The Changing Role of Public Housing Authorities in the Affordable Housing Delivery System

Abstract

As the great recession began, public housing authorities (PHAs) were just beginning to experience the full effects of neoliberal policy implementation and devolution. Using 13 case studies of the largest PHAs in the Pacific Northwest, this paper outlines activities that PHAs undertook to balance public mission with private-market means. PHAs made trade-offs among five paths that emphasize agency survival, producing housing for the poorest households, identifying as a nonprofit housing provider, poverty alleviation, or gaining other public powers. This diversity of responses points to the under-valued attribute of PHAs as local organizations with diverse mandates. Dependence on the federal government, local charter, and the degree of integration with local government likely contributed to PHAs' propensity to develop non-US Department of Housing and Urban Development-assisted affordable housing. Even with this creativity, adequate resources are necessary to meet the demand for affordable housing for the poorest households as market conditions change.

Keywords::

• Social housing
• housing policy
• housing privatisation
• public housing authorities
• public housing
• devolution

Notes

Written for the conference: After the Crisis: Housing Policy and Finance in the USA and UK, September 13–14, 2012, The New School for Social Research, New York, NY

1 Email: [email protected]

2 The HOME Investment Partnership program provides funds to local governments and states through a formula to create housing exclusively for low-income people.

3 Housing opportunities for people everywhere.

4 Moving to work is a US federal demonstration program that since the year 2000 has included 34 PHAs nationally. The program relieves some regulatory requirements and is meant to encourage innovation in PHA services and operations.

5 In 2007, the enabling legislation was amended to allow PHAs to rent to non-low-income people if the PHAs acquired units that were already inhabited by people who did not meet their income eligibility guidelines or if they reserved substantial numbers of units in their projects for lower income persons.

6 Moderate rehabilitation (mod rehab) is privately owned housing that has a HUD subsidy tied to the unit. Authorization in 1978 under Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 allowed owners to renovate existing housing and then receive a subsidy for the rent from HUD. The Mod Rehab authorization was repealed in 1991, but the existing units continue across the USA.

7 To conduct public housing redevelopment under the HOPE VI program, most PHAs enter into a partnership where a private developer is the developer of record. In the case of these two public housing authorities, they each were the developer of record, thus collecting development fees, controlling the development process, and subcontracting when necessary to other developers.

8 An expiring use restriction is a term to describe the loss of a subsidy due to the end of a timeline for a particular unit or set of units. Under the original LIHTC program, unit rents were set as affordable to those at 60 per cent of AMI or less for 15 years. Later, in Washington State, this time limit was increased to 40 years. With regard to Section 8 project-based contracts, many of these privately owned projects were built in the 1970s; 20–30 years after their construction, the time of the restriction of use for low-income clients is ending. The private owner has little reason to maintain the development at affordable rents without the contract, so low-income people are often displaced as these buildings become market-rate.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by an Emerging Scholar's grant from the West Coast Poverty Center at the University of Washington.