Organizational Capital: A New Approach to Lending in Nonprofit Affordable Housing

In spite of a diminishing supply of public resources, many nonprofit housing developers are expanding their roles and their portfolios to address an increasing need for decent affordable housing. But as nonprofit housing organizations mature, the traditional project-by-project funding system fails to support their broader development goals. This paper stresses the urgent need for equity, or "organizational capital," to help nonprofit housing organizations build their capacity and their impact. Unlike conventional financing, organizational capital is underwritten against a borrower's balance sheet, or its organizational ability to repay. Whereas project-based loans are tied to one particular project, organizational loans can be a source of liquidity whenever an organization needs it: on the front end of a deal, for general business operations or during periods of organizational expansion. Despite its many advantages, there is an extremely limited supply of organizational capital in nonprofit affordable housing. This research outlines the practical challenges to organizational investing and uncovers the underlying barriers that have prevented a nonprofit organizational capital market from emerging. These findings lead us to explore nonprofit housing organizations in a "closed system" of standardized reporting and rational decision-making. The study concludes that while a new nonprofit reporting system would greatly encourage organizational investing in housing, the private markets alone will not bring organizational lending to scale. The final sections of the paper discuss the public policy implications of a closed nonprofit capital system and highlight some innovative approaches taken by lenders to overcome the obstacles of organizational investing and advance a new model of lending in nonprofit affordable housing

Addressing the adaptive customization of timber prefabricated housing through axiomatic design

The current Italian housing market requires customized high-performance buildings at an affordable cost. Timber building prefabrication represents a suitable way to satisfy this demand, but its application for this purpose is at the moment inadequate mainly due to restrictions of production approaches: the lack of variety of low-cost mass-produced buildings and the high costs of ad-hoc full-customized buildings. In order to provide affordable customized houses, the timber building industry should focus on designs characterized by the combination of mass-produced and customized parts. In this way, clients would have the chance to personalize decisive parts for them, and the building industry can limit costs by the mass production of the others. This strategy involves artefact flexibility and robustness with regard to the architect's viewpoint. Crucial decisions for the achievement of these requirements are made in the conceptual design phase, but in this stage architects’ decision making is not supported by suitable approaches. Axiomatic Design (AD) has been shown to be able to support decision making for the development of concepts that would have the best chance to provide the specified requirements. In this study AD is applied to prefabricated building design in the timber housing industry. Despite limitations placed by timber construction systems, this application results in a prefabricated building system enhanced with regard to robustness and flexibility, and therefore better able to foster designs that satisfy the current housing demand

Decision Support System for Development of Current and Future Accessory Dwelling Units: A Bottom-up Approach to Affordable Housing

In 2015 the state passed Ordinance 15-41 which allowed homeowners to develop Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), however, Hawai`i homeowners remain uninformed and ill-equipped in the means to develop and design an ADU. In acting as a developer the homeowner needs a system that can assist them in an ADU development project. This research develops an ADU Decision Support System which identifies a step-by-step procedure to generate a conceptual design for an ADU in a normative fashion. Furthermore, the support system provides the homeowner with a means to assess and modify their design before engaging a design professional. As a proactive measure, the system provides future considerations regarding wastewater, transportation, energy, and construction. Lastly, the support system has the potential for expansion to a web interface connecting willing and able ADU developers to eager design professionals. By informing and empowering the homeowner, this research can address statewide affordable housing issues

Multi-stakeholder partnerships in affordable rental housing: An investigation using soft systems framework

Queensland Department of Housing has proposed the use of partnerships as one possible option to deliver affordable housing outcomes. Although this initiative is supported by other stakeholders, many constraints have impeded its implementation for the delivery of real projects. Whilst it might find application for mixed housing projects with some relaxation on tax and/ or planning requirements, in general, affordable housing has not been seen as a valuable investment. Moreover, the partnerships require stakeholders to work across boundaries and outside their comfort zones.\ud \ud This initial study examines the use of soft systems framework to explore stakeholders’ views of multi-stakeholder partnerships in affordable rental housing. A series of in-depth interviews with major stakeholders representing housing providers, regulators and users in Queensland has been conducted. \ud \ud Soft systems methodology has been used to express the unstructured problem by using systematic thinking to develop a conceptual model to solve the problem. A complex problem is broken down into role, social system and political system analyses. This study provides an example of using systematic thinking in solving conflicting problems. The gap between the conceptual model and implementation in the real world situation was also investigated. Major changes in the socio-cultural aspects of the broader community as well as between stakeholders were required to implement the further development of multi-stakeholder partnerships for affordable rental housing

Do Public Private partnerships facilitate affordable housing outcomes in Queensland?

Internationally, Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are becoming a fashionable supplement to traditional public sector funding models for delivering public infrastructure and related services by using private funding (Broadbent & Laughlin, 2003; Edwards & Shaoul, 2003). The Queensland government released a PPP policy in September 2001 with the aim of improving ‘value for money’ in public infrastructure and service delivery projects, including housing. As a consequence of the reduction of Commonwealth government funding for housing, these partnerships with the private sector are seen as providing an opportunity for the supply of affordable housing. This study aims to identify current problems in implementing PPPs in affordable housing by conducting open interviews and literature searches. PPPs become a specious attraction for the public sector. No affordable housing projects have been implemented using the PPP framework in Queensland because of the restrictive definition of PPP projects. Moreover, the contradiction in traditional investment decision-making criteria between public and private sector has impeded the implementation of PPPs. Accordingly, PPPs may not facilitate increasing the supply of affordable housing without major guideline changes

Partnerships in Affordable Housing: The Impact of Conflicting Investment Criteria

Accessibility to housing for lower income groups in Australia has been experiencing a severe decline in the last few years. On the supply side the public sector has been reducing its commitment to the direct provision of public housing at a time when market demand has strengthened, creating substantial price increases in all sectors of the housing market and in most urban centres. One possible solution to address the problem of reduced accessibility to affordable housing has been through the development of partnerships but recent investigation of the literature (Susilawati and Armitage, 2004a) and previous research by the author (Susilawati and Armitage, 2004b) suggest that the attractions of this approach may be specious. The research reported in this paper investigates the nature and incidence of these impediments as presented by survey of a number of stakeholders who have been involved in partnership arrangements in the Queensland affordable housing sector. By means of a series of in-depth interviews, the investment criteria and the impediments to achieving the desired outcomes of the participants in the partnerships are identified. Interestingly, the incidence of conflict and diversity between partners has elicited some unanticipated outcomes and responses which have ironically strengthened the process. Some of the negativity attached to future commitment to such partnerships has been found to be the anticipation of a worse outcome than that expected from independent action

Healthy Corridor for All: A Community Health Impact Assessment of Transit-Oriented Development Policy in Saint Paul, Minnesota

Details the connections between land-use decisions and health and equity outcomes based on a health impact assessment of the Central Corridor light rail line in the Twin Cities. Includes analysis of the rezoning proposal and policy recommendations

The Cost of Affordable Housing Development in Oregon

The cost of new affordable housing has been a topic of intense scrutiny recently as the need for affordable housing across Oregon continues to significantly outpace the current system's ability to deliver additional units. Many people have questioned why costs for publicly subsidized affordable projects are as high as they are, and whether there are ways to significantly reduce the cost of new affordable housing. Meyer Memorial Trust convened the Cost Efficiencies Work Group to answer questions like these. Meyer recruited sixteen experts from development, construction, finance, and related fields and charged this Work Group with three major tasks: 1) To create a clear and concise summary of key factors affecting the cost of developing affordable housing; 2) To identify opportunities – whether policy and systems changes, or innovative approaches to design, construction, and financing – to deliver affordable units at a lower cost; and 3) To advise Meyer on pilot or demonstration projects to test new approaches to affordable housing development. This report synthesizes the results of this work over the last year. The full report engages a wide variety of topics in detail – and the details and nuances are important – but the key results are summarized below

Carbon Free Boston: Social equity report 2019

OVERVIEW: In January 2019, the Boston Green Ribbon Commission released its Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report, identifying potential options for the City of Boston to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. The report found that reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 requires three mutually-reinforcing strategies in key sectors: 1) deepen energy efficiency while reducing energy demand, 2) electrify activity to the fullest practical extent, and 3) use fuels and electricity that are 100 percent free of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Summary Report detailed the ways in which these technical strategies will transform Boston’s physical infrastructure, including its buildings, energy supply, transportation, and waste management systems. The Summary Report also highlighted that it is how these strategies are designed and implemented that matter most in ensuring an effective and equitable transition to carbon neutrality. Equity concerns exist for every option the City has to reduce GHG emissions. The services provided by each sector are not experienced equally across Boston’s communities. Low-income families and families of color are more likely to live in residences that are in poor physical condition, leading to high utility bills, unsafe and unhealthy indoor environments, and high GHG emissions.1 Those same families face greater exposure to harmful outdoor air pollution compared to others. The access and reliability of public transportation is disproportionately worse in neighborhoods with large populations of people of color, and large swaths of vulnerable neighborhoods, from East Boston to Mattapan, do not have ready access to the city’s bike network. Income inequality is a growing national issue and is particularly acute in Boston, which consistently ranks among the highest US cities in regards to income disparities. With the release of Imagine Boston 2030, Mayor Walsh committed to make Boston more equitable, affordable, connected, and resilient. The Summary Report outlined the broad strokes of how action to reach carbon neutrality intersects with equity. A just transition to carbon neutrality improves environmental quality for all Bostonians, prioritizes socially vulnerable populations, seeks to redress current and past injustice, and creates economic and social opportunities for all. This Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report provides a deeper equity context for Carbon Free Boston as a whole, and for each strategy area, by demonstrating how inequitable and unjust the playing field is for socially vulnerable Bostonians and why equity must be integrated into policy design and implementation. This report summarizes the current landscape of climate action work for each strategy area and evaluates how it currently impacts inequity. Finally, this report provides guidance to the City and partners on how to do better; it lays out the attributes of an equitable approach to carbon neutrality, framed around three guiding principles: 1) plan carefully to avoid unintended consequences, 2) be intentional in design through a clear equity lens, and 3) practice inclusivity from start to finish

Solar Risk: How Energy Storage Can Preserve Solar Savings in California Affordable Housing

Recently, utilities and regulators in California have proposed policy changes and new electricity rate structures that could drastically erode the value of stand-alone solar in California. Those changes, through modifications to net metering, time-of-use rates, and demand charges, could hit solar installations in affordable housing especially hard.This report explores potential risks for California's multifamily affordable housing sector, and makes two important findings: (1) the changes would significantly reduce the value proposition for a stand-alone solar system, and (2) incorporating energy storage could potentially reverse these negative economic impacts