Affordable Housing Archives - Page 19 of 32 - Coalition For Smarter Growth

Chair Anderson and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to testify. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the DC region advocating for more walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. Please see below for our comments on the 2020-2024 Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP) working draft. Generally, we urge you to support policies that encourage sustainable growth patterns and maintaining a high-quality school system.

Schools & Taxes:

1. We strongly support the elimination of automatic housing moratoria throughout most of the county. The staff recommendation to create School Impact Areas correctly takes into consideration the distinct development contexts of different areas and how those contexts impact school enrollment growth.

The current moratorium policy assumes that the majority of new student generation comes from new development. However, we now know from the data that stopping development does not actually solve school overcrowding – less than 30 percent of school enrollment growth can be attributed to new development. Most new students come from young families moving into existing single-family homes – not from new apartment buildings.

The working draft also correctly identifies the other negative impacts of the current housing moratorium policy, including worsening housing affordability, hindering economic development, and preventing sustainable growth patterns. Rather than locating in a transit-oriented neighborhood, households and businesses alike are pushed into less desirable areas for growth. We should do all we can to encourage new housing in major transit and job hubs, not ban it – especially during a recession.

2. We support reducing the school impact tax to 100 percent of the cost of a seat, maintaining the current rate at 120 percent in the Agricultural Reserve, and further lowering the rate to 60 percent in Activity Centers. This recommendation correctly recognizes that impact taxes are a tool to either incentivize or disincentivize economic development. In some cases, it may be worth lowering impact taxes in order to expand the overall, long-term tax base and promote growth in the places we want to see it. Although, we’d like to note that some of the identified Activity Centers in outer areas lack transit and are overly large.

Montgomery County has one of the highest school impact taxes in the region. Even at this comparatively high rate, school impact fees only funded approximately 8 percent of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) capital budget in both FY19 and FY20. For FY21, impact taxes are only 6 percent of the MCPS capital budget, while recordation taxes fund nearly 24 percent of the budget. In short, reducing the school impact tax for areas where we desire growth will not make or break the MCPS capital budget, but impact taxes do play a significant role in whether new home projects pencil out. Even if a project can move forward at the existing tax rate, the increased cost is ultimately passed onto buyers through higher housing prices.

3. We are concerned by the proposed Utilization Premium Payments.

We should not charge developers for impacts not caused by their project. If a school is already overcrowded, it is because of past student enrollment growth and points to a larger funding failure within the county to raise and allocate enough resources to adequately fund schools’ capital needs. A future project will add to the overutilization, which is why future projects should contribute to the school impact fee pool to fund the seats of any students that project generates.

This recommendation will not build schools, just as the past School Facility Fees provided marginal funding at best – Utilization Premium Payments will only deter economic development. However, we would support increasing the school impact tax from 60 percent to 100 percent for projects located in Activity Centers with overcrowded schools.

4. We support progressive increases to the recordation tax.

While we do not think the Utilization Premium Payments have a strong nexus, the recordation tax does. Since over 70 percent of new students come from neighborhood turnover and recordation taxes account for nearly a quarter of the MCPS capital budget, it makes sense to target home purchases to fund school capacity projects.

We especially support an increase that is progressive, thus raising prices more on homes over $1.5 million, with an expansion of the first-time homebuyer exemption. Staff estimates that these changes would have raised roughly $20 million more for school construction in FY19. Nevertheless, if increasing the recordation tax is not feasible, we recommend instead adjusting the distribution of the revenue to increase the share going to schools and affordable housing.

5. We oppose ending the impact tax exemption for downtown Silver Spring.

As previously stated, impact taxes are a tool to either incentivize or disincentivize economic development, and it’s important to consider the short-term tradeoffs for longer term benefits. The Silver Spring impact tax exemption is a perfect example of this: between 2006 and 2016, the exemption only cost the county $5.8 million. Although Silver Spring is the only Enterprise Zone to successfully graduate from the program, its future success is far from guaranteed, especially in the current difficult economic environment.

A few things that weren’t mentioned: The working draft does not reference the capacity relief that boundary changes would bring system-wide, reducing the need for some expensive capital projects. Utilization is one of the three factors being examined by the current boundary analysis. We also urge the staff to make note of the effect that flexible school siting and creative project financing techniques could bring on the MCPS capital budget.

We recognize that these recommendations fall under the jurisdiction of MCPS and the Board of Education, not the SSP. Still, we believe those ideas warrant mentioning. Furthermore, it is apparent that there needs to

be a better dialogue between MCPS, the Board of Education, Planning Board, and the County Council. Schools issues are greatly interconnected with housing, health, transportation, and more, and should be treated as such by the county’s various institutions.

Transportation:

We appreciate and strongly support the move to better incorporate Vision Zero into the Subdivision Staging Policy, as well as the recommendation to increase intersection delay standards along Purple Line and BRT corridors. This small adjustment would save lives and support walkability around these future transit nodes.

We understand the objective to look at policy area transportation impacts for Master Plans, but are unsure why this should require a mandate within the SSP. If this recommendation moves forward, we believe that there should be higher standards than the baseline requirements to help us work towards our mode share, climate, and congestion goals. For example, we should set more equal standards for average time per trip. 19 minutes for auto trips and 52 minutes for transit encapsulates the transit inequities ingrained into our land use and transportation planning. We must do better.

Thank you for your consideration.

Testimony supporting Modest Homes Choice Act of 2020

Posted on March 4, 2020March 10, 2020 by Emily Maurer

March 4, 2020

Environment and Transportation Committee

House Office Building, Room 251

Annapolis, MD 21401

HB 1406, Land Use – Development – Middle Housing (Modest Homes Choice Act of 2020) (Support)

Testimony for March 4, 2020

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager

Thank you, Chair Barve, Vice Chair Stein, and Environment and Transportation Committee members. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are strongly in favor of the Modest Homes Choice Act, a bill that will increase housing options throughout Maryland.

HB 1406 legalizes multifamily housing in neighborhoods with higher incomes, an abundance of job opportunities, and access to good public transit. This is the core of smart growth: targeting growth in the right places so that our neighborhoods are more inclusive, sustainable, and prosperous.

Economic: An abundant housing stock is critical to Maryland’s economic competitiveness. A 2016 economic competitiveness report from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments found that high housing costs is one of the three major trends threatening our regional economy. Allowing more housing options will give the market the ability to respond to major job growth. Furthermore, housing closer to jobs will reduce travel times on Maryland’s famously congested roadways.

Equity: Right now, owning a home is prohibitively expensive for many families for many reasons, including that the supply of housing in high-demand areas hasn’t kept pace with demand. For example, 47 percent of land in Montgomery County is zoned for single-family detached housing only, restraining the amount of new housing allowed and limiting the diversity of housing options.

The difference between a $600,000 single family home and a $400,000 duplex can be the difference between a family being able to afford access to better jobs, better schools, healthier food, and so much more. It’s time for our zoning to reflect our inclusive values.

Sustainability: Housing in the right location is a climate solution. When families can’t afford to live close to where they work, they “drive until they qualify,” searching farther and farther out for affordable housing. This results in both increased traffic congestion and increased greenhouse gas emissions. In California, increases in vehicle miles traveled completely cancelled out any environmental benefits of more electric vehicles. At a time when transportation is our largest source of emissions in Maryland, we need to allow more housing in places that will result in less driving.

This bill is part of a larger “Homes for All” legislative package, which includes two other bills: HB 1149, which creates a program to finance social housing projects, and HB 744, which is an omnibus renter’s rights bill. Our housing crises is multifaceted, and it’s vital to attack it with a variety of tools since no solution is a silver bullet. Zoning is one of the most powerful tools we have to increase the supply of housing and assure abundant, diverse housing options for Marylanders in all stages of life and at all ranges of income.

Therefore, we urge you to support HB 1406 and legalize more housing and more housing options where they are most needed. Thank you for your consideration.

TESTIMONY re: Support of the Heritage at Old Town

Posted on February 20, 2020February 14, 2022 by Ayesha Amsa

We urge you to approve the Heritage at Old Town. Alexandria has lost over 90% of its affordable housing over the past two decades. We face a housing affordability crisis in Alexandria and neighboring jurisdictions. Multiple studies demonstrate that we need both more supply and more long-term committed affordable units. This project provides both. Supply is critical to avoid displacement, and a range of tools are needed including leveraging land value and density to ensure we create more affordable units.

CSG in the News: “Program Helps DC Homeowners Provide Low-Cost Housing — and Build Wealth”

Posted on February 20, 2020November 2, 2021 by Cheryl Cort

by JARED BREY, Next City, FEBRUARY 18, 2020

…With the ADU D.C. program announced last August, UPO [United Planning Organization] is trying to find ways to make ADUs cheaper and easier to build for moderate-income homeowners like [homeowner Lawrence] Foster. The program is starting as a small pilot: just two handpicked homeowners are participating so far, according to Kay Pierson, director of the community reinvestment division at UPO. It was created in partnership with the Coalition for Smarter Growth, and supported with a $180,000 grant from Citi Community Development. (Note: Citi Community Development also provides funding to Next City.) A lot of UPO’s programs are focused on helping people in poverty, with services like emergency rental assistance, Pierson says. But the ADU D.C. program is part of a series of efforts aimed at “asset development” — helping build wealth in lower-income communities — she says. The organization went looking for homeowners who earned up to 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI is $121,300 for a family of four in Washington), and who had good credit, steady employment history, and equity in their homes. And the partners are hoping that the pilot program demonstrates ways that the city and others can help moderate-income homeowners create more ADUs….

The Coalition for Smarter Growth in Washington had been advocating for those kinds of rule changes for several years. The benefits just pile on top of one another, says Cheryl Cort, the Coalition’s policy director: ADUs can take advantage of partially developed and underused space, provide space for seniors to age in place or for family members with special needs, provide rental income for homeowners, and promote small-scale living, which has a smaller impact on the environment.

“And adding rental housing options can bring new types of housing to established neighborhoods that might have few rental options today, including high-priced neighborhoods close to the Metro or in-demand schools and other amenities,” Cort says. “It’s natural diversification of the housing stock, rather than just being uniform.”

Still, Cort says, it can be expensive to build a new unit, even when taking advantage of existing space. She says she’s talked to a lot of architects who are approached by homeowners to consult about adding an ADU, only to have the homeowners walk away when they hear the cost, which is typically around $150,000, according to Cort. (Other cost estimates for ADUs here.) As part of the ADU D.C. program, the Coalition is producing a manual for homeowners to help navigate the permitting process, and the partners are also working with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs about ways to make permitting easier and faster for accessory dwelling units. And they’re exploring how financing programs might be scaled up to provide financial help for more moderate-income homeowners.

Last fall, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced a goal of producing 36,000 new homes in the District by 2025, with at least 12,000 of them being affordable to low-income residents. The city’s Housing Equity Report released at the same time has specific affordable-housing production targets for 11 different areas of the District. Those targets will help focus the city’s efforts, Cort says. And accessory dwelling units can be part of the mix of new housing that helps meet that goal, especially if the city can find ways to help moderate-income homeowners house lower-income tenants. The ADU D.C. program is meant to help show that tailored assistance and financing can produce more units.

“It’s a retail game,” Cort says. “We’ve got to be working individually with homeowners.”

This article is part of Backyard, a newsletter exploring scalable solutions to make housing fairer, more affordable and more environmentally sustainable. Subscribe to our thrice-weekly Backyard newsletter.

View the full story in Next City here.

Testimony supporting Maryland tenant rights and protection legislation

Posted on February 18, 2020February 18, 2020 by Jane Lyons

February 18, 2020

Environment and Transportation Committee

House Office Building, Room 251

Annapolis, MD 21401

HB 744, Landlord and Tenant – Residential Leases – Tenant Rights and Protections (Tenant Protection Act) (Support)

Testimony for February 18, 2020

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager

Thank you, Chair Barve, Vice Chair Stein, and Environment and Transportation Committee members. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the D.C. region advocating for walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We are in favor of HB 744, a bill that establishes long overdue basic rights for tenants.

HB 744 is an omnibus renter’s rights bill which includes a requirement that security deposits be returned within 30 days, allowance for a tenant to terminate their lease if the landlord fails to make in-unit repairs within a reasonable timeframe, and an authorization for a tenant to terminate their lease without fear of future liability in cases where they have faced harassment and stalking, and must move for their safety.

Renters are a growing population in Maryland. Currently, nearly 40 percent of residents are renters. As this trend continues, it will only become more important to ensure that Maryland’s tenant protections are of a high quality. Home is the center of life and family security – the improvements to landlord-tenant law in HB 722 can make all the difference in someone’s life and to their family.

Right now, we’re behind. Maryland ranks 32^nd for tenant rights. Strong tenant protections can mean the difference between a community being welcoming and inclusive, or not. Inclusive policies that protect more vulnerable community members are especially important as neighborhoods grow and change. Tenant empowerment helps residents stay in their neighborhoods and benefit from new amenities.

This bill is part of a larger bill package called “Homes for All,” which includes two other bills: HB 1149, which creates a program to finance social housing projects, and HB 1406, which legalizes the construction of multifamily housing in neighborhoods with higher incomes, an abundance of job opportunities, and access to public transit. Fixing the lack of affordable housing is critical to Maryland’s economic competitiveness, and the three bills together will increase the supply of affordable housing, improve access jobs, and provide greater security for renters, enabling them to focus on work and improvement, and their children to have the home security they need to do well in school.

Therefore, we urge you to support HB 744 and protect the rights of nearly 40 percent of Marylanders. Thank you for your consideration.

Housing Priorities Coalition

Posted on February 3, 2020October 21, 2021 by Cheryl Cort

DC Comprehensive Plan Fact Sheet

FINAL-HPC-Comp-Plan-Fact-Sheet Download

CSG testimony supporting Montgomery County CIP amendments

Posted on January 30, 2020October 21, 2021 by Emily Maurer

January 30, 2020

Montgomery County Council Office

Council Office Building

100 Maryland Ave.

Rockville, MD 20850

_{FY 21 Capital Budget and FY 21-26 CIP (Support with Amendments)}

Testimony for February 5^th, 2020

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager

President Katz and Councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am here on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which supports the FY 21-26 CIP with several critical amendments. We are pleased with the support the County Executive’s CIP gives to bicycle and pedestrian safety, the Bethesda station south entrance, and bus stop improvements. These projects are a necessity if we want to end unnecessary tragedies on our streets.

Missing projects: Given that, I’ll begin with what we believe is missing: funding for the northern entrance for the White Flint Metro station, the Capital Crescent Trail tunnel in Bethesda, and a multi-use path along Dale Drive. These projects will support economic development and increase both Metro and Purple Line ridership. They also both specifically address safety along MD 355, one of the most dangerous and deadly roads in the county, where two people have already been killed in 2020.

Bus Rapid Transit: Regarding BRT, we are happy that this CIP includes funding for preliminary engineering of BRT on MD 355, Veirs Mill Rd, New Hampshire Ave, and the North Bethesda Transitway. However, given our economic development and climate crises, these projects cannot wait and should be advanced to start even sooner. Likewise, it is disappointing that there is no money included in the CIP for BRT construction. This is especially disappointing when every road project includes costs for both preliminary engineering and construction. Not one BRT project has a construction timeline. I hope the Council will prioritize BRT by actively planning for its implementation.

Specifically, I hope you will accelerate the preliminary engineering timeline for MD 355 – four years is much longer than needed – and schedule planning for New Hampshire Ave and North Bethesda Transitway to begin much earlier than FY22 and FY24, respectively. At this rate, we can expect that service wouldn’t begin on these lines until at least 2026. Can our economy or climate wait that long? Can transit-dependent residents in Gaithersburg or Germantown wait that long for high quality transit, especially in light of the Corridor Cities Transitway cancellation?

MCDOT has proposed that MD 355 BRT service be broken into three routes since the full 22 mile route is too long for an ideal level of frequency. This effectively breaks up construction and service commencement into three phases. I recommend that the Council select a design alternative (Alternative B); then when preliminary engineering and design for the first phase is complete, construction could begin on that phase while the second phase undergoes preliminary engineering and design, and so on.

Finally, we firmly believe that Route 29 BRT will not set a good example without dedicated lanes south of Tech Road. MCDOT’s median lane study was supposed to be released last fall. This report should be shared with the Council immediately so that any construction funding can be included in the CIP.

Ride On improvements: Given slow progress, most BRT service in the county won’t be operational for five to ten years. We recommend that MCDOT take the success of Ride On extRa and expand express bus service to the other future BRT corridors. Ride On extRa Route 101 increased ridership by 11 percent and reduced travel times by 25 percent. MCDOT should also officially name priority service corridors, similar to WMATA’s Priority Corridor Network, which has helped WMATA to quickly improve service in phases.

As mentioned, we are pleased with the continued upgrade of Ride On’s 5,400 bus stops. The CIP details a GIS bus stop inventory and condition assessment, criteria for improvements, and prioritization. To the best of our knowledge, that information is not easily available to the public. We request that MCDOT publicly post that information, especially their criteria for improvements and prioritization.

Additionally, we urge the county to prioritize electric vehicle replacement. Most replacements for the Ride On fleet are set to be hybrids; however, the proposed CIP still details that 80 of the 153 vehicles will be diesel.

Affordable housing: We are grateful to the County Executive for creating the new Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund to help acquire properties in areas with growing rents. This fund supports the recommendations we crafted as members of the Purple Line Corridor Coalition Housing Action Team. We hope the County Executive and DHCA will continue to work with affordable housing developers to craft a program that best fits their financing needs.

School capital projects: Finally, we want to support funding for school capital projects, especially those that will relieve clusters in moratorium. However, we should note that the incentive created by the moratorium to fund capacity projects leaves out the vital capital needs of schools that are falling apart but aren’t overcapacity. Through the SSP update process, we hope to revisit the moratorium, and replace it with a policy that better serves the needs of both schools and housing.

Given the challenge of a shrinking capital budget and so many urgent projects, it’s time for the Council to start considering new funding sources. We will not meet our economic development, climate, and equity goals without significant investments the infrastructure that allows us to thrive. Thank you for your time.