Say what? It’s a fancy HUD title for a report that HUD requires the city to do every 5 years that shows, once again, just how racist and all the other ‘ists Dane County is. This one is particularly focused on housing. If you’ve been following along, there are no surprises here. The big question is, will this report lead to action that actually impacts the people impacted by all the ‘isms. The CDBG commission will be considering this tomorrow night. Particularly they will be discussing the priority of the strategies.
WHAT IS THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT AND WHY DO WE DO IT?
There are the following documents to look at:
The initial full report – that is still in draft status, they need to update the ranking of the strategies and are still wordsmithing it. (This is what the resolution says they are approving.)
The smaller 36-page summary report. (4/22/19)
The current document they are working on to prioritize what to work on.
The resolution has good background on why the city produces the report:
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) is to identify practices and conditions in the City that impede housing opportunities for residents because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or other “protected class” status. Fair housing impediments include direct discriminatory actions, omissions, or decisions related to membership in a protected class, or indirect actions, omissions, or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices for people specifically because of their protected class membership.
The City is required by the Fair Housing Act to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.” The AI identifies fair housing choice constraints and offers planning strategies that can be incorporated into other community planning and development processes and decisions. This assessment is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a condition of receiving federal housing funds. It should be completed before the City creates its five-year “Consolidated Plan” that describes how those funds will be spent, so that the City can demonstrate that it understands the various direct and indirect impediments to fair housing choice and is actively working to eliminate discriminatory practices and disparate outcomes.
KEY FINDINGS
So, this was written under the Soglin administration, and I don’t know if we can go back and change anything at this point, but this kind of thinking “5. Lack of affordable rental housing stock in moderate- to high-income areas may perpetuate economic and therefore racial segregation.” and targeting our affordable housing funds at this population isn’t trickling down . . . I firmly believe this is the wrong strategy and when I see it in this report it makes me a little crazy. But, enough editorializing . . . does this reflect what you would want to see? Is this what you would want the Key Findings to be indicating? Just FYI – I interjected a few times in this section and the next one, in pink, but that is not the entirety of my comments, I will have more by tomorrow.
RACE & ETHNICITY IMPEDIMENTS
1. Moderate to high racial segregation in areas of the City may indicate barriers to geographic housing choice by race/ethnicity.
2. Lack of affordably priced units with 3 or more bedrooms in specific neighborhoods, especially in neighborhoods with larger Populations of Color. (this seems backwards, we need affordable 3-bedrooms in all neighborhoods for more choice)
3. Segregation by race/ethnicity within ELI/VLI households shows potential housing discrimination or other barriers for equal access.
4. Disproportionately higher levels of eviction in neighborhoods with higher populations of Persons of Color disproportionately impact future housing choice. (I don’t know how they wrote this entire report without mentioning the role police have in evictions in the city. The word police doesn’t show up once in the entire 166 page document.)
5. Black/African American individuals and families enter homelessness at a greater rate than other households in the same economic condition, indicating greater levels of housing instability.
6. Lack of access/opportunity for economic mobility in areas that are concentrations of Households of Color, and/or poverty directly impede affordable housing opportunity for Households of Color.
7. Increasing owner-occupied sales prices in areas that are already moderate- to high-income can exclude lower-income households, which are disproportionately Households of Color.
8. Extreme disparities in rates of incarceration by race/ethnicity directly impede future housing opportunity, furthering wage gaps and segregation in the City. (Again, I don’t know how they wrote this entire report without mentioning the role police have.)
AGE IMPEDIMENTS
1. Lack of assisted housing options (varying levels) for current and future aging populations throughout the City.
2. Lack of enough units within neighborhood interiors for current and future aging populations to downsize while remaining in their community.
DISABILITY IMPEDIMENTS
1. Black/African American households have greater need for accessible units, based on higher disability rates.
2. Lack of accessible units or units with services to accommodate the projected large increase in current and future aging populations, especially those with disabilities.
3. Lack of assisted or naturally occurring affordable accessible units disproportionately affects low-income populations, who are more likely to have a household member with a disability.
INCOME/AFFORDABILITY IMPEDIMENTS
1. Continued lack of supply of lower-rent units creates persistent affordability mismatch and high levels of cost-burden for lower-income households.
2. Lack of affordable units disproportionately affect Households of Color, who have a disproportionately higher need for lower- rent units due to cost burden and income disparities.
3. Lack of mixed-income neighborhood housing options may perpetuate economic and therefore racial segregation.
4. Low labor force participation in some lower-income Census Tracts which display high access to employment opportunities demonstrates a skills mismatch among employers and the potential employees that they are located near, which may perpetuate economic segregation and ownership disparities.
5. Owner-occupied home prices rising faster than incomes in the City, creating a growing income barrier to homeownership.
6. Lack of owner-occupied housing stock affordable to low- and very-low income households may perpetuate economic & therefore racial segregation.
7. Lack of supply of rental units priced affordably for moderate- to high-income households may “squeeze” the housing market, negatively affecting low-income households’ ability to secure affordably priced units.
HOUSING STOCK IMPEDIMENTS
1. Lack of new construction of affordable homeownership options, coupled with decline in single-family attached and condo construction activity, may lead to increased cost of ownership – disproportionately affecting lower-income households.
2. Little to no rental housing available in specific neighborhoods limits housing choice and opportunity, and lack of supply of units Citywide disproportionately impacts lower-income households.
3. Areas with few “missing middle” housing types, especially areas mostly consisting of single-family detached homes, excludes groups more likely to be renters rather than homeowners, and limits options to age-in-place.
4. Lack of affordable owner-occupied and rental housing stock in West Madison creates geographic segregation for lower- income households.
5. Lack of affordable rental housing stock in moderate- to high-income areas may perpetuate economic and therefore racial segregation.
LENDING IMPEDIMENTS
1. Pronounced disparity in lending patterns by race/ethnicity, even for high-income Households of Color.
2. Mortgage lending denial rates, primarily for reasons of credit history, create disparities in ownership by race/ethnicity.
3. Lack of affordable housing in established moderate to higher-income neighborhoods with high concentrations of the City’s owner-occupied housing stock effectively serves as a barrier to homeownership in the City.
EDUCATION IMPEDIMENTS
1. Unequal access to higher-achieving public schools influences students’ long-term earning potential, perpetuating economic and therefore housing disparities.
2. Lower high school completion rates impact future earning potential of individuals by race/ethnicity, disability status, and childhood household income, perpetuating housing barriers and disparities.
PUBLIC IMPEDIMENTS
1. Difficult for tenants to file housing discrimination complaints with City and City-contracted agencies results in low numbers of fair housing complaints. (I’m sad because there has been so much progress in this area that the report doesn’t seem to reflect – more is needed, yes, but so much progress has been made.)
2. State law preempts City’s ability to post notice of available tenant resources and rights in rental buildings. (the state preempts so much more . . .)
3. Lack of frequent transit service in specific areas with higher than average concentrations of low-income households limits mobility of lower-income residents, impacting access to economic opportunity.
4. High land costs make it difficult to develop multifamily affordable rental in higher-income areas.
5. Many housing types are conditional instead of permitted uses in Madison’s Zoning Ordinance, creating administrative restrictions and barriers to accessibility and affordability. (Note the developer influence on the committee)
6. Zoning ordinance restricts the number and density of housing units that can be created in established neighborhoods.
LEGISLATIVE IMPEDIMENTS
1. State landlord-tenant law currently allows 5-day, no-cure eviction notice for suspicions of criminal activity, with current eviction patterns shown to be more likely in Communities of Color.
2. Frequent state law changes impacting tenant rights makes it difficult for the City and City-contracted agencies to educate tenants of changes to law. (and lack of funding to non-profits to do the work that is needed)
3. State law preempts City’s ability to implement solutions to affordable housing shortage common in other states, such as rent control, inclusionary zoning, etc.
4. State law prohibits City’s ability to raise minimum wage to a prevailing or living wage.
5. State law limits municipalities from conducting regular housing inspections of rental properties and from requiring landlord registration.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES
Starts on page three. Remember, these are the priorities by the City’s Housing Strategy Committee. This is the committee that has developers, realtors, United Way etc (Soglin appointees) on it and had alders that never showed up. There are two freshmen alders now appointed (Donna Hurd and Lindsay Lemmer) And its the committee that can rarely make quorum and has cancelled 9 of its 12 meetings in 2018 and half of its meetings in 2019.
Anyways, here are the current draft priorities, I’m listing just the “Goals and Actions” that are supposed to make a difference. I have to say, I’m not enamored with the recommendations and even if we did all the high priority items, would it make any difference? What do you think is missing?
1. Development and Plan Actions
When you read this section there will be many areas where we are supposed to decrease the burden on developers. Think about this, if we removed all barriers and let developers do whatever they wanted, how much more affordable housing would we have? Ahem. Very little, right? We’d just have more developer profit. Again, these strategies just don’t trickle down to the people who need it.
High Priority
1. Reduce potential impact of neighborhood opposition to affordable ownership and rental housing development*
a. Explore removal of protest petition from City ordinance as allowable per State statute, easing development process for needed housing types
(NOTE: Can anyone name an affordable housing project that way rejected because the neighbors filed a protest petition? Or any project in the last 20 years? I can only think of one.)
2. Continue to proactively address redevelopment pressures though inter- Division communication and cooperation, prioritizing City funding and program activities to areas identified as facing challenges to equitable development*
3. Review current regulations within the zoning code and adjust as necessary to maximize potential for context-sensitive density increases in residential and mixed-use districts, supporting missing middle housing types (townhomes, small lots, etc)*
4. Review and adjust ADU zoning ordinance to allow interior-ADU (basement/attic/etc.) conversion by-right in all residential districts
a. Explore opportunities to shift from conditional to permitted use for detached ADU types in residential districts*
5. Explore removal or modification to City ordinance requiring conditional use for 2 or more unit structures being within a set proximity in residential districts*
6. Planning documents should include or be amended to include acknowledgement of residential racial and economic segregation as an impediment to fair housing*
a. Consolidated Plan
b. Biennial Housing Report
c. Comprehensive Plan
d. Sub-Area/Neighborhood Plans
(This should be the number one priority in this section instead of removing regulations for developers.)
7. Explore adjustments to current zoning to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, preemptively easing barriers to development of more affordable housing types in areas where diversification of housing stock would be beneficial*
a. Ex: Adjusted Generalized Future Land Use Low-Medium Residential district allows missing middle and other higher- density structures, but zoning still may serve as impediment to affordable development (adjustments should be explored across all districts to maximize efficiency in development)
b. Ex: Proactively adjust zoning after completion of detailed public engagement projects such as sub-area plans, etc., and review neighborhood plans as written to determine opportunities for upzoning consistent with the plan*
Ex: Promoting Future Land Use density increases to developers to better take advantage of the intensive public engagement that increased density allowances in certain areas of the City through the Comprehensive Plan
Lower Priorities:
8. Preemptively explore opportunities to redefine “low cost housing” within City ordinance to promote affordability of smaller unit types that could be exempted from future impact fees due to affordability*
a. Ex: Accessory Dwelling Units and other unit types create opportunities for “low-cost” housing not reflected in current policy
9. Future neighborhood planning documents should include specific, neighborhood-level steps to overcome historic and current patterns of potential market exclusion*
a. Ex: Neighborhood plans should propose steps to address neighborhood-specific barriers to fair housing, such as diversity of housing stock, ownership types, and affordability levels, providing specific actions to increase access to residential areas
b. Ex: Special Area Plans should address barriers to affordable housing, propose strategies to incorporate affordable housing, and identify and address challenges to equitable development, creating plans for increased fair housing opportunity (Again, this should be the number one priority in this section instead of removing regulations for developers.)
10. Explore relaxing administrative barriers to development, promoting increased development at all rental and ownership levels*
11. Explore implementation of “fair share” zoning and density planning, allowing neighborhoods or aldermanic districts public engagement processes to select parcels for upzoning and promotion for higher- density development*
a. Ex: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities utilizes an “affordable housing scorecard”, which prioritizes funding and grants for communities that meet affordable housing production quota
12. Explore opportunities to relax the City’s review of demolition proposals for residential development*
13. Review and adjust City zoning ordinances to allow cohousing, housing cooperatives, or other group living arrangements as permitted uses in residential and mixed-use districts*
2. Program Actions
High Priority
1. Continue supporting affordable development through capital budget commitments to the Affordable Housing Fund*
a. Build non-profit capacity to participate in the development of new affordable housing
b. Enhance program requirements guaranteeing long-term affordability
2. Develop programs to encourage/target affordable housing in areas of
the City that specifically lack large numbers of affordable units and rental units*
a. Programs should include both increasing access to interior neighborhoods through missing middle development (townhomes, small lots, etc), as well as LIHTC & other larger scale development*
(Uh, you mean TIF? Or the affordable housing fund?)
3. Explore opportunities for expansion of tenant protections and support*
a. Expand landlord education programs
b. Expand tenant/landlord mediation programs
c. Expand investment into eviction-prevention programs
d. Partner with MG&E to distribute information to new tenants when opening utility accounts
(The mayor will tell you she can’t do anything because there is a $9.5M hole in the budget and unless you have cuts in mind she can’t do anything. The same thing all mayor’s say.)
4. Consider regular RESJI Analyses of current and future Metro routes and scheduling, including complete current system analysis and proposed BRT, to evaluate effectiveness of service in meeting demands of transit- dependent riders, low-income communities, and Communities of Color*
5. Increase mortgage and loan accessibility to households with adverse credit history*
a. Fund targeted credit-repair programs for borrowers*
b. Continue to support alternative credit-scoring models in underwriting for City programs
c. Continue outreach to lenders to inform of fair housing obligations and importance of alternative credit scoring*
d. Continue to fund homeownership education opportunities
6. Continue and expand targeted funding of educational support
programming provided by non-profits for youth in areas that show highest disparities in educational outcomes*
a. Focus programs more explicitly on increasing high school graduation rates and attainment of higher education to increase lifetime income potential
Lower Priorities
7. Explore changes to better target downpayment assistance program as a tool to further fair housing*
a. Expand affirmative marketing of downpayment assistance programs to underrepresented groups, increasing access to high-ownership areas*
b. Explore increased levels of downpayment assistance offered in areas that are already moderate- to high-income with appreciating value
c. Incentivize downpayment assistance in areas undergoing or planned to undergo challenges to equitable development identified through planning processes
8. Continue exploring use of alternative/expanded data points in mapping process for housing investments, refining preference areas based on unique City attributes (high relative income, active living, lack of rental housing, areas cost prohibitive to development, etc.)
a. Explore including siting/access to higher-performing public schools as a preference in applications for City housing assistance (This should be a higher priority)
9. Explore developing loan products targeted to senior owner households for home modifications that allow residents to age in-place*
10. Continue Property Tax Assistance for Seniors program, and explore opportunities for potential to expand program to serve homeowners with limited equity*
11. Further develop and refine affirmative marketing and tenant selection best practices as requirement for participation in City programs (This should be a higher priority)
12. Remove barriers to filing of housing discrimination complaints on City websites*
a. Reorganize the City’s search page to direct to DCR as top result for “housing complaint”
b. Add “Housing Discrimination” to the City’s Report a Problem webpage (Currently Civil Rights Discrimination and Employment)
c. Add a Discrimination Complaint link from Building Inspection’s Complaints webpage (This should be a higher priority and acknowledge the great work that has been done. DCR should get more funding for more outreach.)
13. Review TIF policy as tool to promote and expand affordable housing without LIHTC requirement* (This should be a higher priority)
14. Review ordinances that disproportionately criminalize homeless individuals
a. Continue to support programs that remove barriers to housing caused by interactions with the judicial system. (This should be a higher priority)
15. Partner with community development organizations or other partners to review lending patterns of financial institutions in the City
a. As of 2018 data release, HMDA data will contain credit score and other data points previously unavailable, allowing CDOs to better determine lending patterns of institutions
16. Explore increased opportunity to target job & skills training*
a. Toward areas with high eviction rates
b. To formerly-incarcerated individuals
c. Toward mismatched access/skill neighborhoods
3. Strategy Actions
High Priority
1. Research land banking and/or other programs that could alleviate problems of prohibitive land cost of affordable development in areas near transit and other amenities*
2. Continue promoting needed unit types in City-assisted housing development and rehabilitation as well as the private market*
d. [sic] Continue to encourage and fund scattered-site mod/rehab programs*
e. Continue to encourage universal design units in all new developments
3. Research ways to support increased ownership development, especially of lower-cost ownership types (condo, townhome, cohousing, etc.)
4. Proactively partner with Madison Metropolitan School District to identify potential investment/development areas to be considered for preference in City programs
5. Create and maintain clear Division responsibilities and implementation strategies for coordinated housing, development, and real estate goals of the City*
a. Create a City Housing Staff Team
6. Research and promote financing & funding opportunities that can be used to finance development of Accessory Dwelling Units*
a. Ex: Recruit financial institutions to create portfolio loan products to finance ADUs*
Lower Priorities:
7. Explore and maximize opportunities for City to fund affordable homeownership and other tenure-type development (cohousing, co-op, owner-occupied rental, etc.)*
a. Explore programs that support conversion from affordable rental to affordable condo/ownership models at end of affordability period
8. Research and implement plans to balance preservation of naturally- occurring affordable homeownership options (most likely to be redeveloped) while encouraging higher-density redevelopment types
9. Research policies that support and encourage development of affordable ownership and rental options in the private market without City financial assistance (This should be a higher priority)
10. Consider ordinance changes that encourage the development of affordable housing through the zoning code structured to be consistent with State law
4. Lobbying Actions
High Priority
1. Advocate for legislation to increase local control including repeal of preempting legislation (Regional Transportation Authority, tenant protection, etc.)
2. Advocate for legislation to increase local authority to conduct regular housing inspections, landlord certifications, and landlord registration*
Lower Priorities
3. Advocate for legislation to increase statewide minimum-wage and local control for localized minimum wages*
4. Continually monitor and advocate for increased funding opportunities at State and Federal levels (This should be a higher priority)
5. Advocate for legislation to require 30-day Notices to Cure or Quit, as well as general tenant-protections in landlord-tenant law (curious? wonder who advocated for this?)
6. Advocate for legislation to “ban the box” to further employment and housing protections to formerly-incarcerated individuals
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
– Attend the CDBG Committee tomorrow at 5:00 in room 153 of the Madison Municipal Building (215 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.)
– Submit comments to help educate and inform alders (allalders@cityofmadison.com and be sure to include your address so your alder knows you are in their district)
– Submit comments to city staff (Linette Rhodes has been the lead on this LRhodes@cityofmadison.com)
