Smart Communities

A Step toward Denser Housing in NYC

“If you can afford to live here, then everything else becomes possible.”

-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, State of the City 2015 

 New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has set an ambitious $41.4-billion goal of creating 200,000 affordable housing units within ten years. To start his second year in office, he outlined a three-point proposal that changes current zoning laws, allows for taller structures, and removes parking requirements for affordable and senior housing developments. The main beneficiaries of these changes would be the residents of new affordable units placed within a half-mile of mass transit stops, an area that covers most of the city. The proposal also allows current affordable senior housing developments to modify their parking situation and incorporate new uses for the land.

In the face of rising prices and a senior-aged population expected to increase 40% by 2040, affordable senior housing projects are an important focus of de Blasio’s attempt to help long-time residents stay in their neighborhoods. Current restrictions on building uses are being reconsidered, as the needs of aging residents change. A prime example is the prohibition on maintaining assisted living facilities and nursing homes in the same building, but de Blasio’s plan would change this, likely making mixed-use buildings more common. The added height allowances would also help create more interesting and functional buildings that reflect the brownstone developments of the past, not the boxy, low-ceilinged apartments that originate from a 1987 zoning law. While not changing the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, the new proposals will enable developers to reach the maximum FAR possible, which can’t always occur under current regulations.

 Minimum parking requirements also effectively restrict developments from being as dense as possible and can help contribute to the high price of real estate in a place like New York. Renowned UCLA professor Donald Shoup and his supporters (termed “Shoupistas”) strongly argue for the repeal of minimum parking requirements claiming they ultimately do more harm than good. The creation of infill development on small lots or the adaptive reuse of older buildings is hindered by the zoning requirements for parking spaces that simply can’t fit. He believes part of the problem comes from the fact that parking is often free and that public officials create excessive parking requirements, effectively encouraging reliance on automobiles. Removing these restrictions in a heavily transit-oriented environment that includes large swaths of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, makes sense and can provide valuable benefits.

 A spokesman for the mayor is optimistic saying, “This will ultimately fix a lot of problems that have held back affordable housing and made it more costly to build.” If all goes according to plan, the public land-use review process will be completed by fall 2015, and these changes could add hundreds of additional units to the market, making a small but needed step toward denser developments in the supply of affordable and senior housing.

Guest Blogger--Daniel Newman

 

Sources

 Hutchins, R. (2015, February 20). City: Allow for taller buildings, reduce parking requirements. Capital. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

Jorgensen, J. (2015, February 3). Bill de Blasio Pitches His Affordable Housing Plan in State of the City Address. Observer. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

Kusisto, L. (2015, February 20). New York City Pushes New Design Approach For Affordable Housing Units. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

 New York City Planning. (2015, February 1). Housing New York: Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability. Retrieved February 24, 2015, from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zoning-qa/presentation_0215.pdf

Shoup, D. (2005). The high cost of free parking. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

 Yglesias, M. (2015, February 21). Bill DeBlasio has a new plan that could put a dent in NYC's housing crisis. Vox. Retrieved February 24, 2015.

 

 

 

The Challenge of Affordable Rental Housing

Over half of all renters, or more than 21 million households, budgets are constrained by their housing expenses -- with more than 30% of income going towards housing according to a study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. National Low Income Housing Coalition reports there are only 30 affordable rental units available for every 100 extremely low-income renters, and just 57 affordable and available rental units for every 100 very low-income households. America’s cities are growing more and more unequal, exacerbating the problem.

 

What are the barriers to the production of more affordable housing? The biggest challenge in meeting America’s affordable housing needs in my view stems from a market failure / policy failure. In other words, the housing market on its own accord will not produce enough affordable housing to meet demand and public policies are not stepping up to address the shortfall.

 

The crux of the problem is the challenge in financing both the existing affordable housing stock and new construction. Why does the private sector not support affordable housing? Developers, banks, and real estate owners are necessarily concerned with profit. Affordable rents do not support the necessary debt developers must incur to create a new project, bankers are concerned about the riskiness of the loan, and owners are worried about lack of profits.

 

Besides these challenges, affordable housing projects / developers must also compete for suitable sites that for-profit developers are seeking. The result is land that often cannot be acquired or is too expensive.

 

Government has tried to address these challenges with limited success. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 established America’s public housing program. However, government’s role in housing has been under attack from business interests since.

 

When many people think about government involvement in housing, failed public housing projects such as Pruitt-Igoehousing project in St. Louis, which was destroyed just 15 years after its construction. Pruitt-Igoe and other projects like it are used as examples as why the government should not be involved in housing.

 

Public Housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe represent a design failure, but today decent affordable housing is a failure of sufficient resources. For example, according to HUD analysis the nearly 1.2 million public housing units in the United States require over $26 billion in capital repairs.

 

Instead of looking at ways to overcome past housing mistakes, critics of public support for housing as used policy failures as a way to disinvest in affordable housing. For example, urban historian Roger Biles’s book, The Fate of Cities, tells how the Nixon and Regan administrations ushered in an era of New Federalism, by underfunding and privatizing affordable housing resources in response to the race riots and urban crisis of the 1960s. The trend of underfunding America’s most needy urban neighborhoods continues today.

 

How does affordable housing get built and is there hope for the future? Because of the financing challenge and limited governmental resources, affordable housing projects typically forced to cobble together a variety of funding sources. For a glimpse at what a funding package usually looks like, see the table below.

 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits	$10 million
HOME Grant	$500,000
Community Block Grant	$100,000
Federal Home Loan Bank Grant	$100,000
Loan	$2 million

 

An alternative and more promising way of developing affordable housing is by incorporating mixed uses. This allows for developers, banks, and owners to achieve the necessary profit required in order for the development to make fiscal sense. Mixed uses allows for a variety of different income levels to support the project.

 

According to research by Vanderbilt professors mixed income-housing benefits the poor in a variety of ways. It improves both the safety and well being low-income residents. Likewise, it positions low-income residents for a path towards upward mobility and long-term employment when additional social services are provided in combination with mix-income housing.

 

The Urban Land Institute’s Terwilliger Center for Housing awards the nations best affordable housing project each year. This year, and for the past several years, winners have incorporated not only mixed-income footprints – but innovative design. In addition, recent winners have also successfully utilized private-public partnerships.

 

The state of affordable housing in America requires immediate attention. Both the private and public sector must find new ways to collaborate together. Since the Johnson administration, Federal housing policies have been mired in the dysfunction of Washington politics, which has prevented top down solutions from being successful. Instead, as Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley point out in their book, Metropolitan Revolution, the future of urban America is its mayors. Cities and regions must work together to implement effective solutions to the affordable housing crisis such as good design, public-private partnerships, and mixed-income / mixed-use developments. The Terwilliger Center awards and a number of other projects show it is possible!

Guest Blogger

Malcolm McGregor

 

Special Needs Housing: Who is it for?

The Reality of New Orleans’ Struggle to Rebuild

“I don’t even want to talk about it,” said the late twenty-something urban planning consultant sitting next to me at one of the many hip coffee shops cropping up in New Orleans’ Garden District. Typical of most college aged students on their spring break, by the fourth day of my visit to New Orleans, my group of friends and I had spent a majority of our time wandering about the French Quarter and old jazz and bar district. As we wandered about the meticulously preserved French-colonial architecture and enjoyed beignets in pleasant, green plazas, I grew more and more suspicious that these neat pockets of tourist friendly zones were a gross misrepresentation of the financially drained, slow to recover New Orleans I had read about. My spontaneous conversation with two quasi-public planners confirmed these suspicions. Assuring me that summarizing the realistic state of neighborhood recovery and reconstruction would take all day, they relayed that city government is an exasperatingly slow moving machine in regards to rebuilding public infrastructure and protecting land values in the worst affected residential areas. But I would have to see it for myself, if I really wanted to understand, they told me.

Fortunately, that afternoon, my friends and I were scheduled to take a tour of the Lower 9^th Ward with Jordon Pollard, family friend and Design Manager of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s ‘Make It Right’ organization. Given my quest for answers, this visit was well timed; Make It Right was founded by Brad Pitt in 2007, as direct response to the city’s failure to protect and rebuild one of New Orleans’ most challenged neighborhoods. Working in collaboration with the displaced residents of the 9^th Ward and over 21 world-renowned architects, Make It Right has rebuilt over 100 homes to replace some of the thousands of homes destroyed as a result of failed human engineering when the levees broke during the storm. Relying on a variety of foundations and corporate partners to provide new housing to residents of the 9^th Ward, the organization attests that they “… have learned valuable lessons about how to change the low cost, low quality paradigm… we’ve proven that you can build inspiring homes that are healthy and sustainable for about the same price as conventional low-income housing.” Having pledged to build 100 homes from the get-go, economy of scale enabled the organization to use materials and methods in compliance LEED’s Platinum standards, guided by the Cradle to Cradle philosophy that the built environment should honor the respect and dignity of the residents and produce more energy than they consume.        

There is visible evidence of Make It Right’s commitment to rebuilding community- not just homes- when you walk around the Lower Ninth Ward. Children play in puddles in front yards, volunteers work in the community garden and parents sit on the front porches of their state-of-the-art homes. However, local frustration with the cities’ sluggishness to rebuild and the federal government’s failure to adequately support reconstruction is also tangible. Outside of Make It Right’s radius of permeable streets, bio swales and happy front porch dwellers, at least every other lot remains vacant and the streets are dotted with pot holes 5 feet in diameter. It’s disheartening to realize that Make It Right’s efforts are in some ways a micro chasm of what I witnessed in New Orleans historic and tourist districts; deliberate investment in the right places, by the right people can easily create the illusion that pervasive change is underway. But even residents of Make It Right’s new community aren’t buying it. In the front yard of Mr. Robertson’s* home topped with solar panels, a sign leans against the base of a poll bearing the American flag: “We want our country to love us as much as we love our country. The strength of our community belongs to us all… Rebuild New Orleans’ Lower 9^th Ward. Cross the Canal AND Tennessee Street.” Pulling out of his driveway in his pickup, Mr. Robertson rolls down his window and stops next to my group. “You can take pictures,” he says.

Sydney Shivers

* Name changed

            

 

 

 

New Urbanism and a Systems Thinking Approach to Development

The field of housing development, particularly high-density development, has seen many faces and known many facets. In the past, high-density developments were primarily cost-driven, and they focused on merely creating housing for a large number of individuals, instead of creating homes. Today, the focus of development is on the community, on creating spaces in which individuals and families can lead full and sustainable lives. Ideas such as New Urbanism and Transit-Oriented Developments have this community concept at the forefront. Walkability, mixed-use-mixed-income, green or open spaces, pedestrian or transit orientation, and a focus on the public realm are ideas driving today’s affordable and high-density housing industries. These innovations in design, and the systems thinking surrounding affordable and dense housing, are important to be aware of and understand because they make drastic, positive impact on affected communities and individuals.

A concept that has recently started getting attention and gaining momentum is New Urbanism. This design movement promotes walkability within mixed-use, traditional neighborhood structures that support planning for green and open public spaces. New Urbanists hope that these practices will increase quality of life by creating spaces that support and uplift the individuals living there. Take at look at the principles of New Urbanism as explained on their website: 

New Urbanism, though first practiced in the 1980s, is still a relatively new idea. High-density developments of the past focused on housing the largest number of people for the least costs, often not taking into account factors like the ones that New Urbanism centers itself around. One of the most famous examples of a new type of dense housing is the Pruitt-Igoe Development, built in the 1950s. Pruitt-Igoe was a large public housing project in St. Louis, comprised of 33 high-rise, concrete structures with nearly 3,000 apartments. Because of its isolation and high concentration of poverty, the development became an area known for its crime and segregation.

Pruitt-Igoe is known as a failure within affordable housing, and developers have learned from the mistakes of this project. Today New Urbanism can be seen in recent projects across the United States like the Orenco Station development outside of Portland, Oregon, which has received much praise for its innovation and creativity, and is a well-known up-and-coming Transit –Oriented Development (TOD).  Orenco Station is built along the MAX line in Hillsboro, allowing residents to travel to and from Portland easily. This project has a mix of townhomes and live/work units among narrow streets, town centers, and green spaces, and it has been praised as a trailblazer in infill and TOD housing.

Communities like Orenco Station are being developed across the country, but that does not mean that hope is lost for existing communities that don’t reflect the ideas of New Urbanism. In Fairfax, Virginia, Tysons Corner is being redeveloped to incorporate new innovations and systems. Developers hope to transform what is now a disjointed region including a shopping mall, offices, and suburban neighborhoods into a more walkable urban center where people can live, work, and shop easily, and reduce the need for cars.

New Urbanism is more than the next big thing in development design. It is a set of principles shaping a new way of living that will hopefully become the model of higher-density developments across the nation. It views housing not just as a number of units, a style of architecture, or location of a site, but as a system of people and processes. This way of thinking about development allows a community to grow in ways that create more sustainable, safer, higher quality, and more efficient living.

D'Arcy Sampson 

 

 

The Affordable Housing Conversation Continues

Here we are in 2015 and affordable housing is still a major concern. A recently released HUD report on Worst Case Housing Needs, says that things got better from 2011-2013 for the hardest to house but we have a long way to go. One of these populations that is getting more and more attention is the plight of homeless Veterans. Cities and states across the country are vowing to end homelessness among Veterans by the end of the year. Progress is being made.

Over the course of the next couple of months, students in the Advanced Housing Seminar at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, are exploring how the structural and social alternatives for ending homelessness in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Using the combined talents and expertise of architectural, engineering, urban planning, and policy students, designs and strategies are being generated that push the envelope. You will be reading about their thoughts about homelessness and affordable housing generally.

Historic Preservation: Smarter Growth and Better Affordable Housing

The historic preservation movement has long been eschewed as elitist, expensive, and certainly at odds with affordable housing options. It is sometimes cited that historic preservation is too expensive, and not energy efficient. However, shifting preferences (“back to the city” movement, greater appreciation of quality construction) coupled with the rise of the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HRTC) are beginning to change our attitudes towards historic preservation. I believe that preservation of our existing housing stock is the “smartest” growth there is, and provides better affordable housing opportunities as well.

 America is a prosperous nation that is failing to meet the housing needs of its citizens. In the past 20 years, America has undergone drastic changes in its approach to providing affordable and adequate housing to its poorest citizens. The federal government no longer builds public housing - subsidies and tax incentives to private developers, CDBG funds, and rental assistance now shape our affordable housing tactics.

 

This issue is not solely limited to our nation’s poor. There is a crisis in affordable “workforce housing” for our teachers, police officers, nurses - those whose services we depend on, yet can’t afford to live near their place of employment and are priced out of all but the lowest cost-to-income markets (see Historic Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed Connection).

 The housing problem has generally been seen as an urban issue; however, since the recent housing crisis, we have seen more families struggling in suburbs and non-metropolitan areas. It affects renters and homebuyers, the young and the old. It is obvious that America needs affordable housing options - and the typical approach has been new construction made “affordable” though either subsidies or low-quality construction. And from a policy perspective, we continue to incentivize this type of housing and development; however, the market usually dictates location - often “in the fringes,” compounding the issue of sprawl and reinforcing automobile-dependency.

 Seen as an environmentally-sensitive alternative to traditional construction, movements such as LEED, Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Low Impact Development all tout sustainability as their guiding principles. And there are times when this type of new construction and development is appropriate; however, it is not “smart” to grow at the expense of our viable resources already extant in downtowns and neighborhoods. It is akin to saying “I’m totally into sustainability, being “green”, etc....” but really all you do is recycle and shop at Whole Foods.

 If we are going to talk sustainability, historic preservation really makes the most sense. Donovan Rypkema, a preservationist with a no-nonsense view of preservation cites many benefits - economic, environmental, civic/cultural that preservation can generate.

 Anti-Sprawl

When we preserve, restore, revitalize, or otherwise put use back into a building, it can be seen as the antithesis to sprawl. Open space, farmland, wildlife habitat are all saved when we choose historic preservation. Additionally, localities benefit financially because no new infrastructure is required (as opposed to new development, requiring new water and sewer lines, streets, curbs, gutters, etc.).

 Reinforces Density and Mixed Use

Don’t we find it ironic that New Urbanists and advocates of Smart Growth promote principles that are already inherent in many of our historic neighborhoods and communities? This stuff isn’t revolutionary! Historic neighborhoods were built to accommodate a variety of uses and were scaled to the human, not to the car. Planners today tout mixed-use development because it encourages a mixture of uses and activity, creating vibrancy and diversity in the streetscape. Historic neighborhoods can also accommodate a combination of income levels - from renters to home/shop owners. Because of the density and mixture of uses, historic neighborhoods also reinforce the interconnection of residential, retail, office, and manufacturing activities (pre-Euclidean zoning patterns).

 Business Incubator and Local Dollars

Eighty-five percent of all new jobs in America are created by small businesses. From an economic development perspective, historic buildings serve as perfect incubators for small business. They can offer flexible space and affordable rent in locations that are desirable to customers - downtown or in their own neighborhood. Vacant, buildings brought back to life are also brought back as tax-generating assets for a community (for more information, see Why Historic Preservation is Smart Growth).

 Additionally, while new construction does generate jobs, it also generates a lot of waste that goes into landfills. Rehabilitation of existing buildings uses significantly less materials and uses more labor (read: jobs... skilled jobs). The materials and energy saved when restoring vs. new construction is significant. As the National Trust for Historic Preservation says, “the greenest building is the one already built.”

 Specifically As Affordable Housing

Contrary to popular belief, historic preservation and affordable housing can go hand in hand. Studies show that over 60% of houses in older and historic neighborhoods have shopping within one mile, public transportation is available to residents in nearly 60% of older and historic neighborhoods, and that older homes are more affordable than new construction).

 If Historic Preservation Is So Great, How Can We Promote It?

 Historic preservation is often met by critics who claim it is too expensive, or too regulatory in nature. I contend that historic “preservation” should not be inferred as freezing a building in time and limiting its uses. The best way to “preserve” a historic building is to ensure that its use be relevant and active - not obsolete and not a museum. Perhaps historic “revitalization” is in fact the mantra that preservationists should adopt.

 The National Trust for Historic Preservation is the national “face” to preservation in this county. I think that leadership from the Trust could inspire creatively and provide guidance to local governments, so that historic preservation is not thought of as bureaucratic or “taking-away of private property rights.” Guidelines that encourage rather than discourage reinvestment in historic buildings may anger preservation “purists,” but I would rather see utilization to vacancies. This could be as simple as streamlining the development approvals for a rehabilitation project, or reducing proffers.

 The existing Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit has been an economic driver in restoring historic homes nationwide, spurring over $25 billion in private investment in 25 years. Perhaps additional incentives could be provided if a developer can roll the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit into a historic renovation project. The current Historic Tax Credits can only be used for income-generating buildings. A bill introduced in 1994, H.R. 5249 (103rd) Historic Homeownership Assistance Act, is designed to work like the existing tax credit to provide a 20% tax credit for the qualified expenditures made in rehabilitating a historic residence - providing tax incentives to individual homeowners. This bill has yet to pass.

 Finally, as a combatant to gentrification, policies should promote diverse, economically integrated neighborhoods and policies that promote homeownership. It is vital that renovated historic housing remain affordable. Historic preservation provides an opportunity to provide affordable housing while at the same time being the most sustainable development there is. 

Guest Contributor: Liz Russell

Immigration Reform Benefits Everyone

Health care is an extremely important component of community development. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, one of the leading community development foundations in the United States, considers health, poverty and community development to be “inseparable.” The reason is fairly obvious–– healthy children do better in school than unhealthy children and healthy adults are earn better incomes than unhealthy adults.

Undocumented immigrants have no access to health insurance. As result, undocumented families struggle to foster healthy communities. This contributes to crime and other community development problems. This also causes strain on hospitals. Under federal law, hospitals must provide care to anyone who seeks care in an Emergency Room regardless of immigration status. This kind of care is classified as indigent care, or charity care. To pay for indigent care, hospitals receive federal funding (taxpayers dollars) or make up for those costs with profits derived from seeing privately insured patients. Regardless, this health care ends up costing every American. However, lawmakers in California and elsewhere are beginning to realize that by offering basic health care to undocumented immigrants, they can save money when those patients do not put off care until it requires an Emergency Room.

 Immigration reform has the opportunity to alleviate the strain on health care in America and improve communities where undocumented immigrants live. Under the proposed reforms, The United States Congress will soon take up a bipartisan plan to overhaul immigration in this country. Lost on many Americans is how important immigration reform is for all communities––not just undocumented immigrants.

 Consider some the different components of community development that are often unattainable for undocumented immigrants–– health insurance, financing for houses and cars, public welfare programs, banking services, and in-state tuition (in most states). Lack of access to some of the key components of community development has a profound impact on undocumented immigrants and all Americans.

 Undocumented immigrants must provide proof of employment and consistent employment. This means that any immigrants seeking to become American citizens will be required to have health care like any other American in the United States. Their employer will provide this, or they may be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase health care. In any case, the expected gains from insuring people and getting them the care they need before they seek the Emergency Room is expected to save a billions of dollars in uncompensated care.

By documenting and insuring undocumented immigrants, we can improve their lives and the lives of all Americans. Healthy immigrants with documentation will have the opportunity to contribute to society and have the opportunity to raise their children in healthy environments. 

Guest Contributor: Addie Bryant

Schools Remember the Past and Prepare for the Future

Schools, public schools in particular, often play a central role in communities. Many families consider the quality and reputation of schools a major factor in choosing where to live (if they have the means and mobility to make such a choice). Public schools also hold lasting memories and significant historic meaning. This is especially true for communities such as the one that rallied to preserve and reinvent the Jefferson School in Charlottesville, Virginia. The school, which has a much longer history than the extant building, embodies the struggles and accomplishments of Charlottesville’s African American community since the late nineteenth-century. Andrea Douglas, Executive Director of the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, in an interview with Andrea Copeland of Inside Nonprofits, says that the Jefferson School is “the only school in the city in which you can trace the change of the community in its physical structure.” The changes traced in the Jefferson school’s history include the introduction of educational opportunity for former slaves, school segregation, and the now-infamous destruction of the historic Vinegar Hill neighborhood, the western edge of which abuts the Jefferson School, as part of Charlottesville’s urban renewal program in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

Rudolph Goffney, alumnus of the Jefferson School and participant in the Jefferson School Oral History Project, describes the importance of preserving the school as a way of honoring an often painful history: “You’re going to need reminders of those things when you don’t have the people around to tell others what happened…if people don’t learn what happened, they’ll never know why or how, or how to prevent it from happening again“ (as quoted in Community Engagement at the Jefferson School). Jefferson School alumni were instrumental in revising the city’s plans to redevelop the school to ensure that the building and its tenants will honor and preserve local African American history and reestablish the cultural heart of the community.

 

The new Jefferson School City Center, which celebrated its grand opening on January 19, 2013, is now home to a renovated Carver Recreation Center and the new Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, along with the Jefferson Area Board for Aging’s intergenerational programming, Piedmont Virginia Community College’s new culinary program, and several other non-profits and social service organizations. While not the first school building to be adapted for new use in Charlottesville (the McGuffey Arts Center and the Albemarle County Office Building both occupy historic city schools), the Jefferson School City Center represents a unique and collaborative model that will commemorate the African American community’s history while providing a place for citizens to gather and engage in new cultural production.

 

Other cities around the country have adapted historic school buildings for community use: a former high school in Redmond, Washington is now the Old Redmond Schoolhouse Community Center, which according to the Project for Public Spaces “has provided the catalyst for revitalization of a diverse and economically challenged neighborhood and a focal point for renewed and expanded community development.” Indianapolis, Indiana’s new Martindale Brightwood Community Center, expected to be completed this year, will include renovation of former Hazel Hart Hendricks School 37 to a state-of-the-art community center preserving the original gymnasium and adding a community kitchen, town square area, and other amenities. Cities are also finding creative ways to keep operating schools at the center of communities, re-using other building types such as a movie theater-turned-charter-school in Brooklyn, New York and a former church slated to house the middle school campus of San Francisco’s Children’s Day School.

 

Keep an eye on what happens at the Jefferson School City Center; the Center’s story embodies the centrality of schools in defining the history and shaping the future of our communities.

Guest Contributor: Julia Triman

 

The Hidden Costs of Homelessness

 What are the “hidden” costs of homelessness and how do we begin to measure them?  Homelessness is difficult to quantify for several reasons:  (1) the homeless themselves tend to be “hidden”; (2) the root causes of homelessness are complex; and (3) the costs incurred by municipalities as a result of homelessness are often embedded in services spread across myriad agencies.  For all of these reasons, it is difficult to effectively address the issue of homelessness.  However, many organizations in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia have developed a Community Plan to End Homelessness and have begun to see the reduction of costs to public services and of those classified as chronically homeless.

A recent assessment entitled “The Hidden Costs of Homelessness in Nashville:  A Report to the Nashville Metro Homelessness Commission” conducted by students at Vanderbilt University of the chronically homeless in Nashville, TN revealed that service costs were sought for “addiction treatment, advocacy, case management/referrals, child care and education, clothing, communications, counseling, documents, education, emergency care/transport, financial services, food, health care, housing/shelter, incarceration, job training, laundry, legal/courts, mental/behavioral health, pastoral care, personal care items, and transportation.”  For Nashville, the average annual cost to provide permanent housing was estimated at $5,907-7,618 per person which was significantly less than the $11,500 of costs related to the temporary housing and care of average and chronically homeless.

The principle of Housing First echoes this reality.  By providing permanent housing as the first step in service provision there is a resulting reduction in the provision of existing services.  Charlottesville has already witnessed these benefits with regard to a new single room occupancy (SRO) facility managed by Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH).  Serving Richmond, Norfolk and Charlottesville, VSH has been providing permanent supportive housing to the homeless in addition to on-site case management, counseling and financial literacy programs, community building and guaranteed tenure.  On average, temporary housing in Richmond costs $9,500-13,500 per person.  Permanent housing saves the public up to $9,000 per individual served.  Of the residents in VSH programs, 96% obtain a stable income through work or entitlement programs and 98% of residents do not return to homelessness.

 The Crossings at 4^th & Preston opened March 2012 in Charlottesville and is managed by VSH.  It is a SRO facility with furnished studio apartments.  The facility also contains community spaces, laundry facilities, a fitness room and a computer room.  The Crossings is staffed 16 hours a day with an on-call evening manager.  There is extensive security, off-street parking, access to public transportation, proximity to downtown and business districts and supportive services to improve health, income and housing.  The new construction is also EarthCraft Virginia-certified for resource and energy efficiency. 

When we begin to understand the linkages between housing tenure, social services and stability, we begin to better recognize the hidden costs of homelessness.  It is only when we see that these “hidden” costs are costs to us, the taxpaying citizenry, that we feel compelled to make the initial investment in the creation of Housing First facilities and programs.  Let us hope that the homeless and the “true” costs to our society can find a way to daylight. 

Guest Contributor: Laura McGurn