1.2.1 Proportion of population living below the national poverty line

QUICK LINKS:

 

Race and Income

 

Homelessness

 

Zoning & Housing Policies

 

Advocacy

 

MEAN PER CAPITA INCOME: NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA

Mean per capita income for the total population in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars using 2019 American Community Survey data.

HOMELESSNESS

“Homelessness is an experience, not a characteristic. While the numbers behind the causes of homelessness don’t tell us exactly how many people experience homelessness…they do explain why the economic landscape makes homelessness likely for so many.”

The Journey Home: Baltimore’s Plan to Make Homelessness Rare and Brief

As of 2019, nearly 17% of DC residents lived in poverty, with over 6,500 people experiencing homelessness — twice the national average. Low wages, high cost of living, and inadequate access and distribution of affordable housing are all critical causes — and the true impact of the COVID-19 pandemic remains unclear. The most recent numbers reported by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness estimate:

• Total Homeless Population: 6,500
• Total Family Households Experiencing Homelessness: 770
• Veterans Experiencing Homelessness: 300
• Persons Experiencing Chronic Homelessness: 1450
• Unaccompanied Young Adults (18-24) Experiencing Homelessness: 250

‘Homelessness’ refers to an individual or family lacking access to stable, safe, or permanent housing — and each experience is unique. Among the national homeless population, there is an even larger population of students living at least part of the year “on the street, in cars, shelters, motels, or ‘doubled up’ with other families in houses or apartments.” In DC, this includes nearly 7,500 children, with over 1,800 students living in shelters and just under 5,000 ‘doubled up.’

Homelessness is a nuanced issue that requires us to look at the roles of gender, race, age, and sexuality in influencing vulnerability and housing instability. Among women, a primary factor is escaping domestic violence — over 90% of homeless women nationally are survivors of physical or sexual abuse. In DC, women stay in shelters for an average of 27 days, slipping in and out of homelessness.

Share of the Population that is Experiencing Homelessness (2021)

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, insufficient income and lack of affordable housing are the leading causes of homelessness nationally. Low income households — typically unemployed or underemployed — do not earn enough to pay for food, clothing, transportation and housing. This can be due to a number of factors: challenging labor market, limited education, gap in work history, criminal record, unreliable transportation, poor health or disability. These individuals or families are then up against a large-scale affordable housing crisis, wherein the supply of low-cost housing has shrunk nationally. Across DC, Maryland, and Virginia, housing developments are booming — but are almost exclusively luxury apartments. DC has approximately three times more affordable housing units than Montgomery County, but the challenge is that subsidized units are heavily concentrated in areas without reliable access to transportation, employment opportunities, healthy foods, and comprehensive healthcare. This ultimately traps people in cycles of poverty — and homelessness Meanwhile, the national availability of low income housing continues to decline following years of budget cuts from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. As that availability continues to decline, a growing number of low-income families contribute a larger percentage of their income towards housing annually, increasing their vulnerability to housing instability and homelessness. Nationwide, 8 million people currently spend over half of their income on housing.

Conceptualizing the severity of the housing crisis in the National Capital Area requires comparisons to national trends, as persisting gaps in state-wide data collection in Maryland and Virginia make it difficult to offer comprehensive comparison at the city or ward level. Taking a closer look at a city like Baltimore, we see parallel issues to DC: nearly half of all renters spend 35% or more of their income on rent while 25% of residents live at or below the national poverty line. One critical challenge — we don’t know exactly how many people are experiencing homelessness. The “point in time” methodology — utilized by most of the studies cited here — count only in certain areas of cities and during certain hours, and follows the narrow definitions of homelessness set by HUD.

Most Minority Groups Make Up a Larger Share of the Homeless Population than They Do of the General Population

Race and ethnicity of those experiencing homelessness compared with the general population

Homelessness encapsulates how interconnected the SDGs truly are — it demonstrates the detrimental intersections between poverty, the labor market, access to transportation, housing, gender equity, healthcare, and racial justice. As such, there is no simple solution — increasing the availability of affordable housing is only a preliminary step. Economic stability and mobility will require a holistic approach to poverty, one that considers how the dimensions of race and gender factor in, alongside geography, urban planning, proximity to decent wages, and affordability of health services.

With the availability of new census data by 2022 (further contextualizing the impact of the pandemic on long-term poverty trends), in addition to new partnerships with direct services providers in cities across the National Capital Area, our aim is to (1) fill in the data gaps for cities in Virginia and Maryland, (2) develop and report a shared methodology across stakeholder groups for evaluating the driving factors of homelessness, and (3) produce a more granular comparison across geographies of how these multifaceted challenges interact with one another.

Summary of the Findings of the 2022 Point-in-Time Count

According to an April 2022 announcement by Mayor Muriel Bowser, homelessness in DC has dropped 13.7% between 2021 and 2022, a slightly smaller decrease than the 19.1% drop between 2020 and 2021. This number comes from a federally required point-in-time report, which is an annual tally of persons counted sleeping on the streets on a specific night in January.  According to the 2022 point-in-time count, 4,410 people were counted sleeping on the streets, compared to 5,111 in January 2021. This count categorized people experiencing homelessness by race and their status as part of a family group, an individual, or a person experiencing chronic homelessness. This year’s report also still showcases a significant racial disparity in people experiencing homelessness, with 86% of people counted being Black, with a median age of 52. The point-in-time method, mandated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has been met with criticism due to its lack of account for people experiencing homelessness who are not on the streets, in shelters, or in transitional housing. This includes people living in motels and people who ‘couch-surf’, in which they stay with various relatives and friends. Housing advocates instead have advocated for a shift towards real-time, person-specific data collection that involves systems like the by-name listing, which accounts for people experiencing homelessnes by name, regardless of status as sheltered or undsheltered, and is updated monthly. 

However, in DC, which still relies on point-in-time tallies, Mayor Bowser has asserted that ending homelessness is a priority and utilizes the annual point-in-time data collection to inform affordable housing policy for the next year. This includes a one-year pilot program that closes tent encampments and instead offers some people experiencing homelessness one-year leases. This has resulted in significant criticism from DC housing advocates, as many persons in the camps are not included for placement on housing waiting lists. As of the 2022 count, The Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, the organization responsible for administering the count, has attributed federal aid to alleviate difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as a primary reason for the higher decrease between 2020 and 2021. However, the DC Department of Housing and Human Services has asserted that DC was trending in the right direction before the pandemic, having decreased homelessness by 46% since 2016 according to point-in-time accounts. Going forward into 2023, Mayor Bowser has announced a $31 million request to build 500 permanent housing units for individuals, 260 for families, and 10 for youth, which would aid in ending homelessness in the city. However, Mayor Bowser’s plans for affordable housing have yet to be fully funded in the final implementation of each annual budget. 

Housing Policy: Federal Programs, Case Study Analysis, and Housing Advocacy

Housing policies, and by extension zoning policies, and gentrification are inextricably linked. However, the question of whether gentrification is a cause or consequence of housing and zoning policy remains a contested issue. In an attempt to answer this question, this section assess the scope of gentrification and respective housing/zoning policies in three cities: Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA, and Denver, CO, all of which have high rates of gentrification. This study will first provide an overview of federal statutes and regulations on housing and zoning policy, including the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act(s), Section 8 and tenant-based voucher programs, and other programs included within the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget . Secondly, the following sections will evaluate each city, breaking down state and local laws that dictate city housing and zoning policy. Each case is framed with a specific emphasis on the impact of gentrification measures on minority communities and will include current policy efforts to combat against housing discrimination. These studies will then inform an analysis of whether gentrification is a cause or consequence of housing and zoning policies.

Federal Policy: Housing

The history of Federal housing policy is fraught with discriminatory practices and limited resources. The primary foundation for much of present day US housing policy is the 1933 founding of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the 1937 Housing Act, which established the country’s public housing system in the wake of the Great Depression. This act provided subsidies and financial support to local housing authorities around the country in order to eradicate unsafe living environments. Within the 1937 Act was also the authorization to build public housing, or housing funded by the federal government to support low-income families and households. However, many of these projects were geared towards white-only communities, a trend that was enforced by the practice of redlining, in which the FHA would refuse to insure mortgages in African-American communities and enforce segregation policies. Segregationist housing policy was further expanded in the next three decades through additional policies, including the 1944 G.I bill, which guaranteed over 2 million home loans for white WWII veterans, but denied aid to African American and other People of Color. Other policies, such as The 1956 Federal Highways Act, which supported the construction of a national highway system, came at the cost of displacing many low-income and minority communities. Further, the Act, while promoting the movement of white middle-class communities to the suburbs, left many urban communities without resources as businesses followed migration patterns. 

It was not until 1968, with the passing of the Fair Housing Act, that discrimination  against anyone buying or renting a homewas prohibited, with a specific emphasis on low-income individuals’ access to federally funded housing opportunities. The 1974 amendment to the act, known as Section 8 provided additional housing aid through the creation of a vouchers system, which allowed low-income families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the rest would be covered by federal aid. After the passing of Section 8, housing policy was restricted with the 1974 Nixon moratorium on subsidized housing programs in an effort to transition into more locally-based programs. Further, the 1992 Hope VI program, which entailed the demolition of more than 98,000 public housing units to be replaced with mixed-income units, resulted in significant displacement of low income families. Finally, the 1999 Faircloth Amendment prevented the construction of any new public housing beyond the number present in 1999, which curtailed the supply needed to meet high demand for low-income housing. Throughout the 21st century, public housing has been frequently rehabilitated and renovated through programs such as Rental Assistance Development (RAD), voucher systems, and project-based rental assistance, which allows low-income households to find housing in the private market. 

At present, the federal government utilizes two primary offices in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD ) to deal with housing assistance: the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) and the Housing Office. HUD allocates a set budget for these offices every fiscal year aimed towards supporting housing programs that aid low and middle come residents, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and Native American communities. In FY 2022, HUD allocated $34.8 billion to PIH and $14.6 billionth Housing Office. President Biden’s budget for FY 2023 increases both the PIH and Housing Office budgets to address rising housing crises, requesting $42.3 billion and $16.7 billion respectively. Below are the primary federal housing programs administered by HUD: 

• Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): The CDBG program allocates funds for both housing and non-housing projects. These funds can be used for community development as well as affordable housing measures. CDBG is a federal program that allocates funds that can be applied differently to cities depending on individual local strategies to achieve the objectives of providing suitable living environments, creating economic opportunities, and providing decent housing

• HOME Investment Partnerships Program: This program comprises the largest Federal block grant for state and local governments that is geared towards affordable housing. HOME grants go to state and local governments, who often work with nonprofits and community organizations to buy, renovate or rehabilitate homes to transition them into affordable housing units, or provide direct rental assistance to low-income families.

• Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA), under PIH, is also known as the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, and is the largest of the types of income-targeted appropriated assistance. TBRA provides rental subsidies to individuals, rather than a property, and is normally used to cover costs a renter cannot afford, such as security deposits and the difference between what a tenant can afford and the actual cost of rent. TBRA differs from other rental assistance programs in that it moves with an individual tenant, allowing them to move between properties without losing their aid. 

• Section 8 Assistance: The Section 8 program falls under the category of TBRA and has become more commonly known as general HCVs. The Section 8 programs includes multiple types of rental assistance, including project-based rental assistance (PBRA), in which aid is tied to a specific unit, and HCVs, in which a tenant is able to live in any housing that participates in rental-assistance programs. Section 8 assistance normally requires a tenant to pay 30% of their monthly income towards housing before providing a voucher to make up the difference.

• The Public Housing Fund: The Public Housing Fund under PIH is another major appropriated program that supports public housing, or housing that is funded by the federal government to support low income individuals and families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.   There are two funds within the Public Housing Fund: the Public Housing Operating Fund, which, similar to HCVs, cover the difference between the rent that tenants pay and development and operating costs, and the Public Housing Capital Fund which funds renovation and development projects that provide new appliances, heating and cooling systems, and other basic utilities to public housing units. 

• Demonstration Programs: Demonstration programs are HUD initiatives meant to test new strategies and policies for housing assistance. These programs are usually implemented through a set number of public housing agencies. One example of these programs is the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, or RAD. Founded by Congress in 2012, RAD’s purpose is to aid in curbing the $26 billion in backlogged capital improvement needs by allowing public housing agencies to convert existing public housing units into long-term Section-8 contracts, which allow the agencies to utilize both public and private capital to finance rehabilitation and renovation projects. The RAD program has been considered controversial, due to concerns over tenant displacement and a loss of available public housing units to private contracts

• Moving to Work: Moving to Work (MTW) is another major demonstration program that the Biden Administration has aimed to expand. Enacted by Congress in 1996, MTW allows public housing agencies to enact “non traditional” initiatives and policies to achieve three objectives: increase cost effectiveness for federal expenditures, provide incentives for tenants to find employment and achieve self-sufficiency, and increase housing choice for low-income families. Participating public housing agencies are largely exempt from HCV and public housing rules and have the freedom to combine public housing and HCV funds into a “block grant” to allow them to implement locally designed strategies to achieve the three objectives.

• Project Based Rental Assistance: Project Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) is a program under the Housing Office or PIH  in which the federal government provides rental assistance at properties owned privately. Low-income tenants normally pay 30% of their income towards rent, while the federal government covers the gap. Additionally, the Project Based Voucher program (PBV) under PIH, allows public housing agencies to set aside up to 20% of their set HCV unit quantity for the construction or redevelopment of new projects which will be available to low-income tenants. As of 2021, 47% of tenants in PBRA programs are elderly and 17% are persons with disabilities. Section 8 project based contracts are the majority of PBRA funded programs. 

• Housing Credit: The Reagan Administration introduced the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which provides tax credits to developers who build low-income housing units. The credit resulted in the development of 3.5 million apartments, and has allowed over 8 million families to find housing. The process involves the Department of the Treasury allocating credits to State Housing Credit Agencies, who develop qualified action plans (QAPS) that outline local priorities and for low income housing development. Developers then apply for the credit and are selected through a competitive process. Selected developers who successfully build affordable housing units are granted federal tax credit so long as their project remains affordable for at least 30 years and is compliant with standard of living requirements for the first 15.

• Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act: Introduced by Congress first in 2017 and again in 2019 and 2021, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act aims to expand the housing credit by 50%, increase outreach to rural and native American communities, and preserve long-lasting affordable housing. The Act has maintained significant bipartisan support and is predicted to result in an additional 2 million homes over the next decade. Since the bill’s introduction in 2017, Congress passed a minimum 4% housing credit rate, a 12.5% increase for four years  in housing credit allocation, and has expanded the program to reach a broader number of low-income tenants. The 2021 bill asked for an acceleration of increasing the housing credit, provisions for low-income youth, and longer rebuilding periods after natural disasters, and currently sits in the Senate for passage.

Federal Policy: Zoning

Zoning policy is traditionally under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. At the federal level, zoning policy largely consists of incentives for or against exclusionary zoning, legal attributes, and general standards for states to follow. Zoning as a practice originated in Los Angeles in 1908 and New York City in 1916, and was legally upheld in the Supreme Court case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Zoning is defined as laws and regulations that designate the way land can be developed, including specific requirements regarding lot size, building specifications, and limitations on the size of dwelling units. Because of the fact that zoning is more of a localized power, the federal government is limited in what it can do to influence policy. Some key examples of this influence include the Telecommunications Act of 1966, which allows the federal government to override local land regulations that impede the construction of cell phone towers. The federal government also protects religious organizations and their right to land through the Religious Land Use and Industrialized Persons Act of 2000. Beyond these forms of regulation, the federal government can influence zoning by creating spending programs that incentivize the reduction of exclusionary zoning and can place conditions on allocated funds that pressure states to change zoning policies or risk losing the funds. In regards to legal representation, any private individual harmed by zoning practices can be supported in federal court. These major forms of federal influence are supported by several additional key pieces of legislation, as well as views of the Biden Administration. They have been included below to provide a bigger-picture analysis of zoning in the US: 

• Buchanan v. Warley (1917): The Supreme Court Decision Buchanan v. Warley  (1917) ruled that zoning based race was unconstitutional, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, which stated that African Americans were guaranteed the same civil rights as white Americans. This Supreme Court decision would prohibit future zoning to be based on race, resulting in cities using indirect methods to maintain segregated communities, such as changing zones from residential to industrial if the African American population was too high, resulting in displacement. 

• Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA): The Standard State Zoning Enabling Acts of 1924 and 1926 provide a standard process for zoning laws to be effectively copied throughout the nation. SZEA granted power to a legislative body to divide a local territory into specific districts (or zones) and included procedures for amending zoning regulations in the future. An essential component of SZEA is that a legislative body must be present to establish a zoning commission and begin the zoning process in a designated area. 

• Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA): Published in 1928, the SCPEA was a follow up act to SZEA that covered aspects of zoning at the city level, including the provisions for organization and power of the planning commission, the development of a master plan for the city, provisions for approval and adoption of the plan, details regarding private property and regulations regarding establishing regional planning committees and plans. 

Based on this legislation, President Biden announced plans to combat exclusionary zoning practices within his American Jobs Plan. However, the President does not possess direct authority to prohibit exclusionary zoning practices, and thus he has proposed the Unlocking Possibilities Program, which would provide $5 billion in grant money to incentivize cities to take steps to eliminate barriers to affordable housing due to zoning restrictions. This form of financial incentivization is a primary way the federal government to influence local zoning practices. In the previous administration, President Trump signed an executive order in an attempt to curb zoning practices to make way for affordable housing, but due to limited federal power in this area of policy, the order only applied to a few federal regulations.

A Closer Look: Washington, DC

Historically, Washington DC has utilized housing policies that are largely discriminatory against people of color and low-income families. Throughout the 19th and most of the 20th Centuries, the DC government embraced similar policies to those described at the Federal level, emphasizing the use of redlining and prioritizing construction subsidies and loans for white families while preventing Black families from accessing the same resources. Beginning with the Black Codes in the 1840s, which prevented Black people from owning and operating eating establishments, as well as the compensation white families received after their slaves were freed from bondage in the 1860s, DC policies emphasized building barriers to Black property ownership that lasted well into the 1970s. In the 1940s and 1950s, when white flight began in earnest, the government demolished key Black communities, such as Barry Farms, in favor of public housing and highway infrastructure. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the white population in DC decreased from 517,000 to 209,000, or by 33%, while the Black population increased by 47% as suburban housing costs increased and segregationist policies prevented people of color from living outside of the city. By the 1970s, urban renewal policies resulted in predominantly Black neighborhoods in southwest DC being redeveloped through eminent domain, with 1500 businesses and 6000 homes torn down with little compensation for over 23,000 residents. In their place, 5,800 largely single family homes were built to be inhabited by 13,000 middle and upper-middle class buyers. 

After the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the riots after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., many Black families left for the suburbs, though many houses subsidized by the act had already increased in price due to demand, limiting housing options. Additionally, the rise of single-use homes increased in higher income areas like Ward 3, while lower-income areas like Ward 8 retained multi-family structures, creating a form of de facto segregation as a result of systematic discrimination resulting in families of color having on average a lower median income. The key suburban location for many Black families between 1970 and 2005 was Prince George’s County, which would go on to become one of the wealthiest majority-Black counties in the US. At the same time, immigration to DC by Asian American, Latin American, and African communities increased, resulting in higher demand for affordable housing. After the 2008 crisis, low credit scores due to the financial strain of high-interest housing loans has resulted in a larger gap between white home ownership and home ownership by a person of color in 2016 than in 1900 as families still struggle to compete with increasing mortgage rates and monthly rent.  

In an effort to meet affordable housing demands and increase equity in home ownership, inclusive housing policy is a priority of the DC government under the leadership of Mayor Muriel Bower. DC affordable housing programs are allocated under the DC Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and the DC Housing Authority (DCHA), which allocates housing to low-income residents. Every five years, DHCD in partnership with the DC mayor creates a Consolidated Plan that comprises affordable housing objectives for the set period. The Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD for approval and includes two additional reports: The Annual Action plan, which specifies how specific programs and funds will be used to meet the wider objectives of the Consolidated Plan and the National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan which outlines allocation priorities for the National Housing Trust Fund. DC also is federally mandated to provide a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, which provides tax credits to investors who fund projects to build affordable housing. HUD has the right to evaluate and monitor DC progress throughout each year, DC is required to submit a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to ensure that appropriated programs meet basic HUD objectives. These objectives are: to provide decent housing, to create sustainable living environments, and to create economic opportunities. The current Consolidated Plan created under the leadership of Mayor Bowser is set for October 2016- September 2021, and a draft plan for 2022-2026 has already been published. 

The 2016-2021 Plan  allocated $284,314,553, a number that is set to change based on program income and appropriations for each housing program. The plan has 12 objectives: to preserve the existing federal and local subsidized housing, expand housing options, ensure that housing options are clean and safe, prevent and end homelessness, transform abandoned and vacant properties into community assets, address blighted and substandard housing issues, promote energy efficiency, increase access to neighborhood amenities, support small business and non profit organizational development, increase planning and research for community development. Meanwhile, the 2022-2026 Plan will have an estimated  $251,965,424 in funding for the duration of the project, a number that may change based on program income and appropriations This plan divides 12 objectives similar to those listed above into three overarching goals: access and availability, affordability, and sustainability. Both plans place an emphasis on the following housing programs: 

* Indicates applications of other federal aid that do not fit into the five specific programs outlined in the Consolidated Plan

In addition to these programs, DC also offers several low-income housing tax credits. Administered by DHCD, DC offers 4% and 9% low income tax credits to developers of new or rehabilitated rental housing in order to produce affordable housing units for low income or moderate income individuals. These tax credits are awarded on a competitive basis based on DC’s QAP Eligible recipients of DC low-income housing tax credits are for-profit or non-profit organizations in good standing with the District based on the Development Team Thresholds section in the QAP. Credits are awarded based on the applicant’s development plans aligning closest with the prioritized criteria outlined in DC’s affordable housing plans. 

However, despite these offered programs, DC faces significant challenges in regard to its affordable housing. As housing prices continue to increase in the DMV-area, more residents are in need of affordable housing units, but are met with significant hurdles when attempting to obtain them, resulting in criticism from both housing advocates and HUD. At the center of these criticisms is the DCHA, which is currently undergoing increased scrutiny as a result of HUD’s 2022 Assessment of the agency. The assessment identified five key issues within the agency that contribute to its failure to adhere to federally-mandated program requirements. This includes inadequate oversight, management, and knowledge of financial management and procurement functions, property management functions, and HCV programs, poor oversight of agency policies and operations by the DCHA Board of Commissioners, and failure to provide decent, sanitary, and safe housing options for program participants. As a result, HUD warned that,

“DCHA’s inability or refusal to take serious and immediate remedial action for the items or subjects identified in this assessment, and make material progress in resolving these issues, may eventually lead to HUD making a determination of DCHA’s default under Section 6(j)(3)(A) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and/or breach of DCHA’s Annual Contribution Contracts to provide HUD with a more effective set of remedial tools to assist DCHA in addressing these issues.”

In addition to these criticisms, HUD also identified DC as having the largest public housing vacancy out of all US major cities, with an occupancy rate of only 74%, with over 8,000 vacant affordable housing units, in comparison to the national average of a 95% occupancy rate. This comes in contrast to the goal set by DCHA Director Brenda Donald, which was to raise the occupancy rate by 10% from its March occupancy rate of 79%. Despite this low-occupancy rate, the waiting list to receive public housing units frequently sits at more than 20,000. As a result of these criticisms, the DC City Council is in the process of creating a new bill to overhaul DCHA’s operations and the structure of its Board of Commissioners. 

Current DC zoning is based on the Zoning Regulations of 2016, passed to update the previous regulations of 1958. At present, there are 19 residential zones, situated largely in Northwest DC in Wards 3, 4, and 7. Residential zones are of low to moderate residential density. There are five Residential Flat zones, or zones consisting primarily of row house dwellings, and are primarily located in Wards 1 and 6. Residential Apartment zones, or zones of moderate to high density residential areas, make up 10 zones, and are primarily located in Wards 1, 5, and 8. This zoning distribution is similar to the zones established before the Fair Housing Act of 1968, in which non-white residents were restricted to lower income, high-density residential areas, primarily in wards 5-8, while white residents lived in higher income, low to moderate detached homes in zones 2, 3 and 4. DC has committed to combating exclusionary zoning through the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) initiative of 2009, in which developers can build higher density residential complexes so long as 8-10% of units are set aside as affordable housing for low-income individuals and families. To live in a designated IZ unit, tenants must meet income requirements, which are 50-80% of the area median income, and must utilize the unit as their primary residence. Certain groups however, such as full time university students, may not live in IZ housing. Additionally, Mayor Bowser announced the addition of 36,000 new housing units, 12,000 of which to be reserved as affordable housing, to be distributed equally throughout the city by 2025. 

A Closer Look: San Fransisco, CA

San Francisco is a city notorious for its affordable housing crisis today, with 81% of homes in the city costing more than $1 million in 2019, but the roots of unequal housing can be traced back well into the 19th Century. Beginning with the 1878 Cubic Air Ordinance, which required 500 cubic feet of space per person in a room, San Francisco actively restricted housing against Chinese immigrants, who often were packed into single rooms. This policy resulted in hundreds of arrests for violating the ordinance, and thus displaced many low-income due to increasing housing costs. In 1906, restrictive housing policies continued after the 1906 earthquake destroyed 28,000 buildings, allowing for a redesign of the city’s layout in what would be the 1921 first zoning code. A key goal of this code was to create segregated communities based on income level, while landlords enforced racial segregation through contract provisions restricting who could be a potential tenant. This, in addition to redlining practices and financial institutions refusing to offer housing loans to families of color, increased the number of residents who were unable to afford housing in the city. 

In 1945, this issue was exasperated when regulators released the Master Plan, which would re-deveolp areas of “blight,” which coincidentally were majority non-white and lower class areas, in favor of improved public transit, roadways, and commercial spaces. This resulted in the destruction of several thousand businesses and households, leaving residents with limited housing options and little compensation for their displacement. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, lobbyists worked to achieve passage of a regulation enforcing a 40-foot height limit on residential structures, limiting available housing units , resulting in a one-third decrease in potential growth space. Throughout the remainder of the 20th Century and up until the 2008 housing crisis, anti-growth sentiment dominated San Francisco housing policy, favoring single-family and limited multi-family residences, strict building protocols, and limited high density residential zones Afterwards, with an average wealth decrease of 3.1% for many middle to lower-middle class families, the need for affordable housing increased significantly. However, affordable housing funding for San Francisco from the State of California’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, consistently declined from 1995 to 2016, exacerbating demand for affordable housing as the city is unable to provide the necessary units. 

To address this crisis, San Francisco bases their housing strategies on priorities outlined in multi-year Consolidated Plans, similar to DC. In the case of San Francisco, the city utilized four year plans with yearly budget allocations and progress reports to meet affordable housing objectives. The current Consolidated Plan is set from 2020 to 2024, with yearly budget allocations set by the Mayor. For FY 21 through FY 23, the  Mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, has allocated more than $1 billion in federal, state, and local funds to achieve several major objectives. These objectives include adding 4,000 new housing units, preventing homelessness and evictions, continue to fund a 40-bed homeless shelter, support two Safe Parking sites, or sites where individuals experiencing homelessness can park and sleep in their vehicles, and to ensure that all tenants on the city’s Permanent Supportive Housing program (PSH) pay no more than 30% of their income on rent. 

The San Francisco 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan has five overarching objectives: to ensure stable housing, to promote economic resilience and self-sufficiency, to stabilize communities at risk for displacement, to promote stable, healthy social and business  community infrastructure, and to eliminate causes of racial disparities in the city. The two offices responsible for administering the programs to achieve these goals are the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. San Francisco utilizes the same five programs as DC: CDBG, ESG, HOME, NHTF, and HOPWA. However, the plan places a specific emphasis on utilizing RAD and HOME program funding to achieve affordable housing goals. In  March 2022 San Francisco government published the Housing Element 2022 Update, which outlines the city’s housing objectives for the next eight years (2022-2030) and will focus specifically on racial and social equity in attempt to combat historical discrimination. This project will be used to evaluate housing needs to inform future decisions on affordable housing resource allocation and future affordable housing and community revitalization strategy. For further emphasized programs, see the table below: 

In addition to San Francisco’s emphasized housing programs, the California Qualified Action Plan allocates both 4% and 9% tax credits for developers who commit to constructing affordable housing units in their local areas. In San Francisco, 9%  tax credits are the most common and the majority of large family projects are situated in the low-income areas of the city. The tax credit applies to developers and requires that accepted projects adhere to the 20-50 rule, in which 20% of units are allocated for individuals earning 50% or less of an area median income, or the 40-60 rule, in which 40% of units are allocated for individuals earning 60% or less of the area median income. 

Modern San Francisco zoning laws have their origins in the 1878 Cubic Air Ordinance, which required a minimum amount of 500 cubic feet to be required per tenant in residences. As mentioned, this law is considered to be a primary example of how zoning laws were indirectly used to enforce segregation, as it was primarily enforced in communities with high Chinese immigrant populations. This policy would shape basic zoning laws for the next century in addition to events like the 1906 earthquake, resulting in strict  building height requirements and rehabilitation strategies that often resulted in minority group displacement as gentrification and rehabilitation took place across the city. As mentioned above, the establishment of the 1945 General Plan promoted the rebuilding of “blighted” neighborhoods, often through the use of eminent domain, increasing the threat of displacement for residents of those areas, who were often people of color and low income. Additionally, San Francisco also utilized redlining, in which no federal housing loans were allocated in these same low-income and minority neighborhoods. 

To further exacerbate the crisis, a culmination of growing environmental concerns, population booms, and dissatisfaction with city planning resulted in the 1978 Residential Rezoning, which implemented low-density requirements, 40 foot building height limits, and the eventual expansion of residential units into industrial zones. However, activism from housing groups like the Council of Community Housing Organizations, which protested against zoning restrictions throughout the 1980s, ultimately led to the first inclusive zoning policies for the city, known as the Inclusive Affordable Housing Policy in 1992. This policy would be expanded in 2002, 2006, and 2007 and continues to be in affect today, with the latest amendments to the policy occuring in 2017 and 2019. This policy requires that a project of 10 or more units must have a set percentage (between 10 and 17%) set aside as affordable, otherwise the developer is subject to a fee. This fee, known as the Affordable Housing Fee, was increased in 2019. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development works with each developer directly to determine the percentage of units to be set aside as affordable. At present, there are over 3,000 units allocated as affordable in San Francisco through the Inclusive Affordable Housing Program, in which qualified low and moderate income residents can apply for housing through a lottery system. 

A Closer Look: Denver, CO

Denver’s history of housing policy begins in the late 19th Century after the start of the gold rush and the development of the transcontinental railroad. The city has faced multiple periods of significant growth, with continuous expansion from the city’s core into the suburbs. However, along with this growth came restrictive housing policies similar to the other two case studies above. This begins in 1925 when the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) held significant influence over Denver politics, and as such enforced strict segregationist policies through redlining and preventing non-white residents from owning or renting homes. As a result, low-income and non-white residents were concentrated to the least developed areas of the city, increasing housing costs due to high demand and limited supply. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Denver Housing Authority cleared much of these areas to create public housing, which, while intended to provide low income individuals with homes, also displaced the residents already living there. 

Throughout the remainder of the 20th Century and through the present day, population booms in Denver have resulted in demand for housing that far outweighs supply, resulting in high costs that are outpacing income growth. Historically, Denver policies struggled to effectively combat this issue, as cities were forbidden to require rent controls and inclusionary housing policy commonly only applies to new, for sale units, rather than rentable ones. Additionally, laws like the 1974 Poundstone Amendment, and the 1982 Gallagher and 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights add geographical constraints to the city boundary, stunting growth, and prohibit Denver from raising taxes to fund affordable housing. Because of these regulations, housing affordability remains a primary challenge for Denver, with 47% of renters identifying as housing cost burdened in 2015, with the number of very low income renters who are cost burdened rising to 82%. Unequal home loan lending during the 2008 financial crisis has exacerbated this crisis, in addition to unequal housing development rates in different neighbors across the city. 

Today, the City of Denver has multiple policies in place to expand equitable affordable housing, and is considered high functioning by HUD due to its successful utilization of a four year Consolidated Plan. The current Consolidated Plan for Denver details strategies for 2019-2023, with the FY 2021 budget allocation set at $339,114,785, which is a 4% increase from FY 2020. Within Denver’s Consolidated Plan are the following primary objectives: to create and preserve affordable housing, access, and quality, to support business and workforce development, to increase equal access to neighborhood services, assist persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and persons with HIV/AIDS, and to further fair housing choice. Affordable housing programs and federal HUD funds are administered by the Denver Department of Economic Development and Opportunity, the Denver Housing Authority, and the Department of Human Services. The Consolidated Plan emphasizes the use of Choice Neighborhoods grants, CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG. In addition, Denver also utilizes Housing an Inclusive Denver (2018-2023), a plan that advocates for expanded strategies and support for affordable housing through the Housing an Inclusive Denver report, which echos the goals of the Consolidated Plan and emphasizes the need to expand affordable housing opportunities and preserve existing housing support systems with a specific focus on diversity and equal opportunity. Under these plans, the following housing programs are emphasized: 

In regard to tax credits, While Denver does not currently have any proposals for Project-Based Rental Assistance, Colorado’s QAP does allocate 4% and 9% low income housing tax credits to developers who allocate a percentage of their units to affordable housing. In 2020, Colorado allocated $16.1 million to produce 940 affordable homes in 14 developments. Four of these developments are located in Denver. 

Denver Zoning Policy in the Past and Present: 

Similar to Washington DC and San Francisco, Denver’s zoning history also finds roots in utilizing indirect methods of segregation. As mentioned, the KKK heavily influenced Denver politics in the first half of the 20th Century, resulting in biased zoning laws. The first of which, established 1925, divided the city into residential, industrial, and commercial areas. As a result of racial bias and restrictive zoning, many immigrants and people of color were placed in multifamily, lower income zones, while more wealthy white families had access to single-use detached homes. This was further exacerbated in 1955, when residential zones were divided based on whether a unit could be rented or was available for ownership only, increasing the rate of gentrification in the city. In the 2010s, Denver transitioned into “form based” zoning, which was based on building structure over types of residencies. The current major zoning policies are the Blueprint Denver Plan, which was adopted in 2002 and updated in 2019, which outlines the goals of having “complete neighborhoods,” or neighborhoods that are accessible to all, emphasizing land use decisions being made through the “lens of social equity.” and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, first passed in 2013, which requires that development projects of 30 or more units allocate 10% for affordable housing.

Summary

As people of a low-income or historically disadvantaged group are confined to one community as a result of strict zoning and housing policy, there will be a risk that that area may, in the future, be gentrified by virtue of its overall lower property value. Businesses, developers, or regular individuals may see an economically depressed community as an area in which they can take advantage of lower prices or more space. When properties are bought, public improvements made, or more money invested in the area, it will become attractive to wealthier groups of people, who, as they move in, further drive up surrounding prices and drive out the original, lower-income residents. Housing and Zoning policies, while not necessarily caused by gentrification, can be gentrification-encouraging, in which the method in which city areas are divided or restricted creates a prime environment for gentrification to occur. 

As seen in these case studies, gentrification is largely a consequence of zoning and housing policy. In the cases of Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Denver, the implementation of new single-family and mixed use zoning policies restricted low-income families to high-density residential areas that were often segregated to older or “blighted” parts of the city. In cases like Denver, in which the KKK held significant influence over local government, direct racial discrimination often resulted in segregationist zoning policies or unequal enforcement of regulations. The use of redlining or size limitations for units, as seen in DC and San Francisco, also show how policy results in forcibly displacing tenants of color into specific areas of the city. By moving these communities into different, often less developed parts of the city, the places left behind were then available for redevelopment by higher income, often white residents and businesses. Going one step further, as the median income increases in the areas in which lower-income families were displaced from, so too does property value. Once the price of living in these gentrified areas gets too high, developers and residents will look towards the undeveloped parts of the city, where low-income families were displaced to, in favor of lower property value and cheaper development prices. As a result, the gentrification process begins again, resulting in another round of displacement. 

Because of restrictive housing and zoning policies’ roles in creating opportunities for often discriminatory gentrification, current urban development projects must utilize inclusionary policies. These policies come from advocates and policymakers who encourage fair housing in their communities in an attempt to counteract the historical discrimination caused by gentrification. As seen with DC’s Inclusionary Zoning initiative, San Francisco’s Inclusive Affordable Housing Policy of 1992, and Denver’s Blueprint Plan, inclusionary housing has become a priority for many urban communities, in which mixed use zoning policies allow for the development of inclusive public spaces, affordable housing, and access to public services. This doesn’t mean gentrification does not still occur in these cities, as all three are in the top 15 most intensely gentrified cities in the United States according to a 2020 study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, but recognizing the role housing and zoning policies play in encouraging or discouraging gentrification practices is key to developing inclusionary policy options to create a more sustainable, equitable community. 

Housing Advocacy

Local advocacy is an essential mechanism for advancing equitable housing and zoning policies. Housing advocates work with government officials, media, and direct service providers to remove barriers to housing access. Common goals of fair housing advocates include combatting discriminatory housing and zoning practices, improving accessibility to affordable housing, increasing awareness for positive affordable housing policies, and ensure the equitable distribution of affordable housing assistance to historically disadvantaged communities. Much of fair housing advocate’s work also includes protecting the rights established in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which protects the rights of people who are engaged in housing-related activities, such as renting, buying, negotiating mortgages, or seeking housing assistance, from discrimination based on their identities, including race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, and familial status among others. In the DMV, there are several major housing advocacy organizations actively engaged in promoting equitable housing development, including national organizations such as the National Fair Housing Alliance and Habitat for Humanity, which has DC, Maryland, and Virginia offices. Major organizations with specific focuses in the DMV include: 

District of Columbia:

• The Equal Rights Center, a non-profit organization dedicated to identifying and combatting discriminatory housing policy in the greater Washington, DC area. 
• The Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development, a nonprofit that addresses community development, including increased access to equitable and affordable housing. 
• Everyone Home DC, a nonprofit that works to end homelessness and create sustainable housing options for all members of the DC community through rehousing and permanent housing assistance programs. 

Maryland: 

• Fair Housing Advocacy Center of Maryland, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensure government officials, lenders, realtors, and property managers are in line with the Fair Housing Act. 
• Homeless Persons’ Representation Project, Inc., a nonprofit providing free legal services, education, and advocacy for persons experiencing homelessness in Baltimore, MD. 
• Heart’s Place Services Inc., a Global Goals and Home partner and nonprofit organization dedicated to creating low-cost housing options for persons experiencing homelessness and providing food and clothing to families in poverty in the Baltimore, MD area. 

Virginia: 

• The Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a nonprofit that focuses on expanding affordable housing opportunities in the Northern Virginia region, including through advocacy for increased funding and equitable distribution of public resources. 
• The Virginia Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit dedicated to breaking down systemic barriers to keep low-income residents in poverty, including by expanding access to affordable housing. 
• The Virginia Housing Alliance, a nonprofit that combats homelessness and addresses key barriers to affordable housing by promoting inclusive and equitable policy frameworks. 

Measuring Success

As with many forms of advocacy, measuring the effectiveness and success of housing advocacy strategies requires defining the specific objectives an advocate is attempting to achieve. If the goal is passing a piece of policy, success could be measured by how many officials support a bill, if the bill is successfully added to a government body’s agenda, or if it has successfully amassed a high number of public support, either through petition or media campaigns. A primary example of this is the ACTION Campaign’s support of the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, which included the creation of an advocacy toolkit and fact sheets to spread awareness about the legislation’s benefits. In regard to advocacy that directly affects low-income housing challenges, organizations like Habitat for Humanity assert that success is measured by how many residents an organization assists into permanent or stable housing, and/or the amount of money raised or allocated for affordable housing options. Depending on whether an advocate is working with government officials or with nonprofits, these numbers may be the official government allocation funds and the number of available affordable housing units in a jurisdiction or may be how much funding a specific organization receives and how many people they support with said funds. Additionally, numbers should be based on the scope of the advocate’s work. For example, If they are advocating federally, they should use federal data on funding and people impacted, whereas local advocates should evaluate the number of residents assisted or amount of funds allocated at the local level. When engaging in any form of advocacy, there is no correct way to measure success, for each advocate and/or organization’s goals may have both different target audiences and different scopes.