Support NeoGAF

[WedgeX]

Courtesy City Lab.

H.B. 1792 would rework the point system that decides where and how Low Income Housing Tax Credits are distributed in Texas. LIHTCs are the primary federal mechanism for building new affordable housing units, in Texas and beyond. H.B. 1792 would first and foremost require developers who apply for these tax credits to ”conspicuously identify" proposed developments as ”low-income government-subsidized housing"—which sounds bad—to a number of community stakeholders. A pledge to "stop low-income government housing" was the bedrock of her campaign. (Swanson's office did not respond to a request for comment.)

Beyond rebranding affordable housing, the bill would also greatly expand the reach of stakeholders—homeowners, neighborhood activists, elected leaders—to prevent it from being built.

As it stands, Texas state law requires would-be affordable housing developers to file LIHTC applications with relevant community leaders: the neighborhood association, school district board, mayor or city council member, and state representative of the district where the LIHTC-financed development would be built. Swanson's law would expand that group to all neighborhood associations within 5 miles of a boundary of the district where the development would be built.

Moreover, the bill would grant all of those new gatekeepers the power to tack on negative points—and only negative points!—to an application. Neighborhoods committed to keeping out low-income families could scupper the construction of new affordable housing across Texas.

...

These bills are the latest front in an ongoing war in Texas over how much control state lawmakers should have in deciding where low-income housing will be built. Housing advocates won a few victories on LIHTC scoring over the course of the last two legislative sessions. But fair-housing victories in the state legislature—and at the Supreme Court—triggered a backlash.

Last year, Swanson successfully primaried her predecessor in District 150, former State Representative Debbie Riddle, on a platform of NIMBYism (and combatting Sharia law). Swanson won despite the fact that Riddle has prided herself on her staunch opposition to low-income housing. Once, in a 2011 state appropriations hearing, Riddle said that affordable-housing developers looking to build in her (predominantly white) suburban Houston district should look instead to (majority-minority) Mesquite or Galveston, describing her own community as ”inundated." The 15-year incumbent described public education and healthcare as springing from ”the pit of hell." For Spring voters, Riddle's message wasn't radical enough.

Far more at the link. Building upon Texas Monthly's great insight into Houston's current challenges and Dallas' failures in providing low-income housing.

 

[Tripon]

I guess Not in My Backyard taken to its extreme conclusion.

 

[geomon]

Oh just hurry up and start building the ghettos for blacks and hispanics already. They we can finally move on to the concentration camps.

 

[entremet]

Real estate is very fascinating.

The incentive for private builders is to target higher income earners. However, low to middle income earners also need places to live, yet the incentive are not there. You do have programs like the one listed in the OP, but they face a lot of opposition.

Moreover, cities and state services rely on property taxes heavily. So if you're in a low income neighborhood, access to quality schools is difficult.

It's a very complex problem. Then add job markets to mix, which are heavily urban, yet have high prices, so many young careerists are cash flow poor.

 

[Piecake]

So, in Texas an exploding factory can be next to a school and hospital, but the poor can be barred from the 'nice' neighborhoods.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I guess Not in My Backyard taken to its extreme conclusion.

Have you seen NIMBY: Los Angeles? Tune in Tuesday nights on CBS.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

So, in Texas an exploding factory can be next to a school and hospital, but the poor can be barred from the 'nice' neighborhoods.

Exploding factory?

 

[BlueTsunami]

So much for integration. Bring back projects and ghettos

 

[fenners]

Exploding factory?

Explosion that happened in Waco a couple of years ago.

 

[Piecake]

Exploding factory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion

 

[Tripon]

Have you seen NIMBY: Los Angeles? Tune in Tuesday nights on CBS.

Yeah, and I'm voting against it. Just need to mail in my ballot. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[ezrarh]

I don't think our current low income housing programs work well at all but this doesn't solve anything. Expect more tent cities in the future.

 

[Marvie_3]

Fuck this nimby bullshit

 

[WedgeX]

I don't think our current low income housing programs work well at all but this doesn't solve anything. Expect more tent cities in the future.

Partially agree. It is problematic that these types of housing developments already segregate people into housing blocs. Mixed neighborhoods that freely combine low-, middle- and upper-incomes are clearly better for neighborhood and community health. Jane Jacobs showed that back in the 60s. Alas that people, developers and landlords love to refuse section 8 vouchers to allow people with low incomes to live in more economically diverse communities.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

This is not an easy problem to solve. While it sounds great to have low income housing in more affluent areas so that these children also have access to the good schools what ends up happening is the families with the higher incomes are mobile enough to leave that area once then ratio isn't quite up to their liking. They leave in droves, more people with lower incomes start moving in, and property values start to plummet. Now who is really hurt in that situation are the families who scratched and saved enough to afford that area when prices were high but aren't mobile enough to move once the neighborhood changes. They are stuck and now instead of their children going to one of the better high schools in the area it's now becoming overcrowded and mediocre. The children of those families don't want to raise their own kids in that area so they move away often taking their parents with them or just selling the home to another lower income family.

It happened in the case of my family and you can see the remnants of that exact scenario everywhere in Atlanta below I-20. The only areas that avoided it were the areas that set hard limits on the number of apartments that could be built in that area and set laws against renting to section 8 recipients.

I'm currently looking for a forever home with my wife to you raise our new family in and one of the things I'm looking for are apartment complexes, lower income housing, and what are the local ordinances pertaining to them. I want to avoid the situation that happened to my parents at all costs.

 

[Mesousa]

This is not an easy problem to solve. While it sounds great to have low income housing in more affluent areas so that these children also have access to the good schools what ends up happening is the families with the higher incomes are mobile enough to leave that area once then ratio isn't quite up to their liking. They leave in droves, more people with lower incomes start moving in, and property values start to plummet. Now who is really hurt in that situation are the families who scratched and saved enough to afford that area when prices were high but aren't mobile enough to move once the neighborhood changes. They are stuck and now instead of their children going to one of the better high schools in the area it's now becoming overcrowded and mediocre. The children of those families don't want to raise their own kids in that area so they move away often taking their parents with them or just selling the home to another lower income family.

It happened in the case of my family and you can see the remnants of that exact scenario everywhere in Atlanta below I-20. The only areas that avoided it were the areas that set hard limits on the number of apartments that could be built in that area and set laws against renting to section 8 recipients.

I'm currently looking for a forever home with my wife to you raise our new family in and one of the things I'm looking for are apartment complexes, lower income housing, and what are the local ordinances pertaining to them. I want to avoid the situation that happened to my parents at all costs.

Yep.

The truth of the matter is, and it sounds bad said aloud, but nobody with means wants to live near section 8 or low income housing. It pretty much kills areas. I saw it happen in metro Atlanta where they pushed section 8 to the suburbs to gentrify parts of Atlanta. They brought crime, and lowered the quality of schools. People deserve a fair shake in life, but nobody with money will except this at the expense of their own family having a lower quality of life.

 

[Pagusas]

This is not an easy problem to solve. While it sounds great to have low income housing in more affluent areas so that these children also have access to the good schools what ends up happening is the families with the higher incomes are mobile enough to leave that area once then ratio isn't quite up to their liking. They leave in droves, more people with lower incomes start moving in, and property values start to plummet. Now who is really hurt in that situation are the families who scratched and saved enough to afford that area when prices were high but aren't mobile enough to move once the neighborhood changes. They are stuck and now instead of their children going to one of the better high schools in the area it's now becoming overcrowded and mediocre. The children of those families don't want to raise their own kids in that area so they move away often taking their parents with them or just selling the home to another lower income family.

It happened in the case of my family and you can see the remnants of that exact scenario everywhere in Atlanta below I-20. The only areas that avoided it were the areas that set hard limits on the number of apartments that could be built in that area and set laws against renting to section 8 recipients.

I'm currently looking for a forever home with my wife to you raise our new family in and one of the things I'm looking for are apartment complexes, lower income housing, and what are the local ordinances pertaining to them. I want to avoid the situation that happened to my parents at all costs.

Yep. I wonder how many people in this thread are home owners? When looking for a home we absolutely knew to watch out for government housing and apartments. They can completely destroy property value. Where I live in Frisco the community has pushed back as hard as it can against federal housing programs.

 

[entremet]

Yep. I wonder how many people in this thread are home owners? When looking for a home we absolutely knew to watch out for government housing and apartments. They can completely destroy property value. Where I live in Frisco the community has pushed back as hard as it can against federal housing programs.

Not a homeowner myself, but I mentioned that this is a very complex problem. I just don't think the current model is sustainable in the new economy.

Too many competing incentives.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I was going to say some of the above. Even if you live alone and don't plan to have kids anytime soon, you don't want your house to lose value when more low income housing/apartments start being built.

It's partially why if ever decide to buy a house, it might be my vacation house since I don't really ever plan to have kids so I can live comfortably in apartments, but I wouldn't mind having a place to call my own in an area I can visit often in a city I like regardless of my job prospects.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Oh just hurry up and start building the ghettos for blacks and hispanics already.

Start?

Yep. I wonder how many people in this thread are home owners? When looking for a home we absolutely knew to watch out for government housing and apartments. They can completely destroy property value. Where I live in Frisco the community has pushed back as hard as it can against federal housing programs.

I don't live in the best neighborhood and even neighbors here were against public housing units being built next door. For that exact reason

 

[jon bones]

This is not an easy problem to solve. While it sounds great to have low income housing in more affluent areas so that these children also have access to the good schools what ends up happening is the families with the higher incomes are mobile enough to leave that area once then ratio isn't quite up to their liking. They leave in droves, more people with lower incomes start moving in, and property values start to plummet. Now who is really hurt in that situation are the families who scratched and saved enough to afford that area when prices were high but aren't mobile enough to move once the neighborhood changes. They are stuck and now instead of their children going to one of the better high schools in the area it's now becoming overcrowded and mediocre. The children of those families don't want to raise their own kids in that area so they move away often taking their parents with them or just selling the home to another lower income family.

It happened in the case of my family and you can see the remnants of that exact scenario everywhere in Atlanta below I-20. The only areas that avoided it were the areas that set hard limits on the number of apartments that could be built in that area and set laws against renting to section 8 recipients.

I'm currently looking for a forever home with my wife to you raise our new family in and one of the things I'm looking for are apartment complexes, lower income housing, and what are the local ordinances pertaining to them. I want to avoid the situation that happened to my parents at all costs.

thanks for your insight, this is certainly a complicated issue and i'm glad to learn more about it

i've only ever rented in / around NYC, so i don't know much about home ownership

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

These days in Texas, low income housing is 100k.

 

[entremet]

These days in Texas, low income housing is 100k.

To buy? Jesus that is cheap AF.

 

[Morat]

Yep.

The truth of the matter is, and it sounds bad said aloud, but nobody with means wants to live near section 8 or low income housing. It pretty much kills areas. I saw it happen in metro Atlanta where they pushed section 8 to the suburbs to gentrify parts of Atlanta. They brought crime, and lowered the quality of schools. People deserve a fair shake in life, but nobody with money will except this at the expense of their own family having a lower quality of life.

The solution to this is to provide good quality accommodation spread around, rather than drop giant vertical slums in the middle of a neighborhood. London used to do it pretty well,but since Thatcher much of the decent quality public housing was sold off, just leaving the nastier 70's towerblocks.

 

[Goro Majima]

To buy? Jesus that is cheap AF.

Property taxes are absolutely brutal though and sometimes 30% or more of your mortgage payment. There's no state income tax so that's the trade off.

 

[ChrisRT]

So, in Texas an exploding factory can be next to a school and hospital, but the poor can be barred from the 'nice' neighborhoods.

Still reading the article but this nearly had my lungs collapse.

 

[ezrarh]

Partially agree. It is problematic that these types of housing developments already segregate people into housing blocs. Mixed neighborhoods that freely combine low-, middle- and upper-incomes are clearly better for neighborhood and community health. Jane Jacobs showed that back in the 60s. Alas that people, developers and landlords love to refuse section 8 vouchers to allow people with low incomes to live in more economically diverse communities.

I agree with the goal if trying to get more economically diverse communities - I love Jane Jacobs' work. Our zoning laws makes all that very difficult. There are a myriad issues with the methods we use now for getting lower income families into more expensive communities. One being - there's simply not enough money to support all those who need housing assistance, and to be frank, even with more money in the program, you're still dealing with supply issues in economically productive cities.

For the record - I'm a home owner but I advocate for incremental upzoning - to allow for more of market rate housing spread throughout the city. And I totally get why people would be against the government developing large section 8 housing in their communities. That's why advocating for incremental upzoning is slightly more tenable, one it shouldn't require subsidization of construction and it doesn't have as much of a stigma as section 8 housing. Upzoning generally increase land value since it allows for more productivity on the land than a single house. And historically, new construction has never been for the poor anyways. It's not an easy problem to solve since housing is intricately linked to people's financial wealth in the US.

 

[shintoki]

I don't like, but I also understand why they want it too. Someone touched on it already, but for that threshold group(Middle class, lower). It's a pure no-win situation and they will get the rough end of the stick every time. Rich people can up and move, lower-income can now move into a nicer area outside their means. It creates a void now passed onto that middle region that has to pick up the slack, deal with falling property values, same or raising taxes, and lesser quality schools. Basically now, driving them down to the lower class once again, which is where they escaped from.

I do believe they should be within their rights to reject lower income housing.

 

[Kthulhu]

Property taxes are absolutely brutal though and sometimes 30% or more of your mortgage payment. There's no state income tax so that's the trade off.

Yeah, but you know why it's like that. It's so the rich pay less taxes then the middle class and the poor.

 

[terencecah]

How does someone figure out where gov't assisted living is in a certain area?

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I don't know all the stats, but i would say 100k, at least in DFW area, is the affordable and WORTH IT zone. Worth it as in, it isn't just a place that has a roof on it.

Even then, I've seen manufactured homes at 115k.

All knew build homes in the area start at like 200k. 10 years ago you could get new build homes at 90k. Now homes built in the 70s and 80s are going for 130K+

Millennials are the boomer's retirement plan.

 

[entremet]

Yeah, but you know why it's like that. It's so the rich pay less taxes then the middle class and the poor.

Yep. it's a very regressive tax if that's the case.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

So, in Texas an exploding factory can be next to a school and hospital, but the poor can be barred from the 'nice' neighborhoods.

In that case, the school and homes came after the factory was built, so I'm not sure it's quite analogous. Should a factory be forced to move because families and schools move within a potential blast zone? I guess in that way this is analogous.

 

[ACR0019]

Millennials are the boomer's retirement plan.

Yep.

 

[Piecake]

In that case, the school and homes came after the factory was built, so I'm not sure it's quite analogous. Should a factory be forced to move because families and schools move within a potential blast zone? I guess in that way this is analogous.

No, but if Texas prides itself on its lack of zoning laws then it seems a bit odd that a community can block poor people from entering their neighborhood, but the government can build a school next to a laxly regulated fertilizer plant.

 

[NeOak]

Spring?

Not surprising.

 

[jrcbandit]

This is not an easy problem to solve. While it sounds great to have low income housing in more affluent areas so that these children also have access to the good schools what ends up happening is the families with the higher incomes are mobile enough to leave that area once then ratio isn't quite up to their liking. They leave in droves, more people with lower incomes start moving in, and property values start to plummet. Now who is really hurt in that situation are the families who scratched and saved enough to afford that area when prices were high but aren't mobile enough to move once the neighborhood changes. They are stuck and now instead of their children going to one of the better high schools in the area it's now becoming overcrowded and mediocre. The children of those families don't want to raise their own kids in that area so they move away often taking their parents with them or just selling the home to another lower income family.

It happened in the case of my family and you can see the remnants of that exact scenario everywhere in Atlanta below I-20. The only areas that avoided it were the areas that set hard limits on the number of apartments that could be built in that area and set laws against renting to section 8 recipients.

I'm currently looking for a forever home with my wife to you raise our new family in and one of the things I'm looking for are apartment complexes, lower income housing, and what are the local ordinances pertaining to them. I want to avoid the situation that happened to my parents at all costs.

This same exact scenario happened to my parents in southwest Houston. It was the place to be in the 70s, now unfortunately it is a dangerous part of Houston (highest murder rate at intersection I used to pass daily on way to school). It's a shame, while my high school wasn't top tier, it was still pretty good education wise and diverse with ~30% black, 30 Hispanic, 30 white, 10% Asian. Now it's 67% Hispanic, 28% Black, 3% Asian, 2% white, and low test scores/graduation rate.

 

[Stinkles]

Seems like a modest proposal to me.

 

[hey_monkey]

Perhaps if we support the schools that really need it, with extra funds, some of the above scenarios become less extreme.

I mean, racists will flee regardless if there are too many brown people in their neighborhoods, but ensuring robust schools throughout a city could make a huge difference.

 

[Exile20]

How does someone figure out where gov't assisted living is in a certain area?

Ben Carson decides

Spoiler

joke

 

[Count Dookkake]

Mrs Swanson and the Rats of NIMBY.

 

[CornBurrito]

Real estate is very fascinating.

The incentive for private builders is to target higher income earners. However, low to middle income earners also need places to live, yet the incentive are not there. You do have programs like the one listed in the OP, but they face a lot of opposition.

Moreover, cities and state services rely on property taxes heavily. So if you're in a low income neighborhood, access to quality schools is difficult.

It's a very complex problem. Then add job markets to mix, which are heavily urban, yet have high prices, so many young careerists are cash flow poor.

The perils of capitalism.

 

[Zel3]

It's easy to tell who owns a house in this thread. As a house owner I see no issue with this proposal, sure it doesn't sound good but no one wants their house losing value.

 

[entremet]

The perils of capitalism.

The counter argument to that is that zoning laws are too restrictive to make investment in housing for lower income families tenable.

All those regulations add more money that is passed on the buyer, limiting lower priced units.

Right now, the government picks up the slack, either via public housing and voucher programs like Section 8.

 

[CornBurrito]

Really a shame here.

"People are homeless"

"Bbbbut muh property values!"

 

[Ogodei]

The solution would probably be to distribute section 8 housing as evenly as possible to make sure there's nowhere for White Flight to happen to. Every ZIP Code gets its own patch of LIHTC housing, then there's nowhere to get away.

Make that a federal policy so that then there's nowhere even in the entire country where you can flee the policy.

Sure, it'll hurt some people with declining home values in the short term, but if a house is overpriced because of literal racism, then yes, you should eat that loss because that's money you only had due to prejudice.

 

[CornBurrito]

It's easy to tell who owns a house in this thread. As a house owner I see no issue with this proposal, sure it doesn't sound good but no one wants their house losing value.

Nobody wants to die from exposure either.

 

[entremet]

Really a shame here.

"People are homeless"

"Bbbbut muh property values!"

People are self interested. This is nothing new.

 

[CornBurrito]

People are self interested. This is nothing new.

Wowwwwwwwwww???!!! Realllllyyyyy???!

 

[entremet]

Wowwwwwwwwww???!!! Realllllyyyyy???!

So why are you surprised lol. You're the one lamenting the comments.

To me, it is as business as usual.