NAHRO COMMUNITY AND COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING ASSISTANCE Approved by the NAHRO Board of Governors, December 3, 1970 National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials The Watergate Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20037 n December 3, of last ye NAHRO approved a new policy sta ment calling for a broad restructuring federal grant-in-aid programs for ho ing and community development. W NAHRO is proposing is a new conc of broad categorical aid that wo reverse the trend toward a proliferat of programs, each with a narrowly fined purpose, and that would free lo initiative in developing and implement strategies for filling critical housing ne and for tackling problems of grow and decay. The new proposals are in the NAHI tradition. Over the years, the Asso tion has sought to represent the b thinking of professionals in the field housing and community development what past experience has meant a on what future programs should be. 1935, the then National Association of Housing Officials (NAHO) proposed what was to become the basis for the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the creation of the low-rent public housing program. Ten years later, NAHRO recommended a program for rebuilding and revitalizing the decaying sections of our nation's cities and towns. Many of these recommendations were subsequently incorporated in the Housing Act of 1949, which was the beginning of federally assisted urban renewal. In 1971, NAHRO is calling for changes as vital to the continued progress of this nation and its communities as those in 1937 and 1949. NAHRO is, of course, aware of the other voices being raised for the reform of categorical aid programs and has taken into account what is being proposed by the President, members of Congress, and local elected officials, who confront daily the burden of trying to reconcile local needs with federal policies. The NAHRO proposals consist of two major elements: a comprehensive community development program and a comprehensive housing assistance program. Both maintain the concept of categorical aid but in a much broader way than existing aid programs. The aim is to simplify the method of delivering federal aid and to make it possible for local communities to develop and implement areawide strategies for coping with problems of housing and community development. The community development program, for example, could operate anywhere in the community to remove or prevent blight, promote rational growth, and create new community resources through use of undeveloped or underutilized land and other physical assets. It would be funded on an annual bloc grant basis, with the local community deciding on how it wanted to apportion its federal aid among such activities as urban renewal, sewer and water facilities, rehabilitation loans, neighborhood centers, and other programs currently financed under separate categorical aid programs. Under CDP, a community could spell out and seek federal financial assistance for all of its physical development needs in a single application. To avoid disruption and chaos, NAHRO proposes that the broad categorical aid approach be offered, initially, as an alternative to urban renewal, the Neighborhood Development Program, and other existing physical development programs, although it would eventually replace or absorb all of them. The housing assistance program proposed by NAHRO would also greatly simplify and broaden the use of federal assistance for housing purposes. Under this proposal, all existing housing subsidies would be replaced with a single financing mechanism available to all eligible sponsors and adaptable to local conditions anywhere in the country, for any family who cannot afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing within its current means. The single financing mechanism or housing assistance payment would make up the difference between the actual cost of the housing, including operating costs, and what a family could afford to pay in either rent or mortgage payments. NAHRO also proposes the use of a variety of housing sponsors, including local housing authorities, cooperatives, nonprofit and limited dividend corporations, and similar groups. None of the housing developed by any of these sponsors would be limited to an arbitrarily defined income group. Instead, NAHRO sees the possibility of each sponsor serving a much wider range of income groups than any single existing program, with the aim of ending concentrations of low-income housing. Agencies and sponsors focusing their administration on a metropolitan or regional basis would be provided with special financial assistance. In addition, NAHRO recommends that all assisted housing include full local property taxes and have access to public service grants. These provisions, NAHRO feels, are necessary for communities that are hard put to finance needed services out of local revenues. The purpose is to see that no community is penalized for accepting assisted housing. As a final mechanism to insure that families requiring housing assistance actually receive it, the NAHRO plan would authorize the secretary of HUD to act directly as a housing sponsor if housing needs are not being met in any area of the nation. The NAHRO recommendations, which are presented below in greater detail, are the result of several months of work by special committees composed of local housing, renewal, and codes agency personnel from all parts of the country (see 1970 JOURNAL No. 8, page 436). NAHRO's Board of Governors approved the Committee report on December 3, 1970. There is good reason to believe that the nation is on the verge of some momentous changes in the housing and community development field. As an association of professionals, NAHRO believes it should offer its experience and expertise to those who will be shaping those changes. Community Development Program Program Consolidation: The CDP calls for a combining of all existing categorical aid programs for community development, including urban renewal, NDP, federally assisted code enforcement, neighborhood facilities, and others, into a single, bloc grant program. CDP is much more than a consolidation of programs, however. It allows the use of any or all of these program activities anywhere in the community without regard to project boundaries and similar restrictions. New Forms of Federal Aid: In addition to consolidating and broadening the use of existing categorical aid programs, CDP would provide financial assistance for a number of complementary activities not now eligible for federal assistance. Under a CDP, for example, a locality could acquire underutilized land for housing sites for persons displaced by other government activities. CDP could also be used in suburban or rural areas, where the problem might not be so much one of obsolescent land use as how to promote sound use of undeveloped land. Above all, CDP would encourage community-wide strategies for development and economic growth. As a program, it would be greater than the sum of its constituent parts. What Could Be Done: Among activities a community could carry out under a CDP grant would be: -creation of new sites for housing on either undeveloped land or land that has been acquired and cleared of obsolescent uses -placement or rearrangement of public facilities, parks, water and sewer lines, and streets and roads in order to arrest urban sprawl and encourage rational development -conservation and rehabilitation of useable housing and other building stock wherever it may be located -interim improvements, such as brighter street lighting and increased trash and garbage collection, in order to keep decaying neighborhoods liveable until major remedial steps can be taken -design and "interim" financing of supporting facilities, such as schools and libraries, with provision for refunding construction cost to the CDP when permanent financing becomes available. Planning and Financing the CDP: In order to qualify for a CDP grant, a community would have to have an approved CDP program covering a threeyear budget period. Unlike the present requirement for urban renewal assistance, the program would not have to be complete in every detail in order for the community to qualify for a CDP grant. Only the first year's activities would be detailed, permitting the program to be updated annually as older activities reach various stages of completion and new activities are started. In drafting a CDP, the community would have to take stock of its existing supply of housing, industrial plants, commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, and other facilities; set priorities for development; and relate each component in the plan to a specific community need. An existing Community Renewal Program (CRP) plan or comprehensive community plan could serve as a basis for a CDP. The financing of the CDP would be on an annual grant basis, similar to that used in the Neighborhood Development Program. The difference would be that in addition to a grant to carry out ac tivities during the current year of the CDP, the community would receive a grant reservation for the following year. The community would then have an assurance that it could follow through with activities started the first or current year. In order to make this concept work, NAHRO is recommending that Congress authorize funds on a three-year basis and appropriate money for CDP on a twoyear basis, including the current year and the following year, to assure continuity at both the federal and local level. The basic annual grant to the community would cover two-thirds of the cost of budgeted CDP activities, or threefourths of the cost for communities or jurisdictions of less than 50,000 population. The local share could continue to be covered, in whole or in part, by investments in new or improved facilities and services related to the CDP. In addition to covering budgeted activities, the grant would include a 10 percent override or bonus payment to carry out other activities necessary to the success of the CDP. For example, the community might want to provide day care centers or finance the design of a housing project being sponsored by a private, nonprofit community organization. The community could also use CDP loan funds for making low-interest loans for various purposes, such as interim financing of schools and other "supporting" facilities for which permanent financing will become available at a later time. The interim financing of supporting facilities could be a critically important innovation. Past experience with urban renewal shows that such facilities are often difficult to program in with other scheduled activities because of such uncertainties as the passage of school bond referendums or local debt capacity. Among other steps NAHRO is recommending to implement the CDP are: "set asides" of federally assisted housing commitments to insure that moderately priced housing is available when needed and an incentive grant equal to 5 percent of certain federal grants-in-aid for construction of supporting facilities. Administration: Unlike the model cities and poverty programs, CDP would not require a new governmental structure over an existing structure. The local governing body could serve as its own CDP agency or designate existing agencies, such as the local renewal agency, to administer the entire program or pertinent parts of it. In other words, the community determines its own CDP organizational structure. For example, the CDP application, as well as the continuing forecast, budget, and evaluation process, could be handled by the general government having jurisdiction, by any designated unit of local government, or by a designated agency where the CDP covers more than one general jurisdiction. The agency designated to make a CDP application could, of course, contract with other agencies and entities qualified and legally capable of planning and executing any of the activities called for in the CDP. NAHRO also recommends as eligible CDP-assisted agencies local development corporations. Such corporations would be authorized, under law, to accept grants, gifts, and donations; borrow money; and issue stock. They would use the proceeds to acquire property for development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and conservation in accordance with the CDP plan and for making loans for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes related to CDP. The requirements of existing civil rights statutes and the recent Uniform Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 would apply to CDP and all related activities. Comprehensive Housing Assistance Program The comprehensive housing assistance program recommended by NAHRO would replace the existing collection of fragmented housing programs, each with its arbitrary restraints on design, income limits, and construction costs. The purpose of the new program is to simplify and expand the effort to house all Americans who cannot now afford adequate housing. The test for those who The NAHRO recommendations, which are presented below in greater detail, are the result of several months of work by special committees composed of local housing, renewal, and codes agency personnel from all parts of the country (see 1970 JOURNAL No. 8, page 436). NAHRO's Board of Governors approved the Committee report on December 3, 1970. There is good reason to believe that the nation is on the verge of some momentous changes in the housing and community development field. As an association of professionals, NAHRO believes it should offer its experience and expertise to those who will be shaping those changes. Community Development Program Program Consolidation: The CDP calls for a combining of all existing categorical aid programs for community development, including urban renewal, NDP, federally assisted code enforcement, neighborhood facilities, and others, into a single, bloc grant program. CDP is much more than a consolidation of programs, however. It allows the use of any or all of these program activities anywhere in the community without regard to project boundaries and similar restrictions. New Forms of Federal Aid: In addition to consolidating and broadening the use of existing categorical aid programs, CDP would provide financial assistance for a number of complementary activities not now eligible for federal assistance. Under a CDP, for example, a locality could acquire underutilized land for housing sites for persons displaced by other government activities. CDP could also be used in suburban or rural areas, where the problem might not be so much one of obsolescent land use as how to promote sound use of undeveloped land. Above all, CDP would encourage community-wide strategies for development and economic growth. As a program, it would be greater than the sum of its constituent parts. What Could Be Done: Among activities a community could carry out under a CDP grant would be: -creation of new sites for housing on either undeveloped land or land that has been acquired and cleared of obsolescent uses -placement or rearrangement of public facilities, parks, water and sewer lines, and streets and roads in order to arrest urban sprawl and encourage rational development -conservation and rehabilitation of useable housing and other building stock wherever it may be located -interim improvements, such as brighter street lighting and increased trash and garbage collection, in order to keep decaying neighborhoods liveable until major remedial steps can be taken -design and "interim" financing of supporting facilities, such as schools and libraries, with provision for refunding construction cost to the CDP when permanent financing becomes available. Planning and Financing the CDP: In order to qualify for a CDP grant, a community would have to have an approved CDP program covering a threeyear budget period. Unlike the present requirement for urban renewal assistance, the program would not have to be complete in every detail in order for the community to qualify for a CDP grant. Only the first year's activities would be detailed, permitting the program to be updated annually as older activities reach various stages of completion and new activities are started. In drafting a CDP, the community would have to take stock of its existing supply of housing, industrial plants, commercial buildings, schools, hospitals, and other facilities; set priorities for development; and relate each component in the plan to a specific community need. An existing Community Renewal Program (CRP) plan or comprehensive community plan could serve as a basis for a CDP. The financing of the CDP would be on an annual grant basis, similar to that used in the Neighborhood Development Program. The difference would be that in addition to a grant to carry out ac |