1、Testimony byJulie Bornstein, DirectorState of CaliforniaDepartment of Housing indeed, in highly impacted areas, the tighter rental market caused by reduced vacancy rate means the loss of any choice. Table 1: U.S. Building Permits, 1980 to 2000U.S. Northeast Midwest South West West (w/o Califorina) C
2、aliforniaTotal Permits1980-89 14,295,188 1,923,095 2,178,754 6,334,029 3,859,310 1,800,197 2,059,1131990-99 13,200,287 1,359,721 2,877,016 5,646,559 3,316,991 2,221,169 1,095,8222000 1,592,267 165,101 323,841 701,863 401,462 255,887 145,575Ratio:1990 to 1980 0.923 0.707 1.320 0.891 0.859 1.234 0.532
3、Single Family Permits1980-89 8,629,042 1,327,651 1,319,071 3,798,559 2,183,761 1,053,357 1,130,4041990-99 10,076,553 1,105,267 2,177,129 4,316,420 2,477,737 1,653,321 824,4162000 1,198,067 122,293 245,377 529,700 300,697 195,679 105,018Ratio:1990 to 1980 1.168 0.832 1.651 1.136 1.135 1.570 0.729Mult
4、i-Family Permits1980-89 5,666,146 595,444 859,683 2,535,470 1,675,549 746,840 928,7091990-99 3,123,734 254,454 699,887 1,330,139 839,254 567,848 271,4062000 394,200 42,808 78,464 172,163 100,765 60,208 40,557Ratio:1990 to 1980 0.551 0.427 0.814 0.525 0.501 0.760 0.292Multi-Family Permits (%)1980-89
5、39.6 31.0 39.5 40.0 43.4 41.5 45.11990-99 23.7 18.7 24.3 23.6 25.3 25.6 24.82000 24.8 25.9 24.2 24.5 25.1 23.5 27.9Analysis: Dowell Myers and Noel Hacegaba, University of Southern CaliforniaData Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http:/www.census.gov/const/www/C40/table2.html)Addressing this need, last yea
6、r, Governor Davis approved an historic level of State resources to increase housing development and preservation opportunities in California. Approximately $800 million in State funds will be committed from the combination of this augmentation and funding for subsequent years. This augmentation repr
7、esents the largest single commitment of General Fund to housing programs in the States history. My agency, the Department of Housing and Community Development, administers most of these programs along with the federal CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs for non-entitlement jurisdictions. We expect 57,000 a
8、dditional housing units will be built as a result of this unprecedented investment in housing. Our housing need is so critical, that while the State is proposing cutting expenditures because of the economic downturn, we are planning to preserve funding for housing programs.Governor Davis housing ini
9、tiatives address several of our most critical needs. We provided $100 million for homeownership programs to assist middle and lower-income households. To address the critical shortage of rental housing, we designated nearly $200 million for construction of multifamily housing for working families an
10、d seniors. We have designed this program to be compatible with several prevailing programs, and to serve very low-income households. To encourage revitalization and creative and innovative use of sites in our urban areas, a $25 million new Downtown Rebound Program promotes housing closer to jobs and
11、 transit, infill housing, and adapting non-residential buildings into safe housing mixed with commercial uses.One hundred million has been appropriated for the innovative Jobs Housing Balance Incentive Grant Program. Our objective with this program is to directly reward communities for increasing th
12、e supply of housing, by reducing regulatory barriers and complying with State housing and planning laws, and includes a component to advance inter-regional planning to mitigate jobs-housing imbalance. Finally, we expanded funding for homeless shelter operations and capital improvements and farmworke
13、r housing. Even though this augmentation represents a very substantial increase in funds in a very short period of time, almost all of the programs found that demand exceeded funds available in some cases by a ratio of 4 to 1!I. Rental Housing Production ProgramOf all of our housing issues in need o
14、f more attention, the most urgent unmet need lies in the rental housing sector. The biggest part of this problem is one of a sharp decline in supply relative to booming demand. The most critical deficiency is in multifamily rental housing production. Historically, permits for the past 20 years natio
15、nwide, have ranged from 5.7 million during the 1980s (40 percent of total production) to 3.1 million during the 1990s (24 percent of total production), - a decline of 45 percent. For California, the decline is more drastic. During the 1980s, multifamily permits totaled 928,700 (45 percent of total p
16、roduction), but declined to 271,400 during the 1990s (25 percent of total production). If the rate of production holds for this decade, the total estimated multifamily production for the 2000 2010 period would be about 405,000 units; this is less than half of the production achieved during the 1980s
17、, despite the fact that it is nearly double the production of the 1990s! The graph and table on the following pages demonstrate the magnitude of the problem facing the country, and in particular, facing California. Share of Construction that was Multifamily in the 1990s versus the 1980s0%10%20%30%40
18、%50%60%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%1980s1990sCalifornia1980s: 45.1%1990s: 24.8%TexasFloridaDraw Down of Vacancies as Source of Rental HousingUnited States California Texas Florida2000 Renter Occupied Units 35,664,348 4,956,536 2,676,395 1,896,130 1990 Renter Occupied Units 32,922,599 4,607,263 2,375,8
19、22 1,682,709 Growth 1990-2000 2,741,749 349,273 300,573 213,421 2000 Rental Vacancy Rate 6.8 3.7 8.5 9.3 1990 Rental Vacancy Rate 8.5 5.9 13.0 12.4 Change 1990-2000 1.7 2.2 4.5 3.1 Growth in the NUMBER of Renter Occupied Housing Units due to 2000 Vacancy Rates Instead of 1990 Vacancy Rates 650,530 1
20、13,233 131,626 64,807 PERCENT of Growth in Renter Occupied Housing Units due to 2000 Vacancy Rates Instead of 1990 Vacancy Rates 23.7 32.4 43.8 30.4 Analysis: Dowell Myers and Julie Park, University of Southern CaliforniaData Source: 1990 and 2000 data from the decennial censusWe strongly support pr
21、oposals for a new national housing trust fund. Rental housing ought to have the first and dedicated claim on any new federal housing program. The only portion of the apartment market that the private sector can meet without subsidies in California is the high end, or luxury developments. The need fo
22、r a new capital program for multifamily rental housing targeted to low and extremely low income households is overwhelming. The following needs should be considered for such a program: Rehabilitation and preservation activities should be eligible uses, but the majority of a new rental program should
23、 be designed for new rental housing construction for capital costs. Any program should be flexible enough to accommodate mixed income developments and mixed use, compatible with existing prevailing rental subsidy programs. It is important that any new funding source be compatible with the Low Income
24、 Housing Tax Credit program, to qualify for nine percent credits as an optional funding combination. An important consideration should be to provide an exemption such as was done for the HOME program, from the requirement that federal sources of funding in a low-income housing tax credit project be
25、subtracted from the projects eligible basis, or be charged the Applicable Federal Rate (AFR). The permit trends I summarized earlier underscore the need for new housing production programs, at both the State and federal level. The need cannot be met with existing programs. This is necessary because
26、it is desirable to maintain the current flexibility of the HOME program, which allows local communities to serve a broad range of needs. Unless there is a dedicated rental production program for rental housing, however, less challenging and more politically popular single family assistance is typica
27、lly favored over rental assistance. Any new program should be designed to accommodate volume production, and thus key points of standardization are necessary. Additional operating subsidies should be made available, which should include an increase in Section 8 appropriations. New funds should be av
28、ailable predominantly by formula distribution related to need. It is vital that the focus be on expanding, rather than supplanting, both the funding tools and production levels under current funding programs. In particular, the formula block grant programs, CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA, need to be inc
29、reased, without setasides, to address the growing population these programs serve.II. Public interest in growth and development issuesWe have a critical window of public attention focused on growth and development issues. This is a challenging time for government to maintain the confidence of our ci
30、tizens in our ability to appropriately plan for and mitigate the impacts of growth. We must equip our communities with tools that involve and engage the public and build confidence in our abilities to develop high quality built environments, focused on balancing the locations of jobs and housing gro
31、wth. While we do have market rate affordable housing being developed in California, it typically is located in areas with less developed job markets and requires long work commutes for many residents.The role federal agencies, including HUD in particular, play in publicizing housing objectives and b
32、est practices and research findings in affordable housing development, are instrumental in aiding the efforts of the community development industry. HUDs focus in recent years on increasing the homeownership rate, for example, was instrumental in heightening public awareness of this important issue.
33、We must ensure that “smart growth” and “sustainable development” objectives include getting affordable housing built. This requires tackling barriers to brownfields or infill development, and putting as much or more effort into ensuring where housing development can occur as to where it shouldnt. In
34、 California, we have been considering ways to make more incentives available to reward communities who plan for and build housing as needed. To accommodate the broad range of needs of our increasingly diverse population, fair housing activities are ever important. HUDs role in fair housing support a
35、nd enforcement should be maintained and strengthened. III. PartnershipsThe federal government has historically played a leading and pivotal role in the housing sector. It is critical that the federal government continue in this leading role. Today, more than ever before, neither communities nor hous
36、ing developments can be built or preserved without many helping hands. States, which already have related responsibility for service delivery in a broad array of areas, stand ready and able to play a strong role in leading partnerships to expand housing opportunities. In California, we work hard at
37、developing our relationships with the many players needed to strengthen communities and neighborhoods. We actively consult and coordinate issues and programs with our sister agencies administering housing, community economic development, transportation, and social service programs. Our programs supp
38、ort welfare reform efforts and the special needs of the mental health clientele, for example. State agencies possess the necessary depth and breadth of administrative expertise, perspective on statewide needs, and partnership relationships to undertake new and expanded programs in partnership with o
39、ur federal partners in HUD, Rural Development, and the IRS to name but a few. We are especially proud of our nonprofit housing and community development partners, which have led national innovations in self-help housing, revitalized communities with affordable rental housing for working families, an
40、d innovated in supportive housing models. More lenders have mainstreamed community reinvestment lending, in what was once perceived as a risky frontier. The affordable housing roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the secondary market are also critical. Many of our local governments play instrument
41、al roles in hosting a variety of housing and community development agencies, ranging from public housing authorities to redevelopment agencies, and sometimes involve effective regional consortia. Progress is being made in coordination between local social service providers and housers. Environmental
42、ists and business leaders have provided important support at the State level for affordable and higher density housing proximate to public transit.These many partners represent a broad constituency for affordable housing programs. They illustrate the importance of core federal resources and programs
43、 that can be coordinated with other public and private financing and tailored to address diverse needs. We need flexible, rather than “one size fits all” type of programs to accommodate this objective.In summary, we need federal support in housing today more than ever. There has always been a need f
44、or a federal production program for multifamily rental housing, and now is the time for a new program to address this critical need. Federal research, advocacy, tools and legal support are needed to address growth and development inclusively; and, and finally, federal housing programs should enable and promote diverse partnerships for service and product delivery. Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to provide your Commission with more information on any of our housing and community development efforts and to respond to your questions today.
