GOPC Shares Expertise on Housing Policy Panel in Cleveland

Last week, GOPC’s Manager of Government Affairs Jason Warner had the opportunity to join a distinguished panel of experts at the Cleveland State University College of Urban Affairs as part of their series Ohio Fair Lending/Vital Communities Brown Bag: What Happened in Housing at the Statehouse This Year?. Joining Warner on the panel were Bill Faith, the Executive Director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO), Nate Coffman, Executive Director of the Ohio CDC Association, and Holly Swisher of the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA). The panel was moderated by Byron Soloman of NOBLE. Ms. Swisher provided the attendees with an update on the work OHFA has been involved with assisting homeowners in housing counseling to stave off foreclosure and assisting communities with the demolition of decaying properties.

Warner spoke to the panel about the various initiatives in the budget process related to lead mitigation and inspection programs. The budget made important progress in lead abatement by allocating $4.8 million annually for abatement activities and associated testing, as well as establishing a new residential rental unit registry and will provide a list of certified lead-safe rental units across the state. There was also a move to attempt to override local government home rule authority by granting the sole and exclusive authority of the regulation of lead abatement, including the licensing of lead abatement professionals, to the Ohio Department of Health. This change, had it been accepted, would have usurped local ordinances which had been enacted in cities like Toledo and Cleveland, as well as setting back progress that had been made in state regulations concerning lead mitigation. The changes were opposed by a broad coalition of organizations, and ultimately were removed from the budget. However, a standalone bill that seeks to enact the exact same changes, House Bill 299, was introduced in late June and was recently assigned to the House Health Committee, meaning discussions on this issue will likely continue in the near term.

Warner also had an opportunity to provide attendees with a brief update on the continued negotiations at the Statehouse regarding the MCO sales tax and the proposed increase in the state HIC fee to replace that lost funding. While discussions are ongoing among legislative leaders and the administration, no agreement has been reached and if no agreement is in place by the end of the year, counties and transit agencies across the state will see a dramatic decrease in revenues, resulting in the need for either cuts at the local level, or alternative revenue enhancements to replace the lost funding.

Finally, Faith and Coffman explained their recent efforts to include an amendment to the budget which would have provided a substantial increase in funding for the Ohio Housing Trust Fund. The amendment, which was crafted with the input and support of the leadership of the Ohio House of Representatives, would have provided long-term, sustainable funding to the trust fund through the use of non-GRF funding. In addition, the amendment provided $6 million per year to fight the states growing opiate crisis to expand housing options for low-income people exiting addiction treatment programs. Unfortunately, the amendment was removed by the Ohio Senate and was not resurrected during the budget conference committee negotiations. However, organizations such COHHIO and the Ohio CDC Association continue to advocate for this change, and Faith and Coffman encouraged attendees to continue to reach out to their legislators to educate them on the importance of providing long-term, sustainable funding to the trust fund.

GOPC thanks CSU for a great discussion about the importance of educating lawmakers on issues around housing and advocacy efforts year-round. To learn more about GOPC’s work in this policy area, be sure to check out the Advocacy page on our new website. 

GOPC Assesses Suitability of Replicating Peers’ Funding Tools to Support Affordable Housing in Central Ohio

By Alex Highley, GOPC Project Associate The Affordable Housing Alliance of Central Ohio (AHACO) has released a new report, The Columbus and Franklin County Affordable Housing Challenge: Needs, Resources, and Funding Models, underscoring the difficulties many residents face in obtaining affordable housing in Columbus and the surrounding suburbs. Informed by Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC) research, the report then investigates ways that the public sector can aid in increasing the affordable housing supply. GOPC’s systematic study of tools and programs that have been successfully used in cities outside Ohio highlights opportunities for expanding affordable housing in and around Columbus.

With Central Ohio’s population growing at a substantial rate and wages not keeping up with increasing rent prices, affordable housing is harder to come by for renters in the region. Between 2009 and 2014, median rents went up by almost twice the rate of median household incomes. Given that Franklin County poverty rates are growing, including in most of the major suburbs, many new job openings do not pay a “housing wage,” and the stark spatial mismatch between where jobs are located and where people live, AHACO concluded there is a strong need for new affordable housing. AHACO sought GOPC’s expertise to deliver robust research of viable models that could support much of the good work already being done throughout communities in Columbus to improve affordable housing opportunities for residents.

Click Here to Access the Executive Summary and the full Report

Methodologically, GOPC conducted an extensive literature scan and internet search to assess the funding mechanisms that communities around the country employ in order to spur the creation of a rich and diverse set of housing choices. In total, GOPC studied 40 funding mechanisms in 25 communities in detail. GOPC judged the merits of possible replication in Central Ohio by comparing the respective cities’ demographic data, summarizing the cities’ relevant economic conditions that made implementation of the tools possible, and concluding with weighing the advantages and limitations of mirroring the tool in Central Ohio. Examples of successful tools and the cities they are used in are listed below.

• Seattle, WA - Dedicated Property Tax Revenue – $340 million generated over 20 years
• Austin, TX - General Obligation Bonds - $120 million generated over 7 years
• Portland, OR - Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – $107 million generated over 4 years
• Washington, DC  - General Fund Appropriation – $48 million generated over 1 year
• San Francisco, CA - Linkage Fees & Impact Fees – $188 million generated over 9 years
• Denver, CO - Inclusionary Zoning: Developer Set Asides – $7.6 million generated over 13 years
• Denver, CO - Social Impact Bonds – $8.7 million generated over 1 year

Along with explaining the mechanism of each tool and highlighting the number of affordable housing units produced through the program, GOPC discussed the tools’ applicability to Columbus. In many cases, the tools already exist and are used to some extent, or current law precludes their usage towards affordable housing purposes. For instance, General Obligation bonds issued by a county, township, or municipality can be used for housing construction costs, but may not be used for a rental or operating subsidy in Ohio. The county sales tax offers another opportunity; the current temporary permissive Franklin county sales tax of .25% generates over $58 million per year. If this revenue were to be directed toward affordable housing purposes, then this would represent a sizable amount of revenue available for funding solutions should voters renew the tax in 2018.

To understand how many new units of affordable housing could be created using these tools, GOPC estimated the total costs of various housing projects. For instance, permanent supportive housing costs $165,000 per unit to build and $7,000 per person per year in operation costs. GOPC also reviewed the feasibility of particular tools from a legal standpoint. For example, Franklin County has the authority to devote general funds toward rent subsidies, similar to the Local Rent Subsidy Program used in Washington DC. To conclude the report, GOPC created a chart for the Appendix which organizes each funding source according to the political subdivision (states, cities, counties, etc.) that may implement a program to support affordable housing along with whether that program is currently being used for housing purposes in Franklin County.

Click Here to Access the Executive Summary and the full Report

Build in Akron: Opportunities for Residential Reinvestment in Akron's Neighborhoods

GOPC report details opportunities for market-rate residential investment in Akron’s neighborhoods

The Build in Akronreport, produced with the support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, finds that many of Akron’s neighborhoods can already support additional market-rate housing and many more could attract new development through strategic interventions that have been employed successfully in other cities in Ohio.

Go Here to read the Report

Build in Akron features a market analysis by DiSalvo Development Advisors that categorizes Akron’s neighborhoods by the kinds of interventions necessary to bolster the housing market. The analysis categorizes neighborhoods into four groups, which are displayed on aninteractive map available here. The report found that all neighborhood types have opportunities for regrowth but are at different stages in the market-building process.

Based on interviews with local homebuilders and research about strategies used successfully in similar cities in Ohio, the report also outlines a series of interventions the City of Akron and other stakeholders can use to create the conditions for additional development. These strategies are customized for and targeted to the four neighborhood types and are illustrated with examples of other cities in Ohio that have used them successfully. The strategies are:

• Concentrate on rebuilding the downtown rental market. A strong downtown rental market not only draws new residents who are looking for urban living options, but creates a pipeline of potential buyers throughout Akron’s neighborhoods.
• Create additional mixed-use districts to broaden the appeal of urban living. Newer mixed-use developments in Akron have shown that there is pent-up demand for market-rate housing in a dense, urban environment. Mixed-use districts can encourage additional developers to follow suit in investing in a neighborhood.
• Creatively address the challenges of lower appraised values. As also reported in the City of Akron’s Planning to Grow Akron report, low home values discourage market-rate developers from building in the city. Other cities in Ohio, particularly Youngstown and Cleveland, have found creative ways to strategically address this challenge.
• Strategically deploy incentives like tax abatements. All similarly-sized cities in Ohio make residential tax abatements available, at least in certain neighborhoods. Research shows that this tool could help boost additional investment in Akron as well, but is unlikely to rebuild market strength without complementary strategies.
• Find mutual interest with hospitals and health systems in neighborhoods. Hospitals and health systems in Ohio and beyond have a growing interest in promoting strong, healthy neighborhoods through investments in housing and community development.
• Encourage market-rate and affordable development by community development corporations (CDCs). CDCs have proven to be important, on-the-ground partners for market-rate developers in other Ohio cities. Building the capacity of existing CDCs and supporting the growth of new ones could create opportunities for catalytic investment.
• Leverage the real-estate development abilities of public or quasi-public agencies. Land banks and port authorities have legal tools and access to funding sources that make them valuable potential partners for residential investment.