empty luxury

The Luxury Ship is Sinking–Could DC Developers Jump to Affordable Housing?

Across the country, more and more developers are hitting what they consider to be an unpleasant reality—the luxury housing market is flooded. With so many new luxury units coming onto the market at the same time, there’s too much supply to support the sky-high rents that these amenity-rich developments demand.

There’s at least some evidence that the same could be true in DC. As luxury units flow into neighborhoods like Shaw, Capitol Hill, and new megadevelopments like the Wharf, top rents have gone down in other neighborhoods. Anecdotally, people around the city talk about longer and longer periods to fill these new buildings, with some sitting close to half-empty.

And rents for the most desirable buildings in Columbia Heights, Logan Circle, Dupont Circle, and Mount Vernon Triangle have all declined.

Does this mean we’re moving into a new period of affordability? Is it time to celebrate the salvation of the city?

premature celebration

Not even close. These drops in prices only apply to the top of the market. Average rents are still increasing, although they are finally increasing more slowly than the country as a whole.

But the crisis remains. Lifelong DC residents are still being pushed out of their homes every day.

There is opportunity, however, if for-profit developers in DC get turned off of building more luxury units. In other places across the country, developers are now looking at a new (old) way to make money: workforce and affordable housing.

Building for people of more modest means has been so neglected in recent years that there’s an enormous demand for any developer who can bring something reasonably priced to market. What’s more, developers are starting to see less expensive housing as a wiser investment—unlike those in luxury digs, average families don’t look to downsize as soon as the economy turns south.

To get for-profit developers to build truly affordable housing, however, will require a lot of subsidy. Part of that is, of course, the “profit” piece of for-profit. That extra expense, along with the rarity of a true sense of mission to their work, is the reason non-profits need to keep leading in affordable housing development—when money is the only motivator, it has a way of bulldozing even those who are supposed to be served by a project.

But there’s a fundamental reality to the need for subsidy, too. To get rent prices below market rate means making them cheaper than the sum of their parts—land prices, construction costs, management fees, maintenance. All of these things are expensive (some at historic highs), and if we’re serious about keeping a diverse city, we need to invest more in making it happen.

One important first step would be quickly passing Councilmember Anita Bonds’ (At-Large) bill that would set a $120 million floor each year for DC’s Housing Production Trust Fund. That would increase the fund by $20 million over its current level, while also saving it from the yearly changes in the political winds that it is currently vulnerable to.

It might not be for the right reasons, but DC’s for-profit developers could soon be coming around to affordable housing. To make that move stick, we’ll need to invest more in housing—and fast.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print
how-to-kill-a-city-e1510000622320

How to Kill a City? Start with Welfare for the Wealthy

“Our urban system is based on the theory of taking the peasant and turning him into an industrial worker. Now there are no industrial jobs. Why not keep him a peasant?”

That decades-old quote from Roger Starr, New York City’s former head of the Housing and Development Administration, ultimately led to his resignation. But Peter Moskowitz, in his new book How to Kill a City, argues that this is in fact the theory of governance that has dominated cities for the past fifty years.

It is, says Moskowitz, “gentrification as governance.”

Moskowitz takes readers on a brief tour of how gentrification is often covered in the media: bemused newscasters reading stories about hipsters moving into converted warehouses; blue-toned photos of new coffee shops alongside rundown buildings; longtime residents giving startled interviews about how fast things have changed.

coffee gent

Like this

The message in all of this is that gentrification just happens. It’s an almost mystical process. Even if we wanted to stop it, what could be done?

Highlighting the recent history of four cities—New Orleans, Detroit, San Francisco, and New York City—Moskowitz unveils the systematic structures that support gentrification. By the time he’s done, it’s clear that gentrification doesn’t just happen. In fact, it’s an awful lot of work.

The first thing needed to promote gentrification as governance is the right mindset. As cities across the country grappled with budget shortfalls caused by white flight and federal cuts under President Reagan, local governments were forced to start buying bonds to cover their expenses.

This introduced corporate bond owners and, eventually, emergency managers as new, unelected players in local governance. They brought with them a novel concept, quickly adopted by their elected counterparts: cities should turn a profit.

Applying a business lens to city governance makes for some quick accounting. Poor people are liabilities—they need more assistance in healthcare, housing, and transportation than they pay in taxes. Rich people are assets—they pay more than they need in return.

As Moskowitz notes, this analysis completely ignores the centuries of theft from people of color (and government subsidy to white people) that created a racialized picture of American wealth. But never mind that now—there’s rich people to attract!

Sometimes, like in New Orleans, an external catastrophe provides the opportunity for change. After Hurricane Katrina, powerful locals were pretty explicit in their desire to build a city for a different population than the one that already lived there.

As one real estate developer was quoted saying at the time, “[T]he hurricane drove poor people and criminals out of the city, and we hope they don’t come back. … The party’s finally over for these people and now they’re going to have to find someplace else to live in the U.S.”

City officials agreed. One city councilman at the time summed up the situation thusly. “There’s been a lot of pampering, and at some point you have to say, ‘no, no, no, no, no.’ We don’t need more soap opera watchers right now.”

One of the first steps in this transformation was the demolition of almost all public housing in New Orleans, despite the fact that the vast majority of this housing was not damaged by the storm.

In its place, mixed income developments have sprung up, with plenty of amenities and security for the newcomers. Through this process of demolition and redevelopment, over 12,000 low-income families lost their homes.

New Orleans also moved to make sure that different businesses thrived after the storm. Low-income areas were designated cultural districts, with tax breaks for artists. But these districts also included tax breaks for new businesses—and only new businesses. Newcomers were given credits to rehab old storefronts and to subsidize their operation, while longtime community businesses were cut out of the program.

new orleans

From The New Orleans Advocate.  See especially the change around Mid-City and neighborhoods to the east.

Similar dynamics are playing out all across the country.

In Detroit, the city government divested much of its responsibility to outside groups after it went through bankruptcy. The city’s targeted development areas are now in large part governed by the businesses themselves. Through advisory boards and nonprofits that they fund, developers get to make decisions on public transportation, policing, and even zoning policy. They are literally writing their own rules.

And those rules almost always cater to predominantly white newcomers at the expense of longtime black residents. Detroit’s corporate overlords have even gone so far as to institute a sort of reverse HPAP—a home purchase assistance program that is only available to their own (predominantly white and wealthy) employees.

Then there are the more standard developer giveaways: city land and tax breaks for developers to build market rate housing. Moskowitz doesn’t feature DC in his book, but it’s easy enough to imagine projects like The Wharf and its $300 million in public subsidy filling a chapter.

There are no easy answers in How to Kill a City. Moskowitz is upfront about the fact that moving towards truly equitable development will require a great deal of city planning and significant financial investment. But as the book makes clear, the only thing that takes more planning and more money than stopping gentrification is creating it.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print

Affordable Housing at The Wharf?

One of the largest developments to ever happen in DC, The Wharf, has finally revealed itself to many “Ooh’s & Ahh’s”. With progressive legislation in place, and a highly-celebrated public-private partnership, let’s see what is there for us in the affordable housing realm.

Manna.wharf

Of the 649 apartments becoming available in Phase 1, DC’s Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) highlights that 30% of the units will be affordable housing. But over one-third of those “affordable” units are considered workforce housing, pegged at 100% or 120% of AMI- or for those families making between $110,000 and $132,000  per year.

While it is not a problem to have “workforce housing” – it is a problem to have that included in the affordable housing calculations. It makes it confusing for the general public and forces us to scrutinize the numbers to see exactly what they’re talking about.

 The most confusing thing is DMPED spotlighting how half of the affordable housing units are for those households at 30% AMI and 60% AMI- but that is only true if the “workforce” units aren’t included in the calculation.

However, that same statement boasts how a third of the total 639 units are “affordable housing,” which can only be true if the “workforce” units ARE included in the calculation. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, DMPED.

You can't have your cake and eat it too... unless there's another cake we don't know about

You can’t have your cake and eat it too… unless there’s another cake we don’t know about

In any other situation, us housing advocates would be quite pleased to have 20% of a development’s units at less than 60% of AMI- because that’s about double what Inclusionary Zoning rules require- and us housing advocates are conditioned to accept whatever pieces of success we’re given.

manna.oliver

However, let us not forget that much of The Wharf came from the selling of public land by the district. WAMU’s story in 2013 revealed that the publicly-owned land valued at $95 million was sold to Paramount Development Corporation for *drumroll* $1.

manna.shock

Yes, you heard that right. $1. Oh yeah, plus $200 million in public subsidies and tax breaks. That is an incredibly steep price to pay for just 131 affordable units so far, one-third of which are micro-units.

Micro-Units, between 330-360 square feet

Micro-Units, between 330-360 square feet

And so, I think we are completely in the right to develop more transparency in this process and to ask why the numbers that DC’s DMPED highlights are not quite true to reality. Also, what is the point of a high percentage of affordable housing if there isn’t much housing to begin with? For a project this large, 649 units is not very much, plus the fact that there are more hotel rooms than apartment units, and so it seems to be another aspect of this development- and future developments- worthy of scrutiny.

Phase II of The Wharf is still in process, and let us all pay attention to ANY sale of public land that does not include high amounts of truly affordable housing, with opportunities to increase the equity of those DC residents who need it most.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print
dc house

HPAP, EAHP, and Hard Work: Homeownership Success

To say that lifelong Washingtonian Erin Skinner has been busy the last few years is an understatement.

When the lease on her old apartment expired more than two years ago, she applied at a few other buildings in the area. But she quickly learned that, despite having a stable job as a DC government employee, she didn’t earn enough to even qualify in the buildings where she wanted to live. That realization led her to start looking for a home to buy instead, and she joined MANNA’s Homebuyers Club—on top of everything else in her life.

Skinner is a single parent to her two sons, ages 17 and 4. At the time, she was also hard at work on her undergraduate degree—all while never cutting back on her DC government job.

“I was in school full-time and working full-time. And looking for this house,” says Skinner.

After getting her credit score up with help from the Homebuyers Club, Skinner started looking for her new home. The search was possible thanks to DC’s Home Purchase Assistance Program, the District’s down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and the Employer Assistance Housing Program, which Skinner was eligible for because she is a District employee.

But even with the incredible amount of work Skinner was putting in and funding sources all lined up, the process was a constant challenge.

Skinner had a house picked out that seemed perfect, and she was set to go to closing. But at the last minute she found that the regulations calculating her eligibility had been changed—her student loans now counted against her total debt.

The deal fell through. Skinner had to pass on her perfect house and start the whole process over again. With everything else in her life, it felt overwhelming.

But Skinner kept pushing, she says, in large part because of her love for DC. “I never wanted to leave DC. I was born and raised here.”

She recognizes that in many ways it’s a different city than the one she grew up in. “The city is changing so rapidly, all the new storefronts and condos. I’ve been wondering whether that would happen to where I live [in Southeast].”

People often ask why she doesn’t leave. “I want to stay here,” says Skinner. “I want to be able to benefit from everything that’s going on. All the changes are not bad… I want to benefit from the good changes that are going on in DC, and also to have my children benefit from those changes.”

Finally, Skinner’s dream has come together. This year, she says, “has been the year of me.” In May she graduated from college, and soon after she found a house that fits her family’s needs even better than the one before. And with the lift from HPAP and EAHP, her mortgage payments are far more manageable than renting.

What’s more, it meets her top goal: staying in DC. “Actually,” says Skinner, “where I live now is 10 minutes from where I’ve lived my entire life.”

She has some advice for others going through MANNA’s Homebuyers Club.

“To other prospective homebuyers, there are going to be days that you want to quit. There are going to be times when you see the house that you really, really want, and you find out that you can’t get it. Just know that if you keep going, you’ll find a house that’s even better than the one you thought you had to have.”

After seeing what hard work and HPAP can do, it’s hard to argue with her.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print
cambridge-66714_1280

Sign the Petition: Schedule a hearing for the HPTF Guarantee Funding Act!

The Housing Production Trust Fund is DC’s best tool for building and preserving affordable housing–it has made and saved homes for thousands of Washingtonians. Mayor Bowser and the Council have done historic work by funding the HPTF at $100 million each year since the Mayor took office.

Sign the petition here!

But each year the trust fund is subject to political fights in the budget process. We can’t count on always having a Council and a Mayor this committed to affordable housing. That’s why we need to make funding the HPTF an automatic part of the DC budget. What’s more, DC’s affordable housing crisis is still getting worse, and President Trump’s disastrous leadership is threatening affordable housing dollars across the country.

Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large) has introduced a bill to guarantee funding for the trust fund at $120 million each year. Getting this bill passed would be the biggest win for affordable housing in years! Read the petition below, and add your voice urging Councilmember Bonds and Chairman Phil Mendelson to schedule a hearing for this important legislation!

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print

Who’s Got Housing?

Is housing a privilege or a right?

Regardless of your opinion (it is a right), there is a NEED for housing in DC among those in plain view most easily forgotten–and a program with financial incentives to people who open their door.

How many homeless people are here in DC? 7,473 as of January 2017.

shock face

The District’s New Lease on Life program connects landlords with available units to families currently experiencing homelessness. Landlords receive a partial subsidy from DC, and the family pays the rest of the rent. The families also receive any necessary support services during their one-year lease.

The program has been incredibly successful, with participating landlord Thomas Batmen noting that, “Families exiting homelessness pose no greater risk than any other family applying for a lease.”

Monthly Landlord Outreach meetings organize folks to host meet and greets, establish risk mitigation funds to assuage landlords’ fears of losing money, and propose broader policy changes.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, DC Department of Human Services, DC Interagency Council on Homelessness and CNHED are holding a reception this Friday from 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM to talk about the New Lease on Life program.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print

TOPA: he-said, she-said

TOPA… where’s the cream filling?

DATA: THAT's the stuff!!!

DATA: THAT’s the stuff!!!

Something is missing in all of this talk about TOPA… data.

A hearing was held this past Thursday mulling over a change to the District’s Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), which gives tenants a chance to match any offer by a third party looking to buy the tenants’ home. It’s one of DC’s best tenant protections, as well as a crucial way in which renters can become owners of their homes, and any attempt to change or weaken it is understandably met with considerable alarm.

But on Thursday, one of the most alarming things was the lack of cohesive data that either side could agree on. Data leads to facts, and facts should inform laws.

The change to TOPA currently being proposed is, on the surface, relatively minor—tenant advocates and the DC Association of Realtors (DCAR) have agreed on fixes to speed the TOPA process for single family homes, and both sides feel they’re close to reaching an agreement on tenants’ option to assign their TOPA rights to a third party (also just focusing on single family homes). However, the testimony went well beyond that, and the chair of the Council made ominous claims** towards a larger fight over TOPA.

In the hearing, Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large), who introduced the bill, and Chairman Phil Mendelson asked the realtors testifying from DCAR about how many successful buyouts  have occurred in their experience with cases involving TOPA.

The anecdotal remarks led to differences in the magnitude of 10x- from .5% to 5%.

Magnitudes of 10

Magnitudes of 10

The same questions posed to the legal counsel for tenants also produced questionable data. One of the tenant advocates testifying retorted that a tenant with good enough credit to execute TOPA rights isn’t seeking those in the legal counsel that were testifying at this hearing, implying that these questions about successful cases were anecdotal at best, and ridiculous to be putting on the record.

It should be noted that the metrics for which we evaluate TOPA depend on whether we define “success” as the tenants succeeding in purchasing their unit, “succeeding” at staying in their unit as a tenant, or “succeeding” by leveraging their TOPA rights so that they can see some small benefit from their displacement.

The fault is perhaps with the city for not tracking data on rental units in general, and those employing TOPA rights being an especially important aspect of that in this case. Due to obscure facts, those lobbying on both sides are putting forth data that supports their case, instead of being able to lay a factual foundation.

"I heard it through the grapevine, and I'm just about to lose my mind"

“I heard it through the grapevine, and I’m just about to lose my mind”

For the most innovative and impactful legislation that DC has to empower tenants, I am stupefied by the lack of data.

Here is an example of the data that I would like to see before changes are made:

The change to TOPA being discussed has the potential to effect _____ property owners and ______ tenants.

 

** Chairman Phil Mendelson went as far as encouraging “a flat-out exemption to single-family homes,” which was well beyond the scope of the legislative hearing

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print

Cement the District’s commitment to affordable housing: Guarantee the HPTF

dc-rowhouses

It is time to cement the legacy of the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF). The housing crisis in DC has been well documented, and the issue is not going away anytime soon. The HPTF is the most powerful tool that the District has to address this crisis. It is time for the District to solidify funding for the HPTF so that we can move forward. Let us all encourage the passing of the Housing Production Trust Fund Guarantee Funding Amendment Act of 2017!

Right now, the HPTF gets most of its money from yearly budget allocations. For the past four years, the Mayor and the Council have gotten together on putting $100 million in the fund.

This investment is historic. However, it’s vulnerable to changing political will–the $100 million needs to be re-debated each and every year. What’s more, it still doesn’t meet the need that exists in DC!

That’s why this bill, introduced by Councilmember Anita Bonds (At-Large), would guarantee the HPTF’s budget at $120 million each year.

Note: People in need of equitable assistance are not to be likened to toddlers

Note: People in need of equitable assistance are not to be likened to toddlers

QUICK FACTS:

Did you know that the HPTF has been in existence since 1988? It didn’t receive significant investment until sixteen years after, in 2004 ($50 million), and didn’t have a fund balance of more than $100 million until 2013/14.

Did you know that $100 million is enough to build or preserve approximately 1,000 units?

Did you know the shortage of affordable units is in the tens of thousands? In December of last year, DC Fiscal Policy Institute reported that “26,000 extremely low-income DC households spend more than half their income on rent,” and that “only 2,100 received new help over the past six years.”

Did you know that in DC, people of color were doing economically worse in 2016 (most recent census data) than the year prior?

DC_neighborhoods_map

While there are criticisms of the HPTF, and whether it addresses those most in need, most critics and advocates agree that the fund is necessary and that it can be strengthened. Stabilizing the revenue source and guaranteeing its future can shift the focus towards managing it more effectively as we diversify our efforts.

There will be a public hearing on two bills related to the HPTF on Thursday, October 19th at 11:00 AM in the Wilson building, room 500. You can testify as an individual or as an organization, and if you cannot be there then you can send in written testimony to the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization, John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 112, Washington, D.C. 20004. The record will close at 5:00 p.m. on November 2, 2017

We’ll be at the hearing, and we hope you will too!

#GuaranteeHPTF

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print
florida project

Florida Project a Must-Watch for Policy Makers

Giggling children aren’t normally what you think of when you’re talking about family homelessness, but that’s exactly what Sean Baker’s new movie The Florida Project serves up. Of course, there’s always more to the story.

The tears, the frustration, the agonizing choices that no family should ever be forced to make—those things come, too. But what The Florida Project does best is show all of these things through the magic of childhood. It refuses to accept that deep trauma can’t go hand in hand with love and wonder, because in real life it almost always does. That complexity is part of what makes this film must-watch material for any government officials working on affordable housing.

In the gilded wasteland of tourist trap Florida, six-year-old Moonee and her young mother Halley have made their home in a bright purple discount motel: The Magic Castle. Well, not technically “home”—we’re soon treated to the family’s monthly ritual of marching all of their belongings out of their room and spending one night at the motel next door. It’s a move that’s mandated by The Magic Castle’s management to avoid Moonee and her mother being able to claim residency, in which case the motel would be “totally screwed.”

These slums outside the teeming metropolis of Disney may look almost uninhabitable, but they present a wonderfully lively and colorful canvas for Moonee and her friends to paint their own adventures. The shrieks of excitement and happiness that ring out as these kids go on safari through abandoned grass fields or play in the back of a box store parking lot are so real and genuine (Brooklyn Price as Moonee is indisputably the star of the movie) that in the first 30 minutes, it’s possible to be lulled into thinking that maybe life isn’t so bad for these children and their families.

florida moonee

Moonee and friends explore abandoned houses in typical rambunctious fashion

The community among the adults is equally close-knit, and the shared parenting that happens at The Magic Castle is enough to put any upper-class family neighborhood to shame. Another community fixture is Bobby (William Dafoe), the gruff but deeply loving hotel manager/father figure. Although Dafoe does a great job in the role, it’s still highly improbable. It’s a very rare low-income family that has a property manager who not only keeps sewage out of the bathtub, but takes an active interest in their lives.

Of course, even with that arguably unrealistic advantage, life just doesn’t go that smoothly for long when your family is homeless. Things start to fall apart for Moonee and Halley, and as their downward spiral plays out on screen, the audience is forced to contemplate one question over and over: what should Halley have done differently?

The answer is… nothing. Despite what the hotel owner next door might think, despite what HUD Secretary Ben Carson might say, this homelessness is not Halley’s fault, and no amount of positive thinking or bootstrap-pulling is going to get her family out of it.

Job opportunities never materialize. Halley puts in long hours selling perfume and other trinkets to tourists, occasionally blurring the lines between salesperson and panhandler. Somehow it’s often enough to keep them in The Magic Castle, which costs $38 a night—over $1100 a month.

That figure alone points to a fundamental truth of homelessness: you have to have money to save money. Halley isn’t financially secure enough for a lease, so she’s forced to overpay for a motel. She can’t afford a place with a kitchen, so she and her daughter are forced to bear the financial and physical costs of take-out for every meal.

Halley isn’t doing anything wrong. The system just doesn’t work for her family and thousands upon thousands of others like hers. This point is driven home in a hauntingly sweet and cruelly ironic scene where Moonee and her friends explore row after row of blighted houses in an abandoned development, presumably a leftover from the housing crash.

“This would be my bed,” intones Moonee with a smile. “This would be my bookcase.”

Maybe, if Secretary Carson sees and understands The Florida Project, that can be reality for another little girl just like Moonee.

Then again, a campaign to turn low-income property managers into father figures might just be more realistic.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print

Ground Breaks, Rents Shake, Fears Await… Purple Line & Langley Park

Hard_Hats

The purple line is here. With it comes opportunity for homeowners – and apprehension for renters. While the jurisdictions involved have heralded the beginning of the Purple Line’s construction, these same jurisdictions and their partnering organizations have been silent about the threats to affordable housing that they previously highlighted.

Langley Park appears to be the canary in the coal mine here, as the Washington Post and GGWash have followed the lead of UMD in focusing on the effects that the Purple Line will have on the affordable housing stock there, although it should be noted that these challenges will be faced at each and every one of the proposed stations.

Langley Park does seem to be especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of rising land costs. Of more than 5,000 housing units in the neighborhood, nearly 75% are rental units. Combine this with the fact that nearly 50% of the residents earn less than the DC Metro’s Area Median Income and it appears that there’s a huge risk posed by becoming more connected to the region. purple-line All of Langley Park’s residents will be within a half-mile of the the two transit stations proposed in the area. A CASA Needs Survey found that one-in-four respondents has had their rent increasing by at least 10% per month over the past two years. A major housing crisis is certainly on the horizon. If Prince George’s County cannot protect its population from being displaced, then a complex chain reaction will be felt across the region as various jurisdictions are threatened by displaced people desperate for secure places to live.

There are plenty of ways that the local jurisdiction can mitigate the impending displacement through measures aimed to preserve and rehabilitate the housing stock by way of grants, loans, and tax credits from federal and state agencies, and with the help of private and nonprofit assistance. In the dozens of potential options that the UMD study looked into, Prince George’s County and Langley Park were under-represented seeking this help, indicating failures among leadership.

While there are many ways forward, it is noteworthy that the majority of apartment units are owned by three companies and their subsidiaries, and that intervention and/or mediation by the public or private sector could lead to a deal that would maintain affordable housing. For example, the Conversion of Rental Housing Act of 2013 would require the owners to give Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development the option to purchase the property before they offered the sale to another party. This legislation is not perfect, as the right is not extended to tenants and there are significant loopholes where the owner is not required to follow this process; however, the program has three priorities for implementation, and Langley Park fits all three criteria.

There are also ways in which Prince George’s County can save the carrot and use the stick in order to help out the tenants. There is a misdemeanor and $500 fine for any property in violation of the County Code, and each day is a separate offense. As noted in the UMD study, there are many complaints about the housing conditions there, and “the county has the right to demolish, repair, or otherwise bring the property up to standard and place a lien in the amount of all funds expended on the owner.” This type of initiative could put pressure on the owner to sell, or if the county bureaucracy wasn’t entirely on board then it could backfire and result in the condemnation of the building and subsequent displacement.

What is clear is that all of the paths forward require a municipality willing to assist this community under threat and allow the people to be a part of the opportunities that are to come with the Purple Line. We certainly will be paying attention.

 

  1. All of the data in this post comes directly from “Preparing for the Purple Line: Affordable Housing Strategies for Langley Park, Maryland,” presented by CASA & the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education Center at the University of Maryland, College Park
Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Print