Michigan
Disability Rights Coalition (MDRC)
Housing Article
FROM THE FIELD
Article from Memo to Members, Vol. 15, No. 35
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)
September 10, 2010
Disability Advocates Attempt to Improve Michigan’s Use of Tax Credits
The Michigan Disability Rights Coalition (MDRC), an NLIHC State Partner, was a leading participant in this year’s campaign by the Michigan Disability Housing Workgroup to seek better use of federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC, or tax credits) for affordable, accessible housing for people with disabilities. The Workgroup is comprised of approximately 20 entities and individuals, including disability advocacy and housing advocacy organizations, people with disabilities, and the state’s Developmental Disabilities Council and Department of Community Health.
Advocates sought to modify the state’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which defines the criteria for allocating tax credits. In Michigan, previous QAPs set aside 25% of the tax credits for permanent supportive housing, and since 2008 the state has required that all tax credit projects designate 10% of their total units as supportive housing.
Michigan’s FY11 QAP was approved by Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) on September 3. While the Workgroup did not win major changes to the tax credit awards process this year, the group did achieve minor victories and will try again to influence the state’s QAP in anticipation of the FY12 funding cycle.
As part of its campaign, the Workgroup studied other states’ QAPs, met with state officials as well as with developers, created talking points for advocates, encouraged attendance at public hearings, and prepared and distributed an online petition. The petition contained 111 signatures, 60 of which were embellished with brief comments such as:
- I have a disability. I cannot live independently without affordable, accessible, integrated housing. The integrated part is particularly important because we are people, not animals or objects to be collected.
- As a parent of a young adult with disabilities, I have seen firsthand the need for truly affordable and accessible housing. I also firmly believe that services should not be attached to housing [so as not to restrict residents’ service options].
- I have a daughter with Down Syndrome who is 24 years old. We need safe, affordable housing close to employment opportunities desperately.
Six months before the proposed QAP for 2011 was drafted, the Workgroup crafted a list of proposed improvements to present to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), the state agency responsible for preparing the proposed QAP and subsequently awarding tax credits.
Three themes were at the core of the Workgroup’s proposed improvements to the QAP: housing choice, inclusion, and economic diversity. Housing choice means that people needing permanent supportive housing must have the right to choose where they live and to choose their individualized support services. Michigan’s 2009 and 2010 QAPs provided extra points for projects containing 75% or more permanent supportive housing units, resulting in virtual institutions. The Workgroup asked for scoring incentives in the QAP that do not result in congregate housing or specific services being attached to the housing.
The second theme, inclusion, means that projects should not be predominantly occupied by people with disabilities. The Workgroup asked for significant scoring incentives for projects that mix subsidized and market-rate units in walkable communities near transportation options, grocery stores, pharmacies, and other community resources. They also stressed that barrier-free construction techniques should be required for all new projects, not just those serving people with existing special needs, so that an increasingly aging population will be better able to remain in their homes.
The third theme, economic diversity, means ensuring more tax credit units are built in neighborhoods that are not so impoverished that they are not desirable to anyone, including people with disabilities. This theme creates some policy tension because many neighborhoods in cities such as Detroit prefer to fill vacant tracts with affordable housing. However, the Workgroup noted that the QAP’s scoring system is too heavily weighted toward areas with high concentrations of poverty, relegating people with disabilities and/or other low income households to locales in which people without disabilities and/or with higher incomes would not choose to live. Disability advocates therefore asked for a better balance by providing more points for developments that are mixed-use and mixed-income. They specifically asked for more than five points for individual projects that provide 20% or more market-rate units, suggesting a range from 10 points if 20% of the units are market-rate, up to 50 points if 70% of the units are market-rate.
In previous years, permanent supportive housing proposals could receive up to a maximum of 26 points for ten different features. Most of the 26 points, eight, can be secured if a project commits to 75% or more units in a project devoted to permanent supportive housing, a feature the Workgroup wants to change. In addition, the Workgroup sought to have more points awarded for projects that promote tenant-lead advisory councils, that agree to provide job-training opportunities for residents, that incorporate “visitability” design features in all units on the ground floor, or that have more than 1% of the units barrier free/accessible (the MSHDA minimum is 1%).
The final FY11 QAP did make at least two improvements: In the past an extra point was awarded if 5% of the units were barrier-free; now two points are available if 8% of the units are barrier-free. In addition, points for visitable design were awarded in the past only in the permanent supportive housing category, but starting in 2011 any project in any category will receive five extra points for visitable design.
In reflecting on their attempt to influence the QAP, MDRC and the Workgroup said they in part felt stymied by four set-asides in state law that have precedence over the 25% set aside for permanent supportive housing: 10% for nonprofits (also a federal requirement), 10% for rural housing, 10% for federally assisted elderly housing, and most problematic, 30% for a variety of distressed areas established by the state. Another obstacle was simply the practice of awarding tax credits to familiar project types and developers, making it difficult for new developers with fresh approaches. The Workgroup will continue to advocate for changes, and is planning as next steps to reflect upon its approach during its inaugural endeavor, consider its strategy for the 2012 QAP process, and plan for a long-term campaign beyond 2012.
The Workgroup’s talking points and the online petition are online.
For more about QAPs and LIHTC, see NLIHC’s Advocates’ Guide, pages 174 and 127.
For more information: Salli Christenson, Housing Advocate, Michigan Disability Rights Coalition