Help Push HB 3551 Over the Top: Take the 3 Friend Challenge  

The Housing Alliance is making amazing progress towards its goal of securing the $100 Million for Affordable Housing.  Because of your advocacy combined with the advocacy of Housing Alliance supporters across Oregon, we are on the verge of a tremendous victory! 

HB 3551, the legislation that dedicates an increase to the document recording fee to affordable housing, is being heard by the Ways and Means Transportation Subcommittee.  The Housing Alliance is very optimistic that HB 3551 will pass out of this committee and come to the House Floor for a vote in the next two to three weeks. 

NOW is the time for members of the House to hear from their constituents through out Oregon! 

Already this session, you have probably called, emailed or visited your Representative and Senators three or four times—which is great!  Please continue to call your Representatives and Senators. Its important they keep hearing from you. 

But do you know what would be even better?  Getting 3 new people to contact their Representative. Maybe your friends, co-workers, or family members?  Or anyone who lives in Oregon and believes in housing opportunity!  

Click here for a pdf with a sample email that you can share with three friends; the sample email is on the second page.  Please take 15 minutes to send this Action Email to three people who you think will follow through and contact their representatives this week.  If the friend you contact seems particularly enthusiastic, ask them take the 3 Friend Challenge!  

We are so close to victory.  Take heart and take action! 

The Housing Alliance brings together advocates, local governments, housing authorities, community development corporations, environmentalists, service providers, business interests and all others dedicated to increasing the resources available to meet our housing needs to support a common statewide legislative and policy agenda. To find out more about the Housing Alliance, go to: http://www.oregonhousingalliance.org/

Washington State Community Advocates End 2007 Session with Big Wins!

The Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and its many partner organizations once again ended a year of advocacy, organizing, education and policy research with passage of new housing legislation and adoption of a biennial budget that provides critical new neighborhood resources.

Always on the cutting edge of state policy issues and practice, state advocates note 5 key victories:

$4 million in general funding for an Offender Reentry Housing program and $1 million in vouchers for Foster Youth. Advocates are especially pleased that this funding is a significant step in using housing as a preventive measure

Action on manufactured housing enforcement and preservation, a priority issue for Washington housers. Through a series of town meetings with legislators and a wide campaign, advocates successfully won real and enforceable landlord tenant dispute resolution inside the State Attorney General’s Office. In addition, the State Housing Trust Fund has added funding solely dedicated to preserving manufactured home parks.

A 30% increase in funding for the State Housing Trust Fund to $130 million. This marks the fourth consecutive yearly increase for the Washington Fund.

Passage of a new $8 document recording fee for housing. Generating $12.5 million annually in local dollars, the Affordable Housing for All bill adds revenues that will also generate about $25.6 million this biennium for homeless housing assistance services and programs.

Extension of tax relief to locally funded affordable housing projects. Current property tax exemption of affordable and supportive housing developments funded through State and Federal programs (such as the Housing Trust Fund) is now joined with exemptions for developments funded with locally administered, non Trust Fund dollars. New legislation also disallows highest and best use in assessing the value of low income housing projects.

The Washington Low Income Housing Alliance is the coalition of which the Oregon’s Housing Alliance is modeled. For more information about the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance and its 2007 victories, go to: http://www.wliha.org/

Good News from DC: H.R. 1427 Passes House with an Affordable Housing Fund, House Committee Approves SEVRA; Troubles, Shortfalls Remain in 08 Budget

Thanks to the good work of housing advocates across the nation, we are closer to the establishment of a National Housing Trust Fund than we have ever been before.
H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007, was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22 by a vote of 313-104. The bill creates an Affordable Housing Fund of about $600 million a year. For the first year, the money will go to Louisiana and Mississippi to rebuild rental housing affordable for very low and extremely low income people. After that, the funds will become a dedicated source of revenue for the future National Housing Trust Fund.

The bill's sponsors successfully fought back numerous attempts to eliminate or alter the Affordable Housing Fund. Please thank your Congressman if he or she voted to support the fund. You can read the roll call votes at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll396.xml.
H.R. 1427 provides for stricter federal oversight of the GSEs with the creation of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a new regulator with broad oversight over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank system. H.R. 1427 also creates an Affordable Housing Fund, to be managed by the new FHFA. Funds, totaling about $3 billion over five years, would be derived through contributions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in amounts equal to 1.2 basis points on each GSE’s total outstanding mortgages each year from 2007 through 2011. 

Resources from the Fund must be used to the benefit of very low- and extremely low-income people. For the first year, 75 percent of the affordable housing funds would be allocated to Louisiana and 25 percent to Mississippi. Thereafter, funds would be allocated annually to the states using a HUD-developed formula. States could then award grants to eligible recipients including for-profits, non-profits, federally recognized tribes, and faith-based organizations with demonstrated capacity and experience. Importantly, however, the House-passed bill includes a provision that would reserve the use of these funds for a future national housing trust fund, perhaps rendering this formula structure irrelevant.
At Enterprise’s encouragement, the final bill includes an amendment sponsored by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) that would award the GSEs additional credit toward their Affordable Housing Goals for issuing mortgages on housing that meets energy efficiency and environmental standards.

The Senate must now pass its version of GSE legislation. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), chair of the Senate Banking Committee, has indicated the Senate will take up similar legislation, but provided no timeline. 

House Committee Approves Section 8 Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA)

On May 24, the House Financial Services Committee approved the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, H.R. 1851, by a strong bipartisan vote of 52-9.  The committee  retained the basic framework of the version of SEVRA introduced in March -- including provisions establishing a stable, efficient voucher funding formula and streamlining rules governing tenant rent contributions and housing quality inspections -- but made some significant changes.  We will update our analysis and side-by-side comparison with current law (found at http://www.cbpp.org/5-4-07hous.htm) shortly, but here are the most notable changes:
   

* Voucher renewal funding policy - To encourage agencies to serve more families (and keep per-unit costs lower), "overleasing" is specifically permitted.  In addition, HUD is required to adjust renewal funding allocations each year to reflect the full-year cost of a voucher absorbed during the prior year under the bill's change in portability policy. 
    

* Voucher reserves -  After the initial year (when agencies are allowed to retain one month -- or 8.3 percent -- of reserve funds), the maximum reserve level is set at 5 percent (rather than 2 percent in the bill as filed).  The final bill also specifically prohibits HUD from recapturing reserves below the permitted level.
    

* Project-based vouchers - A substantial number of changes to the project-based voucher program were adopted, based on recommendations made by a broad-based group to make this option even more effective.  We will be writing up these changes separately; contact us for more information if you're not already on our project-based voucher e-list.

    * Rent burdens and concentration of voucher holders - The final bill includes several changes -- including a requirement that HUD set Fair Market Rents for smaller geographical areas -- that will give agencies more flexibility to set voucher payment standards at an appropriate level in light of local housing costs, in order to advance program goals of affordability and deconcentration.

    * Family Self-Sufficiency coordinator funding - Rather than being allocated through annual competitions (with HUD's frequent changes in criteria), coordinator funding would be distributed by formula, based largely on the number of families participating in an agency's FSS program.

    * Inspections - Three changes were adopted in inspection requirements (in addition to the changes made by the bill as filed).  One change permits agencies to allow families to move into units that were inspected in the prior 12 months under a federal housing program, and to make voucher payments retroactively after the unit passes the voucher program inspection.  A second change broadens the flexibility to rely on inspections in other programs to meet the new biennial inspection requirement.  The final change alters the cure period for an owner to fix defective conditions to 90 days and allows an agency to use withheld voucher funds to make repairs.  (Under current regulations, an owner typically has 30 days to fix defects found on annual inspections, and agencies may extend the cure period in their discretion.)

    * Incremental vouchers - The bill authorized 100,000 incremental vouchers over 5 years (reduced from an initial amendment authorizing 250,000 new vouchers after bipartisan negotiations).

    * Moving to Work demonstration - Renamed the "Housing Innovation Program" or HIP, 60 agencies would be allowed flexibility over a 10-year period to alter many of the rules of the public housing and voucher programs, and an additional 20 agencies would be allowed more limited flexibility, all subject to evaluation.  The 25 agencies currently in MTW would be allowed into the new program (and count toward the maximum number of participating agencies) without reapplying if HUD determines they are meeting the goals and objectives of their individual MTW plans.  HIP retains significantly more key features of current law than the current MTW demonstration, including targeting and portability requirements, and substantially enhances tenant and public participation in local agency decision-making. 

Other new provisions were added concerning use of vouchers in manufactured homes on rented land,  keeping certain vouchers set aside for people with disabilities,  protections for tenants with enhanced vouchers, and optional screening and due process rights. 
Next steps: It is likely that the full House will consider H.R. 1851 in June or July, and that a similar bill will be introduced in the Senate before the August recess.

New CBPP Paper Outlines Major Shortfalls in HUD's FY08 Budget

The three principal low-income housing programs will need an estimated $2.8 billion in FY 2008 (above the President's request) to prevent families from losing assistance and to avert the further deterioration of public housing, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  This includes $600 million for Section 8 vouchers, $300 to $900 million for Section 8 project-based rental assistance, and $1.6 billion for public housing.  The report is available at: http://www.cbpp.org/5-29-07hous.htm. 

Contractor Support Program Celebrates Success Stories, Expands Program

The Housing Development Center (HDC)’s Contractor Support Program (CSP) is celebrating the success of its participants and expanding its program intended to develop and nurture emerging construction 0businesses owned by women and people of color.

In 2004, with generous funding from the City of Portland’s Bureau of Housing & Community Development (BHCD) new Economic Opportunity Initiative, CSP was able to target its services to a select group of minority, women, emerging and disadvantaged construction firms to strengthen their skills and business systems. 

The goal?  Enable companies to build their business skills and increase their business incomes by at least 25% over three years.  Eight of the CSP clients have done just that, and some have gone far beyond 25%.  CSP congratulates the following companies for their commitment to the program and for their high degree of success delivered with exceptional excellence.

Unlimited General Contracting – Flooring, painting & cleaning
Anderson Signs – Interior and exterior signage
Bronze Construction - General construction
City of Roses Drop Box Service – Garbage & drop box services
Faison Construction - Concrete construction
Lo’s Contracting – Interior & exterior painting
SBS Construction – General construction
3-D Deep, Down & Dirty – Janitorial services
CSP encourages those looking to increase their participation of minority and women emerging small business (MWESB) construction firms in their development activities to contact us for referrals to any of these companies, as well as others.  
 
New Applications: CSP is accepting new applications for minority and women emerging small business construction firms who qualify for services.  This program is funded through BHCD and there is no cost to the construction firm.  Clients receive one-on-one and group assistance in the following areas:

Estimating and Bidding                           
Project Management
Accounting and Bookkeeping
Marketing
Business Planning
Project Scheduling
Computer Training
CCB License Application
MBE/WBE/ESB/DBE Certification

To qualify for this program, business owner must:

Have a household income at or below 50% MFI, and
Be certified, or willing to work with CSP to get certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, Women Business Enterprise, Emerging Small Business or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise.

If you are a small contractor or tradesperson ready to take this next step to develop your business, or if you know of a small contractor who would benefit from training and technical assistance, contact Nuradin Kariye at 503-335-3668.  Click here for more information on Contractor Support Program. 

(Richard Morin and Shawn Neidorf, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press)

Support for government programs to help disadvantaged Americans, as well as sympathy for the plight of the poor, have surged since 1994 and returned to levels last seen in 1990 prior to welfare reform, with gains occurring among virtually every major social, political and demographic group.

Some of the biggest increases in concern for the needy have come from unexpected sources: political conservatives, Southern whites and older Americans. For example, in 1993, more than a quarter (28%) of self-described conservatives agreed with the statement, "The government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt." Today, 48% of all conservatives are willing to accept deficit spending to help those who cannot help themselves.

At the same time, the proportion of Americans who sympathize with the plight of the nation's poor also has increased since 1994, rising in virtual lockstep with changing views on the need to expand the social safety net. Whites in particular seem to have had a change of heart -- though that sentiment still fails to extend to a clear majority of whites: Today, 49% of whites say that the poor "have it hard," up from just 35% in 1994. The share of whites who say the poor "have it easy" because of government assistance programs has meanwhile dropped from 56% to 37%.

Taken together, these changes have pushed support for government assistance to the disadvantaged up to where it stood in the late 1980s, well before Republicans won control of Congress in 1994.

Three core questions regularly asked in Pew surveys since 1987 were analyzed to track attitudes toward government assistance to the disadvantaged. In addition to asking about their views on government help to the needy even if it means going deeper into debt, respondents were read these statements: "The government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep"; and "It is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves." Respondents were asked if they completely agreed, mostly agreed, mostly disagreed or completely disagreed with each of the three statements after it was read.

Overall, the proportion of those agreeing with each statement has increased since 1994, the year Republicans gained control of Congress and, ultimately with support from President Clinton, began overhauling the federal welfare system. A majority of Americans (54%) now agree the government should do more to help the needy. That's up from 41% in 1994 but virtually identical to the 53% of the public who offered that view in 1987. Similarly, 69% agree that the government should guarantee food and shelter to all Americans, up from 59% in 1994 and seven percentage points higher than in 1987. About seven-in-10 (69%) endorse the idea that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. That's a 12-percentage-point increase since 1994, though the proportion that now approves is slightly smaller than in 1987.

But perhaps even more significantly, the proportion of Americans who agreed with all three statements has increased from 29% in 1994 to 41% in 2007. At the same time, those who consistently disagreed with all three propositions fell by nearly half, from 24% to 13%.
America's renewed enthusiasm for an enhanced government safety net occurred broadly across every major demographic, economic and political group. In some instances, these gains were both large and somewhat surprising.

One of the largest increases occurred among the oldest Americans. Since 1994, the proportion of those 65 and older who agreed with the three propositions increased from 16% to 38%. These shifts narrowed the gap between old and young from 21 percentage points to 12 points. Support also grew disproportionately among whites (+13 points) compared with blacks, (+6 points), though a far greater share of blacks (61%) than whites (38%) consistently agreed. Among whites, the biggest increases occurred in the South, where support for the social safety net grew by 24 percentage points, from 24% to 48%.

Support for expanding the social safety net also increased among the wealthiest Americans -- those whose family incomes put them in the top quarter of earners in the country. Among this group, the proportion agreeing with all three statements rose from 16% in 1994 to 29% in 2007. That gain pales, however, in comparison to the 21-point increase among those in the bottom income quarter, from 38% in 1994 to 59% today. Double the proportion of the poor than of the more affluent (59% v. 29%) agree with all three statements about the social safety net.

Support for a stronger federal safety net has increased both among Republicans (+9) as well as Democrats (+14) and independents (+15). At the same time, the gap in support levels between the GOP and Democrats has increased from 25 to 30 points.

These increases have come at a time of growing public sympathy for the plight of the poor. When asked in December 2005 whether "poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything", or whether "poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently", 51% of people said the poor have it hard; 35% said they had it easy. That's almost a complete reversal of opinion from July 1994, when 53% of people said the poor had it easy, and 39% said the poor had hard lives. The question was not asked in January 2007.

As with support for an expanded government safety net, rising empathy for the poor is seen broadly across demographic groups, with the notable exception of blacks, who held virtually the same highly sympathetic opinions toward the poor in both 1994 and 2005. For example, 64% of blacks said the poor have it hard in 2005. In 1994, 65% of blacks said the poor have hard lives. Whites, meanwhile, have had a major change of heart about the poor. In 1994, only 35% of whites said the poor have hard lives. In 2005, 49% of whites said the poor have it hard.

Overall, most of the change in various groups' opinions about the poor happened at the ends of the attitude spectrum -- among those who felt strongly that the poor had easy lives or felt strongly that they had hard lives. Overall, the percentage of people who said they felt strongly that the poor had easy lives fell from 37% in 1994 to 23% in 2005. Conversely, the percentage of people who said they felt strongly that the poor had hard lives increased from 27% in 1994 to 39% in 2005.

While sympathy for the position of poor Americans has risen across party lines, the partisan gap in the intensity of feelings has grown substantially. From 1994 to 2005, the percentage of Republicans who said they felt strongly that the poor had hard lives increased 5 percentage points, to 23%. But among Democrats, the 2005 figure was more than twice as high, 54%, and that level reflected a 19-point rise from 1994. Independents took a middle ground; in 2005, 39% of independents said they felt strongly that the poor had it hard, up from 26% in 1994.

(By Violet Law, Shelterforce)

In Columbus, Ohio, hundreds of homeless people who have spent years living on the street or camping out on the city's riverfront are finding a haven in the new housing programs run by the Community Shelter Board (CSB), an independent nonprofit that coordinates funding and delivery of homeless assistance services statewide.

Instead of shuttling the city's homeless from one emergency shelter to the next, or putting them through bureaucratic hoops just to qualify for temporary housing, CSB settles the homeless into housing units for as long as they need to be there. Because most of those being housed are afflicted with addiction or mental illness, supportive services and case management are made available but are not mandated. Since some homeless people are unwilling to accept housing that is contingent upon them receiving treatment, CSB's approach is simply to get homeless people off the street and into a stable, more permanent environment.

Columbus is among the first handful of cities, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, to house the homeless under this "permanent housing" paradigm, first introduced in 1988 by the Los Angeles-based nonprofit, Beyond Shelter. Known as Housing First, this approach to housing the homeless has garnered much attention. And in the last five years, the Bush administration's Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) has promoted it as the solution to ending chronic homelessness.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a "chronically homeless person" is an individual who has been without a home for at least one year and is diagnosed with mental illness or drug or alcohol addiction. Housing First focuses on serving this segment of the homeless population.

While the cities that have adopted Housing First have reported a reduction in their chronic homeless population by the hundreds or even thousands in the last decade, homeless advocates are increasingly alarmed that this solution, executed with little increase in federal funding, is threatening to short-change other homeless populations, such as families with children and teenagers who have aged out of foster care, in favor of one narrowly defined group. "We wish [the Bush administration] had picked up the whole agenda of ending homelessness for all," says Nan Roman, president and chief executive officer of the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH).

According to HUD's first-ever annual homeless assessment report released in late February, there were an estimated 754,000 homeless people nationwide in 2005, of which 23 percent were considered chronically homeless. In January, NAEH released the results of a one-night count that it conducted in 2005. That survey found 744,313 homeless people nationwide, with families making up 41 percent of the overall homeless population.

"You're pitting one segment of the homeless population against another," says Paul Boden, executive director of Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), a coalition of social-justice-based homelessness organizations on the West Coast. "How can they cut Section 8 but believe in Housing First as a concept? They're cutting housing but doing Housing First. It's not just ironic; it's hypocritical."

Housing First at Its Best

In 1997, with redevelopment pending along Columbus' downtown riverfront, CSB worked to provide suitable housing for the homeless who had long congregated there. The board gained administrative and financial support from the private sector, foundations and city, county and state governments. By 1999, CSB had implemented a new program called Rebuilding Lives. Its goal was to create 800 supportive housing units for the chronically homeless, including those displaced from the riverfront. The residents are treated like tenants; they hold the key and the lease to their individual apartments and are responsible for housekeeping. They can choose to receive services, but turning down help will not keep them from being housed.

Although all of the sites under the Rebuilding Lives program are anchored by the same philosophy-to reacquaint the homeless with whatever it takes to stay housed-they are not identical. Some require all residents to be clean and sober; others tolerate some level of alcohol use as long as it doesn't disturb other residents. In addition to Rebuilding Lives, CSB coordinates street outreach, homelessness prevention and emergency-shelter operations among service providers.

Sunshine Terrace is one of the sites under the Rebuilding Lives program that provides housing to homeless people with addictions or mental illness. A vacated public-housing high-rise converted into permanent supportive housing, Sunshine Terrace has 65 units available to residents for as long as they want to be there.

Shortly after moving into Sunshine Terrace, Maliki Bey and Mike Fox became fast friends, bonding over a desire to put their lives back together. Three years ago, Bey took shelter in a YMCA-run SRO, but being wheelchair-bound, he felt very constrained. It was more like a structured program than supportive housing, he recalls. Under Rebuilding Lives, however, Bey, a former cocaine addict, says he is given the freedom to live independently while getting the case-management services he desires. He has a well-stocked kitchen where he can better manage his diet by cooking his own meals. "I feel like I got my life back. I'm living normally, like most people do," says Bey.

Mike Fox knows his life has changed for the better now that he is in permanent housing. He spent the past several years in and out of emergency shelters and temporary housing. "Shelter is just a place to lay your head and get something to eat," says Fox. But here, "it gives you a sense of self to get back on your feet."

A recovering alcoholic, Fox was determined to turn his life around as soon as he moved into Sunshine Terrace. It wasn't easy. The strain of 30 years of street life and alcoholism finally caught up with him: He underwent five operations, including heart surgery. Yet Fox had the peace of mind knowing that his Sunshine Terrace unit was being held for him while he rehabilitated in a nursing home. When he returned, he started an Alcoholics Anonymous group in the building to help other residents kick the habit.

Even with the apparent success of the Rebuilding Lives program, CSB still acknowledges that other housing options are necessary. But with funding being heavily directed to permanent housing, transitional housing or emergency shelters are being deprived of the resources needed to operate fully.

The Real Debate

While the benefits of permanent housing programs are manifest, some advocates for the homeless are increasingly speaking out against the Bush administration's position that Housing First is the panacea for ending homelessness-especially now that ICH and the administration are seeking to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Act, which was, in 1986, the first piece of federal legislation to address homelessness. The administration's draft version of the reauthorized legislation calls for making permanent the Samaritan bonus-the current incentive to provide permanent housing for the chronically homeless. Those who oppose this incentive charge that the singular focus on the chronically homeless population is at best a misguided effort to solve the complexities of homelessness by defining it too narrowly and simplistically. Some opponents of the administration's proposed reauthorization bill, mostly from the National Coalition to End Homelessness, support competing legislation introduced in Congress in February, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, which they say would allocate homeless assistance funding in a more balanced manner.

The economic rationale for focusing on the chronically homeless-who until now were thought to account for only 10 to 15 percent of the overall homeless population-is based on widely cited research conducted by Dennis Culhane of the University of Pennsylvania on the shelter systems in New York City and Philadelphia. Culhane found that, in these two cities, this subset of the homeless population consumes the majority of the available resources, mostly through emergency shelters. While few advocates dispute those findings, the facts on the ground have shown that by structuring services to focus on a relatively small percentage of the homeless population, the situation for the majority is worsening in a number of cities.

Take Philadelphia. As early as 1989, some local homeless service providers had embraced the Housing First model. Most notable was Sister Mary Scullion. Under the Project H.O.M.E. program that she founded nearly 20 years ago, thousands of homeless people straight from the streets have been settled into permanent housing units. Philadelphia has been extolled as a success in reducing its homeless population and has become a case study for metropolitan areas nationwide. As a result, the city has stopped adding transitional housing and shelter beds over the past five years. Now the shelter system is operating at capacity, leaving many homeless people out in the cold.

"The shelter situation is in a crisis. We've never seen anything as bad before. There are very few shelter beds for women and children. All the beds are full," says Gloria Guard, executive director of People's Emergency Center, a nonprofit agency in Philadelphia that helps homeless women and their children with a range of services, including short-term housing, case management and job training.

"The number of beds has stayed stable and there's no backdoor. Right now the city is running out of shelter space, so what do we do?" asks Guard. For a city that has been aggressive in tackling its homeless problem for almost two decades, this crisis would not have come about if it were not for the federal funding bias toward permanent housing.

In order to compete for homeless-assistance dollars, many homeless service providers have written their funding requests in a way that emphasizes permanent housing for the chronically homeless, even when other homeless populations may be in greater need or alternative housing options are more appropriate to their particular cities or regions. This frustrates housing advocates like Paul Boden. "Communities are writing their own plan, but the federal government already predetermined the priority," he says.

The HUD budget does offer homeless assistance grants in three other major areas: emergency shelters, transitional housing and supportive services. "Funding for [these three] has suffered more or less because the emphasis has been [to channel] more money to permanent supportive housing," says Doug Rice, a housing policy analyst for the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And despite all the buzz about the efficacy of permanent housing to solve chronic homelessness, HUD's budget for new permanent housing and all other programs for the homeless has been shrinking. For the 2006 fiscal year, HUD allocated a total of $193 million in homeless assistance grants to new housing and service programs, a 45-percent decrease from FY2003. The two largest funding categories are the Supportive Housing Program and Shelter Plus Care. Federal funding for the Supportive Housing Program, which provides mostly for emergency shelters, transitional housing and supportive services, saw a 53-percent drop, from $245 million in 2003 to $115 million in 2006. Even funding for new permanent housing, funded mostly under Shelter Plus Care, went from $97 million in 2003 to $77 million in 2006. Less than $1 of every $5 in the FY2006 homeless assistance budget went into adding new housing.

The impact of cuts in federal funding is being felt, especially in metropolitan areas where affordable housing is already in short supply. In San Francisco, single-room-occupancy (SROs) hotels occupied by low-income renters are being converted into permanent housing for the chronically homeless, exacerbating the city's housing problems.

"You cannot build and subsidize housing with that miniscule amount of money," says Boden. In suburban and rural areas, where there is no existing SRO supply, shelters and transitional housing that have been serving the homeless well are increasingly coming under pressure to close down or be converted to permanent units.

While most advocates agree that there is a need for permanent housing for the chronically homeless, not everyone is cut out for it. Even with its success with permanent housing, CSB's Barbara Poppe stresses the importance of having other housing options for the homeless. "Permanent housing is very specialized, expensive housing that should be reserved for those with an ongoing need," says Poppe. "There are other housing solutions for other homeless populations. We believe the emergency shelter system…is important; the emergency shelter is the final safety net." According to Paul Boden, "Most people don't choose to live permanently in programs administrated by social workers. That's not their goal in life," he says. "When it's the only form of affordable housing in your community, it's insulting."

It can also be aggravating. "If we don't do something with the affordable-housing crisis, forget about it," says NAEH's Roman. "This is the driver of the homeless problem. We can wring only so much blood out of the stone with the homeless money here."

Meanwhile, advocates contend there is a need for all types of housing for all kinds of homeless people-families with children in tow, elderly, and single individuals with or without a disability or addiction. Hyping a single housing option for one subset of the homeless population is tantamount to treating the symptoms but not the cause of homelessness.

In its recently released report, "Without Housing: Decades of Federal Housing Cutbacks, Massive Homelessness and Policy Failures," WRAP traces how federal funding cuts since the 1980s resulted in the homeless phenomenon we're seeing today. It states that, without restoring lost funding, the federal government's latest campaign to end chronic homelessness will prove as ineffectual as its empty rhetoric.

"The emergence of the Housing First model has occurred simultaneously with a continued assault on public housing, housing subsidies, Section 8," the report reads. Poppe agrees: "The big piece that is missing is that we need more affordable housing available, so people don't need to be homeless in the first place."

Enterprise Live Online Event: Green Roofs on Affordable Housing June 5

Join Enterprise for a Green Communities Live Online Event, Green Roofs on Affordable Housing, Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 11:03am.

Description

Earth Pledge and Viridian: As Earth Pledge has demonstrated with its green roof in New York City, green roofs in affordable housing communities could provide an opportunity for urban agriculture and gardening along with myriad environmental benefits. This comes at a vital time in the health of urban communities, when diet-related chronic disease is at a high and food security in low-income neighborhoods is diminished. Also, urban gardens often give impetus to further community development. One survey of community gardens in upstate New York found that gardens in low-income neighborhoods were four times as likely as non low-income gardens to lead to other issues in the neighborhood being addressed. Urban green roof agriculture has the potential to promote community health through improved nutrition, local food security, exercise (in gardening), and social/community networking.

Viridian Program

Earth Pledge built the first green roof in New York City in 2000. Since that time EP has been working to educate communities on the benefits and bring economies of scale to the implementation of green roofs through the United States. In 2003 Earth Pledge developed the “first of its kind” green roofs for affordable housing initiative, the Viridian Project. Viridian incorporates three core products: Integrated Design/Modeling Services, Viridian Financing, and Viridian Low Cost Material Program. This approach will streamline the design, detailing and installation of green roofs to make them as cost effective as possible. It is expected that Viridian will produce green roof projects that have adequate funding for startup costs, generate positive returns on investment over a relatively short payback period, and make an important difference in the quality of life and housing costs for urban affordable housing tenants.

Presented By: Leslie Hoffman, Executive Director, Earth Pledge, www.earthpledge.org

Registration takes place 20 minutes prior to the event. More information on how to participate can be found at http://webinars.enterprisecommunity.org/

CAT Seeking, Training Volunteers for Renters’ Right Hotline June 24

The Community Alliance of Tenants (CAT) needs more volunteers to help answer the Renters' Rights Hotline.  Are you able to get involved, or do you know someone who can?  Please help up spread the word.

The next volunteer training for the Renters' Rights Hotline will be Saturday, June 23rd from 9am to 2pm and Sunday, June 24th from 2pm to 6pm.  Volunteers will learn about the work that CAT does and the basics of landlord-tenant law, along with practical strategies for tenants.  More information about the training and volunteering is available at http://www.oregoncat.org/html/renter_stability_.html.  Contact Ari at 503.460.9702 to sign up or to find out more!

Bank of America Neighborhood Excellence Initiative Nominations Due June 30

The deadline for the Bank of America Neighborhood Excellence Initiative is coming up on June 30.  All non-profit CDN members located in Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties are invited to apply for the $200,000 unrestricted Neighborhood Builders Award.  Bank of America will select two non-profit organizations in September to receive the awards.  Past winners include Hacienda CDC, ROSE CDC and HOST Development.  Go to www.bankofamerica.com/foundation to apply.  Questions can be directed to Rich Brown, at richard.e.brown@bankofamerica.com, or 503-275-1611

Green Affordable Housing & Community Development in SF July 19, 20

The Institute for Professional and Executive Development, Inc. presents Green Homes and Sustainable Communities 2007: The Annual National Symposium on Green Affordable Housing & Community Development in San Francisco, CA July 19-20, 2007.

This industry-leading event sold out last year!

Participate in the only annual national affordable housing and community development symposium on the industry's critical role in advancing sustainable development. Get the latest on how federal, state and local policies are increasingly encouraging - and in some instances requiring - green practices. Learn about the opportunities presented by an emerging market transformation as the public and private sectors begin to recognize green as the new mainstream. See the next frontiers of sustainable development through innovative initiatives, more comprehensive approaches and deeper environmental and economic benefits.

National experts and industry leaders will lead interactive panel discussions on:

Key concepts and principles of green design, building and site development

Costs and benefits of sustainable new construction and rehabilitation

Practical experiences and lessons learned from green building projects

Tax credits and other financial tools and incentives for "going green"

Federal, state and local public policy trends

Building on last year’s landmark event, this symposium features:

Green Development - Leading developers and design professionals present best practices and lessons learned from the best green projects around the country.

Green Financing - Major financial institutions and funders discuss the latest private sector resources available for sustainable affordable development.

Green Tax Incentives - Deal makers share innovative techniques for using Renewable Energy, New Markets and Historic Tax Credits.

Green Public Policy - Industry experts and public officials discuss how federal, state and local government policies and programs are driving green development.

Gain Knowledge. Get Connected. Go Green.

Click here to Register.

Click here for the Agenda