Cost for 3 Oregon Homeownership Tax Breaks Expected to INCREASE by $333 Million Over Coming Biennium.

In a post earlier, I pointed out that OHCS is projected to received less than $10 million in Oregon General Fund revenue in the coming 2011-2013 biennium. I suggested that readers remember that number for a future post; this is that future post.

I have started to look at Oregon's projected state tax expenditures for the coming biennium.  My initial focus is on the three major home ownership tax expenditures: Capital gains on home sales, the property tax deduction, and the mortgage interest deduction.

The graph and table in the attachment HERE show that while OHCS General Fund support is projected to dip below $10 Million:

• The total revenue loss for these three home ownership tax breaks is projected to exceed $2.2 Billion in the coming biennium. (If you do the math, you will see that these 3 tax breaks are projected to cost 232 times the cost of General Fund support for OHCS). 
• The projected increase in Oregon revenue lost in the coming biennium for these three tax breaks is $333 million (19%) AND
• Since the 2005-2007 biennium the cost of these 3 tax breaks has INCREASED by 55%, or $782 million.

Note that actual expenditure levels could be higher or lower than estimated; unlike housing programs that require an appropriation, there is NO CAP on the actual amount of spending for these home ownership tax breaks.

Editorial Comment: Because Oregon has NO meaningful state General funding of renter assistance programs, the Oregon state funding bias toward home ownership (over rental housing) IMHO clearly exceeds the significant bias at the federal level, where at least there are some direct appropriations for renter related programs like public housing, vouchers, project based vouchers, HOME and CDBG. 

Next week I hope to have a complete report on State of Oregon housing related tax breaks. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Portability of HUD Vouchers, Oregon and SW Washington: Vancouver and Central Oregon Show Biggest % Gain in Locally Used Vouchers.

One of the most useful features of the HUD voucher program is the portability feature. This housing choice feature:

• Allows tenants, under specific circumstances, to take their voucher from one geographic location and use it in another, whether that be within a city or county, within a state, or in another state. 
• Allows families to pursue job opportunities and to adjust to changing family circumstances and needs, instead of being locked into a specific location specific project. 

(A January 2011 HUD Notice 2011-2 HA provides more background on tenant moves and portability)

For the first time ever, there is recent (Sept 2010) public data available at the PHA level that shows how much, and what kind of "porting" is occurring. With that data it is now possible to calculate whether a PHA is losing or gaining vouchers in local use because of net activity from port INS or port OUTS. 

As indicated at bottom of table I prepared HERE the port definitions are:

• PORT OUTS: Total number of vouchers for which the PHA is being billed by and is remitting HAP costs to another PHA under the portability option.  These vouchers are part of the PHA’s inventory 
• PORT INS: Are vouchers from another PHA and are part of the OTHER PHA's inventory                 

Some observations

1. Most Oregon PHA's are losing more vouchers in local use because more voucher tenants are porting out than those that are coming into the local area through porting in.(Only 5 of Oregon PHA's report that they are gaining more vouchers in local use from net porting activity, while 16 Oregon PHA's are losing vouchers in local use because port outs exceed ports in).
2. It is impossible to know with the data available whether porting activity is between other PHA's in Oregon or to or from out of state PHA's. 
3. Vancouver comes out as a BIG benefactor from portability. In Vancouver/Clark County, locally used vouchers increase by 19.6% because of portability. The reported data shows Vancouver PHA lost 45 ports to other PHA's but they gained 423 port ins, for a net increase of vouchers in local use of 378. (Again, with the data available, it is impossible to know whether these ports came from Oregon PHA's, Washington state PHA's, or other PHA's around the country). 
4. Within Oregon, the Central Oregon PHA had the highest net port in percentage of all Oregon PHA's at 8.7%. While the reported data shows Central Oregon lost 11 ports to other PHA's, they gained 109 port ins, for a net increase of vouchers in local use of 98.  
5. Mid Columbia PHA lost the greatest percentage of vouchers in local use in Oregon (6.8%) because they lost 37 voucher holders through port outs while they had NO reported gains from port ins. 
6. Oregon's largest PHA, Portland, had 184 port outs and 313 ports in, so they netted an increase of 129 vouchers in local use (1.7%).
7. Surprisingly, the reported data shows that Washington County PHA lost more voucher holders through port outs (102) than they gained through port ins (6). This mean that the number of Washington County vouchers in local use declined by 96 units (3.7%) because of the net porting activity. Other than possibly Columbia County (that county data is buried within multi county NW Oregon PHA data) Washington County was the ONLY county in the 6 county (Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, Yamhill, and Clark) Portland bi state metro area to see a reduction in local voucher use because of portability.

Caveats

• It is possible that reporting errors could be distorting porting activity, or that informal porting arrangements are not being reflected in the reported porting activity. 
• The table reflects a point in time analysis, it is possible that activity in other months might show different levels and kinds of port activity. 

If anyone has any additional insights please add a comment to this post (it's easy) or drop me a note.  

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

2nd Correction-OHCS Budget: An Initial Look Shows General Fund Down to Less than 1% of Budget; Fed Share Up to 29%.

2nd Correction: Found and corrected another "05-07" reference to read "07-09"
Correction: Corrected reference in FTE comparision to "07-09" from erroneous "05-07". 
---
I have prepared three tables in a one page analysis of the proposed FY 2011-13 budget for OHCS HERE. 

Some observations:

1. General Funds will make up less than 1% of the OHCS budget; general funds are down 51.2% from 07-09 actuals, and 7.6% from the last legislatively approved budget. General Funds will TOTAL $9.5 million in the upcoming budget. (Keep that figure in mind for a future post).
   
2. Federal funds will increase from 19% of the legislatively approved budget in 09-11 to 29% of the budget in 11-13; federal funds will total $307 million in coming biennium, but will decrease by 21% from $387 million in the 09-11 biennium budget.
3. FTE will increase to 168, an increase of 13% from most recent legislatively approved budget, and up 23% from 07-09 actual costs.  (No doubt this reflects Hardest Hit staff costs).
4. Total funds at $1.053 Billion are down 33% from 05-07 actual costs, and down 49% from 09-11 legislatively approved budget. (This is likely because of drop in bond sales, reflected in the "other funds, unlimited" category).

Feel free to add YOUR observations as comments to this post. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

OHCS Proposed FY 2011-13 Budget Out.

Complete proposed FY 2011-2013 state budget should open to OHCS section (page 99) HERE.

Analysis to follow at later date. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Housing Markets In OECD Countries.

Paper is HERE. Just one small sample of info: 

The coverage of rental allowances (measured as the share of population receiving allowances) ranges from around 18% of the population in the United Kingdom to less than 1% in Spain, Italy and Slovenia...The low take-up of such allowances in the latter countries most likely reflects that in these countries a vast majority of households are homeowners. The extent of these allowances varies with the type of household and income. For instance, for an unemployed couple with two children, the maximum rent allowance varies from 2% of the average wage in Germany to 20% in Ireland ...Taking into account both the value and the coverage of subsidies they appear to be most significant in the United Kingdom and some Nordic countries.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Unexpected: HAMP Data from Servicers Says, for Mods Where Race/Ethnicity Was Reported, More than Half of Mods Were for Minorities/ One Quarter Were Hispanic.

The latest HAMP reports are out and now include new loan level data files which are HUGE and will be a pain to analyze. (Treasury has done a minimal job in making the data user friendly and many data fields appear to be empty, including state and metro code fields).  

One thing that caught my eye is the Treasury national summary of loan mods by race and ethnicity. Their data shows that since December 2009, for those mods were race was reported, more than HALF of all loan mods were for minorities, and more than one quarter were Hispanic, as shown in the table below.  (Double click on table to increase visibility).

(HERE is data explanation from Treasury that includes this table from page 7. Note that preceding table on that page shows that race/ethnicity was not reported for 30%+ of applicants; including all applicants reduces minority/ Hispanic %'s significantly ). 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

2009 Worst Case Housing Needs Report Out; Affordable AND Available Units Continue to Plunge for Low Income Renters.

Report is HERE; no state or local level data.  

Nonetheless, I HIGHLY recommend the report, particularly because it shows how affordable AND available rental units vary by income and geography and over time.

I excerpted two charts from the report into a 2 page PDF file HERE that shows as income decreases there are a declining share of units with affordable rents that ALSO remain available to these renters. (Higher income families occupy these units). 

Nationally, for extremely low income renters (=<30% MFI) in 2009 there were only 35.7 rental units that were affordable AND available for every 100 extremely low income renters nationally. I calculate that is a 10.5% decline in the rate of affordable AND available units for extremely low income renters since 2005. (Table from 1st page of linked attachment I created is above and shows this data--double click on it and it will open to larger size).

Moreover, In the West the number of affordable AND available units dropped to only 31.8 units for every 100 extremely low income renters--that's 10.9% worse than the national average of 35.7 units per 100 extremely low income renters. 

Report also has data that shows that

1. The ratio of affordable and available units are LESS in suburbs and non metro areas, compared to central cities.
2. The West has the lowest ratio of subsidized housing to need in the country, and the highest share of renters with worst case housing needs.

Two Take Aways

1. In housing needs planning, don't get caught just looking at the supply of housing. Supply means nothing to extremely low income renters if it is not ALSO AVAILABLE for extremely low income renter use on a priority or an exclusive basis. 
2. Absent a unlikely significant increase in [incremental] housing vouchers, unless the current supply of INCOME restricted rental housing for extremely low income renters is preserved AND expanded, the share of extremely low income renters who can afford AND find available renter units will continue to decline.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD User Opens Up New Mobile eBookstore.

I am pleased that HUD is doing a much better job these days keeping up with new Internet/mobile tools. 

Just noticed today that HUD User has opened up a new eBookstore site HERE, with a variety of formats supported.  (I count 22 publications currently available, hopefully new HUD publications will be simultaneously published in these formats in the future).

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Center for American Progress Take on Reformed Housing Finance System.

Web page for their report, A Responsible Market for Housing Finance, is HERE; full report is HERE; executive summary is HERE.

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Where IS the HUD Section 202 NOFA?: 281 Net Workdays/ 56 Net Workweeks and Counting.

On December 16, 2009 the HUD FY 2010 appropriation was signed into law (PL 11-117) and included the appropriation of $582 million for Capital Advances for the HUD Section 202 program, which has been in existence for 45 or so years. 

By my count it is now 281 net workdays/ 56+ net workweeks (after subtracting 13 federal holidays) since the FY 2010 appropriations were finalized, and there is STILL no HUD 202 NOFA published.

Whenever the HUD 202 IS finally published the question that will remain is: Why did HUD take 56 + net workweeks [and counting] to publish what should have been one of the most routine NOFA's it has?

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Voucher Expense Data, US, States, Oregon, and Oregon PHA's.

I have constructed two HUD voucher tables for Oregon HERE, including NEW cost data in the second table. Tables show:

• For all Oregon PHA's the number of vouchers under lease, and the use for select programs. (This was included in earlier post).
• For all Oregon PHA's total voucher costs (including administrative expenses) and monthly per unit costs for these vouchers. This is a NEW table, and includes the calculations and comparisons explained below.
• The Oregon statewide average is calculated, along with an average for the three Portland metro PHA's (Clackamas, Portland, and Washington). [I slipped in Vancouver PHA data at bottom of table]. 
• Comparisons between the Oregon statewide average and the national average per unit costs are shown as is a comparison of the 3 county Portland metro per unit average monthly costs compared to the Oregon statewide average per unit monthly costs.

Some caveats:

1. Voucher housing costs [HAP, Housing Assistance Payments] do NOT include any tenant rent contributions. Housing lower income tenants will increase HAP costs, even if PHA's used the same fair market /comparable rent level.
2. Voucher counts and expenses shown are as of the FIRST of the month (September 2010). Leases terminated or added during month may impact total and per unit costs. Use of data from other months could also return different results.
3. PHA data entry errors or system errors (along with my human errors) could result in incorrect information being shown in the underlying database or in these reports. [I encourage PHA's to let me know if they see significant discrepancies between these tables and the data they reported to HUD].

Some observations: 

1. Annualized, the monthly HAP of $15,461,220 for all Oregon PHA's would total to more than $185 million in annual HAP payments or an average of $5,773 per family. Monthly admin expense of $1,879,026 would add $702 annually per family.
2. Oregon monthly average HAP per unit ($481) was 76.4% of national average ($630).
3. Oregon monthly average admin expense per unit ($58) was 87.3% of the national average ($67).
4. Oregon FSS monthly average expense per unit ($3.67) was 196.8% of the national average ($1.86). 
5. Three County Portland Metro monthly HAP ($566) was 118% of the Oregon statewide average ($481).
6. Three County Portland Metro monthly admin expense ($56) per unit was 96% of the Oregon statewide average ($58).
7. Three County Portland Metro FSS monthly average expense per unit ($1.66) was 45% of the Oregon statewide average ($3.67).
   

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

Corrected --Passages: Dick Brownstein, Retired Long Time HAP Legal Counsel.

Corrected: Added HAP to post Title
I noticed sadly that Dick Brownstein, the former long time (44 Years!) legal counsel for the Housing Authority of Portland, recently died.  

While I didn't know Dick well I knew that he was knowledgeable and a strong public housing advocate. From a substance standpoint, our Oregon HUD legal counsel, Bob Chatham, a nationwide public housing law expert, held Dick in high regard and that was more than enough for me to be predisposed to like Dick.  

In the Oregonian obituary HERE, I note that Dick had served at HAP when the Hillsdale Terrace project was built. I recall seeing press from the era indicating there was strong opposition to development of this project and am sure that Dick would have been involved in dealing with legal challenges raised (some of which may have had racial components).  I am sure that Dick was excited to know that HAP was making concerted attempts in recent years to revitalize Hillsdale Terrace with a HOPE VI grant. 

If anyone has any remembrances of Dick, I encourage you to add them in the Guest Book section of his Oregonian obituary HERE and as comments to this post. 

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.