Habitat and housing

[dprives at gmail.com]

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[mfick at cclfchicago.org]

While Habitat may have some internal challenges to deal with, I would not
immediately fault them for building smaller homes while surrounded by a
housing development market full of energy hogging McMansions.

I am currently engaged in helping our CDC borrowers to build more
sustainable homes. One issue in this arena is balancing how much floor
space a family really needs with how much they think they want.

As an industry, we should be trying to get away from situations where the
affordable housing on the block looks cheap or poorly designed. We do want
our low income households to not feel stigmatized because they live in "that
plain, little house down the street." And we don't want our parents and
grandparents to be stuck in 200 sq ft affordable senior apartment as they
retire. At the same time, we should not assume that what the market is
building is what is healthy for our planet and our communities.

We've been hearing about these 4,000 - 5,000 square foot homes that are
achieving LEED certification. This seems more than a bit ironic to me. We
used to be able to get through a day satisfied with a 12 oz soda. Now
everybody on the train beside me is chugging from a 50 oz big gulp and
clamoring for more.

That's my soapbox and I would love to hear other people's thoughts on these
issues.

Mark Fick
Senior Loan / Program Officer
Chicago Community Loan Fund
29 East Madison, Suite 1700


Chicago, Illinois 60602
phone 312-252-0440 x208
fax 312-252-0419

Member of the Opportunity Finance Network


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Patrick Hemen]

Dan,

It is easy to document additional Real Estate Taxes paid by the new
properties. To local counties, the Real Estate Taxes continue on for
several years, and the cumulative effect can be significant, especially
in a community where several homes have been built. In South Dakota, an
indirect benefit is the additional taxable value, which increases the
tax base, which actually helps increase the constitutional debt limit
for the particular municipality (in South Dakota). Even though there
is mostly volunteer labor, the purchased materials and hired
professional services are not difficult to calculate. If these are
homes that were not going to be built any other way, then this is a real
thing. If the homes were going to be built, then someone else would
have counted those same figures, so if Habitat for Humanity is
responsible, I think they can still claim those numbers. Some Habitat
for Humanity Affiliates have a pretty good estimate of the economic
impact to the communities they operate in. Most of them could come up
with this, with some effort.

As for other standards for square footage of homes: USDA Rural
Development, formerly Farmers Home Administration, used to enforce
square footage restrictions on new construction homes. One person could
have 864 sq. ft. A 2 person family maximum was 960. A three person max
was 1008. The largest home was generally 1,344. USDA Rural Development
has since gone to a different definition, restricting size by
restricting the cost of the home, in an effort to provide decent, safe,
yet modest housing.

Patrick Hemen
Business Programs Specialist
USDA Rural Development State Office
Federal Building, Room 210
200 Fourth Street SW
Huron, SD 57350
Telephone: (605) 352-1143
Fax: (605) 352-1154

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1628446-4991803@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1628446-4991803@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Prives
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:45 AM
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Habitat and housing

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org


This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Jonbecker at aol.com]

USA residential housing up until the 1960s was* around 1000 SF ave. if I recall correctly a recent articel about this.* During the recent energy cost upswing and the start of real estate downswing , the ave. SF dropped back to 2400 from 2700.

The ave. residential SF will likely drop some more, since neither is going to get better soon, according to news reports.

Also, with average "family" size generally much smaller now than in 1960 (and likely going to have to get smaller on average* for all of those descendants to survive!) why ask HfH to build larger SF homes?*

And, even for those families that "need" more than, say, 900-1200 SF, why allow them a larger slice of the energy pie? One possible solution: Some communities are now passing ordinances that tie SF to energy/environmental standards. E.g., if you build a house >10,000 SF, you must meet LEED platinum standards. Similar standards for big box stores, etc.

Builders would however still have to compensate for the extra/flashier stormwater runoff that results from all the added impervious surface area.



In a message dated 7/26/07 10:04:43 AM, dprives@gmail.com writes:


I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development.* I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US.* Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US?* Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Richart Keller]

I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[dft7 at msn.com]

Ditto. I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals that
non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller@verizon.net>
To: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>;
<communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and
community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible
in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


> I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
> Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
> the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
> 97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
> square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
> development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
> standards?
>
>
> Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
> Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
> affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
> form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
> facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html
>
> Regards,
> Dan Prives
> Where Most Needed
> The Charity Industry Blog
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org
>





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Galor CoopGalor]

Hello,

My intervention will be on the conceptual approach to the housing
cooperative. Housing cooperatives belong to the category of
cooperatives where members are users, such as consumers cooperatives,
saving and credit cooperatives, insurance cooperatives and more.

These housing cooperatives have a peculiar characteristic though.
When the cooperative has attained its objective, namely providing
housing to its members, it ceases practically, and by approach to exist.

Another problem of these cooperatives is its operation. The members
in these cooperative are adhering to, since alone they are unable to
pay for any solution of housing themselves by themselves. They hope
that via the cooperative way, they may achieve their goal. One of the
classic approach to this cooperative says: the members start to save
their money in the cooperative on regular basis. They may, after a
period of time, approach a financial institution, from where they may
get a loan to finance their wish. The problem in this way is that
members are, generally, poor, and saving a substantial amount of
money may take considerable period of time. During this time the
accumulated saving funds are deposited in financial institutions
where the annual rate of interest offered to savers is, in most
countries worldwide, lower than the rate of annual inflation, and
worse, lower than the index of construction prices in that country.
The outcome is erosion in the real value of money members and
decreasing in their capacity to obtain their will - housing.



There is a solution, based on the tradition of certain population,
and I believe that developmental projects based on the tradition of
the beneficiaries, and which are not in conflict with, have better
chance to succeed. This solution is based on the ROSCAS idea, the
n'susu or the tontin the synonyms, or as it is called else where in
other part of the world.

We are speaking of people who are unable to obtain any long term
credit. The example is based on imaginary figures for the sake of the
explanations. We are speaking about a group of 100 members in this
group. The house cost is evaluated at 10.000 MU (MU =Monetary Units).
The members can spare each month 100 MU out of their income. Each
month these members can collect 10.000 MU, the cost of one house. In
a year they are able to finance the construction of 12 houses, and in
8.5 years all members of the group would have their houses. Members
can get their houses as they are accomplished, according to an order
which will be decided by themselves. The title's ownership will be
finalized on the name of the dwellers only when all members have
obtained their houses. This is a framework which should be adapted
to different environments and circumstances.

Regards

Zvi

Zvi Galor

www.coopgalor.com

On 26/07/2007, at 18:46, Hemen, Pat - Huron, SD wrote:

Dan,

It is easy to document additional Real Estate Taxes paid by the new
properties. To local counties, the Real Estate Taxes continue on for
several years, and the cumulative effect can be significant,
especially
in a community where several homes have been built. In South
Dakota, an
indirect benefit is the additional taxable value, which increases the
tax base, which actually helps increase the constitutional debt limit
for the particular municipality (in South Dakota). Even though there
is mostly volunteer labor, the purchased materials and hired
professional services are not difficult to calculate. If these are
homes that were not going to be built any other way, then this is a
real
thing. If the homes were going to be built, then someone else would
have counted those same figures, so if Habitat for Humanity is
responsible, I think they can still claim those numbers. Some Habitat
for Humanity Affiliates have a pretty good estimate of the economic
impact to the communities they operate in. Most of them could come up
with this, with some effort.

As for other standards for square footage of homes: USDA Rural
Development, formerly Farmers Home Administration, used to enforce
square footage restrictions on new construction homes. One person
could
have 864 sq. ft. A 2 person family maximum was 960. A three
person max
was 1008. The largest home was generally 1,344. USDA Rural
Development
has since gone to a different definition, restricting size by
restricting the cost of the home, in an effort to provide decent,
safe,
yet modest housing.

Patrick Hemen
Business Programs Specialist
USDA Rural Development State Office
Federal Building, Room 210
200 Fourth Street SW
Huron, SD 57350
Telephone: (605) 352-1143
Fax: (605) 352-1154

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1628446-4991803@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1628446-4991803@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Dan
Prives
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:45 AM
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Habitat and housing

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org




This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Karen Westmont]

Most current building is*for the affluent market (think McMansions), or at least to those at in the top quartile of incomes* and therefore upwardly biases the sample on square footage.* From my work in the field of housing policy (from tax assessor to community activist to academic) over the last 30 years, I offer this ballpark analysis:* *The HfH square footage of 1200**approaches the average for homes if you exclude the last 30 yrs.* Somewhere there is research showing the size of NEW homes increasing X percent every decade.** Since when is the profit-making sector**a guide to good policy?* And, have you heard of the movement for Living Small or some such? It's been popularized in the main stream press, and is a reaction in part*to McMansions.*
*
since HfH allows its occupants full profit recapture, at least in the programs I know about, the square footage limit perhaps caps some*the profit to be made.* So much subsidy into one*household without any recapture...not the best use of money, according to Deloitte and Touche's study of*housing programs done for Portland, OR.* Yes, I know, affluent households are subsidized at least as much through the income tax system.* What a mess.
*
Karen Westmont
*
*


*
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Prives <dprives@gmail.com>
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44:42 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development.**I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US.**Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US?**Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org (http://www.wheremostneeded.org/)





This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[adesalvo at mtb.com]

Capital District Habitat for Humanity in Albany, NY is actively building 1100-1200 sf 3 BR homes, and when necessary, 4BR homes with 1 BR on the main floor if one of the household members is disabled.

The houses are getting the higest Energy Star ratings from NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority). One of the reasons is that we use Structural Insulated Panels for exterior walls and the roof. This not only saves heating and cooling costs but (1) allows the house to be closed in more quickly and (2) uses less dimensional lumber, thus cutting the amount of trees used. To lower the cost of these panels and to save more energy in the form of transportation costs, we will be assembling the panels ourselves after we purchase the necessary tools to do so. We expect to use the SIPS panels we assemble and produce enough of them to sell at a lower cost to other Habitats and not-for-profit builders, including housing authorities involved in affordable housing development.

Additionally, we have also recently entered into an agreement with a solar energy firm to build our next 8-10 houses with solar panels to generate electricty. The added cost per house to Habitat is approximately $600 due to a grant from NYSERDA which covers the rest of the cost.

We are also trying to have these houses fit into the neighborhoods in which we build. They are 2 story, with porches large enough for people to use.

The next challenge is doing rehab in historic neighborhoods, of which Albany has many!

AL DE SALVO Vice President, Capital District habitat for Humanity

Al De Salvo
Vice President
Community Reinvestment Officer, Capital Region, NY
327 Great Oaks Boulevard, Albany, NY 12203
518.464.6155 FX 518.464.0906
Mail code: NY6-G020

M&T Bank-"Understanding What's Important"

>> "Richart Keller" <richart.keller@verizon.net> 07/26/07 12:34 PM >>>
I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org







************************************
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
************************************



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[eduardo at tacdc.org]

Good point on the costs...I have not read all the replies, however, we must
also consider that the average home being built today is over 2,500 sq ft -
much lager that what is truly needed. Along with the sq ft size come
utility bills, maintenance costs, and taxes, so size is not the important
indicator, but quality. The HFH home tends to be a solid, good quality
home.

I think that we have to step back before we accept a premise of an issue
(they are building homes smaller than 97% than the current market) and look
at the entirety of the issue: is a bigger home the only indicator? If so,
is the intent of the affordable housing provider to compete with the size of
the market rate builder? Is the market rate builder focusing on lower
income families? Or just maximizing profits? Are there issues with the
quality of homes being built by the market rate builders (especially the
starter home, mass production builder)? Is that a fair comparison?

Since HFH and the CDCs in general are addressing market failures, maybe we
should look at other indicators of what is being produced, for whom, and
with what resources, then celebrate the impact and success that the
nonprofit low-income housing providers are having - while still having to
compete in the same market as the for profits.

Don't misunderstand me in that I believe in being critical of our efforts,
organizational structures, and what we produce with the end goal of doing it
better. I just think that the initial premise of these emails is a partial
picture that is focused on an indicator that is irrelevant.

Eduardo R. Magaloni
Director of Development and Training
Office (512) 916-0508
Fax (512) 916-0541
www.tacdc.org
Enhancing community development throughout Texas.


-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1629251-5282806@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1629251-5282806@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Devin Tucker
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Richart Keller; Dan Prives; communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing

Ditto. I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals that

non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller@verizon.net>
To: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>;
<communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and
community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible
in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


> I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
> Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
> the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
> 97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
> square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
> development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
> standards?
>
>
> Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
> Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
> affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
> form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
> facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html
>
> Regards,
> Dan Prives
> Where Most Needed
> The Charity Industry Blog
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org
>






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[marx at cbpp.org]

I would also think that the priority is to get a roof over every family.
If they prosper (and have enough space/land around them) they can always
expand their dwelling.

I grew up in a two room, 900 sqare foot house that my family built. My
grandparents (father's side), parents, and three siblings and I had some
pretty tight living quarters, but with time (mixed with ambition), we
expanded the house to twice it's size before we purchased sold the farm
and moved. I think focusing on the size of a person's home overlooks
the fact that it is a home and 900-1200 square feet of space is a true
blessing. I wouldn't seriously look to expand on that amount. Better
to expand upon community services ... Better to put in a community pool
than a pool for every family, so to speak. If people need more yard
space, develop greenspace/parks close to homes.


-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1629251-8120843@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1629251-8120843@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Devin
Tucker
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:29 PM
To: Richart Keller; Dan Prives;
communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


Ditto. I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes
are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete
just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals
that
non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller@verizon.net>
To: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>;
<communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and
community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more
flexible
in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural
character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building
affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


> I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
> Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that

> the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller
> than 97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards

> for square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable
> housing development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about
> changing their standards?
>
>
> Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis Restructuring
> after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some affiliates
> longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at form 990s and

> trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils facing the
> organization's mission and methods in its home country.
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html
>
> Regards,
> Dan Prives
> Where Most Needed
> The Charity Industry Blog
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org
>






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[chris at jumbocdinvestmen]

In 1996, a builder in the next town over had two developments. One was a
little upscale, bigger homes (1400 - 2000 sq ft)., bigger lots (7000 - 9000
sq ft.), more bells and whistles. The other was a little smaller (1100 -
1700 sq ft) , smaller lots (5000 - 6500 sq ft), basic amenities. The price
difference on average was $20K - $40K. The builder also offered and paid
for special loan programs such as a 2-1 buy down. The state had a reduced
interest rate for first-time home buyers. This created a set of affordable
homes for middle-income earners.

Overall, I believe a good combination of using private and government
solutions. In 2007, repeating the same success has been challenging.

Chris Duncan
Jumbo C.D. Investments, Inc.
1-800-234-4605
www.jumbocdinvestments.com


Life is not measured by the number of
breaths we take but by the moments that
take our breath away.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Magaloni" <eduardo@tacdc.org>
To: "'Devin Tucker'" <dft7@msn.com>; "'Richart Keller'"
<richart.keller@verizon.net>; "'Dan Prives'" <dprives@gmail.com>;
<communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: Habitat and housing


Good point on the costs...I have not read all the replies, however, we must
also consider that the average home being built today is over 2,500 sq ft -
much lager that what is truly needed. Along with the sq ft size come
utility bills, maintenance costs, and taxes, so size is not the important
indicator, but quality. The HFH home tends to be a solid, good quality
home.

I think that we have to step back before we accept a premise of an issue
(they are building homes smaller than 97% than the current market) and look
at the entirety of the issue: is a bigger home the only indicator? If so,
is the intent of the affordable housing provider to compete with the size of
the market rate builder? Is the market rate builder focusing on lower
income families? Or just maximizing profits? Are there issues with the
quality of homes being built by the market rate builders (especially the
starter home, mass production builder)? Is that a fair comparison?

Since HFH and the CDCs in general are addressing market failures, maybe we
should look at other indicators of what is being produced, for whom, and
with what resources, then celebrate the impact and success that the
nonprofit low-income housing providers are having - while still having to
compete in the same market as the for profits.

Don't misunderstand me in that I believe in being critical of our efforts,
organizational structures, and what we produce with the end goal of doing it
better. I just think that the initial premise of these emails is a partial
picture that is focused on an indicator that is irrelevant.

Eduardo R. Magaloni
Director of Development and Training
Office (512) 916-0508
Fax (512) 916-0541
www.tacdc.org
Enhancing community development throughout Texas.


-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1629251-5282806@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1629251-5282806@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Devin Tucker
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Richart Keller; Dan Prives; communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing

Ditto. I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals that

non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller@verizon.net>
To: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>;
<communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and
community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible
in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


> I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
> Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
> the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
> 97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
> square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
> development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
> standards?
>
>
> Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
> Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
> affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
> form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
> facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html
>
> Regards,
> Dan Prives
> Where Most Needed
> The Charity Industry Blog
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org
>









This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[T.Arulmony MAHASEMAM]

In Indai we are able to build 300 Sq foot houses with the loan support of Habitat for Humanity. We recive USD 500 from Habitat as intrest free loan. To complet the house we need to get additional loan from other sources and our labour. The reasons are
Cost of construction materials-- steel, iorn, cement, sand, wood etc.
Costy labour- technicine
High intrest loan from other sources than habitat.
Millard Fuller used to stay in the houses built by Habitat laon assitance. After he enjoy the stay report to the Habitat office in India and to US. Thus he used to mobilises more resources and volunteer and reduced the cost of construction

Devin Tucker <dft7@msn.com> wrote:
Ditto. I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals that
non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richart Keller"
To: "Dan Prives" ;

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


I just added my two cents to the blog--basically, as a planner and
community
organizer I feel that while Habitat may want to be a little more flexible
in
housing size and in adapting its designs to the architectural character of
the local community , its role in building communities through social
networking (diverse volunteers working together) while building affordable
housing is unique and vital to our society and its credibility and
visibility are unparalleled.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Prives"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Habitat and housing


> I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
> Humanity plays in community development. I was suprised to find that
> the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller than
> 97% of the homes built in the US. Are there any other standards for
> square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable housing
> development in the US? Has anyone approached HfH about changing their
> standards?
>
>
> Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
> Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
> affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
> form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
> facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html
>
> Regards,
> Dan Prives
> Where Most Needed
> The Charity Industry Blog
> http://www.wheremostneeded.org
>







Be a better Heartthrob. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2N TQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN 0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545433]Get (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48255/*[url) better relationship answers [/url]from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Brie Frey]

Sure...I have an opinion. I am currently a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ghana working with Habitat for Humanity-sort of. Peace Corps Ghana has a partnership with Ghana Habitat for Humanity. Most volunteers working with them are focusing on helping potential home owners or current home owners to work on small projects to generate income.My community is newer and has about 8 houses. Other volunteers live in communties with*over 200 houses.
*In my group of 40 people,*they have chosen to rear sheep. Most members are farmers and farmers do not have a regular income here and are at the mercy of huge price drops.They have a hard time trying to pay back the loans. They are also the ones who need the homes.
The houses are small but after people pay off the loan, they can build on.
There are many issues I see facing Habitat here. In Ghana, I feel like the principles are good but they are not culturally adapted to fit village life here. For example, most people are small scale subsistence farmers who can grow their own food. These are the people Habitat wants to focus on but they can not plan ahead on payments or make the monthly payment at all. So in many communties, the chiefs or people in the village who have a regular salary or money*are building houses. I have heard some people plan to rent the rooms out to people because they do not need the houses. Some people do not understand the premise of Habitat at all even after the education.
I would have to sit down and put some thoughts on paper. The issues with Habitat and size of house is not a real big issue to me. The bigger issues are cultural and economic differences.
Over the next few days, I will try to sit down and write some of my observations and opinions.
Also, anything I have written here is only my opinion and does not represent Peace Corps in anyway.
Thanks,
Brie Frey
*


*


From:**"Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
Reply-To:**"Dan Prives" <dprives@gmail.com>
To:**communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject:**Habitat and housing
Date:**Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:44:42 -0400
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the role Habitat for
Humanity plays in community development.**I was suprised to find
that
the standard HfH home at 900 to 1,200 square feet is much smaller
than
97% of the homes built in the US.**Are there any other standards for
square footage minimums or maximums with respect to affordable
housing
development in the US?**Has anyone approached HfH about changing
their
standards?


Habitat for Humanity in the U.S. Faces Mid Life Crisis
Restructuring after the dismissal of founder Millard Fuller has some
affiliates longing for a more grassroots approach, but a glance at
form 990s and trends in U.S. housing reveals more fundamental perils
facing the organization's mission and methods in its home country.
http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/07/habitat-for-hum.html

Regards,
Dan Prives
Where Most Needed
The Charity Industry Blog
http://www.wheremostneeded.org


i'm making a difference.*Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. Join Now.* (http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2752??PS=47575)
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Dodson Mae]

Devin Tucker wrote;

... I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals that

non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....

Ed Dodson here:
Land costs tend to be highest where there is a high level of absentee
ownership. And, a primary reason for absentee ownership is the low effective
rate of taxation on land in most of the world. Owners can acquire and hold
land for generations without bringing land to its "highest and best use"
because the cost of doing so is often so minimal. In rural communities the
land owners may lease land to tenant farmers, which yields them a
significant income that is drawn from the local economy and leaves the
actual producers in a state of perpetual poverty.

There is a public policy response that will bring land to the market at
lower cost for development. This is to increase the annual tax obligation to
a level that comes close to the annual rental value that land yields under
competitive auction market conditions. The higher the effective rate of
taxation, the less actual or imputed rental income there is to be
capitalized by market forces into a selling price for locations.

In countries where government routinely assesses land values, land markets
will operate most efficiently if assessed values are kept current (i.e., as
close to market values as possible). This assures a high degree of equity in
the taxation scheme, meaning that all property owners are taxed at the same
effective rate of taxation. Where assessments are left static for long
periods while land values are changing, some property owners are advantaged,
others disadvantaged. Unfortunately, this is the case today in much of the
United States.

From my own experience, I know just how difficult it is to get local
officials in the U.S. to, first, appreciate the connection between rising
land prices and property taxation theory and, second, to take on a
community's large land owners to change the tax scheme to remedy the
problem. Only in Pennsylvania is there some momentum to make the necessary
changes in tax policy by gradually lowering the tax rates on property
improvements (i.e., houses and other types of buildings) and increase the
rate on assessed land values. And, even in these cities the tax rate on land
is still too low to cause a reduction in land prices. The best that might be
said is that speculation in land is becoming less profitable than it has
been in the past.

Housing affordability activists have, as an alternative to trying to change
the system, adopted the strategy of forming community land trusts. To the
extent the trusts are able to acquire land at affordable prices (or obtain
it from governments or by donation), the annual ground rents charged are set
based on household income. Housing affordability is protected by
establishing resale restrictions on the housing unit. This prevents the
market from capitalizing the difference between the charged ground rent and
the market ground rent into a selling price for the leasehold interest in
the land.

In summary, I have long ago reached the conclusion that public collection of
location values is the only policy that will solve the problem of
unaffordable land. Forming land trusts is at least an interim strategy.






This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[clearned at bminet.com]

First time posting here, I am enjoying this discussion as well as the other
thread on grants for businesses that has been running. I have been involved
in a co-housing project that will be breaking ground this summer.
www.arboretumcohousing.org

I wanted to put in a plug for the other piece to empowering low income
families that being the social support structure which can be worth more to
individuals and families than the house value. In our case the
individual/family will be connected with on a day to day basis 39 other
units or 80 members. These members will have access to community meals, lots
of instant aunts and uncles happy to share in child sitting, built in
socialization and networking, downtown infill with easy access to public
transportation and a big neighborhood yard. Crime has been shown to drop in
neighborhoods where co-housing comes in. In our case the households will
co-own 6,000sq' of common space with rec rooms, meeting rooms, extra guest
rooms, exercise rooms. The utility cost are much lower due to shared walls
and energy efficient construction and central furnaces etc. Care sharing for
second cars will be in place.

In the case with this project we will be putting in a Habitat duplex as it a
mix of existing houses and new multi-family dwellings. About 6 dwellings are
low income subsidized both from city of Madison incentives, the Hospital we
are buying the land from and per unit member allocations. The average size
unit is 1100sq'

This type of model can be accelerated in the development process by
nurturing local developers for profit or non-profit that are willing to
bring group process people on board and carry the lessons forward to
accelerate the development model. In Colorado there is a developer who has
something like 20 of these either built or in process. They have learned the
lessons and moving the process along quickly. This is part of the great
turning toward a collaborative community model. Entire neighborhoods can be
transformed with various versions of this model. We have a similar project
in Madison that was done under the umbrella of a local land trust
.http://www.affordablehome.org/MACLT/TroyGardens/Website/BuyingAHome/pricing
affordable.htm There common house is the second phase of development. They
share 26 acres in an urban environment with a produce farm community gardens
and nature preserves.

Finally in our city you can qualify by income to buy ahouse with a
significant reduction in cost of mortgage under the city mandated IZ program
and city assistance for down payments up to $10,000

Chuck Learned
Madison WI

Devin Tucker wrote;

... I think also, there is a very fundamental reason why the homes are
much smaller..that's being overlooked...and that's really the cost of
construction materials...especially concrete. Habitat has to compete just
like any other homebuilder for the same raw materials. Land is also
expensive and just as scarce in some areas...these are all fundamentals
that

non-profit developers/builders have to contend with....

Ed Dodson here:
Land costs tend to be highest where there is a high level of absentee
ownership. And, a primary reason for absentee ownership is the low
effective
rate of taxation on land in most of the world. Owners can acquire and hold
land for generations without bringing land to its "highest and best use"
because the cost of doing so is often so minimal. In rural communities the
land owners may lease land to tenant farmers, which yields them a
significant income that is drawn from the local economy and leaves the
actual producers in a state of perpetual poverty.

There is a public policy response that will bring land to the market at
lower cost for development. This is to increase the annual tax obligation
to
a level that comes close to the annual rental value that land yields under
competitive auction market conditions. The higher the effective rate of
taxation, the less actual or imputed rental income there is to be
capitalized by market forces into a selling price for locations.

In countries where government routinely assesses land values, land markets
will operate most efficiently if assessed values are kept current (i.e.,
as
close to market values as possible). This assures a high degree of equity
in
the taxation scheme, meaning that all property owners are taxed at the
same
effective rate of taxation. Where assessments are left static for long
periods while land values are changing, some property owners are
advantaged,
others disadvantaged. Unfortunately, this is the case today in much of the
United States.

From my own experience, I know just how difficult it is to get local
officials in the U.S. to, first, appreciate the connection between rising
land prices and property taxation theory and, second, to take on a
community's large land owners to change the tax scheme to remedy the
problem. Only in Pennsylvania is there some momentum to make the necessary
changes in tax policy by gradually lowering the tax rates on property
improvements (i.e., houses and other types of buildings) and increase the
rate on assessed land values. And, even in these cities the tax rate on
land
is still too low to cause a reduction in land prices. The best that might
be
said is that speculation in land is becoming less profitable than it has
been in the past.

Housing affordability activists have, as an alternative to trying to
change
the system, adopted the strategy of forming community land trusts. To the
extent the trusts are able to acquire land at affordable prices (or obtain
it from governments or by donation), the annual ground rents charged are
set
based on household income. Housing affordability is protected by
establishing resale restrictions on the housing unit. This prevents the
market from capitalizing the difference between the charged ground rent
and
the market ground rent into a selling price for the leasehold interest in
the land.

In summary, I have long ago reached the conclusion that public collection
of
location values is the only policy that will solve the problem of
unaffordable land. Forming land trusts is at least an interim strategy.








This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Hillary Aisenstein]

So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[santiago.suarez at aya.ya]

So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote: So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia






--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu (santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu)
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[George Samuels]

".....the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy."
___________
Even if you can price risk*on affordable housing, doesn't mean that you'll be able to raise funds to develop it. Affordable housing would be a risky thing, so who would want to invest in it? Why not invest in something that would provide a better return? I know there are discussions*like*this, see (http://www.finir.org/). If the recent subprime market bust and the rapidly increasing rate of foreclosures are*any indication, should we be wary of this idea?
You are right, we don't need to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, WE NEED TO JUST FULLY FUND HUD!!!!! Thsi is not a popular idea, I know, but if programs were funded appropriately, we would have more housing for those in need!
The goverment has been engaging the private for-profit*sector (from programs like 221d4 to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit) in the development of affordable housing for quite some time. Many of these programs have been good for private developers, requiring little money down, but providing major windfalls.*But market-rate housing provides more money, and that is why the developers are there.*We have*major issues now with private owners trying to opt out of their affordable housing agreements for greener market-rate housing. Private investment is needed for sure, but we can't solely depend on it in the case of affordable housing (it would be interesting to see how much*private money, outside of CRA money, actually goes into affordable housing and similar activities).*This affordable housing thing seems to be better when non-profit, for-profit, and goverment entities work together. It is not clear that any one of these groups could do it alone.
*
George
*
*

From: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
Reply-To: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
To: "Hillary Aisenstein" <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu>
CC: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:30:19 -0400

So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote: So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia






--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu (santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu)

See what you’re getting into…before you go there (http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2749??PS=47575)
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Dodson Mae]

George Samuels wrote:

The goverment has been engaging the private for-profit sector (from programs
like 221d4 to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit) in the development of
affordable housing for quite some time. Many of these programs have been
good for private developers, requiring little money down, but providing
major windfalls. But market-rate housing provides more money, and that is
why the developers are there. We have major issues now with private owners
trying to opt out of their affordable housing agreements for greener
market-rate housing.

Private investment is needed for sure, but we can't solely depend on it in
the case of affordable housing (it would be interesting to see how much
private money, outside of CRA money, actually goes into affordable housing
and similar activities). This affordable housing thing seems to be better
when non-profit, for-profit, and goverment entities work together. It is not
clear that any one of these groups could do it alone.

Ed Dodson here:
For what it is worth, after long years of joining other thoughtful people
who come to work every day to put our collective fingers in the dike, I have
come to the conclusion that political scientists who describe the way public
policies are adopted as "disjointed incrementalism." This is certainly the
case regarding affordable housing programs.

I go back to my earlier post: the primary, underlying problem is that our
land markets operate against the struggle to keep housing affordable. Too
few economists even acknowledge that land markets are different from the
markets for labor, for capital goods or for credit. The idea that we ought
to eliminate taxation of property improvements and only tax land values is
not a popular idea, even though the arguments in favor of doing so go back
to Adam Smith.

In lieu of the best public policy changes, we are left with band-aids that
involve huge public subsidies, often to purchase land from private owners so
the land can be developed affordably.




This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[qfaadvsr at rcn.com]

I am jumping in a bit late with this debate, however I have experience in the banking/wall street arena for 25 yrs. I was involved in the thrift bailout in the arly 90s. There is no easy answer to fairness, capitalism, pricing, community lending etc.

However, I do blieve less government is better than more, we cannot solve cultural, ethnic inequalities through government quotas etc. We need to address the overal structural issues of our society first: energy independence, maintain trust in our capital markets, immigration and terrorism.

If countrywide wants to double down on a poor credit home buyer and offer a first and second lien loan to a homebuyer with a credit score less than 600 to buy a home with no money down, then let counrtywide mortgage pay for poor business practices. Let them fail.

THE MARKET HAS OVERREACTED TO THESE CREDIT CONCERNS AND THE MARKET SHALL BOUNCE RIGHT BACK.

joe

www.qfainc.com
www.myspace.com/quantumfinancialadvisors



This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Malcolm Bush]

Would that Santiago’s analysis told the full story.* The fact is that the rent low-income people can afford to pay cannot support the debt payments or the maintenance costs on market provided housing.* The numbers simply do not work. Housing for low-income people requires subsidy and federal subsidies to middle income homeowners in the form of property tax and mortgage interest relief exceed federal subsidies to lower-income housing.* So it’s not a matter of correctly pricing risk.* It’s a matter of figuring out what form of subsidy will be most effective.
*
Malcolm Bush
President
Woodstock Institute
Chicago
*

From: bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Santiago Suarez
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:30 PM
To: Hillary Aisenstein
Cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing

*
So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote:
So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia






--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu (santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu)

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Hillary Aisenstein]

And finding the political will to put the needs of low-income people above the needs of middle- and upper-income people.* I saw an article today about hedge fund managers and how they only pay a 15% tax rate because some how their earnings are classified as long-term capital gains - even though most of their holdings and trades last for seconds at a time...* this isn't just about housing.

hillary

Malcolm Bush wrote: v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} <![endif]--> st1:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } <![endif]--> <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Would that Santiago’s analysis told the full story.* The fact is that the rent low-income people can afford to pay cannot support the debt payments or the maintenance costs on market provided housing.* The numbers simply do not work. Housing for low-income people requires subsidy and federal subsidies to middle income homeowners in the form of property tax and mortgage interest relief exceed federal subsidies to lower-income housing.* So it’s not a matter of correctly pricing risk.* It’s a matter of figuring out what form of subsidy will be most effective.
*
Malcolm Bush
President
Woodstock Institute
Chicago
*

From: bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu) [mailto:bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu)] On Behalf Of Santiago Suarez
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:30 PM
To: Hillary Aisenstein
Cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu (communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu)
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing

*
So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote:
So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia






--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu (santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu)
--
Hillary Aisenstein
Director
Philadelphia Higher Education Network for
Neighborhood Development (PHENND)
3451 Walnut Street, Suite P-117
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6205
215-573-2379
215-573-1134 fax
hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.upenn.edu/ccp/PHENND.html

Check out the new PHENND People Exchange! http://phennd.communishare.org
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Henry at bromelkamp.com]

Tonight I'm volunteering overnight at St. Stephen's shelter. 70% of the men in the shelter work full-time jobs. I appreciate the efforts of non-profits and subsidies to try to help fill the gap in affordable housing, but isn't the real solution to increase incomes so that working people can afford market-based housing? Most of the poor are working.*How about a $15 minimum wage?

From: bounce-1636667-8120936@list.cornell.edu [mailto:bounce-1636667-8120936@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Hillary Aisenstein
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:07 AM
To: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing



And finding the political will to put the needs of low-income people above the needs of middle- and upper-income people.* I saw an article today about hedge fund managers and how they only pay a 15% tax rate because some how their earnings are classified as long-term capital gains - even though most of their holdings and trades last for seconds at a time...* this isn't just about housing.

hillary

Malcolm Bush wrote: v:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } o:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } w:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } .shape { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } <![endif]--> st1:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui) } <![endif]--> @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.EmailStyle19 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } <![endif]--> <![endif]-->
Would that Santiago’s analysis told the full story.* The fact is that the rent low-income people can afford to pay cannot support the debt payments or the maintenance costs on market provided housing.* The numbers simply do not work. Housing for low-income people requires subsidy and federal subsidies to middle income homeowners in the form of property tax and mortgage interest relief exceed federal subsidies to lower-income housing.* So it’s not a matter of correctly pricing risk.* It’s a matter of figuring out what form of subsidy will be most effective.

Malcolm Bush
President
Woodstock Institute
Chicago


From: bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu) [mailto:bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu (bounce-1633784-4990169@list.cornell.edu)] On Behalf Of Santiago Suarez
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:30 PM
To: Hillary Aisenstein
Cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu (communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu)
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing


So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote:
So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia






--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu (santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu)
--
Hillary Aisenstein
Director
Philadelphia Higher Education Network for
Neighborhood Development (PHENND)
3451 Walnut Street, Suite P-117
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6205
215-573-2379
215-573-1134 fax
hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.upenn.edu/ccp/PHENND.html

Check out the new PHENND People Exchange! http://phennd.communishare.org
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[Urban Miyares]

Another questions* for those on HH and low-income* housing.

Do* such programs/projects allow* the low-income home owner/tenant to operate a home-based business or* work-from-home enterprise, even though all local business permits and licenses can be secured?**
*
I sure do hope there are no restrictions or barriers in this area, either in the housing application or the community such housing is created if economic development is the goal.
*
Thank you.
*
Urban Miyares
Disabled Businesspersons Association

This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[George Samuels]

Ed Dodson wrote:
For what it is worth, after long years of joining other thoughtful people
who come to work every day to put our collective fingers in the dike, I have
come to the conclusion that political scientists who describe the way public
policies are adopted as "disjointed incrementalism." This is certainly the
case regarding affordable housing programs.

I go back to my earlier post: the primary, underlying problem is that our
land markets operate against the struggle to keep housing affordable. Too
few economists even acknowledge that land markets are different from the
markets for labor, for capital goods or for credit. The idea that we ought
to eliminate taxation of property improvements and only tax land values is
not a popular idea, even though the arguments in favor of doing so go back
to Adam Smith.

In lieu of the best public policy changes, we are left with band-aids that
involve huge public subsidies, often to purchase land from private owners so
the land can be developed affordably.

________________________________________

Your point is well taken Ed, but at this juncture in time, we have to take it as a given that land prices are going to be ridiculously high, and that developing affordable housing is going to be expensive, sometimes even more expensive than developing market-rate housing because of all the additional layers (administrative, legal, and other) necessary to make it work.
For me though, the cost is*the cost, and fighting that battle will not be productive.* While the cost may be high, in many cases a lot of the money is*leveraged, and ends up being covered through the tax system (which is where the government has been trying to steer these things in recent times, anyhow), a la Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and similar programs. The*leveraging power of*the LIHTC program*has been*phenomenal. My concern is: did we get the housng and will*it remain affordable for people in need. Chances are, now-a-days, that when housing falls under the rubric of affordable, it will stay that way for a while, as there are*more protections now. Still we are losing a lot of the stock we have, through opt-outs, expirations, etc., and that is troubling.
But if we are looking for cheaper land, many time it can*be found*right under the noses of our city government. In many of our cities and other areas, a lot of land is owned by the government.*We need to figure out what land the government owns and how*it is*being used? Is it vacant?*Is it safe? Is it an open field full of dandelions? Is it just not worth it? Whatever it is, we need to at least know. The "new" renaissance in Harlem is party due to city government releasing tax burdened and other*properties to willing developers at an extremely low*cost. I grew up there and it is quite a different place now than it was in 1985. And yes, housing there for the most part is still affordable. Most people that lived on my block when I was a boy are still there, while*stores and restaurants have*opened around them.**

George





*

From: "Edward Dodson" <ejdodson@comcast.net>
To: "'George Samuels'" <georgey10@hotmail.com>,<santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>,<hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu>
CC: <communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: Habitat and housing
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:05:15 -0400
George Samuels wrote:

The goverment has been engaging the private for-profit sector (from programs
like 221d4 to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit) in the development of
affordable housing for quite some time. Many of these programs have been
good for private developers, requiring little money down, but providing
major windfalls. But market-rate housing provides more money, and that is
why the developers are there. We have major issues now with private owners
trying to opt out of their affordable housing agreements for greener
market-rate housing.

Private investment is needed for sure, but we can't solely depend on it in
the case of affordable housing (it would be interesting to see how much
private money, outside of CRA money, actually goes into affordable housing
and similar activities). This affordable housing thing seems to be better
when non-profit, for-profit, and goverment entities work together. It is not
clear that any one of these groups could do it alone.

Ed Dodson here:
For what it is worth, after long years of joining other thoughtful people
who come to work every day to put our collective fingers in the dike, I have
come to the conclusion that political scientists who describe the way public
policies are adopted as "disjointed incrementalism." This is certainly the
case regarding affordable housing programs.

I go back to my earlier post: the primary, underlying problem is that our
land markets operate against the struggle to keep housing affordable. Too
few economists even acknowledge that land markets are different from the
markets for labor, for capital goods or for credit. The idea that we ought
to eliminate taxation of property improvements and only tax land values is
not a popular idea, even though the arguments in favor of doing so go back
to Adam Smith.

In lieu of the best public policy changes, we are left with band-aids that
involve huge public subsidies, often to purchase land from private owners so
the land can be developed affordably.




See what you’re getting into…before you go there (http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2734??PS=47575)
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[pdruhan at cadcom.org]

I am not concerned with Countrywide going bankrupt. The problem is the
individuals left penniless and bankrupt due to being pressured into
refinancing by individual mortgage officers who were paid bonuses for
this manipulation. Markets work best when well-regulated rather than
left to sharks.

And Joe, when you speak of what we must do, I take that to mean the
collective entity known as a democratically elected government. More
government is not necessarily better, but neither is the opposite true.

On topic, I find that Habitat has lately been a matter of scorn in
Norristown, PA. Traditionally Habitat has focused on rehabing older row
homes. This was good for the community. However, we have had two
situations where fires left rotting and dangerous hulks for which
Habitat did not have the money to clean up the site. These eyesores sat
for 2 yearshelping to bring down property values and neighborhoods.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-1636588-8121008@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1636588-8121008@list.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of
qfaadvsr@rcn.com
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Malcolm Bush; 'Santiago Suarez'; 'Hillary Aisenstein'
Cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: Habitat and housing

I am jumping in a bit late with this debate, however I have experience
in the banking/wall street arena for 25 yrs. I was involved in the
thrift bailout in the arly 90s. There is no easy answer to fairness,
capitalism, pricing, community lending etc.

However, I do blieve less government is better than more, we cannot
solve cultural, ethnic inequalities through government quotas etc. We
need to address the overal structural issues of our society first:
energy independence, maintain trust in our capital markets, immigration
and terrorism.

If countrywide wants to double down on a poor credit home buyer and
offer a first and second lien loan to a homebuyer with a credit score
less than 600 to buy a home with no money down, then let counrtywide
mortgage pay for poor business practices. Let them fail.

THE MARKET HAS OVERREACTED TO THESE CREDIT CONCERNS AND THE MARKET SHALL
BOUNCE RIGHT BACK.

joe

www.qfainc.com
www.myspace.com/quantumfinancialadvisors




This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[James DeFilippis]

whenever I read that the answer to providing affordable housing is to help the market function more efficiently in poor neighborhoods I'm reminded of the fact that for most of capitalist history poor people did not have a government to provide housing subsidies or projects -- and they lived in absolutely shocking conditions that were often unsafe, unsanitary, over-crowded or otherwise fundamentally inadequate. *
Anyone who doubts what the market provides in low income neighborhoods should go back and read Jane Adams, or Riis's "How the Other Half Lives" or, if you prefer fiction, pretty much anything from Dickens or Hugo would suffice.
Now it is possible that markets have become so much more efficient that, left on their own, they would provide sufficient, adequate, affordable housing for poor people. *
But it seems altogether more likely that the inability of the market, on its own, to provide such housing in sufficient numbers in any place or at any time in capitalist history suggests that relying solely on the market to provide decent places for poor people to live is a recipe for disaster for poor people.
I know in New York City, the market is simply never going to provide decent housing for all the families of 3, or 4 or 5 that make $15,000 -- $20,000. *It's just not going to happen, and anyone who argues that getting rid of the barriers to the efficient market would allow this to happen is very mis-guided.
James
*
************************************************** ******************
James DeFilippis
Department of Black and Hispanic Studies
Baruch College, CUNY
New York, NY 10010
646-312-4447

*
"George Samuels" <georgey10@hotmail.com>
Sent by: bounce-1634118-4991788@list.cornell.edu
07/29/2007 12:00 AM AST
Please respond to "George Samuels"

To: santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu, hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu
cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
bcc:
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing
*


".....the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy."

___________

Even if you can price risk*on affordable housing, doesn't mean that you'll be able to raise funds to develop it. Affordable housing would be a risky thing, so who would want to invest in it? Why not invest in something that would provide a better return? I know there are discussions*like*this, see (http://www.finir.org/). If the recent subprime market bust and the rapidly increasing rate of foreclosures are*any indication, should we be wary of this idea?

You are right, we don't need to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, WE NEED TO JUST FULLY FUND HUD!!!!! Thsi is not a popular idea, I know, but if programs were funded appropriately, we would have more housing for those in need!

The goverment has been engaging the private for-profit*sector (from programs like 221d4 to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit) in the development of affordable housing for quite some time. Many of these programs have been good for private developers, requiring little money down, but providing major windfalls.*But market-rate housing provides more money, and that is why the developers are there.*We have*major issues now with private owners trying to opt out of their affordable housing agreements for greener market-rate housing.
Private investment is needed for sure, but we can't solely depend on it in the case of affordable housing (it would be interesting to see how much*private money, outside of CRA money, actually goes into affordable housing and similar activities).*This affordable housing thing seems to be better when non-profit, for-profit, and goverment entities work together. It is not clear that any one of these groups could do it alone.

George



From: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
Reply-To: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
To: "Hillary Aisenstein" <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu>
CC: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:30:19 -0400

So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu > wrote:
So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia





--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu


See what you’re getting into…before you go there
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list

[ed_rivera83 at yahoo.com]

I agree with James regarding the market.
As a former housing advocate in NYC, many of the so called market distortions kept many low to middle income New Yorkers safe from total displacement.
Ironically enough as it sounds, the market CANNOT function for the good of all without the appropriate regulations and enforcement in place to protect MOST people.
*
If this list serve is going to use terms like "market", then it is important to understand exactly what the market is!! The market price does not include everybody. A matter of fact, the market price of a product or service is SUPPOSED TO EXCLUDE most people who cannot afford to pay the market price.
*
***But to be completely fair, subsidies cannot JUST be imposed to just fix prices.
Subsidies must also allow whomever is receiving them to build enough momentum to eventually become self-sustainable.
I think blindly giving subsidies with no end goal in mind for self-sufficience could spell disaster and dependency.
*
*


James_DeFilippis@baruch.cuny.edu wrote:
whenever I read that the answer to providing affordable housing is to help the market function more efficiently in poor neighborhoods I'm reminded of the fact that for most of capitalist history poor people did not have a government to provide housing subsidies or projects -- and they lived in absolutely shocking conditions that were often unsafe, unsanitary, over-crowded or otherwise fundamentally inadequate. *
Anyone who doubts what the market provides in low income neighborhoods should go back and read Jane Adams, or Riis's "How the Other Half Lives" or, if you prefer fiction, pretty much anything from Dickens or Hugo would suffice.
Now it is possible that markets have become so much more efficient that, left on their own, they would provide sufficient, adequate, affordable housing for poor people. *
But it seems altogether more likely that the inability of the market, on its own, to provide such housing in sufficient numbers in any place or at any time in capitalist history suggests that relying solely on the market to provide decent places for poor people to live is a recipe for disaster for poor people.
I know in New York City, the market is simply never going to provide decent housing for all the families of 3, or 4 or 5 that make $15,000 -- $20,000. *It's just not going to happen, and anyone who argues that getting rid of the barriers to the efficient market would allow this to happen is very mis-guided.
James
*
************************************************** ******************
James DeFilippis
Department of Black and Hispanic Studies
Baruch College, CUNY
New York, NY 10010
646-312-4447


"George Samuels" <georgey10@hotmail.com>
Sent by: bounce-1634118-4991788@list.cornell.edu
07/29/2007 12:00 AM AST
Please respond to "George Samuels"

To: santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu, hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu
cc: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
bcc:
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing
*


".....the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy."

___________

Even if you can price risk*on affordable housing, doesn't mean that you'll be able to raise funds to develop it. Affordable housing would be a risky thing, so who would want to invest in it? Why not invest in something that would provide a better return? I know there are discussions*like*this, see (http://www.finir.org/). If the recent subprime market bust and the rapidly increasing rate of foreclosures are*any indication, should we be wary of this idea?

You are right, we don't need to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, WE NEED TO JUST FULLY FUND HUD!!!!! Thsi is not a popular idea, I know, but if programs were funded appropriately, we would have more housing for those in need!

The goverment has been engaging the private for-profit*sector (from programs like 221d4 to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit) in the development of affordable housing for quite some time. Many of these programs have been good for private developers, requiring little money down, but providing major windfalls.*But market-rate housing provides more money, and that is why the developers are there.*We have*major issues now with private owners trying to opt out of their affordable housing agreements for greener market-rate housing.
Private investment is needed for sure, but we can't solely depend on it in the case of affordable housing (it would be interesting to see how much*private money, outside of CRA money, actually goes into affordable housing and similar activities).*This affordable housing thing seems to be better when non-profit, for-profit, and goverment entities work together. It is not clear that any one of these groups could do it alone.

George



From: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
Reply-To: "Santiago Suarez" <santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu>
To: "Hillary Aisenstein" <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu>
CC: communitydevelopmentbanking-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Habitat and housing
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:30:19 -0400

So far, I have been following the debate with some interest from the sidelines. However, I do feel compelled to reply to Hillary's questions. From a purely economic perspective, the lack of affordable housing is, fundamentally, a market failure. Credit markets cannot accurately price risk among the poor, and, thus, are unable to provide financing for houses. The solution to the problem, then, is not to bring in direct government intervention, but, rather, to think of innovative ways in which we can assess and price risk amongst the homeless. Recent work by economists at Yale and other institutions focuses on solving the market failure by finding accurate ways of pricing risk. The results in the developing world have been very encouraging, and I would guess that we could apply some of their findings to the US market. So, with this in mind, the answer is not to create another government bureaucracy like HUD, or to expand HfH's work. Instead, the government should focus on expanding/changing financial regulations, so that the private sector will find it profitable and sustainable to offer housing opportunities for this subsector of the economy.

Thoughts?

-Santiago
NYC



On 7/28/07, Hillary Aisenstein <hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu (hillarya@pobox.upenn.edu)> wrote:
So, I find it interesting that no one has yet commented on the first "limitation" of HfH as mentioned in the article referenced in the original post on this subject.* I'll paste it here:

"Limited impact.* After three decades of extensive favorable press, endorsements from five Presidents of both political parties, support from churches of all the major Christian denominations, widespread brand recognition, and donation rates that put it near the top of all U.S. charities, Habitat has not come close to achieving the goal of providing an affordable home to anyone who is willing to work for it.* Since its founding in 1976, Habitat for Humanity has built about 66,000 homes in the U.S.* It sounds like a lot, but this represents less than two tenths of a percent of the 35 million homes built during that period.* Habitat for Humanity has provided some heartwarming volunteering opportunities, but it has not made even a decent dent in the overall problem of affordable housing in the U.S."

When I read this I was reminded of an excellent book on a different, but related, topic.* In Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendeick argues that as big and impressive as the emergency food system has become (also a phenomenon of the last 30 years), it only scratches the surface in terms of alleviating hunger.* And, as dysfunctional and problematic as it is, the food stamp system still feeds more people, more consistently and for less money per meal.*

So, regardless of house size, warm fuzzies of volunteers, and other factors, I ask two questions:
1) why do we still think the private sector (even if the nonprofit part of the private sector) can solve something like homelessness and lack of affordable housing?
2) could we ever get HUD or some gov't agency to ever replicate HfH's success on a larger scale?

Hillary
Philadelphia





--
_________________________________________
Santiago Suarez

Starting in September, my new email address is santiago.suarez@aya.yale.edu


See what you’re getting into…before you go there (http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2749??PS=47575)


Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/?p=PASSPORTPLUS]all (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48251/*[url) the tools to get online.[/url]
This post transferred from the cdb-l mailing list