In 10 Years from 2007-2016 New Construction LIHTC Units Were 23% of All New Unfurnished Rental Apartments Completed, But Dropped to 9% By 2016.

I recently spent some time looking at the Multifamily Survey of Market Completion (SOMA) reports from the Census/HUD to better understand how many NEW apartments (5+ units) were coming on line ("completions") . [This survey data is available at national level, with no state level breakouts and only some metro breakouts].  

Buried in recent versions of those SOMA reports there is also an annual estimate of LIHTC apartment completions. I believe LIHTC survey data in the SOMA reports are substantially understated after I compared the survey data to LIHTC placed in service data directly reported to HUD from state housing agencies.

I compared the total (privately owned) unfurnished apartment completions from the SOMA reports (Table 9) to the more accurate LIHTC placed in service data unit counts from the HUD LIHTC database, focusing ONLY on units in LIHTC NEW construction projects (no acquisitions or rehabs). 

The table and two graphs in the PDF HERE, and embedded below, show the results of that analysis. 

Several observations:

1. In 2007 there were 70,332 units in new construction LIHTC projects placed in service. 
2. By 2016 units in new construction LIHTC projects placed in service dropped to 26,154 units, a 63% decline. 
3. From 2007-2016 (privately owned) unfurnished rental completions increased from 104,800 (2007) to 262,500 (2016), a 150% increase 
4. Adding the two together there were a TOTAL of 175,132 unfurnished rental apartment units completed in 2007, increasing to 288,654 completed unfinished rental apartment units in 2016 (an increase of 65%).
5. In 2007 units in new construction LIHTC projects placed in service were 40 % of ALL unfurnished apartment rental units completed.  By 2016 that percentage had dropped to 9%; but based on production in the earlier years the 10 year average percentage was still 23%. (Placed in service data for LIHTC projects in 2017 is not yet available. If the total LIHTC units go up the % may or may not go up depending on the change in total units completed). 
6. 2,016,399 total unfinished apartment rental units were completed in the 10 years from 2007-2016 including 464,999 new construction units in LIHTC projects that were placed in service. 
7. Fun fact: The 464,999 units in LIHTC new construction projects placed in service from 2007-2016 was 20% higher than the 387,100 reported new construction condo completions in the SOMA reports over those same 10 years.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

UPDATE: Renter Cost Burden Data for 86 Nominated Oregon Opportunity Zone Census Tracts.

Update:

I noticed last week that Oregon Business has inadvertently included one extra census tract in their listing of Opportunity Zones (96.06 in Multnomah County). After I notified State legislative staff over the weekend that census tract was removed on Monday and I have removed it from the Excel file below (and changed count of CT's from 87 to the correct count of 86).

---------

Oregon recently nominated 86 census tracts to be designated as federal Opportunity Zones. Oregon has created a map showing those census tracts HERE.  The Oregon web page with more on Opportunity Zones is HERE. 

I looked at the data for census tracts eligible for nomination and I noticed there was little renter information, including renter cost burden data. 

So I cross referenced the listed census tracts with ACS 5 Year 2016 renter cost burden data and created the Excel file HERE, and embedded below, showing the renter cost burden and SEVERE cost burden counts and %'s for each of those tracts. (ACS table is B25070). 

This data may be useful in identifying areas where additional equity investments in affordable housing development and preservation could have the greatest positive cost impacts for renters. 



Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New OHCS Proposed Annual 5% Rent Increase Limit Raises a Large Number of Questions/Issues.

For the first time OHCS is proposing a rent increase limit of 5% annually for tenants in projects that OHCS finances, including LIHTC projects. Owners can appeal for increases beyond that level, according to the proposal scheduled to be considered by the Oregon Housing Stability Council at their Friday April 6th meeting. The 3 page proposal from the meeting packet is HERE and embedded below. 

The proposal raises a large number of impact, transparency, and process questions and issues, including these:

1. When will the new rule go into effect? Since the effective date for the HUD FY 2018 income limits was April 1, 2018 can we assume the proposed rule does not impact rents that do not exceed the allowable maximums that result from those new income limits?  IF the rent increase restrictions apply to projects 45 days after April 1st-or May 15th/16th, does that provide owners enough time to understand and generate a complete package of information necessary to request a rent increase? 
2. IF an owner wants to adopt up to a 5% increase, AND if that rent is within the maximum rent permitted by the relevant current fiscal year HUD income limits, does a rent increase of 5% or less require any submission/notice to OHCS?  
3. If allowable rents are restricted at a specific project, will income restrictions match the restricted rents for new tenants (as well as existing tenants)?  If not then new tenants at maximum incomes could pay less than 30% of income at admission. 
4. Will the rule require administrative rule making and an opportunity for public comment?
5. What are the planned public disclosure provisions for requests, processing times, and approvals?  Should performance measures be adopted to track this activity?
6. Which specific OHCS programs are subject to this rule?
7. How many total projects and units are subject to the rule? (OHCS table HERE shows 28 pages of just LIHTC projects, at conservative count of 40 per page, that would be in excess of 1,000 projects?). 
8. Does OHCS have the staff capacity and the skills to handle rent increase requests every year from all of the projects subject to this rule? Will an increase in admin fee be required to pay for the extra costs of rent reviews? 
9. Do owners have the staff capacity and the skills to generate budget based rent requests annually?
10. Will a new 5% annual rent increase limit decrease the value of tax credits to investors and thus increase the need for additional public gap financing?
11. What are the standards/metrics that will be used to make rent increase determinations? For example, what updated market data will be use to determine comparable rents?, what is a reasonable reserve for replacement level, and how will capital needs be determined? What specific exhibits will be required to submit a rent increase request? 
12. Are their new or existing mechanisms to insure that increased project income from increases in median income levels stay with the project to benefit the tenants?
13. How will the public, and existing or prospective tenants know the maximum rent they can be charged at an individual project? What rent limit will be used for prospective tenants or existing tenants who want to move into a larger bedroom sized unit/ the same bedroom size but in a different floor or building?
14. 100% LIHTC projects-Over income tenants and rent equity issues: I assume that the vast majority of LIHTC projects have 100% LIHTC assisted units. After the first year annual recertification with third party documents my understanding is that there is no effective restriction on the income of these tenants (even if they self certify and disclose higher incomes). 

• Does imposing a 5% annual cap increase the likelihood that over income tenants will continue to occupy (for years) units intended for lower income families? [Staying in a unit with a annual rent increase limit would be more seemingly more attractive than competing NON LIHTC units without annual rent increase restrictions]. 
• IF the income of these post year 1 tenants increases more than 5% [or the approved rent increase %], the share of their income for rent will decline, and perhaps below 30% . In contrast, a low income voucher holder paying 30% of their income for rent could end up paying a greater percentage of income for rent. 
• For 100% LIHTC projects how will OHCS measure rent burdens as part of the evaluation process for rent increase requests? 
• With new income averaging rules will there be any effective limit on future incomes for long term LIHTC residents in 100% LIHTC projects?  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog 

Who Knew? FHA Has Insurance on 200,000 LIHTC Units, with 4, 281 Units in Oregon.

I recently downloaded a HUD database of currently insured FHA multifamily projects as of January 2014.   I added a pivot table that shows the count of tax credit FHA insured units by state.   

The Excel workbook HERE and embedded below opens showing that pivot table; other worksheets include the full FHA currently insured project database, and a worksheet with a listing of 35 Oregon LIHTC FHA insured projects.

HUD's FHA insured MF database page is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Correction: 2013 Oregon LIHTC NOFA Selections: 43% Of All Units Are in High Poverty Rate Census Tracts: Only 18% Are in CT With Low Poverty Rates.

OHCS staff pointed out an error in the attached spreadsheet. I have corrected that and changed the text in the headline and below accordingly to reflect a lower percentage of units in High Poverty CT's in the 2013 cycle (but that is the same percentage as units placed in service from 2000-2010). 

I regret the error and appreciate the timely feedback from OHCS. 
----
The Excel worksheet HERE and embedded below has the details.  

Readers may recall my prior August 2012 analysis HERE of Oregon LIHTC project poverty rate data for projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. Two related observations:

1. Projects selected in the 2013 NOFA had the SAME higher rates of location in HIGH poverty rate census tracts than did projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. (43% ).  
2. Projects selected in the 2013 NOFA also had higher rates of location in LOW poverty rate census tracts than did projects placed in service from 2001 to 2010. (18% vs 13%). 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Vermont HFA First to Publish LIHTC Tenant Demographic Profile.

I was very pleased to discover (thanks to an Apartment Finance Today article HERE) that the Vermont housing finance agency has posted what appears to be the first ever statewide HFA published summary of LIHTC tenant demographics in a one pager HERE. 

Kudos to the Vermont HFA for being the first HFA (to my knowledge) to publish this data.

Some highlights:

• 6% of Vermont's total renter population lived in LIHTC units.
• 40% of LIHTC renter heads of households were 62 or older.
• 50% of LIHTC households had incomes below 30% of MFI.
• 61% of LIHTC residents received housing subsidies.
• 11% of LIHTC residents were non whites vs 7% of statewide renters. 
• 12% of LIHTC residents were full time students (includes both adults and children).

One omission I noted in the Vermont profile is data on female headed households.

My prior post HERE explains that states have been reporting this information to HUD for years as a mandatory statutory requirement but that HUD has not been publishing that data. 

My  written comments HERE on the HUD affirmatively furthering fair housing proposed reg point out the omission of this LIHTC tenant demographic data from the listing of data sources from HUD.

The Vermont HFA has demonstrated statewide LIHTC profiles are possible, and since statewide profiles are built using project level data,  similar profiles are possible down to the project and local levels.


Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Oregonian Locked Out Fair/Affordable Housing Series: A 1 Year Update.

It's been a year since the June 2012 Oregonian Locked Out series on affordable and fair housing.  I thought an update on my understanding of progress to date to address issues related to the series might be timely.

LIHTC and QAP (My prior post is HERE).

1. The QAP has a provision for a basis boost for low poverty neighborhoods. 
2. The QAP has  a provision permitting affirmatively furthering fair housing waivers.
3. The QAP has a commitment to facilitate over the next six months a work group to research and recommend Fair Housing policies for program adoption that will be incorporated into Permanent Rules.
4. I successfully merged HUD LIHTC data with ACS poverty data for Oregon projects and recommended that HUD do the same for their national database (Prior post is HERE). I anticipate that OHCS staff will add 2010 Census Track/BG ID's to their LIHTC database to make merging with ACS and other GEO data easier.

Voucher Mobility Agreement with Home Forward and Clackamas County (My prior post is HERE). 

1. Clackamas county has requested from the local HUD Field Office a 120% FMR exception payment standard rents for large bedroom sizes, but I am not sure of the outcome of their request. (My post HERE explains how ANY housing authority may research and, if appropriate, file a request for HUD approval of exception payment standards from 110-120% of FMR).
2. Both Clackamas County and Multnomah County have selectively adopted higher payment standards (up to 110% of the FMR) for different areas.  Home Forward payment standards, which also show Clackamas County zip codes are HERE. I don't have any current information on how many fewer vouchers were issued because of the use of these higher payment standards.
3. I don't have any information on how many Home Forward vouchers are in use in Clackamas County and vice versa. I expect a full update on program outcomes some time after the July 1st anniversary of the agreement.

City of Portland
Has published an annual update to their Fair Housing Plan

Lake Oswego

1. Has repealed the Foothills Urban Renewal plan and $6 million in affordable housing funding. 
2. Is in the process of removing several improvements in their draft comprehensive plan related to housing.
3. Is considering $5 million in fee waivers and other concessions for a 240 unit apartment project in an existing downtown urban renewal area that would have starting monthly rents of $1,500. 

West Linn
Nada; an update to their existing comp plan is delayed indefinitely.

Clackamas County
Published a new Analysis of Impediments.


Washington County

1. For unincorporated areas the County Commission adopted an ordinance that provides, for the first time, property tax exemptions for affordable housing projects. (Staff analysis of the proposed ordinance is HERE. Ordinance 761, adopted March 26, 2013 is HERE).

Metro 

1. Has a lengthy equity planning process, and has recently received applications for an equity working group. 
2. Participated in the development of a national Housing /Transportation affordability portal. (Prior post HERE).
3. An updated Equity Atlas is scheduled to be released in June. 
4. Has funded a mobility pilot program for voucher holders (I don't know current status). 
5. MPAC has affordable housing on the agenda for a June 26th meeting.  
6. Has taken no action to incorporate affordable housing in the evaluation of local applications for the use of Construction Excise funds. (My prior post is HERE).

Did I Miss Something? 
IF I have missed any relevant Fair Housing related actions in the Portland metro area in the last year, feel free to add a comment, with links to relevant documents. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

2013 OHCS QAP Includes Several Fair Housing/Housing Choice Improvements and Increased Transparency, Jump Starting Conversations for 2014 QAP/CFC.

The Housing Council package for the May 17th meeting contains the final QAP for Council consideration as well as a summary of comments received on the earlier draft and OHCS staff responses. [ A permanent link to all Housing Council meeting packets for 2013 is in the right pane under Oregon Housing Council Materials].

Along with the Fair Housing Council, for 2013 I had suggested the addition of a discretionary basis boost for project applications in low poverty neighborhoods. I had suggested also that the QAP expand the transparency of waivers, and add an explicit acknowledgement that they had the authority to grant waivers to affirmatively further fair housing.

I am pleased to see that those recommendations were incorporated in the 2013 QAP.
Moreover, I am pleased that OHCS acknowledges the need for an more extensive fair housing conversation and policy review for the 2014 QAP /CFC saying 

" Within the next six months OHCS will facilitate a work group to research and recommend Fair Housing policies for program adoption that will be incorporated into Permanent Rules."

(My 2013 QAP comments included a listing of the kinds of topics I think should be included in that conversation and policy review).

In response to FHCO comments, OHCS has indicated the scoring panels will receive Fair Housing training. I anticipate this will include examples of how an application in a low income area can claim points in the scoring criteria. 

Note: For non QAP policies, OHCS will be adopting temporary administrative rules and producing other related policy guidance.  The OAR chapter for OHCS is HERE; looks like Division 90 contains the rules for the LIHTC program (but rule changes might also occur in other Divisions of the OHCS rules).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Need Feedback on My Estimate: LIHTC Proposal in President's Budget Could Increase Oregon LIHTC by 18+%.

The 2014 proposed budget has a number of LIHTC proposals; search "LIHTC" in THIS budget document posted on the Novogradac web site for details. 

One of proposals is to allow states to cash in some of their volume cap to use for additional LIHTC with a ceiling of 7% of cap that can be transferred for LIHTC use.

Using my understanding of the formula in the budget document I project that Oregon could gain another $1.654 million in LIHTC by cashing in $25.93 million in volume cap.  (This seems highly doable as little of the cap is now being used). 

This would amount to up to an 18.7% boost in LIHTC for Oregon, using a projected current LIHTC allocation of $8.83 million.

My calculations are pasted in as image below; would VERY much appreciate any feedback OR correction of my assumptions: 

Originally created or posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

In Advance of Fair Housing Month: One Easy Thing HUD Could Do to Promote Fair Housing in LIHTC Program.

HUD publishes an annual database of LIHTC projects placed into service HERE. It includes a data field showing the 2010 Census Tract ID as well as the zip code. (Most recent data dictionary is HERE).

ACS 5 Year poverty data is available at the census tract AND zip code level. 

My prior post HERE has an Excel file that matches up Oregon LIHTC projects with ACS 5 Year poverty rates at the census tract level.   

HUD could do a similar match each year to include the most recent poverty rate (and counts) at the zip code AND census tract level for all LIHTC projects in their database.  This would allow users and researchers to parse out the percentages and counts of LIHTC projects and units in a given locality that are located in areas with high or low poverty rates. 

In addition to assisting in evaluating access to opportunity it would also help evaluate housing choice available to voucher holders who are a key eligible population for LIHTC projects. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

  

LIHTC Fact Sheets: Statewide and Oregon Congressional Districts.

From Affordable Rental Housing Action (LIHTC support/lobbying group). (I wish fact sheets had data on projected number of voucher families served, but they focus on $$, LIHTC unit counts, tax revenue, and jobs).

• Oregon Statewide HERE.
• District 1 (Bonamici ) HERE.
• District 2 (Walden ) HERE.
• District 3 (Blumenauer ) HERE.
• District 4 (DeFazio) HERE.
• District 5 (Schrader) HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Release of LIHTC Tenant Demographic Data: Not This Year or Anytime Soon that I Can See.

2008 Recovery Act legislation required state Housing Finance Agencies (HFA's) to submit LIHTC tenant demographic information to HUD (see statutory reference HERE).  The HFA submissions to HUD in the fall of 2011 was at least the second year the data was submitted to HUD.

After waiting for several months for state level summaries of tenant  demographic data from HUD, I asked HUD HQS staff this week via email and was advised that because of funding constraints HUD would NOT be doing any state level summaries of the LIHTC tenant data submitted by HFA's in the fall of 2011. (In my prior post HERE I linked project (not tenant) LIHTC data that HUD has recently updated with 2010 poverty data from ACS).

With HUD appropriations not likely better in FY 2013 than in FY 2012, it seem highly unlikely that HUD will produce summaries of LIHTC tenant demographics any time soon, rendering the statutory reporting requirement somewhat meaningless.  It also appears that HUD is out of statutory compliance with the requirement that : 

(c) Public availability: The Secretary shall, not less than annually, compile and make publicly available the information submitted to the Secretary...

With HUD's failure to post already collected LIHTC tenant demographic data, I expect the better local approach to find out who is served by LIHTC projects will be to refocus attention on getting OHCS to compile and publish state and LIHTC tenant demographic local summaries, since they are still required to submit data annually to HUD.  (My prior post on OHCS tenant data collection efforts is HERE).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

New HUD Study on What Happens After Year 15 of LIHTC Projects.

HUD PR is HERE; Study is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

A First: HUD Oregon LIHTC Data Merged with Census Tract 2010 Poverty Data from ACS.

HUD has updated (HERE) their LIHTC project database to include projects placed in service through 2010. For the first time the database includes 2010 geographic codes, including census tracts ID's/FIPS (I have posted the HUD LIHTC data dictionary, updated in July 2012, HERE). 

In advance of a more formal announcement from HUD of the changes (coming soon I expect HERE) I downloaded LIHTC data for 588 LIHTC projects (32,750 units) in Oregon. I imported that data into Excel and then merged the data with American Community Survey 2006-2010 poverty data for Oregon census tracts ( using ACS Table B06012). In the merged table I added columns/fields with formulas that identify high and low poverty rate categories and the names of metro areas and counties.

That combined table, the source LIHTC data from HUD, the poverty data from ACS, a pivot table, and two summary county level poverty rate tables are found in the Excel workbook found HERE.  

(Embed of this Excel workbook follows observations below and opens to summary table showing High Poverty LIHTC location %'s by county).

Some Initial Observations, 227 Oregon LIHTC Projects Placed Into Service in Last Decade (2001-2010)

LIHTC Projects/Units in High Poverty Census Tracts

• In Oregon, 42% of all projects and 48% of LIHTC low income units were located in high poverty census tracts (poverty rates of 20% or more).  
• In Multnomah County 65% of all projects and 72% of LIHTC low income units were located in high poverty census tracts (poverty rates of 20% or more).  
• Multnomah County accounts for 51% of all Oregon LIHTC projects (and 66% of all units) located in Census Tracts with known poverty rates of 20% and higher. 

LIHTC Projects/Units in LOW Poverty Census Tracts

• In Oregon, 12% of all projects and 13% of all LIHTC low income units were located in low poverty census tracts (poverty rate 10% or below).  
• In Multnomah County 8% of all projects and 4% of all LIHTC low income units were located in low poverty census tracts (poverty rate 10% or below).
• Multnomah County accounts for 21% of all Oregon LIHTC projects (and 16% of all units) located in census tracts with poverty rates of 10% and lower.

Notes:
1. All project and unit count percentages are for LIHTC projects where CT's were identified and could be matched with poverty rates; 2 projects placed into service in last decade did not have identifiable CT information
2. At the top of the pivot table I have filtered LIHTC projects to select only those with placed in service dates from 2001-2010.
3. Projects placed in service in 2011 and 2012 are not included in the HUD data; my guess is that there may be 20 or so LIHTC projects in service that are not included in the HUD data.

Combinations with Other ACS and Census Data Now Possible
While I have focused on poverty rates for LIHTC projects, the addition of 2010 Census Tract ID's make it possible to combine LIHTC data with other demographic information available at the census tract level.  Examples include race, ethnicity, diversity, incomes, and tenure. The HUD database also includes additional information on LIHTC projects (source of funding, bedroom size, targeted populations) and additional geographic information including latitude and longitude values that can be used for mapping.

Excel Embed:

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Correction: MY Estimate of OHCS 2012 CFC Funding Recommendations: 801 Units, $138 Million

Correction:
My headline said $128 M, it should have read $138 M and has been changed.
----------
Three BIG Caveats:

1. Decisions on funding will be made by the Housing Council at their July 13th meeting, these are RECOMMENDATIONS only.
2. For projects recommended for funding, units or recommended allocations might vary from requested amounts, although I expect those changes to be minor. (For example, the sum of requested OATC for recommended applications at $15,153,825 in my Excel file slightly exceeds the $15 million mentioned in the Director's summary letter HERE). 
3. Details on FINAL recommendations will be found in the July 13th Council Meeting Package; that should be posted by the end of this week at the July 13th Council meeting package web page HERE.

My Estimate: 801 Units, $138 Million; 42% of Requested Units/ 40% of Requested $$.
I have completed a DRAFT comparison of recommended CFC allocations to applications, by combining the list of projects recommended for funding by OHCS with the list of applications. 

Notes and Observations: 

1. 26 Projects were recommended for funding out of 50 accepted applications.
2. IF projects recommended for funding were funded at the requested amounts and units, it appears that total recommended funding was for $138,462,269 and 801 units. (Some of those resources [HOME for example] may have been contributed by other partners).
   
3. The "2012 CFC Apps and Recos" worksheet in the Excel workbook below has a column that I added to the far right indicating whether the project was recommended for funding.
4. The workbook includes a pivot table set up by default to show the sum of ALL $$ and units by county. A pull down at the top allows easy view of $$ and units for projects recommended for funding or not recommended for funding.
5. The workbook contains a summary table by county showing the ratio of $$ and units recommended for funding vs applications.The ratio columns in the far right of the worksheet are conditionally formatted to show counties that had a higher ratio of recommended $$ or units than the statewide average. 
6. Among 4 Portland metro counties only Washington and Yamhill counties had a rate of recommended total $$ and units vs application total $$ and units that exceeded the statewide average.
7. I will UPDATE/CORRECT/FINALIZE this Excel workbook once more information becomes available about the details of recommended projects or approved funding levels.

You can take view/download the Excel file in my SkyDrive in the embed below or at the URL HERE.  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

Updated: New Jersy Publishes Proposed LIHTC Qualifed Allocation Plan With Changes to Increase Housing Choice.

Updated: I found the reference to LIHTC concentration on page 36 and have bookmarked and highlighted it in the PDF file and have changed references in text below. 
=========
Readers my recall a prior post HERE with PR indicating the NJ was going to revise their selection criteria for Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects. The PR said the purpose was to:

"..increase the construction of affordable units in high achieving school districts, encourage the development of mixed income properties and limit further development in areas already containing large amounts of federal and state financed low and moderate income housing."

Today NJ published the draft rule in the New Jersey Register and I have downloaded a copy HERE.  Comments will be accepted until August 31st. 

A summary on page 12 of the proposed QAP shows these changes related to schools and jobs/housing imbalances: 

III. add a new N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.15(a)14iii to provide two points for projects that are fully located within an elementary school district wherein 66 percent or more of the students are either proficient or advanced proficient on the most recent NJ ASK 4 in both math and language arts based on the most recent data available from the New Jersey Department [page=1824] of Education as of the application deadline; and IV. add a new N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.15(a)14iv to provide two points for projects that are fully located within a municipality with fewer housing units than total public and private sector jobs and to provide that, in order to confirm that a project satisfies this point category, the Agency will use the annual average of total public and private sector jobs for the most recent full year available as of the application deadline from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Municipal Annual Reports, and the number of housing units according to the most recent available five-year American Community Survey, Table B25001, U.S. Department of the Census as of the application deadline;

Page 36 references the (generous) limit on the concentration of LIHTC units.

 17. Projects located in census tracts wherein 30 percent or more of the existing housing units are low income housing tax credit units shall not be eligible for funding unless the following criteria are met:
i. The project must be part of a community revitalization plan;
ii. The project does not add more low-income units to the census tract;
iii. The project plan includes relocation options to higher opportunity areas and mobility counseling assistance for existing residents; and                    iv. The application includes a municipal resolution that references this paragraph (N.J.A.C. 5:80-33.12(c)17) and supports the allocation of housing tax credits for the development.

I didn't readily see any specifics about policies to limit development where there is a documented concentrations of subsidized housing; I am sure others will provide additional insight and comment on the specifics of the proposed NJ QAP and I will do additional posts as that commentary becomes available. 

Oregon's Qualified Allocation Plan for this year is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Sample Portland Metro LIHTC Map Using HUD Mapping Tool.

Below is pasted a simple map I created showing only LIHTC properties in the Portland metro area, using the new HUD mapping website. (Data is likely a year or so out of date, as I can see it does not include for example a Lake Grove elderly project built during 2011). 

Additional layers of other projects and other demographics can be added to provide more context to this kind of a simple map. (I haven't yet figured out any way to export these kinds of maps into other map software).

Click to Enlarge

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog. 

New Jersey Modifying LIHTC QAP to Reduce Concentration of LIHTC Projects and Increase LIHTC Construction in High Achieving School Districts.

Thanks to tip from National Housing & Rehabilitation Association HousingOnline.com I ran across NJ PR HERE. 

The proposed rules also aim to increase the construction of affordable units in high achieving school districts, encourage the development of mixed income properties and limit further development in areas already containing large amounts of federal and state financed low and moderate income housing.

Formal rules will be published for comment in early July.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

NY Times/Texas Tribune Story on LIHTC Concentration in Low Income and Minority Neighborhoods.

Story is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Webcast Video: Panel Discussion of Fair Housing and the LIHTC Includes Myron Orfield.

I just ran across a HUD YouTube video of a panel on housing markets held on March 22th in the HUD central office. Buried within that presentation was a panel discussion about fair housing and the LIHTC that included HUD staffers and some outside experts.

Myron Orfield, Executive Director, Institute on Race & Poverty, University of Minnesota was one of the panelists; 2009 Oregonian story about one his visits to Portland is HERE.

The YouTube video link is HERE and is set up to start at just a few seconds before the LIHTC discussion. (Note that when viewing on YouTube you can switch to even higher HD video, MUCH better quality than the former HUD webcasts). 

Embed is below, the LIHTC discussion starts at 16 minutes, 51 seconds with Orfield beginning to speak at 44 minutes 8 seconds.

Background on the agenda for the meeting, including a copy of the presentations can be found HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.