That's a link to an RSS feed of all the "action" in a particular area of the site, including ideas and comments, etc. To learn more about what RSS is and how you can use it, We need affordable housing for ALL income levels - 0 to $100k
anonymous
shared this idea
11 comments
-
Linda Clark Rosenstein
commented
Affordable housing within market rate housing is a misnomer. In Boston the median income is $96,000 - which makes "affordable" housing not accessible for persons the affordable housing was meant for in the first place. It is a myth to say that "affordable" housing is also provided within these projects that receive substantial amounts of subsidized mortgages and other government assistance to rebuild or do new construction.
-
Laura Hansen
commented
Housing is most desperately needed for those at 30% of Area Median Income.
-
Ken Maness
commented
I must say this again, with a few additional points..........The ever decreasing supply of public monies should be focused on housing for those at our lowest of incomes at 0-40%AMI in mixed income neighborhoods in communities across the country. Sidelining the discussion to say that focusing federal funding to support housing on the lowest of income levels will only create concentrations of poverty and low income housing is inaccurate. Use of Vouchers for persons to live in neighborhoods where they are excluded by high rent or as an incentive for inclusion of affordable low income housing in mixed income developments are only two examples. In Raleigh NC as most public and HUD monies are focused on new bricks and mortar, we have only been able to build about 200 low income units per year while the need for housing is in the thousands of units and for our community, the number in need is growing by over 300 new families making poverty level wages moving into our city each year. The statistic that households should spend no more than 30% of income on housing was intended for low income households .. not households well above poverty level making near $100,000 per year. ie: when a very low income houshold of 4 makes $30K or less per year typically spending $8-10K on housing, leaves $10-12K for all other family needs for the year, very different for a houshold of 4 making $100,000 spending 30% or $30K per year on housing with $60K left over for household needs. HUD and other public funding should be focused on the hundreds of thousands of households across our country with incomes 0-40%AMI. I must say again, when the need is so great for our lowest of income citizens, use of public monies for households with incomes above 50% AMI and up to $100,000 is inappropriate.
-
phenomina
commented
more affordable housing is need, but the upper ranges over $40-50% AMI should simply be mandated by policy regarding the construction industry and land use planning. NOT funded by public housing program moneys. This is a two edged sword that should always be used: the larger community providing housing for the lower end, and mandating laws that intelligently control the production and pricing, finance of private enterprise construction of housing for the middle and high end. The high end was overbuilt, in a free for all of profit taking resulting in problems for everyone. This is a result of government failing to control land use, planning, permits, construction and lending for the people's good.
-
kking
commented
Streamline access to HUD funding for non-profit groups like Mennonite Disaster Service so volunteers could repair, rebuild during non-disaster times to keep our volunteers busy!. Same goes for local community based housing groups.
-
Greg Shinn
commented
We can't keep looking at funding of social service organizations targeting the lowest of the low income to solve the problem of providing affordable housing, including the housing needs of the homeless and chronically homeless. By combining multiple funding streams including all federal agencies, federal, state and local housing trust funds we can make a huge dent, but the social service/non-profit sector does not have the capacity to do this job alone. The scope of the number of affordable housing development projects that need to be completed across the country (incuding acquisition/rehab and new construction)requires the investment and know how of the private sector/for profit development sector, who can bring their corporate experience and capacity to the table to solve the problem. Funding streams can mandate this partnership process for application and require the involvement of social serivce providers to operate the housing dedicated to the 0 - 40% of AMI population. While there is a need for some dedicated housing for that population, the last thing we want to do is focus on creating housing just for that population. That is simply another form of institutionalization and creates high concentrations of poverty again. Partnerships with the capacity to develop the housing intended for mixed income/mixed population will create jobs, provide for financial sustainbability and house the formerly homeless at the same time. It is smart community planning and development and streches resources to their full capacity.
Greg Shinn Tulsa, OK www.mhat.org -
Heather Rhoda commented
Affordable housing is needed at income levels from $0 to $100k (of course depending upon family size). It is not inappropriate to make use of federal funding, providing budgets allow for those with incomes above 30 or 40% AMI. Depending upon the state you live in there may be private sector options, but the same housing studies indicate there is not enough. Affordable housing should also mean that individuals and families pay no more than 30% of their household income toward housing w/ possible exception to 40%. Any housing (home ownership, market rate rentals, etc) is not truly affordable if the household is spending over 30% of the income toward housing costs. At any given time, most of us are spending well over 30% and some well over 50% to 60 or 70%. These scenarios are very dangerous and any future incidences of homelessness for these households should not be shocking or surprising to anyone.
-
Ellen commented
To engage private landlords, vouchers must come with supportive services and protections against distruction of the unit and eviction cost. However, we also need solutions for persons who have crimminal backgrounds, especially sexual offences as they are routenly screened out of privately owned housing. Also, some structured housing is beneficial in all communities, even if it is in a specified building, this would include control of the front door and support services. Lastly, housing for those who cannot seem to remain sober needs to be available this requires low demand, and high supports. Living in shelter is not an option, everyone needs a roof and the means to support themselves, in a safe environment.
-
Ken Maness
commented
We certainly need additional rental vouchers for those at our lowest of incomes. Public Support for Affordable Housing should be focused on those individuals and families at our lowest of incomes, making 0-40%AMI, those at poverty level wages. Use of public HUD funding for individuals and families making higher than 40% AMI, up to $100,000 is inappropriate as housing studies typically indicate that housing for persons making 50% and above AMI is provided by the Private Sector with no local or federal funding needed. So while the general statement of support for providing a wide range of affordable housing is appropriate, use of public funds to support those at higher incomes in not appropriate, especially with ever diminishing funding resources.
www.raleighnc.gov/endinghomelessness
This item likely receives many votes because it was posted early and is at the top of the list. Look for other posts that focus on 0-40%AMI and support increased funding for Housing Vouchers and vote for those as your top HUD priority. -
mstepansky
commented
Yes, affordable housing, of course. But it should be pointed out that vouchers are much, much more cost-effective to house low income households than new "bricks and mortor" development. There are also benefits to new mixed-income housing, with units affordable to people at multiple income levels, but every unit that is affordable to a person making $50K or $75K is not going to be affordable to those most in need (those at 30% of AMI or below). To truly end homelessness, I think we need to target our resources to those most in need first; those at median income levels or above, while they certainly could use more affordable housing, are most likely not going to be homeless as a result of the cost of housing. In this respect, I agree with the posting in principle, but not in practice.
-
Freeda Rawson
commented
Affordable housing is a no brainer, however we also need to ensure that once a family or individual is housed that they have access to services that will support sustainabity. There also needs to be organic, community based partnership with private landlords that will help ensure that quality, upkeep and timely rental payments of tenants.
