Our Work to Remove barriers to housing choice
Exclusionary Zoning
Issue:
Zoning actions by municipalities often prevent the development of affordable housing in white cities and suburban areas.
One problem is when cities and suburbs refuse to grant zoning for specific low-income projects. The denial by a city of zoning for the development of a low-income project results in the housing not being built. The lack of zoning for the development of LIHTC projects disproportionately occurs in white suburbs and cities.
In Texas, for a LIHTC developer to obtain a zoning change for a proposed LIHTC project, the developer must agree to hold the municipality harmless if the city denies the zoning change. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §2306.6705(5). This creates a barrier to the development of LIHTC housing in suburban areas.
Another problem is a city having zoning that does not allow use of land for low-income multifamily rental housing. White suburban cities are disproportionately zoned for single-family housing with little to no multifamily zoning. This presents a barrier to the development of affordable multifamily housing such as LITHC housing.
Harms from exclusionary zoning practices:
The zoning policies make it very difficult for obtaining multifamily development in these suburbs.
The failure to develop affordable multifamily housing impacts Black and Hispanic tenants who need affordable housing opportunities and perpetuates racial segregation in the region.
The zoning policies prevent affordable housing in suburban areas that denies true housing choice for low-income tenants of color
Advocacy Actions
Advocacy actions for individual denials of zoning for LIHTC projects in the suburbs
Advocacy against cities for exclusionary zoning policies and practices
Barriers to LIHTC projects in suburban areas
Issue:
In Texas, the municipal veto is preventing the development of LIHTC housing in white suburban areas. Since 2014, Texas requires municipalities to provide a resolution of support or no objection for a LIHTC project to be developed in that city. Without this resolution, the LIHTC project will not be developed. This local government “veto” operates to exclude LIHTC projects because without the municipal support the LIHTC application will either not be eligible for an allocation or not have enough points to get an award. This gives the cities a “veto” over the location of LIHTC projects in their cities.
As a result, there are entire white suburbs and cities without any LIHTC housing. Since LIHTC housing is one of the few types of housing that accepts federal voucher clients, the lack of LIHTC housing also prevents voucher families from access to those suburbs that refuse to allow the development of LIHTC housing.
The IRS, the federal agency in charge of administering the LIHTC program with the States. The IRS has ruled that the local vetoes are not required by the tax code and can violate the purpose of the Fair Housing Act. IRS Rev. Ruling 2016-29. HUD FHEO officials have cited fair housing concerns in relation to any requirements for local approval or support because of the discriminatory influence these factors could have on where affordable housing is built. 2016 GAO Report: Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Some Agency Practices Raise Concerns.
Harms from barriers from municipal veto preventing LIHTC development:
Perpetuates racial segregation in the LIHTC and voucher programs
Prevents true housing choice for low-income tenants of color
Advocacy Actions:
Advocacy to enforce the Fair housing Act and other civil rights laws
Advocacy against government entities concerning this veto power
Barriers to available voucher housing in suburbs
Issue:
Private landlords overwhelmingly refuse to rent to voucher tenants. HNLP attorneys and the Inclusive Communities Project conducted extensive landlord surveys in 2017 and 2020 showing that 95% or more of the multifamily landlords in suburban cities do not accept vouchers. Most of this multifamily housing is unaffordable for persons making less than 120% of AMI.
There are also barriers within the administration of the federal housing choice voucher program that prevent true choice by voucher tenants. These include delays caused by portability and inspections and other barriers erected by housing authorities.
Harms from lack of housing for voucher tenants in suburbs:
Voucher families have little housing choice outside racially and ethnically concentrated neighborhoods.
The lack of healthy and safe housing in opportunity locations for voucher families steers voucher families to housing in high poverty, racially concentrated areas with environmental harms
Advocacy Actions:
Advocacy against local, state, and federal governments to increase housing choice and opportunities for voucher families.
Preemption of municipal ordinances for source of income
Issue:
Texas cities are preempted from using source of income ordinances to ban landlord discrimination against voucher tenants and to decrease racial segregation. While the Texas SOI preemption allows for cities to enact voluntary programs to increase landlord acceptance of voucher tenants, these voluntary programs appear to be ineffective at addressing voucher segregation.
Harms from locating LIHTC housing in high poverty locales:
There are few housing opportunities for voucher families outside racially concentrated locations.
Lack of choice in housing for voucher tenants
Advocacy Actions:
Advocacy to challenge the preemption statute
Advocacy to obtain more voluntary programs by cities impacted by the preemption statute as the Texas statute allows for cities to enact voluntary programs to incentivize landlords to lease to voucher tenants
Mobility funding and financial assistance for voucher families
Issue:
There is a need for mobility funding and financial assistance to help voucher families obtain desegregated housing. The use of financial assistance such as security deposits, application fees, moving expenses, utility deposits, landlord bonuses, significantly help voucher tenants to find housing outside of racially concentrated areas of poverty. The mobility programs work to help voucher tenants find housing. “Housing Mobility Programs And Health Outcomes,” By Rebecca Gale, Health Affairs, Housing Policy Brief, June 7, 2018 at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20180313.616232/
There are few organizations that provide housing mobility counseling. The Inclusive Communities Project provides housing mobility counseling for Housing Choice Voucher tenants in the Dallas metropolitan area.
Small area fair market rents or zip code rents must be maintained to provide housing options to voucher tenants in high cost white suburbs.
Harms:
Lack of mobility counseling and financial assistance continues to leave voucher families with housing options disproportionately located in racially segregated locations.
Lack of true housing choice for low-income tenants
Advocacy Actions:
Housing authorities must comply with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in the administration of the voucher program. Advocacy for enforcement of this obligation and of other civil rights obligations
Advocacy to obtain mobility funding from governments to lessen the racial segregation in the voucher program.
Homeowners’ associations restrictions on rentals and vouchers
Issue:
Texas homeowners associations have implemented restrictions on rentals and restrictions on voucher tenants residing in their HOAs. The state of Texas has outlawed the HOA ability to restrict the rental to voucher tenants in the HOAs but the HOA rental restrictions continue in effect and continue to reduce the ability of landlords to lease to voucher families in suburban locations. Bloomberg article “How Texas HOAs Are Keeping Low-Income Renters Out” by Sarah Holder and Kriston Capps, August 31, 2023.
Harms:
The restrictions make rental housing unavailable to voucher tenants in the HOA locations.
Rental restrictions prevent housing choice for voucher tenants.
Advocacy Actions:
Advocacy against the rental restrictions
Advocacy against the discrimination in renting to voucher tenants