Land Use Prof Blog

Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project, Post 35: Using Supportive Housing to Address Homelessness

 Elisabeth Haub Law School of Law
Pace University
Land Use Law Center
Supervisor: John R. Nolon, Distinguished Professor
Blog No. 35 of the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
Editor: Brooke Mercaldi
Contributing Authors: Michael Ohora and Jaclyn McBain Cohen [*]

Using Supportive Housing to Address Homelessness

Supportive housing is a form of permanent affordable housing that provides supportive services, such as “mental health, physical health, language, and cultural needs, education, employment, addiction and recovery, tenant rights and others" to individuals who are homeless, vulnerable to becoming homeless, or disabled. Supportive housing programs take the “housing first” approach, which involves addressing homelessness by placing individuals in a permanent residence before addressing other issues, such as drug addiction, physical and mental health issues, unemployment, and insufficient development of life skills. By prioritizing housing, individuals are provided a secure environment to work on their vulnerabilities rather than doing so while on the street or in a shelter. Permanent supportive housing programs achieve an occupancy retention rate as high as 98%. In contrast to the “housing first” approach, the “services first” approach involves attempting to meet the needs of homeless individuals while they are unprotected by permanent shelter. States, such as Utah, that have shifted from a “services first” approach to a “housing first” approach have seen substantial decreases in their homeless populations as individuals are given housing to provide stability from which they can begin to work on sobriety, mental health problems, job seeking, etc.

There are two main models of supportive housing: the scatter-site model and the single-site model. The scatter-site model involves an organization purchasing housing units across a variety of buildings and properties, which can include apartments, condominiums, or houses. This model allows supportive housing units to be integrated within the general community, and it allows for flexibility in the creation of supportive housing units since any number of units in one building can be purchased to serve as supportive housing. In a clustered scatter-site model, units can be purchased to form a cluster of supportive housing units within a larger property. The clustered scatter-site housing scheme forms an “economy of scale” by reducing the costs incurred by service providers to cover travel, staffing, and maintenance fees. In contrast to the scatter-site model, the single-site model involves a not-for-profit developer purchasing an entire building and using all of the units to provide supportive housing. In this model, on-site services are provided and tailored to the needs of the building’s occupants.  

Local governments can aid in the provision of supportive housing in a variety of ways. For example, Los Angeles initiated the Proposition HHH Supportive Housing Loan Program for the purpose of providing loans to developers who build supportive housing developments. This proposition was passed by voters in 2016, thereby authorizing a $1.2B bond to offer loans. The goal of the project is to build 8,000 supportive housing units. Developers work with the City to identify providers of the particular supportive services needed by the types of vulnerable tenants who will occupy the new units. The City’s requirements specify that the supported residents be “extremely low income” (up to 30% of the area median) or “very low income” (up to 50% of the median) and to be homeless or chronically homeless.

 

As another example, New York City sponsors the 15/15 Initiative through the Office of Supportive and Affordable Housing and Services. The 15/15 Initiative involves developing 15,000 new supportive housing units by 2030. A task force delivered specific recommendations regarding data & evaluation, referrals, service models, and streamlining development. Recommendations include: using a vulnerability index to target housing to certain populations; minimizing time spent waiting in shelters; implementing a holistic approach to family services; and improving community engagement for new projects.

Services provided in the 15/15 program vary based on the occupants’ needs. For example, CAMBA is a provider of housing and services that include medical treatment for chronic illness, case management, nutritional services (such as food distribution), parenting support, family economic services, and legal services. The comprehensive nature of services that go beyond medical services help individuals in supportive housing gain and maintain both stability within their lives and the ability to be productive members of their communities.

Funding for the 15/15 program comes from the City’s Department of Housing Preservation & Development. The Supportive Housing Loan Program requires that 60% of the units be set aside for homeless or disabled individuals and the remaining 40% be rented to tenants with income falling below 60% of the area’s median income. The loans are for 30 years and a maximum of $125,000 per unit. At the state level, the Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative provides funding for supportive housing. Here, applicants request funding with a maximum of $25,000 per individual, which can be used to provide rental subsidies, supportive services, building security, transportation, and education. The Supportive Housing Loan Program and the Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative are just two of the many funding opportunities available through public and private sources that providers can take advantage of for the development and operation of their supportive housing programs.

For additional resources, the Gaining Ground Information Database is a free resource featuring best practice models used by governments to control the use of land in the public interest. Please direct your search toward the Healthy Communities topic.

[*] Michael Ohora, this blog’s primary author, is a first-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and a Land Use Law Center volunteer.

Jaclyn McBain Cohen is a third-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Research Assistant to Professor Nolon.

Brooke Mercaldi is a second-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Land Use Scholar in the Land Use Law Center.

The previous blogs in the series are listed here:

1. Reframing Sustainability: Introducing the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
2. Planning for Public Health: A New Beginning for Land Use Law
3. The Role of Density in Combatting Climate Change and COVID-19
4. Novel Coronavirus Claims Implicate Age-Old Property Rights Questions
5. State & Local COVID-related Emergency Powers: Individual Rights
6. COVID-Related Land Use Regulations and Judicial Deference
7. Mediation of Eviction Disputes May Hold the Key to the Survival of Small Businesses
8. Using Zoning to Help Eliminate Food Deserts: A Few Steps Forward
9. Urban Heat Islands and Equity
10. Urban Heat Island and Equity: What Can Local Governments Do?
11. The Recovery Lease: Preventing Evictions of Commercial Tenants During the Pandemic
12. The Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Promoting Public Health and Resilience
13. Hazard Mitigation Planning: A Case Study
14. Complete Streets: Protecting Public Health
15. Zoning and Lease Mediation as a Way to Retain Critical Small Businesses
16. Segregation by Law and the Racial Inequity Pandemic
17. Combating Food Swamps to Improve Equity and Public Health
18. The Pandemic Plan for Healthy Buildings
19. Remediating Distressed Properties to Improve Public Health
20. Housing, a Crucial Determinant of Health
21. ADU Introduction
22. NIMBY Restrictions to Poison the Prospects of Accessory Dwelling Units to Address Housing Insecurity
23. Zoning to Fill the Missing Middle Housing Gap
24. Old Tools to Fight Housing Insecurity: Adaptive Reuse and Infill Development
25. Racial Impact Analyses
26. A New Era of Equity-Based Comprehensive Planning…Finally
27. Equity-Based Comprehensive Plans: Land Use Policies to Correct Past Disparities
28. Reversing the Legacy of Redlining: Reducing Exposure to Toxins and Pollutants Through Land Use Law Reform
29. Addressing the Four Pandemics – A Case Study
30. Health Impact Assessments: A New Tool for Analyzing Land Use Plans, Zone Changes, and Development Projects
31. Putting the “e” in TOD
32. The Four Pandemics Explained and Addressed by Land Use Law and Policy
33. Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences
34. What is Climate Gentrification and Why is it Different?

To subscribe to the GreenLaw Blog, please go to https://greenlaw.blogs.pace.edu/ and click on the “Subscribe” envelope.

Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project, Post 35: Using Supportive Housing to Address Homelessness

Elisabeth Haub Law School of Law
Pace University
Land Use Law Center
Supervisor: John R. Nolon, Distinguished Professor
Blog No. 35 of the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
Editor: Brooke Mercaldi
Contributing Authors: Michael Ohora and Jaclyn McBain Cohen [*]

Using Supportive Housing to Address Homelessness

Supportive housing is a form of permanent affordable housing that provides supportive services, such as “mental health, physical health, language, and cultural needs, education, employment, addiction and recovery, tenant rights and others" to individuals who are homeless, vulnerable to becoming homeless, or disabled. Supportive housing programs take the “housing first” approach, which involves addressing homelessness by placing individuals in a permanent residence before addressing other issues, such as drug addiction, physical and mental health issues, unemployment, and insufficient development of life skills. By prioritizing housing, individuals are provided a secure environment to work on their vulnerabilities rather than doing so while on the street or in a shelter. Permanent supportive housing programs achieve an occupancy retention rate as high as 98%. In contrast to the “housing first” approach, the “services first” approach involves attempting to meet the needs of homeless individuals while they are unprotected by permanent shelter. States, such as Utah, that have shifted from a “services first” approach to a “housing first” approach have seen substantial decreases in their homeless populations as individuals are given housing to provide stability from which they can begin to work on sobriety, mental health problems, job seeking, etc.

There are two main models of supportive housing: the scatter-site model and the single-site model. The scatter-site model involves an organization purchasing housing units across a variety of buildings and properties, which can include apartments, condominiums, or houses. This model allows supportive housing units to be integrated within the general community, and it allows for flexibility in the creation of supportive housing units since any number of units in one building can be purchased to serve as supportive housing. In a clustered scatter-site model, units can be purchased to form a cluster of supportive housing units within a larger property. The clustered scatter-site housing scheme forms an “economy of scale” by reducing the costs incurred by service providers to cover travel, staffing, and maintenance fees. In contrast to the scatter-site model, the single-site model involves a not-for-profit developer purchasing an entire building and using all of the units to provide supportive housing. In this model, on-site services are provided and tailored to the needs of the building’s occupants.  

Local governments can aid in the provision of supportive housing in a variety of ways. For example, Los Angeles initiated the Proposition HHH Supportive Housing Loan Program for the purpose of providing loans to developers who build supportive housing developments. This proposition was passed by voters in 2016, thereby authorizing a $1.2B bond to offer loans. The goal of the project is to build 8,000 supportive housing units. Developers work with the City to identify providers of the particular supportive services needed by the types of vulnerable tenants who will occupy the new units. The City’s requirements specify that the supported residents be “extremely low income” (up to 30% of the area median) or “very low income” (up to 50% of the median) and to be homeless or chronically homeless.

 

As another example, New York City sponsors the 15/15 Initiative through the Office of Supportive and Affordable Housing and Services. The 15/15 Initiative involves developing 15,000 new supportive housing units by 2030. A task force delivered specific recommendations regarding data & evaluation, referrals, service models, and streamlining development. Recommendations include: using a vulnerability index to target housing to certain populations; minimizing time spent waiting in shelters; implementing a holistic approach to family services; and improving community engagement for new projects.

Services provided in the 15/15 program vary based on the occupants’ needs. For example, CAMBA is a provider of housing and services that include medical treatment for chronic illness, case management, nutritional services (such as food distribution), parenting support, family economic services, and legal services. The comprehensive nature of services that go beyond medical services help individuals in supportive housing gain and maintain both stability within their lives and the ability to be productive members of their communities.

Funding for the 15/15 program comes from the City’s Department of Housing Preservation & Development. The Supportive Housing Loan Program requires that 60% of the units be set aside for homeless or disabled individuals and the remaining 40% be rented to tenants with income falling below 60% of the area’s median income. The loans are for 30 years and a maximum of $125,000 per unit. At the state level, the Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative provides funding for supportive housing. Here, applicants request funding with a maximum of $25,000 per individual, which can be used to provide rental subsidies, supportive services, building security, transportation, and education. The Supportive Housing Loan Program and the Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative are just two of the many funding opportunities available through public and private sources that providers can take advantage of for the development and operation of their supportive housing programs.

For additional resources, the Gaining Ground Information Database is a free resource featuring best practice models used by governments to control the use of land in the public interest. Please direct your search toward the Healthy Communities topic.

[*] Michael Ohora, this blog’s primary author, is a first-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and a Land Use Law Center volunteer.

Jaclyn McBain Cohen is a third-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Research Assistant to Professor Nolon.

Brooke Mercaldi is a second-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Land Use Scholar in the Land Use Law Center.

The previous blogs in the series are listed here:

1. Reframing Sustainability: Introducing the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
2. Planning for Public Health: A New Beginning for Land Use Law
3. The Role of Density in Combatting Climate Change and COVID-19
4. Novel Coronavirus Claims Implicate Age-Old Property Rights Questions
5. State & Local COVID-related Emergency Powers: Individual Rights
6. COVID-Related Land Use Regulations and Judicial Deference
7. Mediation of Eviction Disputes May Hold the Key to the Survival of Small Businesses
8. Using Zoning to Help Eliminate Food Deserts: A Few Steps Forward
9. Urban Heat Islands and Equity
10. Urban Heat Island and Equity: What Can Local Governments Do?
11. The Recovery Lease: Preventing Evictions of Commercial Tenants During the Pandemic
12. The Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Promoting Public Health and Resilience
13. Hazard Mitigation Planning: A Case Study
14. Complete Streets: Protecting Public Health
15. Zoning and Lease Mediation as a Way to Retain Critical Small Businesses
16. Segregation by Law and the Racial Inequity Pandemic
17. Combating Food Swamps to Improve Equity and Public Health
18. The Pandemic Plan for Healthy Buildings
19. Remediating Distressed Properties to Improve Public Health
20. Housing, a Crucial Determinant of Health
21. ADU Introduction
22. NIMBY Restrictions to Poison the Prospects of Accessory Dwelling Units to Address Housing Insecurity
23. Zoning to Fill the Missing Middle Housing Gap
24. Old Tools to Fight Housing Insecurity: Adaptive Reuse and Infill Development
25. Racial Impact Analyses
26. A New Era of Equity-Based Comprehensive Planning…Finally
27. Equity-Based Comprehensive Plans: Land Use Policies to Correct Past Disparities
28. Reversing the Legacy of Redlining: Reducing Exposure to Toxins and Pollutants Through Land Use Law Reform
29. Addressing the Four Pandemics – A Case Study
30. Health Impact Assessments: A New Tool for Analyzing Land Use Plans, Zone Changes, and Development Projects
31. Putting the “e” in TOD
32. The Four Pandemics Explained and Addressed by Land Use Law and Policy
33. Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences
34. What is Climate Gentrification and Why is it Different?

To subscribe to the GreenLaw Blog, please go to https://greenlaw.blogs.pace.edu/ and click on the “Subscribe” envelope.

Free ABA Webinar: Wed Jan 19: A Practitioner’s Guide to Writing A Journal Article

Tomorrow, Wednesday January 19 at 12:30 Central, I am moderating an ABA panel for practitioners about writing journal articles with two wonderful panelists.  The event is free.  I hope you will join us, or perhaps recommend the event to a friend considering an article.  Here is the link to register, and here is the blurb:

As a practicing lawyer, you are constantly building on your knowledge and expertise in ways that would be of great interest to other lawyers. You would love to write essays and articles coming out of your experience, but what’s the best way to get started? Two experienced practitioners who have published in ABA publications will discuss how, why, what, and – yes – when to write. Brian Connolly, a partner at a Denver law firm, and Lesley Albritton, a legal aid lawyer, will discuss writing with Stephen R. Miller, Senior Editor of the ABA Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law.

LINK TO BIOS: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/affordable_housing/speaker-bios121421.pdf

Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project, Post 33: Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences

Elisabeth Haub Law School of Law
Pace University
Land Use Law Center
Supervisor: John R. Nolon, Distinguished Professor
Blog No. 33 of the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
Editor: Brooke Mercaldi
Contributing Author: Gabriella Mickel [*]

Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences

Gentrification is defined as “the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process.” The inequities caused by gentrification in many communities are manifest. For example, the disinvestment in lower-income neighborhoods caused by redlining, racial covenants, and zoning provisions preventing property improvement resulted in dilapidated buildings, lowered real estate prices fueling development of manufacturing and industrial uses, and lowered the cost of investment in polluting infrastructure, such as highways and public works facilities. The legacy of these effects is the exposure of the residents of such neighborhoods to toxins and pollution not found in moderate- or higher-income residential neighborhoods. In fact, Black Americans are 75% more likely to live in communities where they are exposed to soil, air, and water pollution and experience a higher risk of cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening illnesses.

This is clearly an equity issue that many municipalities are interested in rectifying, but they must be careful to assess and avoid unintended consequences. One solution, for example, has been to build green infrastructure, such as parks, in these neighborhoods. It may seem as though the neighborhood would benefit from this supposed step away from the historic inequity; however, once the green infrastructure is built, gentrification and displacement can occur. Those trees and parks can cause property values to rise, gentrifiers to move in, and low-income residents to be displaced. Displaced residents are more likely to experience negative mental health effects, food deserts, less walkable streets, less access to transportation, and more exposure to pollutants.

The same cycle happens with other “solutions” to historic inequities. Reducing crime leads to higher property values. Giving school vouchers to kids in underfunded schools can encourage moderate-income parents to become gentrifiers and move into low-income neighborhoods. Increasing transit options and transit-oriented development can drive up rents and property values. Even addressing food deserts and swamps by attracting grocers, encouraging farmers’ markets, and incentivizing community gardens can result not only in food mirages, but also in gentrification.

The question thus becomes: how do we stop this cycle of inequity? Part of the answer could be leveraging the resources of gentrifiers and preventing displacement of low-income residents through land-use solutions. To prevent displacement, municipalities are building more affordable housing, preserving current affordable housing stock, and keeping residents in and returning them to their communities.

The Neighborhood Jobs Trust in Boston, Massachusetts is funded by fees paid by commercial developers with projects greater than 100,000 square feet. Boston’s zoning law requires these developers to obtain a zoning variance. To get the variance, the developers must pay a linkage fee, based on square footage, to the Neighborhood Jobs Trust. The trust supports job training for low and moderate-income residents. By creating this trust, Boston is using its land use authority to mitigate a con of gentrification in addition to displacement – the loss of low-skill jobs.

Right-to-purchase ordinances offer cities, tenants, or both with advanced notice and the right to purchase a multifamily rental property “when the owner decides to sell the property, exit the affordable housing program, or convert the rents to market rate.” These ordinances not only mitigate displacement, but they also create low-income home ownership opportunities for residents in gentrifying neighborhoods. The possibility for home ownership is especially important given that building equity is an equity issue. Homeownership is an established route to building generational wealth, yet Black Americans have a homeownership rate of 46.4% compared to 75.8% for white families. The homeownership and racial wealth gap are the legacy of slavery, segregation, redlining, and other anti-Black policies.

Washington, D.C. runs the oldest right-to-purchase programs in the U.S. via the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA). TOPA gives tenants the opportunity to purchase a building when the owner decides to sell and DOPA gives the D.C. the right to purchase if the tenants do not. Tenant ownership is typically structured through the creation of a limited equity cooperative, where residents collectively own their building with resale restrictions that preserve the long-term affordability of the units. The D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) encourages tenants to exercise their right to purchase to stabilize neighborhoods and prevent displacement. The DHCD provides tenants with financial assistance (seed money, earnest money deposits, acquisition funding, etc.), technical assistance, and “specialized organizational and development services, to include structuring the tenant association, preparing legal documents, and helping with loan applications.”

Some municipalities are going a step further by trying not only to prevent displacement, but also to undo displacement. Local governments are using right-to-return policies to allow displaced people to move back into their communities after being pushed out by gentrification. Portland, Oregon created a right to return policy that allows tenants, mainly minorities, forced out by gentrification to move back to communities with the help of an affordable rent program. The program gives priority to displaced people via a point system that considers three generations of potential displacement.

In February 2021, Providence, Rhode Island released its Anti-Displacement and Comprehensive Housing Strategy. The strategy is a solid case study of how a municipality can address displacement and housing insecurity in the context of climate change, COVID-19, housing insecurity, and racial equity. These pandemics not only adversely affect public health, but they also do so interconnectedly. Therefore, addressing them effectively often means addressing them together. To create affordable housing, the Providence strategy recommends modifying zoning to allow more infill development (via pre-approved architectural designs that developers and property owners can use to build affordable housing on small lots), improve ADU regulations, allow for greater use of row houses, enable cluster development on large residential lots, provide density bonuses for land development projects, and creating a process to approve adaptive reuse administratively. To preserve affordable housing, the Providence strategy recommends creating a mandatory rental housing registry to facilitate code compliance inspections and creating a certificate of habitability that requires inspections every three years. To keep people in their communities, the Providence strategy recommends creating a Right of First Refusal Program to give the city an option to purchase existing income-controlled units.

For additional resources, the Gaining Ground Information Database is a free resource featuring best practice models used by governments to control the use of land in the public interest. Please direct your search toward the Healthy Communities topic.

[*] Gabriella Mickel is a second-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Land Use Scholar in the Land Use Law Center.

Brooke Mercaldi is a second-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Land Use Scholar in the Land Use Law Center.

The previous blogs in the series are listed here:

1. Reframing Sustainability: Introducing the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
2. Planning for Public Health: A New Beginning for Land Use Law
3. The Role of Density in Combatting Climate Change and COVID-19
4. Novel Coronavirus Claims Implicate Age-Old Property Rights Questions
5. State & Local COVID-related Emergency Powers: Individual Rights
6. COVID-Related Land Use Regulations and Judicial Deference
7. Mediation of Eviction Disputes May Hold the Key to the Survival of Small Businesses
8. Using Zoning to Help Eliminate Food Deserts: A Few Steps Forward
9. Urban Heat Islands and Equity
10. Urban Heat Island and Equity: What Can Local Governments Do?
11. The Recovery Lease: Preventing Evictions of Commercial Tenants During the Pandemic
12. The Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Promoting Public Health and Resilience
13. Hazard Mitigation Planning: A Case Study
14. Complete Streets: Protecting Public Health
15. Zoning and Lease Mediation as a Way to Retain Critical Small Businesses
16. Segregation by Law and the Racial Inequity Pandemic
17. Combating Food Swamps to Improve Equity and Public Health
18. The Pandemic Plan for Healthy Buildings
19. Remediating Distressed Properties to Improve Public Health
20. Housing, a Crucial Determinant of Health
21. ADU Introduction
22. NIMBY Restrictions to Poison the Prospects of Accessory Dwelling Units to Address Housing Insecurity
23. Zoning to Fill the Missing Middle Housing Gap
24. Old Tools to Fight Housing Insecurity: Adaptive Reuse and Infill Development
25. Racial Impact Analyses
26. A New Era of Equity-Based Comprehensive Planning…Finally
27. Equity-Based Comprehensive Plans: Land Use Policies to Correct Past Disparities
28. Reversing the Legacy of Redlining: Reducing Exposure to Toxins and Pollutants Through Land Use Law Reform
29. Addressing the Four Pandemics – A Case Study
30. Health Impact Assessments: A New Tool for Analyzing Land Use Plans, Zone Changes, and Development Projects
31. Putting the “e” in TOD
32. The Four Pandemics Explained and Addressed by Land Use Law and Policy

To subscribe to the GreenLaw Blog, please go to https://greenlaw.blogs.pace.edu/ and click on the “Subscribe” envelope.