Third in a series
Re “Can a For-Profit Developer Build Affordable Housing for the Homeless”
[Editor’s Note: This is the third installment of a paper that City Council candidate Christopher Patrick King helped develop recently regarding housing, homelessness and suggested roles for developers.]
[img]2333|right|Christopher Patrick King||no_popup[/img]Is it possible for a for-profit developer to create affordable housing geared toward various homeless populations and expect to make a reasonable profit? Or must any and all affordable housing be achieved only through government and the non-profit sector?
Aside from the considerations described above, there are a variety of other complexities surrounding affordable housing for the homeless:
1. Community Distrust: “Not in my backyard.” While individuals may support assisting the homeless, often it’s a challenge for developers to gain community support when they build affordable housing. Communities may fear substance abuse, crime and lower property values from new developments such as this. However, well-planned projects that contain on-site supportive services often end up enhancing the neighborhoods in which they are built. But gaining community support and buy-in is a critical factor and key challenge in building affordable housing.
2. Zoning and Allowable Use. Cities set zoning ordinances about what acceptable uses for properties are. Just because a developer purchases a site does not mean that he/she can build any number of units or any size project. From a development standpoint (and with affordable developments in particular), it is often critical that a project contain enough units to make it profitable. Often, this means the project must have over 75 units. Sometimes a developer will purchase a property that has a certain type of zoning – being zoned for industrial use for example – then he/she will attempt to have the city re-zone the area to become residential. This can be a time-consuming process, and there are ethical concerns about a developer buying a property under false pretense as well.
Additionally, cities like Los Angeles do not have inclusionary zoning: This means that there is not necessarily a pre-set requirement on a developer to be “socially responsible” and to set-aside a certain number of units as affordable.
3. The Two-Part Equation. Gail Goldberg of the Urban Land Institute speaks of what she calls the “Two-Part Equation.” This means that regions like Los Angeles need to ensure an adequate job/housing balance. If a municipality builds affordable housing for homeless, how will the homeless individuals afford to pay for their share of the rental amount? Without adequate jobs and without a focus on job creation, a city/region/government will lack the broad approach needed in addressing the multi-faceted nature of homelessness (one key part, of course, is lack of employment opportunities).
4. Lack of Political Will. John Maceri, Executive Director of the Santa Monica-based Ocean Park Community Center notes that, “each community must help address its fair share [of creating affordable units] because the homeless population is a transient population.” From a local government perspective, it is typically the county’s job to address homelessness. This can lead to cities “fearing involvement” or, as Mr. Maceri says, not taking part and trying to let the county handle issues surrounding homelessness. This short-sightedness by politicians probably plays well to their local constituencies, but it does nothing to address a problem that is regional in scope yet local in impact. Homeless people tend to stay near their hometown because it is familiar. Each city has a certain number of homeless individuals within its jurisdiction. The question becomes whether a city will work collaboratively with the county, with other cities, with developers, with non-profits to address an issue that is common to all Los Angeles County cities.
Another challenge is that the state requires that a city create its Housing Element every five years. A city’s housing element must address how the city plans to create “housing opportunities” for new housing units based upon their growth projections. However, the Housing Element need not show that these “opportunities” ever become real completed projects. Rather, the city must simply ensure that it has zoned and has land available for development. Again, rules without any method of enforcement or steps to achievement perpetuate the lack of pro-activity by governments and fail to encourage meaningful solutions.
5. Section 8 Reform and Funding. Once affordable units are available, homeless families often need partial subsidies until they are fully back to full-employment. The Section 8 program is a voucher program whereby through federal, state or local funds, a Section 8 renter will typically pay one-third of the rent for a particular unit and the government fund will pay the other two-thirds. Landlords often like the program because of the guaranteed payment from the government. One challenge the program has, though, is the “look-back” period for someone to qualify for a voucher. If an individual is homeless, there is often a chance that he/she has some type of criminal record, even if not a “serious” crime. A criminal background check performed by Section 8 will often eliminate people from using the program. However, agencies such as Saint Joseph’s Center encourage that Section 8 be reformed such that the look-back period is only five years. This way, landlords still feel secure in knowing that a potential lessee is on the right track. Also, it encourages homeless individuals to ensure their good behavior knowing that they risk losing the Section 8 voucher if they do not.
(To be continued)
