of the tenant’s income as an addition to the 1969 “urban renewal” (United States 1954). This indicates, exceeding thirty fve thousand additional units...” Housing Act. according to Hoffman (2000), a comprehensive (United States, 1954:630) Congress was less willing to confront the issue of program aimed not only at demolishing slums with operating subsidies than to provide capital funds bulldozers but to redevelop existing buildings as It also states that the newly built units must be built for new units (Hays,2012). One of the main reasons well, more attention was given to the rehabilitation in areas of slum clearance or urban redevelopment was that the problems of local authorities were of existing structures, enforcement of building areas. perceived as the result of ineffciency or careless codes, relocation of displaced inhabitants and citizen management, coupled with destructive tenants. Most participation. The 1954 Housing Act states that: Societal aspects of 1960s till the 1970s members of congress believed that the provision of “Urban renewal project or project may include Public housing became associated with a welfare more funds would reduce local incentives to operate undertakings and activities of a local public agency dependent population in the 1960s as the average cost effciently (Hays,2012). But after the Brooke in an urban renewal area for the elimination income of the public housing residents declined and Amendment, authorities had to be compensated for and for the prevention of the development or pressure increased on local housing authorities to their fnancial losses since the rents that they could spread of slums and blight, and may involve slum reserve these units for the neediest. The income of charge were now limited, this led to the frst form of clearance and redevelopment in an urban renewal the public housing residents declined between 1961 the operational subsidies. area or rehabilitation or conservation in an urban and 1970 from 47.1% AMI to 36.9% AMI (Hays,2012) There was also criticism about the building styles; in renewal area or any combination or part thereof (Stoloff, 2004). After the target group shifted from the early 1960s, Jane Jacobs criticized the modern in accordance with such urban renewal plan... mixed race working class to predominantly afro urban architecture and suggested that this type For the purpose of this subsection rehabilitation American lower class, public funding became even of architecture would kill street life, produce harsh or conservation may include the restoration and more pressured. At this point, the lack of funds led to environments, create empty unusable public space renewal of a blighted deteriorated or deteriorating the decline and deferment of maintenance of buildings and alienate poor neighborhoods. In 1968, HUD had area by...” (United States, 1954:627) and grounds leading to unsafe and inhospitable prohibited the building of high-rise public housing Another major impact of this Housing Act is the shift environments in some cities (Stoloff, 2004). President units for families (Stoloff, 2004). in purpose of public housing. The 1949 Housing Act Kennedy, however, saw potential in public housing Another dimension of the housing policy in the 1960s provided housing for the low income and working and proposed that 100,000 extra units should be built was extensive experimentation with alternative ways class which created a new real estate market. With by 1964. President Johnson further accelerated the to assist low income tenants though the use of the 135,000 public housing units being added annually, program by proposing 60,000 additional new units per private sector (Hays, 2012). Neither conservatives nor the governmental bodies could house the working year which later increased to 130,000 a year after 1968. liberals were in favor of subsidies for the private sector. class as well, however due to the low construction This new increase can be seen as a major shift in the The conservatives feared that by administrating more rate, public housing turned out to be insuffcient for affordable housing policy (Hays,2012). units the costs would rise, the liberals feared that by

Eisenhower re-elected as President. (R)

1956 1957 1958 1959 1955 1960 using private parties to provide affordable department took over the powers and duties tenants and that this annual payment must housing costs would rise as well. However, of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the not exceed the difference between 25% of the several concerns about the current affordable Federal Housing Administration and the Public tenants income and the fair rent price of that housing system led President Kennedy to look Housing Administration (United States, 1965- property. at other forms of assistance (Hays, 2012): a). At the signing ceremony creating the new “The housing and home fnance 1. Criticism rose between the liberals about Department, President Johnson described it Administrator is authorized to make and the quality of public housing; as “a very new and needed instrument to serve contract to make annual payments to a 2. Innovation was considered important after all the people of America.” “We are taking the housing owner on behalf of qualifed tenants stagnation under President Eisenhower; frst step,” he said, “toward organizing our as those terms are defned herein, in such 3. To help people that are not eligible for system for a more rational response to the amount under such circumstances as are public housing and cannot afford private pressing challenge of urban life.” (Ink,1967). prescribed in or pursuant to this sanction... housing; The declaration of purpose of the new Act was The amount of the annual payment with 4. There was an economic downturn with stated as follows: respect to any dwelling unit shall not 20% unemployment in construction; “The congress hereby declares that the exceed the amount by which the fair market 5. There has always been a threat that general welfare and security of the nation rental for such unit exceeds one-fourth of conservatives would abolish public and the health and living standards of our the tenant’s income as determined by the housing, so it is better to have an alternative people require as a matter of national administrator pursuant to procedures and ready. purpose sound development of the nations regulations established by him.” (United During the 1968 election people were tired of communities and metropolitan areas in States, 1965-b:451) President Johnson or at least of the Vietnam which the vast majority of its people live This new program can be seen as the war and therefore voted on Nixon to be the and work. predecessor of the later Section 8 and housing next US president. Nixon lacked a clear view To carry out such purpose, and in recognition vouchers programs (HUD,2014-b). on domestic social programs as he was more of the increasing importance of housing focused on international politics (Hays,2012). and urban development in our national life, 1968 Civil Rights Act His policy was highly dependent on his the Congress fnds that establishment of an The 1968 Civil Rights Act is meant to alleviate advisors. At the beginning of his presidency, executive department is desirable to achieve discrimination on the basis of color or race, the advisors on affordable housing were liberal the best administration of the principal religion or national origin. Chapter VIII - fair Republicans cautiously continuing Johnson’s programs of the federal government which housing of this Civil Rights Act is meant to do policy (Hays,2012). provide assistance for housing and for the just that within the housing industry. It states: development of the nations communities... “... it shall be unlawful- Legislative aspects from the 1960s till the (United States, 1965-a:667) (a) To refuse to sell or rent after making of 1970s a bona fde offer or to refuse to negotiate 1965 Department of Housing and Urban Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make Development Act The frst new legislation passed by HUD is the unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any

3. Historical analysis The 1965 department of Housing and Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. person because of race color, religion or Urban Development Act established a new The Housing Act states that the HFA is national origin. government body: HUD (Department of authorized to make annual payments to a (b) To discriminate against any person in the Housing and Urban Development). This new housing owner on behalf of the qualifed terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or

Kennedy has been President Kennedy has been Johnson has been elected as President. (D) shot in Dallas, TX elected as President. (D)

1961 1962 1963 1964 48 1960 1965 rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or money management, child care and other similar high poverty neighborhoods were likely to go into the facilities in connection therewith, because of race, matters. Criticism of high-rise public housing has led criminal circuit themselves. color, religion or national origin...” (United States, to the limitation on high rise structures in low rent That public housing was not popular is clear, in 1968-a:83). public housing projects. 1973 HUD published a report called Housing in the This title forces HUD and other housing agencies to “Except in the case of housing predominantly for Seventeens which turned out to be a very important treat every race equally. This has had a huge impact the elderly upon enactment of this paragraph, piece on which future legislation was made. According on housing which is often still segregated between the secretary shall not approve high-rise elevator to Hays (2012), it was not an objective assessment but whites and other races. Although the Civil Rights projects for families with children unless he makes a a political piece that legitimized Nixon’s suspension Act alleviates most discriminatory aspects, though determination that there is no practical alternative” of programs. Some conclusions of that report were as discrimination based on gender or sexuality is at this (United States, 1968-b:504) follows (HUD, 1974): moment still not forbidden. 1. Families served by public housing are, on the 1969 Housing and Urban Development Act average, poorer than those not served. Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 The 1969 Housing and Urban Development Act limits 2. Among families living in public housing, average The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act the family’s income as follows: benefts tend to be larger for the poorest families. reaffrms the national goal that was set in the Section 2 “which may not exceed one-fourth of the family’s 3. The average public housing unit is almost as good of the 1949 Housing Act: “a decent home and suitable income, as defned by the secretary this is also as the average private rental dwelling in a sample living environment for every American family” (United known as the Brooke amendment” (HUD, 2014-b) of seven major cities. Many public housing units States, 1968-b:476). (United States, 1969:389) are worse than the average private rental unit However, congress has found that this goal has not but an almost equal number are better. (HUD, been fully realized for many of the nation’s lower The 1969 Housing Act also requires that residential 1974:124) income families. And that is why this Housing Act structures that are demolished in federally assisted 4. In 1971, it cost $1.03 to produce a dollar’s worth of dramatically increased the amount of new to-be urban renewal project have to be replaced by an housing services under the leased program, $1.23 constructed public housing, it states that: equivalent number of new or rehabilitated units under the “turnkey” program, and $1.40 under “The Congress fnds that the supply of the nation’s (HUD,2014)(United States, 1969). the conventional program. housing is not increasing rapidly enough to meet TTheir fnal conclusion was that low income housing the national housing goal, established in the Societal aspects of the 1970s to 1980s can be realized more cost effciently in existing private Housing Act of 1949, of the as soon as feasible Introduction housing. Even though the quality of housing would realization of the goal of decent home and suitable From 1970 till the 1990s, poverty was more concentrated be lower than other project-based assistances it living environment for every American family. The than ever. In that 20-year period, household’s that would still provide a decent home. This cost effciency congress reaffrms this national housing goal and lived in concentrated poverty areas rose from 4 to 8 research is further discussed in chapter 3.3. determines that it can be substantially achieved million (Stoloff, 2004). The concentration of poverty By this time, President Nixon his advisors were far more within the next decade by the construction or led to criminal activities. Criminal gangs that sold conservative than at the start of his presidency in 1968. rehabilitation of twenty-six million housing units, street drugs such as crack cocaine brought violent He used this report to justify a new approach which six million of these for low and moderate income crime with them. The people growing up in these involved greater reliance on direct cash subsidies later families.” (United States, 1968-b:601) areas had little chance of a bright future. With bad referred to as housing allowances or vouchers. One Also, new in this Housing Act is the upgrade of schools, uneducated parents, little chance on the of the major benefts of housing allowances was the management and services in public housing projects, job market due to discrimination, gangs nearby and deconcentration of poverty. After the report, President this includes counseling, housekeeping, budgeting, no money to spend, the young population of these Nixon suspended almost all housing programs in

1965 HUD Act Housing Act 1965 Nixon elected Civil Rights Act 1968 1969 Housing Act as President. (R) of 1968 Housing Act

HUD Established 1966 1967 1968 Anti segregation Limitation of Rent 1/4 of 1965 discrimination high-rise buildings income 1970 1973. However, a year later President Nixon 1961, Newman added critique in 1972 stating Housing and Community Development Act of reinstated funding for affordable housing when that the modern architecture that dominated 1974 his power was eroding due to the Watergate in public housing developments, contributed The Housing and Community Development Act scandal. With the threat of impeachment, he to crime and resulted in a breakdown of made multiple changes, including: signifcant reached a compromise in 1974 which led to community (Stoloff, 2004). The lack of individual increases in the federal annual contribution to the bill that created the Section 8 program, space led to the deterioration of the outdoor affordable housing from 1.2 billion in 1970 to two days later he was impeached. The newly space because no one felt ownership of this 2.8 billion in 1974, public housing rental shall elected Gerald Ford adopted the Section 8 public space. The high-rise buildings removed not exceed 25% of the household income, at program in the 1974 Housing Act. The new Act “the eyes” on the street. The easily identifable least 20% of the dwellings must be occupied contained three subprograms: Section 8 new style of public housing led to even further by very low income families (max 50% of AMI) construction, substantial rehabilitation and stigmatization as, no matter where you are but by far the biggest change of this Act is existing housing. Moderate rehabilitation was in the United States, public housing is easily under title II, Assisted housing Section 8. added later in 1978 (Hays, 2012). identifable due to its typical architecture. The Housing Act of 1974 was meant to create Section 8 of Title II will later become well- a more economically mixed housing stock with Legislative aspects of the 1970s until the known as the Section 8 program and housing the Section 8 program. 1980s vouchers. The Section 8 program or as they Generally, the Department’s legislative Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 refer to it in the 1974 Act, “lower-income proposals to Congress were not based on a This Act states that the income of the families, housing assistance” was hereby established. cost effciency study or reevaluation of the in order to establish a maximum rent, shall be “Sec. 8 (a) For the purpose of aiding lower- relevant policies and legislative authorities. determined by the Secretary. He shall consider income families in obtaining a decent place Until the 1970s, there was not even a continuing the income from all sources of each family to live and of promoting economically long-range study looking toward the next member residing in the household who is at mixed housing, assistance payments may year’s legislative program. Typically, each year least eighteen years of age. be made with respect to existing newly was characterized by an effort of the agency to Another change in this Act is the increase of constructed, and substantially rehabilitated meet a deadline for presenting the legislative annual funds. This increase in annual federal housing in accordance with the provisions recommendations for the coming year to the funding is needed because the authority is of this section. Bureau of the Budget (OMB) (HUD, 1974:22- now authorized to provide annual payment (b) (1) The secretary is authorized to enter 23). which the authority determined to be required into annual contributions contracts to make Sometimes new approaches of possible merit for: assistance payments to owners of existing were discarded simply because of the lack of 1. assuring the low- rent character of the dwelling units in accordance with this time needed for study. HUD (1974:22-23) projects and section.” (United States, 1974:662) Although it seems that most public housing 2. achieving and maintaining adequate had the form of high-rise this is actually not operating and maintenance services and The secretary is now authorized to make true. In 1970 only 27% of public housing was reserving funds including payments of payments to owners or prospective owners

3. Historical analysis high-rise, 32% garden apartments, 16% low outstanding debts. who own, construct, or rehabilitate housing rise and 25% single family homes(Stoloff, 2004). This means that the door is open now for for lower income families. And the secretary is authorities to include operating subsidies in now authorized to make such payments via a From the ‘70s to the ‘90s, criticism of modern the annual assigned budgets(United States, public housing agency. Under this section, at architecture continued to grow. After Jacobs in 1970). least 30% of the tenants should be very low HUD Act of 1970 Nixon re-elected HCD Act of 1974 Watergate Scandel & as President. (R) Ford as President

Funds operational fees 1971 1972 1973 1974 Section 8 program 50 1970 is started 1975 income families (50% AMI). rent levels are now limited to 25% of the household in the administration of housing subsidy programs The maximum rent shall not exceed the fair market monthly income. in the 1970s and ‘80s, these HUD scandals strongly rent(FMR) by 10%. The contracts with the landlords weakened the support for federal interventions include that all ownership management and Congress also fnds that low-income and elderly (Stoloff, 2004). The new neoliberal policies focusied maintenance responsibilities lay with the owner public housing residents have suffered from crime more on demand-based subsidies rather than supply- (United States, 1974). and violence, this has led to families moving out of based subsidies (Stoloff, 2004). At this moment, single public housing sites. Local public housing authorities purpose welfare housing for the very poor is defned as Supplemental Housing Authorization Act of 1977 may have inadequate security arrangements and that counter productive and bad for the city by devaluing Authorizes the appropriation of additional funds for action to provide security is needed. Research shall the land and neighborhood and for the residents by public housing and increases the minimum contract be done in effective ways to make public housing safe trapping the residents in dangerous and hopeless term for Section 8 payments (HUD, 2014-b). again (United States, 1978). environments (Goetz, 2012).

Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 Housing and Community Development Amendments Ronald Reagan became President in 1980 and he New high-rise elevator projects within the public of 1979 brought with him a very conservative administration, housing program were already abolished (except The maximum tenant rental contribution for public this led to a major shift in affordable housing policies. for the elderly) by the secretary under the HUD Act housing is 25% of their income for very low-income With skilled politics, President Reagan was able to of 1968, however it was later allowed for Section 8 households and 30% for other low income households. pass extensive budget cuts. In what is called his housing. The 1977 HCD Act changes that: For Section 8 the contribution is set to a minimum budget coup of 1981, President Reagan cut the “Notwithstanding any other provision of this of 15% and a maximum of 30%. Very low income budget for HUD from FY1981, $30 billion to FY1982 section ... the secretary shall prohibit high rise households can pay between 15% and 25%, large, $17.5 billion (Hays, 2012). He tried to get congress to elevator projects for families with children unless very low-income families to 20% and for other families agree to a -$2.5 billion budget for HUD in FY1983 but there is no practical alternative.” (United States, between 20% and 30%. congress did not pass this new budget. In the end the 1977:1128) Also, the maximum rent for a property is changed budget for FY1983 was set at $8.6 billion, less than half to the fair market rate(FMR) plus one fourth of the of what it was in 1982, and for FY1984 to $12 billion Housing and Community Development Amendments tenant’s income. The Housing Act also explains that (Hays, 2012). This meant that within his frst period of 1978 preference for public housing and Section 8 housing is of presidency, he diminished the HUD budget from The Section 8 program is extended and expanded. At given to families who occupy substandard housing or $30 billion to only $12 billion in 1984 (Hays, 2012). the same time, the 1978 Act introduced funds for “less that are involuntarily displaced (United States ,1979). Due to past appropriations, affordable housing units than substantial rehabilitation” later on referred to as actually increased during Reagan’s presidency. He moderate rehabilitation: Societal aspects of the 1980s to 1990s also introduced the LIHTC’s in 1986 and made some “For the purpose of upgrading and thereby There was a new revolution in the 1980s of the program reforms in the affordable housing policies. preserving the Nation’s housing stock, the Secretary American welfare state, there was a change in attitude Partly due to President Reagan’s affordable housing is authorized to make assistance payments ... and politics. The neoliberal turn of the 1980s came with policies criminal activities rose, income inequality pursuant to contracts with owners ... who agree the mistrust of large scale government intervention, its rose and homelessness rose including for women and to upgrade housing so as to make and keep preference for market discipline and privatization, and children (Hays, 2012). This lead to criminal activities such housing decent safe and sanitary through its reassessment of the social welfare state objectives and made some of the concentrated poverty public upgrading which involves less than substantial (Stoloff, 2004). This mistrust was essential for the start housing areas no-go zones that showed the downside rehabilitation” (United States 1978:2092) of dismantling public housing in the United States. of the American dream. In 1981, the rent ceilings Another change in the Section 8 program is that the Some of the mistrust came from corrupt practices were eliminated which made public housing even Carter elected HCD Act of Supplemental Housing HCD Amendments HCD Amendments as President. (D) 1977 Authorization Act of 1977 of 1978 of 1979

1976 1977 High-rise 1978 Funds for moderate 1979 1975 Limitations for Section 8 Section 8 rehabilitation 1980 more unattractive to households with higher “to improve the physical condition of Urban Rural Act is the repeal of funding for the incomes, rents were now based on 30% of the existing public housing projects and Section 8 newly constructed and substantially tenant’s income instead of 25%. A side effect to upgrade project management and rehabilitated buildings. of this was that higher income households operation in order to assure that such It also starts a program called the voucher were moving out so the rent ceiling was projects continue to be available to serve demonstration under Section 8. In this reintroduced in 1987 (Stoloff, 2004). low-income families.“ (United States, demonstration, the Secretary is authorized During the 1980s, rent covered only 79% of the 1980:1626)(HUD,2014-b). to conduct a demonstration program using maintenance and operating costs compared The funds assigned to CIAP may only be a payment standard. This payment standard to 97% in the 1970s (Goetz,2012). This is partly assigned to: is the maximum private rent that Section 8 because the average tenant’s income had • projects owned by public housing assisted households can occupy. The difference decreased from 33% AMI in 1980 to 17% AMI agencies; between the payment standard and 30% of the in 1995 (Curhan, 1995). Even though public • operated rental housing projects that tenant’s income is the monthly assistance. The housing has always been underfunded and receive rental assistance; payment standard cannot be higher than the never enjoyed popularity until the 1980s, • projects that are not administrated under actual rent. Payments can be made to previous demolition of public housing units was very Section 8 (United States 1980). Section 8 tenants or tenants of the very low rare. The rules were that for every demolished income of 50% AMI or lower. (United States, public house a new one should be build, this Housing and Community Development 1983) law was set up by congress together with HUD Amendments of 1981 in order to preserve affordable housing. The The Housing Act increases the maximum Housing and Community Development Act of Housing Act of 1987 changed that and made tenant rent for Section 8 and public housing to 1987 it possible to demolish public housing without 30% of their adjusted income or 10% of their This Act makes the demonstration program of replacing it with a new unit. income. vouchers that was introduced in 1983 defnite. In 1989 when Bush was voted in as President, At the same time, it changes the term low- From 1983 on, housing authorities will receive the HUD inspector general released a report income to lower income. Lower income an administrative fee for administrating reveling a big fraud plot with the moderate households are those who earn less than 80% Section 8 and the housing voucher program, rehabilitation funds. Secretary Jack Kamp was AMI, very low income households earn less this fee shall be 8.2% of the fair market rent. determined to change the damaged image of than 50% AMI. It also liberates the demolition rules of public HUD. Policy-wise, Bush wanted a kinder and Section 16 is added to the 1937 Housing Act, housing. With the new legislation, public gentler approach to the affordable housing explaining that not more than 10% of the housing is allowed to be demolished when a policies (Schwartz,2012). housing units occupied before 1981 and 5% new dwelling replaces it under Section 8 project after 1981 shall be available to lower income or tenant-based housing assistance (excluding Legislative aspects of the 1980s to 1990s families other than very low income, which housing vouchers). This Act also puts further Housing and Community Development Act of meant that the other 90%-95% of the housing limitations on the developments of public 1980 units must be available for at least very low housing, developments are only allowed when

3. Historical analysis The major change of the 1980 Housing Act income households for as well public housing it is needed to reach the affordable housing was the establishment of the public housing as Section 8 housing (United States, 1981). goal and only when the demand cannot be comprehensive improvement assistance easily satisfed by Section 8 housing (United program (CIAP). CIAP was later transferred to Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983 States,1988). capital subsidies for public housing. One of the major changes in the Housing and Reagen has been HCD Amendments Housing and Urban-Rural Reagen re-elected HCD Act Bush has been HUD scandal elected as President. (R) of 1981 Recovery Act of 1983 as President. (R) of 1987 elected as President. (R) of 1989

1982 Funds revoked for new and 1984 1986 Makes Housing 1988 52 1980 substantial rehab. Sec. 8 + Start HCV voucher defnite 1990 Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 authorities that functioned well (HUD,2014-a) (Stoloff, Design, 2003). By amending title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the 2004). With the relocation of some low income “Fair Housing Act”), the Act authorizes the Federal families from concentrated poverty neighborhoods Pressure increased on the PHA’s when HUD made a government to Act on behalf of individual victims into more wealthy neighborhoods, the public bodies new formula to calculate public housing operational of housing discrimination, to initiate investigations failed to do something about the conditions in the old funds. The formula lowered the percentage of without formal complaints, and to impose stiff civil concentrated poverty neighborhoods (Kleir, 2015). With funds to cover the expenses from 98% of the only penalties on those who discriminate (HUD,2014-b). new low-income families moving in the concentrated 78% (PHADA, 2006). This was a huge stimulant for poverty neighborhoods, the government failed to do public housing authorities to look for other fnancing Societal aspects of the 1990s to 2000s something about these areas. solutions such as HOPE VI, transferring to Section 8 HUD changed their vision on public housing and a sell-off in-cost-effcient scattered site public architecture in the 1990s from modern urban In the 1990s, a Democratic President Clinton whose housing units, which were highly supported by HUD in architecture to the new urbanism. This includes party had created the American welfare state would previous years (Kleit, 2015). smaller-scale townhouses or two story walk ups with call for the end of the welfare state as we know it ( front porches and small, individual front yards. This Schwartz,2012). President Clinton introduced the Legislative aspects of the 1990s to 2000s change in vision was, in many US cities, the largest HOPE VI program in 1992 that would lead to more FY 1991 Appropriations Act example of urban redevelopment at this time. mixed income housing, the widespread demolition of The FY1991 appropriations saw a small increase of public housing throughout the nation and would lead funds distributed to the affordable housing programs. One of the frst new policy measures was the to less segregation. He believed that demolishing Funds were made available to assist tenants who introduction of housing vouchers. With housing obsolete housing units would increase the image of were affected by the demolition or disposition of vouchers, very low income (formerly public housing) public housing (Hays,2012). However, the image of public housing units. And funds assigned to Section residents were given a subsidy to move and fnd HUD was still at an all-time low and HUD was even 8 would lead to an increase in the amount of assisted private housing in non-impacted neighborhoods threatened with abolishment. Therefore, in 1994, households. (Goetz, 2012). President Clinton came with a proposal in order to drastically transform HUD and the affordable housing Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act The HOPE VI program was an addition to the housing programs. This program is known as the blueprint 1990 vouchers. The HOPE VI program made it possible to for reinvention and will be thoroughly discussed in Congress formulates the new national goal as follows: renovate high poverty areas by the demolition of public chapter 3.4. “The Congress affrms the national goal that every housing and by building mixed income dwellings American family be able to afford a decent home in without building the same amount of public houses Research has shown that from 1996 to 2007 about a suitable environment.” (United States,1990:4085) in its place. This was a large shift from regulations 170,000 public housing sites were lost because of before 1990. To get the public housing sites ready for deterioration and decay (Kleit,2015). Despite these They also admit that the nation has not made demolition, the residents had to vacate their homes. facts, operational funding decreased by 25% between adequate progress towards the goal of the national This is different from the previous mobility program 1999 and 2006. And for the housing vouchers, fawed housing policy (as set out in the Housing Act of 1937 because families were forced to move out instead formulas had led to a loss of about 150,000 Section 8 and 1949 and reaffrmed in the Housing and Urban of asked to leave voluntarily. This forceful removal housing vouchers (Kleit, 2015). Development Act of 1968) which would provide decent, caused protests by the residents (Goetz, 2012). The federal Government did not know how much safe, sanitary, and affordable living environments for The poor and isolated neighborhoods were seen public housing units would costs and asked Harvard to all Americans. as prime objects of domestic social policy in the conduct a study about the operational costs of public One of the major changes of the 1990 Act is the 1990s, and rules became less strict for public housing housing units (Harvard University Graduate School of support of homeownership for low income tenants. Cranston-Gonzalez act of Clinton has been Clinton has been FY 1996 QHWR Act of Senior act of 1990 elected as President. (D) re- elected as President. (D) appropriations 1998 1999

Home and 1992 1994 1996 Mark to 1998 Housing Mark up to 1990 Hope I, II, III program Market & Hope VI Choice Vouchers Market 2000 Also new are stricter rules for public housing, it homeownership. “A homeownership program The Balanced Budget Downpayment Act 1996, has become easier to evict criminals, vacancies under this subtitle shall provide for acquisition Sets minimum monthly rents for public housing, are a higher priority and a new management by eligible families of ownership interest in Section 8 and housing vouchers between $25 system is adopted. But overall, it has become ... the units in an eligible property under any to $50 up to the discretion of local authority easier to demolish or replace public housing. arrangement determined by the Secretary (HUD,2014-a). to be appropriate, such as cooperative Home investment partnerships ownership” FY 1996 Appropriations Act The Home program’s main purpose is to Subtitle C (later referred to as Hope III) provides FY 1996 introduces the new mark to market promote public and private sector partnerships subsidies for single family homeownership. program. This program is designed for Section to effectively utilize their resources and to (United States,1990) 8 housing in which rents are set above market provide affordable housing for very low and levels. The mark to market program lowers the low-income families: FY 1993 Appropriations Act FMR to the rents of similar properties in the “Funds made available under this subtitle The FY 1993 introduced the urban revitalization neighborhood. (HUD,2014-a) may be used by participating jurisdictions demonstration program, the predecessor to provide incentives to develop and of the Hope VI program. This program Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act support affordable rental housing and provides funds in order to reconstruct severely of 1998 homeownership affordability through distressed or obsolete public housing projects. In the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility the acquisition, new construction, The demolished public houses must be Act of 1998, the two programs (Vouchers reconstruction, or moderate or substantial replaced by one-third, Section 8b certifcates & Section 8 TBRA) were merged into one, rehabilitation of affordable housing, and by any combination of public housing this new program was called the housing including real property acquisition, site units and homeownership. This program was choice voucher program (United States, 1998) improvement, conversion, demolition, later adopted by the Housing and Community (HUD,2014-a). Rents are now linked to the FMR and other expenses, including fnancing Development Act of 1992. In that Act it is but the payment standards could vary from costs, relocation expenses of any stated that at least 50% of the dismantled 90% to 110% of the FMR. This new program displaced persons, families, businesses, or public housing sites should be replaced by also allowed tenants to spend either more or organizations, and to provide tenant-based project-based housing units and a maximum less than 30% of their income to housing, but rental assistance.”(United States,1990:4097) of 50% should be made available for tenant- never more than 40% (Schwartz,2012). based housing assistance. (HUD,2014-a) Homeownership and opportunity through Preserving affordable housing for senior HOPE Act Blueprint for reinvention/ from blueprint to citizens and families into the 21st century Act Under subtitle A congress compels public action 1999 housing administrators to sell their housing In 1994 and 1995, two legislative proposals In 1999, new legislation was passed, this new units to their tenants. Congress provides funds were introduced to dramatically transform legislation was the opposite of the mark to to support the new homeowners, housing HUD. It contained among other things, the market program. The new program was called

3. Historical analysis units are only allowed to be sold if the whole transformation of public housing to Section mark up to market which deals with projects project/building will be sold at once. This 8 housing. It was meant to save HUD from that have below market rents. subtitle is later referred to as Hope I. abolishment and to work more cost effciently. In order to renew Section 8 project-based Under subtitle B (later referred to as Hope The blueprint will be further explained in contracts, the rents need to be comparable II), congress is supporting multi-family chapter 3.4. to market rents. The program allows Section 8 Bush Jr. has been Terroristic attacks & Iraq war Bush Jr. has been Hurricane Mortgage & Obama has been elected as President. (R) Afghanistan war re- elected as President. (R) Katrina fnancial crises elected as President. (D)

2002 2004 2006 2008 Establishing of 54 2000 CNI 2010 rents to be marked up to comparable market rents up crisis Obama was elected as president. His agenda Legislative aspects of 2000s to 2017 to 150% FMR, participants must however agree to a had to be put aside to solve the large economic Mark-to-market program extension of 2002 contract renewal of minimal fve years (United States, problems frst. His plan to save the economy was a The mark to market program was extended in order 1999) (Schwartz, 2015). large federal stimulus package, consisting of public to lower the unnecessary high costs of PBRA Section 8 works and public services. This package led to even subsidies. In the house of representatives there were Societal aspects of the 2000s to 2016 a higher defcit than before and he was criticized for many strong advocates of this program: Introduction it as being irresponsible. He also passed the major “Because more than 1,000 projects could be The result of the 2000 presidential elections was liberal wish of health care in his frst years of offce. The assisted under the mark to market program we that the Democratic candidate and the Republican Republicans used a few propaganda tools in order to will save many multifamily affordable housing units candidate were just inches apart from each other. frame the debate about Obama’s policies. In 2010, the over the next 5 years. I am certainly not interested Florida would determine the fnal outcome, in the end, Republicans took over congress, which made it harder in seeing any of the affordable housing units go George W. Bush (Republican) came out as the winner. for Obama to pass legislation. The lack of attention into default because the Mark to Market program At this point, the Republicans held both congress to affordable housing policies from within the Bush is allowed to expire.” (United States House of and the senate, but still President Bush had a shaky administration as well as the Obama administration Representatives, 2006:20141). mandate as he won by such a small margin. In 2001, led to low but stable funding throughout the years for the terrorist attacks gave bush a new mandate: war on HUD. American Dream Down-Payment Act terrorism. He frst passed the much-disputed Patriot From 2000 till 2016, no major legislative pieces on The American dream down payment act was a piece Act which allowed an increase in intelligence gathering affordable rental housing passed. The Presidents did, of legislation from the Bush administration to help powers, then he went to war, with frst Afghanistan however, pass major reforms on mortgages as well low income households to buy their home. They and later with Iraq. The result of these events was an as disaster relief funds (for i.e. hurricane damage), believed that the issue was not the monthly costs of administration that focused on international politics but since those reforms are outside the scope of this mortgages but the down-payments (Hays,2012). This rather than domestic policies. By going to war and research they will not be further explained here. Act authorized down-payment assistance to low- cutting taxes, the Bush administration realized a In 2016, President Trump was elected without having income frst-time home buyers under HUD’s HOME defcit. The effect of this defcit was that domestic the popular vote. This has happened only once before Program (HUD, 2014-a). This Act also reauthorized the spending needed to be reduced, however, President in the past hundred years between Bush and Al Gore in HOPE VI program. Bush did not target housing programs. The Democrats 2000. Trump is not a typical politician, his statements and Republicans realized a status quo on affordable and campaign have confrmed that. In 2017, Trump America frst a budget blueprint to make America housing. Bush did, however, try to eliminate the Hope made his proposed budget public, its name: America great again VI program but failed, congress found that a minimum frst. This budget would have major cuts in all types of “The America frst” budget blueprint from the Trump budget should be assigned to HOPE VI. In the welfare programs and various taxes including a 13% administration expects a greater infuence of states second half of the bush administration the mortgage decrease in HUD’s budget. Trump’s overall budget and private companies, therefore they have decreased crisis hit the United States. The Bush administration and vision is often compared to Reagan’s policy in the HUD budget for FY2017 by 13.2%. bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to save the the ‘80s. Newspaper headlines with this comparison “The Department of Housing and Urban economy. Both Republicans and Democrats believed are not rare: “Trump is about to repeat a big time Development (HUD) promotes decent, safe, and that the collapse of these institution would be lethal Reagan blunder” (Lopez, 2017),”In Trump’s blueprint affordable housing for Americans and provides to the economy. In the end, the Bush administration to reorder the federal government, echoes of Reagan access to homeownership opportunities. This suggested a bigger bail-out of $700 billion, around ’81” (Balz, 2017). Budget refects the President’s commitment to fscal 20 times the HUD appropriations in order to bail responsibility while supporting critical functions out banks and insurances. In 2008, at the start of the that provide rental assistance to low-income and FY 2012 Obama has been Trump has been Budget FY 2017 re- elected as President. (D) re- elected as President. (R)

Establishing of RAD 2012 Termination 2014 2016 2018 2010 of HOPE VI 2020 vulnerable households and help work- public housing units. with almost 10% in public housing sites in eligible families achieve self-suffciency. B. During the second world war funds were 8 years. The Budget also recognizes a greater role assigned to the army instead of public 4. After 8 years of conservatives in power it was for State and local governments and the housing. up to Kennedy to put affordable housing private sector to address community and 2. During and after the war there was a new high back on the map. He invested heavily economic development needs.” (United need for affordable housing. Liberals tried in new constructions whilst solving the States Offce of Management and Budget, to pass new allocations to public housing liquidity shortage of authorities by allowing 2017:25) but were stopped by the conservatives. In the authorities to increase rents. The President’s 2018 Budget requests $40.7 1949 when the liberals had the house as 5. President Johnson increased funding for billion in gross discretionary funding for HUD, well as the senate, they authorized new new construction from 25,000 a year to a $6.2 billion or 13.2% decrease from the 2017 allocations for public housing. Almost 130,000 a year. The 1968 Housing and annualized CR level.(United States Offce of 810,000 houses were to be built within a Urban Development Act reaffrms the Management and Budget, 2017) few years. national goal of 1937 and 1949, a decent C. President Truman, a progressive supporter home and suitable living environment for Analysis of public housing, had to lower funds for every American family. However, congress The last 80 years of affordable housing policies public housing due to the Korean war. fnds that this goal has not been fully has been analyzed based on the theoretical D. The conservatives saw the possibility to realized for many of the nation’s lower framework of chapter 1.2. The ideologies abolish public housing, since even Truman income families. And that is why this of different governments and important lowered funding for it. This was their frst Housing Act dramatically increases the legislation pieces are explained down below. attempt to not to only stop the growth of amount of new appropriations of public Figure 3.5 is an overview of how the affordable public housing but to abolish it as a whole. housing constructions. housing system has developed. The numbers However, they failed and President Truman 6. In 1968, Republican Nixon was elected, he stand for the elections and the letters for slowly increased funding once again. mainly focused on international politics external infuences. 3. After the Korean war, Republican President rather than domestic policies. Because of 1. After a long time of conservatives, the Eisenhower came into power, a known critic this, his advisors were writing the policy liberals under the leadership of President of public housing and wanting to abolish it for affordable housing programs. When Roosevelt (D) won the elections of 1932. at frst, he saw public housing as a socialistic he started, his advisors were quite liberal President Roosevelt wanted a public program. Although he wanted to abolish but near the end they were replaced by housing system that would assist the it at frst, he ended up lowering the new more conservative ones. In the end, due moderate and low-income households. appropriations to a minimum. He thought to the bad quality public housing sites The liberals were able to pass progressive that the political price for abolishment was Nixon was forced to assign operating and liberal, and maybe even socialistic, too high. In 1954, he passed a new law maintenance subsidies, something that legislation under the name of the New which was a compromise between liberals previous Republicans were fghting against. Deal. President Roosevelt’s intentions were and conservatives. The liberals who wanted 7. In 1973, President Nixon suspended funding

3. Historical analysis to build a large public housing portfolio for public housing for the lower and working for all affordable housing programs. a broad target group. By passing public class ended up with limited public housing E. There was a threat of impeachment for housing through congress, they struck a for the poor. And conservatives who President Nixon. Therefore, he was forced nerve of the conservatives. wanted to abolish public housing ended to work with the Democrats and Republicans A. The conservatives launched a successful up stimulating homeownership and slightly to pass a new Housing Act in the hope lobbying campaign with NAREB and increasing public housing. This new piece that he would not be impeached. The new succeeded in stopping the funding for new of legislation lowered the average AMI Housing Act restarted most affordable 56 housing programs and introduced Section 8. Just Large government Republicans Small Government two days later, President Nixon was impeached. Democrats 8. Ronald Reagan became President in 1980 and Socialists Liberals Conservatives brought with him a very conservative administration. This led to a major shift in affordable housing policies. With skilled politics, Reagan was able to 1935 pass extensive budget cuts. In what is called his Public housing. 1. budget coup of 1981, President Reagan cut the 1940 A. Roosevelt budget for HUD in almost half. In his second year, B. he even proposed a negative Budget for HUD. 1945 F. The HUD scandal of 1989 decreased the standing 2. Truman 1950 C. of affordable housing even further. It was therefore D. 3. hard to sell an increase in funds to a “corrupt” 1955 organization. Eisenhower 9. President Bush, who was like Reagan, was more 4. lenient towards affordable housing policies. He 1960 wanted a kinder and gentler approach to the 5. Kennedy affordable housing policies. 1965 6. Johnson 10. Bill Clinton (D) won the election with a mild liberal vision. He believed in affordable housing, 1970 Nixon but also saw the faws of the welfare state. He Section 8. 7. 1975 even stated that the welfare State as we knew it E. Ford would be no more. President Clinton was not a far Carter 1980 8. left liberal, instead he continued most of Bush’s Termination section 8 policies. He expanded the voucher program, NC/SR. New HCV 1985 Reagan made the demolition of public housing possible LIHTC with HOPE VI, and combined Section 8 TBRA 9. 1990 F. with the vouchers to a new program called the 10. Bush Sr. housing choice voucher program. Even though HOPE VI 1995 President Clinton tried to give affordable housing Clinton a new and positive image, he did, for a Democratic 2000 11. President, very little to preserve it. After the major budget cuts of Reagan, Clinton did not try to get 2005 Bush Jr. the budget back to its old limit. But perhaps by HOPE VI CNI 12. passing moderate legislative pieces he hoped to 2010 RAD create stability for the program Obama 11.In the early 2000s, Bush Jr. was elected President. 2015 13. Although he agreed with many of former President Trump Reagan’s ideas, he chose to be milder to welfare 2020

Figure 3.5 Position of affordable housing policies 57 programs. In 2001, President Bush went (Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson) according to their ideology. But according to to war with Afghanistan and later in 2003, And some did not believe in governmental Hays (2012), that is not fair since a Presidential with Iraq. These two wars had put the intervention in the private market and would election cannot be treated as a mandate for focus of his administration on foreign have wanted to abolish public housing particular policy directions because of two affairs rather than domestic policies. And (Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan) reasons: he left affordable housing policies intact, After many different presidencies, big 1. Voters are poorly informed about issues this was different from previous wars such fuctuations in policies ended in the 1990s and and candidate’s positions on the issues; as the WWII and the Vietnam war where it seems that the liberals and conservatives and there were dramatic cuts on affordable have reached a stable status quo. Although 2. Voters choose candidates for many housing programs by Democratic as well in the 1990s HUD was still facing the threat of reasons, of which only a small part are as Republican Presidents. That is why it abolition due to its bad public image. In 1995, agreements or disagreements with a is striking that no large budget cuts on President Clinton came with a drastic plan to specifc policy stance. affordable housing policies have happened reinvent HUD and to improve HUD’s image. In the paper ‘housing in the seventies’, it was during the Bush regime. This plan is further discussed in chapter 3.4. even stated that generally the Department’s 12.During the mortgage crisis of 2008, legislative proposals to Congress were not President Obama came into power. During After the 1990s affordable housing policies based on a study or reevaluation of the relevant previous economic downturns such as the were no longer highly effected by wars and policies and legislative authorities. Until the great depression or the problems with economic downturns but instead were quite 1970s there was not even a long-range study public housing in the 1960s, Democratic stable, in the frst decade of the 21st century. looking toward the next year’s legislative Presidents have increased affordable The big question is, however, if President Trump program. Typically, each year was characterized housing funds dramatically. But the Obama who is considered like-minded President to by an effort by the agency to meet a deadline administration did not make revolutionary Ronald Reagan will break the status quo, or if for presenting to the Bureau of the Budget changes to HUD’s budgets or its programs. he will keep the system as it is. (OMB) the legislative recommendations for It seems that affordable housing is not high Altogether, it can be concluded that the the coming year (HUD, 1974:22-23). on the political agenda anymore and that ideology behind affordable housing has shifted Interviewee 3 even stated that new policies are Republicans and Democrats, conservatives a lot over time from right wing socialist to right often framed as cost effcient whilst political and liberals, have found a status quo with wing conservative. Each presidency seems to ideas are behind it (interview 3). which both parties could live. have focused on what they believed is right 13. In President Trump’s frst budget proposal Table 3.6 Analysis policy 1937 Table 3.7 Analysis policy 2017 of 2017 proposed a cut of 13% in HUD’s funding. Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives Wealth High Low Low-no Wealth High Low Low-no In short redistribution redistribution redistribution redistribution There has always been opposition from the Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low income low- middle low- low income low- middle low- low 3. Historical analysis conservatives to affordable housing programs especially public housing. On the other side, Position Dominantly Public in Mainly Private Position Dominantly Public in Mainly Private of public public collabo- with a passive of public public collabo- with a passive liberals have pushed for more affordable and private ration with role for public and private ration with role for public housing units, for both the low and medium parties in the private parties. parties in the private parties. incomes. From 1937 till the 1990s, almost affordable parties affordable parties housing system housing system every president felt differently about public Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic housing, some wanted it to become very large system system 58 3.2 Pruitt-Igoe

In 1954 the frst tenant moved into Pruitt-Igoe. Pruitt- After the Second World War many workers on the farm a boost to the economy. Therefore this part of public Igoe was a high rise public housing site located in st. felds in the south were replaced by machines. Because housing was quite popular. However the maintenance Louis, Missouri build with allocations from the 1949 the workers became obsolete they started heading of the public housing sites was less benefcial for the Housing Act. This project was designed by Minoru to the richer north of the United States. St. Louis was economy and federal funds for maintenance were Yamasaki who also designed the twin towers in NYC. one of those cities. Because these workers had just therefore excluded from the 1949 Housing Act. The This post modern site consisted of 57 acres of 11 story little to spare they ended up in slums. These slums idea was that maintenance should be payed by the blocks according to the modern architecture style. were highly dense unsanitary neighborhoods close to rental revenues. Typical for this architecture style was an orderly plan downtown. Rich business man in downtown wanted in which cars and pedestrians were separated, ample these slums to go because it was bad for business for The St. Louis down town renewal after the Second open space provided between the blocks, and fats downtown companies. The business men had a big World War should be the salvation of the city. Many were oriented to catch daylight and have free views. infuence in the creation of the 1949 Housing Act. projects were introduced of which most have been Tenants were very pleased with their new housing The 1949 Housing Act consisted of multiple aspects, realized, one of them is the famous Gateway Arch. facilities, there was plumbing, heating,electricity, it increased the federal role in mortgage assistance Other projects that were realized later were the but also a“warmth of community”. Chad Freidrichs and for the construction of public housing. The public Captain W.O. Pruitt and William L. Igoe public housing directed a documentary about Pruitt-Igoe which housing part had however enemies from the start, the sites. The Pruitt project was originally meant for the starts of with interviews with previous tenants. The chambers of commerce and realtors considered Public afro American population and the Igoe project for the tenants were very positive at frst:“When I moved in, housing as being un-American and as a communist white population of St. Louis. These two projects were it was one of the most exciting days of my life” “My erosion of the free market. This counter view point of fnanced by the 1949 Housing Act among many others. memories of Pruitt-Igoe are some of the best I have”. public housing did not stop the federal legislator from And Pruitt-Igoe was going to be a model example of People remember “a wonderful building with so many putting the 1949 Housing Act in place, however they how to build public housing. different smells of cooking” and “so many kids to did make their mark. These two project should make an end to the harmful play with”. But only a few years later in the mid 60’s Clearing slums and redeveloping the sites was a living environments of people that were living in criminality rates went up vacancy rates rose and living proftable market, it created jobs, knowledge and was slums. And at this moment the city of St. Louis foresaw conditions declined. In 1972 the problems became so big that the city of ST. Louis started demolishing Image 3.9: St Louis oasis in the desert (Still from Freidrichs, Image 3.8 St louis slums (Still from Freidrichs, 2011) 2011) the frst towers, in 1976 the razing of Pruitt-Igoe was completed. The important question that rises from this project is, what happened in those 18 years that made Pruitt-Igoe go from an “Oasis in the desert” to a no go area and what infuence did federal legislation have on Pruitt-Igoe and Pruitt-Igoe on federal legislation. This chapter is mainly based on the documentary of Chad Freidrichs (2011). This documentary is highly rated by HUD, the reaction of HUD on this documentary can be found at the end of this sub-chapter. 59 a tremendous growth in inhabitants of the city became mixed race (federal legislation was Pruitt-Igoe , and new federal legislation that for the next coming years going from 800,000 passed in 1968 with the civil rights act). targeted lower income households made that to over 1 million. The thought of such a large the rental revenues from Pruitt-Igoe dropped. increase meant that more slums would arise, The middle class and white working class were It dropped to a certain level where the common and that new housing units were needed for moving out of big cities into suburban areas areas were not cleaned anymore and heating the future. thanks to the same 1949 Housing Act that made ,windows and plumbing were not maintained In 1952 the construction of the Pruitt-Igoe Pruitt-Igoe possible. The whites received the and elevators stopped working. buildings started at the north west side of federal mortgage insurance and had a chance In 1968 the director of the ST. Louis Housing down town. This was a proud symbol of ST. to move out of the Pruitt-Igoe buildings, they Authority, Irvin Dagen was asked why there were Louis its rebirth. It was far more expensive than went to the suburbs. The suburbs all over the poor housekeeping practices. His response similar project throughout the nation, but it just United States were such a success that the was that there was a big pressing problem with showed how committed St. Louis was to renew population in the inner cities actually declined. the operating funds for the housing sites. its city. In 1954 after two years of construction The projections after the second world war the frst tenants were able to move in, one of were that St. Louis would grow soon to about From day one the buildings were not well them calls the Pruitt-Igoe project an oasis in the 1 million residents in the near future when maintained. The government payed for the desert, she was housed on the 11th foor and actually 1950 was the highest population the development but the maintenance needed called it the poor mans penthouse, she said it city has ever had and it decreased to only to come out of the rental revenues. But the was one of her most exiting moments of her 450,000 almost half in 1980. Public housing in revenues were not enough to pay for the life when she moved in. The reason why she St Louis was always used as a segregation tool. maintenance labor. One of the tenants claims called it an oasis in the desert is simple. The The local authorities did do everything in their that she believes Pruitt-Igoe would still have housing units around Pruitt-Igoe were low rise power to prevent negro dissegregation, and been here if it was well maintained after it was high dense slums. Pruitt-Igoe was high rise with to keep afro American families concentrated in opened. lots of space and greenery on the ground foor. certain areas. Projects were thought of as white These tenants had middle to low incomes and or black project solely. So the decreasing rental revenues, increasing the rental revenues were high enough to pay vacancy rates and decreasing maintenance for proper maintenance. Only two years after The departure of the middle class, the is not a reason why people were making the frst tenants moved in, in 1956 the state continuous fow of low income households from fres, throwing in windows and trashing the of Missouri adopted a new law prohibiting the south, the policy of the St Louis Housing properties. There are different reasons for segregation in apartment blocks so that they Authority to place the poorest households in this frustration starting with the feeling of

Figure 3.12: Inhabitants St. Louis own image based on Image 3.10: After completion (Still from Freidrichs, Image 3.11: After completion (Still from Freidrichs, Genealogybranches. (2017) 2011) 2011) 900,000

3. Historical analysis 675,000

450,000

225,000

0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 60 imprisonment. by making the premises indestructible. Light bulbs The residents demanded three things had iron wire around it so they could not be smashed. 1. To declare the area as a disaster and emergency The welfare department had a rule that no man who This gave the residents only a bigger challenge to fnd area. was not disabled and had no job could be in the house ways to destroy the property. The hatred against the 2. The evacuation of the citizens if the woman was to receive aid, if the man lost his job system became a game, where the residents were 3. To work on a permanent solution for the projects. he needed to leave the home. Families who were living fghting the police, fre department and Housing The residents were evacuated for the repairs, this in slums got the opportunity to live at the projects, but Authority until it became a no go zone for these lead to empty buildings. These empty buildings were the men, the father of the children was not allowed agencies. Stuff was thrown at them from high up the ransacked straight after, people started to go in and to move with them if he was healthy without a job. apartment, cars were being smashed. tried to steal all the copper that was inside the building. This lead to split families and they did not understand Drug users and dealers moved in the empty buildings why their families were being split up. The dads and Since more an more vandalism arose the Housing with no control what so ever, they could see the police husbands did often visit their families, but the welfare Authority felt that it was necessary to increase rents. coming from miles. The Pruitt-Igoe buildings became department even had a group of night-staff whose job The Housing Authority raised rents up to three times a drug heaven. This was for the Housing Authority the it was to go by the homes in the projects to see if there a year. Some families payed 75% of their income fnal point, they decided to start demolition in 1972 on were man who were not allowed to be there. to rent. This was the main cause for people to start 3 buildings, the frst was even on national television. In demonstrating and voting. This lead to the limitation 1974 the St. Louis Housing Authority received approval Besides splitting families up, the households were also of rent to 25% of their income in 1969 and the residents to demolish all the Pruitt-Igoe homes. In 1976 the site not allowed to have a telephone or television. These received a bigger say in the operations. The fnancial was cleared. restrictions and governmental control made people defcit of the Housing Authority was country wide due Pruitt-Igoe is often used as an example for the failure feel like prisoners in their own home and felt like they to the new rent limits of the Brooke amendment. This of public housing, the welfare state and modernistic have been treated inhuman. There was often criticism opened the door for operational and maintenance architecture, but there were a lot of thing going on, on these paternalistic rules. These rules created a subsidies in 1970. which makes it hard to conclude that its failure was negative attitude against the Housing Authority and In February 1970 only two months after the rent strikes due to the modernistic planning or bad policy making. the welfare department. Rents were payed, it was dirty a big disaster emerged. Sewage and heating/water- One of the main reasons of failure was actually the around and people just stopped caring about their pipes burst due to a lack of maintenance. This meant decline in inhabitants in St. Louis, it had lost almost surroundings. This is when the vandalism started, the that people were out of heating in the middle of the half its inhabitants in the years that Pruitt-Igoe was in frustrations lead to throwing in windows, smashing cold winter. They heated their house with their gas operation. cars making fres etc. The authorities responded not stove. The Housing Authority put 30 extra carpenters by the source of this frustration, all the restrictions, but to work to fx almost 10.000 windows that were broken. HUD responded on the documentary, Their response

Image 3.14: Broken windows and heating (Still from Freidrichs, Image 3.15: Demolishing (Still from Freidrichs, 2011) Image 3.13: Deterioration (Still from Freidrichs, 2011) 2011)

61 was that planners thought that the projects this project. It is a given that Pruitt-Igoe was infuenced by would be fully operating with working class, federal legislation, however it is hard to say whilst it was partly vacant with lower class, and In the end the project was assigned by the if the opposite was also true. Pruitt-Igoe its that the lack of jobs, transportation and food new Housing Act of 1949, which foresaw the problems were also occurring to other public together with restrictive rules by the welfare construction of 135.000 new public housing housing sites nation wide. Maybe Pruitt-Igoe comity were the main reasons for disaster. units per year. Pruitt-Igoe was supposed to be showed the need for operational funds, maybe Interesting is the absence of acknowledgement the proof of the quality of public housing. The the riots showed the need for lower rents, in their reaction that the federal government project was build in the most liberal times of the maybe federal policies were based on the could possibly have saved the project if they affordable housing system in the United States. problems of Pruitt-Igoe, however this is hard to had administrated maintenance subsidies As fgure 3.16 clearly shows after the realization say. What we do know however is that federal (HUD, 2014). a much more conservative affordable housing legislation has had a very high impact on the policy was introduced. Even though President Pruitt-Igoe site. Analysis Kennedy and Johnson had a very liberal vision In the end it is a shame that all those homes, all The Pruitt-Igoe disaster teaches us that there is on public housing they focused on extending that federal capital was unnecessary lost. not just one reason why this project has failed, public housing rather than improving. It was it is not just because of the modernistic way only under President Nixon his regime that of building, it is not just because of the lack of operational and capital funds were assigned to funding, it is not only because of segregation, public housing projects, however this turned it not only because of paternalistic restrictive out to be to little to late. rules. But when you combine all these aspects It is the question if the housing units were to Pruitt-Igoe is proof that it can go wrong. When be repaired as the initial plan was in 1970 if the Pruitt-Igoe is compared to federal legislation projects would have survived the budget cuts there are a lot of similarities. The large funds of President Reagan in the 1980’s. All together for construction, the lack of maintenance the projects were build with the expectancy of funds, the sites becoming more concentrated growth in the city and mixed income housing. poor, no maintenance subsidies and active But ended up in a more conservative policy segregation policies. Federal maintenance with a shrinking population of St. Louis. funds came to late for Pruitt-Igoe although it is those funds that were needed the most in Figure 3.17: Segment of fgure 3.6

2. Truman 1950 C. D. 3. Image 3.16: Clear site (Still from Freidrichs, 2011) 1955 Eisenhower 4. 1960 3. Historical analysis 5. Kennedy 1965 6. Johnson 1970 Nixon Section 8. 7. 1975 E. Ford Carter 1980 8. Termination section 8 NC/SR. New HCV Reagan 62 3.3 Conducted cost effciency studies

Over the years multiple cost effciency studies of the the past, present and future. The report recounted costs incurred by the Gov ernment as a result of federal affordable housing programs have been the history of Federal involvement in housing and the program for example, administrative costs, conducted. Each study had its own methodology and assessed the cost-effectiveness of those programs. taxes forgone, default costs exceeding mortgage goal. The cost effciency analysis of this research in (HUD,1974) insurance premiums, and any special Government chapter 5 is based on the affordable housing portfolio interest rate subsi dies.”(HUD, 1974:90) of NYCHA (the New York City Housing Authority), Annual costs however the former affordable housing costs cost The direct subsidies appear to be far lower for public The total costs to provide for all the public housing effciency studies that are discussed in this sub-chapter housing than for the rent supplement program, at amenities is estimated at: $193 PUM which totals to have been conducted nationwide and do also include the same time the benefts to the recipients is higher $2,316 annual. The average tenant contribution has some other programs that have not been analyzed in for the public housing units as can be seen in table been $56 per month, leading to annual federal costs the cost effciency study of chapter 5 (such as LIHTC). 3.18. This means that public housing had at that time of $1,644 (the total costs). more amenities or were of better quality than the rent 1974 housing in the seventies supplement program. The value of the housing units This means that housing in the seventies calculated The report housing in the seventies was written on for the tenants was $912 for public housing and $607 the federal costs and compared the federal costs request of President Nixon as explained in chapter for the rent supplement program. At the same time instead of the total costs of the program. 3.1. President Nixon believed that a thorough cost the direct subsidy costs of public housing were lower effectiveness study should be conducted. In march than those of the rent supplement program. As the report states, the tenants do not view public 1973 this study started and a few months later in housing to be worth $1,644 per year because of: September 1973 it was presented to President Nixon However the report does state that: • $9 PUM required to administer the program with some policy recommendations. At this time there “The measurement of costs cannot be limited • $27 per month is due to technical incost effciency was only one major affordable housing program, merely to the Federal Government’s direct in producing housing service under the public public housing. Since 1968 a new temporary program subsidy payment but also must include any other housing program. was introduced, the rent supplement program, this • $25 per month is lost because tenant welfare is not program was made permanent in the 1974 Housing increased commensurately with the dollars spent Table 3.18: Cost effciency according to HUD (1974) Act under the name Section 8 housing. This lead up to an actual beneft to the recipient of The effciency study in the housing in the seventees Impact (Average) Public Rent $912. report was one of the frst policy cost effciency studies: housing supplement Percentage improvement in housing 71 NA The program cost effciency as the report calls it, is the “Generally, the Department’s legislative proposals Percentage increase in expenditures on 16 NA relation between the beneft of the recipient and the to Congress were not based on a study or other goods total costs, for public housing this was $912 / $1,644 reevaluation of the relevant policies and legislative Annual beneft to each recipient $912 $607 = 0.55 authorities. Until recently there was not even a For the rent supplement $607 / $1,310=0.46 Annual direct subsidy $702 $1,133 continuing long-range study looking toward the next year’s legislative program.” (HUD, 1974:22-23) Annual total costs recipient household $1,644 $1,310 This means that even though public housing has Annual beneft as percentage of income 24 23 turned out more expensive it is also more cost effcient The report analyzed the federal Government’s role in Program cost effciency 0.55 0.46 than the rent supplement program. This is because 63 public housing units were of better quality revenues could fnance it and whether housing HUD 2000 existing housing costs than the rent supplement housing units. When certifcates should be targeting developments This paper is an update of the 1995 HUD PD&R solely the costs are taken into account public where they are clearly cost-effective. study of average public housing and Section 8 housing was 25% more expensive than the voucher program costs, based on 1998 data. rent supplement program. It has to be noted The GAO (1995-b) report gives four different This paper concluded that the total average that from this report it is not clear from which scenarios with a variation of the current operational costs per occupied public housing input the $2,316 was derived, the results are operating costs, operating costs including unit are 8 to 19 percent higher than voucher therefore hard to compare with other cost rehabilitation costs, market rental value and subsidy costs (HUD,2000). effciency results. the fair market rent(FMR). There is, however, signifcant variability in They state that when the rehabilitation costs cost relationships within and among PHA GAO costs of housing 1995 are lower than the FMR and the market rental size groups. On average, public housing On May frst 1995, the Department of Housing value is above the FMR then it is advised to operated by large housing authorities tend and Urban Development (HUD) submitted keep the public housing units. When the to be more expensive than vouchers, while to Congress proposed legislation entitled FMR is lower than the revised operating costs public housing operated by small PHAs tend the “American community partnerships act.” including rehabilitation costs and higher to be less expensive. The comparisons are (GAO, 1995-b) than the market value it is not economically based solely on costs and do not address This act foresaw the transformation of public responsible to invest in these public housing other policy considerations (e.g., the potential housing units to Section 8 housing units. units. deconcentration benefts of vouchers or the Considering that proposal the GAO permanency, stability, and ease of providing researched: elderly services offered by public housing • the cost implications and the issues raised developments). by transitioning from the current public Table 3.19: Cost effciency existing housing according housing program to a housing certifcates to HUD (2000) GAO comparing total costs of programs program 2002 Program/ Public Public housing Section 8 • key factors that may affect HUD’S plan to Location housing cost per vouchers cost To help the Congress and others to better provide greater housing choice for the cost per occupied unit per occupied understand how federal resources are used, residents of public housing. (GAO, 1995-b) unit unit GAO analyzed the characteristics and costs Operating $214 $240 of the housing units under multiple federal The results of this research was that the average subsidies programs (GAO, 2002). This GAO report costs of converting to housing certifcates PH drug $16 $18 analyzed the total costs of the affordable versus continuing the current public housing elimination housing unit and not just the federal costs. program, were lower. However it is mentioned Capital Fund $189 $213 that the averages reveal wide differences. Hope VI $42 $47 Total costs of public housing

For some public housing developments the Gross rents $187 $193 $193 The total costs include operating expenses 3. Historical analysis current average costs are less than half of that (e.g., administrative expenses, utilities, routine PH other $9 $10 of an certifcate. However for deteriorated revenues maintenance, and property taxes); debt public housing units the opposite is true. service; deposits to a replacement reserve for Sec. 8 $438 These wide variations in cost raise a number of voucher major capital improvements over time; and a important issues, including whether the federal subsidies market return to equity investors. government should pay for the rehabilitation of Total funds $658 $722 $641 For production programs, costs are more public housing developments when their rental complicated because an asset with a long HUD subsidy $462 $519 $438 64 useful life is produced. In the private housing market, Total costs of housing vouchers lifetime comparison is a fair comparison when the the value of the housing unit equals the present The total costs of vouchers is the total rent paid, thus project-based assistance programs beneft from a discounted value (PDV) of the net rental income the sum of the contribution of the federal government longer time frame and the lifetime of 30 years is really stream over the useful life: and the contribution of the tenants and the fee paid by low. the Department of Housing and Urban Development Value = PDV(Net Rental Income) (HUD) to the local Housing Authority to administer the Total cost comparison federal housing assistance The rental income stream must cover the total costs: program: programs 2003 For both vouchers and the production programs, the PDV(Rental Income) = Total Costs = Total Total Costs = Rents + Administrative Fee estimates of total costs recognize that rents are paid Development Costs + PDV(Operating Costs) over many years and development subsidies are paid In the private market, if the present discounted value The conclusion of this report is given in table 3.20 either up front or over many years. Vouchers are short- of market rents does not cover total costs, the housing and 3.21. The conclusion is that during the frst 30 term commitments to provide housing assistance, development will not be built. Federal production years HOPE VI has been 3% more expensive than the while production programs provide units with certain programs generally provide housing at below-market voucher program and that HOPE VI was 10% more restrictions to ensure that the units will remain rents or provide housing in locations where market expensive than LIHTC. When only the production affordable in the future, often more than thirty years. rents would be insuffcient to cover costs. In either costs are taken into account HOPE VI is 89% more To account for differences in the timing of investments case, the difference between total rents paid and total expensive than the tax credits. under the various programs, the thirty-year life- cycle costs is covered by development subsidies. Therefore, costs are estimated. Longer time frames for the life for production programs, the relationship is as follows: However GAO (2002) previously stated that the NPV cycle tend to favor production programs in terms of is calculated over the useful lifetime, it is disputable costs because of the impact of rent infation over time. Total Production Program Costs = PDV(Rental that 30 years is the useful lifetime of a building. Dipasquale (2003) does state that his paper is based Income) + PDV(Development Subsidies) Over the whole country the current average age on the GAO 2002 report. That is why the same of public housing units is 37 years (Schwartz,2012). methodology is used, and similar results arise. Dipasquale(2003) stated that longer time periods Apparently when tax credits and vouchers are would favor project-based assistance, such as public compared with the same amount of bedrooms Table 3.20: Cost effciency according to GAO (2002) housing/ HOPE VI. Thus it is questionable if a 30 year vouchers are less expensive than tax credits. Table First year First 30 years 3.20 did not account for comparable properties. It Table 3.21: Production costs according to DiPasquale (2003) Program/ Bed- Adjusted total per Adjusted total per and GAO (2002) is interesting to see that internal documents of HUD Location rooms: unit cost of voucher unit cost of voucher refer to the 2003 research by Dipasquale instead of Location Tax credits HOPE VI Vouchers the 2002 research by GAO. Nation $73,590 $143,450 Nation 2.2 $7,870 160,580 Metro $75,690 $143,450 GAO 2006 Metro 2.2 $8,350 $170,370 From 1998 through 2004, annual budget for Section Nonmetro $62,010 NA Nonmetro 2.1 $5,660 $115,500 8 increased from $9.4 billion to $19.3 billion, while outlays grew from $14.8 billion to $22.2 billion. Tax Credits Table 3.22: Estimated total 30 year costs by general location GAO estimates that about 43 percent of the growth Nation 1.9 $7,380 $150,470 according to DiPasquale (2003) in voucher outlays from 1998 through 2004 came Metro 1.9 $7,770 $158,510 Location Tax credits HOPE VI Vouchers from policy decisions that increased the amount of Nonmetro 2.0 $5,390 $109,990 2 bedroom $184,130 $161,650 vouchers(from 1.6 million to 2.1 million), whilst over half HOPE VI 3 bedroom $203,510 $196,470 of this growth was due to an increase in the average

Metro 2.4 $8,610 $175,580 2.4 bedroom $248,720 $175,577 rental subsidy per household. For the project-based 65 program, a modest increase in the average such as HOPE VI, the existing stock is now analyzed, the operating costs of existing rental subsidy per household drove the growth cheaper per unit than vouchers (due to high housing, the development costs of newly in outlays but was partly offset by a reduction annual outlay increases in vouchers and build units and the total amount of costs for of 62,000 in the number of units. relatively fat funding for public housing, the programs often calculated over 30 years. and the effectiveness of mark to market in Some are based on future expectations and The GAO (2006) research shows that the reducing PB Section 8 costs” (HUD, 2008) future costs and some are based on historical subsidy costs per households have increased costs. The different reports have given different for vouchers between 1999 and 2004 with 42 HUD existing housing costs 2010 results on which program is most cost effcient. % (and 25% considering infation). Whereas the An internal unpublished document from the However one thing is clear, longer time costs for Section 8 pbra have only increased policy and research department of HUD shows periods beneft project-based rental assistance with 12%. that public housing is less expensive than programs, especially public housing. Most of vouchers or project-based Section 8. Vouchers the previous total costs effciency studies have GAO (2005) estimates that growth in the are in this research the most expensive taken a maximum of 30 years lifetime into average annual HAP per voucher per unit from program, almost 36% more expensive than account whilst public housing units are often 1999 through 2004 is primarily explained by : public housing (table 3.23). It is however not still operational even after 80 years. • Over one-half of the total increase was clear how HUD has come to these results. explained by changes in market rents. (HUD, N.D.-d). Existing housing operating costs • About one-quarter of the total increase At the same time the report states that in a Two cost analysis have been conducted about was due to overall higher payment metro area public housing costs are around the operating costs by HUD (HUD, 2000) standards—that is, by PHAs’ exercising $433 (per unit per month) PUM and in non- (HUD, N.D.-d). The result of the operating their fexibility to increase the maximum metro areas around $276 PUM. It is not clear cost study of HUD (2000) is that public housing amount of rental subsidy they can pay for how these two fgures can both lower than the per occupied unit is 18% more expensive than assisted households. cost per month in table 3.23 but does show Section 8 vouchers. They do however state • About 16 percent of the increase was due that public housing is a lot cheaper in rural that it is highly depended on the area, some to the fact that the incomes of assisted areas than metro areas (HUD, N.D.-d). public housing units are twice as expensive as households grew modestly during this vouchers and some public housing units are period and did not keep up with increases HUD 2016 twice as cheap as vouchers (HUD, 2000). The in market rents. In 2016 HUD stated in an unpublished report is based on data from 1998. document the actual and forecast TBRA per HUD 2008 unit costs from 2000 till 2018(HUD, 2016-b). In 2010 a different picture arises, here the An internal HUD document stated about the In 2004 the costs of vouchers were $395 PUM, vouchers are 35% more expensive than public cost effciency of various programs: in Q2 2016 the per unit costs of the vouchers housing (HUD, N.D.-d). The per unit costs of “While vouchers are cheaper than new were $624 an increase of 58% in twelve years. public housing have increased with 5.5%, the construction under more targeted programs The median forecast for 2018 is $654, which per unit costs of vouchers have increased 3. Historical analysis Table 3.23: Per unit costs, existing units according to is an increase of 5% compared to 2016 (HUD, with 51% (HUD 2000)(HUD, N.D.-d). This HUD. (N.D.-d). 2016-b). large growth in the costs for vouchers is also Analysis acknowledged by GAO (2006) and HUD (2016- Program Cost/unit All these cost effciency studies have b) which state that between 1998 and 2004 Vouchers $661 determined different kinds of cost effciency at the costs of vouchers have increased with 43% Project-based Section 8 $648 different periods in time. and that between 2004 and 2016 the costs for

Public housing $487 In general there are three different costs vouchers have increased further with 58%(GAO, 66 2006)(HUD, 2016-b). Since the costs for vouchers have public housing were much lower in 1974 than the rent grown signifcant it is diffcult to conclude based on supplement program, however by including other these reports which program is most cost effcient in costs such as administrative costs, taxes forgone, 2017. Curhan (1995) also stated that public housing etc. public housing was more expensive than the rent is more expensive because it has a maintenance supplement program. This analysis did show however backlog. If that backlog would not exists the subsidies that public housing gave more value on the dollar to for public housing could be far lower. At the same tenants than housing vouchers did (0.55 vs 0.46). time with public housing the drug elimination fund is also taken into account, according to Curhan (1995), The total costs research of GAO (2000) and DiPasquale this fund is not only needed for public housing but (2003) show that in the metro area the tax credits are also for other affordable housing programs. the cheapest whereas HOPE VI (public housing) is most expensive. These studies base their results on a Development costs new housing 30 year lifetime. Tax credits can expire already after 15 There are multiple project-based programs that years, which meant that two times the tax credits can develop affordable housing. Two reports outline the be needed for the full 30 years. Besides that HOPE costs for developing new housing: DiPasquale (2003) VI and public housing units are often in use for a long and GAO (2000). But since DiPasquale based his period of time. In NYC all the original developed fndings on the GAO records it can be considered as buildings from the 1930’s are still in operation, one research. meaning that the life time of public housing can even With HOPE VI, which can be seen as public housing, be 80 years or maybe even 90 years. That means that it costs $143,450 to produce one affordable housing during those 90 years public housing had only one unit against $73,590 with tax credits. This is a huge time the development costs, whereas tax credits difference in costs, although a distinction between with an expiration period of 30 years would need 3 these programs have to be made. HOPE VI units will different projects. remain affordable for often more than 80 years (and in principle indefnite), the tax credits can leave the The development costs of public housing should affordable housing program after 15 years, with a therefore be spread by more than 30 years. contract expiration date after 30 years. Besides that, the costs for HOPE VI include other aspects as well The longer the period of time period of the cost such as, costs of remediation, demolition, construction effciency study the more cost effcient HOPE VI and of community facilities, relocation and community- public housing become. Public housing units are based planning. Without these extra costs HOPE VI on average at the moment 37 years old, with many would have cost $117,920 to develop, still being far of the old buildings build in 1937 still standing. This more expensive than the tax credit units (DisPasquale, means that a 30 year lifetime is disadvantageous for 2003). HOPE VI and public housing, it would be interesting to know why these studies have calculated with a 30 Total costs, development plus operating year lifetime knowing that the actual lifetime of public A cost analysis of the total costs was conducted by housing units is much longer. HUD (1974) and GAO (2000)/DiPasquale (2003). The results of 1974 might not be as relevant now, but the research is still interesting. The direct subsidies for 67 3.4 Proposal to change the system

The HUD reports: “blueprint for reinvention” Secretary Henry Cisneros, facing investigation own homes. in 1994 and “from blueprint to action” in 1995 for payments made to a former mistress. • Recipients of federal assistance should be foresaw a complete transformation of HUD Whatever the actual reason might be, experts obliged to meet certain responsibilities in and its affordable housing programs. HUD agreed that HUD its programs are in need of return. its efforts on affordable housing are critical reform, and industry analysts admit that assisted • The federal government has an essential to the lives of millions of Americans, but it is housing is in a state of crisis (United States, and appropriate role in upholding national also critical that HUD carries out that mission 1995). On a theoretical level voucherization ideas that might be diffcult to sustain effciently and effectively (United States, 1995). should lead to cost savings and providing locally. The blueprint for reinvention proposes to families with an individual choice, besides that • HUD its recourses should be used to end combine over 60 affordable housing programs it can also alleviate the concentration of poverty the physical and social isolation of low- in three new performance funds. But maybe by enabling low income families to move out income households. the largest adjustment to the affordable of poor neighborhoods (United States, 1995). housing system is that public housing would However as explained in the previous chapter Three performance funds be transformed to market rent housing where cost effciency studies were often conducted The blueprint for reinvention will radically eligible tenants could receive vouchers. In the in a disadvantageous way for project-based change the current affordable housing system. blueprint for reinvention HUD responds to the rental assistance. The current system with almost 60 programs American people their desire for a government will be transformed into three performance that works better and costs less(United States, Principles for reinvention plan funds: 1995) The HUD reinvention plan is based on seven 1. Community opportunity fund principles : (United States, 1995) 2. Affordable housing fund Background of the reinvention plan • Low and moderate income households 3. Housing certifcate fund The “HUD reinvention: from blueprint to should have greater power to make action” is a response to critics from the right decisions about their lives, and the Community opportunity fund (COF) and left side of society to the 1994 proposal government should support self- The community opportunity fund will combine to transform the public housing system. The suffciency. HUD will respect individual multiple programs including the community new 1995 proposal is a moderated version of choices to enable residents of assisted development block grant. The base of the the 1994 proposal but still leaves intact most housing to fnd the best shelter they can. community opportunity fund is the community of the controversial measures (Gugliotta, • Decision-makers at local levels should have development block grant, however the goals 1995). Curhan (1995) states that the blueprint maximum fexibility to design and utilize stated will be more clearly than before, a 3. Historical analysis for reinvention was introduced in response to federal resources consistent with federal bonus fund will be introduced for the housing congressional threats of abolishment the of objectives. authorities that meet their performance goals HUD and mounting criticism on public housing • Representatives must have an and the new fund will increase the fexibility of conditions. Gugliotta (1995) states that this opportunity to inform decisions through the current programs (United States, 1995). proposal comes at a critical time for HUD, a comprehensive consolidated planning targeted for elimination by some republicans. process. Figure 3.24: Blueprint for reinvention based on United And it also came at a bad time for Housing • More families must be able to buy their States (1995) 68 60 affordable housing programs including:

Public housing Community development block grant Home programs Section 8 tbra Section 8 pbra HOPE programs

COF HCF AHF Community Housing certificate Affordable housing development fund fund fund

Public housing Tenant based vouchers (1.4 million) (4.1 Million totaal) Section 8 TBRA (1.5 million) Section 8 PBRA (1.2 million)

Deconcentration of poverty 3/6 year transformation period for public housing

Saving federal funding (60 billion in 5 years) Eliminating one for one replacement rule

Deregulate for higher landlords participation One federal uniform system 6969 Affordable housing fund (AHF) lease violations can loose their certifcate. years. The larger authorities will convert public The affordable housing fund will combine housing units to the certifcate program in multiple programs including the HOPE and The HCF program will offer eligible families three stages (United States, 1995): HOME programs(United States, 1995). a real choice and opportunity to escape from 1. Deregulation and program consolidation concentrations of poverty: (United States, 2. market based rents with project-based Housing certifcate fund (HCF) 1995) assistance The blueprint for reinvention will consolidate • A single standardized application for all 3. market based rents with tenants based the voucher program and replace project- jurisdictions will mean that tenants will only assistance based housing assistance including Section have to fll in a form once. 8 PBRA and public housing with vouchers. • Recipients of housing assistance can use Finance The result of the reinvention would be that all their certifcates for any decent quality The affordable housing system in 1995 was PBRA affordable housing units will transform housing regardless of the rent level and known as costly and counterproductive. It was to tenant-based rental assistance under the the jurisdiction. believed that demand side assistance is more housing certifcate fund. This fund will assist • One performance standard to award bonus effcient and thus less costly than project- around 4.1 million households (1.4 million funds will refect success in marketing the based, supply side programs (Curhan, 1995). through former public housing, 1.2 million program. Funds can be saved with the reinvention through former Section 8 PBRA, and 1.5 • In high poverty urban areas PHA’s must because every dollar goes straight to the million through former Section 8 tbra) (Curhan, subcontract counseling agencies to tenants rent without any middle man from 1995). This makes the HCF the main vehicle to maximize opportunities for assisted public organizations. And besides that private provide subsidies for low income households families. landlords would be able to provide affordable up to 50% AMI (United States, 1995). • HUD will require cities with severe poverty housing in a more effcient way because they The new program will encourage and reward concentrations to use a proportion of the understand market discipline (Curhan, 1995). work. It will allow PHA’s to issue up to half of their certifcates to move families from high A huge cost saving could be reached by certifcates to working families in preference poverty areas to low poverty areas. transferring to the tenant-based voucher over other families, and it will require non program according to “the 1988 report of the working families to perform community work Transformation of public housing Presidents commission on privatization“. It is (United States, 1995). Public housing was serving around 1.3 million argued that project-based rental assistance The certifcates may also be used to become a households in 1995, which provided a stable costs twice as much as tenant-based rental homeowner instead of paying rent. affordable housing portfolio. Despite this assistance (Curhan, 1995). To encourage greater landlord participation critical function public housing was plagued by In 1988 the congressional budget offce certain burdensome requirements will be some serious problems (United States, 1995). estimated that over 20 a twenty year lifetime eliminated (United States, 1995): public housing would be 30% more costly than • The take one take all requirement (when a The reinvention proposal envisions an orderly housing the same family through vouchers. But landlord accepting one tenant must accept and prudent transformation to prepare as explained before in the previous chapter,

3. Historical analysis all tenants) will be dropped. agencies and the residents for a shift to a project-based housing assistance becomes • The prohibition against lease termination market environment. Gugliotta (1995) states more cost effcient when a longer lifetime is will be eliminated. that to effectively end public housing by taken into consideration. A 20 year lifetime • A minimal 90 days notice before lease converting all project assistance to vouchers for public housing is very low considering that termination will be eliminated. is the most dramatic aspect of this blueprint. the average age of public housing units nation • Landlords may screen applicants. Small PHA’s will convert to the certifcate model wide currently is 37 years(Schwartz,2012). • Families that have been evicted for serious within 3 years, larger PHA’s will convert within 6 Later Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros 70 estimated that the HUD reinvention would save $60 Second, the capital funds for public housing are the Reinvention would have ... has resulted in an billion over the next fve years (Curhan, 1995). artifcially infated and misleading and HOPE VI funds incomplete cost beneft analysis . Such lack of proper would continue in the future voucher program. If refection could lead to signifcant unanticipated Criticism on the blueprint of reinvention public housing was to be well maintained instead of costs which, if considered initially, might alter HUD’s Curhan (1995) states that the blueprint for reinvention having a maintenance backlog the costs would only voucherization strategy. “ is not as good and benefcial as the government be $377 PUM, $63 less than the $440 voucher costs portrayeds it to be. She suggests that a more thorough (Curhan, 1995). Analysis and careful analysis indicates that the assumptions as The blueprint for reinvention foresees a few large stated in the reinvention such as: lower costs, more Tenants choice changes. First, it makes the affordable housing system individual choice, deconcentrating poverty would not Curhan (1995:250) states that: less complicated by combining about 60 programs hold true or be practical on a universal basis. “Rather than enhancing resident choice, HUD;s into just three programs. Interviewee three also stated Curhan (1995) even states that housing certifcates blueprint would seriously constrict residents already that the current system is to fragmented and that an would cost more on a national level than current HUD limited options by lowering Fair Market Rents by affordable housing system which is clear and logical subsidies, and might also fail to enable recipients eliminating the only permanent source of affordable has the preference over the current system(interview to exercise free choice and fail to reduce the housing reserved for low income families (an 3). One of the largest changes is that publicly owned concentration of poverty. While voucherization might investment of nearly $100 billion)” and operated housing units are transferred to the be an effective program for the most troubled public private market. This privatization is a long wish of housing units, the demand-side program could create There are not enough available or affordable housing conservatives, liberals tended to be against it. So it is unfavorable effects in other neighborhoods (Curhan, units. In 1991 there were 3.4 million housing units a surprise that this proposal came from a democratic 1995). short for the extremely low income households. President. In return the liberals hope to get more Concerns are that the voucherizations would increase support for the affordable housing system and to Costs this shortage even further since the blueprint loosens avoid termination of HUD, and by saving money more Curhan (1995) states that the HUD comparison of the demolition regulations, about 80,000 to 100,000 people could be assisted. Section 8 costs with public housing is misleading, and public housing units are expected to be demolished Curhan (1995) states that the decision to voucherize states that public housing is actually cheaper than without being replaced (Curhan, 1995). is highly political in nature and that congress will Section 8 housing. Her claims are supported by a 1992 ultimately determine the amount HUD will spend on HUD analysis that found that the average 20 year cost Second, landlords discriminate against voucher either type of housing program. of maintaining existing public housing inventory on holders and low income and minority families. a per unit basis was less than the cost of converting Landlords often refuse voucher holders based on to vouchers, a 1995 HUD analysis concluded that virtue or by the HUD regulations that they have certifcates and public housing had comparable costs. to admit to (such as strict eviction rules and HUD Table 3.25: Analysis reinvention 1995 Based on the 1995 appropriations for public housing inspections)(Curhan, 1995). Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives HUDS offce for policy development and research Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no calculated that the costs per unit per month (PUM) Concentrated poverty redistribution were $481. The costs of vouchers were calculated at In the 1990’s the average income of public housing Target groups Extremely Extremely low- Extremely low $440 PUM (Curhan, 1995). residents is at an all time low. By giving all the public income low- middle low But Curhan (1995) fnds that these HUD calculations housing residents vouchers, HUD does not consider Position of public Dominantly Public in Mainly Private are faud on a few aspects, if public housing would two aspects, one the massive demand shock on and private parties public collabo-ration with a passive transfer to vouchers that would mean that other costs the private market and two the potential signifcant in the affordable with private role for public would be transferred to vouchers as well such as the change of neighborhood dynamics. Curhan (1995:257) housing system parties parties. drug elimination program ($20 PUM). states: “HUD’s failure to fully consider the impact Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic 71 3.5 Conclusion

Sub-Research question: three quarters is privately owned affordable most of these cost effciency methodologies “How have the affordable housing programs housing. Most of the affordable housing are therefore disadvantageous to public developed over time from a welfare state policy decisions seem to have come from an housing. perspective, and what have previous cost ideology perspective. In the 1990’s after a With limited to no demolitions of publicly effciency studies concluded?” conservative period of President Reagan, HUD owned project-based rental assistance and Over the years mainly public project-based was facing (again) a threat of abolishment. To only new privately owned tenant-based rental housing assistance gained lots of criticism counter this threat it was proposed that HUD assistance and tax credits it seems like the from conservatives. The Republicans tried should reinvent itself. Although the proposed politicians from both sides have reached a multiple times to abolish affordable housing reinvention of HUD was more in line with status quo. Figure 3.5 shows how the policies programs whilst liberals tried to expend the United States ideologies it was poorly have changed over time and table 3.6, 3.7and affordable housing programs. Especially in the researched and faced a lot of criticism. Curhan 3.25 show the ideology of the policies. frst 50 years the policy choices were driven (1995) states that the decision to voucherize mainly by ideology (although sometimes is highly political in nature and was not based portrayed as cost effciency), and every on cost effciency as the founders of the few years the affordable housing policies reinvention stated. Interviewee 3 adds that changed dramatically. Hays (2012) stated that new policies are often framed as cost effcient a Presidential election cannot be treated as whilst political ideas are behind it. a mandate for particular policy. However this analysis shows that almost always politicians Some criticism of the reinvention plan was have used the elections as a confrmation of based on the methodology of the costs study their political mandate. behind the proposal. Multiple sources even account that the As discussed, there are many ways to effectiveness and cost effciency of the policies determine the cost effciency of affordable were seldom tested, and that in general there housing programs and every method has its was not enough manpower to conduct these pro’s and con’s, however in general project- studies. based rental assistance programs were rated The criticism together with the drive from less cost effcient than they actually are due liberals to provide affordable housing lead to a to the inclusion of subprograms and the less active government concerning affordable limited timespan of the studies. The different 3. Historical analysis housing. After the 80’s the focus shifted from cost effciency researches over time have had project-based rental assistance to tenant- very different outcomes, and are therefore based rental assistance and tax credits. But inconclusive. Most cost effciency studies have there was also another shift from publicly owned stated that longer timespans in the effciency to privately owned affordable housing units. study would favor project-based rental Before 1974 almost all the affordable housing assistance, but often use really small timespans units were publicly owned, nowadays around to calculate the cost effciency. This means that 72 4. Policy analysis

73 4.1 US housing system

The United States has multiple programs that Congress (which is divided into the House housing in the US. provide affordable housing. Chapter 4 focuses of Representatives and the Senate). The The mission of HUD is as follows: on how the U.S. government is currently legislative branch is responsible for making organized and illustrates the current state of and adopting new laws. ”HUD’s mission is to create strong, affordable housing programs in the US. This sustainable, inclusive communities and chapter further answers the third sub-question: 2. The executive branch executes quality affordable homes for all. HUD is How is the current federal affordable housing and enforces laws. The executive branch working to strengthen the housing market system organized? includes the President, the Vice President, the to bolster the economy and protect cabinet, the executive departments, several consumers; meet the need for quality Reader guide chapter 4: independent agencies and other boards, affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a 4.1 Discusses the system of affordable housing commissions and committees. platform for improving quality of life; build 4.2 Discusses and analyzes the housing inclusive and sustainable communities free vouchers 3. The judicial branch interprets the law, from discrimination, and transform the way 4.3 Discusses and analyzes public housing applies laws to individual cases and determines HUD does business.” (HUD, N.D.-c) 4.4 Discusses and analyzes Section 8 whether a law violates the Constitution. The 4.5 Discusses and analyzes the LIHTC judicial branch encompasses the supreme In the Reagan administration, there was an 4.6 Discusses and analyzes three transformation court and other federal courts. infamous scandal within HUD. Funds allocated programs, CNI, HOPE VI and RAD to Section 8 (moderate rehabilitation) 4.7 Answering the sub-research question of Since this research focuses on housing were used by politicians for personal gain chapter 4 policies and how to improve those policies, (Hays,2012). To prevent such corruption in the the legislative branch and judicial branch are future, an independent party was established The U.S. housing system not within the scope of this research because to monitor HUD. In the United States there are multiple they are not responsible for, and do not create, The Offce of Inspector General is an stakeholders involved in the affordable housing policies. independent offce that ensures that HUD is housing system. To provide a clear overview implementing its resources to its best ability of all the actors involved, and to explain their The President is in charge of the executive and doing everything possible to prevent or branch. Thus, the cabinet answers to the

4. Policy analysis tasks and responsibilities, the housing system counter fraud. The Inspector General reports must be further explained. President and within the cabinet, the secretary to Congress and the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is of Housing and Urban Development (Offce of The United States Government the person responsible for housing policies. Inspector General, N.D.). The United States government consists of three branches: the legislative branch, the US Department of Housing and Urban However, HUD does not provide housing; it executive branch and the judicial branch (USA- Development provides funds to private parties and public Government, N.D.). The majority of the affordable housing housing authorities, who then provide housing. programs are administrated by HUD and 1. The legislative branch comprises therefore HUD is one of crucial to affordable 74 Housing authorities Housing programs assisted dwelling he loses his subsidy unless he is Housing authorities are local organizations that exist in The bulk of low-income housing assistance in the able to fnd an alternative subsidized housing unit every town or county. Housing authorities implement US is funded by the federal government through a before moving. Examples of project-based affordable HUD policies. The main task of a housing authority is substantial number of programs that, in total, cost over housing programs include public housing, privately to provide affordable housing. They achieve this by 50 billion USD per year (Olsen & Zabel, 2015). Many owned subsidized projects (Section 8) and low-income assigning housing choice vouchers, operating public of the poorest families who are eligible for assistance housing tax credits. Project-based assistance serves housing facilities and subsidizing private housing will not receive assistance, but instead be placed on approximately 1.1 million households through public facilities to make them affordable for people in need. a waiting list (Olsen & Zabel, 2015). Each housing housing, roughly 1.2 million households through Housing authorities decide how federal funds are authority and private entity that operates a subsidized Section 8 project-based assistance and 2.1 million distributed and assigned to the local population. project establishes its own system for choosing the households through low-income housing tax credits Quite often housing authorities must deal with long order in which families on the waiting list are offered (HUD,2016). In total, project-based rental assistance waiting lists and may even be forced to close the assistance, within broad federal guidelines. All accounts for approximately 70% of all households waiting list due to a lack of funding. affordable housing programs have minimum housing that receive low-income rental assistance (HUD,2017) standards. The largest distinction between each (Olsen & Zabel, 2015). US Department of the treasury of the affordable housing programs is whether the The U.S. Department of the Treasury is the executive subsidy is attached to the dwelling unit (project-based Tax credits agency responsible for economic prosperity and assistance) or to the assisted household (tenant-based Unlike tenant-based assistance and project-based ensuring fnancial security. The Department of the assistance) (Olsen & Zabel, 2015). assistance, tax credits are not active subsidies but Treasury operates and maintains systems that are passive subsidies. This means that the government is critical for the nation’s fnancial infrastructure, such as Tenant-based assistance not actively spending money; instead, the government the production of coin and currency, the disbursement If a family is offered tenant-based assistance they provides discounts on taxes. This is in accordance of payments to the American public and revenue are free to occupy any available dwelling that meets with the neoliberal governmental system in the US collection (US Department of treasury, 2016). the program’s minimum housing standards, i.e. the (Hays,2012), in which small government is preferential The US Department of the Treasury’s mission is as rent is equal to or less than the program’s applicable to big government. Through tax credits, the treasury stated: ceiling, is affordable with the help of the subsidy and discounts the taxes that need to be paid by a “Maintain a strong economy and create economic whose owner is willing to participate in the program. company. Companies can receive multiple types of and job opportunities by promoting the conditions The family retains their subsidy rights whenever they tax credits, one of which is LIHTC. Companies receive that enable economic growth and stability at decide to move, as the subsidy is linked to the family this discount on their tax payments if they develop home and abroad, strengthen national security and not to the dwelling. Housing choice vouchers are affordable housing (OCC,2014). by combating threats and protecting the integrity a primary example of tenant-based assistance (Section of the fnancial system, and manage the U.S. 8 program). Relation HUD and housing authorities Government’s fnances and resources effectively.” Tenant-based assistance serves approximately 2.2 The 1937 Housing Act established the U.S. Housing (US Department of treasury, 2016). million households and accounts for almost 30% of all Authority. The Housing Authority has had very households that receive low-income rental assistance close ties with the federal government and is even The Department of the Treasury administrates one (Olsen & Zabel, 2015) (HUD,2016). headquartered in Washington DC. The federal affordable housing program known as the low-income government provides funds while the local authorities housing tax credits (LIHTC). The low-income housing Project-based assistance personally own, operate and manage public housing tax credits are tax deductibles that developers can With project-based assistance, the subsidies of HUD to provide safe to low-income families. Public housing request in exchange for developing low-income are not allocated to the tenants but to the owners is, with the exception of design and construction, a housing units. (private or public) of the dwellings. This means that purely public endeavor. Over time, new legislation when a tenant decides to leave the project-based has been introduced to the public housing program, 75 shifting it toward a hybrid system that involves HOPE VI. Project-based rental assistance units Analysis public, private and non-proft sectors. In the have also declined in the last 20 years, by Multiple systems within the U.S. Government 1990s, this hybridization was accelerated by nearly 600,000 units. These declines, however, work separately to provide affordable housing. the decentralization and reconceptualization have been more than offset by the addition Although 89% the American population of public housing (Nguyen, 2012). of 2.2 million new housing choice vouchers do support low-income housing, 90% of and LIHTC (see fgure 4.1). Currently, privately the population do not support the current The decentralization of public housing owned and operated properties house affordable housing programs, of which increased fexibility for public housing agencies nearly three quarters of assisted households there are four in 2017. Three of them are with regard to how they fund, develop and (Collinson, 2015). administrated by HUD ($40 billion annual) and manage public housing. This decentralization Research has indicated that 89% of Americans one program is administrated by the Treasury also led to a more custom-made context- support low-income housing assistance, but ($6 billion). specifc policy, resulting in greater cost that only 10% support the specifc low-income In accordance with its underlying ideology, the effciency and higher quality. housing programs implemented by the federal US tends to be reluctant toward governmental The concept of constructing simple brick and government (Collinson, 2015). interventions within the private market and mortar buildings to provide as much low- spending on the welfare state. This is especially income housing as possible was replaced Financial true for project-based active subsidies. With with a more sophisticated idea of high quality The three affordable housing programs regard to these subsidies, it is believed that housing in lower density, mixed-income and administrated by HUD cost $40 billion, while the government is too involved in the private scattered sites (Nguyen, 2012). While the the LIHTC costs another $6 billion (Collinson, market. Active tenant-based subsidies are federal government does not dictate what 2015). Although this is much higher than more in line with the country’s ideology. Passive local PHAs should do, it does set the budgets other welfare programs, it is a small amount subsidies, such as the LIHTC, provide homes and boundaries within which the PHAs work. compared to subsidies for homeowners. for those in need with minimum governmental Homeowners receive $195 billion worth of interventions, and as such are the most Affordable housing units passive subsidies through the tax code, and popular. Public housing was, until the 70s, the During the past 20 years public housing stock some have even argued that the total number only affordable housing program. However, has decreased by approximately 300,000 units, of subsidies for homeownership is closer to as evidenced in Figure 4.2, at present public roughly half of which were demolished under $600 billion (Collinson, 2015). housing only accounts for a small portion of the total assisted households. Indeed, 75% of the affordable housing units are privately owned Figure 4.1: Amount of affordable housing units of the different programs based on: Collinson (2015) and more and more units are passive subsidies. Public housing LIHTC TBRA section 8 PBRA section 8 Overall, 6.6 million households receive aid through these programs. As Chapter 2

4. Policy analysis 2.25 explains, however, there is still a signifcant need. Therefore, it can be concluded that all

1.5 these programs combined are still not able to provide suffcient affordable housing units.

0.75

0 Figure 4.2 United States Governmental housing 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 system 76 Legislative Executive Judicial

Congress President Supreme Court Senate Vice President Other Federal Courts House of representatives Cabinet

United States Secretary United States Secretary Office of inspector of the Department of General of Housing and Urban Development the Treasury

Tenant based housing Project based housing Project based housing assistance assistance assistance

Housing Choice Voucher Public Housing Section 8 LIHTC 2.2 Million 1.1 Million 1.2 Million 2.1 Million

Housing authority Housing authority Housing authority Housing credit agency 4.2 Tenant-based

As previously mentioned, tenant-based are some limitations however, such as After 1974, conservative politicians continued assistance consists of the housing voucher minimum quality standards, maximum rent to criticize public housing and other PBRA program (previous voucher program and and a minimal size. Once the tenant has programs. However, the majority of politicians Section 8 existing housing). This program found a suitable private housing unit, the viewed TBRA Section 8 and later, the housing helps approximately 30% of households that tenant, the PHA and the homeowner will choice vouchers as acceptable alternatives receive low-income rental assistance. Tenant- initiate a lease agreement. to public housing. After the introduction of based assistance essentially means that the 5. The tenant is supposed to pay 30% of their Section 8 in 1974, it has grown to become one assistance is linked to the tenant. Thus, when income to the home owner as rent. of the largest affordable housing programs in a tenant decides to move, he will continue 6. The PHA pays the difference between the the US. Liberals were pleased to observe an to receive housing assistance as long as the tenant’s rent and the rent price. This is also increase in the number of assisted families and chosen housing complies with HUD and PHA known as housing assistance payment the conservatives were pleased with programs regulations. This chapter further details the (HAP). that required a more passive role from the previous and current tenant-based assistance With this program, tenants have the freedom government than public housing. programs. to move all over the US to fnd decent housing, and it is also ensures that the housing that they History of tenant-based assistance How does tenant-based assistance work? fnd will be affordable. Section 8 existing housing program 1. The Department of Housing and Urban Although the Section 8 existing housing Development, i.e. HUD, assigns a certain Political opinion of housing vouchers program was only established in 1974, it had number of vouchers to a local PHA. In 1965, Democratic President Johnson been on the agenda since the frst Housing Act 2. Tenants will then apply for the vouchers at introduced the frst type of housing allowance. of 1937, and was often promoted in subsequent the local PHA. At the time public housing was the only policy discussions (Schwartz, 2015). In 1974, 3. If the tenant qualifes the PHA can assign a program that existed to assist low-income vouchers were only meant for people who voucher to the tenant. renters. In 1974, President Nixon made earned less than 80% AMI (poverty line). These 4. The tenant can then search for appropriate the program defnite in his Housing and vouchers paid for the difference between 25% housing on the private market. There Community Development Act. Section 8. of the tenants their income and the fair market rent levels; this percentage was later increased

4. Policy analysis Figure 4.3 Tenant-based rental assistance to 30% in the 1979 and 1981 Housing Acts. The TBRA fair market rents were on average lower 6. than the FMR of Section 8 NC/SR, because $ the tbra affordable housing units were mainly 1. Private old buildings. Research has revealed that the HUD PHA tenant housing Section 8 existing housing program’s annual $ per unit subsidy was less than half that of 2. the new construction program (Hays, 2012). 4. To qualify for this program a unit must meet 3. 5. $ certain standards regarding quality and space 78 and the owner must commit to inspections and submit politicians found it necessary to temporarily stop Contract renewals the necessary paperwork. issuing new vouchers between 1995-1998 and 2003- Contract renewals fund the renewals of expiring HCV 2007. Since 1995, the vouchers have increased with program housing assistance payments on a calendar- Voucher program more than 747,000 new vouchers. Although this may year basis. In the Housing Act of 1983, the newly constructed and appear to be a large increase, 62% of this growth is substantially rehabilitated program of Section 8 was the result of transferred project-based programs such Administrative fees terminated due to high costs. Simultaneously, a new as public housing and Section 8 NC/SR, which means Administrative fees are important for the HCV program program was introduced: the voucher program. The that only 38% are newly served families (Schwartz, because they provide local PHAs with the resources voucher program is similar to the existing housing 2015). In 2017 the number of households expected to necessary to administer the vouchers. These fees program, although with two key differences. use housing vouchers is 2.2 million (HUD, 2016). include, but are not limited to, managing waiting lists, 1. Instead of subsidizing the difference between conducting inspections, determining rents, approving 30% of the tenant’s income and the FMR, housing Financial system units and verifying incomes. authorities would designate a payment standard The funds for the housing voucher program are set by that represents the maximum allowable rent. the cabinet annually and dispersed by HUD among all Housing assistance payment 2. It allowed households the freedom to spend more the national housing authorities. These funds are then A payment standard is the amount generally required or less than 30% of their AMI. If the tenants chose given by local authorities to landlords who house low- to rent a moderately priced housing unit in the local a building with a higher rent than the payment income families, according to the housing voucher housing market. A housing-voucher household must standard, the tenants would have to pay more, program. In 2017 HUD requested $20.854 billion from use 30% of its income for rent and utilities and if the and if they chose one with a lower rent than the Congress for housing choice voucher appropriations: rent is greater than the payment standard, the family payment standard, they could keep the difference. this was half of a one percent increase from the budget is required to pay the difference. The family may never assigned in 2016 (HUD,2016). Of this budget, $18.447 spend more than 40% of its income on rent. Thus, Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV) billion would be assigned to contract renewals, the PHA pays the difference between the payment In the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act $2.077 billion to administrative fees and $110 million standard and 30% of the family’s monthly income of 1998 the two programs were merged into one; this to displaced public housing tenants. Funding for the (HUD, N.D.-a). On average, in 2016 households new program is called the Housing Choice Voucher HCV program consists of two main cost components: contributed $363 per month while HUD subsidized an program. Rents were linked to the FMR, but the (1) housing assistance payments (HAP) made to additional $640 per month (HUD,2016) payment standards could be between 90% and 110% owners to cover the difference between a tenant’s of the FMR. This new program also allowed tenants rent contribution and the payment standard and (2) The process to spend more or less than 30% of their income on administrative fees paid to PHAs to cover the cost of Eligible families who are in need of assistance can housing, but never more than 40%. It also permitted administrating the program (HUD,2016) (HUS, N.D.-a). apply to their local PHA for housing vouchers. Most tenants to use their vouchers anywhere in the US. It is evident that the market rent of the housing units PHAs, however, have a waiting list for approved At least 75% of voucher holders must fall within the is higher for people with vouchers than for people families and can even deny eligible families to wait extremely low-income groups (i.e. earning less than without them. Research has indicated that units that on the waiting list because if it is exceptionally long. 30% AMI) (Schwartz, 2015). accept vouchers can cost 50% more units that do Housing authorities may prioritize certain people who not accept vouchers. One might expect the quality are (1) homeless or living in substandard housing (2) Portfolio of these units to be higher, but this is not always the paying more than 50% of their income for rent, or (3) The Section 8 certifcates quickly became popular: case. Landlords are well aware of the local payment involuntarily displaced (HUD, N.D.-a). within 2 years more than 100,000 households were standards and increase the rent to the maximum When the PHA assigns a housing voucher to a low- serviced under this program. This number increased payment standard (Collinson, 2015). income family, the family is responsible for fnding to 625,000 in 1980 and by 2009 reached 2.2 million appropriate housing. When a family has found a (Schwartz, 2015). Since the vouchers were so popular, dwelling that they wish to occupy, they must reach 79 an agreement with the landlord. The landlord When low-income families want to move from publishes area-based median income levels must also agree to participate in the housing their house to another they will not lose their and local PHAs provide information about voucher program. In most states, participation housing vouchers, since moving is allowed as their respective area’s income limits and family by landlords is voluntary although 13 states and long as the families notify the PHA on time, size (HUD, N.D.-a). several localities have passed discrimination terminate their existing lease within the lease laws that prohibit landlords from discriminating provisions and fnd acceptable alternative Positive aspects of vouchers against voucher holders (Collinson, 2015). The housing. Under the voucher program, the Freedom of movement PHA must inspect the dwellings and determine families may move to any state, although they One of the main advantages of the housing that the rent requested is reasonable (HUD, must live in the area of the PHA where they choice vouchers is that they give people more N.D.-a). applied for the housing voucher for at least 12 options with regard to their living situation Once this is done and the PHA determines that months. than other subsidies. Project-based rental the dwelling meets all the minimum standards assistance policies force tenants to move into the housing voucher is assigned. Then once Target groups available projects, whereas vouchers allow a PHA approves an eligible family’s housing The PHAs must ensure that their funds families to fnd housing in any neighborhood. unit, the family and the landlord sign a lease are distributed to the proper candidates. This program was implemented in the contract and the landlord and the PHA sign a Therefore, HUD has set rules regarding the hopes that people would move out of highly housing assistance payment contract that runs eligibility of participants. Eligibility in the concentrated poverty areas that public housing for the same term as the lease. This means that program is based on gross income and family had created. In some respect, the vouchers all involved parties have obligations under the size and all participants must be either U.S. have succeeded with decentralize voucher voucher program: the tenant is required to pay citizens or non-citizens who have eligible holders, nowadays the voucher holders are his share of rent on time, maintain the unit in immigration status. In general, a family’s living throughout 88% of the 65,000 nations good condition and notify the PHA of changes income may not exceed 50% of the median census tracts. The 88% is quite high especially in income or family composition; the landlord income of the county or metropolitan area in compared to public housing which is only must maintain the dwelling so that it remains which they choose to live. By law a PHA needs located in 8% of the census tracts (Schwartz, above the minimum housing quality standards to provide 75% of its vouchers to applicants 2015). However, the policy has not been as set by the PHA (HUD, N.D.-a); the PHA must re- whose income does not exceed 30% of the effective as expected. Although tenants who examine the family’s income and the housing area’s median income. In 2011, 79% of tenants use housing vouchers live in less poverty- quality annually to see if everything still meets earned less than 30% AMI; in 2016 this was 75% and racially segregated areas compared to the program requirements (HUD, N.D.-a). (HUD,2016) (Olsen & Zabel, 2015). The HUD public housing residents, they live in higher poverty- and racially segregated areas than Figure 4.4: Total amount of voucher holders based on Figure 4.5: Income of voucher holders in 2017 own other project-based programs. Evidence has

Schwartz (2012) Total amount image based on HUD (2016) revealed that the vouchers do not succeed in 4. Policy analysis Low income 4% 1800000 countering the forces of racial discrimination and segregation (Schwartz, 2015).

1350000 Very low income 21% A relatively cost effcient policy

900000 According to Schwarz (2015), another major Extremely low advantage of the vouchers is their cost income 75%

450000 effciency. He has stated that the vouchers are less expensive than project-based subsidies

0 and provide a wider range of neighborhood 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 80 options. Public housing redeveloped under HOPE Rent infations make more affordable homes available. The housing VI would cost 27% more than the housing vouchers Since housing vouchers use private market housing, vouchers are an addition to the older public housing over the course of a 30-year period. Housing in tenants compete with other tenants on the private program. The conservatives prefer housing vouchers metropolitan areas fnanced by housing tax credits market. This increase in demand could lead to rent to public housing because the vouchers require less would cost 15% more according to Schwarz (2015). It infation. For example, a low-income family might from the federal government and utilize the private is striking, however, that no cost comparison has been rent an apartment for $900, while receiving a $600 market. made with one of the largest and oldest programs, subsidy. Thus, these low-income families compete However, both parties have also criticized the public housing. Moreover, these cost effciency with middle-income families who would be able to program. Liberals have found that special families, studies have only calculated the cost effciency over pay the $900 without subsidies. Theoretically, an such as exceptionally large ones or those with a family the last 30 years, although public housing and HOPE increase in demand and stable supply would increase member who has a disability, have a diffcult time VI development costs are supposed to last for a longer rent levels, although this has not yet been proven for fnding housing on the private market, especially in period of time, as discussed in chapters 3 and 5. this situation. tight real estate markets. Liberals also believe that too many housing vouchers would infate rent prices. Negative aspects of Vouchers Political instability Under President Clinton, funding for additional Voucher utilization Housing vouchers are not a long-term commitment vouchers ceased between 1994 and 1999. Clinton TThat vouchers are distributed by a local authority to affordable housing, meaning that the program focused more on the rehabilitation of public housing does not necessarily mean that future tenants can fnd is vulnerable to changes. The Bush administration units. The conservatives, on the other hand, are suitable housing units. In 2000, in New York City for attempted to reduce the growth of the voucher worried about the increasing costs of the program. example, only 57% of the tenants assigned housing program through a series of budget cuts and more Although President Bush terminated funding for vouchers could fnd decent housing. In Los Angeles bureaucracy. These budget costs and new regulations additional housing vouchers between 2002 and 2007, this number was even lower, only 47% with a national led to a loss of 150,000 housing vouchers between in 2008 President Obama reintroduced funding for average of 69% (Schwartz, 2015). A study has been 2004 and 2006 (Schwartz, 2015). This example additional housing vouchers. Thus, this program has conducted regarding the success rates of 48 large illustrates that within a short period of time (2 years), got liberal and conservative aspects. public housing authorities: although 12% of these politicians can signifcantly infuence the number of authorities have a success rate above 90%, 27% of the available housing vouchers, more than public housing authorities’ success rates are under 60% (Schwartz, or Section 8 NC/SR. Figure 4.6 Analysis housing vouchers 2015). It has become increasingly diffcult for tenants to fnd decent housing under the housing voucher Diffcult for special families Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives program because there are simply not enough houses As stated under the voucher utilization, housing Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no available. Interviewees 2 and 3 corroborated this, voucher users are dependent upon the private market. redistribution stating that in tight real estate markets, tenant-based As a result, exceptionally large families or persons with Target groups income Extremely Extremely Extremely low rental assistance is facing a number of complications disabilities might fnd it diffcult to locate appropriate low-middle low- low (interview 2) (interview 3). A second reason for this housing (Schwartz, 2015) (Hays,2012). Position of public and Dominantly Public in Mainly Private might be that in 1995, the FMR changed from 45% of private parties in the public collaboration with a passive all rent levels to 40% of all rent levels (Schwartz, 2015). Analysis affordable housing with private role for public system parties parties. In 2000, the average number of days between issuance The housing vouchers have the support of both and lease was 83 with the median at 69 (Schwarz, 2012) liberals and conservatives. It is important for liberals to Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic

Figure 4.7 Position housing vouchers Housing Vouchers Republicans Democrats

Socialist Liberals Conservative

Large government Small government 4.3 Project-based public housing

Project-based rental assistance consists of 2. The PHA uses these funds to construct the last major pieces of legislation of the New three programs: public housing, Section 8 public housing units. Deal. Public housing provided housing for PBRA and the LIHTC. This section further 3. The tenant can then apply for a public the poor slums and created jobs. The federal explores public housing. Project-based rental housing unit. government payed the interest and principal assistance essentially comprises subsidies that 4. If the tenant meets the requirements, he can on the bonds, which allowed the construction are coupled to a building or housing unit. As be assigned to a specifc public housing of public housing (Schwartz,2012). The cost a result, any tenant who moves to an assisted unit. of the operational and maintenance services building receives federal assistance, while any 5. The tenant can then choose to move into the were paid for by rental revenues. At frst, many tenant that moves out loses their assistance. predetermined affordable housing unit. more buildings were initially assigned to be Implemented in 1937, public housing was the 6. The tenant will pay 30% of his income to the built than were actually realized. frst affordable housing policy. Public housing PHA for rent. Public housing came to a standstill in 1938, has received a signifcant amount of criticism 7. Since the tenant’s rent does not cover only 1 year after its introduction, before being since its inception and had its peak in 1994. operation and maintenance costs, the reinforced in 1949 with the new Housing Act. This section further explains how the public HUD assigns operational funds to the PHA. This act hoped to realize the creation of 810,000 housing policy works. 6. The PHA spends the rental income and housing units in 6 years. However, all 810,000 the operational subsidies on maintaining housing units were not realized until 1968 How does public housing work? public housing units. (Schwartz,2012) (Hays,20120. Nevertheless, 1. HUD, the department of housing and after 1949, each decade saw a signifcant urban development, assigns funds for the History of Public Housing increase in the total number of public housing construction of public housing to the PHA. While Chapter 3 extensively explains the units. The public housing portfolio peaked in 1. The Department of Housing and Urban history of public housing, this paragraph 1994 with over 1.4 million housing units. By Development assigns funds for the explains the most important parts. The public 2012, however, the number had decreased to construction of public housing to the PHA. housing program originated in 1937 as one of 1.15 million units (Schwartz, 2015).

Figure 4.8 Tenant-based rental assistance Political opinion of public housing Public housing is, by far, the most widely known

4. Policy analysis 3. form of subsidized low-income housing in the US. As the oldest and, until recently, largest low-income housing program, public housing 1. 4. 6.$ primarily evokes negative images: extreme HUD PHA poverty, grim architecture, neglected grounds $ and crime. Although this is certainly true in some cases, these images do not accurately $ 2. 5. represent the reality of most public housing developments. Initially, public housing cleared 7. $ $ 8. slums, provided jobs and housed lower income 82 households. Liberals view public housing as a means Typology of the following: to develop housing for lower- and medium-income Although most people associate public housing 1. 30% of the monthly income, families. However, from a conservative perspective, units with the modernistic architecture high-rise style, 2. welfare rent, public housing is an unwanted and expensive in 2012 less than 400,000 buildings were high-rise, 3. a $25 minimum rent established by an PHA. intervention into the private market and should which is less than one third of all public housing units Initially, rental revenues were enough to maintain therefore only assist those with the most extreme (Schwartz, 2015). Furthermore, low-rise townhouses decent housing. Since the 50s, however, the public needs. Some extreme conservatives have even tried to and row houses comprise almost 25% of the total housing population has become more impoverished. entirely abolish public housing. While in its inception public housing stock. Nevertheless, public housing Low tenant revenues were not the only reason for public housing was well maintained and had a diverse is almost instantly recognizable by its architecture poorly maintained public housing stock. Management population, this changed in the 60’s after the white, and style, as most public housing projects look apart was also an issue: mismanagement led to large scale richer population moved out of public housing and from most of the other buildings (Schwartz, 2015). loss of funds that should have been provided to low- poorer African Americans moved in. Due to lower The physical quality is often markedly inferior to that income households (Schwartz, 2015). Moreover, public rental revenues, maintenance quality dropped and of private rental housing. Moreover, public housing is housing was centrally organized while the private crime rose, causing the public to have a negative purposely designed to be as sparse as possible: the market was organized locally. In 2005, following the opinion of public housing. Since the economy was antithesis of luxury, using only the cheapest materials recommendations of the Harvard School of Design, soaring at this time and slums were nearly nonexistent, (Schwartz,2012) Congress decided that public housing should be public housing merely became low-income housing. managed in an asset management way. As a result, many conservative politicians no longer Financial system After the 60s rental revenues were no longer enough supported the active government intervention into the Public housing is built and administrated using federal to maintain the buildings due to an aging housing private market merely for the purpose of creating low- funds. The federal government pays for the interest stock and decrease in tenants’ income. At frst, rents income housing. In part due to the lack of popularity and principle on the bonds that pay for public housing. were increased to offset the lack of funds and basic of public housing, the pace of construction never A tenant’s rent, also known as total tenant payment repairs and maintenance were postponed. By the matched the goals established by the various Housing (TTP), is based on a household’s anticipated gross 1970s it was evident that the old system no longer Acts. Currently, the number of public housing units has annual income minus deductions. The annual income worked and tenants’ contributions were capped and fallen to 1.1 million from its peak in 1994 of 1.4 million. is the anticipated total income from all sources to compensate, an operating subsidy was introduced. New public housing units are no longer being created received from family members over 18 years of age. and many have been demolished (Collinson, 2015). The formula used to determine the TTP is the highest Operating subsidies After being introduced in the brook amendment, Public housing Figure 4.9: Public housing portfolio own image based on the operating subsidies rose substantially from $14.9 Public housing portfolio Schwartz (2012) million in 1969 to $727 million in 1979, $2.5 billion In 2012, 3,095 housing authorities owned and 1,600,000 in 1993, $3.5 billion in 2003, $4.5 billion in 2008 and operated 1.10 million public housing units throughout 1,404,000 1,409,000 $4.5 billion in 2017 (HUD,2016) (Schwartz, 2015). A the US (HUD,2016). Only 9% of the total current public 1,266,000 new operating system directs subsidies to individual 1,200,000 housing portfolio was built after 1989 (Schwartz,2012). 1,192,000 projects and not to the Housing Authority. The subsidy 1,173,000 1,156,000 Image 4.9 illustrates that 21% of the public housing amount directed to each project is based on a formula units were built before 1960. In 2017, 1.1 million 800,000 792,000 that considers the difference between rental income households are served under the public housing and total expenses, although Congress decides how program (HUD,2016) 422,000 many operating subsidies are distributed each year. 400,000 From 1980 to 2008, Congress funded everything 170,000 according to the formula. Until 2003, the PHAs received, on average, 98% of the eligible funds. This has since 1949 1959 1969 1980 1990 1994 2000 2010 2012 83 decreased to only 89% (Schwartz, 2015). As a given PHAs more freedom to determine their result, many public housing authorities have most drastic needs for capital improvements. To address the lack of capital funds, Congress faced increasing defcits and have had to cut From 1980 to 1992, housing authorities had to passed two programs: HOPE VI and RAD. back on maintenance and repairs. Some have apply under the comprehensive improvement Both programs entail that private funds are leased units to higher income families or even assistance program (CIAP). The QHWRA of used to increase the quality of public housing sold housing units to have a closed budget the 1998 established a new program called the units, although both also entail a loss of public end of the year (Schwartz, 2015). Public Housing Capital Fund. To receive grants housing units. These programs are explained from this fund, PHAs must annually submit an in greater detail in the next section. Capital subsidies application. In recent years, capital funds have Due to years of budget cuts for repair and decreased from an average of $3.3 billion from The process maintenance and the quickly aging public 1990 to 2008 to $3.9 billion in 2000, $3.2 billion Eligible families in need of assistance can apply housing stock, public housing has gotten a in 2005, less than $1.8 billion in 2013 and $1.8 at their local PHA for public housing, however huge backlog of billions of dollars of unmet billion in 2017 (Schwartz,2012) (HUD,2016). the waiting lists are long and sometimes even capital needs. Since 2004, although Congress Approximately $28 billion is needed to closed to new applicants. Housing authority has allocated an average of $2.2 billion modernize the public housing stock and to may prioritize those who are (1) homeless or annually to capital improvements, this does address the backlog of capital needs. Although living in standard housing (2) paying more than not cover the costs (Schwartz, 2015). From this backlog might seem rather large, it has 50% of their income for rent, or (3) involuntarily 1937 to1950, PHAs were obligated to save actually decreased since 1998 by $36 billion displaced (HUD, N.D.-a). When a family is money for large capital investments, but and by $44.5 billion since 1990. assigned a public housing unit, they must pay in 1950 Congress decided that this money 30% of their income to the PHA. When they should go to debt repayment of the federal Housing authorities can use 20% of their decide to move out of the public housing government instead. The result was a lack of capital funds for operational purposes. Since unit (voluntarily), they can move to the private funds for necessary investments. After 1968 the operational funds are often much lower market or reapply for a new public housing unit federal government assigned capital funding than assigned, this is a common practice. or Section 8 rental assistance program. to all housing units whether they needed However, this leads to even less funds for the replacements or not. Since 1980, Congress has modernization of the public housing portfolio. The Target groups

Figure 4.10: Public housing year of completion of Figure 4.11: Public housing typology own image Figure 4.12: Public housing incomes own image 2012 portfolio own image based on Schwartz (2012) based on Schwartz (2012) based on HUD (2016) Not known 2% 2000-2012 5% Detached 3% Above 80% AMI 3% 1990-2000 4% 4. Policy analysis low income >1960 Mixed 20% 1980-1990 21% 23% Row 11% 23%

Very low Extremely low income 20% income 66% 1970-1980 1960-1970 Semi-Detached 36% 23% 9% High rise 30% Walk up 11%

84 Public housing houses some of the nation’s poorest, Low popularity rates of 40% or higher has decreased from 43% in must vulnerable households. The concentration of Throughout the years, people have associated public 1995 to 26% in 2008 (Schwartz). these low-income households is often considered housing with crime, unwilling tenants, no-go zones the source of many problems that public housing and a never-ending need for subsidies. Recently, Analysis faces. Although public housing has always prioritized however, public housing has signifcantly improved President Roosevelt’s vision of public housing in1937 low-income families, over the years the tenants have and many presidents have tried to improve the image began as a socialist policy. By 2017, however, public become increasingly impoverished. Initially, the of public housing. Since the 1990s, Clinton’s one strike housing has become more liberal than originally program primarily helped working families who lacked policy has led to a decrease in criminal activities in intended. Public housing now only focuses on low- the income to afford housing in the private market. public housing; more than 85% of the public housing income households, entirely excluding medium- The area median income of public housing residents units exceed HUD‘s physical condition standards and income households. Furthermore, public housing is fell from 57% in 1950, to 41% in 1960, 29% in 1970 only 19% of all tenants depend on welfare as their entirely publicly funded and operated. The program and less than 20% by the mid 1990s (Schwartz,2012). primary source of income compared to 35% in 1997 receives a substantial amount of criticism from both In 1974, Congress decided that public housing should (Schwartz,2012). liberals and conservatives. In general,, the liberals include families with a broad range of incomes. Then want more public housing and a more diverse tenant in 1981 Congress did just the opposite and prioritized Low quality group. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that low-income families. In the QHWRA of 1998 the federal Public housing has always been underfunded, which public housing is costly and that housing should be government passed legislation stating that at least led to a maintenance backlog of $72.5 billion in left to the private market. 40% of the new tenants of public housing must have 1990. Currently, the majority of this backlog has been Public housing has helped very low-income families incomes below 30% AMI, for vouchers this was 75% of dissolved and the remaining backlog is “only” $28 over the last 80 years. However, units are getting older the new tenants. With this new legislation, the federal billion. Although public housing is built with minimum and funds for modernization or substantial renovations government gave PHAs the option to increase the efforts, the public housing stock seems to outlive are lacking. Liberals are trying to modernize public average income of public housing tenants. Currently, expectations. In 2012, 80% of the dwellings were housing units through the implementation of new 66% of the tenants have an extremely low-income and constructed prior to 1980. Currently, 40% of the public programs such as HOPE VI, RAD and CNI. 20% a very low-income (see image 4.12) housing units are considered to be of excellent quality and 85% meet HUD standards (Schwartz,2012). Positive aspects of public housing Table 4.13 Analysis public housing Durability and certainty High concentration of poverty Unlike other programs, public housing does not The largest disadvantage of public housing is the Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives depend on the renewal of subsidies or the willingness concentration of poverty. Public-based assistance Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no of private owners to participate. The strength of public limits people’s choices of where they can live. Public redistribution housing is that it is publicly owned. This enables housing sites used to be large sites where numerous Target groups income Extremely Extremely Extremely low the public housing program to withstand market extremely low-income households would live in highly low-middle low- low

and political changes. Public housing has helped a dense areas. With the inception of programs such Position of public and Dominantly Public in Mainly Private substantial number of low-income households for as HOPE VI and RAD, the most destressing public private parties in the public collaboration with a passive almost 80 years. housing sites have been transformed to mixed income affordable housing with private role for public system parties parties. housing. Furthermore, the percentage of public Negative aspects of public housing housing units in extreme poverty areas with poverty Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic

Figure 4.14 Position housing vouchers Public housing Republicans Democrats

Socialist Liberals Conservative

Large government Small government 4.4 Project-based Section 8

As stated in Chapter 1.2, in 1974 the federal How does Section 8 project-based work? Not all project-based Section 8 programs government took a different approach to 1. HUD, the department of housing and began as new construction or substantial subsidizing privately owned low-income urban development, assigns funds for new rehabilitation. For Section 8 units that only housing. Congress determined that the construction or substantial rehabilitation receive a monthly subsidy, steps 3 to 6 apply. affordable housing issue should be solved to the PHA. with less direct government intervention to 2. The PHA will use assign these funds to History of Section 8 PBRA make room for more private developers. eligible homeowners who want to make In the 1960s and 1970s, criticism of public The Section 8 NC/SR includes project-based their home affordable for a certain amount housing rose and the government began to assistance programs. These programs beneft of time, between 5 and 40 years. explore other options. In 1974, the federal developers during construction and provide 3. The tenant can then apply at the PHA for a government took a different approach by developers with deep rental subsidies during Section 8 PBRA housing unit. subsidizing privately owned low-income operation. Eventually, more programs such as 4. If the tenant meets the requirements he can housing. The Section 8 program that was RAD (section 202/515) also used these deep be assigned to a specifc unit introduced in 1974 contained three different rental subsidies. The direct rental subsidies are 5. The tenant can then choose to move in to programs: existing housing, new construction provided for a fnite amount of time and once that specifc affordable housing unit. and substantial rehabilitation. This chapter the contracts expire, HUD and the owners 6. The tenant will pay 30% of his income to examines the substantial rehabilitation, new must either renew the contracts or transform the homeowner for rent. construction and existing housing units that the low-income housing units into market rent 7. If the total rent of the housing unit is higher were used for Section 8 PBRA. Initially, President housing. This chapter explains the Section 8 than the tenant’s contribution, the HUD will Nixon only wanted to pass housing vouchers, NC/SR program and deep rental subsidies in assign funds to the PHA to compensate for but he was eventually forced to extend it to more detail. this gap. project-based assistance as well. In the late 70s 6. The PHA will pay the home owner this program became very popular. However, the difference between the tenants in the early 80’s Reagan began to cut funding contribution and the fair market rent level. to affordable housing production and in 1983, Figure 4.14 Tenant-based rental assistance Reagan terminated this program altogether. By this time, 850,000 new or rehabilitated housing

4. Policy analysis 3. units had been realized or were already given permission to begin construction (Hay,2012). A signifcant difference between public housing 1. 4. and Section 8 PBRA is that Section 8 PBRA is HUD PHA temporary with a fnite contract. According $ to Schwartz (2012), several hundred thousand units of housing developed under the Section 8 $ 2. 5. program have already converted to market rate occupancy. In 2012, only 565,843 of the original 7. $ $ 8. 6.$ Section 8 new construction or substantial 86 rehabilitation units remained, and only 350,000 in Section 8 PBRA to project-based PBRA is that contracts are not being 2017 (Schwartz, 2015). Today Section 8 PBRA consists Section 8 PBRA portfolio extended. To extend a program, both HUD and the of almost 20 different programs comprising a total of In 2012 there were 1 million Section 8 project-based owner need to agree to the new terms. Originally, a 1.2 million units (HUD, 2017-a)(HUD,2016). assisted housing units, of which 565,843 were original contract’s terms could vary in length from 5 years to Section 8 NC/SR and another 25,000 were Section 40 years. Figure 4.16 indicates that the vast majority of Political opinion of Section 8 PBRA 8 moderate rehabilitation (Schwartz,2012). In 2017 the contracts of all subprograms last 200-300 months Project-based rental assistance under Section 8 there are less than 348,000 substantial rehabilitated (16 to 25 years). Section 8 NC/SR reveals similar results, received criticism from both conservatives and and new construction projects still operational with 68% of all contracts lasting 200-300 months. liberals. Initially, the liberals pushed the project- (HUD,2017-a). While other units receive the monthly These long-term contracts end before 2020: 20% of the based Section 8 through Congress, believing that if Section 8 subsidy, they were not originally Section contracts expire before 2020 and 51% expire before the government did not stimulate the production of 8; these buildings are often transferred from other 2030, as evidenced by Figure 4.17 (HUD,2017-a). low-income housing there would be a shortage on the programs such as RAD, Section 202, Section 515, private market. Research in 1980 by the US General Housing Finance and Development Agency (HFDA), Financial system Accounting Offce and HUD found Section 8 new Loan management set aside (LMSA) and property The fnancial system is divided into two different construction to be very expensive (HAYS, 2012) for disposition. Most of these programs are not within subsidies: the monthly vouchers for the landlords numerous reasons: the scope of this research. However, RAD is highly and the initial development benefts of the federal 1. Construction costs were relatively high because relevant to this research since it transfers housing units government for the private land lords. Section 8 housing units were often of higher quality from public housing to Section 8 PBRA. than the surrounding buildings; for example, After 1983, the Section 8 NC/SR program was Development benefts Section 8 units had elevators and surrounding abolished and only extensions of existing contracts The 1974 Housing Act made it possible for developers buildings did not (Schwartz). were possible. Thus, the vast majority of these buildings to use tax exempt bonds. Until 1974, only housing 2. Rent at many Section 8 NC/SR units were relatively were built between 1974 and 1983. According to HUD authorities could use these bonds to develop public high due to the high construction costs as well as (2016), the program’s portfolio does receive high housing. These bonds were seen as a safe and due to HUD’s annual adjustment factor. The rent physical inspection scores of around 85 out of 100. inexpensive source of funds (Hays,2012). Section for many of the other surrounding buildings did They have also found that many PBRA properties are 8 developers could also gain tax benefts through not increase nearly as much (Hays,2012) (Schwartz, located in strong rental markets. One of the threats accelerated depreciation and the deductibility of 2015). Figure 4.15: Section 8 PBRA subprograms own image based Figure 4.16: Section 8 PBRA average contract terms HUD own 3. Section 8 NC/SR units primarily targeted the on database of HUD (2017-a) image based on database of HUD (2017-a) (2017-a) elderly. The elderly were more accepted by 400> 7% 0-50 months 6% communities than families and were less likely to 300-400 1% provide nuisance. This made them a proftable

target group for developers. The elderly were, on LMSA Section 8 NC/SR 25% 28% 50-100 months average, very low-income tenants, which means 14% that the monthly HUD subsidies were quite high

(Hays,2012). 100-200 5% Thus, it was found that Section 8 PBRA was a costly program that did not deliver what politicians wanted. HFDA Prop. disposition 4% 18% 200-300 months From a liberal perspective, it did not help a diverse 68% Section 202 RAD 2% population, it comprised only temporary investments 16% Preservation 3% and the locations were not as dispersed as desired. From a conservative perspective, it was too expensive. Section 515 3% 87 mortgage interest. These benefts were a Since the Section 8 program pays the difference fnd a balance between good maintenance and part of the Section 8 NC/SR programs. After between the rent and 30% of the tenant’s not pushing buildings into foreclosure and to development, these housing units would also income, these rent increases led to increased shut the excessive drain on the federal budget. receive deep monthly subsidies. federal subsidies. HUD responded to these To renew federal subsidies at current levels high costs by, at frst, limiting contract renewals was politically unacceptable, but cutting these Voucher subsidy to 5 years and eventually, to 1 year. After 2006, subsidies would make it diffcult for owners to In essence, the program paid owners the contracts were often renewed for periods meet all of their properties operating expenses difference between a fair market rent (FMR) shorter than 12 months (Schwartz,2012). More including debt service on their mortgages, and 25% of the tenant’s income (which was and more contracts expired and had to be and since most Section 8 housing units were later increased to 30%) (Hays,2012). When renewed and in 1990 the costs of this program secured by FHA mortgages, foreclosure meant the Section 8 policy was introduced in 1974, almost absorbed all of HUD’s budget. huge costs for the US treasury (Hays,2012). Congress housing authorities could enter into contracts to execute rent subsidies for 20- The high rent meant that there was enough Mark to Market program 40 years. Rent was already quite high due to funds to pay for the maintenance and upkeep In 1997, Congress launched the Mark-to- the high quality of the buildings, but Section of the buildings. This was not always the case, Market program to preserve the affordability 8 rent was increased annually, as determined however, since the owners of the Section 8 units of Section 8 developments. The new program by HUD. As a result, the rent of these units failed to invest these funds into maintenance. required owners to reduce rent to a level became increasingly higher than the rent of the comparable to what is charged elsewhere surrounding buildings, which led to increasing Fair rent programs in the project’s neighborhood. To prevent costs for HUD since the tenants’ incomes did In order to do something about the excessive defaulting on mortgages, the Mark-to-Market not necessarily increase by the same amount. high rents that the federal government was program provided homeowners the option to On average, rent in Section 8 developments paying private landlords a new program was restructure their debt: the mortgages could be was 30% higher than the local FMR (Fair Market adopted. In the 1990’s these high rents were refnanced into two loans. The size of the frst Rent) (Schwartz,2012). not excepted any longer, instead they had to mortgage would be determined by the amount

Figure 4.17 Expiring contracts own image based on database from HUD (2017-a) 10’s 20’s 30’s 40’s 50’s

160000

120000 4. Policy analysis 80000

40000

0 New ConstructionSubstantial rehab PD ExistingPD moderate rehabPD substantial rehab RAD RAD moderate rehabPreservation202 new construction202 substantial 515rehab new construction515 substantialHFDA rehab new constructionHFDA substantial rehabLMSA pension fund

88 of net operating income generated after the rent was The process on the disabled and on the elderly and fnally, Section reduced to market level. The second mortgage would Eligible families who are in need of assistance can 8 NC/SR focuses on low-income households who be a loan that was the difference between the original apply to their local PHA for housing vouchers. Most earn less than 80% of AMI. Figure 4.18 illustrates the mortgage and the frst refnanced mortgage. Owners PHAs, however, have a waiting list for approved income levels of Section 8 PBRA tenants. Although using the Mark-to-Market program had to renew families. Eligible families can even be denied a spot the goal of Section 8 NC/SR is to support a mix of their Section 8 contracts for 30 years. The Mark-to- on the waiting list because it is too long. Furthermore, very low-, low- and extremely low-income households, Market program also provided funds to cover capital PHAs may prioritize those who are (1) homeless or almost all of the tenants are very low-income or lower. improvements and 80% of all approved rehabilitation living in standard housing, (2) paying more than 50% Indeed, 96% of the tenants in the Section 8 NC/SR costs. of their income for rent, or (3) involuntarily displaced program earn less than 50% AMI and 75% even earn (HUD, N.D.-a). less than 30% AMI (Schwartz,2012). In 2016 the tenants In the late 90s, the market rent increased faster than The housing authority must verify tenants’ income to had even lower incomes, 76% of the Section 8 PBRA the adjustment factor of HUD, making the difference calculate and recalculate the rent the tenants must pay tenants had extremely low incomes, 21% very low and between Section 8 rent and market rent signifcantly every 90 days and to assign the tenants to a certain only 3% had low incomes (HUD,2016). Furthermore, smaller. This made it unnecessary for owners to vacant housing unit. 62% of all the households in this program consist of participate in the Mark-to-Market program. Instead The housing authority also pays the owner the 1 person, 19% consist of 2 persons, 10% consist of 3 they could absorb the rent difference themselves. In difference between 30% of the tenant’s income persons and only 9% consist of 4 or more persons. This September of 2013, 319,000 units used the Mark-to- and the rent. Both HUD and the homeowners are means that families are not the main tenant group of Market program (Schwartz,2012). responsible for the success or failure of the projects this program (HUD,2016). under the Section 8 program. The Mark-to-Market program was originally designed Positive aspects to phase-out in 2006, when virtually all original Section Target groups Increased housing stock 8 new construction/substantial rehabilitation contracts All the Section 8 programs target different groups One of the positive aspects of Section 8 new would have expired, but this was subsequently within the population; for example, section 515 construction or substantial rehabilitation is that extended. is meant for rural housing, section 236 for low- to it increases the housing stock. As a result, the moderate-income families, several programs focus government is not dependent upon the market Mark up to Market program supply, but can steer the supply through the use the In 1999, new legislation was passed. The Markup-to- Figure 4.18:Tenants income of PBRA Section 8 housing own fnancial benefts under the Section 8 program. For Market program deals with projects that have below- image based on (HUD,2016) example, the government can steer the construction market rent. At frst glance, this means that the federal Low income 4% of housing for disabled or large families, who have a government has made a great deal: they are paying more diffcult time fnding appropriate housing on the less than they actually should. However, it risky to have private market. lower rent than the surrounding buildings, because once the contracts expire it would be fnancially Very low Guarantee of affordable housing stock benefcial for owners to terminate the Section 8 income 21% When HUD has signed a contract with a homeowner program and rent out their buildings on the private for a certain amount of years, it knows that during that market. The Markup-to-Market program allows period this housing unit will be available. This certainty Extremely low Section 8 rent to be marked up to comparable market income 76% leads to a more stable affordable housing portfolio. rent, up to 150% FMR. Participants must however agree to a contract renewal of a minimum of 5 years. Decent housing The new construction and substantial rehabilitation programs deliver high quality homes. On average, 89 these homes score 85 out of 100 points on Analysis HUD’s quality test. Section 8 housing units This program is the result of collaboration are often even more luxurious than their between liberals and conservatives. The neighboring housing units. liberals wanted to infuence the production of affordable housing units. They foresaw Negative aspects that the private market would or could build Continuity enough appropriate housing for the lower Within this program, affordable housing units class. Due to political instability and the are only guaranteed until the contract between threat of impeachment of President Nixon, he HUD and the homeowner expires. At frst adjusted his Housing Act with the means to the lease periods were 20-40 years. In 2006, provide project-based rental assistance within however, this decreased to 5 years and later the private market. However, due to wrong even to 1 year. Furthermore, the three and a adjustment factors, high quality buildings half thousand housing units that used the Mark- and a far lower income clientele, the costs to-Market program had to renew their leases became too high for HUD. President Reagan for 30 years minimum in 1997. Since leases discontinued this program in 1983 as a result. have recently been signed for shorter period Overall, Section 8 NC/SR is a middle ground of times and the old leases have begun to between low-income housing tax credits (as expire, the continuity of the program is at risk. explained in the next chapter) and housing vouchers. Tax benefts at the beginning of Expensive the program and the later housing subsidies On average the rent of Section 8 PBRA units were a promising combination. However, by has been quite high due to its quality and targeting very low-income families, Section 8 Figure 4.19: Analysis Section 8 PBRA as a result of the annual adjustment factors. NC/SR with its high-quality facilities and high High rent has led to high subsidy costs, which fair market rent could not fulfll its promise. On Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives eventually led to the termination of new the other hand, the Section 8 PBRA program Wealth High Low Low-no Section 8 PBRA housing units under the NC/ is similar to public housing: they are publicly redistribution redistribution SR subprogram in 1983. stimulated developments, the subsidy is Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low project-based and rather than use the current income low- middle low- low Predetermined locations stock, these affordable houses are an addition The tenants are not free to live where they to the current stock. Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private choose, since the contracts with homeowners public and public collabo- with a passive 4. Policy analysis private parties ration with role for public limit the number of available housing units. in the affordable private parties. This is far more limiting for the tenants than housing system parties housing vouchers. Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic system Figure 4.20: Position Section 8 PBRA Section 8 PBRA Republicans Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives 90 Large government Small government 4.5 Tax credits

The federal government’s low-income housing tax to investors in return for equity. Developers have claimed annually over a 10-year period. credits (LIHTC) encourage the investment of private previously received between 40% and 100% of the Early in 1987, there was a high level of uncertainty equity in the development of affordable rental value of the tax credits in equity. for the low-income housing tax credits. Therefore, housing for low-income households (Black, 2014). 5. The investor provides equity for the construction of developers and investors were only willing to invest Unlike the other programs, such as Section 8 and the units $0.40 of every dollar in tax credit assigned to a project public housing, the LIHTC program is not overseen 6. The developer builds the affordable housing unit. (Schwartz,2012). As investors became more familiar by the HUD department, but the department of the 7. The tenant moves into the affordable housing unit with the program, Congress made it permanent in Treasury. This chapter focuses on how tax credits work when he meets HCA’s regulations. 1993, resulting in less risk for investors. Whereas and which stakeholders are involved. 8. Upon completion, the investor deducts the credits investors might have required a return on investment from the amount of proft tax that he must pay. of 30% in 1987, by 2001 they required less than 8% How do low income housing tax credits work? (Schwartz,2012). The lower amount of return for Section 8 project-based work? investors meant that developers had more to spend. 1. The treasury assigns a certain amount of LIHTC to History of LIHTC The value of tax credits was $0.80 on the dollar in a local HCA (Housing credit agency) based on the The LIHTC program was established as part of the Tax 2001 and even $1 in 2006 (Schwartz,2012). During population. Reform Act in 1986, and is also considered an indirect the fnancial crisis, however, there was less proft to 1. The Treasury assigns a certain number of LIHTC to federal subsidy with the goal of fnancing low-income shield from taxes and therefore, demand decreased. a local HCA (Housing credit agency) based on the housing units (Black,2014). Through this program, In 2009, the tax credits were only worth $0.80 on the population. the federal government stimulates individual and dollar and investors required a return of more than 2. The developer applies for LIHTC at the local HCA. corporate investors to invest in the development, 8%. By 2011, approximately 2.5 million housing units 3. If the development meets all requirements, the acquisition and renovation of affordable rental had been developed through the LIHTC program LIHTC is assigned to the developer. housing units. The government allows these investors (Schwartz,2012). This is more than twice what public 4. The developer attempts to “sell” the tax credits to claim tax credits on their federal income tax returns. housing has realized since 1937. Many of the LIHTC The tax credits are calculated as a percentage of the developments also received other sources of funding developing costs of the housing project and are Figure 4.21 Low Income Housing Tax Credits to cover construction costs, such as low-interest loans from state and local governments and rental 8. assistance payments for very low-income tenants. Half of the LIHTC tenants also received some form of 1. $ 2. governmental rental assistance, either project-based 3. or tenant-based (Collinson, 2015). Treasury HCA LIHTC tenant Low-income housing tax credits Portfolio & typology In 2012, 2.5 million units had been built through 4. 6. 7. the LIHTC program (Black,2014). The average size of these projects is 58 housing units per building 5.$ (Schwarz,2012). Of all the LIHTC that have been 91 assigned, roughly 62% has been used for newly • Determine whether the project is located in on all development costs. Since land and other constructed units, while only 38% has been a diffcult development area or a qualifed fnancial costs are not eligible for tax credits, used for rehabilitation (Schwartz,2012). census tract. the eligible basis is the total development costs minus land acquisition costs and fnancial Financial system Step 1. Eligible for LIHTC’s costs (Schwartz,2012). Tax credits are deductibles on a company’s There are two ways in which a project can be proft taxes. Thus, if a company has to pay eligible for the tax credits, either Step 4. Qualifed basis $200,000 in taxes on their proft and they have • 40% of the units must be affordable for The entire project does not qualify for tax $50,000 worth of tax credits, they only have households with incomes on or below 60% credits. Only the units that are affordable for to pay the IRS $150,000.A company must pay AMI or low-income households can receive tax credits. taxes over its EBT(earnings before tax). By • 20% of the units must be eligible for If all units (which is often the case) are available decreasing the amount of taxes that need to households that earn 50% or less of AMI to low-income households, then the eligible be paid, a company’s net income increases, (Black,2014). basis is the same as the qualifed basis. If, for and therefore also the dividend payments to The future tenants are expected to pay a example, only 50% of the units are assigned to the stockholders. maximum of 30% of their income to housing. low-income housing, then the qualifed basis The 1986 Tax Reform Act made it possible With a known AMI, the project developers is 50% times the eligible basis (Schwartz,2012). to receive tax credits by building low- can calculate the maximum rent caps for the income housing. Unlike other affordable different target groups (Black,2014). Step 5. Qualifed boost housing policies, the tax credits do not need If the project is located within “a diffcult annual appropriations and are therefore less Step 2. Percentage of LIHTC’s (9% or 4%) development area” or “a qualifed census dependent on public and political support There are two different types of LIHTCs: the tract” the qualifed basis increases by 130%. (Collinson, 2015). 9% credit and the 4% credit. Projects that use A diffcult development area is an area in conventional debt without federal subsidies which the costs of housing are high relative Tax credits are assigned to a state based on are eligible for the 9% tax credit. Projects that to income. In qualifed census tracts, at least their capita. Initially each state was given a per use tax exempt bonds receive 4% tax credits half of all households must have incomes at or capita allocation of $1.25, which increased to (Black,2014). below 60% median income, or the poverty rate $1.75 in 2002 and has since been adjusted for must be at least 25% (Swartz,2012). infation, reaching $2.25 in 2013 (Collinson, When the 9% LIHTCs are assigned to a project, 2015). the investor receives 9% of the affordable Step 6. Determination of tax credits. housing unit development costs annually in Finally, the qualifed basis is multiplied by the • To determine the amount of tax credits tax credits for a 10-year period. This is roughly percentage of tax credits (determined in step allocated to a certain project, several steps equal the present value of 70% of the affordable 2) to ascertain how many annual tax credits the 4. Policy analysis are followed: housing unit costs (black,2014). developer can use. • Determine whether the project is eligible for LIHTC. The 4% tax credits are also paid over a 10-year Converting tax credits to equity • Determine the percentage of tax credits. period and equal roughly 30% of the present Since developers often do not need many tax • Calculate the total development costs value of the eligible development costs for credits to shield their income, they try to “sell” (eligible basis). low-income housing units. the tax credits to investors. The developer • Multiply the percentage of low-income receives equity from the investor to build housing units times the eligible basis Step 3. Eligible basis the project in exchange for the tax credits. (qualifed basis). The eligible basis for the tax credits is not based As previously stated, for every tax dollar 92 saved investors were only willing to pay $0.40 to the funds assigned to the depreciation and the interest Example: developer in 1987. In 2011, however, it was $0.80 on the payments the investor will not have to pay corporate dollar. Thus, if developer A from the example wants to tax. If developer A wants to build 200 housing units of sell these tax credits to an investor in 2011 in return which a 150 are to be for low income households for equity, he could only raise $3,510,000 * $0.80= Risk (60% AMI). Their equity comes from conventional $2,808,000. Additionally, the developer could take out The investors’ return on an LIHTC investment debt without federal subsidies. a mortgage on the properties from its rental revenues. depends on a number of factors, including the The location of this property is in a poor area with If the mortgage and rental revenues are not suffcient bank’s management. According to Black (2014) a 30% poverty rate. The land costs are estimated to build the project, this is called gap fnancing. Often, and Berk (2014), U.S. federal bonds (treasuries) are at $950,000, fnancial costs at $50,000 and the total these gaps are flled by local or state authorities. In considered risk-free for investors. All other investment development costs on $5,000,000. 1996, 40% of the projects received gap fnancing, opportunities have a risk premium in addition to the which equaled roughly 16% of the development costs 10-year treasuries. In capital markets when different Step 1. (Schwartz,2012). investment opportunities have the same returns, they This project is eligible because more than 40% of the also have the same risk (Berk, 2014). As presented housing units are made affordable for households Goodwill in Image 4.23, in the early 90s a high-risk premium who earn 60% AMI. In addition to tax credits, banks and other fnancial was required. This was because the LIHTCs had only institutions also receive CRA consideration on the been introduced several years earlier in 1986 and the Step 2. majority of LIHTC projects. The term CRA refers to outcomes were still uncertain and therefore a higher Since the project uses conventional debt they will the Community Reinvestment Act. This act ensures risk premium was required (Black,2014). After 1999, receive 9% tax credits. that banks help the community by providing fair the risk premium decreased from 4% to as little as 2% loans. Congress passed this act in 1977 and it is part before the fnancial crises started in 2008. This low 2% Step 3. of the Housing and Community Development Act. risk premium was due to the fact that Fannie Mae and This Eligible basis is $5,000,000 - $950,000 - $50,000= By fnancing LIHTC, the banks create goodwill for Freddie Mac substantively increased their investments $4,000,000. fnancial institutions (CRA). When a bank wants to in LIHTC. However, in 2008 the yields rose signifcantly expand or merge, the federal fnancial supervisory Step 4. Net sales agencies verify the bank’s CRA compliance and use The qualifed basis is $4,000,000 * 75% = $3,000,000 this information to determine whether or not a permit -Costs of sales should be granted (Black, 2014). Step 5. Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, The qualifed basis is boosted because the area is Depreciation, Amortization Tax shield located within a census tract. $3,000,000 *130%= (EBITDA) Tax credits are not the only benefts investors gain from $3.900,000 investing in an affordable housing project. If they own - Depreciation, Amortization real estate (and other assets) investors are allowed Step 6 Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) to deduct depreciation, amortization and interest The annual assigned tax credits for ten years is expenses from their income. This has been referred to $3,900,000 * 9%= $351,000 (in total over all 10 years -Interest as a tax shield by Berk and DeMazzo (2014). Image xx $3,510,000) Earnings before taxes (EBT) displays how taxes are paid over EBT and how interest depreciation and amortization are exempt from taxes. -Taxes Net income The corporate tax rate in 2016 was 38.9% (TradeEconomics, 2016). This means that for the 93 as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed over multiple LIHTC projects. Thus, the have collected the full tax credits (Black,2014). into conservatorship and were no longer active investors do not invest in one project, but in the market (Schwartz, 2015) (Black,2014). The rather the investment fund invests their money Stakeholders crisis also affected the proftability of banks, in different projects. In return the investors As previously stated, there are multiple which infuenced their willingness to invest in receive the corresponding tax credits. stakeholders involved in the process of realizing LIHTC; without profts, tax credits are worthless affordable housing units through the LIHTC (Black,2014). The process program. The most important stakeholders are The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allocates described here: There are two different ways for an investor federal tax credits to state housing credit to invest: by directly investing in one project agencies (HCA), which are different from HCA through a partnership or by investing in an housing authorities. The federally assigned tax Housing credit agencies are state- LIHTC equity fund with multiple investors and credits are based on the state’s population, chartered authorities established to help multiple projects. since 2008 the tax credits have been $2.20 per meet the affordable housing needs of the capita (Schwartz,2012) (Black,2014). state’s residents. Housing credit agencies Direct investment administrate multiple affordable housing When a project developer has a certain project The tax credits are then assigned by the HCA policies, such as tax-exempt bonds (mortgage in mind with the potential for low-income to a certain project by a point system. Points revenue bonds and multifamily housing bonds) housing units, the developer can apply to the can be earned by a project-based on type, as well as LIHTC. A state’s HCA creates a QAP local HCA for an LIHTC allocation. If approved, location and ownership. This point system is to distribute the assigned funds to projects. the tax credits are allocated to this specifc also referred to as qualifed allocation plan After allocating the funds to projects, the HCA project, giving the developer the chance to (QAP). The state can set their preferences and monitors the project over the course of 15 look for suitable investors. The investor can priorities as they see ft and therefore the QAP years to ensure that the project continues to become the owner (99.9%) or partial owner of can differ per state (Black,2014). comply with the set regulations, focusing on the project with no managerial infuence over tenant income eligibility, rents charged and the project. The direct investor receives tax Once an affordable housing units is developed the condition of the units. credits and tax shield benefts, although the and occupied by qualifed tenants, the investors developer holds at least 0.1% and manages can claim their annual tax benefts for 10 Project sponsor the project. Image 4.22 reveals how direct and years. However, the project must comply with A project sponsor is typically a real estate indirect investments work. the program rules for the frst 15 years. If the developer. The project sponsor is generally the project fails to comply, the IRS can recapture one who decides to build affordable housing Indirect investment the allocated tax credits. After the frst 15 units under the LIHTC program. They establish When an investor wants to invest in the LIHTC years, the project must remain affordable for a development team, gain site control, involve 4. Policy analysis program but does not want to decide in which another 15 years. During this second 15-year investors and apply to the HCA for LIHTC. projects to invest, he can become an indirect time period however, the IRS is not allowed to The project sponsor is a general partner who investor. A signifcant advantage of indirect recapture the given credits. In total, this means manages, owns and develops the LIHTC investment is that the minimum investment that the affordable housing units should remain project. is $1 million, which is often much lower than affordable for 30 years. Investors are allowed the investment capital required for a direct to quit the projects without the IRS recapturing Investors investment. Multiple investors bring equity the tax credits if the project continues to Investors (either individuals or corporations) into the investment fund, which is managed by comply with the established rules. Investors Figure 4.22 Structure direct and indirect LIHTC a third party. These funds are then distributed often exit between year 11 and 16 when they investment own image based on Black (2014) 94 Direct Investment Indirect Investment

Organizer LIHTC investor 1 LIHTC investor 2 LIHTC investor x General partner of Limited partner in Limited partner in Limited partner in investment fund investment fund investment fund investment fund

Equity LIHTC Equity LIHTC Equity LIHTC

Investment fund General partner share minimal 0.01% Limited partner share maximum 99.9%

Equity LIHTC Equity LIHTC

Project developer LIHTC investor Project developer Investment fund Project developer Investment fund Application for General partner in Limited partner in Application for 1 Limited partner in x Limited partner in LIHTC project project LIHTC General partner in project 1 General partner in project x project 1 project 1

HCA Equity HCA Equity Equity LIHTC investment investment LIHTC investment LIHTC

Affordable housing project Affordable housing project 1 Affordable housing project x General partner share minimal 0.01% General partner share minimal 0.01% General partner share minimal 0.01% Allocation of Limited partner share maximum 99.9% Allocation of Limited partner share maximum 99.9% Limited partner share maximum 99.9% LIHTC LIHTC

95 contribute the equity for the project. They are cash fow. range of investors decline. The 4% credits are asked by a project sponsor to join a LIHTC not similarly constrained, however they are project. Black (2014) has stated that 85% of the Positive aspects restricted indirectly by caps on the volume of equity used in LIHTC came from the banking Flexibility private activity bonds. sector. One of the main positive aspects of tax credits is their fexibility. The government does not Investment period Syndicators have to search for suitable lands to develop or The LIHTCs require a long-term commitment Syndicators perform an important role in even acquire the land. The market requests tax from investors. Some investors might be indirect investments. They bring investors and credits for projects throughout the nation and reluctant to invest in LIHTC due to a lack of projects together in an investment fund and the government only has to determine where short-term liquidity. monitor the construction of the projects. to allocate the funds. Temporary low income Lenders Market involvement The housing units are only affordable for low- The investors normally contribute their equity The market is the initiative holder of new income households for 15 years. After these 15 after the project is realized. This means that tax credit projects. The tax credit system is a years the owners have the option to rent out there is a fnancing gap between the initiation collaboration between developers, investors their housing units at market rent price. and realization of the project. For this reason, and the government. The government plays a LIHTC often requires debt fnancing. Loans can passive role in this process by simply deciding Size of investments be distributed by conventional private sources whether or not to allocate funds to certain The investment amount for direct investments (banks), by government insured products projects. This market-run system fts within the is often rather large. The investment amount (Federal Housing Administration) or by the country’s ideology. for indirect investments is signifcantly lower, “gap fnancing” provided by state and local but still $1 million. This could be too expensive governments or third parties. Gap fnancing Negative aspects for smaller banks. Black (2014) has stated that a is considered “soft” loans, meaning that Size restrictions number of regional equity funds have lowered payment is only due when there is suffcient The supply of 9% LIHTCs is limited based on their minimum bar to $250,000 and as a result, the number of residents in a state. If there is were successful in attracting a new group of Figure 4.22: After tax yield trends own image based on Black (2014) more demand than supply, yields and the investors, including community banks. 18% LIHTC funds avarage Demand shortage 16% 10 years treasuries The demand for LIHTC declined during the 14% LIHTC funds fnancial crisis between 2008 and 2010, since the tax credits are only valuable to investors 4. Policy analysis 12% when they have to pay proft tax. When the 10% economy is doing poorly, the need for tax 8% credits is far lower than in prosperous times. This means that the price that investors are 6% willing to pay for tax credits is far lower in 4% economic downturns. The risk is that, if there is 2% another crisis, demand for low-income housing tax credits will decrease. 0% ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 96 Extremely and very low incomes Approximately 7-13% of all voucher holders reside in A housing unit built using LIHTCs has capped rents LIHTC housing, and 47% of all properties placed in based on a certain tenant group. When the LIHTCs are service from 1995 to 2006 house one or more tenants assigned to a project that focuses on households with with rental vouchers (Schwartz, 2015). incomes that are 60% AMI, rents are based on a 60% This means that compared to Section 8 NC/SR, LIHTC AMI household. This means that the rents are too high requires more up-front subsidies to provide housing for families that earn less than 60% AMI: an extremely for maximum 60% AMI households. Households who low-income household might end up paying more earn less than 60% AMI can still apply for Section 8 than 50% of their income to rent. The rents are capped rental vouchers. The question then arises whether the at a certain level regardless of who actually moves into initial higher investment and the lower subsequent the project. Schwartz (2012) has stated that incomes rents are better than the Section 8 NC/SR program, are higher than public housing and project-based which was terminated 3 years prior to the establishment Section 8, but lower than the minimum 60% AMI. of LIHTC.

Analysis The cost effciency of LIHTC is also debatable. For The different parties within the government have long every dollar spent by the government on the tax debated how to provide affordable homes to lower- credits, between 40% to 100% actually ended up income households. In 1983, project-based assistance by the developer, nowadays it is about 80%. This in the form of Section 8 NC/SR ended. Three years means that the government spends 20% of their later a similar program arose. The main difference funding helping investors. Thus, it is unclear why the is that the initial benefts for the development are government should not simply collect all the taxes, higher with LIHTC and that tenants under the LIHTC abolish the tax credit system and give active subsidies do not receive monthly rental assistance. In this way, to developers. This would not make a difference on the liberals achieve new affordable housing stock and the government balance sheet and more funds would conservatives are able to infuence the market as much actually go toward low-income housing. as possible with a passive government. Indeed, the Figure 4.24: Analysis LIHTC government’s only role is to accept or deny projects Overall, the LIHTC is the largest affordable housing Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives that apply to LIHTC. program in the US. However, to be truly affordable for low-income households below 60% AMI, project- Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no redistribution Since rents are capped at a certain amount regardless based rental assistance payments are needed. Target groups income Extremely Extremely Extremely low of a tenant’s income, tenants often pay more than 30% Furthermore, although LIHTC is the largest affordable low-middle low- low or even 50% of their income to rent in affordable low- housing program, it is also the most private-market- income housing under the LIHTC program. To prevent based program. The program was introduced by Position of public and Dominantly Public in Mainly Private tenants from paying so much of their income to rent, President Reagan and consequently has conservative private parties in the public collaboration with a passive affordable housing with private role for public many tenants receive additional Section 8 vouchers. tendencies, such as rent caps and the passive role of system parties parties. the government. The LIHTS is the most conservative Figure 4.23: Position LIHTC Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic housing program in 2017. LIHTC Republicans Democrats

Socialist Liberals Conservative

Large government Small government 4.6 Transformation programs

HOPE VI was introduced in 1993 by President input for HOPE VI, it did not recommend the stated in chapter 4.3, there has been a huge Clinton. The main goal of HOPE VI is to wholesale demolition and dispersal of public maintenance backlog of public housing since transform desolated public housing sites into housing (Goetz, 2012). The commission did the 90s. Obsolete public housing units that were new, mixed-income housing units. The mixed argue for an aggressive rehabilitation program no longer economically sound not safe were fnance approach to replace public housing to correct both design and physical problems. targeted by Hope VI. Through the demolition development is one of the most important Goetz (2012) has argued that the demolition of these sites, the maintenance backlog development tools available to public housing portion of the bill was adopted due to decreased while new high quality public authorities implementing HOPE VI revitalization lobbying efforts by the private market. Without housing units were built. However, Republican projects. This new approach emphasizes the the newly built mixed income housing units, President G.W. Bush decreased HOPE VI new public and private partnerships to ensure concentrated poverty would continue to exist, funding by almost 80% (Schwartz,2012). By this the long-term sustainability of public housing merely in improved housing. time the maintenance backlog had decreased developments. Since Hope VI was created appropriations drastically. From 1993 to 2010 HOPE VI funded and grants have been awarded in accordance the demolition of more than 150,000 housing Hope VI with each year’s Notice of Funding Availability units of distressed public housing and invested History (NOFA) (HUD,2001) (Hays,2012). The HOPE $6.2 billion in the redevelopment of these 262 Following the recommendations of the VI program makes it possible to demolish projects (Schwartz,2012). In 2012 and 2013, national commission on Severely Distressed distressed public housing sites and rebuild funding for HOPE VI projects ceased and in Public Housing, Congress passed the FY 1993, mixed-income lower-scale housing units (of 2013, President Obama introduced a new which established a new program: the Hope which a part is public housing) (Schwartz,2012). program to replace HOPE Vi called the Choice VI program (Schwartz,2012). Although the Hope VI targets severely distressed public Neighborhood program. national commission’s report was the main housing for redevelopment. As previously Typology Image 4.25 Bernal dwellings before HOPE VI I Image 4.26 Bernal dwellings after HOPE VI I Originally, Hope VI focused on the physical (SFHA,2017) (SFHA,2017) aspects by reconstructing public housing of lower density developments and including a broader income mix than before. The program’s

4. Policy analysis goals eventually broadened and became more ambitious, including economic integration and poverty de-concentration. By the mid 90s, HOPE VI grants enabled the construction of public housing together with LIHTC and market rate homeowners and rental housing. This new mix of incomes truly made the projects more diverse and less concentrated on poverty. The architectural style of new urbanism was adopted, with low rise structures 98 and more defensible space.; the new public housing were designed to be suitable for households without (HUD,2001). units had front porches, bay windows and gabled the need for large operating and maintenance staffs roofs. The new units also had new internal amenities required by high-rise construction. The emphasis was Public housing funds provided for construction may such as dishwashers, air conditioning, washers and on designing new developments as a seamless part only be used to construct and/or rehabilitate units dryers. HOPE VI has dramatically improved the face of of larger existing neighborhoods and communities. that will function as public housing. The federal public public housing and individual projects have received Public housing no longer segregates low-income housing funds seek to leverage more private and architectural awards. Congress for the New Urbanism families. public funds for the development of public housing. In (CNU) published, together with HUD, a framework for According to Goetz (2012), however, HOPE VI let mixed-income developments, the minimum number the design and process of HOPE VI developments. the design innovation devolve into a new set of of public housing units must be at least as many stereotypes, comparable to previous public housing public housing units as could be constructed without Framework for HOPE VI housing stereotypes. He has stated that: “new urbanist leveraged fnancing. Together, CNU and HUD developed the “Principles designs of the new communities tend to repeat the To improve design and construction, the HOPE VI for inner-city neighborhood design” as a framework same visual patterns in place after place and do so in program allowed the development costs per unit to for HOPE VI developments (CNU,1999). The most ways that oddly echo the conformity of modernism of be higher than has previously been allowed for public important aspects of these principles are included the previous generation.” housing (Schwartz,2012). The higher costs should below. The CNU has further stated that potential danger be repaid over time, not just through higher quality When public housing was born during the Great exists in poorly administrated buildings and public living environments but also lower maintenance Depression, poverty was wide-spread and considered spaces, which can be neglected and allowed to costs (Schwartz,2012). Management was also often to be temporary. People who lived in public housing deteriorate (CNU,1999). contracted out by PHAs to private companies. Instead were expected or even required to move out as soon of centralized management, buildings began to be as they could. Public housing was intended to provide Finance managed individually. Each site had its own budget a safe and decent temporary home, without any luxury. The public housing funds assigned by HUD to local and operating costs. The performance was therefore That view has since changed and public housing is PHAs may be loaned or granted by the PHA to local also measurable on a project-by-project basis. A HOPE seen as a more permanent need. The HOPE VI building developers to build or rehabilitate public housing VI grant agreement required the development be in accordance with the public housing development Image 4.27 High Point after HOPE VI I (University of Image 4.28 High Point before HOPE VI I (University of regulations. It also permitted the PHAS to use a Washington,2017) Washington,2017) combination of private fnancing and public housing development funds (Including HOPE VI funds) to develop public housing units owned by another entity. The public housing development funds may be provided to a third party (NON-PHA), which could develop and own the resulting public housing units (HUD,2001). The underlying goal of mixed fnance development was to maximize the leveraging of both public and private fnance to create mixed-income communities (HUD,2001).

Positive aspects A quality boost for public housing • The distressed public housing sites were sometimes inhabitable and funds for extensive repairs or 99 renovation works were nonexistent. HOPE Roughly one third of demolished public (Bellantoni,2009). VI made it possible to demolish the most housing units were left vacant for years and distressed public housing units and build were inhabitable. In 2009, the Obama administration proposed high quality housing in its place. a new program that aimed at transforming Displaced residents the nation’s poorest neighborhoods. Choice Decentralizing poverty • Another downside of HOPE VI concerns Neighborhoods continue to deconcentrate • Public housing is notorious for its the faith of the residents who do not get poverty in inner city neighborhoods caused concentrated low-income households. to live in the new housing units. They by a high concentration of public and assisted HOPE VI helped by creating more mixed- can apply for rental vouchers, move to housing. The program improves the quality of income neighborhoods by mixing public another public housing site or leave the public housing while adding day care, fresh housing units with private market and assisted housing programs. Approximately markets, sidewalks and parks (Bellantoni,2009) LIHTC units. 46% of original households returned to (HUD,2010-b). live in the new developments. HOPE VI Improving the image of public housing developments often have a higher tenant The program was meant to replace HOPE VI, • Especially in the early 90s, public housing standard than regular public housing. For but instead became a subprogram of HOPE VI. was associated with crime, bad housing example,, in Chicago, people who want to For the fnancial year of 2010, Obama ceased and bad neighborhoods. With the new live in HOPE VI developments must work funding for the original HOPE VI program and urbanism style of HOPE VI housing that at least 30 hours a week or be enrolled full- proposed a new budget of $250 million for image has since changed. Many HOPE time in school. the CNI program (Schwartz,2012). This was VI projects no longer look signifcantly an increase of $130 million from the HOPE VI different from the surrounding buildings. Choice Neighborhood initiative program (HUD, 2010-a). History Negative aspects The new program, the Choice Neighborhood Program goals A loss of public housing units initiative (CNI), continues on the success of HUD has named three distinct goals for the • Hope VI often replaced large public HOPE VI. HOPE VI invested more than $6.1 CNI program (Schwartz,2012): housing sites. By redeveloping these billion since it was established. These federal 1. Housing: Replace distressed public sites to mixed income and smaller scale funds funded 235 projects, demolished housing and assisted housing with high buildings many public housing units were 96,200 public housing units and produced quality, mixed-income housing that is well lost. Between 1993 and 2007, the HOPE VI 107,800 new or renovated housing units, of managed and responsive to the needs of grants demolished 96,226 public housing which 56,800 are lowest-income households the surrounding neighborhood. units and 11, 961 units were replaced by (HUD, 2010-b). The new housing units are 2. People: Improve educational outcomes 111,059 new units (Schwartz,2012) These economically mixed, better designed, less and intergenerational mobility for youth 4. Policy analysis new units contain both private and public dense and fundamentally integrated into with services and support delivered directly housing. In general, approximately 55% of the fabric of local neighborhoods and city to youth and their families. the demolished public housing units were economies. HOPE VI dramatically lowered 3. Neighborhood: Create the conditions replaced by public housing units (Schwartz, crime rates and increased property values in necessary for public and private 2015). Since the old public housing units the worst neighborhoods (Bellantoni,2009). reinvestment in distressed neighborhoods were often poorly maintained and severely to offer amenities and assets that are distressed, they were primarily vacant. Around $500 million was annually assigned to important for families, including safe, good Of all the occupied old public housing HOPE VI during the Clinton administration but schools and commercial activity. units, 81% were replaced (Schwartz,2012). was on life support during bush his presidency 100 More than Public housing realizing their ‘‘transformation plan’’ to redevelop demolished must be replaced. This makes the The program challenges public, private and nonproft the neighborhood. public housing stock more stable and ends the organizations to extend neighborhood transformation The FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods planning grant decline in public housing stock that has been efforts beyond public housing and combine awarded $4 million and $3.6 million for FY2011 ongoing since 1994. housing interventions more closely with community (GPO,2012). The FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods development, school reform, transportation and early implementation grant awarded $122.27 million, to be Neighborhood improvements childhood innovation (HUD,2010-b) (Bellantoni,2009). divided between FY2010 and FY2011 (GPO,2012). • Choice Neighborhood initiative not only focuses In 2009, the range of eligible activities was broader on public housing, it tries to improve the than public housing transformation, since in many One-for-one legislation neighborhood as a whole and educate the people neighborhoods public housing was no longer the Although the new initiative is similar to HOPE VI there who live in it. This makes it far more encompassing main problem. The CNI’s resources could be used is a signifcant difference between the programs. than HOPE VI. to support the transformation of assisted housing The new CNI program obliges developers to build developments, the acquisition and renovation as many public housing units as they demolish. This Negative aspects of unsubsidized, privately owned stock and the additional rule ensures that the public housing stock Highly dense areas construction of mixed income housing in strategic is preserved (HUD,2010). However, when an applicant • The one-for-one policy in the CNI makes it more locations (HUD,2010-b). As a result, the pool of meets three conditions they can be exempt from this diffcult to shift from old, obsolete, dense high-rise eligible applicants was broader than public housing rule and replace up to 50% of public housing units with buildings to smaller-scale, mixed-income projects. agencies and included local governments, non-proft tenant-based assistance (HUD,2010). To be exempt, If developers want to construct mixed-income intermediaries, private frms and public housing developers must: units, they need to build more than they demolish. agencies. The new initiative included community 1. Be in a county with a currently and historically soft development and eligible applicants were required rental housing market for low-income renters. The Complexity to prove that the transformation would be catalytic, Department of Housing and Urban Development • To apply for funds, the applicant must deliver a according to Bruce Katz and Secretary Shaun Donovan has defned these counties as those where the transformation plan. This plan must consist of a (Bellantoni,2009). county rental vacancy rates for units affordable to comprehensive strategy for the revitalization of The program sought to transform poor neighborhoods low-income households were greater than 7% in distressed public housing. This strategy is often into “functioning, sustainable mixed-income 2000 and greater than 9% in 2005 and 2007. determined by a public housing authority, non- neighborhoods by linking housing improvements 2. Be in an area where vouchers currently in use proft organizations, local authorities and private with appropriate services, schools, public assets, are primarily in lower poverty neighborhoods. To organizations. Because there are more actors transportation and access to jobs” (Bellantoni,2009). qualify on this standard, the median neighborhood involved, this strategy is more comprehensive and poverty rate for a voucher holder must be 20% complicated than the original HOPE VI strategies. Finance or less. In other words, at least 50% of voucher HUD awarded two types of grants for the CNI: planning holders must be in neighborhoods with a 20% Rental assistance demonstration (RAD) grants and implementation grants (GPO, 2012). poverty rate or less. History 1. Planning grants help communities that are not 3. Be in an area with a high voucher success rate. A As part of the FY12 HUD Appropriations Act, Congress able to fully undertake a successful neighborhood minimum of 80% of households issued vouchers authorized the Rental Assistance Demonstration transformation. The government’s planning grants are successful at leasing units within 120 days. (RAD) to help preserve and improve low-income enable communities to create a comprehensive housing. The RAD allows PHAs and the owners of development plan for the transformation. Positive aspects private, HUD-assisted housing to leverage Section 8 2. Implementation grants provide federal support to Public housing preservation rental assistance contracts to raise private debt and communities that have fnished the comprehensive • Unlike HOPE VI, CNI administers a one-for-one equity for capital improvements. The RAD has two local planning process and are in the process of policy. This means that every public housing unit components: the frst concerns public housing and 101 the Moderate Rehabilitation (Mod Rehab) and Urban Development refers to these repair of existing buildings or the construction of new program; the second concerns other project- costs as capital needs. Congress has not housing. based assistance programs outside the scope provided enough funding for PHAs to sustain of this research. The RAD transforms public capital needs. As a result, PHAs have had to Ownership housing units to Section 8 project-based make tough choices between, for example, The RAD statute requires converted units to be assistance. After 3 years, through the FY2015 repairing roofs and replacing plumbing or owned or controlled by a public or nonproft Appropriations Act, Congress increased the even demolishing public housing. The RAD entity. If there is a foreclosure, then ownership number of public housing units that could be provides PHAs a way to rehabilitate or repair or control of the property must frst go to a converted under RAD from 60,000 to 185,000 units without depending on additional funds public entity, and if there is not a public entity (Gramlich, 2016). Simultaneously, HUD had from Congress (HUD, 2017-c). willing to own the property, then to a private a wait list of 10,946 public housing units that The RAD is a voluntary demonstration entity that could be for-proft. could be considered for RAD conversion if program. There is no new funding for RAD. some of the projects with preliminary approval Once converted under RAD, the amount of A public or nonproft entity must (Gramlich, were withdrawn or revoked (Gramlich, 2016). public housing capital funding and operational 2016): funding is used under Section 8 PBRA • Hold interest in the property, Program goal (Schwartz,2017). • Have direct or indirect legal authority on The intent of RAD is to help preserve and With the conversion to project-based Section the fnancial and legal aspects, improve low-income housing by enabling 8, the property’s owner enters into a 15- or 20- • Possess 51% or more interest of the general PHAs and the owners of private, HUD-assisted year Rental Assistance Payment (HAP) contract partner share in a limited partnership, housing to leverage Section 8 rental assistance with HUD, which must be renewed upon be the managing member of a Limited contracts to raise private debt and equity expiration (Schwartz, 2017). Liability Corporation (LLC) or have 51% or for capital improvements; this includes RAD Voluntarily converting public housing to Section more of the membership shares of an LLC. conversions (HUD, 2017-c). This results in: 8 might be ideal because Congress continues HUD may allow ownership of a project to be • Improved housing, to underfund public housing. This lack of funds transferred to a private, for-proft LIHTC entity • Easier to borrow money, leads to deteriorating buildings and the loss only if HUD determines that the PHA preserves • Stable Section 8 platform, of units through demolition. The Department suffcient interest in the property. Preservation • Mobility increase where tenants can get of Housing and Urban Development estimates of a PHA’s suffcient interest in a project using HCV. that between 10,000 and 15,000 public housing LIHTCs could include (Gramlich, 2016): units are lost each year (Gramlich,2016) • The PHA, or an affliate under its sole How does it work (Schwartz,2017). If a long-term rental assistance control, being the sole general partner or The RAD seeks to preserve public housing contract is tied to a property, private institutions managing member, by providing PHAs with access to new ways might be more willing to lend money for • The PHA retaining fee ownership and 4. Policy analysis of funding necessary capital improvements. critical building repairs. Congress is also more leasing the real estate to the LIHTC entity Although PHAs were already able to borrow likely to provide adequate funding for existing as part of a long-term ground lease, funds for capital improvements for public Section 8 contracts than for public housing • The PHA retaining control over project housing, the RAD drastically increases their (Gramlich,2016). Therefore, some units that leasing, such as maintaining and ability to use debt (Schwartz,2017). The were public housing before conversion will administrating the waiting list for the increase in capital investments is necessary remain available and affordable to people with project and performing checks on eligibility because public housing units across the extremely low and very low incomes because that comply with the PHA plan, country need more than $26 billion in repairs of the long-term Section 8 contract. The RAD • The PHA entering into a control agreement (HUD, 2017-c). The Department of Housing program can be applied for the rehabilitation by which the PHA retains consent rights 102 over certain acts of the owner (for example, selection criteria for the redeveloped public housing The main reason for the existence of the RAD is the disposition of the project, leasing, selecting the often deemed many original residents ineligible to maintenance backlog of public housing. Through the management agent, setting the operating budget live there (Schwartz,2017). Although the term “one- RAD, PHAs can obtain loans from private institutions and making withdrawals from the reserves) and for-one replacement” is not actively used by HUD, to increase the quality of their housing portfolio and retaining certain rights over the project, such as there will be one-for-one replacement according to eliminate the existing backlog. administrating the waiting list. Gramlich (2016). However, there are exceptions. Public housing agencies can reduce the number of assisted No increase in costs for HUD Tenants units by up to 5% or 5 units, whichever is greater, There are no costs for HUD to transform public housing The statute and the notice implementing the statute without seeking HUD approval. The Department of units under the RAD program, unlike HOPE VI or the delineate a number of protections and rights for Housing and Urban Development refers to this as the CNI which demanded a large amount of funding. The residents, including (Gramlich, 2016): “de minimus” exception. Furthermore, RAD does not only costs for HUD under the RAD are administration • Permanent involuntary displacement of current include the 5%/5 rule: any unit that has been vacant costs; however, these costs are negligible. residents may not occur as a result of a project’s for two or more years, any reconfgured units and any conversion. If a household does not want to units converted to use for social services may be torn Negative aspects transition to Section 8, they may move to other down. Consequently, the loss of units can be greater More debt and higher market rate debt payments. public housing if an appropriate unit is available. than 5%. The PHAs are now allowed to borrow money on the • Section 8 rules limit residents’ rent payment to private market. The private market, however, asks for 30% of their income or minimum rent, whichever Choice mobility higher returns than e.g. government bonds. Thus, the is higher, which is often also the case for public In addition to better quality housing, tenants also have annual costs are higher when PHAs borrow from market housing. Any rent increase of 10% or $25 that is more choices in where they wish to live through the parties than from the government. Furthermore, PHAs due to conversion is phased in over a period of RAD’s choice mobility. Although after conversion the become indebted to private organizations and if PHAs 3-5 years. assistance is linked to the building and not the tenant are not able to pay the monthly fees the properties • Current residents cannot be rescreened. (PBRA), after one or two years the tenant can apply might be confscated by the banks. This also means • Residents temporarily relocated while for a housing choice voucher (HUD,2017-c). With the that when Congress decides to lower PBRA assistance, rehabilitation is conducted have a right to return. tenant-based HCV tenants have more freedom to PHAs will face diffculties repaying their private debt. • Public housing agencies must renew a resident’s decide where to live. lease, unless there is “good cause” not to. Loss of public housing • The RAD statute requires tenants of converted Positive aspects Public housing is the most well-known and possibly the properties to have the same grievance and lease Tenants mobility most notorious housing program in the US. However, termination rights they had under Section 6 of One of the major positive aspects of this program is since public housing is publicly owned, only Congress the Housing Act of 1937. For instance, PHAs must tenant mobility. After conversion to Section 8 PBRA, can change the faith of public housing. Section 8 notify a resident of the PHA’s reason for a proposed tenants have the opportunity to apply for HCV. With housing and LIHTC rely far more on the market and as adverse action and of their right to an informal HCV, tenants have more choices for where to live. such, the market can also determine what will happen hearing, assisted by a resident representative. to these units. Since Section 8 contracts are for a Advocates think that HUD has not adequately One for one replacement limited time period, the transformation from public implemented this statutory requirement. For every public housing unit that is demolished a housing to Section 8 makes the future of affordable new Section 8 PBRA unit must be constructed. This housing stock more uncertain. One-for-One Replacement. one-for-one replacement ensures that no affordable HOPE VI, which redeveloped 262 public housing housing units are lost in the transformation process. Analysis developments between 1993 and 2010, demolished far The three transformation programs all aim to achieve more public housing units than it replaced, and tenant Improved housing the same goals: to eliminate the backlog of public 103 housing and to improve the quality of housing. units. This program was introduced when public housing units without the loss of public However, the quality and maintenance of there were huge maintenance backlogs and housing units and is therefore a liberal piece of public housing is low because it has always inhabitable public housing units. Although it legislation. been underfunded. Instead of transforming may have initially been the only way to preserve public housing units through the RAD, HOPE public housing units, now that the worst public RAD VI or the CNI, Congress could also assign housing sites have been transformed and the Unlike the other two programs, the RAD does more funds to public housing. Nevertheless, backlog is signifcantly lower, there is less need not receive funds from the federal government. there are also differences between the three to demolish public housing. Federal funds The RAD transfers public housing units to the programs. were also assigned to HOPE VI to preserve the private market, which helps solve the backlog One big difference is the preservation of affordable housing stock. HOPE VI is liberal of public housing units. Since the units are now affordable housing units. Both the CNI and in that it seeks to preserve affordable homes, private units with private debt this program the RAD require a one-for-one replacement. however it is also the most used policy to is more conservative than the other two This means that for every public housing unit decrease the public housing stock. programs, who spent federal tax dollars on the demolished, an affordable housing unit must preservation of publicly owned housing units. be built. HOPE VI has no such limitation. CNI David Hardiman from HUD has stated that While HOPE VI and the CNI both maintain the The CNI continues the success of HOPE VI with the RAD must be cost neutral and that federal public housing stock, the RAD transfers it to the addition of the one-for-one replacement loans are not especially common (Interview 3). Section 8 PBRA assistance. rule. This rule helps conserve publicly owned affordable housing units and increases the HOPE VI quality of these buildings. Similar to HOPE HOPE VI was introduced by liberals to VI, the CNI was introduced by liberals. The transform the most obsolete public housing CNI spends federal tax dollars on improving

Figure 4.29 Analysis HOPE VI Figure 4.30 Analysis CNI Figure 4.31 Analysis RAD

Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives

Wealth High Low Low-no Wealth High Low Low-no Wealth High Low Low-no redistribution redistribution redistribution redistribution redistribution redistribution

Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low income low-middle low- low income low-middle low- low income low-middle low- low

Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private

4. Policy analysis public and public collabor with a passive public and public collabo- with a passive public and public collabo- with a passive private parties ation with role for public private parties ration with role for public private parties ration with role for public in the affordable private parties. in the affordable private parties. in the affordable private parties. housing system parties housing system parties housing system parties

Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic Economic Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic system system system

Figure 4.32 Position transformation programs CNI HOPE VI RAD Republicans Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives 104 Large government Small government 4.7 Conclusion

Sub-research question: require annual appropriations, which might play a role How is the current federal affordable housing system in the success of this program. organized? Indeed, interviewee 3 believes that the success of In the US there are four large affordable housing LIHTC could be extended to the rental sector with programs: LIHTC, Section 8 PBRA Section 8 TBRA and rental tax credits, and that the four different policies public housing. Three of these programs receive active should eventually diverge into one to obtain a clearer, subsidies and are encompassed by HUD (Section more affordable housing system (interview 3). 8 PBRA/TBRA, public housing). The low-income housing tax credits, however, are passive subsidies In the 1980s and 1990s neither political party dared administrated by the Treasury. increase funds for public housing, since public opinion of public housing was extremely low. By the 1990s Public housing is the oldest policy and most of the the maintenance backlog became so large, however, other policies can be explained by understanding that action needed to be taken. At frst the HOPE VI public housing. Public housing has always been program transformed desolate public housing sites underfunded and used to be considered temporary into new, mixed-income neighborhoods at the loss housing. Therefore, the buildings had to be built of public housing units. By the second decade of the cheaply and maintenance (capital) funds were not twenty-frst century the maintenance backlog of public fully assigned. This led to a substantial maintenance housing had decreased and the most distressed sites backlog in the 1990s. The units were of poor quality had been transformed by HOPE VI. For this reason, and neither Congress nor the US population Obama initiated a new program (CNI) that continued were pleased with the result. The frst idea was to the work of HOPE VI with a one-for-one replacement discontinue public housing and introduce Section rule. In the same decade, the RAD was also introduced. 8. Section 8 comprised two programs: tenant-based The RAD did not require any funding from HUD and assistance and project-based assistance. However, transferred public housing units to Section 8 housing these were still active subsidies and therefore a new units. The annual costs for HUD remained the same, program was introduced by the conservatives that the only difference being that the maintenance required even less governmental action. backlog was eliminated by private market loans.

The federal funds assigned to LIHTC, however, only created 40% new equity for affordable housing units. Thus, for every dollar that the federal government made available, only $0.40 could be used to develop affordable housing. Despite this, the LIHTC became the largest affordable housing program. Unlike the other programs, the LIHTC is a passive subsidy administrated by the Treasury. Therefore, it does not 105 5. New York City

106 5.1 Affordable housing in NYC

New York City has got a long history of affordable means an average of about 90 units a year in 1920 In 1937 the federal Housing Act was passed which housing. The public affordable housing effort already 15,000 units had been realized (Bloom & Lasner,2016). introduced public housing. After the establishment of started before the federal program in 1937. Since The New York state’s tenement House Act of 1901 tried the NYCHA in 1937 it distinguished itself by(Bloom & then NYC has had one of the most progressive liberal to improve housing conditions by mandating new Lasner,2016): housing policies from all over the United Stated. This constructions to include amenities such as bathrooms, • building large high quality developments; lead to a rather large affordable housing portfolio in larger courtyards and that every room has a window. • gaining widespread popular and political; NYC compared to other cities. One of the responsible However these efforts were not enough to change acceptance of public housing; parties of this large portfolio is the NYCHA (the New the existing housing. In WWI, rents rose in NYC and • building public housing complexes for middle- York City Housing Authority). The NYCHA is the largest vacancies decreased to almost zero, by the assistance income families; Housing Authority of the United States of America for of leftist, tenants began to rebel against the landlords • providing a range of community facilities; as well Section 8 housing as public housing by far. This for profteering of the situation. In 1920 this has lead • tenanting housing complexes on an interracial chapter will explain some of the key characteristics of to rent control in NYC, similar to European countries bases. the affordable housing portfolio in NYC. Chapter 5 at that time. Reformers did look to subsidies that were • good effective management will answer the following research question: How cost administrated in Europe especially in the Netherlands New York distinguished itself from other cities by good effcient have the federal affordable housing programs and argued that similar subsidies were needed for management affordable housing was considered been in New York City? NYC as well (Bloom & Lasner,2016). In 1926 reformers important. Many other cities offered better choices succeeded in passing new legislation together for the poor and working class than New York and Reader guide chapter 5: with governor A.E.Smith after long debates with therefore embraced public housing half-heartedly. 5.1 Discusses the affordable housing system in NYC conservatives the Act was called the “Limited Dividend The NYCHA replicated management practices from and some background information about NYC. Housing Companies Act of 1926”. This Act provided the private market. This hands on approach was 5.2 Discusses the key characteristics of NYCHA. participating projects twenty years of tax exemptions, different from the corrupt and slipshod maintenance 5.3 Discusses some aspects of NYCHA its affordable in exchange developers had to limit their profts and programs in many other cities. housing portfolio. therefore rent levels. This is quite similar to the Low The NYCHA build public housing units from three 5.4 Discusses the cost effciency study results of this income housing tax credits that we known today. In sources: research. 1934 NYC pushed for new legislation in Albany and 1. Federal 5.5 Answering the sub-research question of chapter 5 succeeded, the new legislation allowed the creation 2. State of one of the frst housing authorities in the United 3. City History of affordable housing in NYC States the NYCHA. In 1936 the “frst houses project” From the 1870’s affordable housing in NYC was based was the frst government built and owned complex The state and federal developments were alike on the kindness of developers. Some developers in the United States since WWI and was meant for however the city developments followed the modern accepted limited profts in order to offer tenants permanent residency for low income households. housing programs of western Europe with more below-market rents. Several projects had been build These buildings still exist today and are still affordable generous subsidies and income ceilings. The NYCHA this way in NYC, however the limited dividends made for low income families. The progressive New York used the city programs to develop higher quality it unattractive for investors and therefore a limited contributers helped shaping the federal 1937 Housing apartments for higher income groups. amount of affordable housing units could be build. Act (Bloom & Lasner,2016). In 1910 3,588 units had been build by this way, which Differences between public housing in NYC and 107 other cities became more extreme after WWII. the city in mobile containers on the streets for units were meant for household that earn less Cities such as Chicago St. Louis Newark, people to stay warm. than 80% AMI (Schwartz,2012). 60% of the 7.5 Baltimore and Atlanta build mainly large billion came from municipal bonds, 17% from public housing sites in disadvantaged mainly The bad living conditions and the decreasing the city’s expense budget and 8% from LIHTC African American neighborhoods, NYCHA real estate need in New York lead to (Schwartz,2012). The municipality of New York build public housing throughout all boroughs discontempt across varies groups including: spend in 1999 $107 per capita on affordable with a mixed race tenancy. After construction landlords tenants and junkies. These groups housing in comparison to $7.06 of the sample even more differences arose, the NYCHA was set buildings on fre to get some insurance of 396 other cities (Schwartz,2012). maintaining and operating the buildings more money, or access to emergency funds. This The community development corporations thoroughly. In 1959 the NYCHA had build lead to by the late 70’s to the loss of about CDC’s did also use Section 8 assistance and almost 150,000 units through the federal, state 100,000 housing units (Bloom & Lasner,2016). later LIHTC. In 2010 almost 80,000 LIHTC and city programs (Bloom & Lasner,2016). In The decrease of housing units left huge empty buildings had been developed (Bloom & 1958 NYCHA stopped after protests with the plots in the city. Renovation and rehabilitation Lasner,2016). construction of large mega structured public was the tool of the municipality to solve the The city of New York has published a 10 year housing units. big problems. New community development plan for the 5 boroughs in 2014 (The City of corporations (CDC) renovated areas on a New York, 2014). In this plan the big housing The Housing Act of 1974, which made Section large scale in NYC with city funds. New York need of NYC is explained. The housing need is 8 and housing vouchers permanent, brought City has persistently spent far more of its so big that former Mayor Bill de Blasio decided major changes to below market housing. In fnancial resources on affordable housing to build or preserve nearly 200,000 affordable the time period of the 1970’s and 1980’s public than any other municipality. In 1987 the city housing units. In total $41 billion is assigned to housing gained lots of criticism even in the launched a $4 billion capital budget program this 10 year project of which $30.5 billion dollar liberal and progressive NYC. Despite the cities to construct new housing and rehabilitate is going to new construction and 10.5 billion is modernization efforts the city lost one million existing housing (Schwartz,2012). The initiative going to the preservation of affordable homes residents between 1970 and 1980 (Bloom & has been sustained under four subsequent (The City of New York, 2014). This $41 billion Lasner,2016). New York suffered from some mayors Democrats as well as Republicans. unique problems. The City was for example in In 2002 Mayor Bloomberg committed an Table 5.1 Average home value index based on Zillow big debt, the previous spendings on welfare additional $3 billion to the effort, renaming (2017)

programs drove the budget billions in red. The the initiative the New Market place Housing City Avarage home value index

New York City New York loss of residents and apartments meant less plan, supporting the development of 65,000 (AHVI) income. The solution was higher taxes higher new homes before 2007 (Schwartz,2012). San Francisco, CA 978,300 transit fares and the elimination and reduction Bloomberg later even extended this program Los Angeles, CA 757.000 of social programs (Bloom & Lasner,2016). to 165,000 housing units which required an 5. To many much of the city looked beyond investment of 7.5 billion making it the largest San Diego, CA 635.500 saving, large sections of the lower east side municipal affordable housing plan in the New York, NY 575.800 Harlem Brooklyn and the Bronx had changed nation (Schwartz,2012). Bloombergs successor, Boston, MA 486900 immensely. When people moved out they took Mayor DeBlasio pledged to preserve or Seattle, WA 469.300 their capital with them leaving the landlords produce 200,000 additional units within the with little money to pay for maintenance. next 10 years. The 165,000 houses pledged Washington, DC 440.800 This lead to a backlog of maintenance which by Bloomberg were build in the fscal year of Denver, CO 387.700 meant that the conditions were often very bad. 2013 (Schwartz,2012). 71% of these housing Sacramento, CA 382.400

Heating was supplied on a regular basis by units were rentals. More than two third of these Portland, OR 365.900 108 is spread over 10 years, which means an average of 5% threshold required for rent regulation to continue States, it is therefore no shock that NYC is doing a lot $4.1 billion annually. The far majority of this 41 billion under State law (NYCRGB, 2016). The vacancy rate more about affordable housing than other cities and comes from private investments (30 billion), federal ranged from a low of 2.69% in Queens to a high of than the federal government does. Now the federal around $1.5 billion, state around $1.5 billion and the 4.07% in Manhattan. Brooklyn’s vacancy rate was programs can expect some further cuts under Trump city around $8.3 billion (The City of New York, 2014). 3.06%, the Bronx’s rate was 3.77% (NYCRGB, 2016). his presidency, however the city itself seems to invest more than ever in affordable housing. All together New York City real estate market In addition to the city effort of the New York City NYC is a lot more liberal concerning affordable New York is notorious for its high real estate and Housing Development Corporation New York has got housing policies than the federal government is. living prices. World wide it is often assumed to be one of the oldest and the largest housing authorities, one of the most expensive places on earth. But when the NYCHA. The NYCHA houses almost 400.000 new people look a bit further they can see that New York Yorkers in 174.484 public housing units and another is actually not the most expensive city of the United 235.000 residents life in 99860 subsidized Section 8 States to life. Zollow (2017) conducted research about assistance housing units (HUDuser, 2017) (NYCHA, the living costs of US states cities and metropolitan 2016). areas. From the largest 30 metropolitan areas NYC is on place 8 when it comes to the price per square foot Analysis homes in the freehold sector. NYC is however rated New York reformers pioneered the idea of below the most expensive on the rental sector right above market subsidized housing in the US a century ago. Boston. Table 5.1 shows the average home value Thanks to the new deal they developed more of it index according to Zillow (2017), here it can be seen than anywhere else. Since the crisis of 1970 and the that New York is on the fourth place of most expensive retrenchment of the welfare state new York has lost house prices after San Francisco, Los Angeles and San ground even with the addition of more than 120000 Diego. Section 8 vouchers. Below market housing has always been at heart a liberal movement and the majority Affordable housing in NYC of new Yorkers still share this faith. System wide the New York City has at the moment the largest housing agency commands a waiting list of nearly 250,000 stock it has ever had, in 2014 NYC had more than 3.4 families with another 100,000 fr Section 8 vouchers. Million housing units (NYCRGB, 2016). Rental housing The question rises weather NY is able to avoid the fate is responsible for more than 64% of that housing of public housing in other American cities. The fell of stock. Of all these rental housing units more than appropriations under bush and Obama lead to staff 61% had some sort of rent regulation, which comes cuts and operating defcits. down to 1.3 million housing units (NYCRGB, 2016). As explained before Mayor DeBlasio has launched a Overall New York has embraced affordable housing new progressive policy in order to preserve and add policies with both arms. They have pioneered in even more affordable housing units. At the moment public housing, and operated and maintained their the New York City’s housing market is tight, fnding public housing stock quite well. New York has always a Citywide vacancy rate of 3.45% in 2014, below the been one of the most liberal cities in the United NYC policy Federal policy 2017 Figure 5.2 Position NYC Republicans Democrats

Socialist Liberal Conservative

Large government Small government 5.2 NYCHA

Chapter 5.1 has already introduced the NYCHA city program NYCHA. (2017-a). Figure 5.3 city is trying to develop affordable housing (the New York City Housing Authority). Next shows when the federal state and city units units in collaboration with new partnerships to the cities efforts on affordable housing the have been constructed. with private parties. NYCHA is the largest NYCHA administrates mainly federal policies landlord of New York City, public housing such as public housing, and Section 8 housing. NYCHA its role in the city of New York represents 8% of the rental housing stock(The This sub-chapter will elaborate further on some When the characteristics of NYCHA are City of New York, 2015). And as image 5.4 key characteristics of the NYCHA. compared to the city of new York we see that shows NYCHA units make up for 74% of all the NYCHA is operating 274.000 housing houses below $500 a month and 51% of all History units with about $4.3 billion annual costs housing units below $800 a month (The City of The NYCHA was established in 1934 by the (NYCHA 2015-a)(NYCHA 2015-b) . The private New York, 2015). municipality based on new state legislation affordable housing programs of the city of (Bloom & Lasner,2016). The NYCHA was New York is targeting to build and preserve Current size developing public housing before the federal 200.000 housing units in 2024 with average NYCHA resides over 400.000 new Yorkers Housing Act of 1937. NYCHA developed costs of $4.1 billion annually (The City of New in 328 public housing developments, and federal, state and city public housing units. York, 2014) another 235.000 residents in subsidized Over the years many public housing units Section 8 assistance housing unit (NYCHA, have been transferred from the state or city Together the City, the NYCHA and the federal 2016). Due to a dramatic reduction in federal program to the federal program. Out of the government work towards more and better governmental funding the NYCHA needs to 170.000 units about 100,000 were originally affordable housing units in New York City. fnd new innovative fnancing possibilities in build under the federal program. That means The NYCHA administrates traditional housing order to continue housing the low income that 70,000 units were build with the state or programs with funding from HUD, were as the households (Bloom & Lasner,2016) . The New York City Housing Authority is the Figure 5.3: NYCHA share of federal state and city public housing units (City of New York,2015) New York City New York Federal State City Figure 5.4 NYCHA share of low rent apartments based on the City of New York (2015) 80,000 100% 38,473 146,646 5. 80% 60,000 112,010 60% Non NYCHA rent NYCHA units 40,000 152,235 40%

20% 20,000

0% NYC rental NYC rental under under 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000s $500/month $800/month 110 largest Housing Authority considering public housing Manhattan this is the opposite, everybody lives in high- also 3.1 billion funds made available for repairs that units and Section 8 units. rise which means that the public housing residents have to do with damages caused by hurricane Sandy, When looked at the Section 8 vouchers there are are not discriminated against. Some of the public since this is hopefully an one off fund, these revenues 99,805 housing units supported in 2016 by the NYCHA, housing buildings are even in the most expensive and costs are not taken into account. The majority of this makes the NYCHA the largest Housing Authority neighborhoods of New York, which gives them a the funds are coming from the federal government considering Section 8 programs by far (HUD, 2017-a). chance to enjoy the same services as the wealthy New (52%), with about 39% coming from the city and 5% The NYCHA is followed by Chicago 52,478 and Los Yorkers. And at last the land prices are so high in New from the district attorneys offce (NYCHA, 2015-a). Angeles with housing units 49,667 (HUD, 2017-b). York that building anything else but high-rise is just But the NYCHA is not only the largest Housing not affordable (Semuels, 2015). NYCHA its expenditures Authority for Section 8 programs but also for public Operational expenditures housing units. The NYCHA administrated 171,481 Finance Most of the expenditures go to salaries and other public housing units followed by Puerto Rico with Funding sources benefts (43%) (NYCHA, 2015-b). To reduce these 51,651 units and Chicago with 17,488 (HUD, 2017-b). The New York City Housing Authority gets its fundings costs the NYCHA is going to reduce its working staff from multiple institutions, the largest ones being the from 11,318 workers to 10,644 workers from 2015-2020 Typology & policy federal government and the New York City council. (NYCHA, 2015-b). The second largest expenditure is Since the 1960’s most of the American public housing The NYCHA splits its revenues and expenditures into the Housing assistance payments (28%). The utilities are sites were build as high rise buildings. The idea of two parts, capital budgets and operational budgets. responsible for 18% of the operational expenditures, these giant buildings was that there could be green on To see how relevant the federal subsidies to the consisting of electricity gas water steam and oil. The the ground foor and still achieve the needed density. NYCHA it is important to look at the total income and buildings are not energy cost effcient which leads to Unfortunately as explained in chapter 3 there were expenditures of the NYCHA. such high costs. Together with HUD the NYCHA will many downsides to this high rise approach. try to make their portfolio more energy cost effcient. With the introduction of HOPE VI most of these NYCHA its Revenues projects are now gone. Examples are: Operational revenues Capital expenditures the Richard Allen Homes in Philadelphia, Cabrini The NYCHA received $3.320 billion operating funds The capital expenditures are only one third the size of Green in Chicago, the Techwood Housing Project in in 2016 (NYCHA, 2015-b). The operational revenues the operational expenditures. The largest expenditures Atlanta, and dozens of others are replaced by smaller- mainly come from the federal government, 61% of the category is the exteriors/structures of the buildings scale housing developments. operational revenues come directly from the federal (46%), followed by the program administration 18%, But New York is an exception to that rule. A lot of the government. The Section 8 HAP( Section 8 housing interiors 18% and heating and plumbing 6%(NYCHA, high-rise public housing buildings are still standing assistance payments), federal operating subsidies and 2015-a). The capital expenditures are meant as and most of them are in great need of repair for Section 8 admin fall under the federal government. improvements for the current buildings in use. example Castle Hill Houses in the Bronx, which has The city only plays a small role in the operationalization 5,000 residents and needs $23 million of immediate of the NYCHA with only $140 million of annual funds Maintenance backlog repairs according to The New York Times (Semuels, which are good for 4.2% of the total operating NYCHA continues to invest in capital improvements to 2015). Baruch Houses, the largest project in Manhattan, revenues. The tenants revenues are the second keep its buildings structurally sound and in a decent located on the Lower East Side, needs $241.9 million biggest income source for the NYCHA operating state. “NYCHA continues to make improvements to in repairs over the next fve years (Semuels, 2015). budget, they are good for 30% of that budget. its building structures and systems by spending its NYCHA is a very large organization and according money wisely, and in the best interests of residents,” to Semuels (2015) it can therefore escape regulatory Capital revenues said NYCHA Chairman John B. Rhea (NYCHA, mandates that other housing authorities cannot. The NYCHA receives annually $1.1004 billion capital 2013). NYCHA is also implementing a plan to use And in most other cities the high-rise public housing funds, fgure 5.6 shows the sources of these funds. In the federal capital funds a year faster than required buildings are much higher than its surroundings. In 2016 next to the traditional capital fundings there was (NYCHA, 2013). Enhancements to NYCHA’s current 111 planning and process management practices looking for new ways to secure and maximize resident leaders are calling for a long-term (10- are underway to facilitate these new targeted funding sources and improve delivery of year), multi-billion dollar capital commitment timelines (NYCHA, 2013). services in order to preserve public housing in dedicated to catching up with the growing As NYCHA faces underfunding from the federal New York City (NYCHA, 2013). One critical way backlog of infrastructure improvements to its government and manages an increasingly NYCHA will do that is by restoring rent equity 334 developments, housing 179,000 families. old housing stock, the result is a backlog of to ensure that all residents pay 30 percent of Mayor de Blasio’s ambitious 10-year Housing unfnished work order requests. NYCHA is their income toward rent. The NYCHA has New York Plan has committed $8 billion in city taking on the issue with a new and aggressive been creative in solving the operating losses capital funds to expanding affordable housing Action Plan. however this has not been suffcient in order in the private sector (Torres & Jones, 2014). “No one has felt the impact of federal to bring the public housing units in good state A parallel capital commitment needs to be underfunding more than NYCHA residents, again (interview 2) made to stop the decline of NYCHA buildings who have had to face long waits for repairs to More than 47,000 NYCHA households currently and lessen the risks of losing our public housing apartments and public spaces,” said Mayor pay less than 30 percent of their income toward (Torres & Jones, 2014). Michael Bloomberg (NYCHA, 2013). NYCHA rent (NYCHA, 2013). To make sure all residents is able to put the Action Plan in place now are subject to the same standards, NYCHA will Conclusion by reinvesting $40 million into repair efforts increase rent maximums and gradually raise All together the NYCHA is a unique Housing picked up from savings in administrative rents for these households, up to 30 percent of Authority, it is one of the oldest, and the costs, and from the City Council. As NYCHA their income based on the federal Department largest Housing Authority. On top of that continues to face underfunding from the of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) New York City has always had a great need for federal government, its buildings get older and affordable fair market rent. The New York City affordable housing and the NYCHA is therefore the waiting list for public housing holds more Housing Authority has an exceptional 80- highly supported by the public opinion, the than 160,000 households, the Authority keeps year track record as the nation’s largest public municipality and the city council. Although the housing program, until recently one of its best. City of New York puts great effort in affordable Figure 5.7 NYCHA operating funds cumulative loss Decades of public disinvestment ,at all levels housing, the NYCHA is still the major supplier (City of New York,2015) of government, have led to yearly operating for low income households. 100% defcits, now at $77 million, and a mounting Over the last couple of years the authority has backlog of over $10 billion in need for major reached a large maintenance backlog. The capital improvements (Torres & Jones, NYCHA its income largely depends on federal 90%

New York City New York 2014). Worst of all, the costs of government funds, however over the years only 80% to 95% defunding have been passed on to vulnerable of the eligible funds have been assigned to residents who are struggling daily with water NYCHA. The backlog reached about 10 billion 80% leaks, broken elevators, cracked walls, and in 2014. The city and the NYCHA is looking 5. faulty locks (Torres & Jones, 2014). for creative ways to eliminate this backlog. In Federal funding, which depends on general the liberal New Yorkers are in favor of 70% $0 Congressional appropriations each year, public housing which cannot be said of other $200 $1,05 Billion Loss remained at starvation levels as can be sen cities. Another reason for success mentioned $400 In millions in fgure 5.7. As a result, NYCHA only gets a by David Hardiman was that many NYCHA $600 percentage of the operating subsidies it is employees and working class households $800 eligible to under the HUD formula. Given the resided in the NYCHA its public housing units $1,000 Washington impasse, it is up to the state and city (interview 3). $1,200 to take the initiative to rebuild NYCHA. City and 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 112 5.3 NYCHA housing portfolio

The cost effciency research of this thesis has analyzed 10 years more than one million people left the city. At these households, suggesting that other housing the developments of the federal affordable housing that time the city was in huge debt and did not have authorities did make different choices (interview programs in NYC. This sub-chapter will compare the the resources to focus on affordable housing. In the 2). At the same time NYCHA has had a hands on NYCHA its public housing portfolio to the whole late 80’s the city became popular again and the need approach and benefted from great support of the public housing portfolio of the United States. for affordable housing rose. Figure 5.8 shows that municipality and the growing real estate market of during that time the public housing portfolio in New NYC. The good locations of public housing may have Portfolio York grew whilst the federal portfolio remained at the contributed to the success of the affordable housing As said in the previous sub-chapter there are multiple same level. units (Interview 2). parties who have developed public housing in New York City, the federal government, the state and The federal portfolio grew a bit longer till about But the federal portfolio as well as NYCHA its the city. Since this research is determining the cost 1980, however came to a stand still in 1980. portfolio suffered under the budget cuts of President effciency of federal affordable housing policies Considering that the public housing portfolio in New Reagan. However overall NYCHA managed their only the units that have been developed under the York City grew and was responsible for about 15% of public housing units better than many other PHA federal program will be taken into account. Image 5.8 the total federal portfolio it can be concluded that as explained before. When on a federal level many shows the federal portfolio together with the NYCHA the other 85% of federal portfolio of public housing public housing units were being torn down under the portfolio. Both portfolios have a similar incline units already started to decrease. HOPE VI program the New York City public housing between 1949 and 1975, however in 1975 the public stock remained stable. Figure 5.8 shows that after housing portfolio in New York came to a stand still. Interviewee 2, stated that the New York City Housing the 1990’s the units across the country were being The standstill of New York can be explained from the Authority was able to preserve all these affordable demolished whilst in that same year the Mayor of situation in New York City in the 1970’s when within housing units by making a choice to keep serving New York City announced huge amounts of new funding to support the public housing portfolio. Figure 5.8 NYCHA and federal public housing portfolio The result of good management and the support Federal public housing portfolio of the city is that NYCHA was able to save its public NYCHA public housing portfolio housing units.

100 1,400 Average rent The average rents of public housing units have been similar throughout the years for all the fve different 75 1,050 boroughs as fgure appendix 2 shows. This means that all the public housing units throughout the 50 700 boroughs had similar income tenants. NYCHA units *1000 Federal units *1000 25 350

0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 113 5.4 NYCHA cost effciency research

As explained in the frst chapter, one of units. effciency studies and concludes that there the most important parts of this research is • Operating costs: the operating costs have been three different bases on which to the cost effciency of the different federal for public housing are the costs that determine the cost effciency: programs. This cost effciency is based on are needed for day to day operational 1. the operational costs NYCHA federal portfolio of public housing expenses associated with public housing 2. the production costs and housing vouchers. The results of this cost as well as the administrative and program 3. the operational and production costs. effciency research will be discussed here, with implementation expenses, this includes details of the model in appendix 1 and 2. This but is not limited to: management, regular The three different methods have different chapter will explain the cost effciency of public maintenance, energy costs, insurance, goals: housing and housing vouchers on the basis of debt services. 1. The result of the operational costs could be the conceptual model as introduced in chapter • Capital costs: the capital costs for used to make policy decisions depending one. public housing contain renovation and on whether already produced units under rehabilitation budgets, the capital costs a certain program are cheaper to operate Terminology counter the massive maintenance backlog under another. This chapter will use some fnancial terms. and provides an increase of energy 2. The result of production costs could be In order to increase the accessibility of the effciency of these units and thereby used to make policy decisions on which information in this chapter, these terms will decreasing the energy costs. program new affordable housing units shortly be explained. • Restvalue: Public housing units that are should be produced under. • Nominal fgures: Nominal means that the still in operation have a certain value left. 3. The operational and production costs rents are portrayed in actual dollars instead It is expected that they will remain as together could be used to make policy of current (present value) dollars. affordable housing for some time. decisions based on their total effciency. • Present value: Original (nominal) value • HAP: The housing assistance payments adjusted by infation. is the difference between the payment This research is analyzing the complete history

New York City New York • Net present value: the sum of all the present standard and 30% of the tenant’s income. of the affordable housing policies in the United values. In general, if the present value of • Rent adjustment: as explained in chapter States and is therefore a review of past policy the costs and benefts of an operation lead one, in order to make public housing and decision making and the cost effciency of the

5. to a positive NPV than it is considered a the HCV have virtually the same tenants, programs that result from those decisions. good investment. Housing assistance is for a rent adjustment has to be taken into Therefore, this cost effciency study is focused the federal government not a proftable account. on the cost effciency of the operational costs business therefore it will have a negative • PUM are the per unit per month costs. as well as the production costs. NPV. The negative fgure the NPV is shows Cost effciency studies often compare the There is also a difference in the total program is how much the government has lost over results per unit per month. costs and the federal costs. the years. • The total program costs are the costs of the • Development costs: the development What will be analyzed federal government plus rent contribution. costs for public housing are the initial There are multiple ways to determine cost • The federal costs are just the costs of the federal costs to build the public housing effciency. Chapter 3.3 reviews past cost federal government. 114 If included, the amount that a tenant pays to rent costs are rigid (it cost a certain amount of money to What will be taken into account (input) would only blur the end-result, example 1.1 explains maintain units, or to rent private units) the amount of The GAO (2002) cost effciency study and the why. tenant contribution replaces the federal costs, so this DiPasquale (2003) cost effciency study both use a Example 1.1: is not a fair comparison. In order to compare federal time period of 30 years. However, it turns out that in Program Program Difference Difference costs of both programs the tenant contribution must NYC some public housing units have been in use for A B (in %) (in $) be made virtually the same. In this example, this would 80 years, and that public housing units have seldom Tenant contribution $300 $300 work as follows: stopped serving low income households. That means that the development costs of public housing are Federal costs $700 $800 14% $100 Example 1.3 spread out over 30 years when actually it should be Total costs $1000 $1100 10% $100 Program A Program B Difference % Difference $ spread out over more than 80 years since the public Based on example 1.1, the federal costs of program B housing units are often still in operation after 80 years. are 14% higher than program A. But when considering Federal $700 ($600 $800 14% $100 costs +$400- $300) the total costs of program B, it would be only 10% more Research shows that 80% of all the public housing expensive than program A. Thus, when including the By taking only the federal costs into account the units in the Unites States are older than 37 years tenant contribution, the proportions change and also, proportions remain correct, and by adjusting the (Schwartz,2012). This means that by just calculating therefore the end-result. tenant contribution, the actual difference remains the per unit costs for 30 years is not fair to public the same. Together with interviewee 1 from NYCHA, housing, since these investments were made over a The GAO (2002) cost effciency study focuses on the this way of calculating the cost effciency has been longer period. total costs, and not only on the federal costs which decided on (interview 1). means that even though the difference in amount is Dipasquale (2003:151) stated that: the same, the proportion is incorrect. How it will be analyzed (method) “Longer time frames for the life cycle tend to favor HUD (2015), on the other hand, splits the total Section The method that is used in most cost effciency studies production programs... “ 8 costs into HAP (housing assistance payments) and is the net present value method. This method takes tenant contribution, and compares only the federal into account the time value of money. Due to infation, This statement of Dipasuale(2003) is proven in fgure costs (the HAP contribution). This research will do the currencies have become less valuable over time, in 5.10. This simplifed example has the following key same for public housing, only taking into account the other words, many years ago $1 was worth more than characteristics: federal costs, which leads to the actual proportions. $1 presently. In order to account for these different • It uses an actual lifetime of the housing units of values over time, the past costs need to be discounted 100 years But what would happen if the two programs would to get the present value. The discounted rate can be • The construction costs of public housing units are have different tenant contributions? equal to, for example: the desired return, the costs $100,000 of fnancing and the infation rate. For this effciency • Every 5 years $10,000 are taken into account as Example 1.2: study, the CPI infation rate is used to discount the operational costs Program Program Difference Difference original costs and benefts to the present value. • The HAP costs for the housing vouchers are $2000 A B % $ every 5 years. Tenant contribution $400 $300 Previous research from GAO (2002) has used the net Federal costs $600 $800 33% $200 present value method, and determined the NPV per What this example clearly shows is that the lifespan Total costs $1000 $1100 10% $100 unit per month (PUM). Just like the effciency study of of the cost effciency study has no impact on the cost Example 1.2 shows that the federal costs of program GAO (2002), the NPV will be determined based per effciency of the housing choice vouchers. This is B are 33% higher than that program A. But when unit per month (PUM). because this program has no investment costs at the considering the total costs, program B would be only start of the program. 10% more expensive than program A. Since the total 115 Public housing, however, gives different results of time. That is because the unit of example development costs will be the start of a new for different lifespans, the result of example 1 4.2 has spread its investment costs over only public housing unit. of fgure 5.10 is that public housing has costs of 25 years, where perhaps the unit will actually The cost effciency study of this research has $700 dollars per year. When this is compared spread these costs over the next 100 or 80 years. the following characteristics: to the 20 year lifespan of housing vouchers, How long this unit will remain operational and • It takes the operational and production public housing turns out to be much less cost how much the future cash-fows will be cannot costs into account. effcient. In fact, in the frst 20-year lifespan, be determined. However, when this unit has • It takes only the federal costs into account. public housing is 75% more expensive than the been operational for 100 years in total, the • It adjusts tenant contribution, so that the housing vouchers. However, when the actual investment costs would be spread over 100 tenant contribution is virtually the same for lifespan of 100 years public housing is taken years instead of just 25 years, meaning that in the different affordable housing programs into account public housing is actually 25% this case $75,000 of the investment costs would • It uses the net present value method. cheaper than the vouchers. (example 3) be spread out over the future instead over the • It uses actual lifespans instead of a virtual frst 25 years. This is in this research referred to 20 or 30-year period. What can be seen in fgure 5.9 and 5.10 is that as rest value. • When units are still in use, a rest value will public housing becomes more cost effcient The rest value can be seen as a virtual sale be taken into account according to the cost over time, just like Dipasquale (2003) stated. for the future exploration. Example 4.2 shows value method to count for the remaining that in the frst 25 years they receive $75,000, years of operating. This raises the question, what lifespan of the whereas the next 75 “pays” $75,000. The cost effciency study will be taken into account? $75,000 makes sure that the initial development Cost effciency study public housing Since this research focuses on the historic cost costs are spread fairly over the whole lifespan Public housing is the most complicated policy effciency of these programs it is most fair to of this unit. in terms of determining the cost effciency on a the project-based rental assistance programs monthly basis. This is because the investments to use their actual lifespan as the time period This rest value is not an exact science since of the cost effciency research, unlike previous it is not certain up front how long the unit Figure 5.9: Infuence of cost effciency timespan on studies that have been disadvantageous to will remain operational, it is therefore an result project-based rental assistance by only using a estimation. This research will estimate the Housing choice vouchers 20 to 30-year lifespan. rest value based on the cost approach. The Public housing

motivation for the decision to use the cost $0

New York City New York For buildings that have been developed, approach can be found in appendix 5. operated and demolished, the lifespan is quite At the same time, some might say that since straightforward, the time during which it was public housing can never be sold it can be -$1,000 being operated. But most public housing units seen as a perpetuity. The perpetuity situation is 5. are actually still in operation. This raises a new also explained in fgure 5.10 example 5. When -$2,000 question, what should be done with buildings public housing is considered as a perpetuity, that are still in operation? the development costs become negligible, thus only the operating subsidies will be taken -$3,000 Example 4.1 from fgure 5.10 shows a public into account. However public housing units housing unit that is still in operation. This unit don’t have an indefnite lifetime, at a certain -$4,000 has been in service for 25 years now and is not moment in time, the building will need to 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 cost effcient compared to housing vouchers be replaced. When a public housing unit is that have been in service for that same period being replaced, the demolition costs and new Figure 5.10: Different ways of lifespans within the calculation 116 Public housing

Example 1:

20 year lifespan -$100 average costs per year -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 ($10,000 + 4*$10,000)/20 years= $7,000 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year 100

Example 2: 30 year lifespan average costs per year -$100 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 ($100,000 + 6*$10,000)/30 years= $5,330 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year 100

Example 3: actual 100 year lifespan average costs per year -$100 ($100,000 + 20*$10,000)/100 years= $3,000 per year -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10

Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year 100

Example 4.1: current lifespan average costs per year -$100 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 ($100,000 + 5*$10,000)/25 years = $6,000 per year 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Example 4.2: actual lifespan estimation +$75 average costs per year for the frst 25 years ($100,000 + 5*$10,000 -$75,000)/25 years = $3,000 per year -$100 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$7,500 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 Average costs per year for the future 75 years 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ($75,000+15*$10,000)/75=$3000 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095

Example 5: Infnitave amount of years (Perpetuity) -$100 average costs per year -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 -$10 ($100,000 + ∞*$10,000)/(∞*5) years= $2,000 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year ∞

Housing choice vouchers

Example 6: actual 100 year lifespan -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 average costs per year (6*$20,000)/30 years= $4,000 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year ∞

Example 7: actual 100 year lifespan -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 average costs per year (20*$20,000)/100 years= $4,000 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year 100

Example 8: actual 100 year lifespan -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$2,000 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$20 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$2,000 -$20 -$20 -$2,000 average costs per year (∞*$20,000)/(∞/5) years= $4,000 per year Year 0 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 35 Year 40 Year 45 Year 50 Year 55 Year 60 Year 65 Year 70 Year 75 Year 80 Year 85 Year 90 Year 95 Year ∞ 117 are made for multiple years, sometimes even Step 4 be compared to other policies. reaching 80 years. The cost effciency of public Considering the time value of money, the housing will be explained according to the funds have to be corrected by the infation Cost effciency study HCV steps in the conceptual model (chapter 1.1) with over the years. Step 4 adjusts all the costs by For Section 8 HCV, it is a lot easier to determine appendix 1 and 2 as supportive information. the infation rate to reach the present value in the cost effciency. Investments in this policy 2017. The used infation rate is the CPI. The only last for a month. Since investments are only Step 1 present value of all the costs can be found in made for a month period it is not as important The frst piece of information that was needed appendix 2. to have the information of all the years as it is for was the nominal rent for the years 1937 until Step 5 public housing where investments sometimes 2016. These nominal rents can be found in Step 5 adds the present value of the costs last more than 80 years. appendix 1. for the years 1937-2016. Besides that, it adds The second piece of information needed is the rest value of the public housing buildings Step 1 the nominal average personal income of New according to the method described in The frst step is the nominal rents. Overall the York residents. This can be found in appendix appendix 5. rents of Section 8 HCV households are about 2. In 1939 households spent about 39% of the 7% to 8% of the average personal income in average personal income to public housing The net present value shows all the costs and New York City. This is a few percents lower than rent. In and after 1996 this has been between benefts of this policy. Figure 5.11 shows that the rents for public housing households. That 9% and 10%. the rest value of the public housing units is not means that the tenant income of HCV is lower greater than the present value of all the costs. than the tenants income from public housing Step 3 The total NPV is -$13.8 billion The total costs of public housing are calculated Step 2 for each year in step three. The majority of the Step 6 In order to make the two policies comparable costs are the development costs. The sum of The net present value cannot simply be they must have the same (virtual) households. the present value of all the costs can be seen compared to another policy. The net present In this case the households of Section 8 housing in fgure 5.10. As appendix 2 clearly shows, value has to be determined per unit per month vouchers are adjusted to the households the development costs stopped in 1998 and (PUM). In tota of public housing households. Since HCV the operating and capital costs started in the l, there have been 5,226,930 households households earn less on average than public 1970s. Step three calculated the total amount being served in a year. This means that the net housing households an adjustment has to be

New York City New York of costs for each year. present value -$358 PUM. This value can now made, this adjustment is positive for Section 8 HCV.

Figure 5.11 Public housing costs total (in billions) Figure 5.12 NPV public housing (in billions) Step 3 5. $0 $0 $20 $20 In$5 step$5 three, the total amount of costs for

$10 $10 Section 8 HCV is calculated. This includes $0 -$3.5 -$3.5 the HAP$0 costs, the HCV admin costs and the $0 $0 income-$5 -$5 adjustment. -$7 -$7 -$10 -$10

-$10 -$10 -$20 -$20 Step 4 -$10.5 -$10.5 The costs of step three have to be adjusted -$15 -$30 -$30 by the-$15 CPI in order to get the present value of

-$14 -$14 -$40 -$40 these-$20 -$20costs. The vast majority of the costs for DevelopmentDevelopment costs operating costs costsoperating costscapital costscapital costs Rest value Rest valuePresent valuePresent costs value costsNPV NPV HAP HAP HCV HCVRent adjustmentRent adjustment 118 Section 8 HCV are the HAP costs, with small cost to the uncertainties of this research. The uncertainties of this The 10% difference is taken into account to show the HCV admin and little beneft for the rent adjustments. research result from the: infuence of the rest value, the 10% is not based on the 1. estimated rest value, uncertainty of the rest value. Step 5 2. computed capital and operational costs, If the rest value were 10% higher than that which is Step 5 adds the present values of all costs and comes 3. maintenance backlog. currently estimated, the NPV would change by +$23 to a net present value. The net present value of this In order to validate the end results of the cost PUM and would bring the NPV of public housing to program is about -$18 billion. effciency research a sensitivity analysis of the three -$335 PUM. discrepancies needs to be conducted. Step 6 If the rest value were 10% lower than currently The net present value has to be determined per unit Estimated rest value estimated, the NPV would change by: -$23 PUM and per month (PUM). The available records used in this Since this research focuses on the historic cost would bring the NPV of public housing to - $381 PUM. model shows that 1,476,312 households are served effciency of the affordable housing programs, it is in one year. This means that the net present value is fair to the project-based rental assistance programs Computed data -$1027 PUM. This is very similar to the HAP which are to use their actual lifespan as the time period of the Not all the information was available, therefore some about $989 PUM average in NYC in 2016. cost effciency study, unlike previous studies that information was computed as explained in appendix have been disadvantageous to project-based rental 2, the explanatory notes. To get a relation between End result assistance by using only a 20 to 30-year lifespan. the computed data and the outcome, It is important In the end it means that in order to provide one The previous studies have admitted that with their to know what a $1000,- dollar difference would have affordable housing units for one month(PUM) in NYC arbitrary lifespan the project-based rental assistance on the end-result. For every $1000 the NPV for public administrated by NYCHA, the costs are as follows: programs including public housing are disadvantaged. housing would change by: $0.00019 PUM. That means • the public housing program: -$358 PUM When the value over the whole lifetime is calculated, that for a dollar change on the cost effciency result • the Section 8 HCV program: -$1027 PUM it shows the actual cost effciency of that program and PUM, the present value of the costs must increase or does not disadvantage tenant-based rental assistance decrease with $5,226,930. Sensitivity analysis or project-based rental assistance. This cost effciency research has been conducted For buildings that have been developed, operated If the operational and capital expenditures were 10% according to the conceptual model of chapter one. and demolished, the lifespan is quite straightforward: higher than what is now computed, the NPV would The relevance, method and input of this model the time during which it had been operated. However, change with -$37 PUM. This would bring the NPV of have been discussed in that chapter. Therefore, the most public housing units are actually still in operation. public housing to -$395 PUM. sensitivity analysis will be conducted based on the In chapter one fgure 5.10, an example was given as to When the operational and capital costs were 10% why a certain rest value is needed in order to calculate lower than what is now computed the NPV would the actual cost effciency of the buildings that are still change with +$37 PUM bringing the public housing Figure 5.13 Section 8 costs (in billions) in operation. NPV to -$321 PUM. $0 $20 $5 It is important to note that the rest value is not an $10 exact science but rather a rough estimation. This Maintenance backlog -$3.5 $0 research will estimate the rest value based on the cost Interviewee 3 raised his concerns about the $0 -$5 approach. The motivation for the decision to use the huge maintenance backlog of public housing. In -$7 -$10 cost approach can be found in appendix 5. chapter one it is not explained whether or why the -$10 -$20 maintenance backlog should be taken into account -$10.5 Since the rest values are just estimations, it is important in the cost effciency research, in this cost effciency -$15 -$30 to know what infuence a 10% error in the value of the maintenance backlog has not been taken into -$14 -$40 -$20 Development costs operating costs capital costs Rest value Present value costs NPV HAP HCV Rent adjustment public housing units would have on the end-result. account. To prevent any speculation about the 119 possible outcome it would have if it was taken initial costs by 186%. If 50% of the funds of the +$80.91 PUM for the present value of the into account, the infuence of the maintenance maintenance backlog had some infuence on energy savings. backlog on the net present value of public the energy effciency, the present value of this In total, this would mean that the maintenance housing is calculated here. would be: $87*0.5*1.86=+$80.91. So, when the backlog would have a positive infuence of maintenance backlog is taken into account, it $54.82 PUM. Public housing administrated by the NYCHA would change the NPV of public housing by: has a maintenance backlog of about 10 billion -$87 PUM with the initial costs Summary dollars according to Torres and Jones (2014). It +$60.9 PUM for the increase in rest value When all the aspects of the sensitivity analysis could be argued that public housing has been are taken into account, the range of the net more cost effcient because it has been under- present value of the public housing program maintained. This has also led to bad quality Figure 5.14: Sensitivity analysis is in between -$244 and -$418. This still clearly

public housing. In order to know what public 10% decrease in capital/operational costs shows that the public housing program is a lot housing would cost without a maintenance 10% increase in rest value more cost effcient in New York City than the backlog, a virtual cost is added in the model on Including maintenance backlog housing choice voucher program. Figure 5.14 January 2017 of 10 billion dollars to eliminate 10% decrease in rest value makes this difference visual.

the maintenance backlog. The results is that 10% increase in capital/operational costs the NPV would change by -$87 PUM, bringing HCV its net present value Other methodology results the NPV of public housing to -$445 PUM . Public housing NPV Chapter 3.3 explained that there are various When the maintenance backlog is taken care ways to determine the cost effciency of the of, the rest value will increase. Bonazzi and Iotti $100 affordable housing programs. In chapter (2016) even state that in their case studies the 1.3 and this chapter it is explained why this $0 rest value of the buildings would increase more research has been conducted in this way. than the renovation costs when the renovation -$100 This does not take away the fact that other costs are energy reducing measures. calculation methodologies are also possible. Remodeling (2016) has conducted a research -$200 with the relation between the costs and -$244 Excluding rest value the resale value. They have determined -$300 Bandwith public housing Interviewee 2 pointed out that a rest value net present value that between 50% and 100% of renovation -$358 should not be taken into account because -$400 New York City New York costs are reimbursed in the resale value. In -$418 the buildings would not be sold, and would this research, the resale value is not of any remain affordable housing forever, almost like importance, however when the maintenance -$500 a perpetuity. In reaction to the point made backlog is taken care of the buildings lifespan 5. -$600 by interviewee 2, it is important to state that should increase, thus increasing the rest value. the rest value is not taken into account as a

Based on that research, this thesis will expect -$700 potential “sale” value, but as an amount that 70% of the investment back in rest value. is left from the original investment. This does At the same time, it would also expect the -$800 not take away that calculating the cost effcient operating costs to drop because the buildings of the public housing units as a perpetuity would become more energy effcient. The -$900 or without the rest value is not possible. In a cases studies of Bonazzi and Lotti show after reaction to the comments of interviewee 2 the an average of 20 years that the present value of -$1000 results of calculating without the rest value, the benefts exceeded the present value of the and as a perpetuity are given here. -$1100 120 To check what would happen to the cost effciency Excluding operating and capital costs results if only the rest value was excluded but the rest At the start of public housing in 1937, the program of the research would remain the same, column “rest had a wide target group, from the submerged middle value” of appendix 3 has been deleted. The result was class to the poor. With the rental revenues of these Figure 5.15: Adjustments to model a change in the NPV of the public housing program target groups, the housing authorities would be able $100 per housing units per month of -$225. to pay for the operating costs and capital costs without This means that excluding the rest value would additional assistance of the federal government. $0 change the cost effciency of public housing from Thus, with a mixed-income tenancy, the operating and -$358 PUM to -$587 PUM. Even though by excluding capital costs are unnecessary. should public housing -$100 the rest value public housing would turn out to be less have continued with a mixed-income without the need cost effcient, it is still fare more cost effcient than the for additional operating and capital funding, the NPV -$200 housing vouchers with -$1027 PUM. would change by +$363 per household per month -$300 (Excluding column “federal operational costs” and -$358 At the same time the increase in rest value due to “federal capital costs” from the model in appendix 3). -$400 the maintenance backlog will also be eliminated, this -$437 will change the NPV adjustment for the maintenance Property taxes -$500 backlog with -$60.9 to -$6.08. In a follow-up, interviewee 3 noted there may be some effects from property taxes, since the city doesn’t -$600 Only analyzing last 5 years of operating costs (as a collect the same property rates from NYCHA as they -$700 perpetuity) do from private companies. However, this won’t make

Interviewee 2 stated that in order to make a decision up the large difference between the two different -$800 on the future of affordable housing policies in NYC, programs. The tax rate of class 1 properties (one, two a complete historical analysis is unneeded but an or three units) is 19.991%. The rate of class 2 properties -$900 analysis of operational costs of the last few years is. By (more than 3 residential units) is 12.892% (NYC,2017). only taking into account the annual operational and If NYCHA were exempt from property tax, this would -$1000 capital subsidies this method is basically calculating only have meant a -$46 NPV difference. -$1076 public housing as a perpetuity. As explained in -$1100 chapter 3.3 this is also a common way to determine Summary of other methodology results the operational cost effciency of affordable housing Together with the sensitivity analysis and the criticism Including maintenance backlog units. on the used methodology, the range for the public 10% increase in rest value

When only the operational and capital costs for housing NPV is now between: +$82 PUM and -$626 Exluding capital/operational costs public housing for the years 2012-2016 are taken into PUM. Still far less than the housing choice vouchers as 10% decrease in capital/operational costs account, the net present value for public housing can be seen in fgure 6.2. would be: $-437 PUm. The NPV for these years for the Also, when just the operational costs for both Excluding rest value maintenance backlog HCV program would be :-$1076 PUM (only taken into programs are taken into account for the last 5 years 10% decrease in rest value account the years 2012-2016 in appendix 3 and 4). This public housing still turns out to be far more cost Excluding rest value means that when the operating costs and capital costs effcient than HCV housing. Public housing has had, 10% increase in capital/operational costs of public housing of the last fve years are compared for operational and capital costs the last 5 years, a HCV its net present value to the HAP of the HCV program it has to be concluded NPV of -$437 PUM. HCV housing has had a NPV for Public housing NPV that public housing is still far more cost effcient than the last 5 years of -$1076 PUM. Public housing 2012-2016 the housing choice vouchers program. HCV housing 2012-2016 121 5.5 Conclusion

Sub-research question How cost effcient have the federal affordable housing programs been in New York City? The two studied affordable housing programs administrated by NYCHA used for this research are public housing and Section 8 HCV. It can be concluded that the public housing policy turned out to be more cost effcient than the HCV program. • The monthly costs for one public housing unit has been: -$358. • The monthly costs for one Section 8 HCV unit has been: -$1027 This cost effciency research has shown that the public housing program is more cost effcient in NYC than the HCV program. The sensitivity analysis gives a range for public housing between -$244 and -$418. Even with the sensitivity analysis taken into account, public housing is still far more effcient than Section 8 HCV. Further criticism of the interviewees on the methodology of the cost effciency research is discussed in chapter 6 under discussion. New York City New York 5.

122 6. Conclusion

123 6.1 Conclusion

This master thesis was set up in order to is also of great emotional value and infuences Needs, around 30 million. answer the following research question: “What the wellbeing of the households. But housing In general, affordable and decent housing is has been driving federal affordable housing itself is not enough, tragedies in the past important to provide to the population of one policy choices in the United States and how have shown that good quality of housing is of the richest countries in the world, which is cost effcient have they been?” This chapter needed to provide safety and wellbeing for the legally also their right according to the United will answer the research question. First the population. Nations. sub-questions will be answered and then the In 1948, housing was so important that it main research question. This chapter also was adopted as a basic human right by the How have the affordable housing programs provides a short discussion on the fndings and United Nations. Although this was based on developed over time from a welfare state methodology. an American draft, the United States does not perspective, and what have previous cost agree with a right to housing. Over the years, effciency studies concluded? Reader guide chapter 6: the right for housing and the implementation Over the years mainly public project-based 6.1 Contains the conclusion and discussion of that right by President Roosevelt turned housing assistance have gained much criticism 6.2 Contains the recommendations out to be too socialistic for the majority of the from conservatives. The Republicans tried country. Left liberals and right conservatives multiple times to abolish affordable housing Sub-research questions have a complete different view on what the programs whilst liberals tried to expand In order to answer the fnal research questions rights of people should be. And therefore, the affordable housing programs. Especially in the the sub-questions have been answered 1977 convent of the United Nations containing frst 50 years, the policy choices were driven throughout this report. The subquestions are the right for housing has never been rectifed mainly by ideology (although sometimes as follows: in the United States. This is why there is such portrayed as cost effciency), and every • Why is affordable housing important? a large demand for affordable homes. In the few years the affordable housing policies Conclusion • How did the affordable housing programs United States, there are so many people on change dramatically. Hays (2012) stated that develop over time from a welfare state the edge of becoming homeless who are close a Presidential election cannot be treated as a perspective, and what have previous cost to losing all the safety they have known in the mandate for a particular policy. However, this

6. effciency studies concluded? past. In order to keep providing these people analysis shows that politicians have almost • How is the current federal affordable a home, more affordable housing units are always used the elections as a confrmation of housing system organized? needed, depending on the demand defnition their political mandate. • How cost effcient have the federal policies that is used there are between 7.7 and 35 million been in New York City? people struggling with fnding decent housing. Multiple sources even account that the The defnition that determines the Worst Case effectiveness and cost effciency of the policies Why is affordable housing important? Needs of 7.7 million households is very strict were seldom tested, and that in general there Housing is important because it is one of and considered a lot more conservative than was not enough manpower to conduct these Housing is important because it is one of what President Roosevelt had called for. Even studies. the basic elements of life, it provides shelter one of the writers, interviewee 3, stated that against the elements, it keeps people safe from the United States faces a much larger group The criticism together with the drive from mental and physical problems and crime but it in need than those defned as the Worst Case liberals to provide affordable housing has lead 124 to a less active government concerning affordable means that affordable housing has fnally had a stable is a passive subsidy administrated by the Treasury. housing. After the ‘80s the focus from project-based policy for the last few decades. Figure 3.6 shows how Therefore, it does not require annual appropriations rental assistance shifted to tenant-based rental the policies have changed over time and table 3.24 that might be a part of the large success of the tax assistance and tax credits. But there was also another and 3.25 shows where the stated affordable housing credits. shift from publicly owned to privately owned affordable policy started and how it ended and table 3.26 shows Interviewee 3 believes that this success of LIHTC housing units. Before 1974, almost all the affordable the proposed reinvention. could be extended to the rental sector with rental housing units were publicly owned, nowadays around tax credits. He also believes that the four different three quarters is privately owned affordable housing. How is the current federal affordable housing system policies should, in time, diverge into one in order to Most of the affordable housing policy decisions seem organized? get a clearer affordable housing system (interview 3). to have come from an ideological perspective. In the In the United States, there are four large affordable 1990s, after a conservative period of President Reagan, housing programs, LIHTC, Section 8 PBRA Section 8 In the 1980s and 1990s, Democratic and Republican HUD was facing (again) a threat of elimination. To TBRA and public housing. Three of these programs politicians did not dare to increase funds for public counter this threat, it was proposed that HUD should get active subsidies and fall under HUD (Section 8 housing as it was looked at with high discontent. By reinvent itself. Although the proposed reinvention of PBRA/TBRA, public housing). The low-income housing the 1990s, the maintenance backlog became so large HUD was more in line with the United States ideologies, tax credits are passive subsidies administrated by the that action needed to be taken. At frst the HOPE VI it was poorly researched and faced a lot of criticism. treasury. program transformed desolated public housing sites Curhan (1995) states that the decision to voucherize into new mixed income neighborhoods with a loss is highly political in nature and was not based on cost Public housing is the oldest policy, and most of the of public housing units. In the second decade of the effciency as the founders of the reinvention stated. other policies can be explained by understanding twenty-frst century the maintenance backlog of public Interviewee 3 adds that new policies are often framed public housing. Public housing has always been housing had decreased and the most distressed sites as cost effcient whilst political ideas are behind it. underfunded and was even seen as temporary had been transformed by HOPE VI, that is why Obama housing. Therefore, the buildings had to be built initiated a new program CNI that continued the work Some criticism of the reinvention plan was based cheap and maintenance(capital) funds were not fully of HOPE VI only with a one for one replacement on the methodology of the costs study behind the assigned. This led to a huge maintenance backlog rule. In that same decade, RAD was introduced as proposal. in the 1990s and therefore led to bad quality which well. RAD did not require any funding from HUD and As discussed, there are many ways to determine the led to discontent of congress and the US population. transferred public housing units to Section 8 housing cost effciency of affordable housing programs and The frst idea was to stop with public housing and units. The annual costs for HUD stay the same, the every method has its pros and cons, however in general, introduce Section 8. Section 8 was split up in two only difference is that the maintenance backlog is project-based rental assistance programs were rated programs, tenant-based and project-based. But eliminated by private market loans. less cost effcient than they actually were due to the these were still active subsidies and therefore a new inclusion of subprograms and the limited timespan of program was introduced by the conservatives who All-together, there are now four different affordable the studies. The different cost effciency researches assigned passive subsidies which require even less housing programs with three transformation programs. over time have had very different outcomes, and are governmental action. The different programs rank differently on theoretical therefore inconclusive. framework. However, the federal funds assigned to LIHTC lead With limited to no demolitions of publicly owned to only 40% new equity for affordable housing units. How cost effcient have the federal affordable housing project-based rental assistance and only new privately So, for every dollar that the federal government programs been in New York City? owned tenant-based rental assistance and tax credits made available, only 40 cents could be used for the The two studied affordable housing programs it seems like the politicians from both sides have development of affordable housing. Despite this, administrated by NYCHA used for this research are reached a status quo. After the 1990s, not much has the LIHTC became the largest affordable housing public housing and Section 8 HCV. It can be concluded changed within the affordable housing policies which program. The LIHtC is unlike the other programs, it that the public housing policy turned out to be more 125 cost effcient than the HCV program. in the United States, many choices were based study or reevaluation of the relevant policies • The monthly costs for one public housing on preference of governance. In 1937, the frst and legislative authorities. Until recently there unit has been: -$358. affordable housing program “public housing” was not even a continuing long-range study • The monthly costs for one Section 8 HCV was introduced for various reasons. From the looking toward the next year’s legislative unit has been: -$1027 start this policy has gained much criticism from program.” (HUD, 1974:22-23) This cost effciency research has shown that the the opposition. public housing program is more cost effcient This criticism was mainly: In choosing the program technique for an in NYC than the HCV program. The sensitivity • that the government should not interfere established objective, it is not unusual for the analysis gives a range for public housing with the private market and take over a choice to be made on the basis of what the between -$244 and -$418. Even with the segment of the private market; affected private sector or public opinion may sensitivity analysis taken into account, public • that the government should not spend accept. This is done even though it may not housing is still far more effcient than Section money on poverty relief and/or wealth necessarily be the most equitable, effcient, 8 HCV. Further criticism of the interviewees redistribution. or the least expensive oper ation in either the on the methodology of the cost effciency short or long term. (HUD, 1974) research is discussed in the discussion. Over the years, this criticism has had a slowing down effect on the growth of public housing. The LIHTCs were introduced by conservatives “What has been driving federal affordable Public housing changed its target group to in 1980, the LIHTC at the start led to only housing policy choices in the United States those with only very low incomes and newly $0.40 on the federal tax dollar to go to the and how cost effcient have they been?” constructed housing units were put on hold. development of affordable housing, with Due to this decision, the cost effciency of public housing this was one for one. The main At this moment in 2017, there is a rather large public housing has worsened and additional reason for introducing LIHTCs was so that the need for affordable housing of between 7.7 operating subsidies were needed. In 1974 government could have a very passive role, million and 35 million housing units. The (Point 7/E in fgure 6.1), congress decided with passive subsidies. This was preferential demand according to the federal government to retrench government involvement in the over an active role and active subsidies is 7.7 million, this is according to a rather housing production. Section 8 was introduced especially according to the conservatives. strict term for determining the demand, it in order to provide affordable homes in the One year later, President Reagan even tried to

Conclusion excludes various groups. The term that the private market. This choice took one of the abolish HUD with its public housing units and federal government uses for these 7.7 million main problems of public housing away, that Section 8 units. households is Worst Case Needs, and because the government should not compete with These two decisions for new affordable housing of its strict boundaries, it is considered a the private market. Section 8 was introduced programs were made due to ideological 6. conservative term. However, HUD is aware based on the fact that the government wanted preferences. that the actual need is higher (interview 3). a more passive role in the affordable housing Worst Case Needs is considered far more system, and to decentralizepoverty. During the Figure 6.1 shows the explanation for it, the conservative than the initial affordable housing 1970s, more attention was drawn to the cost frst public housing program was too socialistic policy in 1937 as can be seen in fgure 6.1 The effciency of the affordable housing programs. in 1937 for United States politics. Now, in high demand of affordable housing is possible Before the ‘70s, a thorough cost analysis has 2017, there is a more balanced affordable because the federal government never signed not generally been a part of the decision housing system in place with multiple liberal the United Nations article 25 that makes making according to HUD, 1974: and conservative programs. Interviewee 3 housing a basic human right. believes that most of the policies were initially “Generally, the Department’s legislative In the history of the affordable housing system proposals to Congress were not based on a Figure 6.1 Conclusion ideology 126 Socialism Republicans Capitalism Democrats

Socialists Liberals Conservatives

1935 Public housing. 1. 1940 A. Roosevelt B. 1945

2. Truman 1950 C. D. 3. 1955 Eisenhower 4. 1960 5. Kennedy 1965 6. Johnson 1970 Nixon Section 8. 7. 1975 E. Ford Carter 1980 8. Termination section 8 NC/SR. New HCV

1985 Reagan LIHTC 9. 1990 F. 10. Bush Sr. HOPE VI 1995 Clinton

2000 11.

2005 Bush Jr.

CNI 12. 2010 RAD Obama 2015 13. Trump 2020 Section CNI HOPE VI 8 PBRA HCV

New Deal Public housing NYC RAD Worst LIHTC policy case needs Socialists 127 portrayed as a cost effcient program but often the conservative side. Section 8 PBRA is The two researched affordable housing had a political basis (interview 3). also considered a liberal policy, but the policies administrated by the NYCHA used for In the 1980s, tenant-based rental assistance government has a more passive role and this research are public housing and Section was considered more cost effcient than is therefore more conservative than public 8 HCV. It can be concluded that the public project-based rental assistance (interview housing. The Section 8 HCV is in between the housing program turned out to be more cost 3). However, in between the 1980s and now, liberals and conservatives, whereas the LIHTC effcient than the HCV program. multiple cost effciency studies have been can be considered a conservative program. • The monthly costs for one public housing conducted, and the results are inconclusive. Affordable housing is in general a liberal unit was: -$358 Different methodologies and assumptions ideal, and therefore it is no surprise that most • The monthly costs for one Section 8 HCV have led to different results, however all the affordable housing programs are liberal with unit was: -$1027 cost effciency studies studied a maximum of the exception of LIHTC. When the maintenance backlog is taken into 30-year life period while acknowledging: Since previous cost effciency studies have consideration public housing is still the more only taken an estimated life time period into cost effcient affordable housing policy in “To account for differences in the timing of account, it is important that the actual cost NYC. In chapter 5, a sensitivity analysis was investments under the various programs, effciency is determined. This research has conducted on these results, and the sensitivity the thirty-year life- cycle costs are estimated. determined the cost effciency of two different research does not hugely change the outcome, Longer time frames for the life cycle tend to affordable housing programs in NYC. it estimates the costs of public housing to be favor production programs in terms of costs somewhere between -$418 and -$244 PUM. because of the impact of rent infation over In NYC, it turned out that public housing was time: DiPasquale (2003:151)” the most cost effcient policy. It would have In interview 3, Hardiman was asked: if public been even more cost effcient if the tenants housing was so much more cost effcient than So, the cost effciency studies acknowledge had more diverse incomes including the Section 8 HCV, is it worth it to reconsider that their results would be disadvantageous to submerged middle class as the program was reinstating public housing. He believed that project-based rental assistance. The choice for originally designed for, operating subsidies it would not, because it would not have the why a 20 or 30-year lifespan was used in the would not be necessary. If that would have political and public support (interview 3). This cost effciency studies is not clear. However, been the case the public housing program reinforces the conclusion drawn before that

Conclusion since project-based rental assistance was would only cost -$31.10 PUM instead of the many affordable housing choices were based really unpopular, it could have been chosen -$358 PUM now. on ideology. because of a political and public preference It was already stated in 1974 that political and thereby highly infuencing the results in The desk research of the New York City Housing acceptance and cost effciency do not 6. favor of tenant-based rental assistance. That is Authority showed that New York City has necessarily go well together and that why it is important to calculate with a lifespan always put more effort on affordable housing sometimes policies passed are not effcient that is equal to the actual lifespan of the than other cities. NYCHA was established in but do have political support and vice versa. affordable housing units. For public housing, 1934 before the federal legislation in 1937. Effciency and political support was mentioned this sometimes means more than 80 years. Since that time, NYCHA has built more public as one of the main conficting goals in the housing units, managed the funds better and report “housing in the seventies”. This research In total, there are four different affordable embraced the policy more than other housing has shown that indeed for affordable housing housing programs in 2017, Public housing authorities. The result is that the NYCHA has most decisions were based on ideology rather Section 8 TBRA, Section 8 PBRA, LIHTCs. a large and overall better maintained public than cost effciency especially before the 1970s Public housing is still the most liberal housing stock in 2017 than other housing when information about cost effciency was policy of all, although it has moved towards authorities. even missing. 128 In the end, there have been three presidents, organized but it is our duty to provide people in need HCV’s in 2016 at the NYCHA portfolio was $989 PUM Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson, that wanted with decent and affordable housing. And by doing it compared to $640 PUM on the total federal portfolio. housing for all Americans similar to article 25 of the in an effcient way more people could be assisted. This means that the costs for the housing choice United Nations human rights. They believed that the vouchers in New York City are a lot higher than for government should actively provide these units. On To come back to Jane Goodal: other cities throughout the country. the other hand, there have been three presidents “What you do makes a difference and you have to The high public housing rest values and the high HAP that even tried to abolish all federal affordable decide what kind of difference you want to make” costs are New York specifc, and therefore the results housing programs, Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan. of this cost effciency study cannot be generalized The affordable housing policies specifcally of these I hope that this research has brought a positive over the whole United States. presidents were highly impacted by their ideology contribution to the affordable housing debate in the and view on the American society. United States, and that in the future more people can NYCHA be helped in better facilities than what are currently New York City is a liberal city, even before the federal These choices were lacking support from cost provided. legislation of 1937 NYC and NYCHA were already effciency studies, therefore the impact of these administrating public housing units. The need for choices were not known and researched at the time. Discussion affordable housing and the public mandate for The frst cost effciency studies were done in ‘70s but Theoretical framework governmental interventions lead to embracing the almost all concluded that by taking a limited lifespan The historical policy analysis of this research is based public housing program and other affordable housing into consideration of 20 or 30-years, public housing on the theoretical framework introduced in chapter programs. NYCHA administrated public housing was disadvantaged. Whether the choice for such short one. This theoretical framework is based on multiple rather well, it was well maintained, well managed and lifespans was politically motivated is unclear, however views on the welfare state. The linear scale contains has an above average quality. This means that other by doing so they do advantage the popular programs the amount of governmental intervention. A historical housing authorities probably have a less cost effcient at the time. analysis based on another framework or scale would public housing portfolio than NYCHA. According to give different results. interviewee 2, NYCHA has had a lot of support of the This research has studied the friction between cost liberal municipal administrations especially the last effciency and public and political support (ideology). Real estate market ones (Interview 2). The conclusion is that before the 1970’s most New York City is a unique city with a unique real estate affordable housing policy decisions were based on market. In chapter 5.1 it is explained that similar real Average household size ideology, whilst after the 1970’s effciency got a bigger estate prices are present in a few other cities in the Just like the income of the households in the different role. However the most cost effcient policy does not United States. The real estate market has a large affordable housing units, the household size also have political and public support and is therefore, infuence on the rest values of public housing units infuences the cost effciency. Larger households according to interviewee 3, not even on the radar and on the fair market rents which leads to the HCV need larger apartments, and larger apartments are anymore. Whilst at the same time the vouchers that do costs. more expensive. Since records are missing of the have the support become more and more expensive The public housing portfolio of NYCHA is mainly household sizes, this is not taken into consideration forming a threat to the budget. located in wanted locations with high real estate for this research. However, as can be seen in fgure prices. As explained in chapter 5.5 and as can be seen 5.12, the household income adjustment only has a Curhan responded on the HUD reinvention with: “We in fgure 5.11, the rest value of the public housing small infuence on the cost effciency, it is therefore didn’t get into the business because we wanted to be units is a large contributor to the low costs of public expected that the household size would have a limited private landlords” (Curhan, 1995:1) housing. infuence. The national portfolio of affordable housing units does show that the households of public housing I would conclude by saying it doesn’t matter how At the same time, high real estate prices and high are on average a bit smaller than Section 8 HCV it looks, or how the affordable housing system is rent leads to high HCV costs. The average HAP for households, but only by a few percents difference. 129 6.2 Recommendations

Recommendations for the information many calls are left unanswered, making it housing programs. The United States spending provision diffcult to contact the right personnel. A larger on welfare programs is limited, therefore it is Availability of Historical fgures front offce could be the solution to effciently very important that a cost effciency study be HUD and NYCHA stand for transparency, get in contact with the right personnel. conducted for the future as well. That research both institutions have departments that are will need to analyze the future costs and meant to provide researchers and individuals Recommendations for further research benefts of the different affordable housing with information. However, information about Research about other affordable housing programs, and can function as important input historic fgures from both parties is missing. programs for further policy making. Besides that, the In general, records (except public housing This research has analyzed the ideology current programs can also improve their cost developments of the NYCHA) don’t go back of all affordable housing programs in the effciency, for example, with public housing the further than 1998. I believe that in order to United States, however this research has only housing authorities often pay for the energy prepare for the future one must understand the determined the cost effciency of two affordable consumption by making the public housing past frst. Therefore, these past records before housing programs administrated by NYCHA, units more energy effcient or potentially even 1998 are important and must be available public housing and Section 8 HCV housing. A energy neutral/energy supplying the cost to interested parties. My recommendation recommendation for future research would be effciency can increase. would be to make these records public so that to analyze the cost effciency of other programs it would be easier for researchers to access. as well such as the LIHTC and Section 8 PBRA. Policy recommendations for outside the US Another research recommendation would be Availability of past performance Research at other housing authorities for the social housing systems in European NYCHA publishes 5 year budgets and plans, This research has only studied the affordable counties. The United States housing system but what would be even more interesting housing portfolio of the New York City has evolved over the years to a mature and

Conclusion is the realized budgets of the past years Housing Authority, as explained earlier, advanced affordable housing system that has with information about where the funds NYCHA and NYC are unique in many ways. been stable for the last 25 years. In the United actually went to and which funds were The cost effciency of these programs in other States, there are four different programs

6. actually appropriated. With this information, cities could therefore be quite different. A that provide affordable housing. These four researchers can determine how the funds recommendation for further research would programs operate differently in the same were spent and possibly if the funds could be be to analyze the cost effciency of different context. To see how these different programs handled more effciently. affordable housing authorities, to compare function in the same context is valuable the results with this cost effciency research of for other countries that are thinking about Communication with governmental NYCHA, and explain why the results are (not) implementing a similar affordable housing representatives similar to this research. program to one of the four programs in the Another recommendation would be to make U.S. communication with HUD and NYCHA Future fnancial impact of affordable housing There are some aspects such as the CRA representatives easier. Both institutions have programs consideration, the public private partnerships the phone numbers and email addresses of their This research is a historical analysis of the and the LIHTC which other countries could employees made public. However, in practice, ideology and cost effciency of affordable learn from. Social housing or affordable 130 housing is an important point of discussion in many public and political support. When programs turn out NYC and interviewee 2 and 3 have stated that tenant- European countries. Questions arise with what should to be too costly they will face great opposition or even based rental assistance in tight markets does not work be done with households for middle segments that termination (public housing in the 1980s and 1990s, because there is not enough supply. Public housing cannot afford private housing but earn to much for housing vouchers during President Bush Junior’s is project-based which does not have the issues of a subsidized housing. To solve this problem European term). It is therefore important that the costs of the private market and was by far more cost effcient than policy makers could investigate if U.S. programs are policies are being well-managed, this means that tenant-based rental assistance. But public housing is able to contribute to the solution. policies must be as effcient as possible. Therefore, it dominantly public administrated and therefore faces is recommended to conduct a thorough cost effciency severe opposition from parties that believe that the Recommendations for policy decision making analysis of future affordable housing policies/programs government should not interfere in private markets. The importance of public and political support before making policy decisions. The cost effciency The public opinion of public housing is so low that This research has shown that public and political results of this research of the past are no guarantee interviewee 3 even stated that public housing is not support is critical for the success of the affordable for similar results in the future. However, it does show even on the radar anymore because it has no public housing policies. The United States has a two-party the need for making a thorough cost analysis before and political support. political system, countries that have a similar political changes policies. system could also learn from the policy decision In order to get the political and public support behind making in the United States. In a two party system Importance of ideology awareness an affordable housing policy, policy makers should one party is in general in charge, when that party is Next to the importance of cost effciency is the be aware about the public and political climate, what in charge it has enough political support however for ideology of the country, also of high importance. would receive broad support and what would not. the constituency of the affordable housing policies it This research also has shown the importance of is also important that the support is sustainable. taking ideology into consideration. In the previous The ideology of the United States in this research is recommendation, it was said that Americans favor a measured based on the theoretical framework. This The policies that are introduced must be able to small government over a big one, this does not only is not the only framework that can determine the continue when the other party is in charge. This asks count for cost and spendings but also to the role ideology of affordable housing policies and determine for awareness of the ideologies of both parties, and of the government. Chapter one explained that in the political support. However for all frameworks that to test if the policy is not too extreme for the political the United States both political parties do not favor can be used it is important that future policies must spectrum. For the United States for example, the government take over of and hugely interfering with have some conservative and some liberal aspects to it original legislation of public housing turned out the the private market. Therefore, programs that are set up in order to get wide political and public support, but be outside of the political spectrum. The past has as predominantly public (such as public housing) can since affordable housing is in principle a liberal aspect shown that when policies do not ft within the political face severe opposition, since it is a general perception spectrum it can face substantial opposition. It would in the U.S. that all housing should be a private market Table 6.3: Aspects of One affordable housing program be recommended to investigate the opposition’s concern. In order to pass a successful and sustainable ideas and ideology and perhaps, for the continuance program it must have support from the public and the Aspects Socialists Liberals Conservatives of programs and policies, to negotiate with the political parties, if this is not the case the program can Wealth redistribution High Low Low-no opposition before introducing new policies. face termination within just a few years (Section 8 NC/ redistribution SR). At the moment, tenant-based rental assistance Target groups income Extremely Extremely Extremely low Importance of cost effciency awareness (the housing choice vouchers) is a combination low-middle low- low The United States spends little on welfare programs, solution of the concerns of the conservatives and the Position of public and Dominantly Public in Mainly Private as most Americans favor a small government over a wishes of the liberals. It provides affordable housing private parties in the public collaboration with a passive big government. Therefore, the spendings of the but with a passive government that uses the private affordable housing with private role for public system parties parties. government and HUD on affordable housing must be market. However, this research has shown that this limited to a minimum. Again this has to do with the affordable housing program is not cost effcient in Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic 131 it can be more liberal than conservative. but be supportive of the private market. program is an example of how that support • the affordable housing program should be could be realized. The recommendation based on this research cost effcient. its theoretical framework would be to have on • the wealth redistribution cannot be too Housing authorities average, a right wing liberal policy. Table 6.3 high. In order to prevent high levels of The public housing authorities and public shows that this can be reached in various ways wealth redistribution the programs must housing units are too dominantly public with multiple combinations of the four aspects. be cost effcient. for the ideology in the United States, • Project-based rental assistance is needed therefore a privatization of these public Importance of real estate context awareness in tight markets. housing authorities to a NGO or nonproft States and cities with different real estate • The new program should not lead to rent housing organization(NPHO) would be markets ask for different affordable housing infation or other negative effects on the recommendable. The nonproft housing approaches. For example in a city like Detroit private market. organization(NPHO) will still need to comply with high levels of vacancies it would make • new affordable housing units should be with substantial federal legislation but will more sense to provide tenant based assistance added in order to provide people with function more as a private company. In this so these vacant houses would be occupied Worst Case Needs with assistance. case, the NPHO can compete with private again that it would to build more housing units • Location specifc one size does not always companies and be supplemental to the private through project-based assistance. However ft all. Tight real estate markets ask for a market, whilst there is governmental oversight the tight real estate markets in New York ask different approach than oversupply real and supervision on the subsidies. This is quite for the opposite approach, here it is very hard estate markets. similar to the current RAD program and the for residents with tenant based assistance to former proposal “the blueprint for reinvention” fnd decent housing. Interviewee 3 agreed All four different programs check some of as explained in chapter 3. The large difference that a new affordable housing program/policy these aspects but no program checks all. The is that RAD and the blueprint for reinvention should be location specifc challenge is to make an umbrella policy or base the rents and therefore the HAP payments With RAD and the blueprint for reinvention a program that checks all four boxes. For the on market rents whereas the affordable housing start was made to combine public housing with future, it would be recommended to have programs base the rents on the actual costs to Section 8 pbra housing. The recommendation one clear affordable housing program instead obtain an affordable housing unit.

Conclusion would be to provide supply-based assistance of almost 60 small programs. Interviewee 3 in tight markets, and demand-based rental agreed with this statement and stated that Section 8 project-based rental assistance assistance in markets where there is an after a certain amount of years the United When public housing units are rented at oversupply. States should only have one affordable housing a percentage of the fair market rent that 6. program left, by combining the different makes the costs and benefts of housing Recommendation for future policy programs. authorities break even, the Section 8 rental The keyword for the success of affordable assistance pays the difference between housing policies according to this research is One affordable housing program the break-even rent (BER) and the tenants wide political and public support. The one affordable housing program is a an spendings. The BER is expected to be much affordable housing program that should have lower than the current FMR in tight markets. By taking the U.S. ideology and characteristics political and public support, whilst at the In this way, housing authorities have no need into account this means that the following same time being cost effcient. As previously for capital or operational subsidies and can aspects should be taken into consideration: mentioned there are multiple ways to get operate on their own. When the nonproft • the affordable housing program must not political and public support for affordable interfere too much with the private market, housing programs, this One affordable housing Figure 6.4: The One affordable housing Program 132 One affordable housing program Payment standard lower than BER Break-even rent? NO Yes

Operating New construction Operating

Investors

Tax credits 30% of HAP payments HAP payments 30% of income income (BER) to rent to rent Equity

Break-even rent Payment standard

Semi public Private Semi public Private Home-owners Housing authority company Housing authority company

affordable housing Maintenance funds portfolio, former public housing portfolio New affordable housing unit 133 housing organization(NPHO) can break-even Therefore, this program should receive Ideology analysis by providing affordable housing, private higher public and political support. In the end, this One affordable housing companies should be able to do so as well. 2. Project-based rental assistance and tenant- program combines some the benefts of the In this case, the NPHO and the fully private based rental assistance will be allocated to different affordable housing programs and companies have an equal playing feld, this the right situation, project-based rental counters the downsides of these programs. It stops the criticism of the government taking assistance with tight real estate markets tries to administrate the cost effcient public over a part of the private market. The affordable and tenant-based rental assistance in areas housing program through the market based housing units should remain affordable for an with an oversupply. This will increase the on costs. In this way it is expected to still be indefnite time, and when they are replaced cost effciency and the success rate of the quite cost effcient and have broad political there should be a one for one replacement current voucher program. and public support. rule. 3. By transferring public housing to Section 8 project-based rental assistance the Wealth redistribution Low income housing tax credits housing authorities can operate the Because the One affordable housing program In order to interest investors or developers affordable housing units without capital will be more cost effcient less funds are to build affordable housing they need more or operational funding. Their funding now needed than what is currently being spent on incentives than investment break-even, comes from the HAP (housing assistance the four affordable housing programs. therefore in the initial phase tax credits or CRA payments) the same as private parties. This consideration could help to interest investors is similar to the current RAD program. Target group income and developers to build affordable housing. 4. By lowering the fair market rent to the BER By targeting a mixed income group for the (break-even rent) the HAP can be lower project-based housing units some of the higher Tenant-based rental assistance than the current HAP, because currently income tenants could pay for some lower For real estate markets with an oversupply, rents the HAP are based on the area’s rent and income tenants. This will decrease the Worst are on average much lower than in markets not on the actual costs. This will make the Case Needs and increase the cost effciency. with an undersupply (the basic demand and project-based rental assistance more cost However with a higher tenant income group supply rule), therefore, it might be cost effcient effcient. the program would loose some political and to provide tenant-based rental assistance 5. Investors and developers will not develop public support. As table 6.5 shows the higher

Conclusion instead of project-based assistance. Besides break-even projects, they demand a certain target group does not necessarily ft within that, tenant-based assistance can support the amount of proft, therefore LIHTC or CRA market by flling empty private housing units. consideration could be introduced in order Table 6.5: Aspects of One affordable housing program to provide incentives for developers and 6. Characteristics of policy recommendation investors to develop affordable housing. Socialists Liberals Conservatives This One affordable housing program 6. It does not lead to rent infations from Wealth High Low Low-no eliminates a few concerns about the current the TBRA rental assistance because TBRA redistribution redistribution affordable housing system and combines the won’t be used in tight real estate markets. Target groups Extremely Extremely Extremely low best aspects of the current programs: 7. The program should have a more mixed income low- low- low 1. The One affordable housing program tenant group. By having a mixed tenant middle makes public housing and public housing group the average costs PUM are dropping, Position of Dominantly Public in Mainly Private authorities a more private matter, this and when there are tenants in PBRA rental public and public collaboration with a passive private parties with private role for public in the affordable parties means that the main concern about public assistance that can pay more than the BER, parties. housing, the government taking over a the housing assistance payments drop, housing system part of the private market is eliminated. and therefore the federal costs. Economic system Socialistic Capitalistic Capitalistic 134 the U.S. ideology, and can face therefore some level the affordable housing programs. The very rough of opposition. However the overall ideology of this calculations show a promising cost effciency gain that program seems to be right wing liberal which fts could be possible with the One affordable housing within the average U.S. ideology. program. Position of the government in the market By privatizing public housing authorities and letting Altogether the program as introduced in this them compete with the market the government recommendation, must be read as a promising gets a more passive role in the affordable housing program that should be researched further and that is system. The government is now only responsible still far from complete. for appropriations and to provide decent legislation and guidelines for operating and administrating the affordable housing units.

Economical system The One affordable housing program would foresee a competitive market where NGO’s/NPHO and the private market compete for developing affordable housing. This competitive approach will lead to a maximum cost effciency with a smart and innovative new affordable housing system.

Cost effciency study A shallow cost effciency study has been conducted on the One affordable housing program, this study can be found in appendix 9. The cost effciency study does look promising, however a more precise and detailed study is needed to conclude on the cost effciency of the new program.

Conclusion One affordable housing program The One affordable housing program as introduced is meant to be a low cost, mainly private affordable housing program that fts within the United States affordable housing ideology and could potentially assists more people than that are currently assisted.

Although this program as suggested should be thoroughly researched before any conclusions can be drawn. This chapter has shown that the One affordable housing program does ft better within the current ideology of the United States concerning 135 References

Austensen, M., Ellen, I. G., Herrine, L., Karfunkel, B., Jush, G. K., Moriarty, S., . . . Yager, J. (2016). State of New York City’s housing and neighborhoods in 2015. Retrieved 04-18, 2017 from http://furmancenter.org/research/sonychan

Balz, D. (2017). In Trump’s blueprint to reorder the federal government, echoes of Reagan ’81. Washington Journal. Retrieved 04-01, 2017from https://www.washingtonpost. com/politics/in-trumps-blueprint-to-reorder-the-federal-government-echoes-of-reagan-81/2017/03/15/af4b5c44-09bd-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story. html?utm_term=.0002f1312318

Barr, N. (2012). Economics of the Welfare state (5th ed.). Gosport: Oxford University Press.

Bellantoni, C. (2009). ‘Choice’ neighborhoods to combat poverty cycle. Washington Times.

Bengtsson, B. (2001). Housing as a Social Right: Implications for Welfare State Theory. Scandinavian political studies, 24(4).

Berk, J., & DeMarzo, P. (2014). Corporate fnance the core (Vol. third edition). Harlow: Pearson.

Black, D. (2014). Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Affordable Housing Investment Opportunities for Banks. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from Washington: https://www.occ. gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/insights/insights-low-income-housing-tax-credits.pdf

Bloom, N. D., & Lasner, M. G. (2016). Affordable housing in New York. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Bonazzi, G., & Iotti, M. (2016). Evaluation of Investment in Renovation to Increase the Quality of Buildings: A Specifc Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Approach of Appraisal. Retrieved 05-25, 2017 from www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/268/pdf

Bratt, R. G. (1991). Public housing authorities: Determining an appropriate role in a national preservation strategy (1051-1482). Retrieved 02,20, 2017 from http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10511482.1991.9521063

Bratt, R. G., Stone, M. E., & Hartman, C. (2006). A right to housing. Philadelphia: Temple University press.

7. References Britannica. (1999). New Deal, United States history. Retrieved 02-20, 2017 from https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2017). Regional Data. Retrieved 04-18, 2017 from https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=99&step=1#reqid=99 &step=1&isuri=1&9983=levels&9934=5&9933=-1&9995=beastandard&9922=21&9923=0&9924=non-industry&9925=0&9990=99&9927=1990- &9901=421&9928=3&9929=21&9930=0&9931=0&9940=-1

Collinson, R., Ellen, I. G., & Ludwig, J. (2015). Low income housing policy. Retrieved 05-28, 2017 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21071

Curhan, J. J. (1995). The HUD reinvention: a critical analysis. public interest law journal, 5. Retrieved 05-28, 2017 from http://duncankennedy.net/documents/Housing%20 other%20articles/HUD%20Reinvention.pdf

CNU. (1999). Principles for inner city neighborhood design. Retrieved 04-08, 2017 from https://www.HUDuser.gov/Publications/pdf/principles.pdf

DiPasquale, D., Fricke, D., & Garcia-Diaz, D. (2003). Comparing the costs of federal housing assistance programs. Retrieved 05-28, 2017 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar. 136 org/9b92/d1564ab7645e631bcd60650b8ad4b829e697.pdf

Faribanks, R. B. (1993). The Housing Act of 1954 and the war against slums in the southwestern United States. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from http://www.fau.usp.br/iphs/abstractsAndPapersFiles/ Sessions/02/FAIRBANKS.pdf

Flanagan, R. M. (1997). The Housing Act of 1954 the sea change in national urban policy. Urban affairs review. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249734522_ The_Housing_Act_of_1954_The_Sea_Change_in_National_Urban_Policy

Freidrichs, C. (2011). The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgZM8y3hso

Genealogybranches. (2017). Saint Louis Population Figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from http://www.genealogybranches.com/stlouispopulation.html

GAO. (1995-a). HUD’s reinvention blueprint Raises Budget Issues and Oppertunities. Retrieved 05-20, 2017 from http://www.gao.gov/products/T-RCED-95-196

GAO. (1995-b). Converting to Housing Certifcates Raises Major Questions About Costs. Retrieved 05-20, 2017 from http://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-95-195

GAO. (2002). Federal housing assistance comparing the characteristics and costs of housing programs. Retrieved 05-20, 2017 from interviewee 3.

GAO. (2006). Policy decisions and market factors explain changes in the Costs of the Section 8 program. Retrieved 05-20, 2017 fromhttps://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-06-405/ pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-06-405.pdf

Goetz, E. G. (2012). Obsolescence and the Transformation of Public Housing Communities in the US. International Journal of Housing Policy. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from https://www.scopus. com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84866293174&partnerID=40&md5=5164a718c6b0dda56d5788703d234329

Government Publishing Offce. (2012). Announcement of Funding Awards; Choice Neighborhoods Grant Program for Fiscal Years (FY) 2010 and 201. Federal register, 77(91).

Gramlich, E. (2016). Rental Assistance Demonstration. Retrieved 04-09, 2017 from http://nlihc.org/sites/default/fles/2016AG_Chapter_4-5.pdf

Gugliotta, G. (1995). HUD revamps plan to transform public housing, reinvent’ agency. the washington post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/03/19/hud- revamps-plan-to-transform-public-housing-reinvent-agency/d0cd298a-6786-4f78-acd6-57221d8665fd/?utm_term=.0e2796a05c7d

Hartman, C. (2006). The Case for a Right to Housing. Retrieved 04-13, 2017 from http://nhi.org/online/issues/148/righttohousing.html

Harvard University Graduate School of Design (2003). Public Housing Operating Policy. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/HUDdoc?id=DOC_9238.pdf

Hays, R. A. (2012). the federal government & urban housing (Vol. 3rd). Albany: State University of New York.

Hoekstra, J. (2010). Divergence in European welfare and housing systems. Retrieved 04-15, 2017 from http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A245c6847-0573-4f30-bee2- f676551865ec?collection=research

Hoekstra, J. (2013). Housing and the welfare state:changing perspectives and a research agenda. Retrieved 04-15, 2017 from http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A900c0043- b86a-411b-b4a7-ae83dd0af9a7?collection=research

Hoffman, A. v. (2000). A study in Contradictions: the origins and legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/ sites/default/fles/hpd_1102_hoffman.pdf

HUD. (N.D.-a). Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet. Retrieved 09-22, 2016from http://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/program_offces/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/about/ fact_sheet 137 HUD. (N.D.-b). HUD’s Public Housing Program. Retrieved 09-21, 2016 from http://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/topics/rental_assistance/phprog

HUD. (N.D.-c). Mission. Retrieved 09-27, 2016 from http://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/about/mission

HUD. (N.D.-d). White paper- Cost Effectiveness and Benefts of HUD programs. HUD. (1974). Housing in the Seventies. Retrieved 03-30, 2017 from http://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-968.pdf

HUD. (2000). Issue Brief: Economic Cost Analysis of Different Forms of Assisted Housing. Retrieved 05-18, 2017from https://www.huduser.gov/portal//Publications/PDF/ economic.pdf

HUD. (2001). Mixed fnance development public housing. Retrieved 09-21, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/HUDdoc?id=DOC_10114.pdf

HUD. (2006). Accounting for fxed asset depreciation and related issues. Retrieved 02-27, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/ HUDdoc?id=DOC_8851.pdf

HUD. (2008) Affordable housing - Big Ideas to Solve the Big Problem

HUD. (2010). CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS DEMONSTRATION ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT CRITERIA AND HARDUNIT EXCEPTION. Retrieved 02-27, 2017 from https://www.HUD.gov/offces/pih/programs/ph/cn/docs/one-for-one.pdf

HUD. (2014- a). Why did Pruitt-Igoe fail? Retrieved 01-29, 2017 from https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_110314.html

HUD. (2014- b). Major legislation on housing and urban development enactted since 1932. Retrieved 02-27, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/ HUDdoc?id=Legs_Chron_June2014.pdf

HUD. (2015-a). Congressional Justifcations FY 2016. Retrieved 09-21, 2016 from http://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/HUDdoc?id=FY16-CJE-EntireFile.pdf

HUD. (2016). Fiscal year 2017 Congressional Justifcations. Retrieved 09-21, 2016 from http://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/HUDdoc?id=FY_2017_CJs_ Combined.pdf

HUD. (2016-b). Cost drivers in Section 8 programs.

HUD. (2017-a). LIHTC dataset tables. Retrieved 04-02, 2017from https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/Datasets/lihtc/tables9514.pdf 7. References HUD. (2017-b). Multifamily Portfolio Datasets. Retrieved 04-20, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/program_offces/housing/mfh/presrv/ mfhpreservation

HUD. (2017-c). RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION (RAD)TOOLKIT #1: WHY RAD? A RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION (RAD) OVERVIEW. Retrieved 05- 04, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/documents/HUDdoc?id=Toolkit1WhyRAD.pdf

HUD. (2017-d). Funding (capital grants). Retrieved 05-04, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/program_offces/public_indian_housing/programs/ ph/capfund/funding

HUD. (2017-e). CFO Reports. Retrieved 05-04, 2017 from https://portal.HUD.gov/HUDportal/HUD?src=/program_offces/cfo/reports/cforept

HUDarchives. (2017). HUD archives: Budget summaries and Congressional Justifcations. Retrieved 05-04, 2017from https://archives.HUD.gov/budget/index.cfm 138 HUDuser. (2017). Assisted housing national and local. Retrieved 04-18, 2017 from https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html#1998

Ink, D. A. (1967). The department of housing and urban development- building a new federal department. Retrieved 02-23, 2017 from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol32/iss3/2

Inside Gov. (2016). 2015 United States Budget. Retrieved 12-20, 2016 from http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/118/2015

Johnson, J. (January 25, 2016). Housing Vouchers: A Case Study of the Partisan Policy Cycle. Social Science History, 40, 1, 63-91.

Kleit, R. G., & Page, S. B. (2015). The Changing Role of Public Housing Authorities in the Affordable Housing Delivery System. Housing studies. Retrieved 02-23, 2017 from https://www.scopus. com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84946498942&doi=10.1080%2f02673037.2014.953919&partnerID=40&md5=17b922d7ffce035c4e69b327c0853593

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (2017). Land Prices for 46 Metro areas. Retrieved 04-18, 2017 from http://datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/land-values/metro-area-land-prices.asp

Lopez, L. (2017). Trump is about to repeat a big time Reagan blunder. Business Insider. Retrieved 04-01, 2017 from https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-and-reagan-defense-spending-budget- cuts-2017-2/?international=true&r=US

Massachusetts legal assistance corporation. (2017). What Types of Multifamily Subsidized Housing Programs Are There? Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from http://www.masslegalhelp.org/housing/ multi-family-subsidized-housing

McClure, k., & Johnson, B. (2015). Housing Programs Fail to Deliver on Neighborhood Quality, Reexamined. Housing Policy Debate. Retrieved 04-18, 2017from http://www-tandfonline-com. tudelft.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2014.944201

MCMahon, T. (2017). Historical Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) Data. Retrieved 04-20, 2017 from https://infationdata.com/Infation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx?reloaded=true

Nguyen, M. T., Rohe, W. M., & Cowan, S. M. (2012). Entrenched Hybridity in public housing Agencies in the USA. Housing studies. Retrieved 03-19, 2017 from http://www-tandfonline-com. tudelft.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2012.677998

Novak, M. (1990). The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism: Madison Books.

NYC. (2017). Property tax rates for tax year 2016/2017. Retrieved 05-20, 2017 from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/fnance/taxes/property-tax-rates.page

NYC. (2017-b). 2017 New York City AMI. Retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/about/what-is-affordable-housing.page

NYCHA. (2013). NYCHA Commits to Eliminate Maintenance and Repairs Backlog. New York City Housing Authority Journal, 43(2).

NYCHA. (2015-a). Capital plan calendar years 2016-2020. Retrieved 10-05, 2016 from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/NYCHA-2016-2020-Capital-Plan-Narrative.pdf

NYCHA. (2015- b). Five year operating plan calendar years 2016-2020. Retrieved from 10-05, 2016 http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/NYCHA-2016-2020-Operating-Plan- Narrative.pdf

NYCHA. (2016). About NYCHA. Retrieved from 10-01, 2016 http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/about-nycha.page

NYCHA. (2017-a). Development Books. Retrieved 11-09, 2016 from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/developments.page

NYCHA. (2017-b). Annual plan and fnancial information. Retrieved from 10-01, 2016 http://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/annual-plan-fnancial-information.page

NYCrgb. (2016). 2016 Housing Supply Report. Retrieved 4-08, 2017 from http://www.nycrgb.org/downloads/research/pdf_reports/16HSR.pdf 139 Olsen, E. O., & Zabel, J. E. (2015). US Housing Policy. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Retrieved 1-06, 2017 from http://www.sciencedirect.com.tudelft. idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/B9780444595317000144

Offce of Inspector General (N.D.). HUDOIG_brochure_WYSIWYG. Retrieved 10-04, 2016 from https://www.HUDoig.gov/sites/default/fles/HUDOIG_brochure_ WYSIWYG%20%28Readable%20PDF%29.pdf

OMB. (2013). Historical tables budget of the U.S. Government. Retrieved 02-02, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2013- TAB.pdf

Quicley, J. M. (2000). A decent home: housing policy in perspective. Retrieved 02-04, 2017 from https://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Q_BW00PB.pdf

Remodeling. (2016). 2016 cost value report. Retrieved 05-25, 2017 from http://www.remodeling.hw.net/cost-vs-value/2016/east-north-central/

San Francisco Housing Authority(SFHA). (2017). HOPE VI. Retrieved 03-14, 2017 from http://www.sfha.org/HOPE-VI.html

Semuels, A. (2015). New York City’s Public-Housing Crisis. The Atlantic. Retrieved 03-08, 2017 from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/new-york- citys-public-housing-crisis/393644/

Schwartz, A. F. (2015). Housing Policy in the United States (Vol. 3rd). Oxon: Routledge.

Schwartz, A. (2017). Future prospects for public housing in the United States: Lessons from the rental Assistance Demonstration Program. Retrieved 03-08, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2017.1287113

Shapiro, E., Mackmin, D., & Sams, G. (2013). Modern Methods of Valuation (11 ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

Sidoti, C. (1996). Housing as a human right. Retrieved 02-04, 2017 from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/fles/content/pdf/human_rights/housing.pdf

Statista. (2016). Number of households in the U.S. from 1960 to 2015 (in millions). Retrieved 12-06, 2016 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of- households-in-the-us/

Steffen, B. L., Carter, G. R., Martin, M., Pelletiere, D., Vandenbroucke, D. A., & Yao, Y.-G. D. (2015). Worst case housing needs 2015 report to congress. Retrieved 12-06, 2016 from https://www.HUDuser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/WorstCaseNeeds_2015.pdf

Stoloff, J. A. (2004). A brief history of public housing. Retrieved 10- 09, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/profle/Jennifer_/publication/228789405_A_brief_ history_of_public_housing/links/5643a68008ae9f9c13e05df6/A-brief-history-of-public-housing.pdf 7. References

Tars, E. (2016). housing as a human right. Retrieved from 02-04, 2017 http://nlihc.org/sites/default/fles/2016AG_Chapter_1-6.pdf

The Presidents Commission on housing. (1982). The Report of the Presidents Commission on Housing. Retrieved from Washington: https://www.huduser.gov/portal// Publications/pdf/HUD-2460.pdf

Trading Economics. (2016). United States Corporate Tax Rate. Retrieved 10-11, 2016from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-tax-rate

Torres, R., & Jones, D. R. (2014). With federal funding at ‘starvation levels,’ the New York City Housing Authority needs the city and state to step in to stem the agency’s recent decline Retrieved 20-03, 2017 from http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-state-act-rescue-nycha-article-1.1914034

The City of New York. (2014). Housing New York A Five-Borough, Ten year plan. Retrieved 03-05, 2017from http://www.nyc.gov/html/housing/assets/downloads/pdf/ housing_plan.pdf 140 The City of New York. (2015). NextGeneration NYCHA. Retrieved 03-20, 2017 from http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/nextgen-nycha-web.pdf

United States Offce of Management and Budget. (2017). America First A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ whitehouse.gov/fles/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf

United States. (1937). The United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. Retrieved 02-15, 2017 from https://archive.org/details/Housingact1937

United States. (1949 ). Housing Act of 1949. Retrieved 02-15, 2017 from http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=63&page=413#

United States. (1954). Housing Act of 1954. Retrieved 02-15, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-68/pdf/STATUTE-68-Pg590.pdf.

United States. (1965). Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. Retrieved 02-15, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf

United States. (1965). Department of Housing and Urban Development Act. Retrieved 02-20, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg667.pdf

United States. (1968-a). Civil Rights Act of 1968. Retrieved 02-20, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg73.pdf

United States. (1968-b). Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. Retrieved 02-20, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg476.pdf

United States. (1969). Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969. Retrieved 02-20, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-83/pdf/STATUTE-83-Pg379.pdf

United States. (1970). Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg1770.pdf

United States. (1974). Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/088_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1977). Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/091_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States . (1978). Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/092_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1979). Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1979. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/093_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1980). Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. Retrieved 03-10, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/094_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1981). Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981. Retrieved 03-16, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/095_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1983). Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983. Retrieved 03-16, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/097_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1987). Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. Retrieved 03-16, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/102_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1990). Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act 1990. Retrieved 03-16, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/105_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (1994). Reinventing HUD. Retrieved 05-28, 2017 from Washington, D.C.: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015032555107

United States. (1995). HUD reinvention: from blueprint to action: summary. Retrieved 05-28, 2017 from [Washington, D.C.]: //catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003619409 http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754066519889

United States. (1998). Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Retrieved 03-16, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/113_statutes_at_large.pdf 141 United States. (1999). Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century Act 1999. Retrieved 03-20, 2017 from http://www.constitution. org/uslaw/sal/114_statutes_at_large.pdf

United States. (2009). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Retrieved 03-20, 2017 from http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/124_statutes_at_large. pdf

United States House of Representatives. (2006). Congressional record-house volume 152. Retrieved 04-12, 2017 from https://books.google.nl/books?id=sBChQsD2lg kC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=mark+to+market+2006&source=bl&ots=jG95C9EU1b&sig=WERlbQKMz-ovIP_

USA-Government. (N.D.). Branches of Government. Retrieved 10-05, 2016 from https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

US Department of treasury (2016). About. Retrieved 10-15, 2016 from https://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/Pages/default.aspx

University of Washington (2017). Highpoint summer. Retrieved 03-14, 2017 from http://depts.washington.edu/highpnt/

Zillow. (2017-a). Zillow Data. Retrieved 11-15, 2016 from http://www.zillow.com/research/about-us/

Zillow. (2017-b). New York Home Prices & Values. Retrieved 03-06, 2017 from https://www.zillow.com/new-york-ny/home-values/ 7. References

142 143 APP 1 Input model public housing Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005049 NY-5-186 NY005059 NY-5-120 NY-5-116 NY-5-189 NY-5-106 NY005038 NY005012 NY-5-111 NY005086 NY36P005255 NY36P005282 NY36P005288 NY-5-121 NY-5-118 NY-5-134 NY-5-135 NY-5-136 NY-36-p005-217 NY005070 NY-5-175 NY-5-195 NY005095 NY005060 John Adems 45 Allen Street 830 Amsterdam Louis Armstrong I Louis Armstrong atlantic terminal Bailey Ave-.W. Baisley Park Baruch Barach Houses Beach 41st beach Bedford Belmont Sutter Berry street south Dr.Ramon E. Dr.Betances II Dr Betances III Dr. Betanches IV Dr.Betanches V Dr. Betances VI Mary Mc Leod Borinquen Plaza I borinquen plaza II 2440 Boston Rd Boston sector Ave. II, Bedford (site4B 193RD ST. Addition channel dr Stuyvesant Rehab Area 9th street betances Bethune Stuyvesant Amount of 925 107 159 371 248 300 233 386 2194 197 712 85 72 148 309 175 132 282 152 155 210 509 425 235 538 Households

Completion date August 1964 July 1974 August 1965 May 1973 October 1974 April 1976 May 1973 April 1961 June 1959 April 1977 November 1973 May 1983 February 1986 September 1995 May 1973 July 1973 July 1973 December 1973 February 1974 September 1982 March 1967 February 1975 December 1975 August 1972 April 1969 Construction date 1964 1974 1965 1973 1974 1976 1973 1961 1959 1977 1973 1983 1986 1995 1973 1973 1973 1973 1974 1982 1967 1975 1975 1972 1969 Land Costs $ 3629002 $ 714819 $ 1638000 $ 547783 $ 148608 $ 8987198 $ 70000 $ 769062 $ 503000 $ 1300000 $ 753911 $ 293500 $ 1741000 Construction $ 10097759 $ 2185637 $ 989426 $ 5733090 $ 4164449 $ 18363345 $ 4308149 $ 17202330 $ 8109509 $ 7312186 $ 2029123 $ 1498414 $ 6775019 costs other costs $ 4203239 $ 4310000 $ 749544 $ 12082574 $ 7842000 $ 11025000 $ 1825127 $ 1551943 $ 9119457 $ 2361851 $ 6814608 $ 5405000 $ 5412960 $ 17158680 $ 1697491 $ 6956000 $ 4215000 $ 11243000 $ 4470000 $ 2437814 $ 1031966 $ 15985000 $ 16715000 $ 5378086 $ 3513981 Development $ 17930000 $ 4310000 $ 3650000 $ 14710000 $ 7842000 $ 11025000 $ 8106000 $ 5865000 $ 36470000 $ 6740000 $ 24786000 $ 5405000 $ 5412960 $ 17158680 $ 10310000 $ 6956000 $ 4215000 $ 11243000 $ 4470000 $ 11050000 $ 3815000 $ 15985000 $ 16715000 $ 7170000 $ 12030000 costs

Number of rooms 4.66 5.02 4.57 4.86 5.15 4.24 4.25 4.67 4.67 3.39 4.36 4.61 4.67 4.74 4.61 4.91 5.04 4.86 4.88 4.72 3.60 4.68 5.33 3.59 4.63 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1956 1959 1955 1950 1962 Neighborhood Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Queens Manhattan Manhattan Queens Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx

Bronx 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

Brooklyn 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Manhattan 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 1 3 7 3 3 2 7 12 3 3 14 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 11 12 districts Neighborhood Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Queens Manhattan Manhattan Queens Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx

Numbers after 1 82 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959 $ 11.12

1960 $ 11.37

1961 $ 14.04 $ 11.53

1962 $ 14.17 $ 11.71

1963 $ 14.18 $ 11.83

1964 $ 15.00 $ 14.18 $ 11.94

1965 $ 15.00 $ 14.18 $ 12.15

1966 $ 14.99 $ 15.87 $ 14.18 $ 12.35

1967 $ 15.18 $ 16.21 $ 14.35 $ 13.42 $ 16.99

1968 $ 15.33 $ 16.30 $ 14.52 $ 14.20 $ 17.03

1969 $ 15.85 $ 16.44 $ 14.91 $ 15.00 $ 16.07

1970 $ 16.36 $ 16.57 $ 15.29 $ 15.79 $ 15.10 $ 16.37

1971 $ 16.96 $ 17.15 $ 15.92 $ 16.42 $ 15.90 $ 16.76

1972 $ 18.71 $ 18.61 $ 18.43 $ 18.27 $ 17.08 $ 17.87 $ 18.29

1973 $ 15.88 $ 14.88 $ 16.54 $ 20.55 $ 18.03 $ 15.30 $ 22.55 $ 17.06 $ 18.78 $ 18.05 $ 19.42 $ 14.06 $ 15.57 $ 15.71

1974 $ 17.89 $ 22.05 $ 15.99 $ 17.50 $ 21.41 $ 21.74 $ 17.63 $ 17.04 $ 18.40 $ 18.28 $ 19.88 $ 18.75 $ 20.15 $ 19.78 $ 15.87 $ 16.36 $ 17.14

1975 $ 18.47 $ 22.20 $ 16.91 $ 18.54 $ 21.34 $ 23.16 $ 18.83 $ 18.01 $ 19.66 $ 19.17 $ 20.76 $ 20.00 $ 21.26 $ 26.37 $ 16.31 $ 19.22 $ 24.61 $ 16.19 $ 18.67 Appendix 1

1976 $ 22.55 $ 25.00 $ 20.04 $ 23.65 $ 27.17 $ 26.74 $ 26.22 $ 22.89 $ 22.95 $ 23.47 $ 23.34 $ 25.47 $ 24.13 $ 25.10 $ 24.25 $ 17.31 $ 24.01 $ 27.25 $ 17.62 $ 22.76

1977 $ 23.83 $ 25.10 $ 21.45 $ 23.92 $ 27.72 $ 26.94 $ 27.26 $ 24.26 $ 24.09 $ 20.38 $ 24.09 $ 23.78 $ 25.88 $ 24.31 $ 25.22 $ 24.88 $ 18.19 $ 24.35 $ 27.65 $ 18.02 $ 23.49

1978 $ 24.33 $ 25.33 $ 21.98 $ 24.21 $ 27.47 $ 27.47 $ 27.53 $ 24.47 $ 24.55 $ 20.49 $ 24.07 $ 24.28 $ 25.93 $ 24.65 $ 25.51 $ 25.18 $ 18.57 $ 24.94 $ 27.74 $ 18.57 $ 23.68

1979 $ 24.82 $ 25.56 $ 22.51 $ 24.49 $ 27.22 $ 28.00 $ 27.79 $ 24.68 $ 25.01 $ 20.60 $ 24.04 $ 24.78 $ 25.98 $ 24.98 $ 25.80 $ 25.48 $ 18.94 $ 25.52 $ 27.83 $ 19.11 $ 23.86

1980 $ 25.97 $ 26.09 $ 23.54 $ 24.58 $ 27.17 $ 28.63 $ 28.85 $ 25.52 $ 26.11 $ 21.41 $ 24.90 $ 25.47 $ 26.40 $ 25.69 $ 26.79 $ 27.06 $ 19.73 $ 25.39 $ 19.43 $ 20.48 $ 24.57

1981 $ 28.50 $ 29.44 $ 26.95 $ 27.41 $ 31.30 $ 31.95 $ 32.52 $ 28.50 $ 29.27 $ 22.95 $ 27.44 $ 27.28 $ 28.25 $ 29.00 $ 18.99 $ 30.00 $ 21.66 $ 28.06 $ 30.22 $ 22.55 $ 27.93

1982 $ 29.70 $ 31.57 $ 28.61 $ 27.93 $ 31.40 $ 33.04 $ 34.75 $ 29.27 $ 30.23 $ 25.27 $ 28.70 $ 28.97 $ 29.59 $ 29.14 $ 29.39 $ 30.81 $ 24.13 $ 28.96 $ 30.73 $ 24.61 $ 29.58

1983 $ 31.21 $ 33.80 $ 29.31 $ 29.53 $ 33.83 $ 34.13 $ 36.42 $ 30.91 $ 31.57 $ 27.21 $ 30.40 $ 30.56 $ 26.84 $ 30.76 $ 30.47 $ 31.04 $ 32.84 $ 25.82 $ 31.25 $ 31.70 $ 26.31 $ 31.16

1984 $ 34.84 $ 35.54 $ 35.85 $ 32.28 $ 36.89 $ 37.73 $ 40.30 $ 35.21 $ 34.96 $ 31.55 $ 33.53 $ 33.98 $ 30.45 $ 35.89 $ 33.15 $ 33.23 $ 32.20 $ 29.19 $ 32.78 $ 33.26 $ 30.18 $ 33.75

1985 $ 40.70 $ 39.54 $ 37.99 $ 36.27 $ 40.89 $ 44.59 $ 45.90 $ 40.70 $ 43.87 $ 35.22 $ 39.22 $ 29.50 $ 37.79 $ 36.42 $ 34.92 $ 38.05 $ 35.51 $ 36.19 $ 34.94 $ 35.84 $ 36.10 $ 34.54 $ 37.73

1986 $ 43.02 $ 43.12 $ 38.61 $ 38.24 $ 43.16 $ 47.02 $ 50.10 $ 44.08 $ 43.17 $ 37.98 $ 42.00 $ 28.15 NYD $ 40.66 $ 38.61 $ 37.65 $ 41.81 $ 38.93 $ 35.90 $ 39.73 $ 38.64 $ 37.61 $ 38.34 $ 43.69

1987 $ 44.70 $ 45.60 $ 41.00 $ 39.96 $ 44.58 $ 49.18 $ 53.04 $ 46.12 $ 44.50 $ 39.73 $ 44.27 $ 29.02 $ 42.45 $ 40.26 $ 38.54 $ 43.16 $ 41.18 $ 34.83 $ 41.26 $ 38.61 $ 37.46 $ 39.06 $ 46.77

1988 $ 46.38 $ 48.08 $ 43.38 $ 41.68 $ 45.99 $ 51.34 $ 55.97 $ 48.16 $ 45.83 $ 41.48 $ 46.54 $ 29.89 $ 39.60 $ 44.24 $ 41.90 $ 39.42 $ 44.50 $ 43.42 $ 33.75 $ 42.78 $ 38.58 $ 37.30 $ 39.77 $ 49.85

1989 $ 50.37 $ 52.39 $ 46.78 $ 40.70 $ 46.12 $ 54.19 $ 57.60 $ 50.70 $ 49.38 $ 42.13 $ 48.60 $ 30.02 $ 44.46 $ 46.66 $ 43.58 $ 40.74 $ 46.75 $ 43.54 $ 39.55 $ 45.76 $ 38.33 $ 37.70 $ 42.02 $ 54.42

1990 $ 50.86 $ 53.25 $ 49.03 $ 41.84 $ 47.51 $ 55.69 $ 58.52 $ 51.58 $ 52.06 $ 47.31 $ 49.35 $ 30.05 $ 44.38 $ 46.70 $ 43.81 $ 44.24 $ 46.77 $ 43.55 $ 41.03 $ 48.53 $ 40.24 $ 39.29 $ 44.84 $ 57.23

1991 $ 56.67 $ 66.41 $ 52.13 $ 49.93 $ 55.94 $ 60.69 $ 63.09 $ 61.25 $ 56.65 $ 48.33 $ 51.18 $ 33.04 $ 52.70 $ 52.52 $ 51.36 $ 47.35 $ 47.85 $ 46.67 $ 41.60 $ 52.04 $ 50.94 $ 50.55 $ 51.39 $ 63.45

1992 $ 58.10 $ 64.84 $ 50.92 $ 50.17 $ 56.35 $ 63.21 $ 62.56 $ 59.81 $ 58.11 $ 49.42 $ 50.90 $ 34.27 $ 52.76 $ 52.71 $ 54.50 $ 46.85 $ 50.22 $ 50.35 $ 43.15 $ 55.49 $ 53.26 $ 53.39 $ 55.26 $ 65.79

1993 $ 55.96 $ 72.18 $ 52.77 $ 52.74 $ 55.65 $ 61.12 $ 58.20 $ 57.01 $ 59.52 $ 55.41 $ 50.15 $ 42.39 $ 44.74 $ 49.46 $ 48.50 $ 43.94 $ 49.74 $ 46.31 $ 41.29 $ 55.17 $ 52.90 $ 51.63 $ 56.38 $ 60.99

1994 $ 54.08 $ 72.11 $ 54.98 $ 0.57 $ 55.54 $ 60.23 $ 56.02 $ 57.80 $ 58.86 $ 55.12 $ 51.83 $ 45.14 $ 49.23 $ 50.54 $ 46.91 $ 43.86 $ 50.22 $ 47.27 $ 47.57 $ 56.51 $ 54.13 $ 53.08 $ 57.71 $ 62.60

1995 $ 53.76 $ 71.96 $ 54.26 $ 50.14 $ 54.57 $ 61.71 $ 58.38 $ 58.00 $ 58.38 $ 55.23 $ 49.97 $ 44.32 $ 49.62 $ 49.93 $ 47.34 $ 45.43 $ 50.51 $ 47.04 $ 50.30 $ 56.41 $ 54.38 $ 53.18 $ 58.84 $ 62.77

1996 $ 52.88 $ 72.90 $ 55.83 $ 50.14 $ 51.57 $ 62.06 $ 58.45 $ 59.07 $ 59.36 $ 55.50 $ 52.64 $ 47.41 $ 49.52 $ 58.17 $ 50.74 $ 49.51 $ 46.18 $ 51.38 $ 48.57 $ 51.80 $ 57.73 $ 55.30 $ 54.03 $ 60.28 $ 60.95

1997 $ 52.78 $ 74.02 $ 56.13 $ 50.81 $ 54.27 $ 60.96 $ 58.99 $ 58.65 $ 60.10 $ 57.43 $ 54.59 $ 47.98 $ 50.43 $ 59.72 $ 51.75 $ 49.91 $ 46.19 $ 51.35 $ 53.45 $ 51.31 $ 58.00 $ 55.18 $ 53.26 $ 61.74 $ 61.25

1998 $ 54.02 $ 71.01 $ 57.99 $ 52.05 $ 57.42 $ 60.88 $ 60.03 $ 58.47 $ 61.01 $ 60.08 $ 53.51 $ 50.97 $ 51.65 $ 57.87 $ 54.73 $ 52.46 $ 50.56 $ 52.58 $ 53.45 $ 53.04 $ 58.05 $ 56.68 $ 54.62 $ 61.20 $ 62.45

1999 $ 54.67 $ 75.10 $ 58.86 $ 52.44 $ 56.75 $ 62.45 $ 59.32 $ 61.80 $ 62.66 $ 61.39 $ 60.45 $ 53.83 $ 52.17 $ 61.60 $ 56.36 $ 57.62 $ 53.48 $ 56.00 $ 54.70 $ 53.97 $ 59.32 $ 58.08 $ 55.41 $ 62.15 $ 63.28

2000 $ 55.38 $ 74.39 $ 58.72 $ 55.11 $ 56.96 $ 62.96 $ 59.89 $ 61.42 $ 63.34 $ 62.53 $ 58.42 $ 56.17 $ 53.87 $ 64.32 $ 56.41 $ 55.33 $ 52.57 $ 56.59 $ 53.80 $ 54.73 $ 60.78 $ 59.82 $ 55.66 $ 61.22 $ 64.92

2001 $ 56.08 $ 73.67 $ 58.57 $ 57.77 $ 57.17 $ 63.47 $ 60.46 $ 61.03 $ 64.02 $ 63.66 $ 56.38 $ 58.51 $ 55.57 $ 67.04 $ 56.46 $ 53.03 $ 51.66 $ 57.17 $ 52.89 $ 55.49 $ 62.24 $ 61.56 $ 55.90 $ 60.29 $ 66.55

2002 $ 56.08 $ 73.67 $ 58.57 $ 57.77 $ 57.17 $ 63.47 $ 60.46 $ 61.03 $ 64.02 $ 63.66 $ 56.38 $ 56.51 $ 55.57 $ 67.04 $ 56.46 $ 53.03 $ 51.66 $ 57.21 $ 52.89 $ 55.49 $ 62.24 $ 61.56 $ 55.90 $ 60.29 $ 66.55

2003 $ 61.09 $ 74.61 $ 62.67 $ 57.75 $ 60.24 $ 64.57 $ 64.17 $ 64.80 $ 66.62 $ 65.69 $ 60.88 $ 60.66 $ 60.74 $ 70.80 $ 59.58 $ 56.65 $ 55.69 $ 60.73 $ 61.16 $ 59.07 $ 65.69 $ 62.01 $ 58.32 $ 64.60 $ 68.74

2004 $ 66.09 $ 75.55 $ 66.76 $ 57.73 $ 63.31 $ 65.67 $ 67.87 $ 68.57 $ 69.21 $ 67.72 $ 65.37 $ 64.81 $ 65.90 $ 74.55 $ 62.70 $ 60.26 $ 59.71 $ 64.24 $ 69.43 $ 62.64 $ 69.14 $ 62.45 $ 60.73 $ 68.91 $ 70.93

2005 $ 314.00 $ 382.00 $ 295.00 $ 282.00 $ 338.00 $ 286.00 $ 288.00 $ 330.00 $ 328.00 $ 237.00 $ 289.00 $ 307.00 $ 319.00 $ 357.00 $ 300.00 $ 302.00 $ 317.00 $ 311.00 $ 299.00 $ 303.00 $ 247.00 $ 298.00 $ 334.00 $ 258.00 $ 330.00

2006 $ 322.00 $ 370.00 $ 311.00 $ 309.00 $ 348.00 $ 301.00 $ 300.00 $ 341.00 $ 340.00 $ 237.00 $ 301.00 $ 308.00 $ 315.00 $ 357.00 $ 303.00 $ 308.00 $ 323.00 $ 325.00 $ 310.00 $ 303.00 $ 246.00 $ 305.00 $ 350.00 $ 264.00 $ 337.00

2007 $ 322.00 $ 381.00 $ 321.00 $ 324.00 $ 356.00 $ 311.00 $ 307.00 $ 351.00 $ 352.00 $ 243.00 $ 314.00 $ 317.00 $ 331.00 $ 374.00 $ 319.00 $ 330.00 $ 337.00 $ 323.00 $ 328.00 $ 312.00 $ 252.00 $ 316.00 $ 375.00 $ 275.00 $ 341.00

2008 $ 347.00 $ 424.00 $ 342.00 $ 342.00 $ 376.00 $ 346.00 $ 336.00 $ 383.00 $ 383.00 $ 254.00 $ 342.00 $ 343.00 $ 352.00 $ 388.00 $ 343.00 $ 355.00 $ 370.00 $ 361.00 $ 365.00 $ 345.00 $ 260.00 $ 348.00 $ 402.00 $ 285.00 $ 367.00

2009 $ 376.00 $ 488.00 $ 364.00 $ 391.00 $ 413.00 $ 379.00 $ 366.00 $ 421.00 $ 423.00 $ 263.00 $ 391.00 $ 393.00 $ 386.00 $ 415.00 $ 267.00 $ 383.00 $ 388.00 $ 383.00 $ 390.00 $ 388.00 $ 268.00 $ 385.00 $ 450.00 $ 298.00 $ 399.00

2010 $ 384.00 $ 530.00 $ 385.00 $ 405.00 $ 441.00 $ 401.00 $ 386.00 $ 434.00 $ 438.00 $ 274.00 $ 396.00 $ 404.00 $ 420.00 $ 463.00 $ 383.00 $ 385.00 $ 399.00 $ 397.00 $ 409.00 $ 396.00 $ 287.00 $ 408.00 $ 474.00 $ 319.00 $ 417.00

2011 $ 404.00 $ 567.00 $ 402.00 $ 418.00 $ 439.00 $ 409.00 $ 394.00 $ 435.00 $ 455.00 $ 281.00 $ 400.00 $ 421.00 $ 455.00 $ 479.00 $ 395.00 $ 398.00 $ 430.00 $ 442.00 $ 447.00 $ 418.00 $ 294.00 $ 423.00 $ 487.00 $ 324.00 $ 433.00

2012 $ 417.00 $ 605.00 $ 411.00 $ 435.00 $ 454.00 $ 436.00 $ 408.00 $ 452.00 $ 471.00 $ 282.00 $ 396.00 $ 444.00 $ 467.00 $ 469.00 $ 410.00 $ 408.00 $ 428.00 $ 467.00 $ 453.00 $ 420.00 $ 294.00 $ 428.00 $ 508.00 $ 330.00 $ 456.00

2013 $ 419.00 $ 585.00 $ 424.00 $ 441.00 $ 466.00 $ 451.00 $ 418.00 $ 446.00 $ 474.00 $ 291.00 $ 410.00 $ 433.00 $ 438.00 $ 480.00 $ 412.00 $ 433.00 $ 424.00 $ 460.00 $ 456.00 $ 433.00 $ 300.00 $ 423.00 $ 514.00 $ 338.00 $ 448.00

2014 $ 432.00 $ 602.00 $ 428.00 $ 452.00 $ 471.00 $ 458.00 $ 392.00 $ 451.00 $ 482.00 $ 297.00 $ 410.00 $ 409.00 $ 459.00 $ 500.00 $ 428.00 $ 430.00 $ 464.00 $ 465.00 $ 459.00 $ 438.00 $ 298.00 $ 436.00 $ 519.00 $ 357.00 $ 440.00

2015 $ 451.00 $ 669.00 $ 481.00 $ 463.00 $ 508.00 $ 485.00 $ 415.00 $ 474.00 $ 504.00 $ 300.00 $ 430.00 $ 436.00 $ 458.00 $ 532.00 $ 450.00 $ 452.00 $ 477.00 $ 494.00 $ 477.00 $ 480.00 $ 302.00 $ 464.00 $ 565.00 $ 363.00 $ 458.00

2016 $ 469.44 $ 657.66 $ 469.70 $ 487.04 $ 521.83 $ 517.83 $ 440.81 $ 504.04 $ 515.38 $ 304.80 $ 452.98 $ 476.14 $ 505.08 $ 544.17 $ 465.11 $ 458.68 $ 464.75 $ 501.31 $ 486.35 $ 516.12 $ 318.96 $ 494.32 $ 576.00 $ 364.57 $ 464.01

Nummers Pre 50 160 59 100 125 161 96 38 12 98 83 174 101 126 134 135 136 115 70 155 165 91 60 1985144 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY-5-185 NY005011 NY005017 NY005022 NY36P005277 NY-5-145 NY36P0052222 NY36P005240 NY36P005263 NY-36-P005-264 NY005088 NY005073 NY-5-122 NY005253 NY36P005246 NY36P005223 NY36P005273 NY36P005274 NY005007 NY005045 NY-5-148 NY-5-161 NY-5-123 NY-5-157 NY-5-137 Mariana bracetti Breukelen Brevoort Bronxdale Reverend Bryant Ave. Bushwick II (AC) Bushwick II (BD) Bushwuck II CDA Pedro Albizu Gerald J. Carey Carleton Manor Cassidy place Claremont PKWY Claremont Claremont Claremont rehab Claremont Rehab Clason Point De Witt Clinton College Ave Coney Island I Coney Island I Coney Island I(site John P. Conlon plaza Randolph Brown (Group E) Campos Plaza II lafayette ave. Rehab(Group 2) Rehab(Group 3) gr. 4 gr.5 (Site1B) (Sites 4/5) 8) lihfe Towers

Amount of 108 1595 896 1497 200 72 300 300 300 224 674 174 380 188 107 115 150 135 400 749 95 193 376 125 216 Households

Completion date 5-74 October 1952 August 1955 January 1955 July 1985 August 1972 November 1983 May 1984 December 1986 September 1982 November 1970 March 1967 September 1971 December 1986 April 1987 December 1984 October 1986 November 1985 December 1941 October 1965 July 1972 May 1973 July 1974 December 1973 March 1973 Construction date 1974 1952 1955 1955 1985 1972 1983 1984 1986 1982 1970 1967 1971 1986 1987 1984 1986 1985 1941 1965 1972 1973 1974 1973 1973 Land Costs $ 783948 $ 2110798 $ 955607 $ 1920753 $ 287826 $ 260300 $ 2578914 Construction $ 14447606 $ 7878353 $ 12286796 $ 13196286 $ 9786784 $ 1978421 $ 1543995 $ 9843210 costs other costs $ 4370000 $ 3268446 $ 1860849 $ 4752597 $ 13340000 $ 2132334 $ 21440000 $ 21030000 $ 21256140 $ 4328414 $ 5192463 $ 1108753 $ 6885000 $ 13375520 $ 11430362 $ 7204000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 262705 $ 4382876 $ 2518156 $ 7535000 $ 16160000 $ 5995000 $ 55880000 Development $ 4370000 $ 18500000 $ 11850000 $ 17995000 $ 13340000 $ 2132334 $ 21440000 $ 21030000 $ 21256140 $ 17524700 $ 16900000 $ 3375000 $ 6885000 $ 13375520 $ 11430362 $ 7204000 $ 2067000 $ 16805000 $ 2518156 $ 7535000 $ 16160000 $ 5995000 $ 55880000 costs

Number of rooms 5.05 4.68 4.64 4.68 3.50 4.05 4.88 4.90 4.40 4.85 4.61 4.31 3.40 3.90 4.30 4.40 4.39 4.35 4.63 4.71 3.37 4.98 5.01 5.06 3.39 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1950 1950 1951 1962 1940 1956 Neighborhood Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Staten Island Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens

Bronx 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Brooklyn 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

Manhattan 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Community 3 18 3 9 16 3 4 4 4 3 13 14 1 3 4 4 4 4 9 11 4 13 13 13 12 districts Neighborhood Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Staten Island Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens

Numbers after 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941 $ 26.12

1942 $ 26.12

1943 $ 26.12

1944 $ 26.12

1945 $ 26.12

1946 $ 26.12

1947 $ 26.13

1948 $ 26.13

1949 $ 26.13

1950 $ 26.13

1951 $ 26.15

1952 $ 28.37 $ 26.15

1953 $ 28.37 $ 26.15

1954 $ 28.37 $ 27.29

1955 $ 28.37 $ 28.37 $ 28.33 $ 28.42

1956 $ 10.69 $ 9.94 $ 10.46 $ 10.17

1957 $ 11.11 $ 10.46 $ 10.91 $ 10.88

1958 $ 10.73 $ 10.35 $ 10.72 $ 10.58

1959 $ 11.78 $ 11.88 $ 11.91 $ 12.18

1960 $ 12.10 $ 12.40 $ 12.17 $ 12.48

1961 $ 12.17 $ 12.51 $ 12.34 $ 12.36

1962 $ 12.39 $ 12.87 $ 12.58 $ 12.67

1963 $ 12.38 $ 12.99 $ 12.51 $ 12.73

1964 $ 12.37 $ 13.11 $ 12.44 $ 12.78

1965 $ 12.47 $ 13.34 $ 12.50 $ 12.98

1966 $ 12.56 $ 13.56 $ 12.56 $ 13.17 $ 14.01

1967 $ 13.47 $ 14.64 $ 13.53 $ 15.77 $ 14.24 $ 14.22

1968 $ 14.29 $ 15.53 $ 14.42 $ 15.83 $ 15.00 $ 14.34

1969 $ 15.21 $ 16.41 $ 15.24 $ 16.07 $ 15.88 $ 15.33

1970 $ 16.13 $ 17.28 $ 16.06 $ 18.00 $ 16.30 $ 16.75 $ 16.31

1971 $ 17.02 $ 17.81 $ 16.79 $ 17.98 $ 16.61 $ 13.81 $ 17.42 $ 16.79

1972 $ 19.00 $ 19.71 $ 17.01 $ 18.05 $ 19.53 $ 18.36 $ 17.65 $ 18.99 $ 18.38 $ 23.00

1973 $ 15.86 $ 17.02 $ 16.49 $ 16.91 $ 13.65 $ 13.92 $ 14.72 $ 15.61 $ 15.64 $ 14.14 $ 18.88 Not Yet Determined $ 16.74

1974 $ 21.63 $ 17.80 $ 19.48 $ 17.83 $ 18.59 $ 15.11 $ 15.22 $ 15.67 $ 17.19 $ 17.53 $ 15.92 $ 19.57 $ 24.94 $ 25.08 $ 17.96

1975 $ 21.37 $ 19.05 $ 20.19 $ 18.97 $ 20.12 $ 15.69 $ 16.21 $ 17.03 $ 17.95 $ 18.97 $ 15.96 $ 22.05 $ 21.64 $ 24.11 $ 18.06

1976 $ 26.59 $ 24.38 $ 25.30 $ 24.80 $ 22.77 $ 22.31 $ 21.60 $ 17.75 $ 21.90 $ 22.40 $ 16.30 $ 25.63 $ 26.68 $ 27.65 $ 18.63

1977 $ 26.55 $ 25.57 $ 26.15 $ 28.45 $ 22.83 $ 23.12 $ 21.19 $ 18.41 $ 34.34 $ 23.88 $ 17.35 $ 26.67 $ 26.65 $ 28.78 $ 18.86

1978 $ 27.02 $ 26.04 $ 26.57 $ 27.65 $ 23.36 $ 27.45 $ 21.25 $ 18.90 $ 29.15 $ 24.20 $ 17.64 $ 26.63 $ 26.96 $ 29.32 $ 19.12

1979 $ 27.49 $ 26.51 $ 26.99 $ 26.84 $ 23.89 $ 31.77 $ 21.31 $ 19.38 $ 23.95 $ 24.51 $ 17.92 $ 26.58 $ 27.26 $ 29.85 $ 19.38

1980 $ 27.61 $ 27.58 $ 27.66 $ 27.43 $ 25.11 $ 24.51 $ 22.38 $ 21.18 $ 24.88 $ 25.76 $ 18.95 $ 24.51 $ 24.49 $ 30.15 $ 20.23

1981 $ 30.68 $ 29.73 $ 30.32 $ 32.13 $ 22.78 $ 25.42 $ 24.70 $ 23.58 $ 28.21 $ 28.28 $ 20.60 $ 28.42 $ 29.48 $ 32.28 $ 22.27

1982 $ 32.14 $ 31.23 $ 31.76 $ 31.54 $ 28.51 $ 27.99 $ 26.54 $ 25.92 $ 29.11 $ 29.14 $ 23.77 $ 29.13 $ 29.79 $ 34.49 $ 24.54

1983 $ 32.99 $ 32.33 $ 33.66 $ 32.11 $ 30.67 $ 38.23 $ 27.65 $ 27.73 $ 28.85 $ 30.91 $ 30.36 $ 26.63 $ 29.66 $ 30.66 $ 36.42 $ 26.85

1984 $ 35.60 $ 35.60 $ 35.87 $ 35.76 $ 34.13 $ 39.31 $ 28.80 $ 30.45 $ 33.53 $ 33.43 $ 33.38 $ 29.53 $ 30.21 $ 33.22 $ 36.75 $ 31.56

1985 $ 40.36 $ 41.57 $ 43.16 $ 40.46 NYD $ 40.30 $ 45.85 $ 41.17 $ 41.38 $ 34.53 $ 32.74 $ 37.95 $ 32.30 $ 41.33 $ 39.01 $ 32.68 $ 36.80 $ 36.73 $ 42.61 $ 33.97

1986 $ 44.49 $ 46.48 $ 48.20 $ 43.30 NYD $ 42.07 $ 43.66 $ 42.98 NYD $ 43.05 $ 34.65 $ 37.04 $ 43.86 NYD $ 35.50 NYD NYD $ 47.42 $ 42.44 $ 37.34 $ 35.31 $ 38.27 $ 47.70 $ 37.60

1987 $ 45.57 $ 48.51 $ 50.37 $ 45.05 $ 44.11 $ 42.43 $ 41.53 $ 43.48 $ 35.24 $ 38.56 $ 46.30 $ 34.25 $ 49.97 $ 44.31 $ 37.84 $ 36.48 $ 39.43 $ 51.41 $ 39.20

1988 $ 46.65 $ 50.53 $ 52.53 $ 46.80 $ 32.98 $ 46.14 $ 41.20 $ 40.07 NYD $ 43.90 $ 35.82 $ 40.07 $ 48.73 NYD $ 33.00 nyd $ 34.00 $ 52.51 $ 46.18 $ 38.34 $ 37.64 $ 40.58 $ 55.12 $ 40.79

1989 $ 47.19 $ 52.19 $ 56.41 $ 49.87 $ 32.29 $ 48.01 $ 42.98 $ 40.94 $ 43.15 $ 46.97 $ 37.83 $ 43.19 $ 49.71 $ 35.44 $ 39.17 $ 28.87 $ 36.33 $ 56.56 $ 49.55 $ 38.45 $ 38.36 $ 42.96 $ 57.87 $ 42.80

1990 $ 48.34 $ 54.27 $ 58.51 $ 52.52 $ 32.04 $ 49.53 $ 45.80 $ 44.79 $ 49.00 $ 44.19 $ 38.54 $ 43.82 $ 51.41 $ 36.28 $ 37.99 $ 33.12 $ 37.44 $ 59.46 $ 50.57 $ 41.14 $ 41.12 $ 42.94 $ 57.07 $ 44.64

1991 $ 49.43 $ 62.11 $ 63.75 $ 56.90 $ 43.56 $ 59.92 $ 49.51 $ 52.70 $ 50.26 $ 45.70 $ 41.01 $ 50.74 $ 54.70 $ 45.09 $ 46.51 $ 42.28 $ 47.17 $ 63.97 $ 56.46 $ 43.39 $ 43.74 $ 50.89 $ 64.63 $ 47.01

1992 $ 53.35 $ 62.05 $ 64.39 $ 57.42 $ 42.49 $ 62.44 $ 49.96 $ 53.89 $ 48.44 $ 46.46 $ 47.64 $ 50.70 $ 55.92 $ 45.90 $ 51.63 $ 44.02 $ 50.72 $ 66.92 $ 56.37 $ 47.21 $ 41.48 $ 51.18 $ 62.92 $ 47.98

1993 $ 53.92 $ 60.87 $ 63.51 $ 54.65 $ 53.44 $ 58.87 $ 48.96 $ 52.02 $ 53.57 $ 49.21 $ 43.57 $ 50.85 $ 60.92 $ 49.12 $ 44.17 $ 46.34 $ 46.78 $ 63.35 $ 55.65 $ 49.63 $ 47.73 $ 50.06 $ 59.23 $ 53.67

1994 $ 52.33 $ 60.49 $ 62.80 $ 54.70 $ 44.74 $ 47.60 $ 51.01 $ 54.13 $ 55.28 $ 52.49 $ 43.88 $ 51.18 $ 61.18 $ 48.48 $ 45.74 $ 45.02 $ 48.33 $ 62.81 $ 57.06 $ 49.64 $ 50.05 $ 48.26 $ 54.52 $ 54.64

1995 $ 51.21 $ 60.34 $ 62.26 $ 54.42 $ 54.15 $ 60.75 $ 49.50 $ 56.50 $ 54.94 $ 55.27 $ 47.01 $ 50.18 $ 61.29 $ 49.50 $ 48.63 $ 44.39 $ 47.82 $ 62.22 $ 57.47 $ 51.08 $ 49.06 $ 50.00 $ 57.52 $ 54.60

1996 $ 51.99 $ 59.81 $ 61.79 $ 57.52 $ 56.16 $ 59.93 $ 48.53 $ 54.74 $ 54.88 $ 56.79 $ 46.77 $ 51.90 $ 61.81 $ 48.58 $ 50.07 $ 47.76 $ 46.05 $ 48.13 $ 61.14 $ 56.85 $ 51.63 $ 46.41 $ 50.06 $ 50.53 $ 54.87

1997 $ 52.13 $ 58.68 $ 62.13 $ 54.59 $ 57.91 $ 59.52 $ 51.22 $ 57.20 $ 56.79 $ 59.15 $ 46.57 $ 53.13 $ 64.39 $ 52.03 $ 51.13 $ 47.61 $ 45.98 $ 48.56 $ 62.31 $ 57.72 $ 50.53 $ 45.23 $ 51.12 $ 50.20 $ 56.18

1998 $ 53.07 $ 59.89 $ 62.67 $ 55.73 $ 59.35 $ 59.52 $ 53.78 $ 59.61 $ 57.99 $ 56.94 $ 47.75 $ 52.28 $ 64.58 $ 55.11 $ 53.88 $ 49.13 $ 46.61 $ 51.58 $ 61.64 $ 60.27 $ 53.09 $ 48.48 $ 49.69 $ 52.93 $ 58.47

1999 $ 52.24 $ 60.72 $ 63.36 $ 56.78 $ 60.82 $ 55.63 $ 53.91 $ 58.74 $ 58.05 $ 62.28 $ 49.09 $ 57.02 $ 64.08 $ 57.02 $ 54.53 $ 52.83 $ 48.41 $ 54.99 $ 63.73 $ 61.01 $ 54.37 $ 47.71 $ 54.22 $ 54.43 $ 59.29

2000 $ 53.39 $ 61.45 $ 65.88 $ 57.65 $ 62.93 $ 58.68 $ 56.77 $ 60.03 $ 59.91 $ 62.93 $ 50.30 $ 59.66 $ 65.10 $ 58.08 $ 57.69 $ 54.42 $ 51.49 $ 54.53 $ 63.94 $ 62.70 $ 54.42 $ 49.29 $ 55.69 $ 56.32 $ 59.03

2001 $ 54.54 $ 62.18 $ 68.39 $ 58.52 $ 65.03 $ 61.72 $ 59.63 $ 61.31 $ 61.77 $ 63.57 $ 51.50 $ 62.29 $ 66.11 $ 59.13 $ 60.85 $ 56.00 $ 54.56 $ 54.07 $ 64.14 $ 64.39 $ 54.47 $ 50.86 $ 57.15 $ 58.21 $ 58.76

2002 $ 54.54 $ 62.18 $ 68.39 $ 58.52 $ 65.03 $ 61.72 $ 59.63 $ 61.31 $ 61.77 $ 63.57 $ 51.50 $ 62.69 $ 66.11 $ 59.13 $ 60.85 $ 56.00 $ 54.56 $ 54.07 $ 64.14 $ 64.39 $ 54.47 $ 50.86 $ 57.15 $ 58.21 $ 58.76

2003 $ 58.34 $ 65.20 $ 69.38 $ 62.72 $ 68.27 $ 64.15 $ 65.26 $ 64.28 $ 65.49 $ 66.04 $ 57.06 $ 65.52 $ 67.80 $ 60.54 $ 62.88 $ 61.56 $ 60.02 $ 57.78 $ 67.57 $ 66.29 $ 57.14 $ 56.21 $ 61.71 $ 62.35 $ 63.84

2004 $ 62.14 $ 68.21 $ 70.36 $ 66.92 $ 71.50 $ 66.58 $ 70.88 $ 67.24 $ 69.21 $ 68.50 $ 62.62 $ 68.35 $ 69.49 $ 61.95 $ 64.90 $ 67.12 $ 65.47 $ 61.48 $ 71.00 $ 68.19 $ 59.80 $ 61.56 $ 66.26 $ 66.48 $ 68.92

2005 $ 318.00 $ 324.00 $ 331.00 $ 315.00 $ 248.00 $ 270.00 $ 354.00 $ 340.00 $ 319.00 $ 346.00 $ 299.00 $ 296.00 $ 238.00 $ 249.00 $ 298.00 $ 327.00 $ 288.00 $ 276.00 $ 327.00 $ 317.00 $ 213.00 $ 318.00 $ 342.00 $ 336.00 $ 239.00

2006 $ 334.00 $ 337.00 $ 343.00 $ 333.00 $ 253.00 $ 292.00 $ 367.00 $ 363.00 $ 328.00 $ 357.00 $ 310.00 $ 314.00 $ 248.00 $ 258.00 $ 310.00 $ 328.00 $ 311.00 $ 306.00 $ 343.00 $ 330.00 $ 215.00 $ 325.00 $ 350.00 $ 362.00 $ 252.00

2007 $ 345.00 $ 351.00 $ 350.00 $ 341.00 $ 257.00 $ 305.00 $ 370.00 $ 373.00 $ 341.00 $ 369.00 $ 326.00 $ 314.00 $ 259.00 $ 262.00 $ 326.00 $ 351.00 $ 329.00 $ 310.00 $ 351.00 $ 339.00 $ 227.00 $ 335.00 $ 367.00 $ 374.00 $ 260.00

2008 $ 377.00 $ 379.00 $ 374.00 $ 365.00 $ 265.00 $ 337.00 $ 401.00 $ 394.00 $ 369.00 $ 386.00 $ 339.00 $ 339.00 $ 265.00 $ 283.00 $ 321.00 $ 378.00 $ 353.00 $ 333.00 $ 380.00 $ 374.00 $ 231.00 $ 358.00 $ 399.00 $ 424.00 $ 275.00

2009 $ 404.00 $ 424.00 $ 409.00 $ 397.00 $ 276.00 $ 360.00 $ 441.00 $ 437.00 $ 409.00 $ 435.00 $ 371.00 $ 366.00 $ 274.00 $ 305.00 $ 358.00 $ 413.00 $ 381.00 $ 381.00 $ 426.00 $ 410.00 $ 240.00 $ 396.00 $ 424.50 $ 454.00 $ 284.00

2010 $ 427.00 $ 442.00 $ 425.00 $ 409.00 $ 287.00 $ 364.00 $ 454.00 $ 442.00 $ 423.00 $ 474.00 $ 389.00 $ 384.00 $ 284.00 $ 315.00 $ 369.00 $ 441.00 $ 397.00 $ 374.00 $ 435.00 $ 429.00 $ 255.00 $ 405.00 $ 450.00 $ 454.00 $ 282.00

2011 $ 446.00 $ 453.00 $ 448.00 $ 415.00 $ 303.00 $ 371.00 $ 470.00 $ 462.00 $ 449.00 $ 496.00 $ 401.00 $ 389.00 $ 290.00 $ 333.00 $ 391.00 $ 452.00 $ 412.00 $ 391.00 $ 444.00 $ 443.00 $ 256.00 $ 416.00 $ 468.00 $ 495.00 $ 279.00

2012 $ 449.00 $ 462.00 $ 453.00 $ 425.00 $ 313.00 $ 395.00 $ 488.00 $ 485.00 $ 478.00 $ 505.00 $ 410.00 $ 396.00 $ 288.00 $ 346.00 $ 405.00 $ 442.00 $ 410.00 $ 402.00 $ 488.00 $ 466.00 $ 260.00 $ 424.00 $ 491.00 $ 519.00 $ 286.00

2013 $ 474.00 $ 469.00 $ 452.00 $ 430.00 $ 312.00 $ 426.00 $ 481.00 $ 471.00 $ 473.00 $ 509.00 $ 415.00 $ 396.00 $ 286.00 $ 365.00 $ 405.00 $ 430.00 $ 401.00 $ 416.00 $ 478.00 $ 474.00 $ 261.00 $ 424.00 $ 492.00 $ 503.00 $ 298.00

2014 $ 483.00 $ 472.00 $ 462.00 $ 438.00 $ 324.00 $ 448.00 $ 483.00 $ 479.00 $ 460.00 $ 487.00 $ 422.00 $ 407.00 $ 296.00 $ 361.00 $ 405.00 $ 432.00 $ 410.00 $ 441.00 $ 501.00 $ 470.00 $ 274.00 $ 418.00 $ 494.00 $ 516.00 $ 313.00

2015 $ 498.00 $ 494.00 $ 494.00 $ 462.00 $ 334.00 $ 458.00 $ 511.00 $ 497.00 $ 473.00 $ 574.00 $ 431.00 $ 422.00 $ 300.00 $ 363.00 $ 415.00 $ 443.00 $ 415.00 $ 460.00 $ 521.00 $ 482.00 $ 277.00 $ 449.00 $ 501.00 $ 525.00 $ 325.00

2016 $ 584.23 $ 509.71 $ 505.60 $ 484.55 $ 339.11 $ 448.70 $ 541.54 $ 513.37 $ 473.44 $ 589.27 $ 460.90 $ 435.49 $ 307.31 $ 377.74 $ 403.16 $ 471.61 $ 438.87 $ 454.59 $ 546.75 $ 498.08 $ 278.38 $ 474.59 $ 521.09 $ 542.70 $ 331.38

Nummers Pre 159 11 17 22 176 140 168 170 121 85 73 127 169 7 46 142 145 128 144 137 1985 145 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005023 NY-5-149 NY36P005258 NY005096 NY005066 NY-5-165 NY-5-126 NY-5-154 NY005226 NY005252 NY005090 NY-5-124 NY-5-171 NY005005 NY005019 NY-5-129 NY-5-188 NY-5-108 NY-5-110 NY36P005266 NY005053 NY-5-166 NY-5-147 NY005032 NY-5-210 Cooper Park Corsi House Crown heights Lewis s. Davidson Eugenio Maria de Eagle Ave. E 163 335 E.111th st. E152nd St. E. 165th St -Bryant E. 173st vise Ave. 1010 E. 178st E. 180th ST- East New York East River Edenwald Fenimore St- Fiorentino Plaza Forest Hills Fort Independence FT. Washington Robert Fulton Marcus Garvey Glebe Ave Samuel Gompers Grampion sr. Hostos Apts ST Ave. monterey Ave Lefferts Ave. St. Ave. (Rehab) (Group A) Westchester Ave.

Amount of 700 171 121 175 223 66 66 221 111 168 220 239 66 1170 2039 36 160 430 344 227 944 321 132 474 36 Households

Completion date June 1953 November 1973 September 1986 August 1973 February 1969 May 1971 June 1969 July 1973 December 1986 July 1987 March 1971 September 1973 March 1976 May 1941 September 1953 September 1969 October 1971 November 1975 November 1974 September 1984 March 1965 February 1975 December 1971 April 1964 May 1977 Construction date 1953 1973 1986 1973 1969 1971 1969 1973 1986 1987 1971 1973 1976 1941 1953 1969 1971 1975 1974 1984 1965 1975 1971 1964 1977 Land Costs $ 653396 $ 281282 $ 524572 $ 400000 $ 186000 $ 215591 $ 1346736 $ 1070853 $ 518000 $ 2328495 $ 4295619 $ 160500 $ 2059854 $ 472000 Construction $ 5832892 $ 4651759 $ 10684180 $ 2798735 Introduction$ 3500133 $ 6640106 $ 3460894 $ 18373294 $ 4390655 $ 19320222 $ 12256573 $ 9282988 $ 5058414 $ 359100 costs other costs $ 1215989 $ 1721959 $ 3184248 $ 891265 $ 1735000 $ 1256000 $ 7790000 $ 7910000 $ 13225000 $ 1388867 $ 1871303 $ 2760000 $ 497070 $ 3418099 $ 619000 $ 1267345 $ 7849483 $ 10890000 $ 16190000 $ 4212808 $ 3036512 $ 3440000 $ 2216732 $ 238900 Development $ 7702277 $ 6655000 $ 7335000 $ 14793000 $ 4090000 $ 1735000 $ 1256000 $ 7790000 $ 7910000 $ 13225000 $ 5075000 $ 8727000 $ 2760000 $ 5304700 $ 22862246 $ 619000 $ 6176000 $ 29498200 $ 10890000 $ 16190000 $ 20765000 $ 12480000 $ 3440000 $ 9335000 $ 1070000 costs Number of rooms 4.69 3.25 dddddd4.36 4.85 4.39 4.27 4.05 4.19 5.31 4.51 4.28 4.44 6.20 4.17 4.75 5.00 4.98 4.21 4.43 3.60 4.51 4.81 3.41 4.64 4.46 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1951 1939 1950 1959 1955 Neighborhood Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Manhattan

Bronx 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Brooklyn 1 0 johan1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Manhattan 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 1 11 8 3 7 3 11 1 2 3 6 6 5 11 12 9 5 6 8 12 4 16 10 3 10 districts Neighborhood Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Manhattan

Numbers after 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 56 60 61 62 63 64 65 125 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941 $ 24.60

1942 $ 24.60

1943 $ 24.60

1944 $ 24.60

1945 $ 24.60

1946 $ 24.60

1947 $ 24.60

1948 $ 24.60

1949 $ 24.60

1950 $ 24.60

1951 $ 24.65

1952 $ 24.65

1953 $ 28.38 $ 24.65 $ 28.51

1954 $ 28.38 $ 25.96 $ 28.51

1955 $ 28.38 $ 27.27 $ 28.51

1956 $ 10.07 $ 10.04 $ 10.44

1957 $ 10.40 $ 10.62 $ 10.85

1958 $ 10.22 $ 10.46 $ 10.69

1959 $ 11.65 $ 11.99 $ 11.95

1960 $ 12.01 $ 12.39 $ 12.06

1961 $ 12.31 $ 12.71 $ 12.06

1962 $ 12.80 $ 13.06 $ 12.21

1963 $ 12.92 $ 13.18 $ 12.14

1964 $ 13.04 $ 13.30 $ 12.06 $ 14.97

1965 $ 13.22 $ 13.49 $ 12.18 $ 14.97

1966 $ 13.40 $ 13.67 $ 12.30 $ 15.91 $ 14.97

1967 $ 14.74 $ 14.88 $ 13.09 $ 16.02 $ 15.09

1968 $ 15.36 $ 15.68 $ 13.92 $ 16.19 $ 15.24

1969 $ 16.56 $ 16.84 $ 14.76 $ 16.38 $ 15.30

1970 $ 17.75 $ 17.90 $ 18.12 $ 18.00 $ 15.59 $ 16.84 $ 16.57 $ 15.35

1971 $ 18.26 $ 18.05 $ 21.31 $ 18.98 $ 19.83 $ 19.80 $ 16.57 $ 16.82 $ 17.23 $ 23.07 $ 16.05

1972 $ 19.73 $ 19.30 $ 22.88 $ 20.67 $ 21.27 $ 20.02 $ 18.36 $ 19.53 $ 21.40 $ 18.64 $ 17.80 $ 17.39

1973 $ 16.34 $ 15.73 $ 19.75 $ 15.59 $ 15.40 $ 15.50 $ 17.16 $ 16.51 $ 19.69 $ 17.24 $ 15.49 $ 18.91 $ 15.35 $ 17.88 $ 15.50 $ 15.58

1974 $ 18.00 $ 15.94 $ 19.08 $ 17.15 $ 14.88 $ 16.75 $ 16.42 $ 17.44 $ 19.45 $ 17.24 $ 16.95 $ 20.47 $ 16.93 Not Yet Determined $ 19.86 $ 16.66 $ 17.28

1975 $ 19.30 $ 16.82 $ 19.87 $ 17.79 $ 17.21 $ 18.08 $ 18.13 $ 18.51 $ 19.97 $ 18.18 $ 17.93 $ 20.84 $ 18.26 $ 36.59 $ 24.83 $ 21.12 $ 18.63 $ 17.84 $ 18.52

1976 $ 25.02 $ 18.14 $ 23.43 $ 22.11 $ 24.21 $ 22.10 $ 22.32 $ 23.21 $ 24.26 $ 27.96 $ 22.60 $ 24.18 $ 24.25 $ 25.13 $ 38.71 $ 26.22 $ 23.71 $ 24.78 $ 19.06 $ 21.90

1977 $ 26.66 $ 18.58 $ 23.72 $ 22.87 $ 24.51 $ 23.32 $ 22.61 $ 23.13 $ 25.09 $ 27.65 $ 23.32 $ 25.21 $ 25.18 $ 25.08 $ 39.63 $ 27.57 $ 25.45 $ 25.11 $ 19.96 $ 23.16

1978 $ 26.90 $ 19.21 $ 23.99 $ 22.72 $ 24.60 $ 22.98 $ 23.05 $ 23.30 $ 25.37 $ 27.55 $ 23.82 $ 25.69 $ 25.74 $ 25.23 $ 40.87 $ 28.03 $ 26.38 $ 25.19 $ 20.22 $ 23.56

1979 $ 27.13 $ 19.83 $ 24.26 $ 22.56 $ 24.69 $ 22.64 $ 23.49 $ 23.47 $ 25.64 $ 27.45 $ 24.32 $ 26.17 $ 26.29 $ 25.37 $ 42.11 $ 28.48 $ 27.30 $ 25.26 $ 20.48 $ 23.96

1980 $ 28.20 $ 25.55 $ 25.32 $ 23.30 $ 26.50 $ 25.55 $ 24.19 $ 24.07 $ 26.67 $ 28.21 $ 25.48 $ 27.36 $ 26.61 $ 25.69 $ 44.59 $ 29.24 $ 28.54 $ 28.93 $ 21.34 $ 24.79

1981 $ 30.19 $ 23.00 $ 27.07 $ 25.96 $ 29.04 $ 25.00 $ 24.98 $ 25.78 $ 28.95 $ 30.02 $ 28.00 $ 28.98 $ 29.45 $ 27.50 $ 46.05 $ 31.71 $ 30.95 $ 28.31 $ 24.00 $ 26.58

1982 $ 31.53 $ 25.91 $ 28.70 $ 26.62 $ 29.99 $ 26.14 $ 28.05 $ 27.86 $ 30.94 $ 30.54 $ 29.63 $ 30.31 $ 32.07 $ 28.26 $ 50.51 $ 33.33 $ 33.79 $ 31.03 $ 26.78 $ 28.10

1983 $ 32.39 $ 28.45 $ 28.79 $ 28.05 $ 30.34 $ 25.84 $ 27.39 $ 29.48 $ 32.15 $ 32.62 $ 30.60 $ 32.56 $ 34.44 $ 28.53 $ 59.94 $ 35.23 $ 34.53 $ 29.54 $ 28.86 $ 29.72 $ 27.52

1984 $ 34.80 $ 31.71 $ 33.09 $ 31.33 $ 32.94 $ 34.98 $ 29.01 $ 32.20 $ 33.84 $ 38.40 $ 32.87 $ 35.23 $ 39.47 $ 30.61 $ 62.79 $ 37.18 $ 39.21 $ 33.74 $ 35.13 $ 32.86 $ 31.09

1985 $ 38.90 $ 36.80 $ 37.91 $ 36.75 $ 32.71 $ 33.87 $ 36.58 $ 41.80 $ 43.47 $ 38.68 $ 37.13 $ 40.18 $ 46.48 $ 33.68 $ 49.42 $ 42.00 $ 39.30 $ 42.34 $ 41.96 $ 38.95 $ 37.13 $ 35.46

1986 $ 42.53 $ 40.32 NYD $ 42.16 $ 37.96 $ 40.58 $ 36.50 $ 39.71 $ 42.24 $ 43.45 $ 42.25 $ 39.87 $ 44.32 $ 48.58 $ 36.02 $ 70.63 $ 49.63 $ 33.57 $ 47.96 $ 38.39 $ 39.59 $ 42.21 $ 37.12

1987 $ 43.84 $ 41.58 $ 44.51 $ 39.45 $ 41.80 $ 38.50 $ 41.05 $ 44.11 $ 44.63 $ 44.43 $ 41.48 $ 46.15 $ 47.33 $ 37.93 $ 71.65 $ 51.31 $ 33.95 $ 50.48 $ 39.72 $ 41.62 $ 43.36 $ 39.33

1988 $ 45.14 $ 42.84 NYD $ 46.85 $ 40.94 $ 43.01 $ 40.49 $ 42.38 NYD NYD $ 45.97 $ 45.81 $ 46.61 $ 43.08 $ 47.97 $ 46.08 $ 39.84 $ 72.66 $ 52.99 $ 34.32 $ 53.00 $ 41.04 $ 43.65 $ 44.51 $ 41.53

1989 $ 49.13 $ 43.61 $ 38.50 $ 53.13 $ 41.74 $ 46.80 $ 42.01 $ 44.31 $ 21.85 $ 43.65 $ 48.66 $ 47.21 $ 49.98 $ 46.04 $ 50.70 $ 49.95 $ 40.85 $ 74.93 $ 53.91 $ 36.04 $ 57.48 $ 41.99 $ 45.39 $ 46.78 $ 45.31

1990 $ 51.60 $ 44.16 $ 51.84 $ 53.24 $ 43.44 $ 47.47 $ 45.43 $ 47.40 $ 52.19 $ 48.22 $ 52.19 $ 46.58 $ 49.71 $ 48.47 $ 52.91 $ 50.41 $ 41.04 $ 76.45 $ 55.73 $ 37.87 $ 62.96 $ 42.46 $ 46.55 $ 49.09 $ 44.20

1991 $ 57.56 $ 48.12 $ 56.96 $ 58.36 $ 51.05 $ 50.16 $ 48.14 $ 51.30 $ 49.22 $ 54.87 $ 59.41 $ 53.78 $ 57.21 $ 53.00 $ 58.13 $ 64.53 $ 43.49 $ 81.75 $ 60.34 $ 48.36 $ 67.76 $ 46.73 $ 50.95 $ 54.82 $ 61.26

1992 $ 56.81 $ 48.32 $ 58.72 $ 58.48 $ 49.24 $ 52.16 $ 53.79 $ 51.71 $ 42.73 $ 52.87 $ 59.66 $ 54.26 $ 54.07 $ 53.81 $ 61.73 $ 66.46 $ 47.60 $ 83.91 $ 62.34 $ 50.46 $ 67.64 $ 49.73 $ 52.59 $ 54.82 $ 68.83

1993 $ 58.56 $ 51.45 $ 57.32 $ 55.75 $ 49.93 $ 45.05 $ 53.46 $ 50.88 $ 45.06 $ 53.73 $ 60.53 $ 50.80 NYD $ 52.76 $ 61.55 $ 64.74 $ 46.01 $ 84.00 $ 63.26 $ 50.64 $ 66.43 $ 51.01 $ 53.64 $ 58.36 $ 68.11

1994 $ 47.74 $ 53.52 $ 57.70 $ 53.99 $ 49.47 $ 47.96 $ 53.42 $ 52.44 $ 54.37 $ 57.04 $ 50.04 $ 52.33 $ 49.16 $ 54.07 $ 59.51 $ 66.46 $ 49.41 $ 84.39 $ 63.07 $ 52.51 $ 66.06 $ 51.38 $ 55.28 $ 59.44 $ 64.23

1995 $ 56.92 $ 53.70 $ 59.12 $ 59.08 $ 51.45 $ 51.54 $ 53.73 $ 58.73 $ 55.91 $ 52.10 $ 59.19 $ 53.23 $ 47.95 $ 54.10 $ 59.33 $ 65.84 $ 45.85 $ 95.77 $ 50.53 $ 53.65 $ 65.51 $ 53.32 $ 55.91 $ 60.43 $ 59.30

1996 $ 55.38 $ 55.15 $ 58.43 $ 53.67 $ 52.11 $ 50.20 $ 52.15 $ 54.48 $ 52.48 $ 60.00 $ 55.69 $ 52.51 $ 49.05 $ 54.77 $ 60.90 $ 70.22 $ 47.13 $ 98.95 $ 59.60 $ 54.53 $ 65.94 $ 48.69 $ 57.76 $ 60.08 $ 58.77

1997 $ 56.23 $ 57.58 $ 57.23 $ 63.63 $ 54.78 $ 46.12 $ 55.19 $ 53.66 $ 52.87 $ 58.88 $ 57.82 $ 52.90 $ 51.98 $ 57.07 $ 58.22 $ 61.73 $ 46.96 $ 99.22 $ 60.61 $ 55.78 $ 66.96 $ 47.12 $ 58.65 $ 60.27 $ 63.51

1998 $ 57.47 $ 58.75 $ 55.83 $ 53.42 $ 55.94 $ 52.29 $ 59.93 $ 55.28 $ 52.87 $ 58.88 $ 59.29 $ 54.81 $ 54.45 $ 58.07 $ 58.50 $ 62.08 $ 49.62 $ 99.43 $ 61.66 $ 56.45 $ 67.11 $ 48.39 $ 61.47 $ 61.45 $ 65.97

1999 $ 59.91 $ 60.46 $ 61.36 $ 54.45 $ 58.53 $ 56.40 $ 58.64 $ 58.77 $ 42.41 $ 49.98 $ 59.86 $ 55.52 $ 48.81 $ 59.49 $ 58.89 $ 56.44 $ 50.04 $ 99.78 $ 62.01 $ 59.08 $ 69.36 $ 50.64 $ 61.90 $ 64.24 $ 62.75

2000 $ 61.29 $ 61.70 $ 62.78 $ 54.33 $ 58.66 $ 57.73 $ 59.53 $ 59.08 $ 44.74 $ 52.70 $ 60.85 $ 56.92 $ 50.23 $ 60.22 $ 59.72 $ 56.44 $ 50.50 $ 99.72 $ 62.69 $ 61.32 $ 70.63 $ 50.75 $ 61.67 $ 65.38 $ 67.82

2001 $ 62.66 $ 62.94 $ 64.20 $ 54.20 $ 58.79 $ 59.06 $ 60.42 $ 59.38 $ 47.07 $ 55.42 $ 61.84 $ 58.31 $ 51.65 $ 60.94 $ 60.54 $ 56.44 $ 50.95 $ 99.65 $ 63.37 $ 63.56 $ 71.89 $ 50.85 $ 61.44 $ 66.51 $ 72.89

2002 $ 62.66 $ 62.94 $ 64.20 $ 54.20 $ 58.79 $ 59.06 $ 60.42 $ 59.38 $ 47.07 $ 55.42 $ 61.84 $ 58.31 $ 51.65 $ 60.94 $ 60.54 $ 56.44 $ 50.95 $ 99.95 $ 63.37 $ 63.56 $ 71.89 $ 50.85 $ 61.44 $ 66.51 $ 72.89

2003 $ 64.54 $ 65.20 $ 69.67 $ 57.35 $ 63.22 $ 61.49 $ 63.77 $ 61.39 $ 60.84 $ 63.50 $ 63.51 $ 58.86 $ 53.16 $ 63.92 $ 64.11 $ 65.86 $ 52.94 $ 98.05 $ 66.48 $ 65.43 $ 74.27 $ 54.42 $ 65.47 $ 69.63 $ 73.62

2004 $ 66.41 $ 67.46 $ 75.14 $ 60.50 $ 67.65 $ 63.92 $ 67.11 $ 63.40 $ 74.60 $ 71.57 $ 65.18 $ 59.40 $ 54.66 $ 66.89 $ 67.67 $ 75.28 $ 54.92 $ 96.14 $ 69.58 $ 67.30 $ 76.64 $ 57.98 $ 69.49 $ 72.75 $ 74.34

2005 $ 317.00 $ 220.00 $ 321.00 $ 281.00 $ 301.00 $ 278.00 $ 275.00 $ 270.00 $ 371.00 $ 310.00 $ 282.00 $ 266.00 $ 356.00 $ 291.00 $ 328.00 $ 372.00 $ 280.00 $ 404.00 $ 314.00 $ 247.00 $ 346.00 $ 281.00 $ 249.00 $ 343.00 $ 328.00

2006 $ 322.00 $ 224.00 $ 351.00 $ 299.00 $ 318.00 $ 279.00 $ 280.00 $ 282.00 $ 379.00 $ 325.00 $ 300.00 $ 269.00 $ 372.00 $ 304.00 $ 342.00 $ 376.00 $ 304.00 $ 409.00 $ 312.00 $ 251.00 $ 361.00 $ 309.00 $ 252.00 $ 354.00 $ 355.00

2007 $ 337.00 $ 230.00 $ 352.00 $ 306.00 $ 326.00 $ 300.00 $ 293.00 $ 285.00 $ 407.00 $ 342.00 $ 309.00 $ 286.00 $ 413.00 $ 315.00 $ 350.00 $ 397.00 $ 325.00 $ 411.00 $ 315.00 $ 250.00 $ 373.00 $ 324.00 $ 257.00 $ 365.00 $ 352.00

2008 $ 367.00 $ 239.00 $ 379.00 $ 337.00 $ 364.00 $ 312.00 $ 315.00 $ 307.00 $ 456.00 $ 375.00 $ 337.00 $ 328.00 $ 465.00 $ 344.00 $ 375.00 $ 460.00 $ 342.00 $ 355.00 $ 352.00 $ 253.00 $ 408.00 $ 356.00 $ 271.00 $ 393.00 $ 352.00

2009 $ 401.00 $ 244.00 $ 417.00 $ 361.00 $ 394.00 $ 356.00 $ 323.00 $ 319.00 $ 490.00 $ 391.00 $ 361.00 $ 378.00 $ 482.00 $ 376.00 $ 417.00 $ 517.00 $ 391.00 $ 483.00 $ 392.00 $ 256.00 $ 450.00 $ 396.00 $ 278.00 $ 434.00 $ 342.00

2010 $ 413.00 $ 257.00 $ 465.00 $ 378.00 $ 413.00 $ 384.00 $ 364.00 $ 340.00 $ 516.00 $ 391.00 $ 395.00 $ 392.00 $ 502.00 $ 391.00 $ 439.00 $ 568.00 $ 417.00 $ 486.00 $ 401.00 $ 256.00 $ 468.00 $ 402.00 $ 290.00 $ 450.00 $ 385.00

2011 $ 441.00 $ 265.00 $ 506.00 $ 402.00 $ 430.00 $ 385.00 $ 375.00 $ 352.00 $ 527.00 $ 407.00 $ 416.00 $ 403.00 $ 511.00 $ 408.00 $ 457.00 $ 586.00 $ 417.00 $ 479.00 $ 413.00 $ 269.00 $ 493.00 $ 398.00 $ 293.00 $ 466.00 $ 396.00

2012 $ 440.00 $ 267.00 $ 500.00 $ 408.00 $ 444.00 $ 559.00 $ 376.00 $ 341.00 $ 543.00 $ 425.00 $ 399.00 $ 417.00 $ 504.00 $ 423.00 $ 468.00 $ 606.00 $ 434.00 $ 514.00 $ 439.00 $ 268.00 $ 512.00 $ 403.00 $ 308.00 $ 469.00 $ 384.00

2013 $ 454.00 $ 273.00 $ 505.00 $ 407.00 $ 452.00 $ 400.00 $ 399.00 $ 339.00 $ 544.00 $ 422.00 $ 392.00 $ 423.00 $ 479.00 $ 414.00 $ 469.00 $ 601.00 $ 443.00 $ 555.00 $ 449.00 $ 272.00 $ 507.00 $ 391.00 $ 309.00 $ 483.00 $ 374.00

2014 $ 455.00 $ 282.00 $ 552.00 $ 436.00 $ 467.00 $ 428.00 $ 423.00 $ 345.00 $ 584.00 $ 449.00 $ 407.00 $ 455.00 $ 510.00 $ 423.00 $ 482.00 $ 600.00 $ 480.00 $ 547.00 $ 432.00 $ 288.00 $ 532.00 $ 397.00 $ 330.00 $ 503.00 $ 389.00

2015 $ 462.00 $ 282.00 $ 573.00 $ 458.00 $ 468.00 $ 448.00 $ 440.00 $ 362.00 $ 621.00 $ 455.00 $ 423.00 $ 386.00 $ 490.00 $ 439.00 $ 502.00 $ 624.00 $ 478.00 $ 565.00 $ 440.00 $ 298.00 $ 572.00 $ 411.00 $ 319.00 $ 526.00 $ 415.00

2016 $ 489.09 $ 283.75 $ 625.51 $ 475.16 $ 520.72 $ 457.02 $ 423.00 $ 369.78 $ 616.56 $ 492.75 $ 439.24 $ 491.59 $ 534.14 $ 457.54 $ 523.80 $ 658.78 $ 480.97 $ 569.76 $ 471.33 $ 300.50 $ 599.23 $ 481.69 $ 324.89 $ 539.13 $ 427.47

Nummers Pre 23 103 92 66 149 129 143 87 102 152 5 19 131 107 97 124 175 54 105 141 32 113 1985 146 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005030 NY005025 NY005027 NY-5-168 NY005042 NY005051 NY005231 NY36P005287 NY005085 NY005026 NY36P005312 NY36P005313 NY-5-164 NY005069 NY-36-P005-218 NY36p005261 NY36P005225 NY005081 NY36p005299 NY005241 NY005057 NY005043 NY005016 NY005006 NY005071 General Grant Gravesend Hammel Harborview Harlem River Harlem River II Harrison Ave Harrison Ave Rafael Hernandez High Bridge Highbridge rehab Highbridge rehabs Hoe Ave-E. 173rd John Haynes Hope Gardens Howard Ave. Howard avenue Langston Hughes Hunts Point International tower Stanley M. Isaacs Andrew Jackson Jefferson Kings Borough Kings Borough Terrace Rehab (Group A Rehab (Group B W166 Anderson Nelson Avenue St Holmes towers park place Apartments Avenue Rehab Extension

Amount of 1940 634 712 377 577 116 34 150 149 700 135 80 65 537 324 150 156 513 131 159 636 868 1493 1166 184 Households

Completion date December 1957 June 1954 April 1955 June 1977 October 1937 October 1965 September 1985 December 1985 August 1971 June 1954 March 1996 March 1996 December 1970 April 1969 August 1981 May 1988 December 1993 June 1968 June 1991 May 1983 July 1965 July 1963 June 1959 October 1941 May 1966 Construction date 1957 1954 1955 1977 1937 1965 1985 1985 1971 1954 1996 1996 1970 1969 1981 1988 1993 1968 1991 1983 1965 1963 1959 1941 1966 Land Costs $ 7167334 $ 504933 $ 2045677 $ 1118940 $ 671684 $ 638500 $ 433186 $ 1870907 $ 178000 $ 1200000 $ 2145102 $ 2377103 $ 6122722 $ 1254632 $ 200000 Construction $ 5271966 $ 5081454 $ 1772136 $ 2982038 $ 1398624 Introduction$ 5470197 $ 2561726 $ 15004071 $ 6767795 $ 7985705 $ 9541307 $ 14445436 $ 3511191 $ 2108380 costs other costs $ 16687700 $ 2341609 $ 5806187 $ 16740000 $ 126804 $ 569692 $ 2394610 $ 1050000 -$ 638500 $ 1644492 $ 13271641 $ 8428841 $ 1600000 $ 6107367 $ 5457929 $ 11048320 $ 15812706 $ 2277205 $ 13240386 $ 11285000 $ 3144193 $ 2931590 $ 6346842 $ 409277 $ 691620 Development $ 29127000 $ 7927996 $ 9624000 $ 16740000 $ 4227782 $ 2640000 $ 2394610 $ 1050000 $ 7547875 $ 13271641 $ 8428841 $ 1600000 $ 10540000 $ 20640000 $ 11048320 $ 15812706 $ 10245000 $ 13240386 $ 11285000 $ 13275000 $ 14850000 $ 26915000 $ 5175100 $ 3000000 costs Numberdddddd of rooms 4.71 4.65 4.64 4.06 3.42 4.44 4.29 4.29 4.12 4.65 4.74 4.75 4.20 3.92 4.63 4.89 5.01 4.76 4.62 3.59 4.16 4.77 4.67 4.01 3.50 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1953 1951 1951 1938 1960 1951 1963 1959 1956 1950 1940 1962 Neighborhood Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Queens Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn

Bronx 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Brooklynjohan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Manhattan 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Community 9 13 14 4 10 10 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 8 4 16 16 16 2 12 8 1 11 8 8 districts Neighborhood Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Queens Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn

Numbers after 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 30 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939 $ 28.51

1940 $ 28.51

1941 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1942 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1943 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1944 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1945 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1946 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1947 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1948 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1949 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1950 $ 28.51 $ 22.88

1951 $ 28.58 $ 22.98

1952 $ 28.58 $ 22.99

1953 $ 28.58 $ 22.99

1954 $ 28.31 $ 28.58 $ 28.29 $ 25.01

1955 $ 28.31 $ 28.29 $ 26.66 $ 28.29 $ 27.02

1956 $ 10.51 $ 10.14 $ 12.48 $ 10.88 $ 10.24

1957 $ 10.60 $ 11.30 $ 10.48 $ 13.15 $ 11.11 $ 10.85

1958 $ 10.49 $ 10.98 $ 10.30 $ 13.23 $ 11.01 $ 10.55

1959 $ 12.07 $ 11.04 $ 11.48 $ 14.69 $ 12.13 $ 11.57 $ 12.31

1960 $ 12.48 $ 12.25 $ 11.62 $ 14.97 $ 12.30 $ 11.84 $ 12.60

1961 $ 12.62 $ 12.48 $ 11.75 $ 15.28 $ 12.45 $ 12.04 $ 12.60

1962 $ 13.09 $ 12.80 $ 11.99 $ 15.39 $ 12.63 $ 12.30 $ 12.98

1963 $ 13.32 $ 12.79 $ 12.04 $ 15.43 $ 12.55 $ 12.41 $ 12.98

1964 $ 13.55 $ 12.77 $ 12.09 $ 15.46 $ 12.47 $ 14.09 $ 12.51 $ 12.97

1965 $ 13.72 $ 12.77 $ 12.19 $ 15.59 $ 12.52 $ 14.09 $ 12.68 $ 13.12

1966 $ 13.88 $ 12.76 $ 12.29 $ 15.71 $ 15.73 $ 12.56 $ 16.26 $ 14.09 $ 12.85 $ 13.27 $ 15.68

1967 $ 14.83 $ 13.65 $ 13.42 $ 15.81 $ 13.38 $ 16.36 $ 14.27 $ 14.10 $ 14.50 $ 15.89

1968 $ 15.43 $ 14.09 $ 14.11 $ 15.84 $ 14.09 $ 13.95 $ 16.46 $ 14.43 $ 14.87 $ 15.27 $ 15.99

1969 $ 9.54 $ 15.63 $ 14.96 $ 15.87 $ 15.93 $ 14.86 $ 15.88 $ 16.64 $ 15.86

1970 $ 17.17 $ 15.62 $ 16.27 $ 19.07 $ 15.42 $ 15.82 $ 21.00 $ 16.23 $ 17.79 $ 15.40 $ 15.28 $ 16.89 $ 18.00 $ 15.72

1971 $ 17.83 $ 16.30 $ 17.24 $ 19.42 $ 15.92 $ 18.33 $ 16.51 $ 19.58 $ 16.25 $ 18.11 $ 15.59 $ 16.08 $ 17.40 $ 18.56 $ 15.73

1972 $ 19.32 $ 18.22 $ 19.29 $ 21.06 $ 18.03 $ 18.44 $ 18.37 $ 21.38 $ 17.78 $ 19.56 $ 16.99 $ 16.42 $ 18.94 $ 18.34 $ 16.95

1973 $ 16.79 $ 14.92 $ 16.00 $ 18.34 $ 16.26 $ 18.44 $ 14.69 $ 16.90 $ 16.01 $ 14.61 $ 16.52 $ 14.49 $ 15.75 $ 15.90 $ 12.61

1974 $ 18.17 $ 16.34 $ 17.23 $ 20.07 $ 17.84 $ 16.22 $ 15.60 $ 17.74 $ 17.34 $ 16.12 $ 18.27 $ 16.33 $ 17.31 $ 17.28 $ 13.97

1975 $ 19.24 $ 17.10 $ 18.49 $ 20.90 $ 19.29 $ 17.10 $ 17.05 $ 18.39 $ 18.56 $ 17.14 $ 19.38 $ 17.28 $ 18.29 $ 18.44 $ 14.63

1976 $ 23.85 $ 23.75 $ 24.79 $ 23.75 $ 21.90 $ 18.89 $ 23.49 $ 23.13 $ 20.53 $ 23.90 $ 21.27 $ 21.90 $ 23.37 $ 23.19 $ 15.12

1977 $ 25.14 $ 24.51 $ 25.49 $ 25.16 $ 25.34 $ 25.00 $ 18.89 $ 24.52 $ 23.22 $ 21.98 $ 24.33 $ 23.60 $ 22.91 $ 24.39 $ 24.51 $ 15.98

1978 $ 25.51 $ 24.89 $ 25.70 $ 25.48 $ 25.75 $ 25.25 $ 19.37 $ 24.91 $ 23.69 $ 22.45 $ 24.46 $ 24.36 $ 23.14 $ 24.69 $ 24.83 $ 16.37

1979 $ 25.87 $ 25.27 $ 25.91 $ 25.79 $ 26.15 $ 25.49 $ 19.85 $ 25.30 $ 24.16 $ 22.92 $ 24.58 $ 25.12 $ 23.36 $ 24.99 $ 25.14 $ 16.75

1980 $ 26.90 $ 25.96 $ 26.04 $ 26.80 $ 27.95 $ 27.24 $ 20.98 $ 25.79 $ 24.19 $ 23.75 $ 25.04 $ 26.27 $ 24.16 $ 22.55 $ 26.26 $ 17.57

1981 $ 29.38 $ 28.41 $ 28.63 $ 29.31 $ 30.72 $ 30.72 $ 22.36 $ 27.87 $ 26.51 $ 26.48 $ 27.27 $ 28.52 $ 25.84 $ 28.47 $ 28.72 $ 18.90

1982 $ 31.34 $ 29.34 $ 29.46 $ 31.51 $ 34.13 $ 34.13 $ 24.99 $ 29.05 $ 28.70 $ 28.92 $ 29.58 $ 27.65 $ 30.68 $ 27.76 $ 29.47 $ 30.35 $ 20.79

1983 $ 32.71 $ 30.52 $ 30.54 $ 33.10 $ 35.34 $ 35.34 $ 26.35 $ 29.80 $ 29.06 $ 30.75 $ 29.83 $ 28.95 $ 32.68 $ 28.65 $ 30.78 $ 31.29 $ 23.00

1984 $ 35.90 $ 32.19 $ 32.77 $ 35.22 $ 40.24 $ 40.24 $ 29.53 $ 32.76 $ 30.97 $ 34.15 $ 33.19 $ 30.87 $ 36.85 $ 31.01 $ 33.36 $ 33.94 $ 26.64

1985 $ 41.51 $ 35.98 $ 35.61 $ 40.43 $ 46.65 $ 43.47 $ 35.09 $ 38.78 $ 45.06 $ 39.64 $ 36.50 $ 33.21 $ 33.61 $ 42.51 $ 38.33 $ 38.17 $ 39.08 $ 30.57

1986 $ 44.77 $ 36.61 $ 39.61 $ 46.10 $ 51.90 $ 49.52 NYD NYD $ 38.74 $ 41.61 $ 39.55 $ 43.87 $ 36.03 $ 36.03 $ 36.02 $ 47.28 $ 36.99 $ 41.55 $ 42.37 $ 35.02

1987 $ 46.46 $ 38.12 $ 41.28 $ 47.22 $ 54.49 $ 51.35 $ 40.03 $ 42.96 $ 41.45 $ 46.58 $ 36.90 $ 37.47 $ 35.70 $ 49.29 $ 38.20 $ 43.20 $ 44.66 $ 36.58

1988 $ 48.15 $ 39.62 $ 42.94 $ 48.33 $ 57.08 $ 53.17 NYD NYD $ 41.31 $ 44.31 $ 43.35 $ 49.28 $ 37.76 $ 38.91 $ 35.38 $ 51.30 $ 39.40 $ 44.84 $ 46.95 $ 38.14

1989 $ 51.83 $ 42.77 $ 45.30 $ 52.48 $ 61.09 $ 58.05 $ 37.16 $ 38.05 $ 46.71 $ 42.06 $ 42.06 $ 53.51 $ 39.42 NYD $ 41.26 $ 43.62 $ 56.30 $ 40.95 $ 46.84 $ 49.55 $ 38.75

1990 $ 52.93 $ 45.25 $ 47.51 $ 53.55 $ 61.02 $ 57.70 $ 38.32 $ 37.17 $ 49.57 $ 45.73 $ 43.38 $ 53.99 $ 45.85 $ 53.11 $ 41.97 $ 46.01 $ 57.34 $ 42.57 $ 47.50 $ 53.06 $ 40.63

1991 $ 58.37 $ 48.18 $ 53.98 $ 60.81 $ 71.42 $ 67.03 $ 42.73 $ 41.45 $ 56.68 $ 51.54 $ 51.26 $ 59.13 $ 51.92 $ 60.27 $ 47.42 $ 48.45 $ 63.14 $ 46.15 $ 53.51 $ 55.78 $ 46.75

1992 $ 58.76 $ 48.58 $ 54.79 $ 73.25 $ 70.66 $ 68.72 $ 41.49 $ 40.25 $ 57.20 $ 55.16 $ 54.33 $ 59.31 $ 48.76 $ 57.11 $ 47.47 $ 43.34 $ 50.61 $ 62.73 $ 48.48 $ 54.97 $ 58.14 $ 49.91

1993 $ 57.96 $ 49.10 $ 52.03 $ 63.13 $ 72.51 $ 67.13 $ 42.10 $ 40.84 $ 61.15 $ 52.78 $ 50.44 $ 62.94 $ 50.12 $ 56.47 $ 49.67 $ 37.39 $ 54.45 $ 63.22 $ 47.91 $ 55.03 $ 57.82 $ 50.43

1994 $ 58.73 $ 47.85 $ 51.12 $ 62.92 $ 72.42 $ 64.56 $ 48.32 $ 46.88 $ 60.13 $ 51.88 $ 49.07 $ 64.64 $ 52.67 $ 57.23 $ 49.25 $ 46.97 $ 55.64 $ 64.24 $ 49.78 $ 55.08 $ 57.89 $ 51.23

1995 $ 58.18 $ 48.11 $ 51.67 $ 64.15 $ 73.40 $ 64.95 $ 59.03 $ 57.26 $ 60.96 $ 50.14 $ 51.01 $ 62.95 $ 52.40 $ 55.71 $ 49.67 $ 41.28 $ 54.96 $ 62.72 $ 48.47 $ 55.32 $ 60.54 $ 52.60

1996 $ 59.30 $ 48.28 $ 52.54 $ 62.99 $ 75.17 $ 64.69 $ 52.30 $ 50.73 $ 63.29 $ 50.56 $ 51.70 $ 63.27 $ 52.46 $ 57.04 $ 50.03 $ 46.07 $ 56.65 $ 64.08 $ 47.96 $ 55.57 $ 60.96 $ 52.86

1997 $ 58.69 $ 49.07 $ 52.08 $ 61.48 $ 73.82 $ 65.20 $ 54.78 $ 54.05 $ 61.19 $ 49.75 NYD NYD $ 52.29 $ 65.00 $ 55.05 $ 60.13 $ 50.59 $ 45.51 $ 58.52 $ 65.09 $ 48.61 $ 56.04 $ 57.65 $ 56.05

1998 $ 59.77 $ 50.61 $ 50.22 $ 61.84 $ 77.79 $ 65.45 $ 55.86 $ 54.09 $ 65.50 $ 52.36 $ 50.64 $ 50.54 $ 52.29 $ 65.37 $ 55.49 $ 61.95 $ 62.47 $ 51.63 $ 45.61 $ 60.49 $ 66.45 $ 50.54 $ 57.53 $ 57.58 $ 57.45

1999 $ 61.26 $ 51.35 $ 53.28 $ 63.39 $ 78.77 $ 63.73 $ 61.16 $ 59.33 $ 67.77 $ 53.22 $ 50.93 $ 50.87 $ 53.62 $ 67.70 $ 54.00 $ 63.25 $ 64.01 $ 52.71 $ 48.72 $ 63.16 $ 68.24 $ 52.98 $ 58.89 $ 59.73 $ 58.29

2000 $ 61.92 $ 52.65 $ 56.95 $ 64.23 $ 79.29 $ 66.09 $ 62.82 $ 60.89 $ 66.21 $ 54.48 $ 53.49 $ 53.40 $ 56.57 $ 68.27 $ 54.88 $ 62.66 $ 65.22 $ 52.90 $ 51.41 $ 64.06 $ 68.51 $ 54.18 $ 59.86 $ 61.52 $ 59.35

2001 $ 62.58 $ 53.94 $ 60.61 $ 65.06 $ 79.80 $ 68.44 $ 64.47 $ 62.44 $ 64.65 $ 55.73 $ 56.04 $ 55.92 $ 59.51 $ 68.83 $ 55.75 $ 62.06 $ 66.42 $ 53.09 $ 54.10 $ 64.95 $ 68.78 $ 55.38 $ 60.82 $ 63.30 $ 60.41

2002 $ 62.58 $ 53.94 $ 60.61 $ 65.06 $ 79.80 $ 68.44 $ 64.47 $ 62.44 $ 64.65 $ 55.73 $ 56.04 $ 55.92 $ 59.51 $ 68.83 $ 55.75 $ 62.06 $ 66.42 $ 53.09 $ 54.10 $ 64.95 $ 68.78 $ 55.38 $ 60.82 $ 63.30 $ 60.41

2003 $ 65.98 $ 58.67 $ 60.55 $ 67.77 $ 82.66 $ 72.42 $ 68.85 $ 66.10 $ 68.77 $ 58.44 $ 59.62 $ 64.57 $ 64.89 $ 70.35 $ 59.96 $ 63.31 $ 67.80 $ 55.95 $ 62.38 $ 67.39 $ 72.04 $ 59.40 $ 65.02 $ 66.51 $ 65.02

2004 $ 69.37 $ 63.40 $ 60.48 $ 70.47 $ 85.51 $ 76.39 $ 73.22 $ 69.75 $ 72.89 $ 61.15 $ 63.20 $ 73.22 $ 70.27 $ 71.87 $ 64.16 $ 64.56 $ 69.17 $ 58.80 $ 70.66 $ 69.83 $ 75.30 $ 63.42 $ 69.21 $ 69.72 $ 69.62

2005 $ 336.00 $ 294.00 $ 287.00 $ 290.00 $ 298.00 $ 337.00 $ 345.00 $ 319.00 $ 308.00 $ 290.00 $ 324.00 $ 371.00 $ 280.00 $ 287.00 $ 291.00 $ 328.00 $ 365.00 $ 280.00 $ 304.00 $ 250.00 $ 318.00 $ 308.00 $ 318.00 $ 283.00 $ 251.00

2006 $ 349.00 $ 309.00 $ 303.00 $ 298.00 $ 309.00 $ 351.00 $ 331.00 $ 332.00 $ 321.00 $ 299.00 $ 327.00 $ 385.00 $ 315.00 $ 294.00 $ 306.00 $ 342.00 $ 380.00 $ 291.00 $ 320.00 $ 263.00 $ 325.00 $ 328.00 $ 324.00 $ 293.00 $ 261.00

2007 $ 360.00 $ 319.00 $ 313.00 $ 311.00 $ 314.00 $ 370.00 $ 339.00 $ 319.00 $ 328.00 $ 316.00 $ 360.00 $ 387.00 $ 316.00 $ 304.00 $ 315.00 $ 360.00 $ 399.00 $ 313.00 $ 332.00 $ 266.00 $ 334.00 $ 339.00 $ 341.00 $ 304.00 $ 270.00

2008 $ 387.00 $ 344.00 $ 338.00 $ 328.00 $ 340.00 $ 385.00 $ 402.00 $ 346.00 $ 358.00 $ 348.00 $ 384.00 $ 439.00 $ 365.00 $ 326.00 $ 334.00 $ 386.00 $ 429.00 $ 341.00 $ 376.00 $ 275.00 $ 360.00 $ 367.00 $ 363.00 $ 327.00 $ 278.00

2009 $ 428.00 $ 376.00 $ 384.00 $ 361.00 $ 374.00 $ 414.00 $ 417.00 $ 389.00 $ 384.00 $ 379.00 $ 390.00 $ 442.00 $ 394.00 $ 358.00 $ 364.00 $ 449.00 $ 474.00 $ 383.00 $ 386.00 $ 289.00 $ 392.00 $ 395.00 $ 393.00 $ 366.00 $ 280.00

2010 $ 438.00 $ 388.00 $ 404.00 $ 373.00 $ 392.00 $ 440.00 $ 443.00 $ 394.00 $ 389.00 $ 401.00 $ 411.00 $ 439.00 $ 382.00 $ 369.00 $ 381.00 $ 465.00 $ 482.00 $ 414.00 $ 387.00 $ 297.00 $ 399.00 $ 408.00 $ 415.00 $ 388.00 $ 294.00

2011 $ 456.00 $ 396.00 $ 418.00 $ 393.00 $ 402.00 $ 475.00 $ 406.00 $ 395.00 $ 389.00 $ 412.00 $ 416.00 $ 428.00 $ 395.00 $ 380.00 $ 396.00 $ 477.00 $ 494.00 $ 433.00 $ 398.00 $ 300.00 $ 418.00 $ 411.00 $ 427.00 $ 402.00 $ 298.00

2012 $ 463.00 $ 412.00 $ 412.00 $ 413.00 $ 410.00 $ 489.00 $ 467.00 $ 414.00 $ 414.00 $ 431.00 $ 449.00 $ 418.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 413.00 $ 490.00 $ 509.00 $ 449.00 $ 408.00 $ 316.00 $ 439.00 $ 417.00 $ 435.00 $ 406.00 $ 296.00

2013 $ 470.00 $ 418.00 $ 410.00 $ 426.00 $ 435.00 $ 506.00 $ 478.00 $ 413.00 $ 431.00 $ 438.00 $ 446.00 $ 472.00 $ 421.00 $ 403.00 $ 410.00 $ 505.00 $ 544.00 $ 449.00 $ 411.00 $ 323.00 $ 445.00 $ 422.00 $ 439.00 $ 414.00 $ 311.00

2014 $ 471.00 $ 426.00 $ 407.00 $ 430.00 $ 443.00 $ 504.00 $ 441.00 $ 417.00 $ 464.00 $ 443.00 $ 461.00 $ 504.00 $ 457.00 $ 417.00 $ 416.00 $ 502.00 $ 545.00 $ 450.00 $ 416.00 $ 322.00 $ 453.00 $ 429.00 $ 450.00 $ 423.00 $ 321.00

2015 $ 484.00 $ 430.00 $ 411.00 $ 451.00 $ 458.00 $ 526.00 $ 422.00 $ 435.00 $ 488.00 $ 458.00 $ 439.00 $ 563.00 $ 463.00 $ 420.00 $ 434.00 $ 514.00 $ 608.00 $ 471.00 $ 437.00 $ 323.00 $ 480.00 $ 435.00 $ 478.00 $ 433.00 $ 333.00

2016 $ 503.17 $ 460.48 $ 409.66 $ 495.84 $ 501.01 $ 497.82 $ 501.00 $ 401.00 $ 516.44 $ 488.27 $ 432.00 $ 543.00 $ 445.63 $ 445.63 $ 456.44 $ 536.72 $ 609.85 $ 501.53 $ 439.02 $ 341.04 $ 503.35 $ 471.58 $ 502.17 $ 448.93 $ 324.13

Nummers Pre 30 25 27 150 43 52 82 26 148 69 116 77 171 58 44 16 6 71 1985 147 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005021 NY005061 NY005047 NY005093 NY005248 NY-5-191 NY005033 NY36P005292 NY-5-201 NY36P005295 NY005082 NY-5-104 NY36P005259 NY36P005262 NY005215 NY005233 NY36P005279 NY-36-P005-236 NY-36-P005-236 NY36P005300 Ny36P005293 NY005020 NY005009 NY36P005265 NY005031 La guardia La guardia Lafayette Lewis H. latimer Lavanburg Homes leavitt st Herbert H. Lehman Lenox Ro. Long island Longfellow Seth Low Low income Lower East Side I Lower East Side II Lower East Side III Lower East side Macombs Ro. Manhattanville Gr Manhattanville Gr Marcy Avenue Site Marcy Avenue Site Marinor’s harbor Edwin Markham Thurgood William mcKinley Additon Gardens Rockaway PKWY baptist houses Avenue Rehab housing Rehab Group 5 2 3 A B marshall plaza demonstration Amount of 1094 150 882 423 107 83 622 74 232 75 536 18 188 188 56 55 156 46 51 48 30 607 360 180 619 Households

Completion date September 1957 September 1965 July 1962 September 1970 October 1974 November 1963 May 1985 June 1981 June 1990 December 1967 February 1968 June 1986 June 1986 December 1996 June 1986 June 1985 July 1988 April 1983 December 1996 October 1996 August 1954 June 1943 June 1986 July 1962 Construction date 1957 1965 1962 1970 1974 1963 1985 1981 1990 1967 1968 1986 1986 1996 1986 1985 1988 1983 1996 1996 1954 1943 1986 1962 Land Costs $ 4389201 $ 310001 $ 2364686 $ 556720 $ 54000 $ 2115173 $ 2591601 $ 1668570 $ 23000 $ 51 $ 126960 $ 420639 $ 1575352 Construction $ 8772672 $ 1830867 $ 10168627 $ 6060981 $ 4199360 $ 6708496 $ 489541 Introduction$ 6424416 $ 3000000 $ 2818471 $ 6261210 $ 1549605 $ 6576425 costs other costs $ 4093127 $ 749132 $ 2191687 $ 2397299 $ 1296640 $ 2620000 $ 2761331 $ 5250000 $ 8798858 $ 6835500 $ 2177014 $ 209000 $ 4543727 $ 4752727 $ 6909315 $ 4322735 $ 11292000 $ 1117000 $ 1031478 $ 5042549 $ 8168261 $ 1701830 $ 257756 $ 12475000 $ 2288223 Development $ 17255000 $ 2890000 $ 14725000 $ 9015000 $ 5550000 $ 2620000 $ 11585000 $ 5250000 $ 11880000 $ 6835500 $ 10270000 $ 209000 $ 4543727 $ 4752727 $ 6909315 $ 4322735 $ 11292000 $ 4140000 $ 3850000 $ 5042549 $ 8168261 $ 8090000 $ 2228000 $ 12475000 $ 10440000 costs Number of rooms 4.67 3.40 dddddd4.97 4.04 4.16 3.39 4.69 4.42 4.55 5.50 4.76 6.33 4.17 4.51 5.00 4.18 4.47 4.07 4.31 4.81 4.83 4.71 4.31 3.50 4.76 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1951 1961 1956 1955 1963 1951 1941 1955 Neighborhood Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Manhattan Queens Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Staten Island Staten Island Manhattan Bronx

Bronx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Brooklyn 0 0 johan1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Manhattan 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 3 3 3 7 3 7 11 17 5 2 16 9 3 3 3 3 5 9 9 3 3 1 1 12 3 districts Neighborhood Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Queens Manhattan Queens Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Staten Island Staten Island Manhattan Bronx

Numbers after 94 95 93 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 189 109 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943 $ 25.87

1944 $ 25.87

1945 $ 25.87

1946 $ 25.87

1947 $ 25.87

1948 $ 25.87

1949 $ 25.87

1950 $ 25.87

1951 $ 25.87

1952 $ 25.86

1953 $ 25.86

1954 $ 28.41 $ 25.86

1955 $ 28.41 $ 28.09

1956 $ 10.37 $ 10.89

1957 $ 10.06 $ 10.87 $ 11.46

1958 $ 10.20 $ 10.49 $ 11.27

1959 $ 12.10 $ 11.87 $ 13.02

1960 $ 12.31 $ 12.25 $ 13.35

1961 $ 12.31 $ 12.32 $ 13.62

1962 $ 12.50 $ 16.02 $ 12.28 $ 14.04 $ 13.92

1963 $ 12.59 $ 16.06 $ 12.37 $ 14.00 $ 13.98

1964 $ 12.67 $ 16.10 $ 13.88 $ 12.46 $ 13.96 $ 14.04

1965 $ 12.79 $ 16.10 $ 13.92 $ 12.49 $ 14.05 $ 14.04

1966 $ 12.90 $ 17.42 $ 16.10 $ 13.95 $ 12.52 $ 14.14 $ 14.04

1967 $ 13.96 $ 17.55 $ 16.31 $ 14.16 $ 15.20 $ 13.50 $ 15.18 $ 14.25

1968 $ 14.93 $ 17.64 $ 16.47 $ 14.26 $ 15.18 $ 14.31 $ 16.19 $ 14.51

1969 $ 15.73 $ 16.10 $ 16.98 $ 14.93 $ 15.81 $ 15.48 $ 17.14 $ 15.10

1970 $ 16.52 $ 14.56 $ 17.48 $ 18.64 $ 15.59 $ 16.43 $ 16.65 $ 18.09 $ 15.69

1971 $ 16.90 $ 14.95 $ 18.06 $ 16.84 $ 16.22 $ 17.43 $ 17.88 $ 18.69 $ 16.35

1972 $ 18.27 $ 15.65 $ 19.86 $ 17.93 $ 18.47 $ 19.18 $ 19.51 $ 20.47 $ 17.75

1973 $ 15.30 $ 12.29 $ 17.47 $ 15.89 $ 15.34 $ 15.35 $ 12.36 $ 16.51 $ 18.27 $ 14.94

1974 $ 17.05 $ 12.73 $ 19.53 $ 17.34 $ 30.21 $ 16.98 $ 17.01 $ 15.32 $ 18.25 $ 20.30 $ 16.80

1975 $ 18.33 $ 14.19 $ 20.64 $ 18.41 $ 19.46 $ 17.93 $ 17.67 $ 16.45 $ 19.14 $ 21.93 $ 17.31

1976 $ 22.51 $ 14.74 $ 25.29 $ 20.84 $ 21.17 $ 22.30 $ 23.19 $ 19.59 $ 24.96 $ 26.67 $ 21.94

1977 $ 23.88 $ 14.89 $ 26.97 $ 22.38 $ 21.43 $ 23.39 $ 24.12 $ 20.68 $ 25.99 $ 27.24 $ 23.57

1978 $ 24.36 $ 15.64 $ 27.46 $ 23.04 $ 21.83 $ 23.93 $ 24.58 $ 21.29 $ 26.51 $ 27.66 $ 23.86

1979 $ 24.83 $ 16.39 $ 27.94 $ 23.69 $ 22.22 $ 24.46 $ 25.04 $ 21.89 $ 27.03 $ 28.07 $ 24.15

1980 $ 25.91 $ 17.31 $ 28.62 $ 24.70 $ 28.16 $ 25.68 $ 25.33 $ 21.74 $ 27.18 $ 28.14 $ 25.32

1981 $ 27.85 $ 18.15 $ 31.17 $ 27.92 $ 24.44 $ 27.86 $ 27.97 $ 26.32 $ 29.92 $ 31.02 $ 28.10

1982 $ 29.24 $ 20.29 $ 32.41 $ 30.64 $ 27.34 $ 29.05 $ 28.61 $ 27.64 $ 31.31 $ 32.33 $ 29.87

1983 $ 31.26 $ 23.37 $ 33.99 $ 32.26 $ 29.60 $ 30.02 $ 25.47 $ 29.97 $ 27.48 $ 32.37 $ 34.03 $ 30.97

1984 Appendix 1 $ 34.16 $ 27.78 $ 37.58 $ 36.68 $ 34.11 $ 34.72 $ 26.14 $ 33.00 $ 27.53 $ 44.02 $ 34.93 $ 38.16 $ 33.79

1985 $ 38.64 $ 31.27 $ 41.86 $ 42.73 NYD $ 38.58 $ 38.43 $ 60.52 $ 28.53 $ 35.58 $ 32.79 NYD $ 42.10 $ 40.86 $ 44.31 $ 37.68

1986 $ 44.83 $ 35.96 $ 44.75 $ 47.40 NYD $ 40.70 $ 42.78 $ 53.23 $ 29.58 $ 38.88 $ 28.39 NYD $ 40.86 $ 45.45 $ 49.24 NYD $ 41.34

1987 $ 46.84 $ 37.60 $ 46.56 $ 49.78 $ 42.02 $ 44.67 $ 51.30 $ 30.41 $ 40.60 $ 30.35 $ 42.17 $ 47.36 $ 51.13 $ 43.64

1988 $ 48.84 $ 39.23 $ 48.36 $ 52.15 NYD $ 43.34 $ 46.55 $ 49.37 $ 31.23 $ 42.31 $ 32.30 NYD $ 35.94 ? $ 43.47 $ 49.26 $ 53.01 NYD $ 45.94

1989 $ 52.00 $ 41.01 $ 49.89 $ 55.63 NYD $ 46.44 $ 48.11 $ 52.46 $ 33.39 $ 44.77 $ 22.86 NYD NYD $ 36.53 $ 21.20 $ 43.45 $ 51.80 $ 54.25 $ 36.62 $ 50.47

1990 $ 44.43 $ 51.61 $ 53.88 $ 57.19 NYD $ 45.88 $ 49.48 $ 51.06 $ 36.17 $ 45.41 $ 34.29 $ 54.15 $ 50.06 $ 37.13 $ 37.32 $ 48.20 $ 54.62 $ 56.42 $ 47.67 $ 50.60

1991 $ 58.91 $ 44.81 $ 58.43 $ 62.56 NYD $ 46.52 $ 55.59 $ 61.67 $ 45.09 NYD $ 53.12 $ 48.57 $ 52.97 $ 54.06 $ 44.72 $ 51.35 $ 52.95 $ 54.67 $ 62.67 $ 45.02 $ 56.62

1992 $ 59.31 $ 47.65 $ 60.82 $ 62.22 NYD $ 47.06 $ 55.91 $ 66.21 $ 47.08 $ 46.04 $ 51.64 $ 58.76 $ 53.14 $ 59.16 $ 59.05 $ 43.45 $ 59.94 $ 58.79 $ 56.63 $ 65.05 $ 46.28 $ 56.38

1993 $ 59.93 $ 48.14 $ 56.12 $ 66.38 NYD $ 51.45 $ 54.90 $ 64.57 $ 42.05 $ 42.00 $ 50.02 NYD $ 60.20 $ 56.15 $ 61.79 $ 41.64 $ 46.55 $ 47.63 $ 53.60 $ 61.49 $ 45.78 $ 52.29

1994 $ 60.86 $ 49.66 $ 56.26 $ 65.93 NYD $ 52.79 $ 54.99 $ 62.60 $ 45.52 $ 48.87 $ 48.63 NYD $ 56.54 $ 56.37 $ 64.80 $ 44.17 $ 50.86 $ 55.85 $ 53.49 $ 61.00 $ 60.05 $ 52.26

1995 $ 60.69 $ 50.89 $ 56.19 $ 64.90 NYD $ 55.37 $ 54.14 $ 62.44 $ 44.42 $ 52.40 $ 47.75 NYD $ 56.64 $ 60.04 $ 65.65 $ 51.57 $ 48.75 $ 55.58 $ 52.98 $ 63.95 $ 58.56 $ 51.72

1996 $ 60.27 $ 51.77 $ 55.71 $ 65.59 NYD $ 57.62 $ 55.22 $ 66.06 $ 44.79 $ 47.38 $ 49.13 $ 59.61 $ 59.72 $ 69.22 $ 48.34 $ 47.87 $ 56.60 $ 53.88 $ 63.81 $ 60.29 $ 52.07

1997 $ 62.00 $ 54.43 $ 56.68 $ 67.73 NYD $ 59.36 $ 56.49 $ 68.32 $ 45.85 $ 46.17 $ 49.50 $ 61.77 $ 62.58 NYD $ 70.72 $ 51.57 $ 51.53 $ 56.26 NYD NYD $ 53.22 $ 58.54 $ 59.87 $ 51.92

1998 $ 62.94 $ 54.70 $ 57.47 $ 69.46 NYD $ 62.34 $ 57.87 $ 74.22 $ 47.89 $ 46.17 $ 51.19 $ 64.23 $ 59.86 $ 61.31 $ 66.67 $ 52.09 $ 54.98 $ 57.87 NYD NYD $ 55.73 $ 60.52 $ 59.43 $ 53.01

1999 $ 64.75 $ 57.78 $ 60.38 $ 71.17 NYD $ 63.98 $ 60.04 $ 74.79 $ 50.41 $ 40.95 $ 53.54 $ 64.96 $ 64.16 $ 58.27 $ 66.82 $ 55.82 $ 60.25 $ 59.48 $ 58.77 $ 63.01 $ 56.38 $ 67.62 $ 62.15 $ 53.62

2000 $ 65.12 $ 58.06 $ 61.30 $ 71.65 $ 64.02 $ 61.48 $ 72.60 $ 51.41 $ 43.20 $ 54.07 $ 67.29 $ 65.74 $ 59.03 $ 68.35 $ 57.49 $ 61.07 $ 61.51 $ 61.92 $ 62.72 $ 57.47 $ 69.26 $ 62.14 $ 54.65

2001 $ 65.48 $ 58.33 $ 62.21 $ 72.13 $ 64.05 $ 62.91 $ 70.40 $ 52.40 $ 45.45 $ 54.60 $ 69.62 $ 67.32 $ 59.79 $ 69.87 $ 59.16 $ 61.88 $ 63.54 $ 65.07 $ 62.43 $ 58.55 $ 70.90 $ 62.12 $ 55.68

2002 $ 65.48 $ 58.33 $ 62.21 $ 72.13 $ 64.05 $ 62.91 $ 70.40 $ 52.40 $ 45.45 $ 54.60 $ 69.62 $ 67.32 $ 59.79 $ 69.87 $ 59.16 $ 61.88 $ 63.54 $ 65.07 $ 62.43 $ 58.55 $ 70.90 $ 62.12 $ 55.68

2003 $ 68.17 $ 60.94 $ 65.01 $ 74.87 $ 67.56 $ 65.54 $ 72.39 $ 53.97 $ 58.55 $ 59.34 $ 70.67 $ 70.01 $ 64.73 $ 76.45 $ 62.65 $ 64.59 $ 65.61 $ 66.48 $ 67.47 $ 63.18 $ 75.58 $ 64.17 $ 58.22

2004 $ 70.85 $ 63.54 $ 67.80 $ 77.60 $ 71.07 $ 68.17 $ 74.37 $ 55.54 $ 71.65 $ 64.07 $ 71.71 $ 72.69 $ 69.66 $ 83.03 $ 66.13 $ 67.30 $ 67.67 $ 67.88 $ 72.51 $ 67.80 $ 80.26 $ 66.22 $ 60.75

2005 $ 336.00 $ 221.00 $ 337.00 $ 318.00 $ 242.00 $ 330.00 $ 326.00 $ 267.00 $ 377.00 $ 307.00 $ 297.00 $ 349.00 $ 368.00 $ 331.00 $ 279.00 $ 283.00 $ 292.00 $ 318.00 $ 343.00 $ 332.00 $ 357.00 $ 230.00 $ 292.00

2006 $ 347.00 $ 223.00 $ 356.00 $ 326.00 $ 243.00 $ 342.00 $ 327.00 $ 292.00 $ 406.00 $ 331.00 $ 314.00 $ 355.00 $ 410.00 $ 345.00 $ 295.00 $ 268.00 $ 287.00 $ 359.00 $ 353.00 $ 343.00 $ 381.00 $ 233.00 $ 308.00

2007 $ 358.00 $ 237.00 $ 366.00 $ 324.00 $ 249.00 $ 355.00 $ 361.00 $ 298.00 $ 429.00 $ 334.00 $ 322.00 $ 354.00 $ 434.00 $ 345.00 $ 326.00 $ 281.00 $ 302.00 $ 368.00 $ 419.00 $ 349.00 $ 240.00 $ 321.00

2008 $ 392.00 $ 248.00 $ 400.00 $ 355.00 $ 261.00 $ 388.00 $ 388.00 $ 336.00 $ 484.00 $ 359.00 $ 347.00 $ 388.00 $ 460.00 $ 398.00 $ 305.00 $ 317.00 $ 392.00 $ 435.00 $ 392.00 $ 244.00 $ 344.00

2009 $ 433.00 $ 253.00 $ 443.00 $ 390.00 $ 282.00 $ 418.00 $ 421.00 $ 360.00 $ 546.00 $ 391.00 $ 381.00 $ 428.00 $ 514.00 $ 413.00 $ 328.00 $ 347.00 $ 476.00 $ 523.00 $ 422.00 $ 255.00 $ 383.00

2010 $ 442.00 $ 271.00 $ 472.00 $ 404.00 $ 296.00 $ 440.00 $ 433.00 $ 396.00 $ 522.00 $ 394.00 $ 388.00 $ 444.00 $ 551.00 $ 440.00 $ 369.00 $ 359.00 $ 496.00 $ 557.00 $ 431.00 $ 270.00 $ 411.00

2011 $ 467.00 $ 274.00 $ 488.00 $ 419.00 $ 298.00 $ 447.00 $ 463.00 $ 414.00 $ 552.00 $ 404.00 $ 406.00 $ 470.00 $ 600.00 $ 469.00 $ 387.00 $ 374.00 $ 484.00 $ 519.00 $ 438.00 $ 266.00 $ 416.00

2012 $ 476.00 $ 279.00 $ 496.00 $ 436.00 $ 293.00 $ 456.00 $ 466.00 $ 416.00 $ 564.00 $ 409.00 $ 423.00 $ 463.00 $ 597.00 $ 450.00 $ 398.00 $ 380.00 $ 506.00 $ 535.00 $ 462.00 $ 264.00 $ 419.00

2013 $ 471.00 $ 284.00 $ 507.00 $ 428.00 $ 307.00 $ 459.00 $ 469.00 $ 420.00 $ 558.00 $ 411.00 $ 433.00 $ 456.00 $ 495.00 $ 455.00 $ 415.00 $ 357.00 $ 476.00 $ 471.00 $ 463.00 $ 266.00 $ 421.00

2014 $ 472.00 $ 288.00 $ 519.00 $ 439.00 $ 307.00 $ 468.00 $ 507.00 $ 425.00 $ 576.00 $ 406.00 $ 431.00 $ 460.00 $ 554.00 $ 460.00 $ 405.00 $ 400.00 $ 496.00 $ 465.00 $ 457.00 $ 279.00 $ 425.00

2015 $ 505.00 $ 288.00 $ 545.00 $ 456.00 $ 314.00 $ 492.00 $ 490.00 $ 451.00 $ 614.00 $ 439.00 $ 442.00 $ 488.00 $ 581.00 $ 498.00 $ 445.00 $ 386.00 $ 498.00 $ 399.00 $ 476.00 $ 289.00 $ 441.00

2016 $ 528.50 $ 291.84 $ 568.67 $ 484.61 $ 308.20 $ 521.88 $ 527.69 $ 464.52 $ 609.08 $ 453.76 $ 475.48 $ 540.70 $ 543.00 $ 582.43 $ 478.96 $ 360.32 $ 462.00 $ 413.00 $ 476.00 $ 301.42 $ 463.56

Nummers Pre 21 61 48 90 120 163 33 179 109 78 123 177 118 20 9 31 1985 148 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005085 NY005092 NY005096 NY005050 NY005036 NY005080 NY36P005272 NY005037 NY-5-200 NY005048 NY-5-190 NY005044 NY36P005242 NY005072 NY36P005257 NY-5-196 NY-5-127 NY36P005285 NY005091 NY005035 NY005062 NY-5-177 NY36P005260 NY005002 NY005002B Max Meltzer Tower Metro north plaza Middletown plaza John P.Mitchel James Monroe E.R.Moore Morris heights Gouverneur Morris park Morissania Morrisania Air MOTT Haven New Lane Area Ocean Hill OceanHill palmetto st Park Ave-E 122snd Park Rock Rehab Pennsylvania Ave. Louis Heaton Pink Polo Grounds Prospect plaza P.S. 139 Queensbridge Queensbridge rehab Morris citizens home rights U.R.A Apartments Brownsville st Wortman Ave. Tower North

Amount of 231 275 179 1732 1102 463 315 1887 97 206 843 993 277 236 125 115 90 134 336 1500 1614 369 125 3149 1538 Households

Completion date August 1971 September 1971 August 1973 February 1966 September 1961 March 1964 April 1986 August 1965 April 1977 May 1963 February 1980 March 1965 July 1984 March 1968 November 1986 March 1977 March 1970 September 1985 September 1972 September 1959 June 1968 June 1974 October 1986 March 1940 March 1940 Construction date 1971 1971 1973 1966 1961 1964 1986 1965 1977 1963 1980 1965 1984 1968 1986 1977 1970 1985 1972 1959 1968 1974 1986 1940 1940 Land Costs $ 823500 $ 163271 $ 136273 $ 6629148 $ 644349 $ 597833 $ 6638397 $ 1245468 $ 647574 $ 3549375 $ 758251 $ 1051049 $ 924523 $ 4542000 $ 1969060 Construction $ 5251138 $ 4530894 $ 19599871 $ 11665587 $ 5219178 $ 22011973 $Introduction 500503 $ 2457919 $ 13008868 $ 2982228 $ 8052934 $ 16015383 $ 18974648 $ 9968427 costs other costs $ 3320362 $ 2085835 -$ 136273 $ 6810981 $ 4160064 $ 1457989 $ 18879524 $ 7644630 $ 244029 $ 679507 $ 40580000 $ 4111757 $ 18925000 $ 1099521 $ 8023000 $ 4600000 $ 2105000 $ 8631000 $ 2852017 $ 3194141 $ 8453352 $ 15290000 $ 7935000 $ 1273313 Development $ 9395000 $ 6780000 $ 33040000 $ 16470000 $ 7275000 $ 18879524 $ 36295000 $ 1990000 $ 3785000 $ 40580000 $ 20670000 $ 18925000 $ 4840000 $ 8023000 $ 4600000 $ 2105000 $ 8631000 $ 11956000 $ 20134047 $ 31970000 $ 15290000 $ 7935000 $ 13210800 costs Numberdddddd of rooms 3.25 4.79 3.48 4.38 4.82 4.68 4.55 4.78 3.24 4.67 4.51 4.66 3.61 4.53 4.32 3.25 4.66 4.34 4.13 4.73 4.78 5.34 3.44 4.11 4.14 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1956 1955 1955 1958 1956 1962 1955 1961 1938 Neighborhood Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Staten Island Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Queens

Bronx 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brooklynjohan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Manhattan 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Community 3 11 10 1 9 1 5 3 11 3 3 1 1 16 16 4 11 8 5 5 10 16 10 1 1 districts Neighborhood Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Bronx Staten Island Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Queens

Numbers after 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940 $ 22.67

1941 $ 22.67

1942 $ 22.67

1943 $ 22.67

1944 $ 22.67

1945 $ 22.67

1946 $ 22.67

1947 $ 22.67

1948 $ 22.67

1949 $ 22.67

1950 $ 22.67

1951 $ 22.73

1952 $ 22.73

1953 $ 22.73

1954 $ 24.95

1955 $ 27.16

1956 $ 10.41

1957 $ 10.94

1958 $ 10.71

1959 $ 12.16

1960 $ 12.46 $ 12.39

1961 $ 13.85 $ 12.72 $ 12.51

1962 $ 13.92 $ 13.06 $ 12.60

1963 $ 13.94 $ 13.08 $ 12.62

1964 $ 13.96 $ 15.92 $ 16.27 $ 13.10 $ 12.63

1965 $ 13.94 $ 15.92 $ 16.25 $ 13.17 $ 12.76

1966 $ 14.02 $ 13.92 $ 15.92 $ 15.95 $ 16.22 $ 14.17 $ 13.24 $ 12.89

1967 $ 14.16 $ 14.01 $ 15.92 $ 16.21 $ 16.41 $ 14.36 $ 13.84 $ 13.94

1968 $ 14.23 $ 14.15 $ 16.11 $ 16.31 $ 16.54 $ 14.56 $ 16.09 $ 14.55 $ 15.31 $ 14.68

1969 $ 14.60 $ 14.59 $ 16.01 $ 16.71 $ 16.63 $ 15.09 $ 16.17 $ 15.10 $ 15.72 $ 15.48

1970 $ 14.97 $ 15.02 $ 15.91 $ 17.11 $ 16.72 $ 15.61 $ 16.24 $ 17.46 $ 15.65 $ 16.13 $ 16.27

1971 $ 18.33 $ 19.36 $ 15.64 $ 15.87 $ 16.93 $ 17.73 $ 17.62 $ 16.15 $ 16.62 $ 17.96 $ 16.58 $ 16.58 $ 16.98

1972 $ 18.44 $ 22.28 $ 17.30 $ 17.74 $ 19.08 $ 19.52 $ 20.21 $ 17.70 $ 18.71 $ 19.43 $ 19.93 $ 18.68 $ 18.00 $ 18.79

1973 $ 18.44 $ 15.31 $ 18.17 $ 14.91 $ 16.96 $ 16.57 $ 18.44 $ 16.32 $ 14.71 $ 16.89 $ 14.83 $ 17.21 $ 17.54 $ 15.58 $ 15.81

1974 $ 16.22 $ 16.52 $ 19.73 $ 16.38 $ 16.18 $ 18.06 $ 17.36 $ 17.31 $ 16.00 $ 18.08 $ 17.02 $ 18.51 $ 16.39 $ 17.55 $ 22.99 $ 17.55

1975 $ 17.10 $ 16.92 $ 20.13 $ 17.28 $ 17.12 $ 19.18 $ 18.39 $ 17.85 $ 17.19 $ 18.93 $ 18.05 $ 19.27 $ 18.59 $ 18.67 $ 19.31 $ 18.68

1976 $ 18.89 $ 22.78 $ 20.24 $ 20.79 $ 22.39 $ 23.38 $ 23.89 $ 23.22 $ 22.01 $ 21.87 $ 23.27 $ 22.84 $ 24.29 $ 22.80 $ 25.08 $ 23.01

1977 $ 18.89 $ 23.24 $ 20.97 $ 22.43 $ 23.13 $ 24.48 $ 24.85 $ 23.87 $ 22.95 $ 23.04 $ 19.67 $ 23.73 $ 23.07 $ 25.15 $ 13.79 $ 25.50 $ 24.21

1978 $ 19.37 $ 23.11 $ 21.45 $ 22.85 $ 23.72 $ 24.98 $ 25.14 $ 24.19 $ 23.33 $ 23.55 $ 19.45 $ 23.85 $ 23.57 $ 25.48 $ 19.17 $ 23.71 $ 24.74

1979 $ 19.85 $ 22.98 $ 21.92 $ 23.27 $ 24.30 $ 25.48 $ 25.43 $ 24.51 $ 23.71 $ 24.05 $ 19.22 $ 23.96 $ 24.07 $ 25.80 $ 24.55 $ 21.91 $ 25.27

1980 $ 20.98 $ 23.77 $ 25.45 $ 24.59 $ 25.13 $ 26.40 $ 26.01 $ 25.11 $ 22.90 $ 24.85 $ 24.80 $ 19.43 $ 25.16 $ 24.39 $ 26.71 $ 25.68 $ 24.58 $ 25.98

1981 $ 22.36 $ 26.00 $ 24.65 $ 26.89 $ 27.65 $ 28.79 $ 28.07 $ 26.60 $ 31.27 $ 27.01 $ 27.70 $ 22.86 $ 25.63 $ 27.55 $ 29.32 $ 28.32 $ 28.43 $ 28.47

1982 $ 24.99 $ 26.73 $ 27.54 $ 28.51 $ 28.86 $ 29.66 $ 29.14 $ 28.88 $ 33.28 $ 28.47 $ 29.76 $ 25.55 $ 27.45 $ 29.28 $ 30.39 $ 29.94 $ 29.10 $ 29.64

1983 $ 26.35 $ 27.45 $ 29.95 $ 33.23 $ 29.89 $ 30.65 $ 30.69 $ 23.14 $ 30.26 $ 34.92 $ 29.38 $ 31.96 $ 26.73 $ 27.96 $ 30.90 $ 31.75 $ 31.39 $ 30.18 $ 31.35

1984 $ 29.53 $ 30.35 $ 34.20 $ 36.79 $ 32.48 $ 33.26 $ 32.56 $ 24.42 $ 31.68 $ 38.34 $ 31.16 $ 35.76 $ 28.49 $ 31.75 $ 36.29 $ 34.31 $ 34.47 $ 32.17 $ 35.74

1985 $ 33.15 $ 33.45 $ 38.71 $ 38.27 $ 36.05 $ 39.02 $ 37.48 $ 28.67 $ 34.25 $ 41.85 $ 36.63 $ 40.87 $ 40.66 $ 34.39 $ 39.84 $ 42.94 $ 38.54 $ 40.10 $ 40.22 $ 42.38

1986 $ 37.62 $ 36.70 $ 42.01 $ 42.12 $ 40.22 $ 40.73 NYD $ 40.74 $ 26.93 $ 36.71 $ 44.07 $ 38.89 $ 45.38 $ 44.91 NYD $ 34.49 $ 39.84 NYD $ 45.00 $ 41.00 $ 44.59 $ 36.97 NYD $ 44.26

1987 $ 39.22 $ 38.59 $ 44.13 $ 44.44 $ 42.17 $ 43.21 $ 42.72 $ 28.53 $ 37.69 $ 45.98 $ 40.49 $ 46.27 $ 48.00 $ 37.76 $ 40.77 $ 46.97 $ 43.33 $ 46.96 $ 38.94 $ 46.35

1988 $ 40.81 $ 40.47 $ 46.25 $ 46.76 $ 44.11 $ 45.69 $ 20.94 $ 44.70 $ 30.12 $ 38.67 $ 47.88 $ 42.08 $ 47.15 $ 51.09 $ 59.12 $ 41.03 $ 41.69 $ 44.24 $ 48.93 $ 45.66 $ 49.32 $ 40.90 NYD $ 48.43

1989 $ 42.52 $ 41.77 $ 47.86 $ 49.45 $ 47.07 $ 49.24 $ 31.30 $ 46.89 $ 33.26 $ 40.30 $ 50.10 $ 44.78 $ 44.96 $ 52.84 $ 38.82 $ 41.00 $ 44.26 $ 45.00 $ 49.95 $ 48.21 $ 53.11 $ 43.59 $ 36.83 $ 50.06

1990 $ 44.72 $ 43.36 $ 49.04 $ 51.02 $ 48.27 $ 51.33 $ 34.27 $ 49.67 $ 35.10 $ 41.83 $ 52.16 $ 45.17 $ 47.32 $ 55.25 $ 48.12 $ 42.74 $ 43.04 $ 47.44 $ 51.16 $ 49.75 $ 53.57 $ 43.36 $ 36.92 $ 53.05

1991 $ 50.43 $ 47.71 $ 51.50 $ 54.66 $ 54.49 $ 54.75 $ 39.12 $ 52.79 $ 45.75 $ 45.47 $ 54.15 $ 51.19 $ 55.84 $ 64.15 $ 52.57 $ 44.29 $ 46.60 $ 65.17 $ 55.95 $ 55.26 $ 60.71 $ 46.83 $ 45.81 $ 59.17

1992 $ 52.01 $ 47.96 $ 56.69 $ 55.12 $ 56.68 $ 54.00 $ 39.68 $ 54.49 $ 50.18 $ 47.40 $ 55.12 $ 50.54 $ 60.26 $ 64.49 $ 47.61 $ 44.21 $ 48.46 $ 64.07 $ 58.05 $ 54.37 $ 60.78 $ 48.35 $ 45.30 $ 58.37

1993 $ 58.49 $ 50.67 $ 57.70 $ 54.65 $ 56.49 $ 54.42 $ 40.23 $ 52.09 $ 47.36 $ 46.98 $ 53.65 $ 48.04 $ 61.46 $ 58.52 $ 49.15 $ 47.52 $ 49.71 $ 56.99 $ 57.11 $ 53.22 $ 61.49 $ 48.65 $ 44.57 $ 57.41

1994 $ 58.68 $ 53.24 $ 57.64 $ 54.13 $ 57.78 $ 54.23 $ 44.02 $ 51.73 $ 54.95 $ 46.45 $ 53.00 $ 47.21 $ 62.66 $ 58.95 $ 51.52 $ 46.83 $ 54.90 $ 61.18 $ 58.05 $ 54.45 $ 60.08 $ 55.32 $ 54.77 $ 57.72

1995 $ 58.45 $ 52.51 $ 59.72 $ 53.62 $ 55.77 $ 53.17 $ 49.54 $ 51.21 $ 56.26 $ 45.81 $ 53.68 $ 47.14 $ 63.67 $ 62.68 $ 49.24 $ 45.67 $ 56.66 $ 60.53 $ 57.89 $ 56.85 $ 59.65 $ 52.90 $ 56.91 $ 59.41

1996 $ 62.04 $ 53.51 $ 61.10 $ 53.59 $ 57.58 $ 55.39 $ 47.68 $ 51.18 $ 56.96 $ 47.39 $ 54.48 $ 48.62 $ 63.38 $ 56.94 $ 46.59 $ 46.61 $ 52.51 $ 63.54 $ 56.91 $ 52.99 $ 59.36 $ 46.87 $ 55.94 $ 58.36

1997 $ 59.61 $ 53.28 $ 61.97 $ 53.28 $ 56.33 $ 54.20 $ 44.67 $ 51.92 $ 55.87 $ 47.63 $ 54.83 $ 48.78 $ 66.52 $ 57.03 $ 46.73 $ 52.58 $ 54.05 $ 63.00 $ 58.15 $ 52.68 $ 58.70 $ 46.17 $ 57.71 $ 59.20

1998 $ 60.21 $ 53.23 $ 65.88 $ 54.59 $ 56.55 $ 54.78 $ 43.80 $ 52.97 $ 56.84 $ 50.61 $ 54.83 $ 49.44 $ 67.32 $ 57.06 $ 47.49 $ 52.46 $ 56.92 $ 63.56 $ 57.51 $ 52.84 $ 59.45 $ 48.69 $ 60.03 $ 60.58

1999 $ 61.35 $ 52.28 $ 68.34 $ 55.45 $ 56.17 $ 55.54 $ 46.70 $ 53.68 $ 58.83 $ 53.05 $ 55.16 $ 50.80 $ 68.31 $ 59.08 $ 51.18 $ 53.79 $ 59.78 $ 68.20 $ 59.22 $ 54.39 $ 60.56 $ 48.17 $ 61.28 $ 63.69

2000 $ 61.69 $ 52.22 $ 68.12 $ 56.99 $ 56.86 $ 56.40 $ 49.38 $ 54.47 $ 59.25 $ 53.41 $ 55.63 $ 52.31 $ 68.66 $ 60.59 $ 53.22 $ 56.53 $ 61.67 $ 69.92 $ 59.66 $ 55.36 $ 61.15 $ 48.62 $ 62.24 $ 67.91

2001 $ 62.03 $ 52.15 $ 67.89 $ 58.52 $ 57.54 $ 57.26 $ 52.05 $ 55.26 $ 59.66 $ 53.77 $ 56.10 $ 53.81 $ 69.01 $ 62.10 $ 55.26 $ 59.27 $ 63.55 $ 71.63 $ 60.10 $ 56.32 $ 61.74 $ 49.06 $ 63.20 $ 72.12

2002 $ 62.03 $ 52.15 $ 67.89 $ 58.52 $ 57.54 $ 57.26 $ 52.05 $ 55.26 $ 59.66 $ 53.77 $ 56.10 $ 53.81 $ 69.01 $ 62.10 $ 55.26 $ 59.27 $ 63.55 $ 71.63 $ 60.10 $ 56.32 $ 61.74 $ 49.06 $ 63.20 $ 72.12

2003 $ 64.85 $ 55.12 $ 69.71 $ 62.42 $ 59.68 $ 60.32 $ 56.66 $ 58.98 $ 63.53 $ 55.62 $ 60.19 $ 57.38 $ 70.51 $ 66.94 $ 60.12 $ 63.27 $ 64.84 $ 72.05 $ 63.47 $ 59.68 $ 64.25 $ 24.53 $ 65.64 $ 73.51

2004 $ 67.66 $ 58.08 $ 71.52 $ 66.31 $ 61.82 $ 63.38 $ 61.27 $ 62.70 $ 67.40 $ 57.46 $ 64.28 $ 60.95 $ 72.01 $ 71.77 $ 64.97 $ 67.27 $ 66.13 $ 72.46 $ 66.84 $ 63.03 $ 66.75 $ 68.08 $ 74.90

2005 $ 225.00 $ 290.00 $ 252.00 $ 298.00 $ 303.00 $ 298.00 $ 292.00 $ 314.00 $ 226.00 $ 284.00 $ 295.00 $ 286.00 $ 264.00 $ 328.00 $ 285.00 $ 229.00 $ 309.00 $ 305.00 $ 276.00 $ 302.00 $ 326.00 $ 238.00 $ 313.00

2006 $ 232.00 $ 308.00 $ 256.00 $ 304.00 $ 313.00 $ 310.00 $ 304.00 $ 322.00 $ 238.00 $ 300.00 $ 310.00 $ 301.00 $ 279.00 $ 343.00 $ 278.00 $ 235.00 $ 337.00 $ 320.00 $ 295.00 $ 311.00 $ 335.00 $ 252.00 $ 319.00

2007 $ 238.00 $ 319.00 $ 253.00 $ 322.00 $ 329.00 $ 320.00 $ 325.00 $ 332.00 $ 250.00 $ 307.00 $ 317.00 $ 309.00 $ 280.00 $ 355.00 $ 292.00 $ 238.00 $ 352.00 $ 343.00 $ 303.00 $ 322.00 $ 351.00 $ 255.00 $ 334.00

2008 $ 245.00 $ 362.00 $ 257.00 $ 347.00 $ 342.00 $ 343.00 $ 360.00 $ 248.00 $ 326.00 $ 342.00 $ 334.00 $ 284.00 $ 390.00 $ 303.00 $ 245.00 $ 406.00 $ 376.00 $ 331.00 $ 348.00 $ 381.00 $ 268.00 $ 343.00

2009 $ 258.00 $ 405.00 $ 264.00 $ 381.00 $ 368.00 $ 372.00 $ 389.00 $ 256.00 $ 345.00 $ 372.00 $ 377.00 $ 292.00 $ 431.00 $ 369.00 $ 261.00 $ 427.00 $ 422.00 $ 361.00 $ 381.00 $ 404.00 $ 269.00 $ 376.00

2010 $ 267.00 $ 416.00 $ 286.00 $ 392.00 $ 382.00 $ 380.00 $ 407.00 $ 268.00 $ 347.00 $ 390.00 $ 403.00 $ 311.00 $ 456.00 $ 370.00 $ 261.00 $ 439.00 $ 440.00 $ 372.00 $ 398.00 $ 415.00 $ 286.00 $ 414.00

2011 $ 272.00 $ 434.00 $ 294.00 $ 401.00 $ 389.00 $ 384.00 $ 408.00 $ 264.00 $ 367.00 $ 397.00 $ 429.00 $ 313.00 $ 477.00 $ 388.00 $ 271.00 $ 451.00 $ 442.00 $ 390.00 $ 415.00 $ 430.00 $ 302.00 $ 434.00

2012 $ 270.00 $ 447.00 $ 297.00 $ 411.00 $ 407.00 $ 407.00 $ 419.00 $ 268.00 $ 378.00 $ 405.00 $ 418.00 $ 308.00 $ 491.00 $ 399.00 $ 269.00 $ 457.00 $ 452.00 $ 406.00 $ 421.00 $ 442.00 $ 308.00 $ 445.00

2013 $ 278.00 $ 437.00 $ 304.00 $ 413.00 $ 420.00 $ 416.00 $ 416.00 $ 278.00 $ 364.00 $ 408.00 $ 423.00 $ 309.00 $ 487.00 $ 409.00 $ 272.00 $ 476.00 $ 462.00 $ 401.00 $ 424.00 $ 446.00 $ 320.00 $ 441.00

2014 $ 281.00 $ 447.00 $ 316.00 $ 417.00 $ 431.00 $ 425.00 $ 429.00 $ 286.00 $ 363.00 $ 421.00 $ 434.00 $ 315.00 $ 512.00 $ 409.00 $ 280.00 $ 476.00 $ 499.00 $ 407.00 $ 431.00 $ 454.00 $ 319.00 $ 454.00

2015 $ 286.00 $ 462.00 $ 321.00 $ 435.00 $ 444.00 $ 448.00 $ 443.00 $ 293.00 $ 385.00 $ 429.00 $ 458.00 $ 315.00 $ 531.00 $ 407.00 $ 299.00 $ 484.00 $ 528.00 $ 422.00 $ 452.00 $ 482.00 $ 328.00 $ 468.00

2016 $ 293.25 $ 492.63 $ 320.16 $ 448.87 $ 466.22 $ 462.55 $ 460.95 $ 296.95 $ 372.53 $ 457.76 $ 477.47 $ 311.47 $ 588.26 $ 457.85 $ 312.88 $ 495.32 $ 558.22 $ 420.81 $ 481.30 $ 502.77 $ 348.20 $ 494.93

Nummers Pre 81 89 93 51 36 76 37 108 49 162 45 172 72 166 130 88 35 62 156 2 1985 149 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005002A NY36P005290 NY-5-179 NY-5-202 NY005001 NY005029 NY005076 NY005089 NY005039 NY005008 NY-5-151 NY-5-173 NY005054 NY005083 NY-5-211 NY-5-205 NY005010 NY005065 NY005067 NY-5-100 NY-5-203 NY005224 NY005004 NY005018 NY36p005280 Queensbridge Ralph Ave. Rehab Randall Ave Randolph Red Hook Red Hook II Rehabilitation William Reid Richmond Terras Jacob Riis IRA S. Robbins Jackie Robinson Elenor Roosevelt I Eleanor Roosevelt Rutland towers Sack wern St Nicolas St.Nicholas Ave. 33-35 Saratoga Seward Park Shelton House South Bronx Area South Jamaica South Jamaica II Stebbins Ave- South Apartments Plaza II Ave. Extension (Site 402) Hewitt Pl

Amount of 1602 118 252 458 2545 346 321 230 489 1190 150 189 763 342 64 420 1526 99 125 360 155 114 448 600 120 Households

Completion date March 1940 December 1986 October 1978 April 1977 November 1939 May 1955 January 1964 November 1969 April 1964 November 1948 February 1975 May 1973 September 1964 December 1966 May 1977 May 1977 September 1954 March 1965 December 1966 October 1973 October 1978 February 1988 August 1940 October 1954 April 1987 Construction date 1940 1986 1978 1977 1939 1955 1964 1969 1964 1948 1975 1973 1964 1966 1977 1977 1954 1965 1966 1973 1978 1988 1940 1954 1987 Land Costs $ 6408942 $ 1650416 $ 367585 $ 1611158 $ 217000 $ 1371785 $ 1954225 $ 420000 $ 2377648 $ 1349726 $ 1119600 $ 4830500 $ 5374297 $ 168000 $ 339810 $ 180000 $ 1880500 $ 328696 $ 1589058 Construction $ 6274407 $ 9064404 $ 1210598 $ 3334107 $ 2732733 $ 6085654 $ 934335 Introduction$ 3392450 $ 9071721 $ 3688319 $ 136500 $ 1732500 $ 12121987 $ 1204674 $ 1406344 $ 8270469 $ 911232 $ 1569804 $ 5692517 costs other costs $ 7721712 $ 9180000 $ 1161651 $ 1222780 $ 2962817 $ 1221735 $ 925267 $ 2112561 $ 10558249 $ 1052550 $ 5990000 $ 2580631 $ 1426955 $ 343900 -$ 6474000 $ 3113716 $ 517326 $ 593846 $ 3469531 -$ 2476732 $ 8857468 $ 182800 $ 1259570 $ 8787400 Development $ 7721712 $ 9180000 $ 13845000 $ 11937600 $ 4541000 $ 6167000 $ 3875000 $ 9570000 $ 13446809 $ 4865000 $ 5990000 $ 14030000 $ 6465000 $ 1600000 $ 89000 $ 20610000 $ 1890000 $ 2340000 $ 11920000 $ 315000 $ 8857468 $ 2081300 $ 8541145 $ 8787400 costs Number of rooms 4.16 4.48 dddddd3.39 4.41 4.18 4.70 3.82 3.25 4.73 4.71 3.38 4.48 4.69 4.37 3.70 4.65 4.66 4.05 4.50 4.46 3.30 5.29 4.00 4.70 4.50 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1938 1951 1962 1956 1941 1959 1950 1961 1962 1939 1950 Neighborhood Queens Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens Brooklyn Staten Island Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx Queens Queens Bronx

Bronx 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Brooklyn 0 1 johan0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manhattan 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Community 1 16 10 10 6 6 7 9 1 3 8 11 3 3 17 9 10 10 16 3 12 1 12 12 2 districts Neighborhood Queens Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Queens Brooklyn Staten Island Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx Queens Queens Bronx

Numbers after 135 136 195 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939 $ 22.64

1940 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1941 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1942 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1943 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1944 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1945 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1946 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1947 $ 22.64 $ 22.39

1948 $ 22.64 $ 27.05 $ 22.39

1949 $ 22.64 $ 27.05 $ 22.39

1950 $ 22.64 $ 27.05 $ 22.39

1951 $ 22.70 $ 27.05 $ 22.46

1952 $ 22.71 $ 27.05 $ 22.47

1953 $ 22.71 $ 27.05 $ 22.47

1954 $ 25.01 $ 27.71 $ 28.22 $ 24.69 $ 28.40

1955 $ 27.30 $ 28.40 $ 28.36 $ 28.22 $ 26.91 $ 28.40

1956 $ 10.21 $ 10.44 $ 10.28 $ 10.22 $ 10.54 $ 10.03

1957 $ 10.61 $ 10.79 $ 11.03 $ 10.69 $ 10.96 $ 10.41

1958 $ 10.47 $ 10.55 $ 10.68 $ 10.59 $ 10.93 $ 10.22

1959 $ 12.20 $ 11.83 $ 11.90 $ 12.24 $ 12.86 $ 11.66

1960 $ 12.55 $ 12.18 $ 12.13 $ 12.50 $ 13.13 $ 12.02

1961 $ 12.73 $ 12.73 $ 12.27 $ 12.56 $ 12.71 $ 12.71

1962 $ 12.95 $ 12.95 $ 12.42 $ 12.81 $ 13.09 $ 13.09

1963 $ 13.07 $ 13.07 $ 12.58 $ 12.84 $ 13.14 $ 13.14

1964 $ 13.18 $ 13.18 $ 15.71 $ 12.74 $ 14.74 $ 12.86 $ 13.18 $ 13.18

1965 $ 13.29 $ 13.29 $ 0.00 $ 15.71 $ 12.99 $ 14.72 $ 13.02 $ 13.32 $ 13.32

1966 $ 13.40 $ 13.40 $ 0.00 $ 15.71 $ 13.23 $ 14.70 $ 13.17 $ 15.13 $ 15.68 $ 13.46 $ 13.46

1967 $ 14.68 $ 14.68 $ 0.00 $ 15.84 $ 14.51 $ 14.98 $ 15.06 $ 14.21 $ 15.17 $ 15.57 $ 14.33 $ 14.33

1968 $ 15.43 $ 15.43 $ 0.00 $ 15.99 $ 15.37 $ 15.07 $ 15.27 $ 15.06 $ 15.21 $ 15.57 $ 15.36 $ 15.36

1969 $ 16.50 $ 16.50 $ 0.00 $ 15.97 $ 16.29 $ 15.66 $ 15.71 $ 15.94 $ 14.67 $ 15.62 $ 16.29 $ 16.29

1970 $ 17.57 $ 17.57 $ 0.00 $ 16.47 $ 15.94 $ 17.21 $ 16.24 $ 16.14 $ 16.81 $ 14.12 $ 15.66 $ 17.21 $ 17.21

1971 $ 18.30 $ 18.30 $ 0.00 $ 16.56 $ 16.68 $ 17.58 $ 16.53 $ 16.59 $ 17.37 $ 14.60 $ 15.94 $ 17.88 $ 17.88

1972 $ 19.96 $ 19.96 $ 16.74 $ 17.33 $ 18.18 $ 19.70 $ 18.07 $ 17.94 $ 19.07 $ 16.15 $ 17.39 $ 19.55 $ 19.55

1973 $ 16.07 $ 16.07 $ 16.60 $ 14.37 $ 17.91 $ 16.17 $ 17.57 $ 14.52 $ 14.61 $ 16.60 $ 16.02 $ 15.91 Not Yet Determined $ 16.16 $ 16.16

1974 $ 17.40 $ 17.40 $ 17.85 $ 15.83 $ 17.63 $ 17.45 $ 18.68 $ 16.34 $ 16.06 $ 18.00 $ 17.59 $ 17.65 $ 18.52 $ 18.04 $ 18.04

1975 $ 18.49 $ 18.49 $ 19.05 $ 16.27 $ 19.77 $ 18.48 $ 22.35 $ 20.61 $ 17.57 $ 17.01 $ 18.60 $ 18.24 $ 18.85 $ 18.26 $ 19.20 $ 19.20

1976 $ 23.67 $ 23.67 $ 21.05 $ 16.87 $ 23.75 $ 23.70 $ 23.02 $ 24.18 $ 21.58 $ 20.29 $ 22.98 $ 20.77 $ 22.44 $ 22.39 $ 23.90 $ 23.90

1977 $ 24.96 $ 14.96 $ 22.74 $ 18.03 $ 24.40 $ 24.63 $ 24.18 $ 24.77 $ 22.65 $ 21.81 $ 24.02 $ 22.49 $ 24.48 $ 22.57 $ 24.61 $ 24.61

1978 $ 0.00 $ 25.53 $ 20.53 $ 23.11 $ 18.86 $ 24.81 $ 25.02 $ 24.94 $ 25.10 $ 22.91 $ 21.99 $ 24.55 $ 23.05 $ 24.93 $ 22.92 $ 25.32 $ 25.32

1979 $ 24.31 $ 26.09 $ 26.09 $ 23.47 $ 19.68 $ 25.22 $ 25.41 $ 25.70 $ 25.43 $ 23.17 $ 22.16 $ 25.08 $ 23.60 $ 25.37 $ 23.27 $ 26.02 $ 26.02

1980 $ 21.37 $ 26.41 $ 26.41 $ 25.30 $ 20.52 $ 25.27 $ 26.57 $ 26.35 $ 26.72 $ 23.88 $ 23.49 $ 26.65 $ 25.57 $ 27.33 $ 23.41 $ 26.83 $ 26.83

1981 $ 24.00 $ 28.48 $ 29.67 $ 28.26 $ 22.77 $ 28.34 $ 29.27 $ 29.71 $ 28.88 $ 27.48 $ 27.01 $ 29.30 $ 28.66 $ 29.52 $ 25.02 $ 28.79 $ 28.79

1982 $ 26.95 $ 30.59 $ 30.73 $ 29.75 $ 25.47 $ 29.19 $ 30.56 $ 31.83 $ 30.92 $ 28.32 $ 27.83 $ 31.43 $ 30.91 $ 31.66 $ 26.09 $ 30.69 $ 30.69

1983 $ 29.48 $ 25.94 $ 32.52 $ 32.00 $ 32.03 $ 27.73 $ 31.84 $ 32.35 $ 33.37 $ 32.52 $ 30.24 $ 31.81 $ 64.04 $ 41.92 $ 33.25 $ 32.88 $ 33.16 $ 22.71 $ 29.18 $ 31.90 $ 31.90

1984 $ 32.38 $ 32.27 $ 35.45 $ 34.50 $ 37.55 $ 32.36 $ 35.05 $ 36.56 $ 37.76 $ 36.60 $ 33.04 $ 35.17 $ 69.12 $ 43.87 $ 37.06 $ 35.84 $ 37.62 $ 29.83 $ 33.34 $ 34.54 $ 34.54

1985 $ 37.45 $ 37.90 $ 39.33 $ 35.63 $ 41.31 $ 37.74 $ 38.89 $ 44.08 $ 42.34 $ 41.37 $ 36.63 $ 37.40 $ 80.30 $ 49.02 $ 41.45 $ 40.84 $ 43.25 $ 35.10 $ 34.52 $ 39.43 $ 40.94

1986 NYD $ 43.36 $ 35.85 $ 42.90 $ 43.52 $ 44.81 $ 41.88 $ 46.04 $ 44.15 $ 42.37 $ 46.51 $ 39.70 $ 41.58 $ 78.11 $ 50.39 $ 45.00 $ 46.02 $ 48.45 $ 37.20 $ 37.73 $ 43.70 $ 44.90

1987 $ 43.55 $ 35.94 $ 42.90 $ 43.52 $ 46.41 $ 44.25 $ 46.98 $ 46.55 $ 46.49 $ 48.83 $ 41.88 $ 43.80 $ 77.85 $ 50.91 $ 47.55 $ 47.63 $ 52.56 $ 39.31 $ 38.46 $ 45.44 $ 47.04

1988 NYD $ 43.74 $ 36.03 $ 42.90 $ 43.52 $ 48.00 $ 46.61 $ 47.92 $ 48.94 $ 50.60 $ 51.15 $ 44.05 $ 46.01 $ 77.58 $ 51.43 $ 50.10 $ 49.23 $ 56.66 $ 41.41 $ 39.18 $ 47.17 $ 49.17

1989 $ 44.45 $ 45.62 $ 37.58 $ 50.15 $ 44.64 $ 51.53 $ 47.26 $ 50.15 $ 52.37 $ 50.00 $ 52.66 $ 47.55 $ 48.22 $ 80.98 $ 57.00 $ 53.59 $ 52.50 $ 60.05 $ 42.70 $ 38.78 $ 48.80 $ 50.25 $ 21.26

1990 $ 44.46 $ 48.40 $ 39.43 $ 52.36 $ 46.60 $ 44.97 $ 47.35 $ 52.33 $ 54.57 $ 51.79 $ 53.58 $ 47.31 $ 52.26 $ 86.16 $ 59.46 $ 55.01 $ 56.00 $ 60.60 $ 43.39 $ 53.54 $ 46.18 $ 52.91 $ 52.78 $ 39.11

1991 $ 52.44 $ 51.15 $ 49.29 $ 55.31 $ 50.36 $ 46.26 $ 50.35 $ 50.69 $ 53.11 $ 54.81 $ 63.24 $ 51.37 $ 53.44 $ 86.99 $ 64.60 $ 59.87 $ 66.27 $ 69.31 $ 51.10 $ 51.26 $ 42.45 $ 55.17 $ 60.35 $ 45.93

1992 $ 55.30 $ 52.03 $ 54.42 $ 56.36 $ 51.02 $ 44.31 $ 53.45 $ 51.44 $ 56.76 $ 56.04 $ 65.13 $ 50.89 $ 53.95 $ 86.54 $ 66.45 $ 60.32 $ 66.38 $ 66.44 $ 52.81 $ 51.68 $ 44.39 $ 56.63 $ 59.69 $ 46.22

1993 $ 57.18 $ 56.39 $ 46.88 $ 45.90 $ 54.76 $ 48.77 $ 50.03 $ 55.07 $ 49.88 $ 58.29 $ 58.30 $ 63.20 $ 51.80 $ 52.21 $ 80.49 $ 64.35 $ 59.11 $ 63.92 $ 63.32 $ 60.09 $ 56.05 $ 43.96 $ 59.18 $ 60.60 $ 48.43

1994 $ 57.11 $ 56.46 $ 58.33 $ 51.92 $ 55.64 $ 49.51 $ 53.51 $ 55.84 $ 50.27 $ 59.34 $ 59.67 $ 61.06 $ 52.17 $ 53.45 $ 77.96 $ 64.56 $ 57.61 $ 63.71 $ 63.92 $ 58.90 $ 59.13 $ 46.13 $ 58.60 $ 60.10 $ 47.02

1995 $ 59.36 $ 55.76 $ 59.86 $ 52.91 $ 56.65 $ 48.82 $ 49.97 $ 57.16 $ 52.73 $ 59.78 $ 60.58 $ 62.24 $ 52.81 $ 54.48 $ 79.11 $ 64.11 $ 57.59 $ 62.45 $ 64.70 $ 58.06 $ 59.61 $ 48.02 $ 59.73 $ 61.03 $ 50.37

1996 $ 56.44 $ 54.37 $ 59.05 $ 53.55 $ 55.32 $ 49.23 $ 52.95 $ 58.18 $ 57.22 $ 59.40 $ 63.14 $ 62.55 $ 52.39 $ 53.08 $ 80.17 $ 63.25 $ 57.06 $ 62.93 $ 58.14 $ 56.79 $ 62.12 $ 45.83 $ 58.94 $ 60.03 $ 50.23

1997 $ 58.35 $ 58.79 $ 60.82 $ 52.80 $ 55.35 $ 48.56 $ 54.95 $ 58.98 $ 53.59 $ 60.62 $ 65.16 $ 63.93 $ 51.93 $ 52.84 $ 81.10 $ 61.37 $ 57.75 $ 66.63 $ 57.94 $ 57.89 $ 51.66 $ 48.31 $ 57.90 $ 61.11 $ 53.38

1998 $ 59.61 $ 64.03 $ 61.94 $ 53.69 $ 56.01 $ 48.95 $ 57.10 $ 59.22 $ 58.64 $ 62.18 $ 65.50 $ 65.19 $ 53.49 $ 54.77 $ 81.68 $ 63.45 $ 58.30 $ 64.76 $ 57.98 $ 60.21 $ 63.76 $ 49.57 $ 59.18 $ 64.36 $ 56.29

1999 $ 60.07 $ 65.86 $ 62.73 $ 54.86 $ 57.92 $ 51.27 $ 55.13 $ 59.52 $ 59.12 $ 62.38 $ 66.20 $ 66.27 $ 56.80 $ 56.75 $ 82.14 $ 64.86 $ 60.07 $ 63.65 $ 55.17 $ 61.21 $ 66.52 $ 49.39 $ 63.16 $ 65.07 $ 60.43

2000 $ 62.47 $ 66.96 $ 63.57 $ 56.16 $ 58.74 $ 54.96 $ 56.68 $ 60.16 $ 60.44 $ 62.80 $ 66.20 $ 67.19 $ 56.85 $ 58.13 $ 82.91 $ 65.32 $ 60.64 $ 64.61 $ 56.45 $ 62.06 $ 66.13 $ 50.07 $ 63.44 $ 66.00 $ 61.40

2001 $ 64.87 $ 68.06 $ 64.40 $ 57.45 $ 59.55 $ 58.64 $ 58.22 $ 60.79 $ 61.75 $ 63.21 $ 66.19 $ 68.10 $ 56.89 $ 59.51 $ 83.68 $ 65.77 $ 61.21 $ 65.56 $ 57.72 $ 62.90 $ 65.73 $ 50.74 $ 63.72 $ 66.93 $ 62.36

2002 $ 64.87 $ 68.06 $ 64.40 $ 57.45 $ 59.55 $ 58.64 $ 58.22 $ 60.79 $ 61.75 $ 63.21 $ 66.19 $ 68.10 $ 56.89 $ 59.51 $ 83.68 $ 65.77 $ 61.21 $ 65.56 $ 57.72 $ 62.90 $ 65.73 $ 50.74 $ 63.72 $ 66.93 $ 62.36

2003 $ 67.74 $ 70.48 $ 66.03 $ 62.20 $ 63.73 $ 62.58 $ 59.98 $ 64.69 $ 63.62 $ 65.81 $ 68.67 $ 68.81 $ 60.39 $ 62.85 $ 85.61 $ 69.54 $ 63.73 $ 65.87 $ 62.04 $ 66.68 $ 70.18 $ 57.32 $ 67.16 $ 68.79 $ 66.34

2004 $ 70.60 $ 72.90 $ 67.66 $ 66.94 $ 67.91 $ 66.51 $ 61.74 $ 68.58 $ 65.48 $ 68.41 $ 71.14 $ 69.51 $ 63.88 $ 66.18 $ 87.54 $ 73.30 $ 66.25 $ 66.17 $ 66.36 $ 70.46 $ 74.62 $ 63.89 $ 70.59 $ 70.64 $ 70.32

2005 $ 293.00 $ 326.00 $ 233.00 $ 297.00 $ 291.00 $ 335.00 $ 187.00 $ 224.00 $ 322.00 $ 324.00 $ 244.00 $ 311.00 $ 298.00 $ 292.00 $ 323.00 $ 339.00 $ 308.00 $ 275.00 $ 297.00 $ 326.00 $ 253.00 $ 350.00 $ 286.00 $ 332.00 $ 341.00

2006 $ 309.00 $ 322.00 $ 243.00 $ 328.00 $ 303.00 $ 345.00 $ 191.00 $ 228.00 $ 346.00 $ 338.00 $ 250.00 $ 327.00 $ 306.00 $ 295.00 $ 326.00 $ 352.00 $ 325.00 $ 305.00 $ 306.00 $ 333.00 $ 256.00 $ 385.00 $ 304.00 $ 346.00 $ 360.00

2007 $ 322.00 $ 335.00 $ 251.00 $ 333.00 $ 314.00 $ 347.00 $ 227.00 $ 234.00 $ 342.00 $ 349.00 $ 255.00 $ 343.00 $ 327.00 $ 311.00 $ 320.00 $ 364.00 $ 347.00 $ 310.00 $ 321.00 $ 347.00 $ 267.00 $ 379.00 $ 314.00 $ 360.00 $ 364.00

2008 $ 386.00 $ 386.00 $ 265.00 $ 364.00 $ 340.00 $ 367.00 $ 235.00 $ 240.00 $ 374.00 $ 378.00 $ 266.00 $ 380.00 $ 351.00 $ 330.00 $ 349.00 $ 385.00 $ 369.00 $ 336.00 $ 365.00 $ 382.00 $ 275.00 $ 418.00 $ 338.00 $ 390.00 $ 393.00

2009 $ 397.00 $ 376.00 $ 275.00 $ 421.00 $ 375.00 $ 380.00 $ 234.00 $ 253.00 $ 409.00 $ 409.00 $ 275.00 $ 406.00 $ 387.00 $ 376.00 $ 382.00 $ 425.00 $ 406.00 $ 374.00 $ 405.00 $ 414.00 $ 288.00 $ 478.00 $ 374.00 $ 429.00 $ 410.00

2010 $ 386.00 $ 445.00 $ 295.00 $ 425.00 $ 386.00 $ 395.00 $ 393.00 $ 267.00 $ 419.00 $ 421.00 $ 287.00 $ 414.00 $ 398.00 $ 382.00 $ 384.00 $ 451.00 $ 426.00 $ 390.00 $ 418.00 $ 419.00 $ 304.00 $ 518.00 $ 387.00 $ 450.00 $ 433.00

2011 $ 402.00 $ 460.00 $ 303.00 $ 435.00 $ 406.00 $ 413.00 $ 408.00 $ 270.00 $ 421.00 $ 446.00 $ 293.00 $ 438.00 $ 412.00 $ 380.00 $ 390.00 $ 452.00 $ 437.00 $ 398.00 $ 449.00 $ 433.00 $ 302.00 $ 554.00 $ 411.00 $ 476.00 $ 465.00

2012 $ 405.00 $ 464.00 $ 311.00 $ 433.00 $ 414.00 $ 412.00 $ 423.00 $ 273.00 $ 428.00 $ 457.00 $ 296.00 $ 438.00 $ 419.00 $ 387.00 $ 399.00 $ 477.00 $ 435.00 $ 399.00 $ 488.00 $ 445.00 $ 300.00 $ 560.00 $ 401.00 $ 459.00 $ 487.00

2013 $ 401.00 $ 454.00 $ 313.00 $ 419.00 $ 419.00 $ 416.00 $ 403.00 $ 281.00 $ 425.00 $ 459.00 $ 308.00 $ 436.00 $ 428.00 $ 389.00 $ 375.00 $ 472.00 $ 441.00 $ 401.00 $ 477.00 $ 444.00 $ 309.00 $ 574.00 $ 410.00 $ 453.00 $ 467.00

2014 $ 413.00 $ 459.00 $ 321.00 $ 453.00 $ 432.00 $ 425.00 $ 417.00 $ 293.00 $ 433.00 $ 468.00 $ 321.00 $ 456.00 $ 441.00 $ 422.00 $ 404.00 $ 467.00 $ 450.00 $ 418.00 $ 400.00 $ 462.00 $ 327.00 $ 589.00 $ 406.00 $ 449.00 $ 490.00

2015 $ 431.00 $ 474.00 $ 335.00 $ 461.00 $ 446.00 $ 441.00 $ 483.00 $ 299.00 $ 442.00 $ 485.00 $ 327.00 $ 485.00 $ 472.00 $ 448.00 $ 417.00 $ 474.00 $ 460.00 $ 450.00 $ 502.00 $ 478.00 $ 340.00 $ 609.00 $ 428.00 $ 470.00 $ 539.00

2016 $ 452.75 $ 528.25 $ 334.60 $ 478.85 $ 471.14 $ 483.00 $ 296.64 $ 456.34 $ 501.98 $ 314.53 $ 475.64 $ 492.91 $ 478.16 $ 453.27 $ 492.46 $ 487.60 $ 480.30 $ 541.27 $ 485.67 $ 342.17 $ 609.29 $ 451.22 $ 496.54 $ 549.34

Nummers Pre 157 110 1 29 75 86 39 8 104 153 55 79 114 112 10 65 67 95 111 4 18 1985 150 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY005250 NY36P005305 NY005296 NY005063 NY-5-133 NY36P005269 NY005087 NYp005311 NY005064 NY-5-174 NY36P005278 NY-5141 NY-5-163 NY005192 NY005015 NY005098 NY005034 NY005046 NY-36-P005-227 NY-5-178 NY-5-194 NY36P005214 NY36P005291 NY-5-169 NY-5-117 Sterling Pl Sterling Pl Stratford Ave. Nathan Straus Stuyvesant Stuyvesant Surfside Gardens Sutter Avenue Sen. Robert A. Taft 104-14 Tapscott Tapscott st. rehab Taylor st wythe Teller Ave. Thomas Throgg’s Neck Throggs neck Samuel J. Tilden Tompkins Twin Parks East Twin Parks West two bridges(site 7) Union Avenue- Union Avenue- Unity Plaza Unity Plaza Rehabs(St Johns Rehabs(sterling, Rehab Gardens I Gardens II Union Street St. Ave Apartments Addition East 163rd street East 166st street sterling) Buffalo) Amount of 83 124 45 267 331 150 600 100 1470 30 155 525 90 87 1185 287 998 1046 219 312 250 200 120 167 462 Households

Completion date January 1991 January 1991 March 1988 January 1965 August 1972 February 1986 June 1969 September 1994 December 1962 October 1972 January 1986 June 1974 September 1971 March 1994 November 1953 September 1971 June 1961 July 1964 November 1981 September 1974 April 1975 March 1985 April 1988 November 1973 September 1973 Construction date 1991 1991 1988 1965 1972 1986 1969 1994 1962 1972 1986 1974 1971 1994 1953 1971 1961 1964 1981 1974 1975 1985 1988 1973 1973 Land Costs $ 985578 $ 1752365 $ 5109002 $ 713003 $ 2405883 $ 2600386 $ 109500 $ 156000 $ 1366000 Construction $ 3470515 $ 7804010 $ 16940258Introduction$ 11312777 $ 4972739 $ 10317352 $ 12717780 $ 8821283 $ 11068511 $ 11427828 costs other costs $ 9091865 $ 12235716 $ 3204000 $ 988907 $ 10251000 $ 10270000 $ 3978625 $ 9370007 $ 6850740 $ 839110 $ 10115712 $ 20214000 $ 2296895 $ 11188636 $ 3554220 $ 2433159 $ 2141765 $ 3061834 $ 2504217 $ 3054489 $ 10510000 $ 12675000 $ 9575293 $ 5273000 $ 4093172 Development $ 9091865 $ 12235716 $ 3204000 $ 5445000 $ 10251000 $ 10270000 $ 13535000 $ 9370007 $ 28900000 $ 839110 $ 10115712 $ 20214000 $ 2296895 $ 11188636 $ 15580000 $ 7405898 $ 14865000 $ 18380000 $ 11435000 $ 14279000 $ 10510000 $ 12675000 $ 9575293 $ 5273000 $ 16887000 costs Numberdddddd of rooms 5.31 4.75 5.50 4.36 4.90 3.50 4.30 4.67 4.50 4.30 4.43 4.73 4.01 3.50 4.59 4.67 4.76 4.99 3.15 4.86 5.00 3.50 4.49 4.64 4.65 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1961 1950 1955 1956 Neighborhood Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn

Bronx 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

Brooklynjohan 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Manhattan 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 8 8 9 6 3 3 13 16 11 16 16 1 4 7 10 10 16 3 6 6 3 3 3 5 5 districts Neighborhood Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Bronx Bronx Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn

Numbers after 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 175 174 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953 $ 28.18

1954 $ 28.18

1955 $ 28.18

1956 $ 10.57

1957 $ 10.83

1958 $ 10.92

1959 $ 12.03

1960 $ 12.24

1961 $ 12.30 $ 13.93

1962 $ 12.57 $ 14.03

1963 $ 12.80 $ 14.04

1964 $ 16.01 $ 13.03 $ 14.05 $ 14.11

1965 $ 16.01 $ 12.97 $ 14.05 $ 14.10

1966 $ 15.90 $ 16.00 $ 12.91 $ 14.05 $ 14.09

1967 $ 15.97 $ 16.14 $ 13.85 $ 14.32 $ 14.31

1968 $ 16.13 $ 16.33 $ 14.83 $ 14.42 $ 14.50

1969 $ 15.94 $ 16.67 $ 15.75 $ 15.17 $ 15.14

1970 $ 15.75 $ 18.22 $ 17.00 $ 16.66 $ 15.91 $ 15.77

1971 $ 15.81 $ 18.58 $ 17.46 $ 19.50 $ 17.65 $ 19.67 $ 16.66 $ 16.24

1972 $ 17.47 $ 20.58 $ 19.89 $ 19.09 $ 22.16 $ 20.76 $ 19.54 $ 21.01 $ 18.58 $ 17.72

1973 $ 16.64 $ 17.73 $ 12.99 $ 16.90 $ 18.22 $ 15.77 $ 16.07 $ 18.00 $ 15.12 $ 14.70 $ 18.48 $ 19.55

1974 $ 19.08 $ 19.38 $ 14.46 $ 19.50 $ 18.75 $ 23.17 $ 18.01 $ 17.49 $ 19.00 $ 16.95 $ 16.50 $ 21.28 $ 18.42 $ 18.17

1975 $ 20.31 $ 20.77 $ 15.57 $ 20.20 $ 19.60 $ 20.32 $ 18.57 $ 18.80 $ 19.73 $ 18.11 $ 17.32 $ 22.07 $ 22.51 $ 19.85 $ 19.02

1976 $ 22.70 $ 26.33 $ 21.35 $ 15.04 $ 23.50 $ 22.21 $ 21.71 $ 23.82 $ 23.95 $ 23.58 $ 22.02 $ 26.04 $ 25.31 $ 22.97 $ 25.23

1977 $ 24.28 $ 26.83 $ 21.57 $ 16.57 $ 24.04 $ 22.16 $ 22.32 $ 25.10 $ 25.12 $ 24.46 $ 23.23 $ 26.29 $ 26.96 $ 22.74 $ 25.51

1978 $ 24.61 $ 27.20 $ 21.61 $ 22.14 $ 24.50 $ 22.31 $ 22.26 $ 25.45 $ 25.63 $ 24.79 $ 23.71 $ 26.56 $ 27.54 $ 23.22 $ 25.55

1979 $ 24.93 $ 27.56 $ 21.65 $ 27.70 $ 24.95 $ 22.45 $ 22.19 $ 25.80 $ 26.13 $ 25.11 $ 24.19 $ 26.83 $ 28.11 $ 23.69 $ 25.59

1980 $ 25.88 $ 27.54 $ 24.49 $ 28.80 $ 26.24 $ 23.15 $ 22.76 $ 26.92 $ 27.55 $ 26.27 $ 25.36 $ 27.88 $ 28.30 $ 24.18 $ 25.85

1981 $ 28.49 $ 19.79 $ 24.53 $ 31.58 $ 28.18 $ 25.36 $ 25.27 $ 30.00 $ 30.11 $ 28.47 $ 27.99 $ 29.82 $ 29.38 $ 27.84 $ 28.29

1982 $ 30.13 $ 31.38 $ 25.82 $ 33.01 $ 29.24 $ 26.91 $ 25.82 $ 30.76 $ 31.58 $ 29.70 $ 28.86 $ 33.59 $ 31.60 $ 31.78 $ 29.36 $ 29.40

1983 $ 32.27 $ 32.77 $ 27.10 $ 34.75 $ 31.15 $ 28.39 $ 28.04 $ 32.03 $ 32.93 $ 30.59 $ 30.23 $ 23.46 $ 33.65 $ 32.79 $ 31.06 $ 29.89

1984 $ 36.09 $ 33.56 $ 29.68 $ 38.37 $ 34.18 $ 31.33 $ 31.63 $ 35.05 $ 38.74 $ 32.85 $ 32.31 $ 26.77 $ 36.33 $ 38.58 $ 34.10 $ 32.35

1985 $ 41.73 $ 37.70 $ 33.37 $ 42.86 $ 37.83 $ 34.75 $ 34.82 $ 41.61 $ 43.45 $ 35.28 $ 37.01 $ 32.04 $ 46.05 $ 41.70 $ 32.85 $ 34.81 $ 34.71

1986 $ 47.92 $ 40.48 NYD $ 34.73 $ 47.05 $ 40.09 NYD $ 38.14 $ 38.45 $ 44.95 $ 47.35 $ 38.56 $ 39.71 $ 35.22 $ 45.26 $ 48.99 NYD $ 42.39 $ 37.91

1987 $ 50.18 $ 42.89 $ 36.46 $ 49.77 $ 43.16 $ 40.04 $ 39.49 $ 46.50 $ 48.93 $ 40.50 $ 41.72 $ 36.07 $ 47.84 $ 50.71 $ 44.29 $ 39.66

1988 $ 52.44 $ 45.29 $ 32.57 $ 38.19 $ 52.48 $ 46.22 $ 39.13 $ 41.94 $ 40.52 $ 48.05 $ 50.50 $ 42.44 $ 43.73 $ 36.91 $ 50.41 $ 52.43 $ 32.67 $ 46.19 $ 41.41

1989 NYD $ 56.53 $ 50.48 $ 36.76 $ 40.10 $ 56.15 $ 49.81 $ 39.01 $ 44.62 $ 42.52 $ 52.90 $ 53.68 $ 44.50 $ 46.94 $ 38.01 $ 51.54 $ 56.40 $ 36.76 NYD $ 46.62 $ 42.29

1990 $ 36.77 $ 61.08 $ 49.83 $ 38.47 $ 40.63 $ 56.31 $ 52.71 $ 40.17 $ 45.25 $ 43.86 $ 53.73 $ 54.08 $ 47.96 $ 47.04 $ 39.14 $ 53.02 $ 59.27 $ 42.42 $ 42.76 $ 49.82 $ 43.22

1991 $ 34.18 $ 64.31 $ 52.00 $ 28.07 $ 44.59 $ 65.14 $ 59.60 $ 45.92 $ 46.30 $ 52.19 $ 59.61 $ 59.13 $ 53.06 $ 52.70 $ 52.13 $ 58.74 $ 62.07 $ 44.74 $ 47.04 $ 52.41 $ 47.13

1992 $ 36.90 $ 64.87 $ 51.31 $ 38.44 $ 45.81 $ 64.71 $ 66.08 $ 50.08 $ 47.13 $ 55.16 $ 60.93 $ 59.72 $ 53.23 $ 52.14 $ 53.45 $ 59.74 $ 62.61 $ 46.18 $ 48.22 $ 54.61 $ 50.83

1993 $ 52.76 $ 45.72 $ 48.10 $ 68.42 $ 55.02 $ 42.58 $ 47.27 $ 64.73 $ 64.95 $ 48.27 $ 48.90 $ 54.52 $ 60.36 $ 59.99 $ 52.01 $ 54.99 $ 52.16 $ 55.16 $ 60.74 $ 49.04 $ 50.75 $ 54.73 $ 47.06

1994 $ 50.99 $ 44.76 $ 49.18 $ 68.36 $ 55.90 $ 53.63 $ 47.45 $ 63.65 $ 68.14 $ 52.80 $ 49.56 $ 52.96 $ 61.02 $ 60.55 $ 51.86 $ 54.84 $ 57.31 $ 55.71 $ 60.80 $ 50.56 $ 53.04 $ 51.50 $ 48.54

1995 $ 49.94 $ 45.49 $ 54.99 $ 67.71 $ 56.52 $ 55.68 $ 46.67 NYD $ 62.85 $ 64.03 $ 51.81 $ 49.85 $ 54.92 $ 60.65 $ 58.49 $ 59.19 $ 53.82 $ 47.31 $ 54.77 $ 58.44 $ 54.23 $ 51.07 $ 50.07 $ 47.44

1996 $ 54.67 $ 42.33 $ 55.05 $ 66.84 $ 54.91 $ 56.03 $ 47.92 $ 54.74 $ 63.03 $ 64.10 $ 53.80 $ 51.13 $ 53.04 $ 55.59 $ 61.41 $ 58.60 $ 52.63 $ 53.49 $ 57.77 $ 55.97 $ 58.60 $ 52.54 $ 51.08 $ 49.47 $ 48.89

1997 $ 55.89 $ 43.73 $ 66.10 $ 54.66 $ 60.04 $ 50.03 $ 58.39 $ 63.00 $ 63.01 $ 53.68 $ 51.96 $ 52.60 $ 57.78 $ 61.69 $ 60.65 $ 51.24 $ 55.27 $ 58.69 $ 56.27 $ 58.02 $ 54.64 $ 52.04 $ 48.12 $ 48.30

1998 $ 53.86 $ 44.65 $ 69.28 $ 55.07 $ 62.64 $ 52.75 $ 58.41 $ 64.76 $ 63.13 $ 55.23 $ 53.30 $ 55.20 $ 59.41 $ 61.80 $ 61.07 $ 52.59 $ 55.79 $ 61.18 $ 56.52 $ 58.85 $ 55.08 $ 52.78 $ 48.34 $ 50.07

1999 $ 59.84 $ 49.85 $ 67.84 $ 57.10 $ 64.99 $ 55.43 $ 61.26 $ 63.98 $ 68.12 $ 57.77 $ 54.88 $ 57.17 $ 60.49 $ 62.22 $ 62.54 $ 53.38 $ 57.43 $ 61.85 $ 56.12 $ 61.43 $ 57.56 $ 54.72 $ 50.96 $ 52.15

2000 $ 60.31 $ 50.65 $ 67.71 $ 57.73 $ 66.75 $ 56.01 $ 61.95 $ 65.23 $ 65.80 $ 59.21 $ 56.23 $ 56.11 $ 60.67 $ 63.55 $ 63.03 $ 54.51 $ 61.34 $ 63.52 $ 57.93 $ 62.55 $ 58.33 $ 57.53 $ 51.83 $ 52.83

2001 $ 60.78 $ 51.44 $ 67.58 $ 58.35 $ 68.50 $ 56.59 $ 62.63 $ 66.47 $ 63.48 $ 60.64 $ 57.58 $ 55.05 $ 60.85 $ 64.87 $ 63.51 $ 55.63 $ 65.25 $ 65.18 $ 59.73 $ 63.66 $ 59.09 $ 60.34 $ 52.69 $ 53.51

2002 $ 60.78 $ 51.44 $ 67.58 $ 58.35 $ 68.50 $ 58.59 $ 62.63 $ 66.47 $ 63.48 $ 60.64 $ 57.58 $ 55.05 $ 60.85 $ 64.87 $ 63.51 $ 55.63 $ 65.25 $ 65.18 $ 59.73 $ 63.66 $ 59.09 $ 60.34 $ 52.69 $ 53.51

2003 $ 64.64 $ 58.86 $ 70.53 $ 61.72 $ 71.64 $ 60.50 $ 67.70 $ 68.72 $ 63.94 $ 65.27 $ 58.66 $ 64.68 $ 62.77 $ 66.10 $ 62.78 $ 57.68 $ 66.48 $ 67.89 $ 61.66 $ 64.82 $ 61.76 $ 63.77 $ 57.08 $ 56.03

2004 $ 68.49 $ 66.27 $ 73.47 $ 65.08 $ 74.77 $ 62.41 $ 72.76 $ 70.97 $ 64.40 $ 69.90 $ 59.74 $ 74.31 $ 64.69 $ 67.33 $ 62.04 $ 59.72 $ 67.71 $ 70.59 $ 63.58 $ 65.97 $ 64.43 $ 67.19 $ 61.46 $ 58.55

2005 $ 375.00 $ 318.00 $ 323.00 $ 324.00 $ 261.00 $ 274.00 $ 345.00 $ 323.00 $ 286.00 $ 305.00 $ 284.00 $ 294.00 $ 237.00 $ 319.00 $ 311.00 $ 289.00 $ 341.00 $ 225.00 $ 317.00 $ 343.00 $ 226.00 $ 316.00 $ 299.00 $ 275.00

2006 $ 376.00 $ 347.00 $ 330.00 $ 332.00 $ 271.00 $ 288.00 $ 340.00 $ 338.00 $ 296.00 $ 310.00 $ 289.00 $ 299.00 $ 238.00 $ 333.00 $ 339.00 $ 308.00 $ 351.00 $ 231.00 $ 324.00 $ 354.00 $ 229.00 $ 318.00 $ 305.00 $ 285.00

2007 $ 409.00 $ 358.00 $ 337.00 $ 3151.00 $ 274.00 $ 299.00 $ 358.00 $ 343.00 $ 354.00 $ 345.00 $ 300.00 $ 303.00 $ 247.00 $ 341.00 $ 353.00 $ 320.00 $ 363.00 $ 236.00 $ 342.00 $ 371.00 $ 241.00 $ 330.00 $ 322.00 $ 308.00

2008 $ 450.00 $ 366.00 $ 362.00 $ 374.00 $ 284.00 $ 319.00 $ 409.00 $ 373.00 $ 358.00 $ 371.00 $ 319.00 $ 316.00 $ 256.00 $ 372.00 $ 384.00 $ 342.00 $ 385.00 $ 246.00 $ 375.00 $ 400.00 $ 254.00 $ 361.00 $ 362.00 $ 324.00

2009 $ 527.00 $ 414.00 $ 398.00 $ 426.00 $ 296.00 $ 339.00 $ 450.00 $ 414.00 $ 389.00 $ 425.00 $ 344.00 $ 350.00 $ 261.00 $ 407.00 $ 418.00 $ 383.00 $ 418.00 $ 250.00 $ 423.00 $ 445.00 $ 265.00 $ 409.00 $ 394.00 $ 363.00

2010 $ 535.00 $ 441.00 $ 418.00 $ 440.00 $ 306.00 $ 365.00 $ 469.00 $ 430.00 $ 388.00 $ 444.00 $ 357.00 $ 354.00 $ 277.00 $ 431.00 $ 424.00 $ 398.00 $ 422.00 $ 262.00 $ 436.00 $ 453.00 $ 286.00 $ 423.00 $ 411.00 $ 398.00

2011 $ 585.00 $ 451.00 $ 422.00 $ 464.00 $ 317.00 $ 372.00 $ 468.00 $ 450.00 $ 417.00 $ 439.00 $ 370.00 $ 367.00 $ 287.00 $ 449.00 $ 447.00 $ 414.00 $ 433.00 $ 272.00 $ 441.00 $ 474.00 $ 290.00 $ 440.00 $ 417.00 $ 411.00

2012 $ 553.00 $ 424.00 $ 443.00 $ 468.00 $ 326.00 $ 366.00 $ 488.00 $ 458.00 $ 422.00 $ 456.00 $ 378.00 $ 356.00 $ 295.00 $ 465.00 $ 471.00 $ 407.00 $ 449.00 $ 277.00 $ 456.00 $ 485.00 $ 285.00 $ 468.00 $ 420.00 $ 415.00

2013 $ 578.00 $ 453.00 $ 446.00 $ 477.00 $ 334.00 $ 370.00 $ 480.00 $ 459.00 $ 430.00 $ 457.00 $ 394.00 $ 358.00 $ 302.00 $ 457.00 $ 456.00 $ 419.00 $ 454.00 $ 276.00 $ 469.00 $ 476.00 $ 290.00 $ 469.00 $ 441.00 $ 429.00

2014 $ 578.00 $ 450.00 $ 467.00 $ 505.00 $ 356.00 $ 376.00 $ 484.00 $ 473.00 $ 464.00 $ 456.00 $ 414.00 $ 359.00 $ 326.00 $ 466.00 $ 466.00 $ 436.00 $ 465.00 $ 293.00 $ 485.00 $ 509.00 $ 298.00 $ 474.00 $ 440.00 $ 447.00

2015 $ 594.00 $ 520.00 $ 489.00 $ 512.00 $ 381.00 $ 398.00 $ 513.00 $ 501.00 $ 450.00 $ 506.00 $ 427.00 $ 366.00 $ 349.00 $ 499.00 $ 505.00 $ 458.00 $ 480.00 $ 298.00 $ 492.00 $ 516.00 $ 303.00 $ 495.00 $ 497.00 $ 483.00

2016 $ 647.07 $ 536.21 $ 496.80 $ 557.90 $ 380.77 $ 417.62 $ 508.86 $ 526.65 $ 443.53 $ 534.99 $ 438.91 $ 376.30 $ 351.20 $ 506.79 $ 507.94 $ 479.18 $ 502.69 $ 303.02 $ 520.58 $ 534.55 $ 301.55 $ 546.26 $ 519.17 $ 496.68

Nummers Pre 63 133 84 64 154 139 147 15 94 34 47 117 106 164 167 151 99 1985 151 Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects Turnkey projects NY36P005283 NY005254 NY36P005281 NY005013 NY005055 NY36P005243 NY005068 NY005003 NY005024 NY-5-103 NY005014 NY-5-138 NY36P005221 NY36P005266 NY36P005267 NY36P005268 NY-5-162 NY005028 NY-5-132 NY36P005270 NY005040 NY005040 NY36P005286 NY005056 NY005052 University Ave. UPACA Site 5 UPACA Site 6 Van Dyke Van Dyke II VanDalia Ave. 303 Vernon Ave. Vladeck Federal Sen.Robert F. 572 Warren St. George Washington Ave. Washington Washington Washington Washington 1471 Watson Ave. Daniel Webster Weeksville 154 West 84th West Brighton I West Brighton II West Farms Road WSUR A-B-C WSUR Rehab Wagner washington Rehab heights URA heights URA heights URA heights URA Gardens street Brownstones Group 1 and 2 Phase III Phase IV C Phase IV D Amount of 230 200 150 1603 112 293 234 1531 2162 200 1515 66 216 102 32 32 96 606 257 35 490 144 208 396 236 Households

Completion date January 1985 July 1986 May 1986 May 1955 April 1964 May 1983 May 1967 November 1940 May 1958 August 1972 September 1957 December 1975 January 1988 May 1987 June 1990 June 1990 December 1970 September 1965 April 1974 January 1996 December 1962 December 1965 August 1986 September 1965 June 1968 Construction date 1985 1986 1986 1955 1964 1983 1967 1940 1958 1972 1957 1975 1988 1987 1990 1990 1970 1965 1974 1996 1962 1965 1986 1965 1968 Land Costs $ 5409904 $ 50000 $ 732800 $ 2006025 $ 7948420 $ 5852167 $ 1785870 $ 1312110 $ 385694 $ 209761 $ 448000 Construction $ 13303181 $ 1608097 $ 3022035 $ 4960152 $ 18873840 Introduction$ 12218246 $ 7648686 $ 6470253 $ 1604729 $ 5522685 $ 2695784 costs other costs $ 15900000 $ 13635000 $ 10440000 $ 2651915 $ 666903 $ 20730000 $ 1075165 $ 646323 $ 6202740 $ 5984598 $ 5629587 $ 2209000 $ 16045000 $ 7000000 $ 2968500 $ 2901500 $ 2320000 $ 2830444 $ 8100000 $ 4503296 $ 2242637 $ 834577 $ 15971793 $ 1517554 $ 906216 Development $ 15900000 $ 13635000 $ 10440000 $ 21365000 $ 2325000 $ 20730000 $ 4830000 $ 7612500 $ 33025000 $ 5984598 $ 23700000 $ 2209000 $ 16045000 $ 7000000 $ 2968500 $ 2901500 $ 2320000 $ 12265000 $ 8100000 $ 4503296 $ 10025000 $ 2825000 $ 15971793 $ 7250000 $ 4050000 costs Number of rooms 4.50 3.50 dddddd3.50 4.62 3.73 3.59 4.71 4.09 4.69 4.21 4.66 4.58 4.25 4.45 4.03 4.13 4.08 4.67 5.04 4.53 4.80 3.25 4.25 4.38 3.60 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1950 1960 1962 1938 1951 1950 1955 1956 1957 1961 1959 Neighborhood Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Staten Island Staten Island Bronx Manhattan Manhattan

Bronx 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Brooklyn 0 0 johan0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manhattan 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 5 11 11 16 16 5 3 3 11 6 11 3 12 12 12 12 9 3 8 7 1 1 2 7 7 districts Neighborhood Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn Manhattan Manhattan Brooklyn Manhattan Bronx Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Manhattan Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Staten Island Staten Island Bronx Manhattan Manhattan

Numbers after 178 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 187 186 188 190 191 192 196 197 198 193 194 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940 $ 24.80

1941 $ 24.80

1942 $ 24.80

1943 $ 24.80

1944 $ 24.80

1945 $ 24.80

1946 $ 24.80

1947 $ 24.80

1948 $ 24.80

1949 $ 24.80

1950 $ 24.80

1951 $ 24.86

1952 $ 24.86

1953 $ 24.86

1954 $ 20.99

1955 $ 28.24 $ 17.11

1956 $ 10.19 $ 10.02

1957 $ 10.46 $ 10.43 $ 10.33

1958 $ 10.44 $ 10.43 $ 9.06 $ 10.17

1959 $ 11.81 $ 11.95 $ 11.74 $ 11.86

1960 $ 11.99 $ 12.14 $ 12.19 $ 12.28

1961 $ 12.01 $ 12.29 $ 12.48 $ 12.39

1962 $ 12.52 $ 12.55 $ 12.80 $ 12.69

1963 $ 12.69 $ 12.61 $ 12.96 $ 12.77

1964 $ 12.85 $ 17.13 $ 12.67 $ 13.12 $ 12.84 $ 15.82

1965 $ 13.10 $ 17.17 $ 12.80 $ 13.43 $ 13.04 $ 15.84 $ 8.43

1966 $ 13.34 $ 17.20 $ 12.92 $ 13.74 $ 13.23 $ 15.87 $ 15.86 $ 16.85 $ 15.78

1967 $ 14.66 $ 17.45 $ 13.96 $ 13.89 $ 14.85 $ 14.26 $ 16.06 $ 15.98 $ 16.90 $ 16.19

1968 $ 15.46 $ 17.40 $ 13.98 $ 14.63 $ 15.35 $ 15.23 $ 16.16 $ 16.17 $ 16.97 $ 16.45 $ 16.24

1969 $ 16.55 $ 16.59 $ 14.69 $ 15.36 $ 16.32 $ 16.28 $ 16.41 $ 16.07 $ 15.37 $ 16.71 $ 16.49

1970 $ 17.63 $ 15.78 $ 15.40 $ 16.09 $ 17.28 $ 17.32 $ 21.02 $ 16.65 $ 15.97 $ 13.76 $ 16.97 $ 16.74

1971 $ 18.29 $ 15.69 $ 15.82 $ 16.76 $ 17.87 $ 17.89 $ 19.14 $ 17.24 $ 16.73 $ 13.83 $ 17.38 $ 17.14

1972 $ 20.19 $ 15.69 $ 17.02 $ 18.49 $ 19.60 $ 22.32 $ 19.48 $ 21.13 $ 19.00 $ 18.48 $ 14.66 $ 18.31 $ 18.40

1973 $ 15.94 $ 13.61 $ 14.59 $ 15.45 $ 16.10 $ 17.52 $ 16.30 $ 16.17 $ 16.10 $ 18.64 $ 14.54 $ 16.20 $ 14.80

1974 $ 17.31 $ 14.43 $ 16.32 $ 16.72 $ 17.67 $ 18.33 $ 17.67 $ 16.91 $ 17.45 $ 23.09 $ 18.79 $ 14.41 $ 18.65 $ 16.72

1975 $ 18.37 $ 15.80 $ 17.23 $ 17.51 $ 18.71 $ 18.57 $ 19.15 $ 25.33 $ 18.28 $ 19.40 $ 23.56 $ 19.71 $ 15.81 $ 18.62 $ 17.17

1976 $ 24.48 $ 16.49 $ 22.29 $ 20.90 $ 24.47 $ 22.36 $ 24.12 $ 28.18 $ 23.27 $ 24.38 $ 26.33 $ 24.14 $ 16.33 $ 22.30 $ 20.23

1977 $ 25.38 $ 16.99 $ 23.61 $ 21.96 $ 25.35 $ 22.96 $ 25.29 $ 26.39 $ 24.10 $ 25.49 $ 27.31 $ 25.08 $ 17.24 $ 23.66 $ 21.23

1978 $ 25.59 $ 17.45 $ 24.31 $ 22.39 $ 25.73 $ 23.19 $ 25.78 $ 26.53 $ 24.11 $ 25.67 $ 27.51 $ 25.39 $ 17.64 $ 24.03 $ 21.58

1979 $ 25.79 $ 17.91 $ 25.00 $ 22.82 $ 26.11 $ 23.42 $ 26.27 $ 26.66 $ 24.11 $ 25.85 $ 27.71 $ 25.69 $ 18.03 $ 24.40 $ 21.93

1980 $ 26.54 $ 18.23 $ 25.24 $ 23.60 $ 26.91 $ 23.71 $ 27.19 $ 27.09 $ 25.16 $ 26.53 $ 28.54 $ 26.60 $ 18.98 $ 25.03 $ 22.93

1981 $ 29.16 $ 19.79 $ 27.66 $ 26.26 $ 29.95 $ 27.06 $ 29.86 $ 31.45 $ 27.27 $ 28.96 $ 31.62 $ 29.08 $ 20.90 $ 27.51 $ 25.00

1982 $ 30.25 $ 22.49 $ 29.07 $ 28.28 $ 30.59 $ 27.73 $ 31.33 $ 32.12 $ 28.62 $ 30.10 $ 33.52 $ 30.51 $ 23.51 $ 29.67 $ 26.68

1983 $ 31.39 $ 23.95 $ 29.90 $ 29.95 $ 31.99 $ 28.98 $ 32.21 $ 31.96 $ 29.45 $ 31.24 $ 35.20 $ 31.71 $ 25.86 $ 31.59 $ 27.16

1984 $ 33.30 $ 27.98 $ 32.15 $ 33.56 $ 34.93 $ 32.71 $ 34.90 $ 36.07 $ 33.73 $ 34.38 $ 37.75 $ 35.43 $ 30.48 $ 37.35 $ 33.11

1985 $ 46.15 $ 38.05 $ 32.96 $ 34.34 $ 37.00 $ 38.84 $ 39.91 $ 36.64 $ 40.18 $ 44.82 $ 37.94 $ 38.20 $ 34.90 $ 39.96 $ 35.09 $ 38.46 $ 37.64

1986 $ 41.43 NYD NYD $ 41.45 $ 35.67 $ 34.34 $ 40.09 $ 43.54 $ 43.62 $ 40.47 $ 44.53 $ 41.57 $ 40.24 $ 40.22 $ 48.61 $ 45.09 $ 37.93 NYD $ 41.70 $ 41.53

1987 $ 41.30 $ 43.19 $ 38.25 $ 34.41 $ 41.15 $ 45.16 $ 45.46 $ 44.17 $ 46.70 $ 43.03 $ 42.13 $ 41.83 $ 50.13 $ 47.53 $ 40.06 $ 43.82 $ 43.06

1988 $ 41.17 NYD NYD $ 44.92 $ 40.83 $ 34.48 $ 42.21 $ 46.77 $ 47.29 $ 47.86 $ 48.86 $ 44.48 NYD $ 44.01 $ 43.43 $ 51.65 $ 49.96 $ 42.18 NYD $ 45.93 $ 44.59

1989 $ 40.23 $ 40.70 $ 37.70 $ 47.54 $ 41.40 $ 35.05 $ 45.72 $ 47.51 $ 49.91 $ 49.95 $ 51.78 $ 44.50 $ 30.71 $ 42.43 $ 45.92 $ 46.55 $ 51.53 $ 53.18 $ 43.87 $ 27.89 $ 48.42 $ 46.42

1990 $ 40.80 $ 41.24 $ 37.79 $ 50.34 $ 44.10 $ 36.54 $ 45.86 $ 52.99 $ 50.44 $ 51.06 $ 53.86 $ 45.26 $ 42.94 $ 42.11 $ 45.98 $ 48.29 $ 51.23 $ 54.53 $ 44.78 $ 33.41 $ 49.37 $ 47.70

1991 $ 49.77 $ 43.39 $ 40.40 $ 53.89 $ 50.28 $ 42.95 $ 53.89 $ 58.03 $ 56.06 $ 59.04 $ 56.67 $ 45.55 $ 47.45 $ 46.39 NYD NYD $ 50.46 $ 52.28 $ 58.73 $ 57.33 $ 47.47 $ 41.28 $ 54.36 $ 55.91

1992 $ 48.30 $ 46.02 $ 48.36 $ 55.63 $ 53.15 $ 43.32 $ 55.37 $ 58.41 $ 56.30 $ 65.17 $ 57.22 $ 50.64 $ 52.17 $ 49.53 $ 56.80 $ 51.08 $ 52.94 $ 52.05 $ 61.83 $ 57.07 $ 49.91 $ 41.14 $ 53.90 $ 55.33

1993 $ 44.30 $ 49.13 $ 45.78 $ 53.76 $ 54.19 $ 48.42 $ 55.44 $ 59.39 $ 54.92 $ 57.35 $ 58.39 $ 49.16 $ 52.43 $ 49.28 $ 57.09 $ 50.78 $ 49.44 $ 52.63 $ 55.33 $ 57.62 $ 51.37 $ 45.46 $ 58.31 $ 57.53

1994 $ 50.06 $ 50.83 $ 52.19 $ 54.62 $ 53.34 $ 53.83 $ 52.92 $ 59.74 $ 55.41 $ 55.86 $ 57.34 $ 52.43 $ 53.18 $ 49.94 $ 55.98 $ 56.73 $ 51.74 $ 51.22 $ 57.36 $ 55.04 $ 53.14 $ 48.72 $ 58.29 $ 59.17

1995 $ 54.52 $ 51.70 $ 53.43 $ 55.20 $ 54.79 $ 53.11 $ 53.21 $ 60.21 $ 55.32 $ 59.32 $ 57.25 $ 52.77 $ 51.41 $ 48.29 $ 55.77 $ 56.75 $ 55.21 $ 51.34 $ 57.37 $ 55.96 $ 53.66 $ 48.32 $ 58.90 $ 61.72

1996 $ 53.88 $ 52.48 $ 54.59 $ 54.47 $ 55.58 $ 54.34 $ 53.61 $ 60.54 $ 55.53 $ 59.79 $ 57.68 $ 54.20 $ 54.96 $ 49.55 $ 59.98 $ 58.94 $ 57.03 $ 50.73 $ 62.05 $ 52.66 $ 54.98 $ 45.51 $ 59.03 $ 64.56

1997 $ 54.41 $ 54.23 $ 55.26 $ 53.41 $ 56.71 $ 56.01 $ 52.75 $ 62.21 $ 55.42 $ 60.55 $ 57.83 $ 57.14 $ 57.03 $ 51.39 $ 53.75 $ 55.06 $ 57.63 $ 50.46 $ 56.82 $ 86.72 $ 49.98 $ 56.22 $ 45.19 $ 58.32 $ 65.91

1998 $ 55.54 $ 54.72 $ 55.63 $ 53.67 $ 59.34 $ 59.15 $ 56.18 $ 63.25 $ 56.71 $ 60.84 $ 59.15 $ 60.38 $ 59.09 $ 53.93 $ 60.28 $ 61.40 $ 59.98 $ 50.38 $ 57.37 $ 87.07 $ 51.57 $ 57.23 $ 45.19 $ 56.13 $ 66.42

1999 $ 56.02 $ 56.49 $ 58.03 $ 54.88 $ 60.49 $ 62.52 $ 57.67 $ 64.92 $ 57.68 $ 62.20 $ 60.74 $ 58.49 $ 59.87 $ 57.20 $ 60.50 $ 65.54 $ 58.89 $ 50.79 $ 57.81 $ 86.91 $ 55.71 $ 58.38 $ 53.05 $ 57.03 $ 69.69

2000 $ 56.28 $ 58.61 $ 58.26 $ 55.96 $ 60.93 $ 63.05 $ 59.32 $ 65.54 $ 58.44 $ 62.35 $ 61.58 $ 60.11 $ 59.92 $ 58.58 $ 63.88 $ 67.19 $ 60.50 $ 51.24 $ 58.92 $ 85.58 $ 60.86 $ 59.17 $ 55.93 $ 58.62 $ 69.59

2001 $ 56.53 $ 60.72 $ 58.49 $ 57.03 $ 61.36 $ 63.58 $ 60.97 $ 66.16 $ 59.19 $ 62.49 $ 62.41 $ 61.73 $ 59.96 $ 59.95 $ 67.25 $ 68.83 $ 62.11 $ 51.68 $ 60.03 $ 84.24 $ 66.00 $ 59.96 $ 58.81 $ 60.20 $ 69.48

2002 $ 56.53 $ 60.72 $ 58.49 $ 57.03 $ 61.36 $ 63.58 $ 60.97 $ 66.16 $ 59.19 $ 62.49 $ 62.41 $ 61.73 $ 59.96 $ 59.95 $ 67.25 $ 68.83 $ 62.11 $ 51.68 $ 60.03 $ 84.24 $ 66.00 $ 59.96 $ 58.81 $ 60.20 $ 69.46

2003 $ 61.04 $ 63.59 $ 62.40 $ 59.41 $ 62.17 $ 68.12 $ 62.76 $ 68.04 $ 62.47 $ 65.62 $ 65.20 $ 64.13 $ 64.01 $ 62.18 $ 69.70 $ 74.68 $ 65.24 $ 56.36 $ 62.63 $ 86.62 $ 66.13 $ 62.68 $ 64.14 $ 63.88 $ 72.62

2004 $ 65.54 $ 66.45 $ 66.31 $ 61.79 $ 62.98 $ 72.66 $ 64.54 $ 69.91 $ 65.74 $ 68.74 $ 67.98 $ 66.53 $ 68.05 $ 64.40 $ 72.15 $ 80.52 $ 68.37 $ 61.04 $ 65.22 $ 88.99 $ 66.25 $ 65.40 $ 69.46 $ 67.56 $ 75.78

2005 $ 307.00 $ 236.00 $ 234.00 $ 291.00 $ 248.00 $ 261.00 $ 309.00 $ 293.00 $ 311.00 $ 293.00 $ 326.00 $ 315.00 $ 301.00 $ 306.00 $ 290.00 $ 339.00 $ 280.00 $ 296.00 $ 338.00 $ 400.00 $ 317.00 $ 238.00 $ 285.00 $ 301.00 $ 280.00

2006 $ 317.00 $ 249.00 $ 248.00 $ 309.00 $ 250.00 $ 271.00 $ 322.00 $ 307.00 $ 320.00 $ 302.00 $ 335.00 $ 339.00 $ 302.00 $ 303.00 $ 293.00 $ 334.00 $ 288.00 $ 309.00 $ 347.00 $ 439.00 $ 347.00 $ 251.00 $ 296.00 $ 307.00 $ 291.00

2007 $ 341.00 $ 253.00 $ 254.00 $ 325.00 $ 265.00 $ 279.00 $ 344.00 $ 320.00 $ 334.00 $ 308.00 $ 345.00 $ 347.00 $ 318.00 $ 318.00 $ 335.00 $ 338.00 $ 300.00 $ 318.00 $ 372.00 $ 449.00 $ 361.00 $ 248.00 $ 320.00 $ 322.00 $ 292.00

2008 $ 376.00 $ 257.00 $ 260.00 $ 348.00 $ 271.00 $ 289.00 $ 371.00 $ 343.00 $ 357.00 $ 337.00 $ 374.00 $ 361.00 $ 338.00 $ 317.00 $ 363.00 $ 339.00 $ 324.00 $ 330.00 $ 428.00 $ 488.00 $ 390.00 $ 369.00 $ 349.00 $ 351.00 $ 324.00

2009 $ 385.00 $ 262.00 $ 262.00 $ 390.00 $ 275.00 $ 301.00 $ 402.00 $ 377.00 $ 394.00 $ 367.00 $ 406.00 $ 389.00 $ 352.00 $ 359.00 $ 400.00 $ 395.00 $ 349.00 $ 355.00 $ 482.00 $ 506.00 $ 420.00 $ 266.00 $ 396.00 $ 377.00 $ 351.00

2010 $ 416.00 $ 271.00 $ 284.00 $ 405.00 $ 296.00 $ 310.00 $ 439.00 $ 392.00 $ 411.00 $ 387.00 $ 425.00 $ 415.00 $ 363.00 $ 374.00 $ 382.00 $ 384.00 $ 341.00 $ 366.00 $ 501.00 $ 519.00 $ 420.00 $ 285.00 $ 385.00 $ 390.00 $ 372.00

2011 $ 405.00 $ 274.00 $ 286.00 $ 412.00 $ 304.00 $ 314.00 $ 450.00 $ 406.00 $ 430.00 $ 414.00 $ 443.00 $ 449.00 $ 377.00 $ 389.00 $ 386.00 $ 389.00 $ 349.00 $ 386.00 $ 512.00 $ 562.00 $ 442.00 $ 285.00 $ 384.00 $ 398.00 $ 389.00

2012 $ 424.00 $ 289.00 $ 282.00 $ 430.00 $ 302.00 $ 315.00 $ 461.00 $ 419.00 $ 443.00 $ 444.00 $ 460.00 $ 464.00 $ 401.00 $ 412.00 $ 434.00 $ 424.00 $ 335.00 $ 381.00 $ 499.00 $ 584.00 $ 437.00 $ 276.00 $ 405.00 $ 432.00 $ 406.00

2013 $ 445.00 $ 286.00 $ 280.00 $ 434.00 $ 313.00 $ 320.00 $ 455.00 $ 417.00 $ 441.00 $ 437.00 $ 468.00 $ 463.00 $ 396.00 $ 401.00 $ 416.00 $ 436.00 $ 353.00 $ 408.00 $ 507.00 $ 574.00 $ 435.00 $ 291.00 $ 416.00 $ 434.00 $ 406.00

2014 $ 449.00 $ 287.00 $ 292.00 $ 430.00 $ 321.00 $ 329.00 $ 453.00 $ 434.00 $ 447.00 $ 453.00 $ 484.00 $ 487.00 $ 410.00 $ 417.00 $ 391.00 $ 417.00 $ 352.00 $ 417.00 $ 521.00 $ 624.00 $ 429.00 $ 307.00 $ 416.00 $ 470.00 $ 418.00

2015 $ 477.00 $ 293.00 $ 290.00 $ 447.00 $ 330.00 $ 346.00 $ 460.00 $ 451.00 $ 472.00 $ 462.00 $ 512.00 $ 477.00 $ 424.00 $ 460.00 $ 396.00 $ 471.00 $ 382.00 $ 437.00 $ 545.00 $ 562.00 $ 445.00 $ 321.00 $ 450.00 $ 439.00 $ 494.00

2016 $ 417.00 $ 287.03 $ 279.66 $ 469.48 $ 346.20 $ 346.60 $ 489.27 $ 471.61 $ 483.34 $ 491.95 $ 524.37 $ 471.03 $ 454.28 $ 441.66 $ 409.88 $ 476.03 $ 403.10 $ 442.71 $ 523.74 $ 534.00 $ 464.22 $ 321.41 $ 479.13 $ 495.30 $ 449.04

Nummers Pre 178 13 56 173 68 3 24 122 14 138 146 28 132 40 41 57 53 1985 152 Turnkey projects NY-5-180 NY005237 NY36P005238 NY36P005239 NY005041 NY005084 NY005074 W.Tremont Ave. West tremont West tremont West tremont Williamsburg Carter G. Wyckoff Gardens Rehab group 1 Rehab group 2 Rehab group 3 Woodson

Amount of 148 97 98 88 1630 407 529 Households

Completion date July 1973 March 1983 May 1989 May 1989 April 1938 August 1970 December 1966 Construction date 1973 1983 1989 1989 1938 1970 1966 Land Costs $ 48501 $ 49000 $ 44001 $ 3745379 $ 755000 $ 1381287 Construction $ 5804171 $ 6522814 $ 5992261 $ 8955205 $ 5019890 $ 6292068 Introduction costs other costs $ 4380000 $ 1917328 $ 2145973 $ 2054738 $ 363408 $ 1895110 $ 2505645 Development $ 4380000 $ 7770000 $ 8717787 $ 8091000 $ 13063992 $ 7670000 $ 10179000 costs Numberdddddd of rooms 3.39 4.72 4.47 4.58 3.54 3.49 4.60 pet apartment

Year Contracted 1938 1962 Neighborhood Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn

Bronx 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Brooklynjohan 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Manhattan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Staten Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community 5 5 5 5 1 16 6 districts Neighborhood Bronx Bronx Bronx Bronx Brooklyn Brooklyn Brooklyn

Numbers after 199 200 201 202 203 1985

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939 $ 29.51

1940 $ 29.51

1941 $ 29.51

1942 $ 29.51

1943 $ 29.51

1944 $ 29.51

1945 $ 29.51

1946 $ 29.51

1947 $ 29.51

1948 $ 29.51

1949 $ 29.58

1950 $ 29.58

1951 $ 29.60

1952 $ 29.60

1953 $ 29.60

1954 $ 29.60

1955 $ 26.99

1956 $ 12.75

1957 $ 13.44

1958 $ 13.29

1959 $ 14.47

1960 $ 14.63

1961 $ 14.43

1962 $ 14.65

1963 $ 14.58

1964 $ 14.51

1965 $ 14.50

1966 $ 14.49

1967 $ 16.05

1968 $ 16.12

1969 $ 8.93 $ 16.35

1970 $ 17.85 $ 18.35 $ 16.58

1971 $ 18.89 $ 18.69 $ 17.11

1972 $ 21.14 $ 20.10 $ 18.61

1973 $ 16.34 $ 20.19 $ 12.94 $ 15.83

1974 $ 16.28 $ 19.23 $ 14.61 $ 18.51

1975 $ 17.49 $ 20.34 $ 15.15 $ 18.87

1976 $ 18.32 $ 25.19 $ 15.40 $ 23.73

1977 $ 18.11 $ 26.56 $ 16.01 $ 24.94

1978 $ 20.75 $ 27.02 $ 16.62 $ 25.11

1979 $ 23.39 $ 27.48 $ 17.22 $ 25.28

1980 $ 19.23 $ 28.52 $ 17.98 $ 26.95

1981 $ 21.65 $ 31.22 $ 19.99 $ 28.76

1982 $ 23.36 $ 33.27 $ 22.06 $ 29.75

1983 $ 26.10 $ 35.13 $ 23.81 $ 31.14

1984 $ 30.03 $ 41.90 $ 38.50 $ 28.00 $ 33.85

1985 $ 32.74 $ 46.02 $ 43.02 $ 32.41 $ 36.74

1986 $ 35.07 $ 47.04 $ 47.29 $ 36.31 $ 39.82

1987 $ 36.69 $ 44.52 $ 49.20 $ 37.63 $ 43.67

1988 $ 38.30 $ 41.99 $ 51.11 $ 38.95 $ 47.51

1989 $ 37.81 $ 38.24 $ 52.93 $ 40.65 $ 50.00

1990 $ 39.00 $ 37.81 NYD NYD $ 54.99 $ 41.95 $ 52.19

1991 $ 43.99 $ 45.81 $ 50.00 $ 43.92 $ 60.15 $ 46.58 $ 57.60

1992 $ 49.12 $ 44.75 $ 47.02 $ 45.67 $ 61.81 $ 47.59 $ 58.60

1993 $ 48.94 $ 39.61 $ 48.77 $ 44.06 $ 63.87 $ 49.59 $ 57.13

1994 $ 52.18 $ 45.44 $ 62.69 $ 46.92 $ 65.83 $ 50.69 $ 56.84

1995 $ 53.64 $ 49.43 $ 52.22 $ 48.79 $ 67.05 $ 50.69 $ 56.43

1996 $ 52.24 $ 48.89 $ 51.32 $ 47.11 $ 68.34 $ 51.66 $ 57.76

1997 $ 53.16 $ 50.77 $ 56.35 $ 47.58 $ 67.93 $ 53.07 $ 58.00

1998 $ 54.29 $ 52.71 $ 60.84 $ 52.26 $ 69.70 $ 53.72 $ 58.79

1999 $ 53.88 $ 55.59 $ 60.10 $ 55.91 $ 71.93 $ 55.59 $ 59.16

2000 $ 54.31 $ 56.71 $ 61.79 $ 55.80 $ 74.27 $ 55.88 $ 59.45

2001 $ 54.73 $ 57.82 $ 63.47 $ 55.68 $ 76.60 $ 56.17 $ 59.74

2002 $ 54.73 $ 57.82 $ 63.47 $ 55.68 $ 76.70 $ 56.17 $ 59.74

2003 $ 57.51 $ 63.26 $ 66.51 $ 64.31 $ 80.72 $ 59.41 $ 61.10

2004 $ 60.28 $ 68.70 $ 69.55 $ 72.94 $ 84.73 $ 62.65 $ 62.45

2005 $ 210.00 $ 322.00 $ 311.00 $ 323.00 $ 301.00 $ 228.00 $ 293.00

2006 $ 215.00 $ 336.00 $ 338.00 $ 329.00 $ 308.00 $ 235.00 $ 294.00

2007 $ 220.00 $ 343.00 $ 342.00 $ 343.00 $ 317.00 $ 238.00 $ 307.00

2008 $ 231.00 $ 362.00 $ 381.00 $ 374.00 $ 347.00 $ 249.00 $ 343.00

2009 $ 242.00 $ 370.00 $ 256.00 $ 377.00

2010 $ 264.00 $ 379.00 $ 272.00 $ 402.00

2011 $ 268.00 $ 395.00 $ 279.00 $ 418.00

2012 $ 270.00 $ 407.00 $ 277.00 $ 431.00

2013 $ 273.00 $ 411.00 $ 284.00 $ 435.00

2014 $ 275.00 $ 418.00 $ 289.00 $ 450.00

2015 $ 276.00 $ 435.00 $ 293.00 $ 485.00

2016 $ 265.84 $ 459.14 $ 294.20 $ 500.23

Nummers Pre 158 119 42 80 74 1985 153 Graph public housing portfolio

Households Served Total NY Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Staten Island Queens

100000

75000

50000

25000

0 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Total amount of rental income Total NY Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Staten Island Queens

$ 50000000.00 Appendix 2 $ 37500000.00

$ 25000000.00

$ 12500000.00

$ 0.00 1938 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

154 Average rent per household Annually Total NY Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Staten Island Queens

6000

4500

3000

1500

0 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Percentage change in rental income Total NY Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Staten Island Queens

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

155 Result cost effciencyPublic Housing research PH Public housing Section 8 housing vouchers

Costs Revenues Personal income Costs

Federal developing Federal operational Federal Capital Total rent all Average rent per Amount of % PI per capita (3) PI per capita (2) Costs total (8) Inflation rate (CPI) PV (1 jan 2017) Rest value (11) NPV (13) Total amount of NPV per HAP (5) costs (5) costs (6a) costs (6b) households(annual) household (1A) households (4) (9) (10)(12) households served Household per for 1 year (4) month (14)

1937 -$ 4227782 $ 848 -$ 4227782 103.6% -$ 73208346 $ 68738443

1938 -$ 13063992 $ 0.00 0 $ 801 -$ 13063992 98.1% -$ 218339699 $ 104264371

1939 -$ 11937600 $ 1466044.44 $ 308.51 4752 37% $ 838 -$ 11937600 98.6% -$ 203337402 $ 188468066

1940 -$ 22904600 $ 2898692.64 $ 293.39 9880 33% $ 883 -$ 22904600 101.0% -$ 395759827 $ 766733425

1941 -$ 12546800 $ 3689589.60 $ 292.45 12616 29% $ 1012 -$ 12546800 105.0% -$ 214628083 $ 279495209

1942 $ 0 $ 3689589.60 $ 292.45 12616 25% $ 1191 $ 0 110.7% $ 0 $ 0

1943 -$ 2228000 $ 3801348.00 $ 292.95 12976 21% $ 1417 -$ 2228000 106.1% -$ 32804908 $ 0

1944 $ 0 $ 3801348.00 $ 292.95 12976 19% $ 1569 $ 0 101.7% $ 0 $ 0

1945 $ 0 $ 3801348.00 $ 292.95 12976 17% $ 1682 $ 0 102.3% $ 0 $ 0

1946 $ 0 $ 3801348.00 $ 292.95 12976 17% $ 1727 $ 0 108.6% $ 0 $ 0

1947 $ 0 $ 3801396.00 $ 292.96 12976 17% $ 1754 $ 0 114.3% $ 0 $ 0

1948 -$ 13446809 $ 4187670.00 $ 295.61 14166 16% $ 1792 -$ 13446809 107.8% -$ 144459900 $ 272343198

1949 $ 0 $ 4189039.20 $ 295.71 14166 17% $ 1747 $ 0 99.0% $ 0 $ 0

1950 $ 0 $ 4189039.20 $ 295.71 14166 16% $ 1877 $ 0 101.0% $ 0 $ 0

1951 $ 0 $ 4197690.60 $ 296.32 14166 15% $ 2028 $ 0 107.9% $ 0 $ 0

1952 -$ 18500000 $ 4741148.28 $ 300.82 15761 14% $ 2085 -$ 18500000 102.2% -$ 170900693 $ 138805615

1953 -$ 46144523 $ 6077842.56 $ 308.76 19685 14% $ 2173 -$ 46144523 100.8% -$ 417125632 $ 398489254

1954 -$ 52717016 $ 7614964.74 $ 320.60 23752 15% $ 2204 -$ 52717016 100.5% -$ 472975097 $ 380908361

1955 -$ 65375000 $ 9432978.84 $ 327.47 28806 14% $ 2327 -$ 65375000 99.6% -$ 583705357 $ 411735348

1956 $ 0 $ 15868867.76 $ 550.89 28806 22% $ 2450 $ 0 101.5% $ 0 $ 0

1957 -$ 70082000 $ 19235298.69 $ 576.68 33355 23% $ 2560 -$ 70082000 103.6% -$ 618825607 $ 842287432

1958 -$ 33025000 $ 20065850.84 $ 564.96 35517 22% $ 2627 -$ 33025000 102.7% -$ 281563055 $ 310913889

1959 -$ 83519047 $ 25238587.64 $ 643.78 39204 23% $ 2769 -$ 83519047 100.8% -$ 693104124 $ 936121584

1960 $ 0 $ 26929460.32 $ 661.59 40704 23% $ 2868 $ 0 101.6% $ 0 $ 0

1961 -$ 37200000 $ 29200724.06 $ 676.10 43190 23% $ 2957 -$ 37200000 101.0% -$ 301417961 $ 282401411

1962 -$ 64090000 $ 31125659.11 $ 696.46 44691 23% $ 3072 -$ 64090000 101.1% -$ 514090909 $ 403943924

Appendix 3 1963 -$ 30220000 $ 31281377.09 $ 699.95 44691 22% $ 3170 -$ 30220000 101.2% -$ 239682750 $ 305075726

1964 -$ 85012000 $ 38151819.18 $ 725.06 52619 22% $ 3361 -$ 85012000 101.3% -$ 666325278 $ 676469826

1965 -$ 146665000 $ 38503163.96 $ 729.74 52763 21% $ 3539 -$ 146665000 101.7% -$ 1134373187 $ 1722498131

1966 -$ 55024000 $ 46297642.02 $ 749.08 61806 20% $ 3775 -$ 55024000 102.9% -$ 418433460 $ 480052656

1967 -$ 22290000 $ 49008914.20 $ 795.29 61624 20% $ 4049 -$ 22290000 102.9% -$ 164805915 $ 111375185

1968 -$ 51314000 $ 53008377.08 $ 825.38 64223 19% $ 4439 -$ 51314000 104.2% -$ 368723353 $ 399284013

1969 -$ 45945000 $ 53405346.95 $ 845.77 63144 18% $ 4635 -$ 45945000 105.4% -$ 316862069 $ 452495151

1970 -$ 39610000 $ 63169855.91 $ 897.11 70415 18% $ 4935 -$ 39610000 105.9% -$ 259241887 $ 210555975

1971 -$ 49188793 $ 67215045.63 $ 930.38 72245 18% $ 5249 -$ 49188793 104.3% -$ 303947228 $ 312088310

1972 -$ 40851198 $ 75225528.78 $ 1016.22 74025 18% $ 5619 -$ 40851198 103.3% -$ 242021415 $ 124757609

1973 -$ 232151000 $ 68778673.39 $ 874.86 78617 15% $ 6026 -$ 232151000 106.2% -$ 1331331900 $ 717452457

1974 -$ 108545000 $ 77930908.18 $ 954.58 81639 15% $ 6533 -$ 108545000 111.0% -$ 586069741 $ 351800113 $ 0

1975 -$ 92262200 $ 85586480.26 $ 1017.26 84134 14% $ 7066 -$ 92262200 109.1% -$ 448873464 $ 339226289 $ 0

1976 -$ 13785000 -$ 12514689 -$ 47297357 $ 106083897.82 $ 1255.43 84500 17% $ 7503 -$ 73597046 105.8% -$ 328070043 $ 26360716 $ 0

1977 -$ 46674000 -$ 35505158 -$ 70946035 $ 110764075.02 $ 1300.22 85189 16% $ 8155 -$ 153125194 106.4% -$ 645417044 $ 397916307 $ 0

1978 -$ 9495000 -$ 48582306 -$ 90653267 $ 113435896.98 $ 1331.58 85189 15% $ 8954 -$ 148730573 107.6% -$ 588934789 $ 41452034 $ 0

156 "1 Public housing Section 8 housing vouchers

Costs Revenues Personal income Costs

Federal developing Federal operational Federal Capital Total rent all Average rent per Amount of % PI per capita (3) PI per capita (2) Costs total (8) Inflation rate (CPI) PV (1 jan 2017) Rest value (11) NPV (13) Total amount of NPV per HAP (5) costs (5) costs (6a) costs (6b) households(annual) household (1A) households (4) (9) (10)(12) households served Household per for 1 year (4) month (14)

1979 $ 0 -$ 45980938 -$ 110360499 $ 116356929.50 $ 1361.84 85441 14% $ 9841 -$ 156341437 111.3% -$ 575313477 $ 0 $ 0

1980 -$ 40580000 -$ 58003477 -$ 94594714 $ 120709179.57 $ 1398.98 86284 13% $ 10997 -$ 193178190 113.5% -$ 638869584 $ 124728885 $ 0

1981 -$ 43955000 -$ 65315430 -$ 122184839 $ 132673768.97 $ 1537.64 86284 13% $ 12252 -$ 231455269 110.4% -$ 674305226 $ 106855155 $ 0

1982 -$ 28574700 -$ 70869702 -$ 119819971 $ 140507998.27 $ 1618.25 86827 12% $ 13273 -$ 219264373 106.1% -$ 578724838 $ 106987401 $ 0

1983 -$ 70480000 -$ 108413771 -$ 118243392 $ 150566224.76 $ 1698.09 88668 12% $ 14239 -$ 297137163 103.2% -$ 738993981 $ 86761069 $ 0

1984 -$ 63349000 -$ 79798722 -$ 157657856 $ 165701552.23 $ 1865.67 88816 12% $ 15723 -$ 300805579 104.3% -$ 724832720 $ 100771987 $ 0

1985 -$ 70532610 -$ 84720229 -$ 102477607 $ 192976129.63 $ 2118.85 91076 13% $ 16798 -$ 257730446 103.6% -$ 595335005 $ 151311985 $ 0

1986 -$ 184375550 -$ 83032856 -$ 98536160 $ 208357006.54 $ 2292.76 90876 13% $ 17885 -$ 365944566 101.9% -$ 816233232 $ 528155523 $ 0

1987 -$ 40442762 -$ 97586455 -$ 94594714 $ 216892886.64 $ 2386.69 90876 13% $ 19055 -$ 232623931 103.6% -$ 509395469 $ 93993889 $ 0

1988 -$ 52870081 -$ 104687487 -$ 165540749 $ 228259943.75 $ 2467.19 92518 12% $ 20845 -$ 323098317 104.1% -$ 682602078 $ 112130165 $ 0

1989 -$ 16808787 -$ 106796704 -$ 189189428 $ 246144551.10 $ 2585.42 95205 11% $ 22485 -$ 312794919 104.8% -$ 634579717 $ 17727113 $ 0

1990 -$ 12705500 -$ 123670443 -$ 193130874 $ 257670585.95 $ 2683.79 96010 11% $ 23994 -$ 329506817 105.4% -$ 637755129 $ 31847311 $ 0

1991 -$ 34567967 -$ 140895718 -$ 220720999 $ 284527341.76 $ 2957.79 96196 12% $ 23872 -$ 396184684 104.2% -$ 727500567 $ 63217658 $ 0

1992 $ 0 -$ 152004262 -$ 228603892 $ 290488887.78 $ 3009.59 96521 12% $ 25068 -$ 380608154 103.0% -$ 670675161 $ 0 $ 0

1993 -$ 15812706 -$ 172463670 -$ 260135463 $ 288360708.02 $ 2984.02 96635 12% $ 25566 -$ 448411839 103.0% -$ 767062305 $ 20302925 $ 0

1994 -$ 20558643 -$ 181673919 -$ 260135463 $ 289046183.14 $ 2989.07 96701 11% $ 26264 -$ 462368025 102.6% -$ 767946893 $ 57718549 $ 0

1995 -$ 17158680 -$ 194188609 -$ 236486785 $ 292070883.16 $ 3020.35 96701 11% $ 27620 -$ 447834073 102.8% -$ 725237366 $ 15366882 $ 0

1996 -$ 46323903 -$ 196860284 -$ 197072320 $ 293646768.00 $ 3022.83 97143 10% $ 28953 -$ 440256508 103.0% -$ 693317335 $ 87945601 $ 0

1997 $ 0 -$ 203891008 -$ 197072320 $ 294638983.44 $ 3033.36 97133 10% $ 30462 -$ 400963329 102.3% -$ 613328228 $ 0 -$ 435459024

1998 $ 0 -$ 203891008 -$ 197072320 $ 301624847.63 $ 3091.69 97560 10% $ 31985 -$ 400963329 101.6% -$ 599571333 $ 0 -$ 455169192

1999 $ 0 -$ 200938104 -$ 236486785 $ 309243452.55 $ 3167.24 97638 9% $ 33634 -$ 437424889 102.2% -$ 644061186 $ 0 $ 0

2000 $ 0 -$ 220624133 -$ 226160195 $ 314899072.07 $ 3225.17 97638 9% $ 35924 -$ 446784328 103.4% -$ 643626883 $ 0 -$ 585721080

2001 $ 0 -$ 224420724 -$ 232939483 $ 320554691.58 $ 3283.09 97638 9% $ 37185 -$ 457360207 102.8% -$ 637435828 $ 0 $ 0

2002 $ 0 -$ 245723819 -$ 224110643 $ 320624702.16 $ 3283.81 97638 9% $ 37096 -$ 469834462 101.6% -$ 636703957 $ 0 $ 0

2003 $ 0 -$ 248184572 -$ 209808706 $ 351132250.00 $ 3609.91 97269 10% $ 37755 -$ 457993278 102.3% -$ 610997148 $ 0 $ 0

2004 $ 0 -$ 213969637 -$ 203687585 $ 351132250.00 $ 3609.91 97269 9% $ 39622 -$ 417657222 102.7% -$ 544770290 $ 0 -$ 791965188

2005 $ 0 -$ 203396474 -$ 204106303 $ 356544540.00 $ 3665.55 97269 9% $ 41457 -$ 407502778 103.4% -$ 517737780 $ 0 -$ 823143744

2006 $ 0 -$ 186957241 -$ 195042759 $ 370370172.00 $ 3807.69 97269 9% $ 44448 -$ 382000000 103.2% -$ 469431644 $ 0 -$ 924588768

2007 $ 0 -$ 240011535 -$ 189540687 $ 393214440.00 $ 4057.56 96909 9% $ 47467 -$ 429552222 102.8% -$ 511371693 $ 0 -$ 943024464

2008 $ 0 -$ 260719580 -$ 185777087 $ 410124252.00 $ 4252.72 96438 9% $ 48296 -$ 446496667 103.8% -$ 516828398 $ 0 -$ 999065844

2009 $ 0 -$ 260851904 -$ 193130874 $ 446457324.00 $ 4643.10 96155 10% $ 46916 -$ 453982778 99.6% -$ 506065335 $ 0 -$ 1029301824

2010 $ 0 -$ 302530716 -$ 182316506 $ 465182004.00 $ 4837.83 96155 10% $ 48151 -$ 484847222 101.6% -$ 542385258 $ 0 -$ 1135777776

2011 $ 0 -$ 345477560 -$ 161126329 $ 481232736.00 $ 5004.76 96155 10% $ 50778 -$ 506603889 103.2% -$ 557575591 $ 0 -$ 1131091440

2012 $ 0 -$ 349376871 -$ 147804240 $ 492626868.00 $ 5123.26 96155 10% $ 53739 -$ 497181111 102.1% -$ 530467977 $ 0 -$ 1169084424

2013 $ 0 -$ 355363537 -$ 147804240 $ 496060788.00 $ 5158.97 96155 9% $ 54447 -$ 503167778 101.5% -$ 525982258 $ 0 -$ 1198316652

2014 $ 0 -$ 287101315 -$ 147804240 $ 506322288.00 $ 5265.69 96155 9% $ 56683 -$ 434905556 101.6% -$ 448048306 $ 0 -$ 1246739952

2015 $ 0 -$ 351520760 -$ 147804240 $ 528118968.00 $ 5492.37 96155 9% $ 58670 -$ 499325000 100.1% -$ 506200895 $ 0 -$ 1205230320

2016 $ 0 -$ 355682814 -$ 149774964 $ 547540333.32 $ 5721.60 95697 10% $ 58670 -$ 505457778 101.3% -$ 511812787 $ 0 -$ 22452110853 5226930 -$ 357.96 -$ 1236666240

"2 157 Result cost effciency research HCV Section 8 housing vouchers

Costs Revenues Personal income

Admin costs (6) Costs for same Total rent all Average rent per Amount of % PI per capita (3) PI per capita (2) Costs total (8) Inflation rate (CPI) PV (1 jan 2017) NPV(13) Total amount of NPV per tenancy as public households(annual) household households (4) (9) (10)(12) households served Household per housing (7) (annually) (1b) for 1 year (4) month (14)

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

Appendix 3 1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 6,533 $ 0 111.0% $ 0.0

1975 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 7,066 $ 0 109.1% $ 0.0

1976 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 7,503 $ 0 105.8% $ 0.0

1977 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 8,155 $ 0 106.4% $ 0.0

1978 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 8,954 $ 0 107.6% $ 0.0

158 3 Section 8 housing vouchers

Costs Revenues Personal income

Admin costs (6) Costs for same Total rent all Average rent per Amount of % PI per capita (3) PI per capita (2) Costs total (8) Inflation rate (CPI) PV (1 jan 2017) NPV(13) Total amount of NPV per tenancy as public households(annual) household households (4) (9) (10)(12) households served Household per housing (7) (annually) (1b) for 1 year (4) month (14)

1979 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 9,841 $ 0 111.3% $ 0.0

1980 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 10,997 $ 0 113.5% $ 0.0

1981 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 12,252 $ 0 110.4% $ 0.0

1982 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 13,273 $ 0 106.1% $ 0.0

1983 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 14,239 $ 0 103.2% $ 0.0

1984 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 15,723 $ 0 104.3% $ 0.0

1985 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 16,798 $ 0 103.6% $ 0.0

1986 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 17,885 $ 0 101.9% $ 0.0

1987 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 19,055 $ 0 103.6% $ 0.0

1988 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 20,845 $ 0 104.1% $ 0.0

1989 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 22,485 $ 0 104.8% $ 0.0

1990 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 23,994 $ 0 105.4% $ 0.0

1991 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 23,872 $ 0 104.2% $ 0.0

1992 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 25,068 $ 0 103.0% $ 0.0

1993 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 25,566 $ 0 103.0% $ 0.0

1994 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 26,264 $ 0 102.6% $ 0.0

1995 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 27,620 $ 0 102.8% $ 0.0

1996 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 28,953 $ 0 103.0% $ 0.0

1997 -$ 34836722 $ 43225916 $ 149213232.00 $ 2352.00 63441 7.72% $ 30,462 -$ 427069830 102.3% -$ 653261690.4

1998 -$ 36413535 $ 46246172 $ 153532368.00 $ 2376.00 64618 7.43% $ 31,985 -$ 445336555 101.6% -$ 665923820.5

1999 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 33,634 $ 0 102.2% $ 0.0

2000 -$ 46857686 $ 65490380 $ 190478400.00 $ 2400.00 79366 6.68% $ 35,924 -$ 567088386 103.4% -$ 816934049.9

2001 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 37,185 $ 0 102.8% $ 0.0

2002 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 37,096 $ 0 101.6% $ 0.0

2003 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 0.00% $ 37,755 $ 0 102.3% $ 0.0

2004 -$ 63357215 $ 12847174 $ 313961508.00 $ 3468.00 90531 8.75% $ 39,622 -$ 842475229 102.7% -$ 1098880733.1

2005 -$ 65851500 -$ 2807280 $ 340763808.00 $ 3696.00 92198 8.92% $ 41,457 -$ 891802524 103.4% -$ 1133047145.1

2006 -$ 73967101 $ 360774 $ 371947512.00 $ 3804.00 97778 8.56% $ 44,448 -$ 998195095 103.2% -$ 1226660639.5

2007 -$ 75441957 $ 8363252 $ 388235196.00 $ 3972.00 97743 8.37% $ 47,467 -$ 1010103169 102.8% -$ 1202503772.6

2008 -$ 79925268 $ 13407621 $ 403627308.00 $ 4116.00 98063 8.52% $ 48,296 -$ 1065583490 103.8% -$ 1233433190.0

2009 -$ 82344146 $ 61291899 $ 395431320.00 $ 4020.00 98366 8.57% $ 46,916 -$ 1050354071 99.6% -$ 1170854514.6

2010 -$ 90862222 $ 53812864 $ 426661536.00 $ 4296.00 99316 8.92% $ 48,151 -$ 1172827134 101.6% -$ 1312009472.5

2011 -$ 90487315 $ 59108815 $ 433309560.00 $ 4404.00 98390 8.67% $ 50,778 -$ 1162469940 103.2% -$ 1279431282.8

2012 -$ 93526754 $ 66324984 $ 439888764.00 $ 4452.00 98807 8.28% $ 53,739 -$ 1196286194 102.1% -$ 1276378974.5

2013 -$ 95865332 $ 61654746 $ 448923384.00 $ 4536.00 98969 8.33% $ 54,447 -$ 1232527238 101.5% -$ 1288412113.2

2014 -$ 99739196 $ 58174107 $ 464845680.00 $ 4680.00 99326 8.26% $ 56,683 -$ 1288305042 101.6% -$ 1327237336.8

2015 -$ 96418426 $ 58168325 $ 488542320.00 $ 4908.00 99540 8.37% $ 58,670 -$ 1243480421 100.1% -$ 1260603619.7

2016 -$ 98933299 $ 94428011 $ 476931360.00 $ 4776.00 99860 8.14% $ 58,670 -$ 1241171529 101.3% -$ 1256776503.6 -18202348859 1476312 -$ 1027

4 159 Explanatory notes

1. Data of the NYCHA developments books for the following years is missing: 1937,1938,1940,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1946,1954,1963,1965 ,1978,1987,2000,2003. The model has averaged the year before and the year after the missing years in order to give a reliable result. When the missing year is the frst year of the building in use the average rent increase of that year will be used to compute the missing years rent. Input public housing: the development books retrieved from NYCHA (2017-a) 2. In the 1970’s projects have been transferred from state, city and the FHA to the federal public housing program. These project have not been built under the federal development programs and can therefore have a different standard or costs than federal projects. To calculate the effectiveness of the federal projects and therefore policies only buildings that have been developed by the federal government will be taken into account. Buildings that have been federalized will not be used for this research. These buildings are: Albany, Albany II, Amsterdam, Astoria, Audubon, Berry, Bland, Bronx river, Bronx river addition, Brownsville, Butler, Carver, Chelsea addition, Coney Island, Cypress Hills, Douglass, Douglass Addition, Dyckman, Eastchester Gardens, Elliot, Farragut, First Houses, Forest, Glenmore Plaza, Glenwood, Gowanus, Gun Hill, Haber, Howard, Hylan, Ingersoll, Johnson, King Towers, Lexington, Lincoln, Marcy, Melrose, Mill Brooke, Mill Brook Extention, Nostrand, Ocean Bay Appartments, O’Dwyer Gardens, Parkside, Patterson, Pelham parkway, Ponomok, Rangel, Ravenswood, Redfern, Riis II, Sedwick, Sheepshead Bay, Smith, Soundview, South Beach, Sumner, Todt Hill, Vladeck II, Wald, White, Whiteman, Wilson, Woodside 3. In the development books there is often a mismatch with the “Completion Date” and the frst year of rent. The frst year of rent is used as a base to determine when the building became operational rather than the stated completion date. 4. The input of infation (CPI) is based on: MCmahon (2017) 5. The personal income of NY is based on: Input Personal income NY: Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2017). 6. The rest value assumptions are further explained in appendix 5. 7. Input Land value vs development value: Lincoln institute of land policy (2017) 8. The input for the Section 8 tenant (HCV) characteristics is retrieved from: HUDuser (2017). The Administration fees for Section 8 HCV is

Appendix 4 based on an average of 8% of the HAP according to NYCHA (2017-a) its development books. 9. The capital costs for public housing is given for the following years:2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2010 based on HUD (2017-d). 10. The total federal capital costs from 1976-1995 from Quicley (2000), 1996 - 2017 fgures come from Schwartz (2012). The average NYCHA share of the total federal capital costs is 14.2%. Missing years for the NYCHA is computed by taking a 14.2% share from the total federal costs. 11. The NYCHA its capital costs are for the total portfolio. This research only takes into account those public housing units that were build under the federal program as explained in point 3. Therefore the total NYCHA costs are divided by the ratio total current federal public housing units/originally build federal public housing units. 12. The NYCHA operational costs are given from 2004 to 2016 in the fnancial documents from the NYCHA (NYCHA, 2017-b) 13. The total federal capital costs from 1976-1995 from OMB (2013), 1996 - 2011 fgures come HUDarchives (2017) the years 2011-2016 are retrieved from HUD (2017-e) . The average NYCHA share of the total federal capital costs is 12.65%. Missing years for the NYCHA is computed by taking a 12.65% share from the total federal costs. 160 161 Valuation method

Buildings that are still in function represent a be discounted by the appropriate cost of normally bought and sold (Shapiro, et al., 2013) certain value. In the cost effciency model this capital consisting of the risk free rate and an . These properties are built by an authority or value is represented by the rest-value. There additional risk premium, the net present value organizations responsible for special services are many ways to calculate how high the value that arises is the value of the property. Thus the where no other body is interested in this of the building should be. Shapiro et al. (2013) value of the property is derived from its future property. In this case the valuation is split in lists 5 different valuation methods: cash fows. two parts, the valuation of the site and the 1. Market approach or comparative method valuation of the building. The valuation of the 2. Income approach or investment method Residual approach site is done from a market comparison. And the 3. Residual approach or development When buildings are obsolete and in need of value of the building is based on the expected method refurbishment or redevelopment the residual building costs if the building was being build 4. The profts approach approach is a good method to value the today minus the depreciation. This valuation is 5. The cost approach or contractors method property. The valuation is based on the future based of two parts 1. the valuation of the site All these different methods will shortly be value that the property would have after from a market comparison and 2. the original explained and then in the end a conclusion a redevelopment. The value of the future building costs - depreciation together they will be drawn which valuation method is most development minus the development costs form the value of the property. appropriate for this research. and required proft is the value for the valued property. So the value depends on the future Applicability to research Explanation value of the building minus the costs to get Market approach Market approach there. Social housing sites are different from other The market approach compares similar residential purposes, they have a different buildings to the one that is being valuated. The proft approach appearance quality and layout. Social housing The understanding is here that a building with The proft approach is based on the income sites are only being sold to the market when similar characteristics should have a similar generated by the property and by the payback they are absolute and redeveloped. Therefore Appendix 5 value. However since no building is the exact rule. Berk, 2014 refers to this as the payback market comparatives for social housing same this method requests multiple similar rule. The value of the property is than the gross properties in use is not available. Because of buildings with their corresponding prices and income times the years in which the investment this aspect the market approach is not a option a motivation what the valuated property it’s has to pay itself back. This valuation methods for the valuation of social housing properties. value should be. The value of a certain property is based on the net income and the payback is extracted from the value of properties with period. Income approach similar characteristics. Social housing sites have negative future cash Cost approach fows, subsidies are needed in order to keep The income approach The approach is meant for buildings that the facilities running. This would mean from When a property is rented out is generates a are designed for a special purpose, such as the income approach that the property would certain cash fow it becomes an investment like churches, town halls, schools, police stations have a negative value. Therefore this method any other investments. In this case according and other properties which perform non- is not appropriate for this valuation. to Berk (2014) the future cash fows should proftable community functions and are not 162 Residual approach shows otherwise the SLD seems the most appropriate by Austensen & Ellen (2016). For buildings that are The social housing properties are not yet obsolete. system and will therefore be used in this research. younger than 40 years the straight line depreciation Therefore the residual approach is not an appropriate method is in place. method. Expected life time The SLD depreciating policy its biggest pitfall is the Since public housing buildings are build cheaper than The proft approach expected lifetime. Valuers are often wrong about the its surrounding buildings a maximum of 80% of the The proft approach is similar to the income approach. lifespan of a property. It is very hard to determine the average value in 2016 will be taken into account. With a negative income the property has got a life expectancy, in fact with good maintenance it can be Which means that housing units that were constructed negative value. Besides that according to Beck, 2014 almost infnitive. However accounting often calculates before 1976 only have the land value left, 47.7%. the payback rule is not a trustworthy method for big with lifespans varying from 20 to 50 years. HUD (2006) Buildings constructed in 2016 will have a value of investments since it only takes the cash-fows into advises that for buildings 20 to 40 years should be the 80% of average. Buildings between 1976 and 2016 account that fall within payback period. right lifespan expectancies. The IRS calculates with will be depreciated according to the straight line 40 years for residential rental properties under ADS depreciation method. Cost approach and 27.5 years under GDS(IRS,2017). Because public The cost approach is very applicable for social housing. housing has a higher expected lifetime than market The average values of Austensen & Ellen (2016), are for Only public housing authorities own public housing housing a 40 years expected life time will be used in the year 2015. Zillow (2017-b) shows that the average units. And since in every area only one Housing this research. house prices in NY were $522,000 in January 2015 and Authority exists no units in operation are sold to $633,000 in January 2017, this is an increase of 21.2%. other bodies. These special buildings for the specifc Value Therefore the average house prices of Austensen & function of housing the low income households are Due to the large public housing portfolio (over 100,000 Ellen (2016) need to be increased by 21.2%. unique. Therefore the cost approach is the most units) it is almost impossible to determine the specifc appropriate valuation method to valuate the public buildings costs and land values of those plots. Instead housing units. the value is based on the average house price the community district. Cost approach With the use of the cost approach some information is In New York City there are 59 community districts. The needed in order to make the valuations. The needed NYU Furman Center has written a detailed overview information is the: of the housing stock in New York City for each • The depreciation policy. community district (Austensen & Ellen, 2016). Based • Expected lifetime of the property. on these values the values for the public housing units • Current building costs will be based. The Lincoln institute of land policy has • Current value of the land researched the average land share of the value of residential properties. For New York City this is in Q1 The depreciation policy 2016 47.7% (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2017). GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles) This means that of the average value for housing units explains that multiple depreciation systems are in New York City is made out of 47.7% land value acceptable. However the offce of management and and 52.3% building value. The land value will remain, budget (OMB) states that unless it can be proven that however the building value is depreciated over the an itam would deteriorate at a greater rate in early expected lifetime of 40 years. That means that the years than in later years the SLD method shall be used value of a building which is older than 40 years consists (HUD,2006). Since it is required unless clear evidence only of the land value (47.7% of the value determined 163 164 Interview protocol 2: AppendixRep. NYCHA 6 Date: May-08-2017 Time: 4:00 PM CEST 10:00 AM EDT Interviewer: Hans Trip Interviewee: Ilana Maier Type of interview: Semi-Structured Method of questions: Tunnel method

Introduction I am Hans Trip a student at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. I am currently writing my master thesis about (federal) affordable housing policies in the United States. My main research question is: “What drove federal affordable housing policy choices in the United States and how cost effcient have they been?”. The results of that research is what I want to discuss here today with you, what your opinions are on the results, and if it is what you would have expected. I have six topic that I would like to discuss with you today. Questions: Topic 1: Affordable housing based on ideology or cost effciency Int. This research shows that affordable housing has evolved over the years based on ideology rather than cost effciency. For example, increasing funding for public housing might have been a more cost effcient way for the government to provide affordable housing than introducing LIHTC or Section 8 NC/SR. Or that government loans in order to decrease the maintenance backlog might have been more cost effcient than RAD which uses the more expensive private market loans

Q 1.1 “Do you believe that the affordable housing policies are made on cost effciency arguments or on ideology arguments?” Q 1.2 “Which experience makes you believe that affordable housing policies are based on .... arguments?”

Topic 2: The unique position of NYCHA Int. NYCHA is unique in its size and in its historic professional and cost effcient management of affordable housing policies. Q 2.1 “Do you believe that other housing authorities (that are smaller and or newer) could reach the same cost effciency as NYCHA or is NYCHA so successful because of its size?” Q 2.2A “If yes what makes you believe that other housing authorities could reach similar successes as the NYCHA?” Q 2.2B “If no what makes you believe that other housing authorities could not reach similar successes as the NYCHA?”

Topic 3: Growth of affordable housing units Q3.1 “For NYCHA to successfully help more “Worst Case Needs” ,or other people in need, what is the best program to do so in your opinion, Public housing, Section 8 (HCV), Section 8 PBRA or CNI/HOPE VI funds?” Q3.2 “Why is it that you believe that ... is the best program to support people in need for affordable housing? Q3.3 “Is this based on the current possibilities of the program or the potential that it has in the future?

Topic 4: Cost effciency of NYCHA affordable housing portfolio Int This research shows that since 1937 federal public housing units in New York operated by NYCHA have proven to be more cost effcient than Section 8 HCV administrated by that same Housing Authority. That means that with the same amount of money more people could be helped under public housing than Section 8 HCV. Q4.1 “Did you expect this to be the result of the cost effciency research or did you expect Section 8 HCV to be more cost effcient?” Q4.2 “Do you expect similar results for the future?” Q4.3 “Can, in your opinion, increase the cost effciency of the affordable housing programs in NYC even further? If yes how if no why not?”

Topic 5: Preservation affordable housing units Q5 “How did NYCHA manage to preserve these many public housing units whilst throughout the nation many public housing units were torn down after 1994?”

Topic 6: Federal affordable housing policies? Q6.1 “In your opinion, what should the federal government change in its affordable housing policy?” Q6.2 “What makes you say that?” “What drove federal affordable housing federal affordable “What drove research)

The results of that research is what I want to discuss of that research The results Rep. HUD Questions: Introduction method

Interview protocol 3: Interview protocol Hans Trip Hans May-05-2017 1:00 PM CEST 7:00 EDT David L. Hardiman HUD, PD+R (policy development and Semi-Structured Tunnel

This research shows that affordable housing has evolved over the years based on ideology rather than cost effciency. housing has evolved over the years based on ideology rather than cost effciency. shows that affordable This research arguments or on ideology arguments?” made on cost effciency housing policies are “Do you believe that the affordable based on .... arguments?” housing policies are “Which experience makes you believe that affordable coming to an end, in your and LIHTC Section 8 PBRA contracts are decreasing The amount of public housing units are housing units? affordable to increase program What makes you believe that .... is the most cost effcient program? Why is HUD not focussing on that cost effcient to be more operated by NYCHA have proven shows that since 1937 federal public housing units in New York This research cost or did you expect Section 8 HCV to be more research of the cost effciency “Did you expect this to be the result for the future?” “Do you expect similar results other Housing authorities, if yes why so, no not? from “Do you expect similar results housing policy of HUD?” affordable “In your opinion what should change in the current For example, increasing funding for public housing might have been a more cost effcient way for the government to cost effcient funding for public housing might have been a more For example, increasing the to decrease LIHTC or Section 8 NC/SR. Or that government loans in order housing than introducing affordable provide expensive private market loans than RAD which uses the more cost effcient maintenance backlog might have been more the amount of Case Needs” and increase the amount of “Worst way to decrease opinion, what is the most cost effcient Public housing funds, Section 8 (HCV), Section 8 PBRA, LIHTC or CNI/HOPE VI funds? housing units, to Increase affordable That means that with the same amount of than Section 8 HCV administrated by that same Housing Authority. cost effcient people could be helped under public housing than Section 8 HCV. money more effcient?”

Date: Time: Interviewer: Interviewee: Department: of interview: Type Method of questions: writing my master thesis about in the Netherlands. I am currently a student at the Delft University of Technology I am Hans Trip question is: housing policies in the United States. My main research (federal) affordable have they been?”. policy choices in the United States and how cost effcient and if it is what you would have expected. I six topic that I would on the results, today with you, what your opinions are here like to discuss with you today. housing based on ideology or cost effciency 1: Affordable Topic Int. Q 1.1 Q 1.2 housing units of affordable 2: Growth Topic Q 2.1 Q 2.2 Q 2.3 housing portfolio 3: Cost effciency of NYCHA affordable Topic Int Q3.1 Q3.2 Q3.3 4: Federal policy Topic Q4. 165 Summary Interview 1.

The frst interview was held with an NYCHA United States. The policies that are of interest information from 2003 to 2012 in hard copy representative at the FOIL department. This to me are Section 8 (TBRA & PBRA) public bound format. We will advise you of the fee department is responsible for obtaining housing and LIHTC (which are administered by for copying these records. and sharing information. Since they are the the Credit agencies). The idea of this research people that have a broad overview of the is to fnd out which policies are most cost We are conducting a diligent search for information they are the right party to ask effcient considering the federal funds and the information that is not available on the website, if the conceptual model and cost effciency households that are housed in an affordable including the Public Housing and Section 8 research was missing any costs and/or housing unit. Since the NYCHA is the biggest program data. benefts. The goal of this interview is to Housing Authority with much more public validate the conceptual model. The summary housing than any other housing authorities it Archived NYCHA records are maintained by based on the multiple moments of contact would be a great beneft to use the NYCHA the LaGuardia Wagner Archives. You may with the NYCHA . as a case study for this research. My plan is to want to submit a FOIL request to http://www. adjust the different policies in order to make laguardiawagnerarchive.lagcc.cuny.edu/. Call January 13th them comparable. On January 13th I had called the NYCHA We will advise you of the results of the diligent FOIL department and explained my research I have put in the attachment the conceptual search shortly. proposal. At the end of the call he requested model for this research and the research me to send him my research proposal with a proposal, which shows what this research will About your model I can say that no information short introduction about what I wanted to exactly do. is missing however, the operational funds and know. capital funds of public housing have changed My question to you is when you look at this over the years including their names. Email January 15th proposal and especially the conceptual model On January 15th I had send an email to do you think it is complete, or in your opinion, Thank you.”

Appendix 7 the NYCHA FOIL department. The FOIL do you think that something is missing? department does not work with personalized ....(also requested information about HCV)... Call January 20th emails but with one general inbox. Down [attachment research proposal and conceptual Based on the reply email of January 17th I below is the email that I had sent on January model] called to discuss my model. During this call 15th: the NYCHA representative from the FOIL Reply email January 17th department explained that the income “A few days ago I got in contact with one of “Good morning, adjustment might make the results a bit your colleagues and he advised me to send As mentioned below, some fnancial and unreliable since in reality the target group you an email. I am a graduate student at the budget information for NYCHA, including changed a few times. To make adjustments to Technical University of Delft (Netherlands) information for prior years, are readily available all the years and all the policies to the same conducting my master thesis (one year of on the NYCHA website at: http://www1.nyc. target group could make the results unreliable. research). I am researching the cost effciency gov/site/nycha/about/annual-plan-financial- He also said that the costs for Section 8 PBRA of federal affordable housing policies in the information.page. NYCHA only has budget are not well known and are hard to fnd. 166 Summary Interview 2.

Interview two has been held with a NYCHA The progressive municipality (especially from the last to respond on this topic. His comment was that it was representative that works on the communications few years) defnitely had a positive infuence on the he was surprised about the outcomes. His criticism on department. In order to answer the questions she affordable housing system. Besides that NYCHA is the this research was that the years prior to 1975 when no had to gather information from her colleagues this largest Housing Authority of the country this brings additional subsidies were needed lower the cost of this makes it harder for the interviewee to answer the unique challenges with it, but also provides opportunities policy whilst it is not relevant anymore. At the same time questions in depth. The interviewee also requested concerning scale benefts. All of this together makes public housing units are supposed to be used indefnite, to stay anonymous for this research. This summary of NYCHA a unique Housing Authority but the interviewee this means that also the rest value becomes more the interview shows the opinion of the interviewee and made it clear that he/she could not speak for other irrelevant since it will never be sold. Research about does not necessarily correspond with the view of the housing authorities. the cost effciency on a yearly basis has shown that the organization. policies are quite similar cost effcient. “But when you look at the municipality do you believe Topic 1: Affordable housing based on Ideology or that housing authorities that are not supported by the Topic 5: Preservation of affordable housing units cost effciency municipality as NYCHA and NYC that they could achieve “How come that the NYCHA its public housing portfolio “Do you believe that the affordable housing policies are similar successes? remained constant whilst other housing authorities had mode on cost effciency arguments or on Ideology?” The NYC administration has been a great partner in to decrease their amount of public housing units?” The interviewee believes that it depends on the providing affordable housing units and has overall Well it is a combination of factors. For once the NYCHA administration. There have been some Presidents who supported NYCHA. NYCHA has also always had the door just made the decision to keep assisting needed pushed for their own political agenda and ideals, but at open for the NYC administration. But the interviewee did households. This next to the hands down approach lead the same time cost effciency studies have been done. not comment on other municipalities to the stable affordable housing stock. The NYCHA has been a part of multiple cost effciency studies especially in the 1990’s. Topic 3: Growth of affordable housing units What about other factors such as not segregating based NYC has got a tight market, therefore not everyone who on race, and the good locations of affordable housing “But when you look at President Roosevelt, Johnson or receives vouchers can actually use them. That means that units? Reagan for example do you believe that they choose the not everyone even when supported by NYCHA is able to When the buildings were build they were not necessarily most cost effcient policy or choose a policy that ftted fnd decent housing, therefore some kind of project-based placed on the prime spots of the city, they mainly best in their political opinion?” rental assistance would have the preference. However replaced low income neighborhoods or slums. However The interviewee did not recall the policies of President over the years NYCHA has received an operational and the popular location may have contributed over the year Johnson however President Roosevelt and President capital defcit. Housing authorities are paid far less than to the success of these public housing units. Reagan both had a strong political vision on the they are eligible to by the federal government. This has affordable housing system. Reagan did do however to do with the appropriations from congress. Therefore it Topic 6: Preservation of affordable housing units some cost effciency studies about affordable housing is hard to say what is the best way to support households, In order to preserve our affordable housing units the programs. many voucher holders cannot fnd suitable homes, and NYCHA needs suffcient funding. NYCHA has been project-based housing assistance is not well maintained known for the creative solutions on fnding funding for Topic 2: The unique position of NYCHA and underfunded. public housing however this is not enough to bring Do you believe that other housing authorities could the buildings back to decent state. The interviewees reach the same cost effciency as NYCHA? Topic 4: Cost effciency of NYCHA affordable housing recommendations would therefore be to appropriate at NYCHA has a long history of affordable housing where portfolio least the amount of funding to housing authorities that NYCHA has always had a door open for the municipality. The interviewee had previously asked one of her colleges they are eligible to. 167 Summary Interview 3.

The opinions of the interviewee are personal also enacted annual rental operating subsidies the needed public support and is not on and do not necessarily portrayed the opinion for both private project-based housing (new the radar anymore to be revived. This is an of the federal department of Housing and construction and existing housing) and for ideology argument which is not based on cost Urban Development. Mr. Hardiman was asked traditional public housing. effciency. U.S. federal policy had shown a questions according to interview protocol 3 in strong preference for programs that involved attachment 6. The 1974 Act was also a recognition of the the private market going back to the 1960s need for annual operating subsidies to provide production programs that involved indirect Topic 1 Affordable housing based on affordability for the lowest income levels. subsidies on the fnancing/construction supply Ideology or cost effciency The 1960s programs providing subsidies for side. The interviewee believes that affordable fnancing (construction and/or rehab) were housing policies are based on a combination effective in producing new units but not Obama administration broke through the of ideology and cost effciency. New programs providing ongoing affordability for those with typical left right difference and focused have political components but are often framed the lowest incomes). place based policies and to preserve project- and portrayed often as cost effciency. In based housing units. The Rental Assistance general, at key points in U.S. history large scale In the 1980s and 1990’s the argument that Demonstration (RAD) is a good example of the spending increases often provided a good tenant-based would be more cost effcient than improving conditions of former public housing argument to change policies. For instance, project-based assistance gained additional units. The interviewee was asked why it is in 1973 the Nixon administration initiated a support. In 1981 the Reagan administration transferred from public housing to Section 8 if “moratorium” on the 1960s rental production convened a commission that proposed the the federal costs remain the same, his answer programs (Section 236). They advocated a tenant-based approach primarily on cost- was that the political justifcation was that they switch to new tenant-based subsidies that they cost effciency and market-based arguments. could attract private funds. However, public argued would be more cost-cost effcient. This In the 1980’s large scale production (both housing also has options and legal authority also allowed them to halt new spending on “project-based Section 8) and public housing to attract private fnancing (“mixed fnancing”)

Appendix 8 existing programs that had rapidly increased developments were put on hold and the focus - through bonds, LIHTC (“4% tax credits” for while still presenting a political alternative. As shifted to tenant-based rental assistance. rehab), the Capital Fund Financing Program units that were authorized in previous years While there were political arguments based on (future capital subsidies are pledged against were built and came Online, spending outlays cost effciency, this also happened to coincide upfront loans/bonds), and even mortgages. increased dramatically. with the rapid increase in annual spending RAD has shown to be effective though in as the previously authorized units now came converting units to Project-Based Vouchers In 1974, Congress responded in two ways: 1) online, and strong debate in Congress on the - a variant of the Section 8 program - with the Budget Enforcement Act of 1974 settled federal budget. generating loans for upfront rehab. the question whether the Executive Branch When the interviewee was asked why not to could unilaterally halt enacted programs When he was asked why public housing is keep the units under public housing program (deciding they could not); and 2) the 1974 not developed anymore even when it turned and use public capital which has lower interest Housing and Community Development Act out to be more cost effcient, the interviewee rates than private capital the interviewee his did enact new tenant-based subsidies; but responded that public housing did not have response was that direct federal loans (i.e. 168 loans from the federal government directly acting as a also doesn’t include homeless persons (btw 650,000 changes in the policies without a change in the the lender) are not used a lot anymore, but that it was to 1 million persons) due to data limitations used in fundamental structure as it exists now. a good question to ask. Private rental housing can the estimate, or the number of low-income families obtain loans that are insured by FHA and often have residing in owner-occupied (not rental) housing. The question if subsidies should be more state or favorable rates, although they are not subsidized and county based the interviewee answered no, because thus usually don’t on their own allow for serving lower- The personal opinion of the interviewee is that the state’s income depends on the property taxes of its income families. While public housing can obtain current affordable housing stock should be preserved inhabitants, that means that poor states have only private fnancing (outlined above), it generally is and maintained except for obsolete units. The little to spend on affordable housing policies where highly reliant on annual federal appropriations, which existing federal housing programs already provide they need it the most. States and localities take are limited and can fuctuate as well. for options that can be fexible depending on local some important steps to preserve and incentive new + regional market needs. In order to grow tailor ft affordable housing. But because the lowest income Topic 2 growth of affordable housing units programs are needed, for example housing vouchers families require an annual operating subsidy to The Worst Case Needs were mentioned to the for markets with high vacancies and other programs provide affordability and the scale of the subsidies interviewee, his response was that the number of in tight markets. The voucher program itself now needed, these are beyond the ability of even states to person who meet the income qualifcations are far includes a local option that allows for up to 20% of provide in their annual budgets. higher than those estimated to have “Worst Case vouchers to be used as Project-based vouchers. These Needs.” I told him that in the report a number of 35 can be combined with private rental housing in either His belief on how to increase affordable housing million is mentioned. The interviewee has contributed existing units, or to set-aside a portion of units in new units is to consider a renter tax credit. This would to HUD’s reports and is one of the Co-writers of construction projects using other fnancing subsidy be a reimbursable tax credit that could be used even the Worst Case Needs report of 2007. This means vehicles (LIHTC or HOME). for families not paying annual federal income tax that the federal government is aware that the need (similar to the Earned Income Tax Credit) The LIHTC for affordable housing is bigger than the 7.7 million HUD’s HOME program is a block grant that can be program provides subsidies for new construction and households (increased to 8.2 million households in used to provide affordable housing for either single rehab as needed. These have the advantage that 2015). family homes or multifamily rental. And either of those they are working, the housing industry knows how to uses can be adjusted locally for either maintaining use them and have public support. The mortgage Those with “Worst Case Needs” are estimated from existing affordability (or buying down existing units interest deduction is by far the largest federal support the number of renter households below 50 percent to affordable levels, for instance in higher opportunity for housing. It also has tremendous political support. of local median income who either: 1) pay more than neighborhoods) or for new construction. As with the However, it provides more benefts for those higher have their income for rent and/or 2) live in substandard LIHTC program, states and localities in the Northeast on the income scale. A renter tax credit that is physical conditions. Those families who meet the use a greater portion of the subsidies for rehab of administrated through the tax code could ultimately basic eligibility criteria to qualify for federal housing existing housing. replace the need for housing voucher program. The assistance are a much larger group and must be under Nixon administration proposed a “negative income only either 50 percent of median income (for tenant- But the growth of affordable housing units is limited tax” that would function like a guaranteed minimum based vouchers) or under 80 percent of median by the federal appropriations. The HOME program income. LIHTC could be maintained or over time be income (for public housing). In practice, the federal has already been cut back to drastically low levls (from converted to upfront capital grants that are easier to rental subsidy programs serve families far lower than approx. $2 billion per year to approx. $1 billion for track and monitor for effectiveness and compliance the maximum limits though with over three-quarters year). For HUD to help all the needed HUD its budget and be targeted based on need (for new construction being under 30 percent of median income (around needs to be more than quadrupled according to the and/or rehab). $13,000 per year depending on the area). The interviewee just for the rental subsidy programs. But Worst Case Needs measure is also heavily made up HUD is limited by political constraints and budgetary When asked a question about the possibility of new of families at the lowest end of the income scale. It pressure and it is therefore diffcult to make drastic public housing units the interviewee answered: 169 There likely is not political support in the Topic 3 Cost effciency of NYCHA affordable Beyond cost-cost effciency alone, public foreseeable future for new construction of new housing units housing and project-based units have an traditional public housing. There is some new The interviewee was not surprised that the additional advantage, particularly in a low- construction of a limited number of units but public housing units would be more cost vacancy highly competitive market such as only as replacement of demolished older units. effcient than the vouchers in New York City. NYC. Tenant-based vouchers are issued to This is done through HOPE VI/Choice. And The almost three times factor was however families, but who are then often not successful some RAD conversions include demolition and surprising. The interviewee mentioned that in at all in using them. The “success rate” of new construction, but for other project-based general public housing is sometimes not as well vouchers is far lower in tight markets such as subsidies. maintained as private housing depending on NYC. The last major HUD study on success the locality and largely due to limited federal rates was issued in 2001. This showed that the As a side note, the HOPE VI program in its initial funding below needed levels.. Public housing national average success rate was 80 percent, funding years did also include larger-scale often costs less than private market housing with a local success rate of only 57 percent grants for rehab. This could have provided depending on the location (some rural PHAs in New York City. For a low-income family, competitive awards to larger-scale rehab that for example have lower costs than tenant- particularly the homeless or disabled in need is beyond the ability of local PHAs with their based vouchers). However it was explained of housing, having a hard unit that is available limited annual capital fund appropriations. that even with eliminating the maintenance for occupancy is obviously a major advantage This fell out of favor though, for political backlog public housing was still far more cost compared with the prospect of searching for reasons effcient and the interviewee expressed interest a unit using a voucher for months with the and the funds were not there to continue in this and thanked the author for conducting possibility of not being successful at all. Local rehabilitation only a few thousand units had this level of sophisticated analysis. market variations as well as the advantages been rehabilitated. HOPE VI became almost of hard units for some purposes shows the solely focused on large scale demolition (which New York City is a unique case, with NYCHA need for a variety of approaches and tools or was needed in many cases) and replacement being successful in many cases in encouraging options. with a much smaller number of hard units mixed-income communities. For example, along with a greater number of tenant-based many of the working families living in the public Topic 4: Federal policy vouchers. A signifcant number of vacant units housing sites included plumbers, electricians The interviewee his personal vision for the were also not replaced at all. In many cases, and others who also provided services for future: where the housing is not completely obsolete, NYCHA itself. Having mixed incomes in public

Appendix 8 rehabilitation can be more cost-effective than housing units, while still serving the elderly, The existing affordable housing programs re-construction and in those cases would make disabled, formerly homeless could help in particularly the Section 8 voucher program and economic sense.. The funds were not there for maintaining better physical conditions over the HOME program - already provide a variety the rehabilitation, and it fell out of favor soon time. However this research has adjusted the of necessary tools and options. Both programs after the introduction. Housing authorities income groups of public housing units and include options that can be adjusted to meet have in many cases lost their capacity to HCV housing units to be the same. local market needs The voucher program develop new housing using the traditional allows for up to 20 percent of units to be used public housing program and are more focused In a follow-up the interviewee noted there as Project-based vouchers, and there is another on managing the existing stock. A number may be some effect from property taxes, with option for affordable homeownership. PBVs of PHAs do engage in other construction public housing being responsible for less tax are being used in a variety of ways - “sponsor- activities, in conjunction with private market payments (the city doesn’t collect at the same based” housing to assist the homeless in entities, for instance using the LIHTC program. rate from NYCHA as it does from private units). scattered site on on-site supportive housing, in combination with LIHTC to target higher 170 opportunity areas, or to provide set-aside units for for a much longer lifespan with fewer options to tear disabled persons in integrated setting (see also down buildings with residents in it, there is no place Section 811 project rental assistance demonstration). to temporary place them until the new development The HOME program fexibility is described above. is completed.

However, to meet the U.S. demand for affordable In 1995 the interviewee worked for a U.S. Senator housing would require a more fundamental change. from New York, Alfonse D’Amato who was Chairman Either increased political priorities being given to fund of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing the existing programs, which is very diffcult under and Urban Development. In 1995, other branches of the current budget reality. A second option would government, including both the Clinton administration be to convert the voucher program to a mandatory (in the v for Reinvention) and the Republican majority entitlement program, also very diffcult. A third option in the House of Representatives both issued similar would be reimbursable renter tax credits. This could proposals to terminate existing public housing and potentially be enacted as part of a comprehensive tax project-based Section 8 and replace millions of reform that would restructure the existing tax code units with tenant-based vouchers. D’Amato was with some reform for the mortgage interest deduction part of a bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators with a (placing some additional limits to the highest income deep background in housing policy (including the payers) and introduction of help on the renter side as creation of the HOME program in 1990 - a U.S. Senate a recognition of basic equity arguments. If enacted Banking Committee proposal based on a commission as part of comprehensive overhaul, this might have a empaneled by them earlier). This coalition included greater chance of political support, including from the Senators Connie Mack (R-FL), Christopher “Kit” Bond public and industry. (R-MO), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD, Ranking Member) The Renter tax credits would fulfll that same basic and John Kerry (D-MA) along with allies in the role as the voucher program through the tax code. It House and private industry and housing advocates. might also simplify and solve some of the limitations Together they rejected the proposals to end those of the voucher program related to success rates, with programs and instead drove through the enactment many landlords reluctant to participate in a housing of an alternative policy based on preservation of the program due to administrative headaches. existing affordable housing stock with more fexible options going forward. These policies include Mark Besides that keep what we have to continue to to Market for project-based Section 8 to reduce costs focus on preservation of the existing stock as a cost- and the 1998 public housing reform bill that refected effective option it except for obsolete buildings with the Senate position to maintain the program while some incremental subsidy increases, if possible. addressing specifc needs of portions of the stock with different approaches, which could include demolition Other topics: where appropriate, while encouraging mixed fnance The interviewee was also asked why not re-start as well as increased income mixing in existing new production of the public housing program, his buildings. The voucher program was also enhanced response was the fndings related to NYC may be with local options for Project-Based Vouchers (building somewhat unique - in a city where not a lot of land on a model that New York City pioneered in the 1980s) is available for construction especially in New York and affordable homeownership that PHAs could use City. And NYCHA had incentives to maintain building based on local needs. 171 Cost effciency study new program

Cost effciency analysis (NYC) served under tenant-based rental assistance The average HAP would be BER $915 minus This research has focused on the affordable (HUDuser, 2017). $476 average tenant contribution equals $419. housing portfolio of NYCHA. This short cost This means that when one 1 size household of effciency analysis of the One affordable Tenant-based or project-based in NYC 80% AMI rents a housing unit they pay for their housing program will be conducted based These calculation show that project-based BER but also for one households its HAP. And on the year 2016 of NYCHA its affordable rental assistance in NYC is far more effcient for a six person household at 80% AMI they housing portfolio. The rest value won’t be when it comes to operational costs than can pay for almost three households their HAP. taken into account because it is considered tenant-based rental assistance. This means Thus with a mixed income tenancy till 80% as a perpetuity. Also the development costs that in NYC the affordable housing system AMI HAP during operations might not even be won’t be taken into account because that is a could me more effcient. Following fgure 6.5 necessary, or at least be limited. one time cost. it can be determined that project-based rental assistance in NYC has got the preference. BER (Break even rent) National BER (Break even rent) The payment standard is per month $515 The BER of the whole public housing portfolio The rent level for the current public housing more expensive than the BER. This times the is determined in table 6.8 based on HUD (2016). units to be self suffcient is the current rent 100.000 households would mean that around The average BER of the portfolio is $824 This payed by the tenants plus the operating and $618,000,000 could be saved at NYCHA alone would mean that 2,131,122 affordable housing capital costs per affordable housing unit. The annually, if these people were served under units assisted under Section 8 would have a average BER in NYC is calculated in table supply based assistance rather than demand higher payment standard and are therefore not 6.7 based on appendix 1 and is $915 per based assistance. effcient (HUDuser, 2017). 337,438 affordable month, this is the amount of rent the housing housing units that are assisted under Section 8 authorities needs to operate and maintain Mixed income tenants to 80% AMI have a lower payment standard than the $824 these buildings. Table 6.8 shows that a households income BER (HUDuser, 2017). must be $36,600 annual in order to pay for

Appendix 9 The payment standard in NYC affordable housing without HAP. For a 1 person The possible savings for transferring the The average payment standard in NYC was household this is equal to 55% AMI and for a 6 tenant-based units into project-based where $1430 in 2016PUM($1032 HAP and $398 person household 33% AMI. the payment standard is higher than BER per tenant contribution). 100.000 households were Table 9.2: AMI levels 2017 based on NYC (2017-b) month is: $800 million per month and $9.604 Household AMI BER income BER 30% at Poverty line billion per year. Table 9.1: BER NYCHA based on cost effciency model size (Annual) (Annual) AMI (in %) 80% AMI (appendix 1) Table 6.9: BER national based on HUD (2016) 1 $66,800 $36,600 54.79% $421 Costs ( in households (in Per month Costs households Per month millions) millions) 2 $76,400 $36,600 47.91% $613 ( in millions) (in millions)

Operating subsidy $355 0.096 $308 3 $85,900 $36,600 42.61% $803 Operating costs $,4500 1.1 $341

Capital subsidy $150 0.096 $130 4 $95,400 $36,600 38.36% $993 Capital costs $1,900 1.1 $144

Tenants rent 0.096 $476 5 $103,100 $36,600 35.50% $1,147 Tenants rent 1.1 $339

Total BER $915 6 $110,700 $36,600 33.06% $1,299 Total BER $824 172 The possible savings for transferring the project-based units to tenant-based is unknown, however at 1238 housing authorities or municipalities the payment standard is lower than $824 BER. That would mean that if at these 1238 housing authorities the BER is $824, that it would be benefcial to transfer the current public housing units to tenant-based rental assistance.

Energy cost effciency Most of the public housing authorities currently pay for energy costs (Utilities). The utility costs for the public housing units in NYC is currently $529 million for the whole portfolio, for the original federal portfolio as used in this research $294 million. Energy effcient measures pay themselves back in 20 years with 186%. This lead to an IRR between 5% and 13% (Bonazzi & Iotti, 2016) . Thus if NYCHA would make their housing unit more energy effcient the annual costs can go down with a maximum of $529 million. Or if NYCHA would let a private company take all these measures and invest capital into improving the energy cost effciency of the public housing units that private company could get an IRR of 13% for the next 20 years, which is very lucrative.

173