[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Based on Housing and Community Development Acts:1937 1990, and HUD Budget Summaries and Appropriations Acts: 1981 1993.Many communities receive federal funds applicable to housing pro-grams through the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) pro-gram initiated in 1974.The grants, allocated according to need, cover awide variety of activities designed to revitalize city physical and eco-nomic structures and improve the circumstances of low- and moderate-income persons.CDBG funds have become increasingly important insupporting local housing programs but compete with a wide variety ofother activities eligible for program funding.Furthermore, Nenno comments, although CDBG funding is intendedto be targeted to high-need areas, in practice, communities often spreadfunding over many areas with little attention to long-term housing or re-vitalization strategies.The Housing Assistance Plans (HAPs) and Com-prehensive Housing Affordability Strategies (CHAS) required by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for communitiesreceiving federal housing assistance were supposed to provide an assess-ment of housing needs and a strategic framework for community hous-ing programs.In many cases, however, the plans often fall short of pro-viding real direction for housing programs.6With federal programs on the wane and local efforts in difficulty, statehousing programs have taken up some of the slack, as have ad hoc localgovernmental and public/private housing programs.Local public/privatepartnerships for housing development have proliferated, using a varietyof funding sources including low-income housing tax credits.Non- 180 7.ACHIEVING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GOALSgovernmental organizations such as BRIDGE (the Bay Area ResidentialInvestment and Development Group), especially active in California; Ju-bilee Housing, operating in the Washington/Baltimore area; and theLocal Initiatives Support Corporation and Enterprise Foundation, activethroughout the nation, have become major players in stimulating pro-duction of affordable housing.Many of these organizations are supportedby local housing trust funds that create a pool of investment funds for af-fordable housing.In most communities, however, affordable housing remains a preciouscommodity and a weak component in growth management.Often localgovernments that mount ambitious growth management programs real-ize after the fact that increased development restrictions affect the avail-ability of affordable housing.They then attempt to retrofit their pro-grams by adopting special programs to provide subsidized housing, asdescribed in a later section sometimes a matter of too little, too late.Nevertheless, many communities recognize needs for affordable housingand make strenuous attempts to meet those needs despite the obstaclesin place.Raleigh, North Carolina s experience illustrates the range of problemsfrequently encountered.Like most older cities, Raleigh has its share ofrundown housing and also has actively participated in federal housingassistance programs.Since 1935, Raleigh s housing authority and othercity agencies have constructed about 2200 public housing units and,more recently, rehabilitated over 500 housing units and provided rentassistance to 1000 low- and moderate-income families.Despite these efforts, the city still has a substantial housing problem,exacerbated by housing price increases and continued declines in federalhousing assistance.To address these problems, a series of task forces andcommittees worked over several years, beginning in 1983, to identify po-tential public and private approaches to providing affordable housing.Atask force in 1985 recommended that the city adopt annual housing tar-gets: construction or purchase of 100 low-income rental units; rehabili-tation of 100 substandard units; and housing assistance loans and grantsto 100 homebuyers.Following the report, the city planning staff prepareda housing element for the comprehensive plan that laid down a basicprinciple for city involvement in housing issues:The city recognizes that it must become an active provider ofhousing for low and moderate income households.with theunderstanding that [this] can only be accomplished within an ef-fective intergovernmental framework and in partnership with theprivate sector.To implement this policy, the city began a multifaceted housing pro-gram financed with federal, state, county, and city funds.The program AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 181acquired and prepared housing sites for private and nonprofit builders,rehabilitated substandard housing, provided emergency shelters andtransitional housing, and financed construction of a variety of housingfor low to moderate income homeowners and renters.In addition, fundswere authorized to organize the Triangle Housing Partnership, a pub-lic/private housing group, and $20 million in general obligation bondswere authorized to assist potential homeowners and renters.These efforts in the 1980s declined in the 1990s.Funds from the bondissue have been fully allocated and current city leadership is debating fu-ture priorities.The local housing authority fell into disfavor as mainte-nance standards declined at its projects.Activities of the Triangle Hous-ing Partnership virtually ceased.A statewide equity pool was spun off,however, to provide a mechanism to channel private sector funds to localefforts for using tax credits for low- and moderate-income housing
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]