Assessment of Civil Legal Needs in North Carolina

Posted on April 09, 2021

Featured Image for Assessment of Civil Legal Needs in North Carolina

The North Carolina Equal Justice Alliance is a community of civil legal aid providers serving low-income and underrepresented constituencies. Many Alliance members also promote policy initiatives to improve the lives of those who face systemic barriers or are impacted by poverty.  The mission of the Equal Justice Alliance is to provide central coordination of a sustained, comprehensive, integrated, statewide system to provide the most effective legal services to people in poverty in North Carolina.

In 2020, in partnership with UNC Greensboro’s Center for Housing and Community Studies, the NC Equal Access to Justice Commission (EATJC) and the Equal Justice Alliance (EJA) completed the first comprehensive civil legal needs assessment in nearly two decades. The study provides an overview of the scope of civil legal needs in North Carolina, as well as the factors affecting the depth and type of civil legal problems people experience.

The North Carolina Civil Legal Needs Assessment is now live!
View the results here.

Skin in the Game.

Posted on April 14, 2021

Featured Image for Skin in the Game.

Biden Proposes a New First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit.

It’s almost a fundamental American faith that people should own houses and that policymakers should encourage them to do so. Whether that is wise policy is a question to which we will return often in this housing policy series. Commentators have suggested that homebuying incentives jack up the price of houses, that home ownership is not actually that good an investment, that “bone-headed” home ownership policies helped crash the economy in 2008, that home ownership is supported by racially exclusionary land use policies, that home ownership encourages the commodification of housing, and that home ownership culture is associated with retrograde political forces. Nevertheless, the American dream of home ownership is very much alive. The financial, social and psychological benefits of home ownership have been widely studied, and some say policymakers, if anything, aren’t doing enough.

Down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers is an enduring and effective tool for those who wish to see new opportunities for home ownership. It comes in various forms and has been tried by financial service providers and by governments at all levels. The topic moved up on the federal housing agenda when the Biden campaign proposed “a new, refundable, advanceable tax credit of up to $15,000.” This idea hasn’t yet moved to the legislative action stage, but there’s no reason why we can’t use the occasion to think about down payment assistance.

We can place the Biden plan in the proper context by taking a look first at some of the down payment assistance plans that have already been implemented. The City of Greensboro offers one. To be eligible for that program, a buyer who has not owned a home for at least three years can obtain a forgivable, interest-free second mortgage loan to finance up to $10,000 of the purchase price – and an additional $5,000 if the home is located in a designated redevelopment zone – but not to exceed 20%. The homeowner must have secured from a private financial institution a fixed-rate, 15- or 30-year FHA, VA or conventional first mortgage and must have a little skin in the game – at least $500 of their own funds. Household income can’t exceed 120% of area median income for a one- or two-person household, or 140% for a three or more-person household. The loan is forgiven at the rate of 20% for each year the homeowner remains in the home, with the loan completely forgiven after five years.

Let’s examine what this Greensboro plan does, and what it does not do. It does erase one of the most important barriers to home ownership encountered by low-income buyers – savings which are inadequate to make a down payment. It does promote stability in housing through the device of loan forgiveness. By pegging loan forgiveness to years in the home, the plan favors those home buyers who are willing to make long-term investments in the home and in the neighborhood.

But perhaps the Greensboro plan does not necessarily offer a pathway to home ownership for low-income buyers. For one thing, the assistance is available to households with up to 140% of AMI – $84,700 according to the City’s DPA fact sheet, or more than twice the income of a “low-income individual” under federal regulations. Then, it does little to overcome other barriers to home ownership: high levels of debt, poor credit and, of course, low-income. Not unreasonably, the predicate for assistance under the Greensboro and similar second mortgage plans is the prospective buyer’s eligibility for a first mortgage. That 140 AMI household has a solid chance of qualifying, while the 50 or 80 AMI, not so much. And these barriers can’t be laid solely at the feet of down payment assistance programming; the entire home subsidy system is geared to keep low-income people in rental housing and stacked against low-income home buyers. That’s why some commentators have suggested expanding the Section 8 voucher program to cover down payment assistance.

When Democrats turned their attention to down payment assistance, they thought “tax credit,” as they often do, rather than voucher or loan. The Home Buyer Tax Credit of 2009 was a key Obama administration initiative offered in the wake of the housing market collapse. The Obama plan built on a tax credit first signed into law the previous year by President Bush, but in an expanded and more generous form: whereas the Bush credit was in effect a loan and must be repaid in installments over fifteen years from the date of purchase, President Obama’s was a true credit and did not have to be repaid. Moreover, if the tax payable by the buyer proved insufficient to absorb the entire credit, the balance would be issued as a refund. The tax credit was available to “first-time buyers”, a misnomer really meaning a buyer who has not owned a home for at least three years. Covering 10% of the purchase price up to a maximum of $8,000, the program was expanded later in 2009 to include “existing” homeowners who had been living in their home for at least five of the last eight years and wished to purchase a new principal residence.

But importantly, under the Obama plan the buyer must advance the down payment from their own funds, and wait until tax time to claim the credit. This kind of credit structure falls short of fully addressing the savings barrier we mentioned in connection with the Greensboro plan, let alone the other, more intractable barriers to low-income home ownership. Rather than to encourage low-income home ownership as such, the Obama tax credit had a quite different objective – to stimulate a housing market ravaged by foreclosure and devaluation. As we will see, the Biden plan faces a decidedly different set of market conditions.

From the framework proposal so far announced by the Biden administration we can make out a tax credit plan that is yet more generous than the Obama tax credit. This one will cover up to $15,000, and this one will be advanceable, meaning the buyer won’t have to come out of pocket for the down payment; the federal government will disburse the amount of the credit in cash at closing. On tax day, if the buyer’s taxable income proves insufficient to absorb the credit, the buyer won’t have to cover the balance.

This generous tax credit, like many tax credits, is a complex of sometimes conflicting objectives and consequences. There is some indication that down payment relief of this kind could make home ownership affordable for as many as ten million renters, with monthly payments not exceeding one-third of their income – assuming low mortgage interest rates and a home priced in the median range. But as we mentioned, unlike the one Presidents Bush and Obama faced, today’s market is characterized by “sky-high prices and slim pickings.” Some worry that a generous tax credit could stimulate demand and end up making the market situation even worse. And absent direct subsidies, this policy package could end up helping builders more than it helps low-income buyers.

Let’s look at one more question swirling around down payment assistance programs as a whole. It turns out that removing the savings barrier to home ownership might have a downside, with zero down payment buyers defaulting on their mortgage loans at significantly higher rates than buyers who make down payments. Though the reasons for this aren’t clear, there are theories. While a lack of sufficient savings is not a condition of eligibility for down payment assistance, it may be that the subcategory of buyers who lack savings are less able to meet the expenses of home ownership. Or it may be that those with skin in the game – a financial stake in the home – are more likely to have the level of commitment adequate to sustain home ownership.

But high default rates need not be an inevitable consequence of down payment assistance, and careful program design could address this apparent defect. One nonprofit provider of down payment assistance offered an integrated program combining financial assistance with financial counseling, home buyer education, loan servicing, real estate brokerage services and an incentivized savings program. Low or zero down payment buyers who participated in the program defaulted in the first two years of ownership significantly less often than those who did not participate in the program, and better in some cases than buyers who made larger down payments.

References

Zoning Reform Very Lite.

Posted on April 21, 2021

Featured Image for Zoning Reform Very Lite.

Accessory Dwelling Units Won’t Dent the Affordable Housing Crisis.

ADUs are buzzy, they’re attractive, they’re problem solvers, they represent a zoning reform that might be achievable and might actually add some affordable housing units, and all without really having to challenge the prevailing order. But how much good it will really do in the end, is the subject of this post.

A 2008 HUD publication offered a definition that seems to have stuck: “additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit.” The ADU may be attached to the main house, or a part of the main house’s interior, for example in the basement or a converted garage, or it can be a free-standing detached structure, or it can be above the detached garage. They can be very appealing, being less expensive to build than a conventional single-family dwelling and able to utilize an excess portion of the existing lot. ADUs can bring in rental income or provide a home for an in-law or aging parent, or an aging child for that matter just entering the workforce, helping cities adapt to the changing needs of multigenerational households. Before World War II, “they were a common feature in single-family housing,” but as low-density suburban landscapes captured – and stultified – the American imagination, ADUs were outlawed in one town after another. Increasingly, insisted the purists, single-family meant single-family!

In this post we’ll review recent developments, which have positioned the ADU as a new-old way to increase the stock of housing in neighborhoods traditionally resistant to innovation and added density. But first, let’s look at this resistance. That so much effort and controversy is being devoted to what is an extremely modest set of reforms is evidence of the sacrosanctity of single-family zoning in America. Let’s look at that.

Single-family residential is the predominant land use in American cities, so what’s allowed there makes a big difference. In Greensboro this is visibly the case: the pale tan color on the zoning map shown at the top of this page is single-family residential – by far the largest zoning distribution category. In some suburban centers, the percentage “approaches ubiquity,” and even some big cities like Charlotte and San Jose exceed 80% single-family. In a single-family zoning district, no other structure than a detached single-family home may be built, not an apartment building, and more to the point, not even an apartment for grandmother.

Americans began as early as 1900 to think of multifamily residential buildings as inimical to good citizenship, conducive to drink, and downright evil. That view was memorialized forever by the Supreme Court in the landmark case that established the modern zoning system, setting the tone for generations when it called the apartment house “a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district.” Ever since, a single-family home has been a signifier of middle class status and the achievement of the American dream, and ever since, homeowners have appeared at rezoning hearings to denounce apartments in terms at least as inflammatory and inaccurate as those used a hundred years ago.

The critique, too, is a hundred years old. The single-family housing model was denounced then as an American fetish, and denounced last year as “the most inequitable and environmentally destructive practice in North American planning.” The Biden administration has taken steps to eliminate it. Today, the critique is two-fold. First, single-family zoning promotes segregation and wealth inequality. By limiting access to neighborhoods and even to entire cities to those able to purchase large and expensive dwellings, it excludes low- and many middle-income people. Public policies that inflate home values make homeowners happy but homes unaffordable to everyone else. In this way, single-family land use “has been weaponized against those members of society with the fewest resources.” Second, it exacerbates the climate crisis through reliance on inefficient and wasteful building types and high rates of automobile use to connect homes located far from commercial centers.

This dismal record on our two most acute social challenges explains the rising chorus of voices seeking zoning reform. Some proposals are sweeping, but some seek just modest increases in housing density, and of these, the ADU reform should perhaps be the least offensive. The ADU more than any of the alternatives leaves unchanged the single-family character of the neighborhood, with ordinances limiting the size to a fraction of the main house’s floor area, requiring additional off-street parking, ensuring the property maintains a single-family appearance from the street and, sometimes, requiring the ADU match the materials and style of the main house. Often the owner is required to live in either the main house or the ADU, as a hedge against undesirable renters, and some ordinances limit the number of ADUs on a block.

But the ordinances themselves act as barriers to ADU development. Permitting can be costly and cumbersome; construction, while cheaper than what a full-size house would cost, is still expensive; and an ADU can cause property taxes to rise. When the main objective of ADU ordinances is to calm homeowners’ nerves, the ordinances become too restrictive. Ordinances permitting ADUs aren’t actually uncommon, even in North Carolina – Asheville, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh and Wilmington have ordinances permitting ADUs – but not many of them actually get built.

Moves to ease the restrictions are not uncommon, either. Wilmington has been debating an expanded ADU ordinance for two years, extending it to all districts, increasing the size limit and easing the parking space requirements, yet fears of unruly renters, greedy investors, Airbnb’s and overtaxed infrastructure have delayed action. Greensboro planners have on occasion promoted greater use of ADUs, but no specific proposal has been introduced.

Restrictive regulation may be only one of several barriers to ADU uptake, and there are indications that, even in places where ordinances are most permissive, ADUs are proving not to be the hoped-for solution to the affordable housing shortage. High on the list of those places would be California, which beginning in 2016 adopted a series of statewide laws mandating liberal ADU regulations in all cities and counties, with streamlined approvals and generous size limits and parking space requirements. This legislation spurred the construction of a significant number of ADUs, as has similar local legislation in Portland, Oregon, yet hardly enough to make a dent in the need. Barriers remain that can’t necessarily be overcome through liberal legislation. Lack of financing, lack of desire, lack of awareness, site limitations and concern about the character of the neighborhood were cited by California homeowners as reasons not to build ADUs. Absent regulatory controls, ADU rents aren’t necessarily affordable. And researchers found that even under the statutory regime, some municipalities found ways to resist ADU development. Some observers are concluding that, notwithstanding the buzz, the ADU ordinances just aren’t going to have much of an impact.

More aggressive measures will be needed. Housing reform that’s invisible and doesn’t actually change anything is destined to fall short. The hallowed tradition of single-family zoning will have to be confronted honestly rather than sneakily. And the roadmap for this confrontation is becoming clear. Cities needn’t abandon density limits; they can move to a medium- rather than a high-density approach. Single-family districts will make room not necessarily for hundred-unit apartment blocks but for the “missing middle” consisting of twins, duplexes, fourplexes and townhouses. These won’t hide behind big single-family homes; they will be visible from the street, but limitations as to materials, density and form will preserve the character of the neighborhoods. This approach really could increase materially the number of dwelling units in a neighborhood, while maintaining the neighborhood’s human scale. None of these building types is allowed in single-family residential districts as they are constituted now, and the purists will fight to keep them out just as they have fought everything else, but reformers are knocking on the door and they are being persistent.

Pathbreaking proposals on these lines have been offered just in the last few weeks here in North Carolina. Bills have been introduced in the House and Senate  to mandate liberal ADU ordinances and prohibit regulations that unreasonably block missing middle housing. Sweeping zoning reforms have been proposed in Asheville and Charlotte. With opponents already issuing dire warnings of the end of the American dream, progress will be slow. But gradually, with cities across the country chipping away at it, the edifice of single-family zoning may really begin to crumble.

References

News & Record: Greensboro among top cities in the nation for evictions

Posted on May 06, 2018

Featured Image for News & Record: Greensboro among top cities in the nation for evictions

On May 4, 2018, Richard M. Barron of the News and Record covered a new survey by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab that ranks Greensboro seventh in the nation:

“That Greensboro landed in the top 10 is probably a surprise to many.

“According to data from The Center for Housing and Community Studies at UNC-Greensboro, the reasons are varied.

“• Affordable housing here is in short supply. Developers are more likely to build upscale apartments because rent from those properties can draw a bigger profit margin.

“• More than half the renters in Greensboro are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing, falling into a category the UNCG center calls “cost burdened.” That designation is thought to apply to about 20,000 renters.

“• Many landlords don’t keep low-cost housing well maintained. For renters, that means spending more money on utilities just to heat and cool badly insulated apartments or homes, siphoning away money that could go toward rent.

“• Rents are rising. A new survey by Yardi Matrix, a real estate research firm, shows that rents in Greensboro are up by 3.8 percent in April compared to this time last year — an average of $848 a month. Wages, by comparison, have stagnated.

“Stephen Sills, director of the UNCG center and an associate professor of sociology, is starting an eviction “diversion” program that he hopes will chip away at the problem.

“‘We really just need more creative solutions to providing housing to all segments of the market,’ he said.”

Read the full story here.

UNCG & Guilford County join MetroLab Network

Posted on May 02, 2018

Featured Image for UNCG & Guilford County join MetroLab Network

Bringing data, analytics and innovation to local government

Very excited by our partnership with Guilford County Government on important community projects including Guilford County Solution to the Opioid Problem​ and the CHCS Eviction Diversion Research Project.

UNC Greensboro and Guilford County have announced a joint agreement as the newest members of the innovative MetroLab Network, a network of 37 regional city/county-university partnerships focused on bringing data, analytics and innovation to local government.

UNCG and Guilford County are one of only five county-university MetroLab partnerships in the nation. Network members research, develop and deploy technologies and policy approaches to address challenges facing cities and communities across the country. MetroLab was launched by 21 founding city-university pairings in September 2015 as part of the White House’s Smart Cities Initiative.

MetroLab Network’s government-university partnerships are relationships in which the university serves as a research and development arm, and the government agencies serve as a test-bed for technologies and data-driven approaches. Faculty members and students gain access to real-world laboratories to develop and test tools and programs that utilize information technology, data analytics, sensing and more.

“We are excited about this partnership and the immense potential it holds for the future,” said UNCG Chancellor Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. “By leveraging our collective resources, we are able to fast-track positive outcomes for the UNCG community and Guilford County. As the largest public university in the Triad, we are committed to sharing our research, technology and innovation to enhance the place we call home.”

Local governments benefit from their technical expertise, leading to solutions that reduce the cost of infrastructure and services, making local governments more sustainable and resilient, and improve citizens’ quality of life. MetroLab Network members are working on more than 100 “research, development and deployment” projects with broad impact on areas such as improving transportation and water systems, reducing the energy footprint in cities, advancing health and public safety goals, using data to improve human services and more.

“Guilford County is thrilled to be part of the national MetroLab network. We look forward to strengthening our partnership with UNCG,” said Alan Branson, chairman of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners. “Their expertise and research interests align with many of the county’s priorities and open data initiatives, so it makes great sense for us to jointly explore and test innovative ways to improve our community and make progress on our common goals and generate real benefits for Guilford County.”

MetroLab Network connects these government-university partnerships via a national, collaborative platform that facilitates the sharing of information and the scaling of technology and solutions across the country.

By becoming members of MetroLab Network, UNCG and Guilford County have signed a memorandum of understanding and agreed to undertake at least three research, development and deployment projects addressing opioid abuse, substance abuse interventions and the prevention of homelessness through eviction diversion strategies.

“We are thrilled to welcome Guilford County and UNC Greensboro to our network,” said Ben Levine, executive director of MetroLab Network. “Their focus on innovation and technology will help drive progress in the cities and regions that are addressing similar issues across the country. Furthermore, their collaboration with our extensive national network of cities and universities will accelerate progress throughout Guilford County on many of its priorities.”

“Guilford County + University of North Carolina, Greensboro Guilford County and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro are joining the network, working on projects focused on housing and homelessness, public safety, and open data.

The Homeless Prevention Eviction Diversion Program Pilot, one of their joint efforts, will work to reduce the displacement of families and individuals from their homes through unfair and unnecessary eviction. Additionally, the partnership will focus on the “Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment” (SBIRT) Pilot and a effort to develop data-driven responses to the opioid crisis.”

https://metrolabnetwork.org/metrolab-network-welcomes-four-new-partnerships/

https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2018/05/01/uncg-and-guilford-county-partner-to-research.html

Focus Group Participants Needed $25

Posted on March 20, 2018

Featured Image for Focus Group Participants Needed $25

The Center for Housing and Community Studies is looking for focus group participants to review an app created by Greensboro AHEC that aims to help health providers, citizens, and first responders access information about drug treatment options in their area. The focus group discussion will take place on March 27 at 7pm, and participants will receive a $25 gift card for their time, as well as a free parking pass for the Oakland parking deck.

Fox8: Speakers to address important social topics during all-day forum in Greensboro

Posted on March 15, 2018

Featured Image for Fox8: Speakers to address important social topics during all-day forum in Greensboro

On March 7, 2018, Katie Nordeen of Fox8 covered the upcoming TEDxGreensboro event, interviewing CHCS director Sills:

“Sills would like to convey the importance of visualizing data to better inform the public and policymakers of pertinent issues.

“‘We’re faced with many social problems today and we need to be the most informed that we can on how to solve those,’ Sills said.”

Read the full story here.

WFMY News 2: Program Takes New Approach to Fighting Overdoses in Guilford County

Posted on May 20, 2018

Featured Image for WFMY News 2: Program Takes New Approach to Fighting Overdoses in Guilford County

On March 9, 2018, Carly Flynn Morgan covered GC STOP, for WFMY News 2: 

“GC STOP gives first responders and hospital personnel new tools to help addicts. Those who have overdosed will receive a recovery kit including Narcan and information about a 24-hour hotline which connects the addict to a survivor in recovery. With the addict’s permission, EMS or hospital personnel forwards their contact information to the program and a survivor contacts them rapidly and repeatedly with support and information about treatment.”

Read the full story here.

News and Record: Guilford County program works to reduce opioid-related deaths, provide support

Posted on March 15, 2018

Featured Image for News and Record: Guilford County program works to reduce opioid-related deaths, provide support
Aerial photos of campus

On March 8, 2018, Andre L. Taylor wrote about the Guilford County Solution to the Opioid Problem program in the News & Record: 

“Last year, the county saw more than 100 deaths related to opioids, according to Guilford County EMS. In another 700 instances, opioid overdoses were caught in time to be “reversed,” which is usually done by administering a drug called Narcan. Through February, there have been 173 opioid overdoses in Guilford County, with 12 opioid-related deaths.

“On Thursday, officials gathered in Greensboro to announce a possible local solution to the epidemic.

“Stakeholders involved with the Guilford County Solution to the Opioid Problem program introduced the initiative on the campus of UNC-Greensboro.

“The program, GCSTOP, focuses on following up with people who have overdosed on opioids and are looking for help. Addicts can call GCSTOP to arrange a meeting with someone who can walk them through the process to get treatment or counseling.

“Stephen Sills, one of the founders of GCSTOP, said the program is necessary in the fight against opioid addiction because it focuses on getting rid of the stigma that comes with being an addict and strengthens relationships with those who can help.

“‘In 2018, we want to reduce opioid-related deaths in Guilford County by 20 percent,’ said Sills, director of the Center for Housing and Community Studies at UNCG. ‘It’s an obtainable goal.'”

Read the full story here.

A Community-Engaged Response to The Opioid Problem

Posted on February 28, 2018

Guilford County Solution to the Opioid Problem (GCSTOP) ProgramLike many places across the U.S., Guilford County is trying to determine how to best address the opioid epidemic and stop the illicit use of prescription opioids and heroin. In 2017 alone, there were over 700 opioid overdose reversals and 100 verified opioid/heroin overdose deaths (EMS, Guilford County, 2017).The impact on health and loss of life reflected in these statistics underscore the need address risky use practice and to get users to turn to treatment rather than continuation of drug use. A new program, a partnership between UNCG Center for Housing and Community Studies and the Government of Guilford County, will design and implement a rapid response program intended to decrease mortality from opioid overdoses among the opioid user population. Our program goal for 2018 is to reduce the incidence of deaths due to opioid overdose in Guilford County by 20% (n~36 case reduction from 2017 accounting for regional trends in increase/decrease as monitored by NC Detect).The Guilford County Solution to the Opioid Problem (GCSTOP) program will engage citizens who overdose and who are at high risk of overdose in harm reduction practices, distribute and train on the use of naloxone (a life-saving narcotic antagonist), conduct community health education, coordinate community resources with other community partners (C.U.R.E. Triad), and build relationships focused on ending opioid overdose. Recent funding to the County Emergency Services from the State General Assembly will be used to support the development and initial implementation of a Rapid Response Team (RRT) intervention designed to reduce the negative consequences of use (i.e., harm reduction) and eventually convince users to enter treatment.The program will be monitored and evaluated by the UNCG Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships. Research and evaluation findings will be disseminated through a white paper series, community forums, academic and professional conference presentations, journal articles, and media releases.