Five years ago, Boston Mayor Martin Walsh released a comprehensive plan designed to address the housing needs of the city's growing population. Local authorities talked about the necessity to create 53,000 new units of housing for various income levels by 2030. In 2018, the figures were updated because the population was growing faster than expected—Boston’s housing production goal increased to 69.000 new units.Looking at statistics and the affordable housing landscape nowadays. the target seems tough to achieve. According to Yardi Matrix’s latest Boston multifamily report, in the first seven months of last year, only about 300 units of the total 2,663 apartments that came online were affordable, the abundance of luxury units, rising construction costs and limited housing subsidies have been shrinking the affordable housing inventory since 2003. John Fraser, an experienced specialist that recently joined Community Preservation Partners (CPP) as senior project manager, agrees that affordable housing demand in Boston is severely outpacing supply. Fraser has extensive knowledge in working with state and local governments to source low-income housing tax credits. Since launching its eastern division a year ago, the affordable housing rehabilitation company acquired several communities in the region, including the 216-unit in Midlothian Apartments in Richmond. Va. Fraser is based in CPP’s new office in Reston, Va., but he has worked for The Community Builders in Boston for more than nine years. He managed all aspects of projects from initial feasibility, funding, design, construction to lease-up and stabilization.
How serious is the affordable housing crisis In Boston?
Fraser: The affordable housing crisis is very serious in Boston and not just at the very low-income side of the spectrum. It is also felt all the way up to the middle-income demographic. The problem here is the same as in many other hot real estate markets—supply has not kept pace with demand.The search for safe and affordable housing is pushing folks further from the employment centers, which is also exasperating the traffic problem in Boston. The solution is easy to identify, but hard to solve—build more housing—on the financing side. I'm intrigued by the corporate philanthropy that we're seeing in Seattle and Los Angeles, but we can’t rely on voluntary participation. One real solution is increased allocation of low-Income housing tax credits—both competitive and volume cap—as well as programs for middle-income families up to 160 percent of area’s median income.
The other side of the equation is pushing for local policies that encourage development rather than policies that make it unrealistically cumbersome on developers to build where the greatest demand exists.How are students at Boston-area universities influencing the affordable housing market in the metro?
Fraser: The main impact is increased competition for some of the more affordable market-rate housing in certain neighborhoods. It comes back to supply and demand, more demand for housing that is outpacing supply. There have been several new, ground-up developments of student housing in Boston, such as at Northeastern University and UMass-Boston, but the market could benefit from more. I'm also intrigued by news of private high-rise student housing coming to Boston, although concerned it will turn into a new sector of luxury rentals unattainable to the average student.
How have affordable housing projects on the East coast evolved over the past years?
Fraser: I see a continuing trend of more and more thoughtful development. There is more focus on the resident experience through amenities and resident services than ever before. Many new affordable housing developments are up to tier with market rate housing. Services and thoughtful design are not just altruistic goals, they are also smart business decisions. Making residents proud of their communities and giving them resources to improve their situation leads to lower turnover and more stable properties.
What type of sustainable features do you integrate more frequently in your projects?
Fraser: A key goal of any rehabilitation is to improve energy efficiency. Energy Star appliances, LED lighting, new HVAC systems—the cost of high-efficiency mini-split systems has decreased substantially over the years—new windows and air sealing are standard scope items on most preservation deals. The level of improved efficiency is often driven by state funding requirements and access to rebates and incentive programs. In Massachusetts, we have Mass Save and would love to see other states offer the same incentive programs for multifamily housing— often paid for by utility companies.
How old is the affordable housing stock on the East Coast and how do you manage to obtain the necessary funds for rehabilitation works?
Fraser: Most of the preservation opportunities we're seeing on the East Coast were built in the 1970s and 1980s, with some even older. This means that in addition to a typical rehabilitation—finish upgrades, modernization of kitchens and bathrooms etc.—we must seriously look at building systems, mainly the HVAC system and environmental concerns. Often focusing on the efficiency and safety aspects of a rehabilitation means you don't get to focus as much on the “fun" side like tenant amenities and cosmetic upgrades. Employing 4 percent LIHTC with tax-exempt bond financing, often boosted by a mark-up-to-market, or budget-based rent increase for Section 8 properties, is the typical formula for preservation that we have employed. However, with more competition for volume cap, higher construction costs and tighter equity markets, preservation developers need to be even more creative nowadays. On the East Coast and especially the New England states, we are lucky to have numerous programs and opportunities to offset some of these costs. Energy efficiency incentives and rebate programs often allow us to free up funds to focus on other scope items. We have also partnered with cities and artists to bring artwork to properties, which also lends some local character and tenant engagement to a project.
What aspects do you keep in mind when working with state and local governments?
Fraser: Most state governments understand what we are trying to accomplish and that we can be a valuable partner in development. Local governments can be more complicated. Even the most liberal communities can still suffer from NlIMBYism when it comes to affordable housing or higher-density housing in general. It is critical to understand the political climate when entering a new geography. When in the hot seat, defending a project to a town council or a community, I try to remember the human aspect of our projects—we are building and preserving homes where people will live, and families will be raised.
Affordable housing refers to housing that is reasonably priced, allowing low- and moderate-income individuals or families to live comfortably without spending an excessive portion of their income on housing. Typically, the standard guideline is that housing costs, including rent and/or mortgage payments and utilities, should not exceed 30% of a household's gross income.
Affordable housing can come in various forms, including government-subsidized housing, public housing projects, and private developments that offer reduced rents or prices. The goal is to ensure that everyone has access to safe and decent living conditions regardless of their financial situation.
Market Rate vs. Affordable Housing
While housing affordability is currently an issue across the United States, there are several key differences between housing categorized as “affordable” versus “market-rate”. Understanding these differences is essential for addressing housing needs and creating policies that promote inclusivity and accessibility in housing markets.
Importance of Affordable Housing
According to the Pew Research Center, in 2020, 46% of American renters spent 30% or more of their income on housing, including 23% who spent at least 50% of their income this way. The same study indicated that about half of Americans (49%) see the availability of affordable housing as a major problem in their local community. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of a healthy society, contributing to individual well-being and broader economic and social stability. Key benefits of affordable housing include:
Originally published on Forbes Business Councils by Seth Gellis, President of CPP.
With the continued urgent need for more affordable housing across the country, industry experts and academics are looking for solutions, whether they involve preserving existing communities nationwide or creating additional units where they are needed most.
According to a recent study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is a shortage of 7.3 million available affordable rental homes for the lowest-income renters in the U.S. While it’s a complex issue, one overlooked path to financing is the option to increase the use of private activity bonds (PABs), which pair with 4% low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs).
Volume cap, a “use it or lose it” resource provided by the federal government to the states based on a per capita formula, allows tax-exempt financing to be issued for affordable housing at a lower interest rate. The lower interest rates offset the lower net operating income that debt is sized from as a tool to help keep project sources and uses in balance. This ensures a greater level of capitalization, reducing the need for other sources and increasing the funding available for construction activity.
This important resource is allocated and awarded by state finance agencies, some of which unfortunately do not use all the resources made available to them. This means that if a state agency has unused volume cap and a deal is unable to make it through the funding cycle for that state in a timely manner, the resource and accompanying economic and social benefits are lost for good.
So, what can affordable housing professionals and organizations do to ensure the volume cap does not go to waste or to use it in the most efficient manner possible?
One solution is to work with local bond issuers and agencies that support them.
Local bond issuers play a major role in identifying the projects most impactful for their community and often can reduce the overburdened load that housing agency staff must deal with.
At my company, we find that an average deal may take nine months to close, plus an additional year to complete the development or preservation of the property (with a few more months of time tagged on for an IRS Form 8609 to be issued). We consider that a quick turnaround. But when entities do not use a local issuer for the deal, the acquisition or renovation timeline can extend for an additional one and a half to two years—sometimes making the deal untenable.
Across the U.S., many affordable properties are in immediate need of preservation; and many of these deals use LIHTC as a part of their financing. Completing these deals as quickly as possible is integral to reducing the loss of affordable units and preserving options for communities.
According to a 2024 report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS), there was a loss of 2.1 million units with rents below the maximum amount affordable for the lowest income group since 2012. While creating new affordable housing units is a part of the solution, new construction alone won't be able to keep up with the need, especially if communities are losing more units than are being created.
I've found that when local leaders, community advocates, developers, lenders and agencies can work together, it creates efficiencies and the strongest outcomes in affordable housing development and preservation. Communities should have a say in their local housing choices. Local leaders and community advocates have the best understanding of residents’ needs and where and how to invest, and good developers will listen.
Working with local issuers increases the ability for local jurisdictions to control the terms and circumstances that preservation or new development must follow in addition to minimum state provided standards. When deals and terms are localized, it creates the largest impact for the community. Specific benefits may include:
• The community is empowered to decide the priorities they wish to address. Developers should foster dialogue with local housing advocates and community leaders to discuss and outline their wish list. Unsurprisingly, the goals are often the same.
• Related improvement projects (e.g., street, sewer, LEED), social service requirements, crime prevention programs, prevailing wage, are benefits that are, by and large, staying within their community (should they choose). This autonomy also relieves pressure on developers by having an equal partner in the myriad decisions.
• Locals control within the development what is done, where it’s done and who does it within the community. For example, they may have checklists or requirements (e.g., Section 3 that requires a local workforce) that directly benefit the local community and economy.
Affordable housing developers looking to finance their deals may have the opportunity to work with a local issuer to get the deal done. I recommend you keep these best practices in mind:
Just like when working with any financial partner, organization is paramount. As a developer, that means having the deal structure solidified, financial documents in place and a single point of contact for the local issuer identified. The more streamlined you can make the process, the better.
Developers likely understand that one of the key benefits of working with a local issuer is the ability to help impact the local community in specific ways. But, for that impact to be felt in the biggest way, developers must take the time to truly understand the local community and its needs.
Developers need to reach out early in the process to understand if the issuer has sufficient volume cap, and what their processes may be. Creating a relationship early makes the processing, organization and understanding of their needs much easier.
Ultimately, the ability to work with local agencies carries many benefits and can make developers and investors nimbler in their work solving the nation’s affordable housing crisis.
CPP (Community Preservation Partners), a mission-driven affordable housing preservation developer has announced the acquisition and planned renovation of Canoga Park Apartments, an affordable housing development in Los Angeles, Calif. This is the fifth community in the greater Los Angeles area for CPP and the 60th in the state.
Built in 1983, Canoga Park Apartments is comprised of 14 walk-up units across three stories, the first of which is tuck-under parking. Located at 6824 Winnetka Ave in the Canoga Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, the 14-unit development consists of 12-two-bedroom units and 2-three-bedroom apartments designated for individuals and families earning 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) or below. CPP’s total development investment is approximately $11,350,000, which includes the purchase price of $6,000,000 and an estimated per unit renovation cost of $142,000.
“Canoga Park is a unique opportunity for CPP to provide needed capital improvements to a project that would otherwise be overlooked by developers due to its smaller size,” said Evan Cramer, Assistant Development Manager at CPP. “This project is truly a mission-driven development for us, and we are proud to renovate and improve the property while preserving its affordable status for its residents.”
Many of the original building systems are still in place, underscoring the need for modernization and development. CPP’s renovation will include replacement of HVAC systems, water heaters, lighting, appliances, interior and exterior paint, countertops, cabinetry, flooring, and seismic upgrades, along with ADA upgrades throughout the property.
Canoga Park Apartments residents will be able to participate in adult education, health and wellness, and skill-building classes and services through a partnership with LifeSteps.
The property’s affordability was set to expire in March 2026. Affordability will be deepened and renewed for at least 20 more years under a renewed Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract and 55 years under the new CA Tax Credit Regulatory Agreement that will be implemented post-renovation.
“WNC is pleased to partner with CPP to renew affordability status for Canoga Park Apartments,” said Anil Advani, Executive Vice President of Originations and Finance at WNC. “The Los Angeles market has a historic pattern of inadequate affordable housing options, which we hope to help mitigate.”
Renovations are expected to be completed in December 2024. Partners on the project include the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), who issued 9% Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and CA State Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. WNC & Associates will be providing tax credits.
Affordable housing refers to housing that is reasonably priced, allowing low- and moderate-income individuals or families to live comfortably without spending an excessive portion of their income on housing. Typically, the standard guideline is that housing costs, including rent and/or mortgage payments and utilities, should not exceed 30% of a household's gross income.
Affordable housing can come in various forms, including government-subsidized housing, public housing projects, and private developments that offer reduced rents or prices. The goal is to ensure that everyone has access to safe and decent living conditions regardless of their financial situation.
Market Rate vs. Affordable Housing
While housing affordability is currently an issue across the United States, there are several key differences between housing categorized as “affordable” versus “market-rate”. Understanding these differences is essential for addressing housing needs and creating policies that promote inclusivity and accessibility in housing markets.
Importance of Affordable Housing
According to the Pew Research Center, in 2020, 46% of American renters spent 30% or more of their income on housing, including 23% who spent at least 50% of their income this way. The same study indicated that about half of Americans (49%) see the availability of affordable housing as a major problem in their local community. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of a healthy society, contributing to individual well-being and broader economic and social stability. Key benefits of affordable housing include:
Originally published on Forbes Business Councils by Seth Gellis, President of CPP.
With the continued urgent need for more affordable housing across the country, industry experts and academics are looking for solutions, whether they involve preserving existing communities nationwide or creating additional units where they are needed most.
According to a recent study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is a shortage of 7.3 million available affordable rental homes for the lowest-income renters in the U.S. While it’s a complex issue, one overlooked path to financing is the option to increase the use of private activity bonds (PABs), which pair with 4% low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs).
Volume cap, a “use it or lose it” resource provided by the federal government to the states based on a per capita formula, allows tax-exempt financing to be issued for affordable housing at a lower interest rate. The lower interest rates offset the lower net operating income that debt is sized from as a tool to help keep project sources and uses in balance. This ensures a greater level of capitalization, reducing the need for other sources and increasing the funding available for construction activity.
This important resource is allocated and awarded by state finance agencies, some of which unfortunately do not use all the resources made available to them. This means that if a state agency has unused volume cap and a deal is unable to make it through the funding cycle for that state in a timely manner, the resource and accompanying economic and social benefits are lost for good.
So, what can affordable housing professionals and organizations do to ensure the volume cap does not go to waste or to use it in the most efficient manner possible?
One solution is to work with local bond issuers and agencies that support them.
Local bond issuers play a major role in identifying the projects most impactful for their community and often can reduce the overburdened load that housing agency staff must deal with.
At my company, we find that an average deal may take nine months to close, plus an additional year to complete the development or preservation of the property (with a few more months of time tagged on for an IRS Form 8609 to be issued). We consider that a quick turnaround. But when entities do not use a local issuer for the deal, the acquisition or renovation timeline can extend for an additional one and a half to two years—sometimes making the deal untenable.
Across the U.S., many affordable properties are in immediate need of preservation; and many of these deals use LIHTC as a part of their financing. Completing these deals as quickly as possible is integral to reducing the loss of affordable units and preserving options for communities.
According to a 2024 report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS), there was a loss of 2.1 million units with rents below the maximum amount affordable for the lowest income group since 2012. While creating new affordable housing units is a part of the solution, new construction alone won't be able to keep up with the need, especially if communities are losing more units than are being created.
I've found that when local leaders, community advocates, developers, lenders and agencies can work together, it creates efficiencies and the strongest outcomes in affordable housing development and preservation. Communities should have a say in their local housing choices. Local leaders and community advocates have the best understanding of residents’ needs and where and how to invest, and good developers will listen.
Working with local issuers increases the ability for local jurisdictions to control the terms and circumstances that preservation or new development must follow in addition to minimum state provided standards. When deals and terms are localized, it creates the largest impact for the community. Specific benefits may include:
• The community is empowered to decide the priorities they wish to address. Developers should foster dialogue with local housing advocates and community leaders to discuss and outline their wish list. Unsurprisingly, the goals are often the same.
• Related improvement projects (e.g., street, sewer, LEED), social service requirements, crime prevention programs, prevailing wage, are benefits that are, by and large, staying within their community (should they choose). This autonomy also relieves pressure on developers by having an equal partner in the myriad decisions.
• Locals control within the development what is done, where it’s done and who does it within the community. For example, they may have checklists or requirements (e.g., Section 3 that requires a local workforce) that directly benefit the local community and economy.
Affordable housing developers looking to finance their deals may have the opportunity to work with a local issuer to get the deal done. I recommend you keep these best practices in mind:
Just like when working with any financial partner, organization is paramount. As a developer, that means having the deal structure solidified, financial documents in place and a single point of contact for the local issuer identified. The more streamlined you can make the process, the better.
Developers likely understand that one of the key benefits of working with a local issuer is the ability to help impact the local community in specific ways. But, for that impact to be felt in the biggest way, developers must take the time to truly understand the local community and its needs.
Developers need to reach out early in the process to understand if the issuer has sufficient volume cap, and what their processes may be. Creating a relationship early makes the processing, organization and understanding of their needs much easier.
Ultimately, the ability to work with local agencies carries many benefits and can make developers and investors nimbler in their work solving the nation’s affordable housing crisis.
