Search is on for new federal housing policy

Organizers of the federal HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program, longtime opponents of federally supported housing, and prominent new urbanists met for two days in Wisconsin in late March, trying to reach a consensus on how the federal government’s approach to housing should change. The 29-member group hammered out a brief statement of “core principles,” which it is hoped will become the basis for future advocacy on housing issues. John Norquist, president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism, had been seeking a meeting with conservative and neoconservative critics of national housing programs for more than a year. A major impetus was the Bush administration’s attempt to end the HOPE VI program, which has converted many dilapidated public housing sites into new mixed-income developments designed in accordance with New Urbanism’s principles. Congress has already greatly reduced appropriations for HOPE VI, but it is not clear whether legislators will go along with President Bush’s call for eliminating the program entirely. The housing forum, held at Wingspread, a Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house in Racine, brought together some of the key individuals who devised HOPE VI (including Raymond Gindroz, Daniel Solomon, Henry Cisneros, and Elinor R. Bacon) and critics and conservative thinkers, including Howard Husock of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation. Norquist and others argued that conservatives should join the effort to scrap federal policies that make it easier to produce sprawl and single-use development than to build and maintain mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods. The big, federally authorized secondary mortgage market financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, make it hard to sell mortgages on mixed-use properties, Norquist told New Urban News. “When urbanism is not on an even playing field with sprawl in the secondary market, it’s hard for it to be the choice of the public,” he said. don’t favor sprawl One core principle is summed up this way: “Because economically dynamic cities are key to national prosperity, enable investment in them and their people to allow them to reach their full potential.” Norquist said this principle provides an opportunity for the group to identify all the federal actions that favor sprawl — and call for reforming them. Another core principle is: “In order to ensure vital neighborhoods, there should be a range of housing types and prices.” In Norquist’s view, urbanism produces a good mix of housing, whereas “separate-use sprawl” does not. The other principle is: “Americans should have resources through work to afford adequate housing in the private market. A safety net should exist for those who are unable to find work.” New urbanists argued that better design can generate much of the housing needed by lower-income Americans, but it probably will not take care of everyone. David Riemer, project director for the Wisconsin Health Project, said transferring money from programs such as Section 8 rent subsidies into the federal earned income tax credit could push some people out of poverty; it would also mesh with conservatives’ desires to reduce direct government housing programs. Although some participants were dubious about that proposal, “it’s something worth looking at,” Norquist said. “A lot of consensus was reached,” said Norquist, who is leading the housing forum. “It might start a dialogue about housing programs that will be more lively than conservatives just trying to kill them.” The group will try to flesh out its statements this summer. “Person after person found it refreshing to see people from across the political spectrum come together, not to protect their own turf but to work together on solutions,” said Steve Filmanowicz, communications director for CNU. A session dealing with the issue will be organized for the CNU annual conference June 9-12 in Pasadena, California. u