Affordable Housing Study

San Juan County

Seneca Luetke, Jenn Robinson- Jahns, Cheuk Yung

Methods and Process:Beginning this project, we received a robust package of information from Angie Lausch,

including Living and Working in Paradise. This was meant to serve as an introduction to the problems

faced by

communities like San Juan County and after reviewing it; our team had a superficial/basic idea of the housing challenges being faced by San Juan County.

Considering the team’s lack of expertise in the area and to further grasp the challenges the county is grappling with, a period of general contextual research was necessary to familiarize the group with the subject of affordable housing and resources available for related research. During this time, team members worked individually to acquaint themselves with concepts introduced in the data packet for San Juan County. This research was generally self-directed, as it was meant to address individual knowledge gaps. The group found it was very important to get a solid foundational understanding of affordable housing, a topic that is very complex and challenging.

Identifying resources for information was also necessary. We contacted librarians and professors with expertise in affordable housing to define potential sources of information and establish how to approach researching a subject that is firmly entrenched in both policy and community. Because of this overlap in subject matter, we decided to approach our research from several different directions. Initially, we tried to identify other places facing challenges similar to San Juan County, but after doing some place-based research looking at areas like Hawaii, the coast of Maine, and Florida we felt that the combination of factors faced by San Juan County made it particularly hard to find a legitimately comparable community- its characteristics as a rural, island community in close proximity to a large and wealthy metropolitan region presented a set of circumstances we were not able to find replicated elsewhere in a time-effective manner.

After discarding placed-based research as an effective methodology for our work, we decided to focus our efforts on the affordable housing mechanisms themselves, using a provided matrix as the foundational piece of our exploration. We sought out and reviewed sources that referenced each topic to find data on the items in the matrix categories as well as finding relevant communities in which the various affordable housing devices have been implemented, with a specific goal of finding successes and failures of that implementation.

In trying to approach our research from as many different directions as possible, we developed a list of relevant industry-terms, like “second-homes,” “tourist-based economies,” and “amenity migration” and “non-permanent residents” that might lead us to our goal of uncovering evaluative data on the various affordable housing methods listed within them matrix. We eliminated resources, which addressed areas like the European Union and Australia, feeling that the land use and funding differences would be too significant for a meaningful comparison. We did consider British Columbia, in light of their proximity and other similarities in regards to geographical amenities and economies of scale.

We developed a list of specific resources to consult, including the Journal of American Planning Association, JSTOR (Journal Storage) Shelterforce, and Policylink, the Brookings Institute, the Urban Land Institute, as well as nonprofits, journals with related subject matter, and governmental resources like the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We also searched for related articles through traditional media and the Internet. We felt that this broad approach in regards to resources might allow us to gain a variety of perspectives and input from sources looking at affordable housing in a variety of ways; as an issue of workforce housing, meeting a tourism-generated business need, or maintaining viable communities in the face of an influx of second-home buyers- it was our hope that investigating these

2

various perspectives would lead us to evaluative reports on the topic and to quantifiable data on successes and failures of various affordable housing mechanisms in other communities.

Through our research we discovered that many topics lack substantial and/or viable information about their implementation in different communities. Mechanisms like community land trusts, a model already being used successfully in San Juan County, offered a wealth of academic articles, assessments, and other resources. For other subjects, like using transferrable development rights as a tool for affordable housing, extensive research turned up no valuable results at all, in this case there was extensive information on TDR’s, but nothing we were able to find connecting this mechanism to the creation of affordable housing.

As a group, we decided to look at approximately 9 of the topics from the matrix, collecting and synthesizing information to explain the fundamentals of each mechanism and identify case studies for each item. We developed a template based on the information requested within the matrix and searched for communities or organizations with experience with the particular mechanism, as well as any successes and failures of that implementation process.

Finally, to acknowledge the extensive research conducted over the past 10 weeks, we developed a list of sources and databases referenced. This list is meant to document the path our inquiry took through the quarter, from general, contextual research, place-based research and term-based research, to specific topical research on the methods included within the report. We have developed this as an annotated list so that if the research is built upon, others will know which sources have been consulted, what they contain, and the potential value to future projects.

Mechanism: Subsidized Housing/Mortgages

3

What is it and how does it work:

Since 1965, the federal government has supported the production of low-income rental housing primarily by giving subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing. These subsidy programs provide affordable housing to more than two million American families, most of whom have incomes below $15,000 per year.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers two types of housing subsidy programs: subsidized mortgage and rental assistance. The primary subsidized mortgage program is Section 236. The main rental assistance program is project-based Section 8. Some developments have both types of subsidies. Section 236 originally provided owners with insured loans and subsidized their interest rates to as

low as 1 percent. These benefits were provided in exchange for a commitment from the owners to rent only to eligible low-income tenants and charge only HUD-approved rents. The Section 236 program is no longer offering new mortgages, but buildings already in the program keep their subsidies.

Project-based Section 8 subsidies pay the difference between a set "project rent" for the building and the tenants' rent contributions, which are set at 30 percent of their incomes. These subsidies can be provided for some or all units in a development. (Tenant-based Section 8, on the other hand, involves vouchers that tenants use to pay rent in an apartment of their choosing.)

Where it has been implemented: Below is a list of current areas of subsidized mortgages in Washington State provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Successes and challenges: The "expiring use" problem arises because the affordability of housing units receiving these subsidies is not permanently assured. The restrictions on rent levels, tenant eligibility, and overall operations last only for a specific time period. After 20 years, owners of most buildings with HUD-subsidized mortgages are allowed to convert to market-rate at any time by a prepayment of the mortgage loan. Developments with a project-based Section 8 contract have a restricted use only during the specific term of that contract, which is usually between five and 30 years, but most commonly 20.  When the Section 8 contract expires, the owner can convert to market-rate by refusing to renew the contract, which is called "opting out." The movement to keep these expiring use properties affordable is called "affordable housing preservation." Affordability restrictions and contracts for many properties began to expire in the mid-1980s and will continue to do so throughout most of the next decade. However, the situation has become more serious since 1995, when Congress began to lose interest in supporting the subsidies, and defunded two of the main programs used to encourage preservation. At that time, owners of developments with HUD-subsidized mortgages were authorized to prepay their loans with few restrictions.

Government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels are involved in preservation and assisted housing. Even within HUD, the Offices of Housing and of Public and Indian Housing have different roles. Keeping track of what all these agencies are doing (or not doing), and what they know about what the others are doing, can be a monumental task.

Success Factors:It will usually be important to build additional community support for a preservation effort, either to convince an owner to preserve the development or sell to a preservation purchaser, or to secure the additional subsidy funds necessary to make a transfer feasible.

Along with tenants and neighborhood residents, "the community" includes numerous organizations that can add the support of their constituencies or members to the effort, or provide additional connections into the local political structure. These include:

Housing and homeless advocacy organizations; Nonprofit housing providers; Social service organizations providing services to low-income constituents; Neighborhood organizations; Churches and faith-based institutions; and Civic organizations working on anti-poverty issues.

In many situations, the support of local government is crucial. This could include city housing and planning staff, members of the legislative body such as the city or county council, and those with executive authority such as the mayor, city manager, or county executive.

The local government can: get information provide funding take regulatory action enforce existing restrictions encourage the owner toward a preservation plan by leveraging its discretionary authority over local

approvals sought by the owner for other development or land use decisions; or advocate for preservation with the federal or state government

Applicable model (own, rent etc): Both

18

Income restrictions for participants: low to moderate-income levels

Methods:

Housing assistance from the federal government for lower income households can be divided into three parts:

“Tenant based” subsidies given to an individual household, known as the Section 8 program “Project based” subsidies given to the owner of housing units that must be rented to lower income

households at affordable rates Public Housing , which is usually owned and operated by the government. (Some public housing

projects are managed by subcontracted private agencies.)

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USDA Rural Development administer these programs. HUD and USDA Rural Development programs have ceased to produce large numbers of units since the 1980s. Since 1986, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program has been the primary federal program to produce affordable units; however, the housing produced in this program is less affordable than the former HUD programs.

Applicable Links:

<http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136981/k.A41A/Expiring_Use.htm>

<http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136981/k.A41A/Expiring_Use.htm>.

<http://www.hud.gov/utilities/intercept.cfm?/offices/hsg/mfh/gendocs/states/wa.pdf>.

19

Mechanism: Legacy or “Planned” Giving

What is it and how does it work:

Legacy or planned giving can be explained as:1. To convey one's values through creation of a future gift to charity2. A foresighted action to strengthen a favorite cause

Legacy gifts provide future support for charity. Contributions by will, trust, other forms of written designation, life-income arrangements and endowment gifts, all represent forms of legacy giving. Any individual, at any point in their life, can create a legacy gift. It can be as easy as naming a charity on the beneficiary form on a savings, checking or pension account, or through a more complex instrument like a charitable trust. All these gifts represent a powerful and meaningful way for individuals to create a philanthropic legacy for their community and the organizations they care about.

Where it has been implemented:

Habitat for Humanity, as an example, has been using Planned Giving as a source for the affordable housing cause around the country. One particular county that is using this method is Bucks County located in Pennsylvania.

From the Bucks County Habitat for Humanity website:

“For more than 20 years, Habitat for Humanity of Bucks County has been building houses in partnership with families in need, helping others help themselves to a brighter future. Providing a way for families to achieve the security of safe, affordable housing is our continuing goal. In Bucks County, we work with low-income families to provide for them sustainable homeownership. Working together with donors, volunteers and partners, Habitat has built more than 350,000 houses around the world. These homes have provided more than 1.75 million people in 3,000 communities with safe, decent, affordable shelter. Planned gifts are an important part of this success story.”

Legacy giving is a common tool used around the country in many communities and counties. Habitat for Humanity is building affordable housing solutions all over the state of Washington. Below is a map of the centers of Habitat for Humanity in the Puget Sound.

Of course there are other organizations that are developing affordable housing using planned giving. The most present non-profit happens to be Habitat for Humanity, which seems to be the best option for using Planned Giving as a resource for affordable housing development in San Juan County.

Successes and challenges:

In general, Legacy/Planned giving is a mark of a rather mature organization with a history of developing donors.  A planned/legacy gift is generally the largest gift a donor will make in their lifetime and is, most often, made to a benefit of the donor (i.e. tax benefit). Most of the time, Donors that can leave large, meaningful gifts are very wealthy.  And, it’s a widely accepted rule

that often the wealthiest give to notable NPO’s such as hospitals and schools, or the arts. The affordable

20

housing cause is a less popular receiver of donations from planned and legacy gifts. An important aspect of any planned or legacy gift is the work it takes to build trust and the relationship with a donor to get them to the point of making a gift of a sizable amount. The gifts needed to create a viable source of affordable housing in any community need to be very large in monetary value. Legacy giving would not be a consistent source for viable amount of resources for the development of affordable housing. Planned gifts take a long time to develop and getting a group started on this fundraising model alone seems a bit unrealistic unless there is a large endowment to get the project started that will fund a staff member for 5 years (minimum) to keep the project moving.

The successes of implementation of legacy giving are completely dependant on the willingness of donors to leave sizable gifts to the intermediate organizations for the affordable housing cause. It seems that planned giving could be used in conjunction with other affordable housing tools in San Juan County.

Applicable model (own, rent etc): Both

Income restrictions for participants: Very low to moderate income levels

Methods:

Bequest/Will: A bequest is a gift provision made for an intermediary, non-profit agency. Any assets, including cash or property may serve as a bequest. 1. General Bequest: a gift of a specific dollar amount 2. Specific Bequest: a gift of property or item of value 3. Percentage Bequest: a gift representing a percentage of an estate Gift Annuity: In exchange for your gift to charity, you or 1-2 other annuitants receive a fixed sum each year for life. Deferred Gift Annuity: In exchange for your gift to charity, you or 1-2 other annuitants receive a fixed sum each year for life starting at the date of first payout. Charitable Remainder: Unitrust: Your unitrust pays a fixed percentage of its value, determined each year, to you or others you name for life or a term of years. The remaining assets then go to charityCharitable Remainder Annuity Trust: Your trust pays a fixed dollar amount each year to you or others you name for life or a term of years. The remaining assets then go to charity. Pooled Income Fund: Your gift is pooled in a fund with gifts from other donors. You or others you name receive your gift’s share of the income the fund earns each year for life. Your gift’s share of the fund then goes to charity. Retained Life Estate: You deed your home or farm to charity, but retain the right to live in it for the rest of your life, a term of years, or a combination of the two. Charitable Lead Unitrust: Your unitrust pays a fixed percentage of its value, determined each year, to charity for a term of years or one or more lifetimes. The accumulated assets then go back to you or others you name. Charitable Lead Annuity Trust: Your trust pays a fixed dollar amount each year to charity for a term of years or one or more lifetimes. The accumulated assets then go back to you or others you name.

21

Below are some examples of how these processes work. These are not all the options but they illustrate exactly what it takes to accept and use planned gifts as a resource for affordable housing.

Non-profit or Land Trust

Non-profit

Non-profit or Land Trust

22

Non-profit

Non-profit or Land TrustApplicable Links:

http://www.enterprisecommunity.org/about/donate/legacy_giving.asp

http://www.voa.planyourlegacy.org/index.php

http://www.sahg.org/willing/

Contact from St. Andrew’s Housing Group- Jenn Daly Director of Fund Development St. Andrew's Housing Group (425) 391-2300 ext. 12

23

Mechanism: National Housing Trust Fund

What is it and how does it work:

The National Housing Trust is the nation’s leading expert in “preserving and improving” affordable housing – ensuring that privately owned rental-housing remains in our affordable housing stock and is sustainable over time.  Using the tools of real estate development, rehabilitation, finance and policy advocacy, the Trust is responsible for saving more than 22,000 affordable homes in 41 states, leveraging more than $1 billion in financing. The National Housing Trust is the only national non-profit engaged in housing preservation through public policy advocacy, real estate development, and lending. The Trust’s policy engagement is informed by the practice of the National Housing Trust/Enterprise Preservation Corporation (NHT/Enterprise), an affiliated non-profit housing developer.  NHT/Enterprise has preserved more than 5,000 affordable apartments throughout the country through real estate development. This hands-on experience gives the Trust the knowledge and credibility to engage the affordable housing sector and policymakers on the importance and value of preserving and improving affordable rental housing. Working on individual properties helped NHT realize how difficult it is for non-profits to leverage early money to acquire and preserve at risk affordable housing. NHT recognized that access to early capital was critical. To help meet this need, NHT provides early capital to help preserve affordable housing opportunities through two affiliates: the National Housing Trust Community Development Fund (NHTCDF) and the Institute for Community Economics Revolving Loan Fund (ICERLF). NHTCDF provides predevelopment and bridge loans to help non-profits move quickly to preserve important community assets. ICERLF provides loans to community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, and community-based nonprofit organizations to create housing opportunities that are permanently affordable to people with lower incomes.

Where it has been implemented:

The National Housing Trust Fund has done work in every state to help build new affordable housing and preserve already established affordable housing. The list of the work that the NHTF has done in Washington can be found on the National Housing Trust Fund website (http://www.nhtinc.org/state_and_local_preservation_resources.php). A list of all the homes that the NHTF has preserved with real estate development can also be found on the website (http://www.nhtinc.org/home_preservation.php#AllHomes).

Successes and challenges:

Many of these contracts between the federal government and private owners are expiring or soon to expire, allowing the owner the option to exit the government program and convert the property to a non-affordable use. Escalating demand to live in cities is driving rents up and giving rental owners the incentive to upgrade affordable units to luxury housing and opt out of federal assistance programs.

Owners of properties in weak housing markets with high vacancy rates may be unable to generate sufficient operating revenue to maintain the property and keep it from deteriorating beyond repair. These properties may similarly be lost to the affordable stock due to deterioration or abandonment.

"Preservation" is when action is taken to ensure the federal subsidy and low-income restrictions remain in place, preserving long-term affordability. This is usually combined with raising new capital to repair the property. Often the property is transferred to a new owner who is committed to the long-term affordability

24

of the property. Preservation is what the National Housing Trust does using the tools of advocacy, financing, and real estate development.

Applicable model (own, rent etc): Both (focus on preservation of rental units)

Income restrictions for participants: Very low to low income levels

Methods:

Federally Subsidized Affordable Housing From 1965 to the mid-1980s, the federal government provided critical financial incentives, including below-market interest rates (Section 236), interest rate subsidies (Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate-BMIR) and rent subsidies (Section 8), in exchange for a commitment from property owners to keep the apartments affordable to low income households. The largest of these programs, the project-based Section 8 rental assistance program, provides affordable apartment homes for more than 1.2 million households.

The federal government has an essential role to play as a partner to owners, residents, and state and local leaders as they work to preserve critical housing resources and create sustainable communities. The National Housing Trust actively engages with federal policymakers to ensure that appropriate regulatory and legislative action is taken to protect and improve existing affordable homes.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is a critical resource for preserving and improving affordable housing. In 2007, before investment declined, the tax credit was responsible for the preservation and rehabilitation of 65,000 affordable apartments, creating over 100,000 well paying jobs. Stimulating tax credit investment is now critical.  The lack of investment capital is stalling affordable housing development at a time when the need is greater than ever.

State and Local Preservation Resources

Low Income Housing Tax Credits Housing Trust Funds Acquisition Funds State Tax Credit Programs Low Interest Loan Programs for

Predevelopment and Gap Financing Incentives for Green Retrofits Other Programs 

Applicable Links:

http://www.nhtinc.org/home_preservation.php#AllHomes

http://www.nhtinc.org/state_and_local_preservation_resources.php

25

Mechanism: Sweat Equity-USDA Section 523Mutual Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance Grants

What is it and how does it work: This program provides grants to “public and private nonprofit organizations and community housing development organizations to provide technical and supervisory assistance to low-income and very low-income families, including the homeless, in acquiring, rehabilitating, and constructing housing by the self-help housing method.”1 These grants are offered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and are meant to help facilitate self-help housing development projects for low-income households in rural areas. This grant is meant to pay for salaries, office space and other program costs directly related to supervising families as they build their homes. Working groups are formed in which homeowners help each other with construction efforts, and program

regulations require that these building groups perform at least 65 percent of the construction work required to build their homes. In most cases, the grantee also manages the construction loans, develops the site, provides homeownership training, offers building plans and qualifies borrowers for their mortgage, although fund usage is limited to land acquisition and infrastructural improvements.2 The 523 program also offers site loans for a period of two years, as reported by the Housing Assistance Council.3

Where it has been implemented: Nationwide in rural areas. Many organizations working with the SHOP program have utilized this grant program as well and many sources found did not distinguish between the 532 program and SHOP in reporting on “mutual self-help housing,” although the SHOP program does not have the same sweat-equity requirements and differs in other significant ways from the Technical Assistance Grant Program.

Successes and challenges: Given the nature of these technical assistance grants and the broad scope of work taken on by recipients, we were not able to find any clearly defined successes and challenges to implementation on a local level, but the program itself is rated as “moderately effective” by Expectmore.gov.

Applicable model (own, rent etc): Own

Income restrictions for participants: 80% AMI or below. The Self-Help housing program criterion also requires that, out of the families served, 40% must be at or below 50% AMI.1 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/lawsandregs/laws/home/subd/sec255.cfm2 Ibid3 http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/rd523.524siteloans.pdf

26

Figure 1: State by State Allocation

Method: debt, subsidy (like tax benefits), or zoning regulation: Grant, but this program is frequently used in conjunction with the USDA 502 Loan Program which provides low-interest construction and mortgage loans for homeowners. These loans may be subsidized to as low as 1% interest. This loan program has several unique features: it does not require a downpayment, has very low out-of-pocket costs, and the typical loan is amortized for 33 years, subsidized, and offers a one-step construction-to-permanent financing program in which interest payments are deferred during the construction period and added to the original loan amount upon completion.

Resale or other restrictions: The mortgage subsidy for the 502 Loan Program is the difference between what the household is expected to pay and the payment at full note rate. The subsidy is subject to recapture and is repaid if the homeowner sells, refinances or in any way title transfers to a third party. Repayment of the subsidy varies, depending on how much has been granted, the length of time the borrower has lived in the home, and their original equity.

Analysis: This program is an excellent resource for San Juan County and should continue to be utilized by Homes for Islanders, particularly given the high rate of grant renewal reported for existing grantees.4 Given the scale and capacity desired in grantees, it is unlikely that it would be necessary to expand this program to other nonprofits within the county.

Applicable Links:

http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/selfhelphist03.pdf

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/pubs/pa1784.pdf

http://northwesthousingdevelopment.org/faq.htm#one

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/sfh/brief_selfhelpsite.htmhttp://www.nls.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/shop/guidebook.pdf

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gAC9-wMJ8QY0MDpxBDA09nXw9DFxcXQ-cAA_2CbEdFAEUOjoE!/?navid=HOUSING_ASSISTA&parentnav=RURAL_COMMUNITY&navtype=RT

4 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10002038.2004.html

27

Mechanism: Sweat Equity- Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, (SHOP)

Summary: Sweat Equity funds are offered through the United States Department of Agriculture’s Mutual Self-Help Housing Program and HUD’s Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. This document focuses only on the SHOP program. SHOP funds are available for use in purchasing land and improving infrastructure and are available only to larger non-profits which can demonstrate an ability to use the funds in at least two states.

What is it and how does it work: SHOP funds must be used for purchasing land and install or improve infrastructure, which together may not exceed an average investment of $15,000 per dwelling. Grantees may complete projects themselves or distribute funds to local nonprofits for implementation. The funds are considered start-up funds since they can be used only for site acquisition and on-site infrastructure development.5 Within the SHOP Guidebook, case studies can be found on Leavenworth, WA; San Juan, Texas; Butte, Montana; and Redwood City, California.

Where it has been implemented: SHOP-assisted units are about 65 percent rural.6 “The SHOP program was specifically designed to assist the largest private nonprofit self-help providers, Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Assistance Council (HAC), to expand their already successful activities, and not to be redundant of existing efforts.”7 Current grantees include these organizations, as well as Affordable Housing Centers of America, Community Frameworks, PPEP Microbusiness and Housing Development Corporation, and Tierra del Sol Housing Corporation.

Successes and Challenges: This program is identified by the White House as being an effective program which has a clear and well designed goal, meets an existing need and is able to leverage its dollars at a rate of $10-$1.8 In order to incentivize the leveraging of funds, awards are granted based on the extent to which applicants can leverage the dollars they are given. As of 2006, the per-unit average of SHOP funds invested was $9,400, and the average equity generated for each homeowner was about $28,000 as of 2005.9

This program does appear to be an effective contribution to the affordable housing efforts of larger nonprofits, particularly Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Assistance Council, who were responsible for 94% of the 14,932 sweat-equity projects completed between 1996 and 2005.10

Challenges sited in various case studies include: the high level of homeowner and volunteer training required, the high level of group organization required for successful project completion, the importance of developing an hours tracking system early on in the process, and the importance of logistical organization to ensure volunteer safety throughout the construction process.11

5 Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Guide to Using Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Funds. 2005. Web. 6 "ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web.7 Ibid8 Ibid9 Ibid10 Ibid11 Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Guide to Using Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Funds. 2005. Web.

28

Whitehouse.gov acknowledges the need for an independent evaluation to assess the community level impact of the SHOP program and identify areas for improvement; according to their site this evaluation was begun in 2007 and not completed.12

Applicable model (own, rent etc): The majority of providers develop housing under a fee-simple ownership structure, only the Pacific NW provider, Community Frameworks, offers a variety of ownership types- fee simple, cooperative, condominium, and community land trusts.13

Income restrictions for participants: 80% AMI or below

Method: debt, subsidy (like tax benefits), or zoning regulation: SHOP assistance may be in the form of either a loan or a grant.14 Public sources that work well with SHOP funds include: The HOME Program, Community Development Block Grant funds, Rural Housing Service Section 502 Direct Loans, and The Affordable Housing Program of the Federal Home Loan Bank System.15

Resale or other restrictions: There are several important restrictions to the use of SHOP funds. Homebuyers must contribute 100 hours of sweat-equity on either the construction of their home or the homes of other families participating in the program. All newly constructed units must receive ENERGY STAR certification and all appliances, products, or features which are replaced in rehabilitated units must be ENERGY STAR qualified.16 Also, SHOP funds are recaptured when they are not used within 24 months (or 36 months in the case of affiliates that develop five or more dwellings)17

Applicable Links:Affordable Housing Centers of America: https://secure.ahcoa.org/Community Frameworks: http://www.communityframeworks.org/Habitat for Humanity: http://www.habitat.org/ Housing Assistance Council: http://www.ruralhome.org/ Tierra Del Sol Housing Corporation: http://www.tierradelsolhousing.org/ Portable Practical Educational Preparation Housing Development Corporation: http://www.ppep.org/main.html

Analysis: The multi-state requirement of the SHOP program would most likely make accessing these funds on the county level infeasible, at least on a consistent basis. For San Juan County to benefit from this program it would be necessary to reach out to the larger organizations that are receiving SHOP funds and explore the feasibility of collaborating on local projects. From the perspective of community development, self-help housing would be a useful tool for San Juan County, as it would foster bottom-up change and the development of strong relationships within the community. An Annie E. Casey Foundation study, "Creating the Village - How Mutual Self-Help Housing Builds Community" found that households that have participated in these programs had been given "a sense of empowerment that can,

12 "ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web.13 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Donovan Announces $26.5 Million in “Sweat Equity” Grants. 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 "ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web.15 Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Guide to Using Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Funds. 2005. Web. 16 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Donovan Announces $26.5 Million in “Sweat Equity” Grants. 24 Feb. 2010. Web.17 "ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web.

29

and in some cases has, translated into stronger, more stable communities."18 Examples of past evaluations are the 2004 study, funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and conducted by HAC to determine the long-term impact of self-help housing efforts, and the 1998 HUD study on Habitat for Humanity entitled Making Homeownership a Reality: Survey of Habitat for Humanity (HFHI), Inc. Homeowners and Affiliates, which was conducted for the Department by Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA), Inc.19

Figure 2: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/shop/beneficiary.pdf

Mechanism: Washington Housing Trust Fund18 Rubiner, Betty. Mortar and Muscle: Building Community and Assets Through Self-Help Housing. Publication. Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2005. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.19 "ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web.

30

What is it and how does it work: The Housing Trust Fund was established in 1987 and has invested over $740 million in housing projects statewide since 1998, with a leveraging rate of $4 to $1.20 Washington Trust Fund monies are applicable to acquisition of real property; new construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of low and very low-income housing units; acquisition to preserve low-income or very low-income housing; down payment or closing cost assistance for eligible low-income buyers; and for on-site improvements.21 Trust Fund monies require a complex layering of additional funding. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Rural Development Agency (USDA) are important funding partners to the Housing Trust Fund. Private sources, such as banks and foundations also contribute to projects, as does local funding from housing levies or federal pass-through dollars. Eligible property types include assisted living facilities, boarding homes, community land trusts, emergency shelters (including shelters for survivors of domestic violence) group homes, homes/loans for low-income homebuyers, multi-family rental housing, Seasonal and year round housing for farmworkers, as well as transitional housing22

23

Where it has been implemented:

20 State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. Pg 17.21 State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. Pg 18.22 Section 202 Eligibility Guidelines 23 Ibid, pg 18.

31

24

Successes and challenges: Historically the Washington Housing Trust Fund has a strong record of success in leveraging other funds. Data shows that, on average, for every $1 of Housing Trust Fund investment, $4 of other private and public funding is leveraged. Recent reports reflect an increase in the average of dollars leveraged; totaling $5.20 of public and private funds to $1 of Housing Trust Fund investment.

The biggest challenge in utilizing Washington State Trust Fund monies is the complexity of the legal and financial structures required to implement a successful project. With these funds, project financing is usually a complex layering of financial resources, including resources administered through the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, like tax-exempt bonds and Low Income Housing Tax credits, a federal tax credit allocated through the Housing Finance Commission. “Given the matrix of restrictions and limitations, layering and stacking the mix of resources is critical for any of these projects to be produced. The loss of any one source would severely reduce the amount of units produced and benefit yielded by a representative percentage as depicted below in the charts and graphs displaying the leverage and sources utilized.25

24 State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. Pg 17.25 State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. Pg. 23.

32

Applicable model (own, rent etc): Both

Income restrictions for participants: 80% or below, with a focus on serving the lowest-income populations. The state’s HOME funds are targeted to households with incomes at or below 50% of the local area’s median income. Certain population groups may also be served by a specific budget set-aside.

Method: debt, subsidy (like tax benefits), or zoning regulation: The Washington State Housing Trust Fund offers assistance through both debt and grants. Awards may be offered in the form of amortized loans, deferred loans, recoverable grants or a combination of these. Grants may be provided to projects serving the lowest income, highest need populations, requiring public operating subsidy to cover basic operating expenses. These projects will typically not have the cash flow or financial ability to service additional debt reflected in the operating pro forma submitted and reviewed as part of the application

33

process. Grants may need to be structured based on the nature and additional sources being leveraged as in the case of HUD funded projects. 26

Loans: The following conditions apply for any HTF Loan: Interest rates may vary from 0-3% interest, compounded quarterly. Payments will be made quarterly. All loans will include at least a one-year deferral period with 0% interest and the balance amortized for no more than 39 years, except when otherwise approved by the Department. Loans may be amortized or deferred. Loans will be structured based on the project’s operating pro forma. Deferred loans will have principal and interest, if interest is being charged, due and payable in full on or before the termination date of the contract. Loan terms may be set based on the needs of other funding sources such as the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.

Recoverable Grants: Recoverable grants are awarded to contractors with no expectation of monetary return, unless the conditions of the grant are not met. Recoverable Grants may be used for very low-income projects, with little to no rental income and large operating subsidies, including things like shelters, many types of special needs housing, and seasonal housing for farmworkers. Funds are recoverable if there is a change of use, change of ownership, refinance, sale of property, or for non-compliance of contract terms.

Resale or other restrictions: The term of a HTF award will be 40 years or less, except when otherwise approved by the Department. 27 To ensure that housing funded by the HTF will remain affordable to low income households for a maximum amount of time and to be in compliance with RCW 43.185.070(3)(f), applicants must also commit to serving the project’s target population for 40 years.

Analysis: Washington State Housing Trust Fund monies will likely be an important source of funding for San Juan County. To date, this source has helped to generate over 210 units of affordable housing in the area. This is a source that should be utilized as much as possible in the effort to maintain long-term affordable housing.

Applicable Links:

http://www.housingpolicy.org/toolbox/strategy/policies/housing_trust_funds.html?tierid=114#1

26 State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and

Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. 201.3 Terms of Grant and Loans 27 Ibid.

34

Mechanism: Employer Partnerships (1)

What is it and how does it work:

Programs that help workers obtain affordable ownership or rental housing

(demand-side programs)

Mortgage Assistance:· Down payment and closing-cost assistance: Employers offer their workers loans or grants to help them overcome a key barrier to homeownership: the initial investment required to pay a down payment and closing costs on a mortgage. Loans are often low- or zero-interest and they are usually structured to be forgivable over a period of time, often five years, encouraging the employee to remain with the employer and allowing the employer to amortize the cost of the loan. Alternatively, the loan repayment can be deferred indefinitely, either until the home is resold or until the worker leaves the company. Loan amounts vary depending on the employer, but $5,000 is a typical figure. In some cases, local and state matching funds are available to increase the total amount of assistance provided. · Mortgage guarantee: Employers guarantee all or a portion of an employee’s mortgage against

default. Such a guarantee can enable lenders to require lower down payments, use more flexible underwriting criteria, and reduce or eliminate some closing costs or premiums. Guarantees also may eliminate the need for private mortgage insurance or reduce insurance rates. The New Jersey HOPE program uses mortgage guarantees to offer reduced cost, no-down payment mortgages to private employees statewide.

Less commonly offered forms of demand-side assistance include-

Rental assistance. In areas where rental housing is available but the cost is higher than employees can afford, employers may provide rent subsidies directly to employees, provide operating funds to a rental-property owner, or pay an employee’s security deposit. Credit repair and counseling. In some cases, low-income workers are not immediately eligible for most or all lending products, EAH programs can improve employee eligibility through partnerships with organizations that provide financial literacy and credit-repair services.

35

Mechanism: Employer Partnerships (2)

What is it and how does it work:

The creation of new affordable workforce housing (supply-side programs) Providing gap financing loans to developers to cover the difference between existing financing

and development costs; Leveraging credit by lending their borrowing power to developers to help them secure higher loan

amounts or better interest rates; Making direct cash or land contributions to housing development projects; Providing purchase guarantees to assist developers in obtaining financing by guaranteeing

purchase of unsold units in new projects, encouraging development in areas where developers and lenders are reluctant to invest.

Where has it been implemented?

Case Study: REACH (Regional Employer Assisted Collaboration for Housing) Illinois

Methods that have been implemented:

The tax credit was established via the new Illinois Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which authorized $13 million in affordable housing credits per year for five years. Of the yearly allocation, $2 million was set aside for employer-assisted housing and $1 million was set aside for technical assistance and general operating support, which can go toward homebuyer counseling. The benefit for an employer is equal to a $.50 state income tax credit for every $1 in cash, land, or property that a company invests in EAH programs that benefit employees who earn no more than 120 percent of area median income

The state matching-funds program also supports EAH by providing a dollar-for-dollar match to employees whose companies contribute to down-payment assistance. Employees who earn less than 50 percent of the area median income may receive up to $5,000 in down-payment assistance and those making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI may receive up to $3,000. Most employers have chosen to offer the assistance as a forgivable loan to employees who commit to staying with the company for at least five years. REACH nonprofit partners provide credit counseling, homebuyer education, and assistance throughout the process.

The matching funds are specifically targeted to employers in Illinois that are partnering with MPC or Housing Action Illinois and a REACH nonprofit partner—community-based, nonprofit housing counseling agencies able to offer specialized homebuyer education as an outsourced service to employers. In addition to leveraging private-sector support for down-payment assistance and homeownership counseling, these funds help employees live closer to work, decreasing their commute times and improving their quality of life.

Challenges:

Although efforts have been made to provide rental assistance, the emphasis remains on the down-payment assistance, meaning the programs on average tend to serve mostly moderate-income rather than low-income households. The median household income served in 2006 was $52,000

36

Where has it been implemented

Case Study: Seattle Hometown Home Loan

Methods that have been implemented:

Lower-income residents who worked in the city were increasingly unable to live within city limits, particularly core service workers such as police officers, firefighters, and emergency services personnel.

A Winning Strategy: negotiating savings directly with a particular bank kept the costs of the program and need for subsidies low.

The city entered into negotiations with HomeStreet Bank, a major lender headquartered in Seattle, to provide mortgage discounts to program participants in exchange for marketing access and expectations of increased lending.

The Hometown program offers borrowers a 50 percent reduction in loan origination fees, lower appraisal fees, free credit reports, a lower escrow fee, and, most significantly, no overage. Cost savings to borrowers depend on the purchase price of the home, but generally average between $1,700 and $2,500.

Challenges:

Understanding the lending process, achieving lender participation, and successfully marketing the program to employers and employees were some of the challenges experienced by the program.

Keys to Success:

The Office of Housing cites clearly defined program goals, sufficient program monitoring, and program flexibility as key to keeping the program responsive to ongoing needs. Another obvious key was successfully negotiating discounts with HomeStreet.

Applicable Links:

http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136977/k.7CE7/Case_Studies.htm

37

Mechanism: Private Foundation Grants

What is it and how does it work:

The Foundation Center defines a private foundation as a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization having a principal fund managed by its own trustees or directors. Private foundations maintain or aid charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public good, primarily through the making of grants to other nonprofit organizations.

Most housing experts agree that households generally should not spend more than 30 percent of their annual incomes on rent or other housing costs. In the U.S., a household with one full-time minimum wage worker would earn $10,712 annually, enough to afford a monthly rent of $268.

Most affordable rental housing in the U.S. is privately owned with no government subsidy. Approximately 3 million units were developed with government-backed financing. About half of this “assisted” stock receives an ongoing rent subsidy. The federal government also funds approximately 2 million vouchers that renters use to reduce the cost of market-rate housing. In addition, the federal government funds approximately 1.2 million units of public housing run by state or local agencies.

In 2006, federal outlays and tax expenditures totaled approximately $33 billion for all rental-housing programs combined. This was enough to assist one-quarter of those eligible for assistance, between 5 million and 6 million low- and moderate-income households.

Where it has been implemented:

Applicable model (own, rent etc):

Rent

Income restrictions for participants:

Annual household income (in millions)

less than $23,000 15.6

$23,000 to $45,000 11.0

more than $45,000 10.2

Applicable Links:

http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/pfandpc.html

http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.943349/k.E82F/Domestic_Grantmaking__Affordable_Housing__Grantmaking_Guidelines.htm

38

Mechanism: Community Foundation Grants

What is it and how does it work:Community foundations have three characteristics that distinguish them from other types of foundations. First, whereas other foundations are created from the wealth of a single donor, family, or corporation, the endowments of community foundations are made up of the donations of many donors. Second, unlike many other foundations, community foundations serve specific geographic communities or localities. Third, community foundations are public charities, and they must meet the “public support test.” In other words, in order to maintain their tax status as a public charity, they must demonstrate that they receive continuous financial support from multiple donors (Carmen 10).

Community foundations accept donations in a variety of forms, including cash, securities, closely held stock, life insurance, real estate, and personal property. These donations are then invested, with the earnings distributed in the form of grants. 1. Unrestricted funds (often called discretionary funds) are funds that are distributed by the community foundation according to its mission and philosophy. Today, community foundations are one of the fastest-growing segments of philanthropy. These funds are the most flexible, with the community foundation deciding how they should be used. 2. Special interest funds (often called field-of-interest funds) are funds that are earmarked for a specific interest area such as the arts, the environment, or community development. 3. Designated funds are funds that are to benefit a specific non-profit organization. 4. Donor-advised funds allow donors to make ongoing recommendations for the grants derived from the invested funds (Carmen 10).

Where has it been implemented:

(Carmen 12)

Successes and challenges:Case Study: Ten Community FoundationsAccording to The Foundation Directory, seventy-nine of the top one hundred grant-making community

39

foundations in the United States specified community development, housing, or economic development as one of their primary fields of interest (Columbus Foundation, 1998; Rich and Horowitz, 1998). Of these seventy-nine community foundations, ten were randomly selected for this study (Carmen 15).

• All ten of the community foundations have provided funding for niche projects.• All ten of the community foundations have provided technical assistance, with some having formal programs for provision.• All ten of the community foundations have acted as a convener for local groups, with some taking on this role more actively than others. • Seven of the ten community foundations have made loans or PRIs, with four doing so on a regular basis.• Six of the ten community foundations have provided project or operating support for CDCs. • Five of the ten community foundations have participated in a community development initiative with a national foundation (Carmen15).

Although seven of the ten community foundations reported that they make PRIs or loans, only four do so regularly. Two of the com- munity foundations have modest microenterprise loan funds dedicated to helping people of low-to-moderate income start their own business. Two other community foundations have more substantial community investment loan funds that make low-interest loans to various types of nonprofit organizations (Carmen 16).

Several of the community foundations had small minigrant pro- grams. Minigrants ranging from less than $500 to about $5,000 were usually made from discretionary funds and often went to nonprofit organizations for small projects that build capacity. Traditionally, the foundation staff was in charge of minigrant decisions, as opposed to the regular distribution committees. The minigrant projects were often one-time-only projects and provided funding for activities like staff training, community events, or participation in conferences. The community foundations reported that they often encouraged organizations without 501c(3) tax status to apply for these grants, with the provision that they find a fiscal agent to manage the transfer of funds (Carmen 17).

Applicable Links:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1002/nml.12102/pdf

40

Recommendations

After researching and exploring the affordable housing topic as it relates to San Juan County, our

group has formulated some ideas and comments for San Juan County to move forward to achieve a more

desirable affordable housing system. All of our team's research indicates necessity for a bottom-up,

community supported effort to effectively generate long-term affordable housing within a community.

Affordable housing proponents experience the most success when ensuring that widespread community

outreach efforts are included in their overall strategy. There are several tools that our group found most

applicable for San Juan County to consider in future affordable housing efforts.

First off, our group suggests San Juan County should develop a legacy giving program partnering

with a local non-profit, i.e. Habitat for Humanity. The main reason for our group to recommend Habitat

for Humanity specifically is because their goal is to build affordable and decent houses for people, but

also to address and help to mitigate housing affordability problems in the long-term; a focus our group

thinks it is very relevant to the need of San Juan County. Due to the fact that the county has a large, fairly

wealthy retiree population with large amounts of valuable property, partnering with Habitat for Humanity

or other non-profit organizations can help strengthen the county to receive “gifts” through bequests,

donations of appreciated securities, gifts of life insurance, or gift of annuities. Organizations of this scale

can also provide volunteers to help build within the county, hold events, and offer other robust support

systems for a local effort. In fact, knowing the success of Endow Orcas, the county can actually expand

or implement more similar programs to some more places in San Juan.

Additionally, a well-developed legacy giving program can be used in combination with other

affordable housing mechanisms. For example, a legacy giving program may be a strong addition to the

various sweat equity programs available. The idea here is to partner with a non-profit organization(s), and

then we may use legacy giving donations, if that is the way donors want to fund, to develop self-help

41

housing subdivisions or units, worker housing, and rental housing for other low income residents. Since

San Juan County is a tourist-based county, workers who live in the county may not have incomes that are

significantly higher than commuters from the outside, but they live in housing that is almost twice as

expensive and are dependant upon the ferry system for access to the area. This unique set of factors leads

us to believe that a legacy giving program, which runs with the land and ensures long-term affordability,

would be a good candidate for the county. However, since legacy giving can invove somewhat

complicated legal processes, if engaging an attorney to help implement the gifting process is a costly and

time consuming prospect, then this may not be the most viable option.

As mentioned earlier, as a tourist-based county, we believe employer partnerships should also

have a high priority to be developed, in addition to a legacy giving program if at all possible. Not only are

there a large amount of employees commuting from elsewhere to work in San Juan County, but given the

cost and inconvenience of the transportation challenges of being an island community, developing

employer partnerships could be an effective way to help keep the workforce on the islands.

Employer partnerships are so costly that small businesses may have to invest large amounts of

capital to offer such programs and the government typically only offers these programs to government

workersso there are currently no Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) programs in San Juan because the

program is just too risky to implement. However, if a layered affordable housing effort could be

developed which included some sort of employer partnerships, it would bolster the overall affordable

housing effort, as well as strengthen businesses local ties and investments in the community. It is

reasonable to assume that this would give the business added security as well, ensuring a local employee

base and raising the consumer’s perception of that business as an investor in the community. Once

employer partnerships are well developed, employees can rent a place to live at a reasonable price and

reduce the time spent commuting to work. In fact, the owner of an employee building may also be able to

rent those extra rooms to non-employees as well if there is additional space, so that those non-employee

occupants can help offset some of the cost.

42

Community foundation grants and private foundation grants are similar because both of them are

simply grant programs; the major difference is that community foundations are local based and normally

deal only with local issues whereas private foundations accept applications from anywhere or even

worldwide. For example, it is clearly unlikely for a grantseeker from Seattle apply for grants through The

Greater New Orleans Foundation. In contrast, a grantseeker from Seattle is possible to apply for grants

through private foundations such as the MacArthur Foundation and the Ford Foundation. In addition,

according to Policylink.org, “affordable housing is not a top priority for many foundations. When it is,

they are more likely to support organizational development or program development than a specific

building project. Large funders that support community development often do it through intermediaries.”

Intermediaries can be defined as private foundations here. Additionally, thanks to the economic recession,

grants from Housing Trust Fund (HTF) have been cut as well. Therefore, after balancing the cost and

benefit analysis, the group suggests private foundation grants are a viable option to consider. One

restriction and the main drawback of private foundations such as the Macarthur Foundation is that they

usually can only offer rental housing instead of home ownership or employer partnerships. Nevertheless,

since community and private foundation grants are similar tools, if San Juan County is looking for grants

to develop affordable housing, our group suggests giving private foundations a try in addition to seeking

out community foundations.

To sum up our recommendations, legacy giving programs partnering with a nonprofit

organization, like Endow Orcas, Employer Partnerships, and Private Foundation Grants are the three out

of nine mechanisms that the San Juan Affordable Housing Team believes they are the most interesting

and potentially useful options for the county. Legacy giving program maybe a complicated yet useful tool

due to the process of engaging an attorney. However, expanding Endow Orcas or implementing similar

tool in other places is particularly useful because if donors can choose where to spend their funds, then

more donors, especially local residents in support of maintaining affordability may be more willing to

donate. Besides legacy giving program, the group also believes employer partnerships is a viable option

43

as well, although it may be challenging given the fact that there are no employer partnerships or EAH

being employed in San Juan and businesses in the area may be of smaller scale and lack the resources to

implement such a program. However, the group believes mixing employees and non-employees in a

complex is another way to potentially reduce the cost to the owner. Finally, since community foundation

grants and even HTF appear to have weaknesses in regards to local implementation, private foundation

grants seem to be the priority to look at. These are the affordable housing group’s recommendations and

the group strongly believes these recommendations can at least provide alternative solutions or fresh ideas

to the county.

44

Work Cited and Resources

Community Foundation Grants

Carman, Joanne G. Community Foundations: A Growing Resource for Community Development. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Vol. 12: 7–24. Http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00429.x/full#b40. Wiley Periodicals, Inc, 14 July 2003. Web. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/10.1002/nml.12102/abstract>.

Deacon, Zermarie, Pennie Foster-Fishman, Michael Mahaffey, and Gretchen Archer. "Moving from Preconditions for Action to Developing a Cycle of Continued Social Change: Tapping the Potential of Mini-Grant Programs." Journal of Community Psychology V37 N2 (Mar 2009): 148-55. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/browse/?type=JOURNAL>.

Lowe, Jeffrey S. "Community Foundations: What Do They Offer Community Development?" Journal of Urban Affairs 26.2 (2004): 221-40. Print.

Employer Partnerships

"Case Studies." PolicyLink. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136977/k.7CE7/Case_Studies.htm>.

3 case studies of employer partnerships: REACH (Regional Employer Assisted Collaboration for Housing) Illinois; Seattle Hometown Home Loan; and, Rochester First Homes, Rochester, Minnesota

Moore, Sean Robert (2005).  Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder engagement: A case study of affordable housing in Whistler. M.R.M. dissertation, Simon Fraser University (Canada), Canada. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT MR13342).

Housing Trust Funds

"About House Bill 2060." Clark County Washington. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.co.clark.wa.us/community-action/Legislation_About.html>.

(State Housing Trust Funds) House Bill 2060, effective June 13, 2002, enacted a surcharge of $10 per instrument recorded in each county for affordable housing benefiting persons at 50% or less of the median family income (very-low income people).

45

"Housing Trust Fund Executive Committee - City of Bainbridge Island." Welcome to the Official Web Site of the City of Bainbridge Island - City of Bainbridge Island. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/housing_trust_fund_executive_committee.aspx>.

The Mission of the Housing Trust Fund is to encourage development of moderate and low income housing and to provide funding for income groups not served by other funding sources currently available. The targets of the Housing Trust Fund are those households on which the Island depends upon as clerks, teachers, public employees, wait staff, artists, crafts people, and skilled workers, etc.

Housing Trust Fund Progress Report 2007. Rep. Center for Community Change. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/htf/other-media/HTF%2007%20final.pdf>.

This report provides the only comprehensive up-to-date description of the more than 600 housing trust funds in the US. Housing trust funds generate $1.6 billion dollars each year to support affordable housing. The report contains information on state, city, and county housing trust funds and describes current trends with housing trust fund development throughout the country.

"Housing Trust Fund." The Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Department of Commerce. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.commerce.wa.gov/portal/alias__cted/lang__en/tabID__493/DesktopDefault.aspx>.

The HTF provides funds to: Support the construction, acquisition or rehabilitation of 4,500+ units every two years. Create rental and homeownership opportunities in every region of the state for people with incomes below 80 percent of the average median income. Support special needs housing for clients of Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Health programs and services.

"Housing Trust Funds Overview — Center for Community Change." Home — Center for Community Change. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/htf/housing-trust-funds>.

Ideally, the funds are transferred automatically each and every year into the housing trust fund account providing a continuous stream of funding, without going through an appropriation or budgeting process. Ideally, the funds can be used only in accordance with the enabling legislation or ordinance establishing the fund, targeted to serve those housing needs that are most critical. But these ideals are not possible in every situation, legally or politically.

"Housing Trust Funds Overview." Housing Trust Funds Overview. Center for Community Change. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/htf/housing-trust-funds>.

National overview of Housing Trust Funds.

"HTF Guidelines and Procedures Handbook." HTF Guidelines and Procedures Handbook. Department of Commerce. Web. 16 Nov. 2010. <http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/881/default.aspx>.

"National Low Income Housing Coalition - National Housing Trust Fund." NLIHC: National Low Income Housing Coalition -. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.nlihc.org/template/page.cfm?id=40>.

46

A scarcity of housing that the poorest families can afford is the principal cause of homelessness in the United States. Investment in the NHTF will create good jobs. Every $1 billion provided to the Trust Fund will support the immediate construction of 10,000 rental homes, creating 15,100 new construction jobs and 3,800 new jobs in ongoing operations.

Segel, Ginger. "Grassroots Advocacy Strengthens Housing Trust Fund." Shelterforce Online 105 (1999). National Housing Institute. May-June 1999. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/105/organize.html>.

Washington state housing activists came together in 1997 to launch the Housing Our Community Campaign to increase the state Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to $100 million per biennium. The HTF, which had been funded at about $50 million per biennium since 1991, finances a broad range of housing for low-income people around the state.

State of Washington. Department of Commerce. Affordable Housing Inventory Report. By Lisa Vatske, Angela Kanevski, Sean Harrington, and Washington Low Income Housing Alliance. May 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010. <http://www.commerce.wa.gov/uploads/csh/AffordableHousingInventoryReport6.16.10.pdf>.

This report is based on a compilation of statewide survey data collected and produced by the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance as well as data collected from individual funding sources. The Affordable Housing Inventory Report is a snapshot based on the investment and benefits data that could be collected.

United States. National Housing Trust Fund. Testimony of Michael Bodaken President, National Housing Trust September 29, 2010. By Michael Bodaken. Print.

Winning at the Local Level: 5 Housing Trust Fund Campaigns Tell Their Stories. Publication. Center for Community Change, 2004. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. <http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/htf/other-media/CCC-case-studies.pdf>.

This report captures accomplishments in housing trust funds through personal interviews with dozens of players in select cities. The stories provide lessons, experiences and victories that literally changed the complexion of affordable housing in these cities.

A Workbook for Creating a Housing Trust Fund. Publication. Center for Community Change, July 1999. Web. 1 Nov. 2010. <http://www.communitychange.org/our-projects/htf/other-media/HousingTrustWorkbook.pdf>.

This workbook explains how to assemble a proposal for a new fund and put together a campaign to get it enacted. It contains step by step suggestions and examples to draw from.

Legacy Giving

"Enterprise Community Partners - Donate - Legacy Giving." Enterprise Community Partners - Affordable Housing, Thriving Communities. Web. 15 Nov. 2010.

47

<http://www.enterprisecommunity.org/about/donate/legacy_giving.asp>.

“This approach allows you to provide for your heirs, while designating a portion of your estate to help support Enterprise's mission. There are financial incentives for taking this route, designed to help you make an impact on the future of disadvantaged families. Gifts of Life Insurance are predicated on the assumption that the protection provided by the insurance coverage is not needed by you or your family – giving you a chance to share the wealth!”

Fax, By. Gift Planning at Volunteers of America. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.voa.planyourlegacy.org/index.php>.

"The programs of Volunteers of America depend upon your goodwill. To that end, there are a myriad of easy giving options from which you can choose – from naming Volunteers of America as a beneficiary in your will to a more complex trust arrangement.”

"SAHG - Willing To Help." St. Andrew's Housing Group. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.sahg.org/willing/>.

St. Andrew's Housing Group has joined the cooperative campaign of Leave a Legacy of Western Washington, allowing donors the chance to support the ideals they held in life via their Last Will and Testament. The Leave a Legacy website has many resources to help with charitable giving via estate planning.

Subsidized Housing

Grow, James. "Expiring Use: Retention of Subsidized Housing." Affordable Housing Tool Group. Policylink.org. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136981/k.A41A/Expiring_Use.htm>

The "expiring use" problem arises because the affordability of housing units receiving these subsidies is not permanently assured. The movement to keep these expiring use properties affordable is called "affordable housing preservation.

"The Opt-Out Epidemic; Expiring Use." PolicyLink. Web. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136981/k.A41A/Expiring_Use.htm>.

The "expiring use" problem arises because the affordability of housing units receiving these subsidies is not permanently assured. The restrictions onoperations last only for a specific time period. After 20 years, owners of most buildings with HUD-subsidized mortgages are allowed to convert to market-rate at any time by a prepayment of the mortgage loan.

 "Subsidized Mortgages Maturing Thru 2014 for the State Code of WA." Notice- HUD. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.hud.gov/utilities/intercept.cfm?/offices/hsg/mfh/gendocs/states/wa.pdf>.

A PDF containing the places in Washington State receiving subsidized mortgages from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

48

Sweat Equity

Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Guide to Using Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Funds. 2005. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/shop/guidebook.pdf>.

"ExpectMore.gov: Mutual Self-Help Housing -- Technical Assistance Grants." The White House. 2004. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10002038.2004.html>.

Moderately Effective programs likely need to improve their efficiency or address other problems in the programs' design or management in order to achieve better results. USDA's Rural Housing Service's requirement to contribute 65 percent "sweat equity" makes this program unique. The program serves the lowest income families, yet they are able to succeed at rates higher than the rest of USDA's single family housing direct loan borrowers. The program has appropriate long-term goals and annual measures, which take into account economic factors and, in most cases, have established baselines and ambitious targets.

"Group Offers "Self-Help" so Low-Income Families Can Own a Piece of the American Dream." Casey Connects Newsletter (Fall 2002). Annie E. Casey Foundation, Fall 2002. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. <http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid={29F4A357-2C9C-4391-BA3A-182CA7B8BC08}>.

Self-Help has become one of the nation’s leading community development financial institutions. Since 1980, it has lent $1.8 billion to some 25,000 families and small businesses that can’t get financing from traditional lenders and helped create more than 9,000 jobs.

Housing Assistance Council. Creating the Village: Building Community in Mutual Self-Help Developments. Rep. Housing Assistance Council, 2005. Print.

Housing Assistance Council. The Coachella Valley Housing Coalition and Washington DC-based Housing Assistance Council Partner to Mitigate Impacts of National Housing Crisis. Housing Assistance Council, 13 May 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. <http://www.ruralhome.org/information-and-publications/press-room/1-year-2010/334-0513pr>.

Coachella Valley Housing Coalition (CVHC) is an award-winning nonprofit housing development corporation dedicated to helping low- and very-low income families improve their living conditions. Several CVHC housing developments in Riverside and Imperial counties include self-help housing subdivisions, farmworker and migrant housing, and rental housing.

"How to Use It- Limited Equity Co-ops." PolicyLink. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137053/k.8719/How_to_Use_it.htm>.

LEHCs can provide almost all types of housing, including multifamily apartments, town-houses, single-family homes, and mobile home parks. LEHCs may be concentrated in an area, or interspersed among privately owned housing. Legally, cooperatives may be either nonprofit or for profit. This source provides guidelines for how to form a LEHC.

49

 "Limited Equity Co-ops, Limited Equity Condos, & Affordable Resident-ControlledHousing." WeOwn.Net. Association for Resident Control of Housing. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://weown.net/index1.htm>.

Based in New England, WeOwn.net is multi-agency web resource for resident-controlled housing information.

"Mutual Self-Help Housing." Rural Community Assistance Corporation. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.rcac.org/doc.aspx?95>.

Under a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development contract, RCAC works with eight Self-Help housing grantees in Washington who produced more than 130 homes in the past year.

Rubiner, Betty. Mortar and Muscle: Building Community and Assets Through Self-Help Housing. Publication. Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2005. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. <http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/mortar_muscle.pdf>.

This report looks at the experiences of families working to build their own homes through self-help housing projects across the United States. By combining personal stories, data, and descriptions of promising program models, this document highlights how self-help housing projects are strengthening communities and creating informal, positive social networks.

Sazama, Gerald, and Roger Willcox. An Evaluation of Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives in the. Working paper no. 199502. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/econ_wpapers/199502>.

Limited equity cooperatives (LECs) are evaluated within the following framework and are seen as an effective way of providing home-ownership opportunities for low-income families the United States.

United States. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research. Making Homeownership a Reality: Survey of Habitat for Humanity (HFHI), Inc. Homeowners and Affiliates. Departmenr of Housing and Urban Development, 1998. Print.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Donovan Announces $26.5 Million in “Sweat Equity” Grants. 24 Feb. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-037>.

HOP grants will be provided to national and regional nonprofit organizations and consortia that have experience in administering self-help housing programs. The funds must be used to purchase land and install or improve infrastructure, which together may not exceed an average investment of $15,000 per dwelling.

Private Foundation Grants

"Affordable Housing - Grantmaking Guidelines." Affordable Housing - Grantmaking Guidelines. John D.

50

and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010.

"Foundation Center - What Is the Difference between a Private Foundation and a Public Charity?" Foundation Center - Knowledge to Build On. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/pfandpc.html>.

Building a Context

"Affordable Housing Tool Sets." PolicyLink. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137223/k.9AAB/Goals_To_Tools.htm>.

Affordable Housing "Tool Sets" addressed: regulating the private housing market, creating nonprofit-owned affordable housing, increasing affordable homeownership opportunities, encouraging resident-controlled limited-equity ownership, leveraging market-rate development, and preserving publicly-assisted affordable housing.

Baker, Christopher. "Housing in Crisis: A Call to Reform Massachusetts's Affordable Housing Law." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 32.1 (2005): 165-206. Print.

This Note examines these proposals as well as affordable housing efforts in other parts of the country and argues that Massachusetts's affordable housing crisis will only be solved if the State legislature replaces 40B's arbitrary housing quotas 165-206. Print.with new initiatives that create enough housing to meet demand and new incentives that encourage municipalities and the private sector to join in its efforts.

"Case Studies; More than $1 Trillion Invested through CRA." PolicyLink. Profiles Are Courtesy of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136955/k.7C27/Case_Studies.htm>.

This section is designed to assist lenders and community leaders in identifying the range of credit, capital, investment, and servicing needs that can be included in a CRA commitment. Below, are an overview and actual examples of CRA commitments that illustrate the range of programs and products that have been negotiated between community organizations-or local governments-and lenders.

City of Seattle. Seattle Planning Commission. Affordable Housing Action Agenda. Feb. 2008. Web. 27 Dec. 2010. <http://www.cityofseattle.net/planningcommission/docs/SPC_AffordableHousingRpt.pdf>.

"Community Reinvestment Act Successes in Housing." PolicyLink. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136955/k.7C27/Case_Studies.htm>

Community Reinvestment Act Successes

Department of Housing and Urban Development. SHOP Low-Income Beneficiaries Report. 19 Apr. 2006. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/shop/beneficiary.pdf>

51

Francese, Peter. "The Second Home Boom." American Demographics 25.5 (2003): 40-41. WorldCat. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.

Reports on the released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) which shows the demographics and buying behavior of second-home owners, as of June 2003. Spending habits; Growth rate of second-home buying; Details of the BLS surveys.

Gober, Patricia, Kevin McHugh, and Denis Leclerc. "Job-Rich but Housing-Poor: The Dilemma of a Western Amenity Town." The Professional Geographer 45.1 (1993): 12-20. Print.

Many of those who work in Sedona do not live in the community. This study, based on a survey of 286 employees, shows that workers who live in Sedona do not have incomes that are significantly higher than commuters from the outside, but they live in housing that is almost twice as expensive.

Godbey, G., and M. I. Bevins. "The Life Cycle of Second Home Ownership: A Case Study." Journal of Travel Research 25.3 (1987): 18-22. Print.

''Laurel Acres'' (the name has been changed) is a large 2nd-home development in Pennsylvania where all property owners are required to be members of a policymaking owners association. Data collected in 1983-1985 concerning this site were used to develop a life cycle of 2nd-home ownership.

Hettinger, William. "Living and Working in Paradise, Carteret County, NC." Lecture. 20 Oct. 2006. The Wyndham Financial Group, Ltd, 20 Oct. 2006. Web. 13 Nov. 2010.

Presentation slides from a lecture on possible solutions for market failure in tourist economies.

Kelly, G., and K. Hosking. "Nonpermanent Residents, Place Attachment, and "Sea Change" Communities." Environment and Behavior 40.4 (2008): 575-94. Print.

This article explores the usefulness of place attachment to provide insight into the actions and behavior of second-home owners. Place attachment, or human-place bonding, has been linked to positive behaviors such as environmental conservation, volunteering, and the reverse of neighbourhood decline.

Sazama, Gerald W. "Lessons from the History of Affordable Housing Cooperatives in the United States: A Case Study in American Affordable Housing Policy." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 59.4 (2000): 573-608. JSTOR. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

Understanding the history of the affordable housing coop- eratives in the United States helps us understand the general history of American affordable housing policy. This paper contains a de- cade-by-decade summary of the history of affordable cooperatives.

Van Patten, Susan, and Daniel Williams. "Problems in Place: Using Discursive Social Psychology to Investigate the Meanings of Seasonal Homes." Leisure Sciences 30.5 (2008): 448-64. Print.

This paper uses the conceptual framework of discursive social psychology to identify varying

52

interpretive frames homeowners use to characterize the meaning and significance of their seasonal homes as vacation and recreation residences.

"Workforce Housing Incentive Program." Council Member Sally Clark; Workforce Housing Incentive Program. City of Seattle. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. <http://www.seattle.gov/council/clark/workforce_housing_ip.htm>.

Place Based Case Studies

Christensen, Karen. The Challenge of Affordable Housing in 21st Century California: Constraints and Opportunities in. Working paper no. 2000-04. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 2000. IURD Working Paper Ser. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Web. 13 Nov. 2010. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bn582sf>.

Analyzes the state of the nonprofit housing sector in California with particular focus on understanding both California-wide trends and challenges as well as regional variations which have important implications for local, state, and federal policies addressing affordable housing.

Gill, Alison. "From Growth Machine to Growth Management: the Dynamics of Resort Development in Whistler, British Columbia." Environment and Planning A 32.6 (2000): 1083-103. Print.

The inequitable benefits of growth have been challenged more recently by the introduction of growth-management practices that heighten the role of local residents in land use decisions. In this article, the concepts of the growth machine and growth management are applied to an examination of the resort community of Whistler, British Columbia.

Gill, Alison M. "Tourism-led Amenity Migration and the Transformation of Place: Issues of Affordable Housing." Sustaining Quality of Life through Tourism. Proc. of Best Education Network Think Tank VIII. Print.

“In this paper I first present a conceptual discussion of amenity migration within a sustainability framework. I then employ this framework to examine issues of affordable employee housing – one of the major problems that can impact the quality of life for residents in tourism communities where there is a high level of amenity migration (Gober et al., 1993).”

 "Maine Islands Coalition Launches the 2010 Affordable Housing Initiative for Maine Islands." MaineHousing News & Events. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.mainehousing.org/News.aspx?PageCMD=NewsByID&NewsID=486>.

"The unique factors that make living on one of Maine's islands so attractive have resulted in unaffordable housing and steeply rising property taxes. This makes it difficult for ordinary working families to live on the islands, and in turn makes it difficult to create a sustainable community."

Maine State Housing Authority. 2010 Affordable Housing Initiative for Maine Islands. MaineHousing. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. <http://www.mainehousing.org/Documents/HousingDevelopments/HousingDev-IslandAffordableHousing2010.pdf>.

53

MaineHousing is making $2 million in grant funding available from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued by MaineHousing pursuant to the Maine Energy, Housing and Economic Recovery Program to finance the creation or substantial rehabilitation of affordable multi-family rental housing units located on Maine’s island communities

Löffler, Roland, and Ernst Steinicke. "Counterurbanization and Its Socioeconomic Effects in High Mountain Areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada)." Mountain Research and Development 26.1 (2006): 64-71.

People who migrate to the study areas tend to be well-educated, with considerable household earnings, but do not fall into the senior citizen category. Planning problems that tend to come with settlement expansion in high mountain regions represent a certain potential for conflict between people who have been living here for a long period and recent, affluent amenity migrant

Peters, Robert. "The Politics of Enacting State Legislation to Enable Local Impact Fees: The Pennsylvania Story." Journal of the American Planning Association 60.1 (1994): 61-69. WorldCat. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

The evolution of Pennsylvania’s statute suggests that the following factors affect a bill’s content and success.

Venturoni, Linda, Patrick Long, and Richard Perdue. The Economic and Social Impacts of Second Homes in Four Mountain Resort Counties of Colorado. Rep. Denver, 2005. Print.

The research questions addressed the effects of second homes on housing prices, on the number and types of jobs generated, on community services and on the overall economy. The study also assessed the usage patterns of second homeowners of community amenities and the similarities and differences of recreation patterns and assessments of community offerings.

Williams, Peter, and Alison Gill. "Managing Growth in Mountain Tourism Communities." Tourism Management 15.3 (1994): 212-20. Print.

In this paper, the application of growth management techniques to mountain tourism communities is examined. Many mountain environments have experienced escalating demand from tourists in recent decades which has threatened not only the environmental quality of such places but also the social fabric of communities.

54