The aim of this goal is to provide policymakers and other housing stakeholders with a survey of options to address what has been referred to as the three “Ps” of affordable housing: preservation, production, and protection.See footnote 1 Together, the three “Ps” refers to a holistic approach to making housing available and affordable, placing emphasis on not only building new affordable housing, but also on maintaining current housing stock and keeping the cost of rent or homeownership affordable. Importantly, the final prong of “protection” highlights the importance of creating and maintaining community stability and addressing the factors that may lead to displacement, such as rising housing costs and/or physical risks.
This objective provides recommendations for how parishes and municipalities in Region Seven and beyond can facilitate or support community-led housing and development initiatives, for example by passing enabling legislation to create community land trusts, or by providing technical assistance to residents negotiating community benefits agreements. The options offered in this part should be tailored to the unique characteristics of each community. Preserving and developing housing that is affordable to those who are most in need are complex and challenging processes that require significant investments in time, money, political will, and community support.
There are many examples of grassroots and community-based initiatives that center individuals and communities in setting a region’s housing priorities. The two examples below illustrate opportunities for local planners and policymakers to help facilitate grassroots initiatives while still ensuring that the processes are truly community-centered and -led:
A community benefits agreement (CBA) refers to a legally binding contract between a private developer and members of a community, in which the developer promises to provide certain benefits and amenities beyond those already required by law. In exchange, the community commits to publicly supporting — or at the very least not opposing — the proposed development projects.See footnote 2 While CBAs do not replace existing government requirements that developers must meet to obtain approval for new projects, they are often used by developers in order to gain additional community and political support. In some jurisdictions, the terms of a CBA can also be incorporated into an agreement between the local government and the developer, e.g., via a zoning commission order, so that local governments can help community members enforce the terms of the CBA.
While there is no standard definition for a CBA, most CBAs include several key features:
CBAs may vary based on the political, social, and economic conditions present in a particular community. For example, in parishes or municipalities that struggle to attract new development, developers may be less incentivized to directly negotiate benefits with the community, given a higher likelihood that the local government will approve the project even in the absence of substantial community support.
CBAs can be used to secure resources to support community resilience in the face of rapid urban growth and/or declining federal and state aid to state and local governments, particularly for housing and community development. Importantly, CBAs can mitigate negative social, economic, and environmental impacts of planned developments on surrounding communities. Successful CBA can secure targeted benefits to prevent or minimize the unwanted effects of developments, such as gentrification and displacement. Communities have developed CBAs to secure investments by developers in programs that support affordable housing, local businesses, and tenant organizing, as well as requiring the developer to meet certain environmental or local hiring standards for new construction. In exchange, communities may pledge to provide public support of the development projects, such as through testimony to city council or appearing at public events.
While the development of CBAs are, by design, community-led, local governments can play an important supporting role, as described further below under Crosscutting Considerations and Practice Tips.
An increasingly popular shared equity model is the use of community land trusts (CLTs). A CLT is a nonprofit organization that acquires and stewards land that is held in trust for the benefit of low-income communities, and which can be put toward a variety of uses, including homeownership or rental housing. CLTs are structured to enable greater community control over creating and maintaining the affordability of homes for low-income renters and homeowners.
CLTs secure permanent affordability by separating ownership of the land from the buildings on top of the land, reducing the overall price of the property.See footnote 3 Low-income buyers are then able to purchase the homes built on the land at below-market rate. In turn, residents pay a nominal annual fee under a 99-year ground lease, and agree to formula-based resale restrictions that keep the property affordable in perpetuity.
As part of a CLT’s operations, staff members commonly provide technical assistance that include workshops and other training about homeownership and different forms of housing assistance, maintenance, and other stewardship services to support its low-to-moderate income residents. For example, the Maggie Walker Community Land Trust in Richmond, Virginia provides ongoing assistance to residents after their purchase of a home, such as through education workshops on homeownership and maintenance and other services that help residents thrive and stay in the community.See footnote 4
Under traditional models, CLTs are also intentionally structured to represent a diversity of community voices and perspectives. CLTs are commonly governed by a tripartite board of directors who represent: (1) the residents of the leased housing; (2) community members who live or work in the surrounding area; and (3) representatives from local government and/or technical experts who work in the housing industry. The geographic focus of CLTs, its mission-driven approach to developing affordable housing, and a governance structure that harnesses social capital all help to ensure great connectivity between affordable housing decisions and the communities they are intended to serve.
Parishes and municipalities can support the development of CLTs by adopting enabling legislation. Local enabling legislation could including establishing:
When supporting the creation of mechanisms or institutions that help center and elevate the priorities of residents and communities, decisionmakers in local government may consider the following crosscutting considerations and practice tips:
These tips are based on priority implementation best practices and considerations most relevant to this specific objective, and do not present an exhaustive list for regional and local planners and policymakers. In addition to this objective, decisionmakers should, at a minimum, also refer to Goal Five for crosscutting considerations and practice tips including structuring equitable and inclusive community engagement processes and evaluating opportunities to build public-private-nonprofit-community partnerships.
It is important to acknowledge that every jurisdiction will be starting from a different place and have a unique local context and needs, among other factors. Therefore, these considerations and practice tips could be adopted individually, collectively, or not at all. It will be up to policymakers to work directly with their communities and other key stakeholders and partners to assess and determine potential tools and approaches to implement this goal and objective.
Description: An infographic from Build Baton Rouge illustrating the benefits and ownership structure of a hybrid community land bank propsed for the Plank Road corridor.
Credit: Build Baton Rouge, Imagine Plank Road Plan for Equitable Development 93 (Nov. 2019), available at https://buildbatonrouge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Imagine-Plank-Road_Final-Report_2019.11.06_web.pdf.
The summaries below highlight resources and case studies available in Georgetown Climate Center’s Adaptation Clearinghouse that are relevant to this objective. They illustrate how many of the above benefits, practice tips, and planning, legal, and policy tools were or are being evaluated and used in practice in different jurisdictions. To learn more and navigate to the Adaptation Clearinghouse, click on the “View Resource” buttons.
Endnotes:
1. Non-Profit Hous. Ass’n of N. Cal., On Track Together: Recommendations Summary: NPH’s Vision for a Vibrant, Sustainable, and Affordable Region, available at View Source. | Back to contentBack to content
2. See, e.g., Good Jobs First, CBA Primer at 9; Gross, CBA Definitions at 39, 46-47; De Barbieri at n.65, 1786; Salkin & Levine, Negotiating for Social Justice and the Promise of CBAs at 114. Back to contentBack to content
3. Rosalind Greenstein & Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz, Community Land Trusts: Leasing Land for Affordable Housing, Lincoln Inst. Back to contentBack to content
4. Ruoniu Wang et. al., Tracking Growth and Evaluating Performance of Shared Equity Homeownership Programs During Housing Market Fluctuations, Lincoln Inst. of Land Pol’y (Apr. 2019), available at View Source. | Back to contentBack to content
Read Previous Section Read Next Section
Back to top