The New Urban Agenda, HABITAT III, and the Celebration of a Multinational Agreement on Cities

by Jessica Jean-Francois
Harvard Graduate
School of Design

A few weeks ago, I was one of the approximately 50,000 people who came to Quito, Ecuador for the third UN-HABITAT conference (HABITAT III). The conference served as a celebration of the adoption of the New Urban Agenda, a multinational agreement that aims to “help to end poverty and hunger in all its forms and dimensions, reduce inequalities, promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, in order to fully harness their vital contribution to sustainable development, improve human health and well-being, as well as foster resilience and protect the environment.”

Excerpt from New Urban Agenda display

Having signed up for the newsletter over a year in advance, I had grown increasingly excited as I read about the research being done in anticipation of HABITAT III and the many meetings and events held to prepare for it as well. It was clear that this would be an incredible event and that I would have a unique opportunity to observe as key actors in city planning and urban policy came together, to hear about new approaches and practices, while also getting to know a new city.

HUD Secretary Julian Castro speaks 

Once there, I had plenty of activities to choose from. Main events included special sessions on public space, urban resilience and municipal finance. There were also networking and side events hosted by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and research institutions. There were roundtable discussions that brought together mayors, trade union leaders, businessmen and women, farmers and other key stakeholders. There were plenary meetings and many more events covering a wide range of topics, all happening simultaneously every day. On top of that, there was a six-hall exhibition zone with over 150 booths showcasing important ideas and activities related to urbanization.

For many people, all of this was overwhelming. Quito was completely transformed as much of the area surrounding the conference center could only be accessed via security checkpoints. Long lines, limited bathrooms and technical issues sometimes frustrated attendees.

Large lines formed at the event

Now that I’ve returned and debriefed with classmates, friends, and others who attended the gathering, I am left with many questions. What were the intended takeaways? What was the point of such a large expensive conference? Who benefited, who lost? Also, could the conference’s goals have been achieved in a better way? While we celebrate that HABITAT III was open and free to all those who wished to attend, people still had to travel to Quito and pay for accommodations, food, and, if they wanted to highlight their work, for exhibition booths that cost $4,000 or more. Moreover, the selection process for hosting a side or networking event seemed arbitrary. While the New Urban Agenda clearly indicated that issues such as energy and transportation, land tenure, safety and security, disaster risk management and inclusion in spatial planning were concerns, particularly for those living in informal settlements and slums, this was not clearly aligned with the schedule of events on informal settlements, which primarily focused on the UN Participatory Slum Upgrading Program (PSUP) and data collection tools.

Despite these questions and concerns, I still believe the conference was valuable. While in Quito, I primarily attended events addressing informal settlements, which was a focus of MIT’s Special Interest Group in Urban Settlement (SIGUS), the group that I traveled with to the conference. I also attended sessions that focused on Small Island Developing States, tourism, economic development and finance to inform my master’s thesis at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design. Scheduling conflicts and long lines were at times a barrier to my hopes, but even these offered some interesting surprises. The long lines became an unintended networking opportunity and equalizer where people with different backgrounds and positions were able to meet, share ideas and connect. The exhibition halls were a hotbed of activity as people who sought a place to rest often became consumed in unplanned conversations and experiences.

Jessica at MIT's SIGUS booth

That is how I got to know the Slum Dwellers International (SDI). Although I had previously been in contact with the group, on the last day of the conference, I heard an SDI celebration that featured singing and chanting. The participants were celebrating the launch of Know Your City a website featuring data collected by residents of informal settlements. SDI uses the data collection process to identify needs and encourage community-funded solutions. It also shares the data with policy members of their communities in an attempt to prevent evictions and prevent poor, top-down approaches to planning.

As I learned about this grassroots movement and about cases in Liberia, Zambia and South Africa, I thought about the many challenges that will hinder the effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda and the fact that many of the solutions to these barriers are present (but often hidden) in the communities it is supposed to serve. As we struggle to identify ways to make certain areas livable, it’s often forgotten that many people have already been forced to craft solutions in order to survive while only dreaming of gaining access to the resources needed to innovate on a larger scale. I am hopeful that many of the ideas and innovative approaches that were discussed and disseminated in Quito will help city dwellers take even more control of their own futures.

Jessica Jean-Francois, a second-year Master in Urban Planning student at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, was a Joint Center student research assistant in 2015-2016. Her trip was funded in part by Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS) and the Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Disability Housing - Best Practices and New Solutions

Micaela Connery
2015 Research Fellow

This summer I’m moving. Again. It will be my sixth “residence” since graduating college. Over the last seven years, home has included a three bedroom apartment in Somerville, my parent’s basement (Cellar Dwellers Unite!), a grad school dorm where adults regress to freshman status, full-size bunk beds on the Lower East Side (full-size bunk beds are a real thing), and a bedroom that was actually a closet found somewhere deep in a Brooklyn craigslist. Despite all the quirks that came with each dwelling place—communal showers, head whacks on the top bunk, et cetera—each one was home in some special way.

But, for many adults with disabilities, a suitable home is hard—sometimes almost impossible—to come by. In the time that I moved five times, hundreds of thousands of individuals with disabilities across the U.S. have sat on housing waitlists. They’re waiting, often many years, to make just one crucial move, the move out of their parent’s home into community or independent living. The United States spends over $77 billion dollars annually on special education, often working to prepare individuals with disabilities to be successful, independent, and included. Yet those opportunities for independence inclusion are almost non-existent after exiting the school system. We spend billions in public funds preparing individuals with disabilities for opportunities they may never be able to have.

The most obvious issue here is funding and availability of housing offerings. Most state agencies who are on the front lines of addressing this need are finding there simply isn’t enough public funding to support placements and support services for the high number of individuals with disabilities who need it. As state developmental services budgets are cut and numbers of adults with disabilities increase, the challenge is only growing over time.

While increasing funding (or at least preventing budget cuts) is a key part of the solution, it will only incrementally address the growing waitlists for housing services. Absent an increase in the supply of suitable housing options, funding alone won’t likely fix the problem. Many providers, families, and organizations have taken it upon themselves to innovate new solutions to housing placements; experimenting with different operational structures, engaging private funders, rallying parent support, and innovating new housing models. By understanding what makes these innovative models effective, and where they face challenges, policymakers can better support new solutions for the disability housing crisis. With support from the Joint Center, I spent last summer examining a few of these approaches and what we can learn from them, and have reported my findings in the paper “Disability Housing: What’s happening? What’s challenging? What’s needed?”.

Perhaps the most obvious finding from spending time with consumers and providers is that one size does not fit all. While there are some common best practices—engaging families, supporting choice, linking to employment and transit, and retaining quality staff—there is not one single housing type or model that is right for all people with disabilities. As for people without disabilities, what people want their home to look like varies greatly. Some people desire an apartment in a city while other prefer a house with lots of land in a more rural neighborhood. Some people want to live alone and other want to be surrounded by lots of friends, family, and activity. Policies must support a range of options and choices for individuals with disabilities.

The second key issue in finding housing solutions is the right to risk, meaning that housing options shouldn’t be unduly constrained by concerns about residents safety. A right to risk would bring a willingness to innovate and provide support for experimenting with new models. Policymakers and regulators, perhaps wary of litigation, seem to be resistant to anything that may lead to failure or risk. They want to protect people with disabilities, sometimes at any cost. But people with disabilities should be allowed to take risks themselves and providers should be supported to innovate with new approaches. While we should protect people as best we can, we can’t let protection stifle new ideas. The only way disability housing can improve is if we give it space to innovate, and even make mistakes.

While providing housing and adult services for people with disabilities presents challenges, it’s also full of opportunities. It’s an opportunity to better integrate our communities. Thinking about these issues helps us reexamine what it means to support quality and affordable housing for all populations, not just those with disabilities. It’s an opportunity to re-evaluate and innovate around how we create communities, connect with our neighbors, and age within our homes. With the right program design and service delivery, we can start to change the predominant concerns of parents of children with disabilities. No longer will they worry, “Where will my child live after I die?” or “Who will care for my child?” Instead, they can wonder: “Which housing option is right for my child?” And most of all: “What community will be lucky enough to have my child as a member?”

Individuals with disabilities and advocates have been fighting for thoughtful supports, inclusion in communities, and independent living since the 1960s. The challenge isn’t new, but the solutions will need to be.

Micaela Connery was a summer research fellow for the Joint Center for Housing Studies. She is an MPP Candidate at Harvard Kennedy School focusing on disability, inclusion, and community development. She is a member of the inaugural class of New World Social Enterprise Fellows at the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard. She will continue with her studies as a Mitchell Scholar in the Fall of 2016, pursuing her MBA at the Smurfit School at University College Dublin.

She is presenting a Housing Studies Seminar on this topic at noon on Friday, April 27, 2016 at the Joint Center offices. See our calendar listing for more information.

HUD Funding in the Presidential Budget Prioritizes Economic Mobility and Rental Assistance

Irene Lew
Research Analyst

Several weeks ago, President Obama released his final budget proposal to Congress. In it, the President requests $48.9 billion in gross discretionary funding for HUD—a $1.6 billion increase over the amount that Congress appropriated in FY 2016. With the exception of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the public housing capital fund, HUD’s FY 2017 budget maintains or requests increases for key programs over the levels that lawmakers approved in FY 2016 (Figure 1).

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2017 Congressional Justifications; White House Office of Management and Budget FY 2017 President’s Budget 

Funding for Rental Housing Assistance

More than three-quarters (78 percent) of the funding request would support 4.5 million low-income households through HUD’s three largest rental housing assistance programs: housing choice vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and public housing (through its capital and operating funds) (Figure 2).

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2017 Congressional Justifications.

After several years of uncertainty in the wake of sequestration in 2013, the request of $20.8 billion for the housing choice voucher program would fully fund all voucher renewals in calendar year 2016. The request includes a 26-percent boost in administrative fees to cover public housing agencies’ (PHAs) costs to administer the voucher program under a new formula based on the recommendations of a HUD-commissioned study released last year that highlighted the underfunding of PHAs.

Meanwhile, the budget would provide a full 12 months of funding for all contracts under the project-based rental assistance program, including public housing units and privately-owned units that were converted to long-term project-based Section 8 contracts under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. For the second straight year, HUD is seeking $50 million to expand the RAD program and remove the 185,000 unit cap on the number of public housing conversions under the first phase of RAD. Since it received Congressional authorization in 2012, RAD has been a key part of HUD’s strategy to access private capital to rehabilitate and preserve the aging public housing inventory, which has experienced a net loss of 139,000 units since 2000. Until RAD’s authorization, HUD’s public housing program was largely prohibited from accessing non-federal funding sources for making critical repairs to the stock. As of December 2015, HUD estimates that PHAs and their partners have raised over $1.7 billion through RAD to convert more than 26,000 public housing units.

With an increased emphasis on public housing RAD conversions, the request for the public housing program in FY 2016 was a marginal increase—less than 1 percent—over the FY 2016 enacted level. The budget proposes a 2 percent reduction for the public housing capital fund, which is troubling given that the public housing stock has an estimated capital needs backlog of about $26 billion, and that adequacy issues among public housing units are much more common than among other types of federally assisted and unassisted units. While RAD will help address adequacy issues in the public housing inventory, there is no guarantee that RAD funding will continue, and the ongoing disinvestment in the public housing capital repairs fund may offset gains made under RAD.

Meanwhile, the President’s budget also requests funding increases for key multifamily rental housing assistance programs administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that serve roughly 403,000 low-income households annually in rural communities, including $33 million for the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans program, up 18 percent from $28 million enacted in FY 2016, and $1.4 billion for the Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance program, a modest increase (1 percent) from the FY 2016 enacted level.

Commitment to Ending Homelessness

Funding for homelessness prevention remains a priority in the President’s budget, which includes an 18 percent increase in discretionary funding over the FY 2016 enacted level for Homeless Assistance Grants. The increase will fund $25 million in new projects for homeless youth in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an additional 25,500 new units of permanent supportive housing targeted at the chronically homeless, and 8,000 new rapid rehousing units for homeless families. Overall, in contrast to many other HUD programs whose funding levels have declined sharply over the past decade in real terms, funding for homeless assistance grants is now 43 percent higher in FY 2016 than in FY 2006 (Figure 3).

Note: Percent change is based on dollar values that have been adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U for All Items.
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget; US Department of Housing and Urban Development FY 2017 Congressional Justifications.

Building on the findings in HUD’s recent Family Options report highlighting the effectiveness of vouchers in improving the housing stability of homeless families, the budget is seeking $88 million in discretionary funding for 10,000 new vouchers for this population. In addition to this request, the budget has also proposed $11 billion in mandatory funding for an ambitious new 10-year initiative to end homelessness among families with children. This initiative, which would be exempt from the annual Congressional appropriations process, aims to assist 555,000 families over the coming decade through a significant expansion of housing choice vouchers and rapid rehousing assistance. As I noted in a blog post last year, the reduction in family homelessness has been much smaller than among veterans and chronically homeless individuals. In fact, as of the 2015 Point-in-Time count, which estimates both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations on a single night every January, the number of homeless persons in families in shelter is actually 4 percent higher than in 2007.

Emphasis on Economic Mobility and Fostering Inclusive Communities

With increasing evidence that neighborhood quality matters for child development and economic prospects, including a 2015 analysis of HUD’s Moving to Opportunity demonstration program, the President’s budget has requested a $75-million funding increase for Choice Neighborhoods, and has proposed a new three-year $15 million Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Counseling Demonstration program to help HUD-assisted families move and stay in higher-opportunity neighborhoods. In a similar vein, the budget has proposed the Upward Mobility Project, a new place-based initiative that will allow states and localities to blend funding across four existing block grant programs—HHS Social Services Block Grant and Community Services Block Grant, as well as HUD's HOME and CDBG programs—to implement evidence-based policies focused on poverty reduction and neighborhood revitalization. The budget maintains HOME funding at the FY 2016 enacted level of $950 million, which is an encouraging sign for many advocates who had rallied against FY 2016 Congressional proposals calling for severe cutbacks to the program, an important source of gap financing for tax credit projects and other local affordable housing initiatives. The budget also includes a request of $300 million in mandatory funding for a Local Housing Policy Grants program to help localities and regional coalitions fund policies and programs that minimize barriers to housing development and expand housing supply and affordability.

Reflecting the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) allocations in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs vs. Inclusive Communities Project and HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ruling last summer, the President’s FY 2017 budget has also proposed that Qualified Allocation Plans (QAPs) for state housing finance agencies be required to include Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) as an explicit preference for awarding tax credits. Additionally, part of the $69 million increase requested for the public housing operating fund in FY 2017 would go toward supporting increased PHA administrative expenses associated with implementation of the new AFFH regulations.

Serving the Lowest-Income Households

According to HUD’s 2015 Worst Case Housing Needs report, just 39 affordable units are available for every 100 extremely low-income renter households (those with income no higher than 30 percent of AMI). To incentivize developers seeking tax credits to provide deeper affordability for the lowest-income households—those who often cannot afford to live in LIHTC units without additional rental assistance—the President’s budget has once again proposed an income-averaging rule for LIHTC eligibility in which the average income for a minimum 40 percent of the units in a project does not exceed 60 percent of AMI.

The National Housing Trust Fund would also help address the shortfall in units that are affordable to the lowest-income households. Originally authorized in 2008 under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, the Housing Trust Fund is a mandatory program funded by GSE contributions that will allocate funding to states and state-designated entities for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing targeted at extremely low-income households. HUD predicts that it will collect $170 million in fee assessments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the fund in 2016, and an additional $136 million from the GSEs in 2017.

Preserving the Affordable Rental Stock

Despite an expansion of the voucher program, the budget included a $20 million reduction in tenant protection vouchers, which provide critical protection to residents at risk of displacement because they live in HUD-assisted units with expiring or terminating contracts. HUD notes that it will need to provide partial funding to approximately 33,500 vouchers in FY 2017 because the proposed amount of $117 million is insufficient to fund them for a full 12 months. Although HUD plans to request the full amount necessary for these voucher renewals in 2018, there is no guarantee that HUD will receive the funding it needs, putting families living in HUD-assisted units with expiring affordability contracts at risk for rent increases, eviction, or homelessness.

In addition to a requested expansion of the RAD program in order to preserve affordable stock, the President’s budget has also proposed that Section 202 Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs), providing affordable rental housing to adults aged 62 and over, should also be eligible for conversion. While not part of the FY 2017 discretionary funding request, the budget has also recommended adding the preservation of federally assisted affordable housing to the other 10 criteria that state housing finance agencies are required to include in their QAPs for awarding LIHTC allocations.

--

What happens from here? As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes in a recent memo, the House and Senate will likely begin working on their own budget resolutions earlier than usual this year because an agreement is already in place on overall Congressional funding limits for fiscal year 2017. However, final decisions on FY 2017 appropriations will likely occur after the November elections. 

Democracy and the Challenge of Affordability: Preserving the Affordable Housing Stock in New York City

Adam Tanaka
JCHS Meyer Fellow

This post is cross posted from a series that our colleagues at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation are doing on affordable housing as a challenge to the health of American democracy, and in particular local democracy in the United States. The series, edited by Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor Quinton Mayne, is part of the Ash Center’s Challenges to Democracy series, a two-year public dialogue inviting leaders in thought and practice to name our greatest challenges and explore promising solutions.

As part of this series, Adam Tanaka explored the ways in which housing shortages in expensive global cities are leading to a redefinition of affordability, both for low- and middle-income residents. Population and productivity growth, coupled with increasing income inequality, is contributing to a pressure-cooker housing market in which supply is falling far short of demand. As a result, public authorities are finding new ways to partner with private developers to try and meet demand for below-market housing. Tanaka sat down with private developers who are playing an important and telling role in the delivery and management of affordable housing.

For this interview in the series, Tanaka traveled to New York City to interview Rick Gropper of L+M Development Partners, a private affordable housing development company with thirty years of experience in New York. Their conversation reveals some of the political challenges still facing developers operating in this field, as well as new opportunities for innovation across the public-private divide.

---

New York City has a long tradition of innovation in affordable housing. From building the country’s first public housing project, to establishing its longest-running program of rent control, to experimenting with tax credits that influenced the adoption of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the city has a strong legacy of public intervention in the housing market.
New York cannot rest on its laurels, however, as a number of trends continue to threaten the city’s affordability. Most obviously, the city’s population is growing, adding considerable stress to the housing stock. Following dramatic population decline and widespread abandonment in the 1970s, the city has rebounded, reaching an all-time high of 8.5 million residents in 2014. The city’s housing market, however, has failed to keep pace, with a shortage of new development driving up housing costs to the point that the median sales price of a home in Manhattan is just shy of $1 million. A surge in foreign investment has added further stress to the system, as a growing number of condominiums sit empty, purchased as assets rather than homes. As the real estate market surges, the “funding gap” between market and affordable rents grows, requiring ever larger subsidies to develop new affordable homes.

In theory, the city’s existing affordable housing stock is supposed to be unaffected by these market trends. Programs like public housing, rent control, and Section 8 vouchers were purpose-built to protect low-income families from a housing market out of their reach, providing long-term affordability through a variety of methods. In reality, however, a number of programmatic impediments have begun to erode the city’s affordable housing stock. This includes the expiration of affordability requirements for many housing developments built in the 1970s and 1980s as well as the removal of units from rent regulation through a technicality known as “luxury decontrol.” It is estimated that over the course of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s first term in office, 45,000 housing units will exit affordability, allowing landlords to charge market-rate rents for the first time if no new subsidies are put in place.

Even public housing—owned and operated by the public sector and thus theoretically the most secure form of affordable housing—is threatened by an increasing lack of federal money for both daily operations and long-overdue capital improvements. As the country’s largest housing authority, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has been particularly hard-hit by this federal shortfall. In 2014, the agency suffered from a $77 million budget deficit and had estimated capital needs totaling $18 billion, mostly in structural improvements to buildings, many of which are over fifty years old. As such, NYCHA officials are actively exploring new ways to generate revenues for the agency and close the funding gap. One strategy is to lease under-utilized land adjacent to public housing to private developers for new construction. Another is to restructure the funding for public housing to tap new federal sources such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration program.

A third method, which this interview explores in detail, involves the Housing Authority partnering with for-profit developers to access both private capital and federal funds only available to private applicants. In February 2015, NYCHA formed a public-private partnership with two private development companies, L+M Development Partners and BFC Partners, to revitalize a particularly distressed subset of its portfolio: six project-based Section 8 developments housing over 2,000 residents across the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. The project-based Section 8 program, initiated in the early 1970s by the Nixon administration, was an operating subsidy mostly intended for use by private developers. However, a number of Section 8 developments fell into the housing authority’s portfolio during the city’s fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s, when NYCHA was better capitalized than the city itself.

Queensbridge Houses, largest public housing development in US (source).

Now that this situation has reversed, NYCHA is exploring new ways to generate revenues not only for its Section 8 projects, but also for its general portfolio. Transferring 50% ownership of these developments to private hands opens the door to tax-exempt bond financing and tax credits, sources generally unavailable to housing authorities. The private partners, meanwhile, benefit from Mark-Up-To-Market contracts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which compensate landlords for the difference between 30% of tenant incomes and market rents.

Of course, even this partial privatization of public housing has generated substantial controversy amongst tenants, local politicians, and housing advocates. To learn more about the politics behind this proposed deal, the Ash Center spoke to Rick Gropper at L+M Development Partners. One of the city’s foremost private affordable housing development companies, L+M’s evolution over the past thirty years epitomizes the growing professionalization of the sector as a whole. The conversation with Gropper reveals some of the political challenges still facing developers operating in this field, as well as new opportunities for innovation across the public-private divide.

---

Adam Tanaka: Could you describe L+M’s position within the affordable housing landscape in New York City?

Rick Gropper: L+M has been around for about thirty years. The first projects that we did were under the Vacant Building Program, where the city acquired buildings that were in tax foreclosure. These buildings were vacant, and many of them were shells. The city then transferred them to private developers for a dollar. Prospective owners would bid down the rents. One would say: “I can do this job and I’ll charge the residents $500 a month.” Another would say: “I can do $450 a month.” Whoever came up with the financial structure that charged the least rent would get the building.

Then the Tax Act of 1986 introduced a new financial mechanism, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The founders of L+M figured out how to syndicate tax credits and place tax-exempt bonds, and they used that financing to charge residents even less for rent. That was the genesis of L+M, working with city and state agencies to gut-renovate buildings across the city.

As the affordable housing industry matured, the company moved to new construction, working with the city to subsidize projects on city-owned land. The city had a lot of land because they had demolished buildings for a variety of reasons. The Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the city’s housing agency, would offer different development sites for a dollar, and would then work with the developer to figure out how to finance them, whether it’s tax-exempt bonds or tax credits or subsidy, or some combination of all three. From the mid-1990s until today, L+M has been predominantly a developer of new affordable housing. We’ve slowly gotten into some other things, such as new construction of market-rate buildings, but most of our work is affordable housing.

There’s been a lot of media attention recently on the expiration of various affordable housing programs. Has L+M been involved in the refinancing of housing developments to enhance their affordability?

Five or six years ago, a lot of the housing stock that was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s hit what’s known as the “Year 15,” which is the end of the tax credit compliance period. When you’re working with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, they’re delivered to the owner over a 10-year period, and there’s a 15-year compliance period. Once that compliance period ends, you can actually re-syndicate the tax credit properties. When you re-syndicate, you extend the affordability for another 15 years. We have worked to extend affordability in a number of areas facing market pressures, such as Harlem, the East Village, Bushwick and Clinton Hill. When you re-syndicate a building, you might put $40,000 into a unit for renovation, replacing roofs, common areas, boilers, systems and technology changes over time. Being able to re-syndicate and renovate is really important.

What factors do you think drove the city to start relying on the private sector for affordable housing?

For a long time, the city used to build and finance new housing. That ended in the 1970s. Now it’s very expensive for city agencies to build buildings. That’s just not necessarily what they’re good at. When the private sector was brought in, the city realized that they could get more housing built, do it more efficiently and cost-effectively, and create units much more rapidly than they could on their own. That said, it’s always a push and pull with the city. As a private-sector developer, we’re making money on developer fees and cash flow, and the optics of that can be a challenge, politically, for the city. People are wondering, “Why are these private developers making money off of the city?” In reality, we’re building buildings more effectively and efficiently than the city would be able to do on their own. If it develops a project, the city has to do it subject to all the public work rules that apply, which drives up costs and timelines. In the private sector, we have an outstanding record of delivering buildings on time, on budget, and safely.

With an increasing erosion of federal funding for public housing, do you see housing authorities operating in a more entrepreneurial manner?

Housing authorities are already operating in a more entrepreneurial manner, and that started at least five years ago, with the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD). That program, initiated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), enabled housing authorities to bring in private partners if they wanted to, or even finance buildings on their own. With public housing contracts, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, statutorily, to put debt on buildings. That’s a real challenge for NYCHA, which has 170,000 units in various stages of disrepair and about $18 billion of deferred maintenance. The only way that they’re going to generate enough capital to renovate the buildings to a more sustainable standard is to partner with the private sector and to use programs like RAD so that they can finance their own buildings, generate capital, and reinvest either directly back into the building they financed, or into their portfolio.

What stakeholders influenced the outcome of your joint partnership with NYCHA? Did any political dynamic inform the outcome of the deal?

Whenever NYCHA partners with the private sector, there are a host of stakeholders who become very skeptical. The mayor was on board and the various housing agencies understood the urgency of the problem. But there was a whole other cohort of stakeholders–residents, elected officials–who needed to be convinced. So NYCHA spent a long time getting those people on board, assuring the residents that there would be no rent increases or evictions. It was an educational and outreach process.

Image of Saratoga Square, one of the developments undergoing partial privatization

The six sites are located in a wide array of neighborhoods. Presumably this makes each project quite unique, not only financially, but also politically. Can you speak to this variation?

Each property is subject to three levels of public involvement. First, the residents and the tenant association (TA) president. Then the local councilperson. From there, you have the bigger picture: the chair of the Public Housing Committee of City Council, the Committee itself, and the Speaker. So in each case, there were different concerns. The residents’ concerns were related to the specific building. The elected official’s concerns related to the specific climate of the City Council district. And then, on a broader scale, the City Council committee raised issues on transparency, long-term affordability and so forth.

In the East Village, at a property named Campos, it was a challenge to get the local elected official on board, while residents and resident leaders were in support of the deal. There’s a lot of development going on in the neighborhood, and local residents are being displaced. The council-person was skeptical that we might come in and build condos there, even though we can’t do that without NYCHA’s permission. But because of what was happening in that council district, the council-person was very protective. Anything that she could have a say in, she was clamping down on.

Compare that to the property in the Bronx, where we had a TA president who was very skeptical, and a local elected official who was less vocal against the transaction. She knew L+M, knew what we had done in the past, and understood the necessity of the transaction from a security and sustainability perspective. In the Bronx, there was less concern that we were going to convert the buildings to market-rate condos.

Can you explain how NYCHA will benefit from the partnership?

NYCHA will receive a series of payments. They received a partial payment of the purchase price when we closed on the financing of the property. Then when we stabilize the properties and convert to the permanent phase of financing, they’ll receive the rest of the purchase price. They’ll also benefit from a portion of the developer fee and ongoing cash flow. So, NYCHA’s received a big payment up front that they’ve already reinvested into other properties and used to close their budget gap for the first time in many years.

The transaction itself enabled the buildings to be renovated with about $80 million worth of hard cost, and NYCHA to take $250 million in purchase price and put it back into their budget for whatever they see fit. We did that by leveraging the mark-up-to-market HUD contracts, and using debt and tax credit equity to combine into the financial structure for the deal.

From an ongoing perspective, NYCHA will receive half the developer fee and then three quarters of the cash flow. There’s also a seller’s note that they will be paid on. So there are a number of different buckets of proceeds that NYCHA will receive, and they’ll be able to use it however they wish.

What kinds of “reasonable cause” can NYCHA cite to cancel the contract with L+M and BFC? And what is the nature of the 30-year opt-out clause governing the buildings?

NYCHA has a number of different rights in the joint venture. They are the ultimate decision-makers in basically everything. We can’t sell the property; we can’t convert to condos; we can’t really do anything without NYCHA signing off on it. And we have no interest in doing that with these properties. Through the deal we are receiving HUD contracts, which are very valuable and pay market rents. NYCHA has a purchase option in 15 years and can take back the properties if they want to. And then, at the end of the 30-year affordability period, NYCHA is the ultimate decision-maker. They decide what happens at that point. Most likely, we will do a similar transaction and extend the affordability further.

Do you see this deal as providing a clue to the future of affordable housing in New York?

We see this transaction as a model for the potential of public housing. We can generate proceeds that NYCHA can use to reinvest in their portfolio. We renovate their properties and manage them. And we do all of that in a more efficient and effective manner than NYCHA can. It’s a public-private partnership and a real joint venture with NYCHA in which NYCHA has decision-making capability and can leverage the strength of the private sector in terms of what they’re good at doing: building and managing housing.

There’s a way to do that effectively and in a real partnership where the residents feel like their interests are protected, and from our perspective, we’re making money off the property, which gives us an economic incentive to do the right thing and reinvest money into the property and operate it well. As the property does better, we do better.

Adam Tanaka is a Ph.D. student in urban planning at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Meyer Fellow at Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. His research focuses on housing policy and development in the contemporary United States, drawing from the fields of political science, law, urban planning, and real estate to develop methods for understanding and improving urban housing provision.

Many thanks to Jessica Yager at the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy for helping to arrange the interview.

Read more in the Challenges to Democracy series, including Adam Tanaka's posts.

Read the opening post to this series, which we cross-posted in April 2015.