U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–058 PDF 2015

THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: 

INCREASING PRIVATE SECTOR 

PARTICIPATION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 114–14 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

ROBERT DOLD, Illinois 

FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Vice 

Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT DOLD, Illinois 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 16, 2015 ................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

April 16, 2015 ................................................................................................... 41 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015 

Crowley, Sheila, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Low Income 

Housing Coalition ................................................................................................. 9 

Evans, James M., Director, Quadel Consulting .................................................... 7 

Fennell, Brad, Senior Vice President, WC Smith ................................................. 5 

Todman, Adrianne, Executive Director, District of Columbia Housing Authority .......................................................................................................................... 3

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Crowley, Sheila ................................................................................................. 42 

Evans, James M. ............................................................................................... 51 

Fennell, Brad .................................................................................................... 57 

Todman, Adrianne ............................................................................................ 66 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: 

Written statement of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities 

(CLPHA) ........................................................................................................ 75 

Written statement of Hon. Patrick J. Tiberi, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Ohio .................................................................................. 79 

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Written statement of CSH ............................................................................... 82 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF HOUSING IN AMERICA: 

INCREASING PRIVATE SECTOR 

PARTICIPATION IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

Thursday, April 16, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:19 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Garrett, Pearce, 

Stivers, Ross, Barr, Rothfus, Dold, Williams; Cleaver, Velazquez, 

Capuano, Clay, Green, Ellison, Beatty, and Kildee. 

Ex officio present: Representatives Hensarling and Waters. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘The Future of Housing in America: 

Increasing Private Sector Participation in Affordable Housing.’’ 

Before we begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for traveling 

to 2175 Rayburn for today’s hearing. The audio-visual system in 

the Financial Services Committee’s main hearing room is being replaced and the room is being updated to meet the requirements of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, so I want to thank you all for 

your patience as we beg and borrow hearing room space for the 

next several months. I stopped by there this morning and they are 

making progress, but around here progress is at a snail’s pace. 

So with that, I recognize myself for 3 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

I want to start today by looking at some facts. Since Fiscal Year 2002 the Federal Government has thrown more than $550 billion 

at HUD. There are roughly 122,000 families on Section 8 wait lists 

in New York City alone. 

In late February, St. Louis County, Missouri, opened its wait list 

for the first time since 2010. When the City of St. Louis opened its 

wait list in 2007, the housing authority got more than 27,000 applicants in 1 week. 

Countless other cities across the Nation find themselves in more 

dire situations, where proverbial wait lists for wait lists run years 

long. Given this, it may be surprising that the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 budget increased by 

2 

71 percent between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2013, yet I have heard 

no one indicate that more of the need is being met. 

These aren’t signs of successful programs; they are signs that reform is desperately needed, that a status quo isn’t good enough. 

The reality is that the funding situation isn’t going to get better, 

and despite even the best of attempts, simply asking for more Federal dollars isn’t going to work. 

We need to look at innovative ways to do more with less, including increased private sector participation in public and affordable 

housing. And while private capital may not work in every instance, 

it is essential that we examine the track record of demonstration 

projects like Moving to Work, and the Rental Demonstration Assistance Program, and public-private partnerships so we can serve 

more people in need with the limited resources at our disposal. 

In today’s hearing we will hear from witnesses who have firsthand experience in forging partnerships that benefit communities 

in need. These are some of the many people and organizations 

striving to make a difference. We need to provide them with greater flexibility to meet the growing demand they face. 

My sincere hope is that members of this committee can work for 

positive results in public and affordable housing. 

And that we can work together to discuss reasonable reforms to 

HUD. The Department will turn 50 this year, and I think it is fair 

to say that it has at least a mixed record with few, if any, metrics 

to measure success. Despite trillions of dollars in funding and 

countless programs, too many Americans remain in need of housing 

assistance. 

This is an issue of great importance and one on which I hope we 

can work with members of this committee in the coming months. 

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today. We look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver. And for those of you who are not aware, 

there was a wonderful article in today’s Roll Call about the temperament and attitude and the work ethic of Mr. Cleaver, which is 

excellent, and I commend him for his being acknowledged in such 

a way. 

Mr. Cleaver? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may not take the entire 5 minutes. 

I, too, would like to thank those of you who come here to give 

of your time and talent to help this committee as it struggles with 

issues that are extremely important to the people in this country. 

This hearing will cover a crucially important topic: the need for 

safe and affordable housing for our country’s most vulnerable populations. This is especially topical given the shift in the housing 

market away from homeownership towards reliance on the rental 

market, following years of economic decline. As we are all aware, 

low-income Americans rely rather heavily on the rental market, a 

market that is currently falling short of affordable units. 

We, the elected leaders of the United States Congress, of the 

most powerful nation on this planet, have a duty to take care of 

our most vulnerable. This is not about the makers versus the takers. This is about reforming and investing in our social programs, 

3 

expanding access to affordable housing, and ensuring our most vulnerable, especially our children, do not go to sleep at night in an 

unsafe and unsanitary environment. There are poor children in 

urban, suburban, and rural areas that I represent, and I will never 

turn my back on any of them. 

It would be impossible to discuss the topic of affordable housing 

without highlighting the integral role played by the Federal Government. There are a number of Federal housing programs that 

work to invest and produce affordable housing units by leveraging 

private dollars. 

Although I don’t have enough time to go into detail on the programs, many of which I have actually orchestrated in Kansas City 

during my 8 years as mayor, I do think I would list a few. First, 

the HOME Investment Partnerships Program—Washington gives 

an acronym to everything, so the HOME Program—is a block grant 

program used by States and local governments to create affordable 

housing. 

And since 1992, over 1 million units of housing have been produced with HOME funds. This figure includes nearly 485,000 

homes for new homebuyers, more than 225,000 owner-occupied 

homes, and approximately 450,000 rental housing apartments. 

According to HUD, one dollar of HOME funding leverages an ad- ditional $4.17 in non-HOME funding. 

Second, I have not been shy in my support of the National Housing Trust Fund, created in 2008 with the passage of the Housing 

and Economic Development Recovery Act. This program is a block 

grant that prioritizes housing for extremely low-income families, 

and I applaud Director Watts’ decision to make this fund available. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, let me introduce the panel today: Ms. Adrianne 

Todman, executive director, District of Columbia Housing Authority; Mr. Brad Fennell, senior vice president, WC Smith; Mr. James 

Evans, director, Quadel Consulting; and Ms. Sheila Crowley, president and chief executive officer, National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give your oral testimony. 

Just a quick primer on the lights in front of you: the green light 

means go; the yellow light means you have 1 minute left, so start 

thinking about wrapping up or seeing how you can curtail things 

because we want to try and stay within the 5 minutes; and when 

the red light goes on, I have a gavel. 

I know that our committee members are normally used to having 

a clock on our own seats, so we are going to have to be watching 

those lights, as well, to watch for whenever we have our questions 

that we have, sort of wrapping up our own questions. 

So with that, Ms. Todman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ADRIANNE TODMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSING AUTHORITY 

Ms. TODMAN. Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking 

Member Cleaver, and members of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee. I am Adrianne Todman, executive director of the D.C. 

4 

Housing Authority (DCHA), and I am pleased to be here today to 

provide information and insight on affordable housing innovation 

undertaken here in D.C. 

My expertise in this area builds on 25 years of experience at both 

the Federal and local levels of government. I began my professional 

career here in this building as a legislative assistant and, after 4 

years, moved over to a public policy position at HUD, where I had 

the great privilege of working to help shape the HOPE VI program 

during its early years, and working and learning from some of the 

country’s greatest minds on community development. 

I now have the responsibility of implementing many of the programs and rules I worked on at the Federal level. And in doing so, 

I can recognize that the best of intentions are too often unnecessarily bogged down by burdensome processes, limiting our ability 

to shape programs with locally-driven solutions. DCHA is very fortunate to be a Moving to Work agency, which allows us to effectively shape our response to local issues. 

Our housing authority cannot fulfill its mission alone. Our success requires the support of this Congress, HUD, our local leadership, our clients, and the private sector. Without our private sector 

partners, we would be unable to achieve our core mission. 

My housing authority houses more than 50,000 low-income families here in the Nation’s capital. Twenty thousand of those families 

live in public housing, and the remainder will use a voucher in the 

rental market system. 

For those families who live in the private rental units, we rely 

on our local landlords to provide affordable housing, and we work 

with over 3,000 landlords at this point. Additionally, DCHA works 

very closely with many private and nonprofit developers to create 

affordable units for low-income families in the private development 

projects. Through project-based partnerships, we have created almost 2,000 units throughout the district and in neighborhoods that 

now are less affordable to moderate-income families. 

Our traditional public housing developments represent the backbone of affordable housing here in D.C. We have 8,300 units of public housing for low- and moderate-income households. This housing 

stock is a precious resource both locally and nationally. 

While my colleagues across the country would love to receive 100 

percent of the funding level that is promised to us, we know that 

we cannot wait for the priorities of our funders to change. This is 

why we must explore private-driven solutions to preserve these 

units. 

Today, in addition to the Choice program, the successor program 

to HOPE VI, HUD has created a new tool, the Rental Assistance 

Program. I support this program and fully intend to use it. 

At DCHA we have analyzed our need and we have determined 

that DCHA will need more than $1 billion in additional funding to 

bring our entire stock up to a 20-year viability. We work aggressively on our redevelopment and modernization pipeline, but with 

a process that is very sensitive to our resident concerns. 

Our work has been vital to economic development, but, very importantly, the preservation of low-income affordable units from 

neighborhoods like Capitol Hill to Columbia Heights. Over the 

years, we have done this work always with a sensitivity to the famVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:32 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 095058 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\95058.TXT TERRI
5 

ilies impacted. We have a robust process prior to redevelopment, 

and we also protect our deals to protect the public asset into the 

future. 

Finally, our work with the private and nonprofit sectors includes 

our work to help families achieve their full potential and improve 

their economic situation. As a Moving to Work agency, we are able 

to use those funds to actually provide services to our residents and 

to be able to provide grants to private sector partners to achieve 

their service goals. 

I would like to conclude with some recommendations on ways 

that my colleagues and I can receive help. 

First, the approval process: The existing mixed finance approval 

process at HUD is very complex and lengthy. It typically takes several months to get approvals. We need to work with HUD and develop a more streamlined process. 

Our repositioning: Over the past couple of years, the approval 

process for a demo-dispo has become ever more curious. Though the 

statute states that HUD shall approve a demo-dispo application if 

the PHA certifies to certain items, right now HUD is requiring far 

more justification rules that we have to follow. 

Underutilized tools: Both the Section 30 and the Capital Fund 

Financing Program are tools that housing authorities are not using 

to their full capacity, given a number of different issues. One with 

Section 30 is that it has not been fully implemented by HUD. And 

with the Capital Fund Financing Program, it only works if our capital fund is more fully funded. 

But most importantly, we need to be able to find local solutions 

to local problems. DCHA is very fortunate to be a Moving to Work 

agency, and this has provided us the ability to shape our programs 

to respond to local needs, and we encourage that flexibility for 

other agencies across the country. 

That concludes my testimony. It is clear to me, given my experience, that the appropriate level of public investment, a business environment that welcomes private sector involvement, and the ability to apply local solutions to local problems, housing authorities 

will be able to maximize our ability to preserve and create low-income housing throughout the country. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Todman can be found on page 66 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Ms. Todman. 

Mr. Fennell, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD FENNELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WC 

SMITH 

Mr. FENNELL. Good morning. My name is Brad Fennell, and I am 

the senior vice president at WC Smith. I am here this morning to 

share the successes and challenges that we faced while developing 

Sheridan Station, a transit-oriented, mixed-income development 

one block from the Anacostia Metro in Washington, D.C. 

WC Smith in 2007 partnered on this project with the D.C. Housing Authority. Due to its overall size and complexity, the development was financed and constructed in three phases, with the last 

of the units delivering this summer. 

6 

There is extreme demand for high-quality, well-managed affordable housing. The results we have seen at Sheridan demonstrate 

the severe shortage of affordable housing options. For context, 

when we delivered phase one we had over 1,700 names registered, 

enabling us to pre-lease units as we completed construction. 

But Sheridan Station is not just an affordable development. It is 

also an environmentally friendly project. 

It was the first multifamily building in D.C. to be awarded LEED 

platinum for its superior energy performance. The building features 

a solar array that produces 60 percent of the building’s common 

area electricity, as well as a rain garden, energy-star appliances, 

and underground rainwater cisterns that collect storm water runoff. 

While Sheridan Station replaces affordable housing, it is not recreating the dilapidated housing of the past. It is set apart by highquality finishes, community amenities, and resident support. 

More significantly, the combination of rental and homeownership 

units contains a true mix of incomes, and also attracts a diversity 

of residents. Incomes at Sheridan run from as low as $5,000 a year 

to $230,000 a year. 

When complete, Sheridan Station will provide a total of 327 

housing units. The rental units utilize private equity derived from 

the Housing Tax Credit fund, where incomes are capped at 60 percent. But 110 of the rental units in this project are further subsidized with Section 8 annual contribution contracts, providing 

housing for the neediest in our City. 

The $20 million in HOPE VI funds has been key to the success 

of this project. The funding allowed the development to move forward while filling a gap in financing. 

While the Federal subsidy was a driving factor, it is important 

to point out that the development team leveraged $5.65 in other 

private and local sources for every dollar of Federal spending. Also, 

the money was structured as a loan, so the Federal subsidy is repaid at a very low interest rate. 

By leveraging private investment, the Housing Tax Credit was 

critical to providing affordable homes to many more families than 

the HOPE VI funds could have provided on its own. The affordable 

apartments that it financed complemented the deeply targeted 

HUD-funded apartments and the market-rate homes to make 

Sheridan Station a truly mixed-income community. 

As the success at Sheridan Station shows, the private sector is 

equipped to provide affordable housing, and our region and many 

other areas in the country are in critical need of additional units. 

Continued public investment, whether it is more ACC, more 

project-based vouchers, more capital funds, or more HOPE VI-like 

programs, will help fill the gap between the market-rate costs and 

subsidized rent and will encourage developers like us to create 

more housing. 

Developing affordable housing is not without challenges, and increased funding is the single biggest impediment. But there are 

other areas that would enhance the private sector involvement. 

One is relaxing the 60 percent income limit imposed by the housing credit unit. A better approach would be to allow a blend of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:32 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 095058 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\95058.TXT TERRI
7 

comes with a cap of 80 percent AMI as long as the building average 

is below 60 percent. 

The floating tax credit rate is another challenge. This rate is 

published monthly by the IRS and it helps to determine the 

amount of cash equity a project sees from an investor. This rate 

has been near historic lows, starving new projects of equity. 

The project equity amount is often not known until the month of 

closing, which makes it difficult. A way to solve this problem would 

be to set aside a constant rate of 4 percent and 9 percent, rather 

than to have them float monthly. 

The development community is wary of uncertain delays, both of 

which add significantly to the cost of a project, so streamlining the 

public agency award and approval process is a must. 

An additional limiting factor is the scarcity of the housing credit 

resources. Many developments each year cannot get credits they 

need. Making more credits available would produce more units like 

we have at Sheridan Station. 

Another challenge is that the Section 8 ACC rent subsidy from 

HUD doesn’t take the apartment size into account. The current 

monthly subsidy is a flat $425 for a studio or a three-bedroom. 

The subsidy limit creates disincentives to build larger units. At Sheridan Station the two-bedroom units currently rent for $1,295, 

so the subsidy covers less than half the cost of the rent. 

Lastly, a portion of this project was covered by the Federal 

Davis-Bacon wage scale and classified as commercial heavy highway, despite being entirely residential midrise. This added a 5 percent premium, equaling $1 million in construction costs. 

Affordable residential projects with wood frame construction 

should be classified as residential under the Davis-Bacon wage 

scale act. This will stretch the overall effectiveness of any public 

subsidy. 

Members of Congress, staff, and others here today, thank you for 

this opportunity to testify at this hearing. We at WC Smith are 

very proud of our accomplishments at Sheridan Station and hope 

that we have been able to share some helpful information today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fennell can be found on page 57 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Fennell. 

Mr. Evans, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. EVANS, DIRECTOR, QUADEL 

CONSULTING 

Mr. EVANS. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, 

and subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the very important topic of increasing private sector participation in affordable housing. 

My name is Jim Evans, and for the past 23 years I have worked 

in the field of affordable housing. And for the past 11 years I have 

worked for Quadel Consulting. Formed in 1978, Quadel provides 

consulting, training, and direct management of affordable housing 

programs. 

My testimony is based upon my experiences and focuses on the 

national need for more affordable housing production and preservaVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:32 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 095058 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\95058.TXT TERRI
8 

tion, as well as strategies to increase private sector participation. 

To assure private sector participation, the national housing policy 

must be consistent and adequately funded. Any changes to the national policy should be based on private market principles that are 

designed to foster cost-effectiveness and innovation. 

For many years, the Housing Choice Voucher Program has accounted for the largest part of the HUD budget. Unfortunately, 

funding and program requirements have not kept pace with the 

market. To continue serving low-income families on the program 

within the resources available, housing agencies have been forced 

to take actions that have caused some private sector players to discontinue participation in the program or decide not to accept an 

otherwise qualified tenant with a housing choice voucher. 

Another challenge is the inconsistency between program requirements. For example, the statutory maximum term of a projectbased voucher contract is 15 years. However, an FHA-insured loan 

requires that units remain affordable during the term of that loan, 

which could be as long as 40 years. 

The inability to easily layer affordable housing finance programs 

with subsidy programs discourages private investment. To fix this 

problem, it is recommended that there be flexibility to allow the 

term of the subsidy contract to be the same as that of the loan program. 

One tool that is being used to identify affordable housing innovation is the Moving to Work demonstration, or MTW. Since its authorization in 1996, participating agencies have found new, better, 

and more cost-effective ways to deliver assisted housing services. In 

fact, many of the MTW innovations have become national policy. 

It is also important to note that despite criticism to the contrary, 

MTW both protects and benefits residents as it helps housing authorities make programmatic investments where they are most 

needed. 

To build on the demonstration’s success, it is recommended that 

MTW either be expanded or more of the innovations be built into 

the current programs. As well, it is important to find more ways 

to promote fair housing and maximize the value of the Section 8 

subsidy by providing agencies the flexibility they need to expand 

access to private sector housing opportunities in their communities 

that are within the reach of voucher holders. 

Next, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. Tax credits have been the 

workhorse of affordable housing development and preservation 

since the 1980s. 

Congress can strengthen and enhance the contributions of the 

private sector by continuing to support and expand the use of housing credits for affordable housing development and preservation. 

The Rental Assistance Demonstration, or RAD, is HUD’s program to introduce private investment into public housing and has 

experienced some early successes. One current challenge to the 

RAD program is access to 9 percent tax credits. Some of the public 

housing portfolio is in desperate need of investment, and 9 percent 

credits are the only financing tool that will make a RAD conversion 

viable. 

9 

To attract private investment and reposition the projects with 

the greatest need of investment, it is recommended that a special 

allocation of 9 percent credits, separate from the regular allocations, be created to specifically address the conversion of public 

housing units. 

And while RAD is an important tool for preserving public housing, it may not be the best option for all agencies. The current formula for managing public housing assets is broken. The combination of tenant rent and an underfunded operating subsidy and capital fund program cannot meet the operational needs of an aging 

public housing inventory. 

PHAs are authorized to mortgage their public housing and real 

estate to secure private sector financing through Section 30. While 

this flexibility has not been used often, it is gaining in popularity 

and it opens new avenues for private investment while at the same 

time making sure to protect the rights of tenants. 

To assure more use of this option, the approval process should 

be simplified. As well, the lessons learned from MTW should be 

used to authorize PHAs to combine Federal funds to preserve existing housing. 

Another important part of the national affordable housing strategy includes the Section 8 project-based assistance portfolio. Since 

the early 1990s, Congress authorized the use of private sector 

model to manage and oversee the administration of the program. 

Because these units are owned by the private sector and there is 

debt on all or most of these properties, it is essential that Congress 

ensure an adequate and uninterrupted process for payments. 

My testimony can be summarized into three overarching themes. 

First, the role of the private sector is essential to preserve affordable housing. Second, the government must offer adequately funded programs to encourage private sector participation and innovation. And third, our efforts must respect the rights and benefits of 

program residents and participants. 

For more than 37 years Quadel Consulting has been proud to 

work in the field of affordable housing. We look forward to working 

with your committee on legislative initiatives designed to enhance 

the availability and preservation of affordable housing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and subcommittee members. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans can be found on page 51 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Evans. 

Ms. Crowley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA CROWLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION 

Ms. CROWLEY. Thank you, Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking 

Member Cleaver. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

I am Sheila Crowley, the president and CEO of the National Low 

Income Housing Coalition. 

First, I would like to bring greetings from Empower Missouri, 

formerly the Missouri Association for Social Welfare. They are our 

State coalition partner in Missouri. 

10 

I am going to emphasize three points in my oral testimony. First, 

we have a severe shortage of rental housing that extremely low-income households can afford. Affordability means paying no more 

than 30 percent of your income for your housing. 

And in housing policy, low income is defined as income between 

50 and 80 percent of the area median income; very low income is 

between 31 and 50 percent; and extremely low income is income at 

30 percent of the area median income or less. 

Table one compares 30 percent of national median family income 

to the Federal poverty level for a family of four. And what you can 

see is that the 30 percent AMI is now below the poverty level substantially for a family of four, and it is getting worse as time goes 

on. This shows you how poor extremely low-income families are. 

Figure one is a graph that compares the number of renter households in these income groups to the number of housing units renting at prices they can afford. So the column on the left are units; 

the column on the right are households. 

And you will see that there is a surplus of housing affordable to 

the very low-income and low-income households, and there is a 

shortage of housing that is affordable to extremely low-income 

households. 

We have also added another category at the very bottom that we 

call deeply low-income. These are households with incomes at or 

below 15 percent of the area median income. And for a one-person 

household, 15 percent of the median family income is $6,909 a 

year. This is even less than the Federal supplemental security income payment for one person in 2015, which is $8,796. 

The shortage for extremely low-income households is even worse 

because many of the units affordable for lower-income groups are 

occupied by higher-income households. Nationally, there are 10.3 

million extremely low-income renter households and 3.2 million 

homes that are available and affordable to them, so the real shortage is 7.1 million units. 

The first consequence, of course, is that poor people spend much 

more than they can afford for their housing. Seventy-five percent 

of extremely low-income households spend more than half of their 

income for their housing and are at high risk of not being able to 

pay the rent and eventually becoming homeless. 

Despite gains in recent years in addressing homelessness, the 

number of homeless people remains alarmingly high, especially 

among families with children. In New York City alone, there are 

25,000 homeless children today. 

To solve this problem, we have to invest in more housing that is 

affordable to people at the lower end. That will create the ability 

for people to afford housing at that end and free up housing at the 

higher end. 

There are numerous opportunities for the private for-profit sector 

to be involved, but only in the context of public-private partnerships. Without a public commitment, there is no motivation for private investment. 

The data on the housing shortage and the years-long waiting list 

for Federal housing assistance are evidence that there is a market 

for rental housing that extremely low-income families can afford. If 

there were a profit to be made creating and operating this housing, 

11 

somebody would have done so by now. There is a mismatch in what 

it costs to build and operate rental housing that these families can 

afford and what it is that they can pay. 

It is possible to end homelessness and the shortage of affordable 

rental housing in America without costing the Federal Government 

one additional dollar. We simply need to use our existing Federal 

housing subsidies more efficiently and effectively. 

Representative Ellison’s Common Sense Housing Investment Act 

would make modest changes to the mortgage interest deductions to 

give tax breaks to moderate and low-income homeowners and generate billions of dollars of new revenue for affordable rental housing for extremely low-income households. 

One of the programs that he would fund is the National Housing 

Trust Fund. As the committee knows, the trust fund received its 

first funds in 2016 through the GSEs. It will serve as an incentive 

to bring other resources to the development of rental housing for 

extremely low-income people for at least two reasons. 

First, its deep income targeting. There is no other Federal program that provides new money to support rental development targeted to extremely low-income households. 

Second, the National Housing Trust Fund’s flexibility. It provides 

capital grants or loans that can be coupled with other sources of 

funding and used for a range of costs associated with construction 

of multifamily properties. Projects will be designed based on local 

market conditions, local priorities, and local resources. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crowley can be found on page 42 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Ms. Crowley. 

With that, we will begin our questions. I am going to defer my 

questions to the very end. 

And to that end, we will begin with Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania. He is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Evans and Ms. Todman, you both mentioned expanding the 

Moving to Work program in your testimony, and I am interested 

in exploring this program a little bit further. 

In Pennsylvania the housing authorities participating in the 

demonstration are the City of Pittsburgh Housing Authority and 

the Philadelphia Housing Authority, two of the big cities in our 

State. In your experience, do smaller housing authorities in the 

suburbs or rural areas elsewhere across the country participate in 

the program with success? 

Ms. Todman? 

Ms. TODMAN. Is the question whether or not there are smaller— 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Yes. Are those in the suburbs or the rural areas, 

the smaller ones, participating in the program with some success? 

Ms. TODMAN. No, there certainly are. There are 39 housing authorities that represent almost every size of agency within the full 

housing authority industry. And the concept of Moving to Work 

isn’t unique to things that urban area housing authorities need. 

And there are two basic concepts. One is the ability to receive 

our funds from HUD and to be able to use those funds in a way 

that best addresses things that are happening on the ground. Here 

12 

in D.C., we do use some of our funds on the Housing Assistance 

Program (HAP) program to help support our public housing program because it is underfunded. 

The second piece that I think is also equally needed for a smaller 

housing authority is the ability to re-regulate when necessary when 

you look at HUD rules. As somebody who used to work at HUD, 

I know that there are many regulations that sometimes get in the 

way of progress, and so we are able to look at those rules and reregulate them in a way that it is a better construct on the ground. 

So I think that it is a program that is equally valuable to larger 

and smaller housing authorities. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Evans? 

Mr. EVANS. I agree with Ms. Todman. And going back to the 

original question, whether the MTW program should be expanded, 

it should either be expanded or the innovations that have been 

learned from MTW should be applied more broadly to the existing 

programs. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Are there components or aspects of the program 

that make it more attractive to a larger housing authority versus 

a small housing authority—either of you? 

Ms. TODMAN. When I speak to my colleagues who represent 

smaller housing authorities, there is a sense that perhaps as a 

smaller housing authority they don’t need it as much. But I think 

that after we have sat down and explained to them the merits of 

it and the capacity to really, truly be able to exercise some more 

control over their funding buckets, there is a little bit more awareness about the effect upside. 

So we have fewer smaller housing authorities, but I don’t think 

that is because it is less of a tool in rural and— 

Mr. ROTHFUS. But given that education effort for the smaller 

housing authorities, do you think they would be more eager— 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. —to participate? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes I do. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Could either of you—Mr. Evans or Ms. Todman— 

give me some examples of the successful, innovative ideas that 

Moving to Work housing authorities have implemented to best 

serve the local population’s needs? And could a non-Moving to 

Work authority do those kinds of things? 

Ms. TODMAN. Do you want me to go first? Okay. 

Some of the ways we have used our flexibility here in D.C. have 

been directly to help our clients find affordable housing. One very 

basic thing is, for many of you who live in the District of Columbia, 

it is not cheap. It is hard to find affordable units. 

And so one of the things that we have done is we have increased 

our payment standard even above that of what HUD would allow, 

to 130 percent. And by doing so, we have been able to move our 

clients into additional areas of D.C. that even 6 or 7 years ago were 

inaccessible. So that is one way. 

Another is that we have been able to, as I mentioned, which is 

huge for us—we have 8,000 public housing units and with the 

funding the way it is, I have an option of either moving some funds 

into my public housing program or shutting down the units. And 

so we have opted to move funding into our public housing program. 

13 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Evans, I noticed your background and the 

service you have given to the country. Thank you for that. 

Are any of your clients you work with doing innovative work 

with the veterans population that you could speak to? 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. A number of our clients are working either 

through the VASH program, the Veterans Affordable Supportive 

Housing program, or also creating—just in creating affordable 

housing, and they have local preferences that are targeted to veterans and returning warriors. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. Todman, I want to talk a little bit—although I think I am 

going to be running out of time shortly. You mentioned a discussion 

of some of the assisted living space work that you are doing. Could 

you talk more about that project and what other housing authorities across the country may have had success with when serving 

the needs of seniors and disabled individuals who may not necessarily be taking part in a job-creating program and other activities designed to help able-bodied folks achieve economic independence? 

Ms. TODMAN. Sure. There are a few of us who have done this because apparently it is really hard, which is what we discovered trying to blend the assisted living rules with the rules of public housing. So we are the only ones here in this region who have a truly 

low-income assisted living site, and we were able to do it with some 

components of Moving to Work. 

It is only 14 beds. We are using it as a model to learn how to 

do this to scale. But our seniors and the persons who live there 

love it. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, we will go to the distinguished ranking member from 

Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Ms. Crowley, thank you so much. I have been on this 

committee for 10 years, and as soon as you got out of college it was 

probably my first year on the committee. You have been coming before this committee for those 10 years. I think you were probably 

18 at the time when you first showed up. 

But thank you for all of your commitment of your knowledge to 

us. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Thank you, sir. 

As a former mayor, I know—and every mayor in the country 

knows—there is hardly any partisanship in municipal governments. Nobody has a Republican pothole and a Democratic way of 

fixing that pothole. Everybody just works together. 

So we wanted and still want—any city you go to, no matter who 

the mayor is, they want public-private partnership. That is the 

goal. Every day you wake up you want that kind of partnership because you want to use the expertise of the private sector, which 

they have, and efficiencies. 

It helps all of the taxpayers because if we get public-private partnership we don’t have to go out and issue bonds or otherwise go 

into municipal debt. So everybody wants it. 

14 

I guess my question to you is, my experience has been that the 

public sector has been less than enthusiastic about becoming involved in affordable housing, which I understand. They are in business. They are trying to make a profit. 

So do you think that we could have a private market exclusive 

of Federal involvement—financial involvement? 

Ms. CROWLEY. For rental housing for low-income people? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, for— 

Ms. CROWLEY. No. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, for affordable housing. 

Ms. CROWLEY. No. There is just no evidence that there is a willingness to do that, nor why would there be? If you are in business 

to turn a profit—even a modest profit—your customers have to be 

able to afford your product, and if what it costs you to build and 

produce and deliver your product is more than your customers can 

afford, then you are not going to do that. 

And so there are several things we could do. One is if people 

made more money there would be a greater market, and it certainly would be better if low-income people were able to improve 

their incomes. It is really alarming how much the income has stagnated when you look at the comparison between the poverty level 

and the ELI level over the last 15 years. 

Obviously, if people had more money they could do that, so there 

are plenty of things that the Congress could do to address that. 

But in the immediate, very near future, we have kids who are 

sleeping in shelters and in cars and in places where children 

should not be sleeping, and they can’t wait for us to fix that. They 

need for us to put money into housing now and get them into safe, 

decent, and affordable homes. 

And that is a public responsibility. The private sector can’t do 

that without a public investment. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. That is my experience. 

Let me ask Ms. Todman, being here in Washington, D.C., you are 

closer to this than probably any other director of a PHA or Federal 

housing program. Are there impediments to public-private partnership—PPPs, or P to the third power—here in Washington? I am 

wondering, is there something that the Federal Government can do 

that would encourage greater private participation? 

Ms. TODMAN. Thank you for that question. In D.C., we are often 

challenged by very high rents. And back to the point you made earlier, usually—other than Brad—other folks in the private sector are 

really in this game so that they can have something at the end of 

the day. 

And if the pockets of money that housing authorities have to do 

public-private partnerships isn’t enough to hit those rents because, 

to Ms. Crowley’s point, it is the public sector funds that actually 

allow our clients—our low-income clients to live in parts of town 

that have been changing over the past couple of years. But if we 

are not able to get to that rent level then it means that unit can’t 

be supported and operated to service debt coverage. 

So one of the things that we have done to be able to hit those 

rent levels is using our Moving to Work flexibility to be able to subsidize what HUD would already suggest is our rent level. And by 

15 

doing so, we are able to put affordable housing in parts of D.C. that 

would otherwise not be available. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

We will go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly want to thank you all for taking your time to be 

here today. 

Ms. Todman, I wanted to kind of build off what you had mentioned in your testimony: local solutions to local problems. I have 

to tell you that in—it goes well beyond housing when we look—and 

I am talking to people back in the district, they just think the government doesn’t get it. 

They are looking for a little bit more local control. They want to 

be able to have the flexibility to solve problems because a one-sizefits-all mentality oftentimes doesn’t work. 

So I was hoping you might be able to shed a little bit more light 

on local solutions to local problems. I can tell you that in the 112th 

Congress this subcommittee actually held a hearing on Moving to 

Work, where one witness from the Chicago Housing Authority, I 

would say more my hometown type area, said that the landscape 

of Chicago and the life trajectory of thousands of low-income families would not be the same without the local flexibility the Moving 

to Work program provides. 

Are there other initiatives or programs besides the Moving to 

Work program that you see could provide more local flexibility to 

change the lives of the families that you serve? 

Ms. TODMAN. Sure. Again, we have used our Moving to Work 

flexibility, and I think all my colleagues have, in three very important ways to help our clients. 

The first is, I spoke earlier about the ability to help one program 

feed the other, and here in D.C., many of you would be driving 

around more boarded-up public housing units but for Moving to 

Work and being able to use those funds more fungibly. 

The second is that our voucher program is extraordinarily complicated, and so we have been able to work with our landlords and 

our voucher participants to streamline some of the regulations that 

other non-Moving to Work agencies cannot. And so we have been 

able to get families, including veterans, housed more quickly, and 

been able to have families live in more higher-rent areas than just 

certain parts of the City. 

And then third, HUD does not fund us to do any type of social 

service work. And the average income of my clients is about 

$12,000. If we are ever going to be able to help those families 

achieve their potential, we need to invest in them. And we have 

been able to use our Moving to Work funds, and my colleagues as 

well, to make those investments in our youth and our work—our 

families who can work so that they can actually have some services. 

Mr. DOLD. Let’s build on that just for a second, because I think 

we all can share the goal that we want to make sure that folks who 

are in public housing are able to become self-sufficient and move 

16 

on. And I can tell you, in talking to our housing authorities, the 

wait list is a long wait list—in fact, it has been closed for several 

years, meaning that people who needed it or wanted it couldn’t get 

on. So obviously there is a need to kind of think differently about 

how do we open it up and expand it. 

But on the idea of better linking the housing services with education, job training, and encouraging low-income individuals to become more independent, how do we get them—or what are the successes that we can point to to get them out of public housing and 

more self-sufficient? 

Ms. TODMAN. We have a very robust homeownership program 

where we have been able to partner with local banks and local public agencies to actually work with some of our low- and moderateincome clients. Just last month I had three of our public housing 

residents actually close on their homeownership units, which was 

very exciting for everybody involved. 

And so that is how we—it is very incremental. It is family by 

family. It moves slowly, but it happens. 

To your point about the waiting list, we have about 41,000 people 

on our waiting list here in D.C., so the more we are able to help 

families who have achieved something other than public housing, 

the more we can help the families on that list—but without penalizing families who are not able to move out of public housing, because I have found that there is no rental market that they can afford but for the units that we have. 

Mr. DOLD. I wanted to see if I could shift gears a little bit and 

talk about social impact bonds. Obviously, there is a need. We have 

a number of folks on a waiting list trying to attract private sector 

investment. 

Ms. Crowley, do you think that we might be able to use something like a social impact bond in public housing to attract private 

sector investment? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I think social impact bonds are a very interesting 

concept. They are very new in the field, and so we have a lot to 

learn about that. 

My understanding of them is that the private sector puts up 

money to deliver a particular kind of service, usually around outcome-based things like recidivism. And then if the service delivery 

is successful, the government pays for it, and then the service provider can pay back the private company. 

It seems a little complicated to do that. They are known as these 

pay-for-success kinds of ideas. 

I think we should be trying as many different things as we can, 

but I don’t see that going to scale in a way that is going to address 

a problem of the magnitude that I have outlined here. 

Mr. DOLD. Thank you. 

My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, we will go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 

Velazquez— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. —for 5 minutes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Crowley, do you have any opinion as to the 

risks that Moving to Work poses for public housing residents? 

17 

Ms. CROWLEY. Moving to Work has a lot of risk for public housing residents because under the flexibility that Moving to Work 

provides housing authorities, many of the protections that tenants 

have, the things that make public housing a good option for many 

people, are possibly gone. And that includes the provisions that 

make the rents affordable. 

Rents can go up. Housing authorities would no longer have to 

serve extremely low-income households. They will, but they are not 

required to do that. There are all sorts of things that housing authorities can do or not do that may have a negative impact on tenants. 

I am not saying that there is any malevolence, but I do think 

that in the name of experimentation, we haven’t really figured out 

how to determine whether a given action by a housing authority is 

helpful or harmful. 

Our major criticism of Moving to Work, besides the fundamental 

protections that are lost, is that we don’t know what works. We 

haven’t done any serious evaluation of it. 

I have read all the studies. They are descriptive. They say, ‘‘This 

is what this housing authority did, this is what that housing authority did.’’ 

Some of those things sound good; some of those things sound 

scary. But in the absence of serious empirical evidence, I think we 

should proceed with caution. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And in your opinion, what are better ways to address public housing capital needs? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I do think that there are some things about Moving to Work that should be looked at. The ability to merge the 

funds is something that we support under the stakeholder agreement, which is an agreement between HUD and the advocates and 

housing authorities. 

And that was something that Ms. Waters proposed a couple of 

years ago, to be able to merge the funds to give housing authorities 

more flexibility in how they use their funds. So that is certainly 

one option there. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We hear that the housing authority in Chicago, 

as a result of implementation of Moving to Work, is serving a thousand less families through the Section 8 voucher program. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Chicago is the housing advocate’s scariest nightmare about Moving to Work. They have a huge waiting list and 

they are sitting on millions and millions of dollars of reserves without providing assistance to people who need it. And it baffles me 

why HUD doesn’t do something about that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Todman, Section 3 ensures that public housing residents benefit from job opportunities created by HUD funding. We all know that it hasn’t met the full potential of the program. 

This obligation will be diminished as public housing units are 

converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD). In 

your opinion, how can we preserve job opportunities for residents 

in RAD-converted properties absent full Section 3 requirements? 

Ms. TODMAN. Thank you for that question. I am not clear that 

Section 3 would be diminished as properties move over to RAD, because the core of Section 3 is that when there is Federal funds that 

18 

are being provided to a contractor or vendor, the Section 3 rules 

follow. And certainly if I am operating a site and I am awarded 

someone a contract, Section 3 would apply. 

We have a very robust Section 3 program— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Isn’t it true that Section 3 will no longer apply 

to non-construction jobs at those projects? 

Ms. TODMAN. I have not heard that is the case, Congresswoman. 

Section 3 is not applicable just to public housing work. It is applicable to when a contract has been let, and that contract could be 

let in any housing forum. But I am— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. But we do know that we are having problems 

in getting public housing development which is getting Federal 

funds to get those contractors to hire residents from within public 

housing developments. So you can imagine the kind of oversight 

that you will have to have in place to make sure that this happens 

once those properties are converted into RAD. 

Ms. TODMAN. I think that becomes a—how firm the housing authority is on these matters. We are very, very fierce with our contractors in terms of what we expect the hiring and training to be 

for every level of contract. Not every housing authority applies it 

that way. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And do you have a robust Section 3? 

Ms. TODMAN. We do. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has 

expired. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses today for being here and 

for your testimony. 

Federal funding for HUD and the Section 8 voucher program has 

continued to increase dramatically over the last decade. We are 

hearing that. 

In fact, this year the President again requested an increase in 

funding for HUD to almost $50 billion, or 9 percent more than last 

year’s enacted levels, as well as an increase in funding for Section 

8 programs. As the voucher program continues to consume more 

and more of HUD’s overall budget, Congress should take an active 

role in strengthening these programs and improve the taxpayers’ 

investment. 

Now, I think most of my colleagues here know that I totally— 

I am a private sector person. I still have jobs. I employ people. And 

I believe totally in the private sector, and I am a strong believer 

that the private sector can always do it better. 

So the question of how we make these programs more efficient 

is fairly simple to me: Increase private sector participation in capital. 

Let me direct my questions to you, Ms. Crowley. Several critics 

of today’s public housing programs often suggest appropriating 

more money. Do you believe that the current existing Federal housing programs work really well? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I think the Federal programs that we have provide essential housing services to very poor people, and in the absence of those programs there would be a great deal of suffering 

19 

in this country. And so we have to take into consideration what it 

is that they do as we think about ways to improve them. 

Can they be improved? Absolutely. Any program can be improved. And there are good ideas being generated all the time, and 

I think Congress should help incentivize that and motivate people 

to do that. 

At the same time, the first principle has to be do no harm—make 

sure that the housing of people who rely on it now is not destabilized. Over time, we have lost a considerable amount of public 

and assisted housing under current rules, and we think that preserving it is of the utmost importance. 

Let me just address the question about the increase in the size 

of the voucher program. That is not because we are putting new 

vouchers out there. It is because we have lost public and assisted 

housing units—hard units. The residents who were in those units 

have received vouchers in order to prevent them from being totally 

displaced. And so, you are just transferring the money from one 

fund to the other. 

The other thing about the voucher program is that it is a market-based program. It is based on what rents are, and the rents go 

up every year. Because it is a public-private partnership, people 

use vouchers to rent housing in the private market, and the rents 

have to be based on what the market demands. And so even if you 

serve the same number of households, the cost will go up. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. And the next question would be, do 

you have confidence that HUD or other mechanisms can maximize 

taxpayers’ investments in public housing? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I have confidence that there is a great deal of wisdom at HUD and in housing authorities and in the private sector 

of people who know what they are doing and that, given the right 

motivations and the right tools, we can, in fact, do this well. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Fresh ideas from the government side? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I’m sorry? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Fresh ideas from the government side? 

Ms. CROWLEY. I think that we bring really good people to work 

at HUD, and we have people in this Administration who have good 

experience in the private sector. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. My final question is, do you believe it is possible 

to establish new policies to promote public-private partnerships to 

house and provide services for vulnerable populations? 

Ms. CROWLEY. To provide services within housing? 

I think that we have a whole new frontier to discover around the 

intersection between housing and health care, and that as we have 

an aging population, the cost of providing care for people in nursing homes is going to be exorbitant and we are much better off if 

we bring health care to people in their homes and we figure out 

ways to pay for that through the health care system. 

People are working hard now to come up with innovations as to 

how to do that, and these are partnerships between the public and 

the private sectors. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

20 

Next, is the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Capuano, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you for that distinguishment, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I recognize talent. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Fennell, if there were no government programs for affordable housing—no public housing, no tax credits, 

nothing, the government didn’t do anything—would private money 

provide affordable housing for people? 

Mr. FENNELL. I don’t see how it could. Without a return on the 

investment, there would be no sense in making the investment. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Evans, would you disagree with that? Or 

would you agree? 

Mr. EVANS. I agree with Mr. Fennell. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And I knew you would because I think everybody 

knows it, but I needed you to say it because if I say it it sounds 

like some left-wing conspiracy; if you say it, it is business saying 

it. 

There is no such thing as privately-funded affordable housing, 

period. It is all government-funded, either directly through housing 

authorities, or indirectly through tax policies or whatever items in 

partnership with private companies. So the government has to be 

involved with affordable housing. 

Therefore, the concept of private enterprise always doing everything better than government, in this instance, is an impossibility. 

I just wanted to start there. 

Ms. Todman, I know you have only been at the housing authority 

for a while, but you have been doing this for a long time. Have you 

ever been involved with an expiring use? 

Ms. TODMAN. Involved with what? 

Mr. CAPUANO. An expiring use. 

Ms. TODMAN. An expiring use? So are we—if we are talking optouts, yes, certainly the role that we play is when there is a—here 

in D.C., there are thousands of units that were privately-owned 

that opted out and HUD gave us the vouchers to provide to families. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Have you saved all of the units that were expiring—saved them for affordability? 

Ms. TODMAN. We saved the vouchers. The units themselves either flipped over into private rents or— 

Mr. CAPUANO. The vouchers move on. The vouchers stay, but 

people get displaced, and they get displaced out of their neighborhood and out of their lives. 

The reason I ask is because my fear is that depending on what 

we do with private-public partnership—and I saw that you have 

one program there that requires a 40-year agreement, another one 

to buy it back after 15 years, both decent programs. When expiring 

uses were first put together, no one ever thought that they would 

actually ever expire. 

And 40 years from now, I am not sure, but I will take a wild 

guess: There probably will still be poor people in Washington and 

in the rest of America. And so therefore, I actually like the idea of 

public-private relationships, but I also am deeply fearful of someVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:32 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 095058 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\95058.TXT TERRI
21 

thing that says, ‘‘Let’s do it today and not worry about tomorrow. 

Ninety-nine-year leases, let’s buy it back 15 years from now.’’ 

Just in the last few years, has your agency seen the Federal assistance go down? 

Ms. TODMAN. In the public housing program? 

Mr. CAPUANO. In the public housing program for—because I remember we cut out all funding for police departments. Do you still 

have a police department in the housing authority? 

Ms. TODMAN. We do. It is half funded by the City, and the rest 

of the funds come from our Moving to Work— 

Mr. CAPUANO. You just shifted money from something else. 

Ms. TODMAN. We shifted it around, that is— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Everybody did. But you still have housing police, 

as we—as most agencies do. 

So when we cut that money out, the money didn’t go to capital, 

it came away from capital. And have we not reduced the capital 

funding for public housing? 

Ms. TODMAN. The capital funding has gone down. 

Mr. CAPUANO. That is my problem with all these things is that 

it sounds great today, but there will be a tomorrow and there probably will be poor people who need assistance, and I just—I am always concerned that somehow the lighting of the candles at the 

private alter doesn’t take that into account. 

Now, that doesn’t mean the public doesn’t have problems. Of 

course, we have problems. I am one of the chief critics of many 

things that HUD does. 

But that is what we do is try to get them to do things right and 

get them to—[Phone rings.] oh, there we go. That is appropriate. 

I guess the reason I ask is because I think this is an important 

hearing and I think this is an important subject, but I think it is 

a very delicate subject, as well, including with our private partners. 

Everybody understands private partners’ need to make a profit. 

There is nothing wrong with that. It is American. It is a good thing 

to do. 

But there is a tough thing to do when you balance a social need 

to try to house all Americans who deserve housing. I don’t think 

anyone would advocate that every American doesn’t deserve to live 

in decent, affordable housing. That is the problem I have. 

All that being said, I guess I don’t really have questions, per se, 

I just want to warn everyone—and I think everybody knows it, but 

I want to put words to it—we need to be a little careful when we 

talk about these public-private relationships when it comes to 

housing because there are social issues here that transcend it. 

I am not opposed to private funding at all, but I think that when 

we get into agreements, we need these agreements to be clear, unequivocal, and have an exit plan when it comes. Because whoever 

invests in it today, may sell it between now and then, and we will 

be dealing with somebody we have never met before. 

Ms. Crowley, I don’t want it to look like I am 100 percent in 

favor of all things low-income. There is a proposal from your agency to cap the mortgage deduction at $500,000. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I don’t know, but I guess I need to ask, you do realize that housing costs are different across the country, and that 

22 

a $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, is a castle, whereas a 

$500,000 home in my district is a very moderate home. I know you 

know that, but I hope you take that into consideration in your policy. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Can I reply? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Very quickly. 

Ms. CROWLEY. We actually can tell you the number of mortgages over $500,000 in every single county between 2011 and 2013, and 

I can get you the numbers for your district. 

I have the numbers from Missouri, and in those 3 years, 1.1 per- cent of the mortgages made in Missouri were for over $500,000. 

There are hotspots in the New York Metropolitan Area, the Washington Metropolitan Area, and the San Francisco Bay Area, Boston 

and Los Angeles secondarily, but in the rest of the country it is a 

non-issue. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Very good. 

I thank the gentleman. His time has expired. 

Now we go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, to the witnesses, for your testimony. 

Mr. Fennell, I am interested in your testimony, particularly your 

testimony about how the policy focus needs to be on uplifting the 

poor by integrating them into more income-diverse and stable communities. Can you expand on that a little bit and how you would 

propose that Congress make some reforms to encourage more income-diverse communities? 

I know one of your suggestions in the written testimony is to 

make some changes to the Low Income Tax Credit, and I am very 

interested in that program and I do think that we can improve that 

program to incent private capital into the affordable housing space. 

So if you could just amplify— 

Mr. FENNELL. Sure. As a practitioner, I can tell you that the Low 

Income Housing Tax Credit program has been very important to 

the stable of properties that we have been developing for the last 

15 years, and I think that perhaps we take a more conscientious 

development approach overall, but the idea of trying to create policies that give flexibility down to the public housing authorities and 

to the local jurisdiction I think is the answer towards trying to 

solve community problems, and uplifting the poor really is a burden that falls on all of us to figure out how we can responsibly engage in community development and to look for opportunities that 

include all members of that community into the neighborhood. 

So whether it is creating healthier apartments, or whether it is 

locating a doctor’s office on the ground floor of a building and trying to bring better health care facilities to a neighborhood, or 

whether it is trying to make sure that there are jobs and opportunities for work through either the construction process or even 

post-construction during the operation of the building, those are all 

ways in which we have tried to try to uplift the communities we 

work in. 

Mr. BARR. I think you also suggested raising the cap of the AMI? 

Mr. FENNELL. Yes. So— 

Mr. BARR. And I also wanted you to address the floating tax 

credit rate and— 

23 

Mr. FENNELL. Sure. Ms. Todman talked a little bit about the different neighborhoods that we have been moving into throughout 

the City, in terms of introducing residents into higher rent. 

East of the river in Washington, D.C., you have a dynamic where 

we are trying to bring higher incomes into a neighborhood because 

there is such a concentration of poverty. So by allowing a little bit 

of flexibility going from a 60 to an 80 percent cap, but keeping the 

60 percent blended average for a project as a whole, you are enabling more income diversity and not turning people away. 

In terms of the floating rate, whether it is 9 percent or 4 percent, 

the 9 percent did get fixed for a while, and we saw that was tremendously advantageous towards attracting more private capital. 

The issue is is that if you rely on a floating rate, you are never 

quite sure how much equity is going to be coming into your property, and so you are always balancing that pro forma to the very 

end, which creates risks and uncertainty. 

So by fixing the credit rate amount you can drive more capital 

and have more predictability and more certainty as you are working on pre-development and getting financing approved. 

Mr. BARR. Mr. Evans, could you speak a little bit about the Moving to Work demonstration program and what lessons have we 

learned from that? 

And if you could, for anyone, since our time is limited, when we 

talk about Moving to Work, could you talk a little bit about the 

possibility of reforms to Section 8 that would incentivize as a condition of receiving Section 8 assistance some encouragement for ablebodied people to actually work or demonstrate an effort to receive 

job training? 

Mr. EVANS. I can speak specifically to a project that I have managed for the last 10 years, and it builds a little bit on what Mr. 

Fennell was just saying. 

We managed a program that required in order for a person to receive that voucher they had to go through a fairly robust pre-counseling training program, where they were provided information 

about jobs, credit, the things that are important to landlords, how 

to be a good neighbor, and just some really basic skills. We 

partnered with banks and other community organizations to bring 

in outside support so that people could open bank accounts and 

learn more about the schools and public education and how to educate your children. So those are things that were able to be done 

under an MTW-type program. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we go to the distinguished gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Waters, the ranking member of the full Financial Services 

Committee. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

And to our witnesses here today, thank you for being here. 

I am focused basically on how we can create more affordable 

housing for the many citizens of this country who cannot find 

places to rent. I am focused on homelessness not being dealt with 

24 

in ways that would reduce it, but it is exploding in downtown Los 

Angeles and other places. 

And I am listening to the discussion about the private sector getting involved with low-income housing development opportunities. 

And before I came, Ms. Crowley, someone said that you had 

talked a little bit about the fact that the opportunities are there 

now. The need is great all over this country, and if the private sector wanted to be involved they certainly have a lot of opportunities 

to do so because we have people who work every day who cannot 

afford rentals. 

So I am not so sure what we are talking about when we talk 

about encouraging or doing something to eliminate public support 

and somehow it is going to be taken over—could be taken over by 

the private sector. I would encourage them to do that now. 

And on public housing, the RAD program, I am very, very suspicious that this is an effort to privatize public housing. I know 

that we have those who manage public housing who would say, 

‘‘We don’t have money to renovate. We don’t have money to provide 

the repairs and the renovations that are needed,’’ et cetera, et 

cetera. 

But I think we need to rethink all of this. One of the reasons we 

have to protect public housing is because this is housing for the 

most vulnerable. This is housing for people who cannot access 

housing through our rental markets, et cetera, et cetera. 

And I am looking at CDBGs, for example, and I am looking at 

the ways that CDBG is spent in the cities—a little bit here, a little 

bit here, so politicians can make people believe they are doing 

something for them. We ought to consolidate that HOME money, 

that CDBG money, and put it all into housing and all into low-income housing. I think that would make a lot more sense than what 

is being done with a lot of that CDBG money now. 

So, I am paying a lot of attention to RAD. I am paying a lot of 

attention to what could happen with RAD. 

Of course, if we get the banks and funders involved, what are we 

going to do? We are going to forfeit. We are going to end up with 

debt. 

And then they can—they will end up taking it over and somehow 

we will walk away saying, ‘‘Well, our hands are clean. We only 

tried to do the best for public housing. We just couldn’t keep up the 

payments on the money that we borrowed,’’ et cetera, et cetera. 

And I just really don’t intend for that to happen on my watch, and 

I think we have to pay a lot of attention to that. 

Ms. Crowley, I know that you know, but you may not have 

thought about this—do you think that my idea of consolidating the 

resources that are supposedly dedicated to helping low-income 

CDBG and HOME and others that is being spent oftentimes to 

help local communities get a new fireplug or something—I don’t 

know what they do with the money—but what do you think about 

consolidation of those resources? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Ms. Waters, you won’t get any argument from me, 

Sheila Crowley, about that. I think that would be grand. I think 

that the more money we dedicate toward solving the housing problems of the very poor, the better off we will be. 

25 

I am not going to tell you that is the official position of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. I suspect that your committee ranking member, a former mayor, would not be happy about 

giving up his CDBG resources. 

But I think that the more targeted, the more focused, the more 

specific we are about housing for this population with the resources 

that we have, the more likely we are to begin to turn the corner 

on it. 

Is CDBG going to be enough? No. But it is more than we have 

now. 

The problem with HOME—which is a great program—is that it 

is not deeply targeted. The tax credit is not deeply targeted. CDBG 

is hardly targeted at all. If you are going to do that, you have to 

figure out how to make the housing affordable to extremely low-income folks. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank each one of you. Sorry I missed your statements, 

and so my questions might be a little bit random. 

If they don’t apply to you just—we will scoot it to the next one 

on the panel. How is that? 

Mr. Fennell, we are going to start with you, and this is a followup to Mr. Capuano. I really appreciate his viewpoint on life. We 

really began about the same, both from very blue class families, 

scraping just to make ends meet. He ended up a liberal Democrat, 

and I ended up a conservative Republican, to show you how unfair 

life is and random life is. 

But that statement that he left—I want to question that no privately-funded affordable housing exists without the government. So 

my question is, the first house my family had was $800 and it was 

about 800 square feet, so a dollar a square foot. That was back in 

the 1950s so it was a different time then, but still, that is pretty 

cheap housing. 

And we paid for that. Mom said they were paying like $19 a 

month to the bank. 

And then, our next house was $1,500. We doubled our propensity 

for wealth. 

Would those be examples of affordable housing funded by private 

sources, in your opinion, yes or no? 

Mr. FENNELL. I’m sorry, I— 

Mr. PEARCE. Would that $800 house or that $1,500 house—that 

is not affordable housing? 

Mr. FENNELL. That is affordable, but it doesn’t exist— 

Mr. PEARCE. That is affordable housing, so—and it was privately 

funded. 

So let the record reflect, Mr. Chairman, that there is at least one 

example in American history—I suspect it is a little bit broader, 

but I suspect we have a few people out there who are making their 

way along life’s dreary pathway without government funding. That 

is not really—I just was going throw that in. 

26 

My real question is, how much of the population stays long-term 

in public housing, just roughly? We are not trying to prosecute anything here. Twenty percent? Fifteen percent? Ms. Crowley? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Over half of the population are elderly and disabled folks, so public housing is their home. 

Mr. PEARCE. No, no. My question is how long—how many stay 

long-term? We had a little briefing earlier this morning where it 

said the average is 6 years, but how many stay— 

Ms. CROWLEY. If you look at the elderly and disabled folks, they 

are going to be there much longer because there is no place else 

for them to go. 

Mr. PEARCE. So 20 years, 30 years— 

Ms. CROWLEY. But if you look at the non-elderly and non-disabled folks they stay—the average, I think, is about 2 years. I 

would have to look at the latest data, but it is certainly under 5 

years for the non-elderly, non-disabled people. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is getting way more complex than what I was 

looking for. I was just trying to get a rough feel. 

Mr. Evans, do you have any ideas about what percent of the people in public housing stay there for a very long time—20 years, 30 

years? 

Mr. EVANS. I don’t know. 

Mr. PEARCE. Does anybody on the panel know that? 

Nobody? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. Our average tenant at the housing authority 

is about 10 to 12 years. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. 

Ms. TODMAN. The ones who are on the higher end are the families Ms. Crowley spoke of, are seniors and disabled. 

Mr. PEARCE. So would you have 10 percent maybe who are there 

long term? Because my question is why don’t we, instead of paying 

rent for 45 years or 50 years or however long they are going to be 

there, why don’t we take that segment of the population and simply let that stream of payments pay off the facility? It is going to 

be theirs. Let them own it. 

So what would be the shortcoming to that? You appear to be— 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. The challenge that we would have in D.C. is 

the homeowner’s ability to sustain the operation of it, because we 

are dealing with clients who make about $12,000 a year, on average, and that is— 

Mr. PEARCE. But you are paying everything for them right now, 

so what is the difference if they own it and maybe we just don’t 

have interest payments or whatever payments— 

Ms. TODMAN. But yes, the slight difference is that they pay 30 

percent of their income toward rent, and as a landlord we are responsible for the operating costs. And if you are a homeowner you 

are responsible for all of the operating costs no matter your income. 

So we certainly have homeowners who are low income who have 

achieved homeownership. But as a rule, I don’t suspect most of our 

clients could sustain the operating costs of a house that they own. 

We hope that they achieve that, but as it is right now I don’t think 

they could. 

27 

Mr. PEARCE. You don’t think that if they owned the house that 

the operating costs would be less than paying the rent year after 

year after year— 

Ms. TODMAN. No. Because they still have utility bills, toilets still 

break, they still need— 

Mr. PEARCE. They still have that, even in the rent. I am not trying to argue with you; I am just trying to find a way forward, 

whether we can make the dollars go further, because it appears 

like the system is just regenerating itself decade after decade, and 

it is time for us to redesign the whole system, in my opinion. 

Ms. TODMAN. I think there is a way for us to move forward, and 

I think it is moving those families into an income bracket that allows them to be self-sustaining. And that is hard work, but it is 

not impossible. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, but that is going to occur somewhere after 

them owning their own home, moving people up the income stream. 

And that is one of—I see my time has expired—we will talk another time about this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the ranking member, as well. 

And I especially thank the witnesses for appearing today. Your 

testimony has been most informative. Thank you very much. 

If I may, I would like to talk about the HUD Jobs Plus pilot program. My trust is that someone will be familiar with it to some extent. 

But it is a program that has about $24 million in it over the next 

4 years. It is to be tested in nine public housing authorities. 

And the centerpiece of the program, from my perch, is that it 

freezes rent. It freezes rent such that if you have a job that pays 

more, if you get a better job, your rent is frozen, which means you 

are now in a position to take that additional money and do other 

things to improve your life. In a sense, it provides an increase in 

salary. 

It takes what I perceive to be a holistic or nearly holistic approach. It provides job training; it provides counseling; assistance 

with acquiring additional education, a GED perhaps; and other aspects of it that will help the person do more than look for a job. 

Ms. Todman, are you familiar with the program? 

Ms. TODMAN. I am familiar, but we are not a Jobs Plus recipient. 

Mr. GREEN. But tell me about the concept—the concept of freezing rent, taking what I perceive to be a nearly holistic approach. 

Does that concept seem to benefit the person in the public housing 

authority? 

Ms. TODMAN. One of the things that we see, and some of my colleagues see, is a barrier to— 

Mr. GREEN. May I just ask one small question of you, kindly? If 

you could start with yes or no, it would be helpful, because sometimes when people finish I don’t know whether they said yes or no. 

28 

So does it appear to you that this will help people who are in public 

housing? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Thank you. Now, if you would continue? 

Ms. TODMAN. Oh, should I go—okay. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TODMAN. In short, then, it would just—if someone’s rent is 

frozen and they are able to earn more income and keep that income, it might actually be an incentive to some of our clients finding a better job, keeping a job. And so I think that it would work 

well. I think in the areas that have it it has worked well. And it 

would be an incentive in many ways. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Crowley, would you kindly give your response to my question: Does it appear to be something that will be beneficial to the 

recipients? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And then elaborate to the extent that you would like. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Yes. The concept of the earned income disregard 

is if you are participating in a certain program then the increase 

in rent that comes from increase in income doesn’t occur, and so 

you are motivated to continue to earn more money. That is one of 

the features of the current system. 

The flip side of that, of course, is that if you lose your job then 

your rent can go down, and so you are not in danger of losing your 

home. 

I think all those programs make a lot of sense. I don’t know how 

you take them to scale without additional resources. 

Mr. GREEN. That is an excellent point, if I may say so—additional resources—and I plan to address that. But continue, please. 

Ms. CROWLEY. I just heard that the Houston Housing Authority 

is partnering with Home Builders Institute, which I think very 

highly of, for their Jobs Plus program. It is an organization that 

trains people for construction jobs, and so I think that will be a 

very promising program. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Evans, would you just kindly—because time is 

of the essence—do you think this benefits—as a matter of fact, just 

let me have you raise your hands, the two remaining witnesses. Do 

you think that this will benefit the recipients—this type of program? 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. 

Mr. FENNELL. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. Now, let me go to, with my time that is 

remaining, what the President has requested. 

In his Fiscal Year 2016 budget he has requested $100 million for 

this program: $100 million. That seems like a lot of money, except 

that on this committee we deal in billions. 

And I know that every penny counts. I want to make sure taxpayers get their money’s worth for whatever we do. But the President is requesting $100 million for this program, which is an $85 million increase over Fiscal Year 2015. Understandable. 

But this is the kind of program, it seems to me, that would receive some sort of bipartisan support because it allows the person 

29 

to pull himself up by his bootstraps—we talk a lot about bootstraps. It allows the person to go from welfare to self-care. It allows 

the person to have some degree of control and autonomy that ordinarily does not exist because you are locked into a job, you are not 

incentivized to get another. 

I thank you for allowing me to go over, Mr. Chairman, and I 

yield back the balance of my time praying that the President’s program will get the $100 million he has requested. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for their presence and testimony. 

I arrived at the hearing a little bit late, so if some of this is redundant, I apologize for that. But I would like to follow up a bit 

on what the ranking member was referring to. 

I come from Flint, Michigan, and I represent Flint and Saginaw, 

Michigan, and some of you might be familiar with the story of 

those communities. It is not dissimilar from the story of a lot of 

older industrial communities that have had substantial population 

loss. So one of the things I would like to get some reaction to is 

the unique challenges that these places face in this regard. 

While we have growing income inequality in this country, people 

who work hard every day just have a hard time making ends meet 

and their wages just don’t keep up with the cost of raising a family 

in this country, every panelist—at least most who responded—acknowledged that the private sector on its own would either not do 

it or would have a very difficult time providing quality affordable 

housing without some form of assistance from some form of subsidy. The metrics, the money just doesn’t work. 

In the places that have had significant population loss, there is 

this additional hurdle. First of all, the programs like CDBG and 

HOME, as the ranking member mentioned, are not targeted to 

maximize their impact on markets, and the Federal Government 

continues to reduce its commitment in that space. And I wish the 

President had asked for significantly more money in his budget for 

CDBG and HOME. 

But at the time when we have growing income inequality, there 

clearly is no way for the private sector to fill the void to provide 

the kind of housing that every American deserves, and the Federal 

Government continues to reduce its support, at least in that space, 

these communities that have had population loss, they have this 

one really big hurdle to overcome that goes beyond that, and that 

is the presence of surplus, vacant, abandoned housing that not only 

reduces the quality of life in the communities that we are talking 

to, but it reduces overall tax revenues in those communities because it depresses property values. The single greatest source of 

revenue for most cities is based upon property values. 

And vacant, abandoned properties have a higher cost to communities than occupied housing. It costs more in local tax dollars to 

deal with an empty house than it does to deal with an occupied 

one. They are more likely to burn; they are more likely to be a 

source of crime; and they depress the value of everything around 

them. 

30 

So here is the question: Confirm for me my conclusion that there 

is no market basis for private capital to come into a community 

and deal with the overhang of vacant and abandoned housing because there is no way to internalize the positive externalities of 

that kind of investment unless the community figures out how to 

deal with its entire inventory of housing and come up with a more 

homogenized economic model so that the value of housing that is 

supported by reducing the oversupply of vacant properties can 

somehow be internalized into that economic model. 

Does that make sense? Do you understand the point that I am 

trying to make? It is really an important one, and it is one that 

often is missed. 

Let me make it more clear: If we don’t figure out a way to clear 

away the remnants of the past in these older communities, we can 

talk about all the subsidies we want to talk about, but we are not 

going to be able to get housing values to a place where the market 

is going to be attracted to come into communities and make private 

investment without the kind of subsidy that we can’t even imagine 

putting together, even at the Federal level. 

Ms. Crowley, I wonder if you might comment? 

Ms. CROWLEY. So the question is, what do we do about vacant 

and abandoned properties? Is that the question? 

Mr. KILDEE. That is the question, but the question assumes, 

though, as some have assumed, that somehow there is some private incentive to deal with that, and I just don’t see it. 

So that leaves the Federal—State or Federal Government, because local governments can’t do it. They are already stressed as 

a result of all the vacant property in their communities in the first 

place. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Right. What you do about ownership of those 

properties and those kinds of things, those are all local and State 

decisions. There is not much of a Federal role in solving that piece 

of it. 

But obviously, we invested during the foreclosure crisis in the 

Neighborhood Stabilization Program and other things that would 

put resources at the local level to try to prevent complete decimation of neighborhoods and dealing with blight that happened as a 

result of that. 

This program had mixed success because it was put together fairly quickly in the middle of the crisis, but that is the kind of program that I think it would take to do that. 

The notion that there is going to be a private investor who is 

going to drive into Flint and say, ‘‘Oh, look at all this opportunity,’’ 

seems a little far-fetched to me. 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes. It is not going to happen. I agree with you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, gentleman from Michigan. 

Next up is the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ranking Member Cleaver. 

And thank you to all our witnesses today, especially to someone 

who gets her hands dirty every day in doing the work in public 

housing. 

31 

Thank you for being here, and thank you for what you do, and 

for also representing those who are the poorest amongst us. 

I have had a long history of some 25 years working with HUD 

and public housing as a consultant doing relocation work, so we 

have heard a lot today across the gamut. 

I found it very interesting that one of my colleagues this morning 

talked about being ‘‘100 percent private’’ and that he was private 

and doing it privately was the best way to do it. I come from the 

private sector and owning a business and working with public 

housing, but I also spent a lot of time, like my colleague, and I am 

sorry he is not here this morning, who is in government, whether 

he knows it or not, now. 

So I tend to think that we need to be creative with our public 

and private partnerships when we can. 

Mr. Kildee talked a lot about the President and the dollars that 

he has put into public housing and I certainly agree with him that 

I wish the President would have put even more money into it. 

Just this week, I had someone from Homeport in my district in 

Columbus, Ohio, to come in and talk about much of the data, so 

I won’t repeat it, what you have all talked about—the number of— 

how we are increasing with those who are renting, how I know my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle want people to be self-sufficient. But as I was having a dialogue with my ranking member, 

Congresswoman Waters, if you are disabled and you are a senior, 

to ask if they are going to be there 4 or 5 years—if I am 70 years 

old and I am disabled or I am a senior, I might have to be there 

for 12 or 15 years. 

But I also want to take away the myth that those who are working towards self-sufficiency and self-reliance don’t stay for 12 and 

20 years on the norm. It is more like a 2- to 3- and not longer than 

a 5-year period. 

With all this said, I guess I would ask all of you to be creative— 

maybe you won’t be quite as creative as Congresswoman Waters 

this morning, who is going with comingling everything for housing, 

but think about in many of our communities when we run out of 

money, and that is the common theme we have been hearing. 

So where private and nonprofits have used up all their Federal 

funding while attempting to revitalize and restore the neighborhoods and the communities, are there—what is our hope? What is 

it, as experts on either side, do you think we could do? And also, 

in that question, you can think about the project-based vouchers, 

because we are hearing the same thing, that we are running out 

of money. So on those, if we increase the cap would that be helpful? 

Ms. TODMAN. I am happy to start. 

Certainly on the project-based voucher side, we have been able 

to go into a lot of neighborhoods where we don’t have any property 

and provide subsidy to units so that low-income families can live 

there, and we are all throughout the City, including some very 

high-rent areas. 

I would say in terms of how do we revitalize certain communities, there is a tool that we use called new market tax credits 

that is a powerful tool—very powerful. We were very fortunate to 

have a $50 million allocation recently, and we have been able to 

become community developers with our private sector partners and 

32 

guaranteed jobs for some of my residents because of our investment 

in that community development project. 

So there are lots of different tools that may not sit in the housing 

basket. 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. You asked specifically about raising the caps on 

project-based vouchers, and in my written testimony there is a recommendation there that that cap be evaluated and maybe raised 

to 35 or 40 percent of the total for project-based vouchers. 

But also, rather than looking at project-based vouchers based on 

the budget authority, look at those based upon the unit allocation, 

and there will be probably a slightly higher number of vouchers 

that could be made available for project basing. 

I also think that it is really important to remember that all of 

these matters of real estate are local issues, and there aren’t onesize-fits-all solutions to national problems. As we heard from each 

of the different districts, there are different challenges, there are 

different things that face each community. 

And the programs that get retooled or that get reevaluated or 

created need to really focus on how to use the public investment 

to leverage private capital and private involvement. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has 

expired. 

We will go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here. And I am 

going to begin with some of the questions that the gentlelady from 

Ohio asked, as well, because she and I are working on some stuff 

that I think can help a lot of folks. 

But before I do that, I wanted to ask Ms. Crowley, in your testimony on page 3, you say there are 25,000 homeless children in 

New York City alone. Are you aware that the definition of homelessness under Housing and Urban Development leaves children 

out? 

Ms. CROWLEY. No, I wasn’t. I think that it covers children who 

live in families, so it covers families. And the number of households 

in New York who are homeless is, I think, 60,000, and so 25 percent: the number of people is 60,000, and the number of those who 

are children is 25,000. 

Mr. STIVERS. So the definition does exempt out anybody under 

18, so if you are under 18 you are just not counted. It is— 

Ms. CROWLEY. They are counted. That is the official count, so 

they are counted. 

Mr. STIVERS. Sorry, ma’am. We need to amend the definition. 

There is a bill out there. It is a bipartisan bill that I am the sponsor of, along with Mr. Loebsack of Iowa, to fix that. 

We have to fix that. If we are going to serve homeless children, 

we have to define the problem first. 

So I would ask you to take a look at that bill and we would appreciate your assistance in advocating for that bill because it is 

really important. Unless you can define the problem, you are never 

going to serve the population. 

My next question is for Ms. Todman. 

33 

You note in your testimony that the D.C. Housing Authority 

works very closely with a lot of private and nonprofit developers to 

create affordable units for low-income families and development 

projects where, but for your public-private partnerships, these families couldn’t even afford to live in the district. Do you think you 

would have been able to facilitate these public-private partnerships 

if you were not a Moving to Work agency? 

Ms. TODMAN. There are some deals that do not require our Moving to Work flexibility, but there are some deals where the rents 

are very high and our public housing subsidy is not able to meet 

the needs of the structure, and we have used our Moving to Work 

fungibility to make those deals work. 

Mr. STIVERS. So for the majority of the housing finance agencies 

that are not Moving to Work, how can they achieve the same level 

of public-private partnerships, and is that another reason why we 

should expand the Moving to Work program? 

Ms. TODMAN. Certainly for those housing authorities in high-rent 

areas, I think an expansion is a very good thing to do. For those 

housing authorities in lower-income brackets, Moving to Work still 

works because it allows them to even sometimes make the deals 

work when we are working in the voucher program. 

Mr. STIVERS. This is a general question for the entire witness 

panel: Does anybody on the panel believe that opportunities for 

vertical mobility are more readily available at Moving to Work public housing agencies than other housing authorities? 

Anybody want to take that? 

Ms. TODMAN. I will just say that at my housing authority, because we are not funded for—to help folks increase their incomes, 

we have used our block grant to work with service providers to provide that ability. 

Mr. STIVERS. Yes. And in the 112th Congress, this subcommittee 

held a hearing, and one of the witnesses from the Chicago Metropolitan Housing Authority said the landscape of Chicago and the 

life trajectory of thousands of low-income families would not be the 

same without the flexibility that the Moving to Work program gave 

us. 

And I think that is the case regardless of what type of community you live in, and the Moving to Work program is, unfortunately, 

limited to just a few places, and I think it is really important that 

we provide that same flexibility to allow these families to be lifted 

out of poverty. 

The goal that all of us have is not that we give more housing assistance; it is that we ultimately lift people out of poverty. And that 

is the mission with which you all are charged. 

But Moving to Work helps these people get out of poverty because it serves the whole person. So Mrs. Beatty and I have a bill 

that would expand the Moving to Work program, and it is really 

important to help thousands of people around our country lift their 

lives out of poverty, and live the American dream. 

I appreciate everything you are all doing, and we are working to 

try to get you the resources and flexibility across the country that 

we need to actually lift these people out of poverty. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

34 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank the ranking member too, Mr. Cleaver, for both of 

you all conducting this hearing. 

And I thank the witnesses for being here. 

Let me ask Ms. Todman, to what extent have problems with private capital affected your ability to complete your redevelopment? 

It is my understanding that only about half of the Capper/ 

Carrollsburg public housing units that were demolished during 

that award-winning redevelopment have been replaced, and many 

residents are still displaced. That HOPE VI grant was made in 

2001 and the residents have been displaced for more than a decade 

now, since 2005. 

How much of that delay is due to problems with accessing private financing? 

Ms. TODMAN. Right. The time delay in Capper/Carrollsburg, 

some of it is because of what happened in 2008, when the market 

kind of tanked. It didn’t tank as much here in D.C., but it certainly 

did. 

I will say that we have built more than half of the public housing 

units that were promised on that site, and the housing authority 

made that one-for-one commitment in 2001 before it was vogue. So 

we are now relying on the value of the land to bring back those 

public housing units. 

And for the residents who do not live there anymore, they are 

still afforded affordable housing through our existing public housing units or through the voucher program. So, they are housed. 

Mr. CLAY. So even though D.C. didn’t have as much of a negative 

impact during the recession economically, you also lost investors? 

Ms. TODMAN. Economically, it was harder for our development 

partners to make deals work, particularly given the level of subsidy 

that we were bringing to the table, because the HOPE VI grant 

had not expired, but the funds were gone and the public housing 

subsidy was so low. 

Mr. CLAY. What lessons have you learned so that you don’t have 

that same problem with Barry Farm? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. So Barry Farm is a different animal. One, the 

economic market in D.C. is much different than it was 10 years 

ago, so we are relying on that. 

Also, there are certain protections that we are wrapping around 

our families in terms of their ability to return. But let me just say 

that when we are relocating our clients, our goal is to provide them 

affordable housing so even during that relocation they are properly 

housed. 

But we certainly are looking at the lessons learned in Capper/ 

Carrollsburg in terms of speed, and just hope we don’t hit another 

recession. 

Mr. CLAY. Will Barry Farm be a mixed-income development? 

Ms. TODMAN. No. Barry Farm is currently a 100 percent public 

housing site of about 440 units. 

Mr. CLAY. I am very familiar with it, but in the— 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes, the goal—the ultimate goal is to make it 

mixed income to the tune of 1,400 units, and we would have units 

35 

there that are affordable to teachers, firemen, and other moderateincome families. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Although D.C. struggled in the housing crisis, 

impacting the DCHA’s ability to rely on private capital, the D.C. 

market is still far stronger than much of the country. Do you believe that it is possible to replicate the work you are doing here in 

other parts of the country? 

Ms. TODMAN. Yes. I think we are able to do a lot of our work because of the value of our land, and if that value doesn’t exist in 

other lower rental markets, it is probably more difficult for housing 

authorities to achieve that—more complex, more difficult, longer 

than we would have. So the strength of our market helps us a 

great deal in creating affordable housing. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Then I think we need to export that lesson to 

St. Louis, because we have about 14,000 vacant lots owned by the 

City of St. Louis. 

Ms. TODMAN. Right. We are happy to help. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Crowley, most affordable housing projects in the current environment are not developed in isolation. They are usually part of 

broader initiatives to revitalize neighborhoods, which may include 

a need to integrate several layers of funding sources. 

Can you talk about some of the ways we can work to continue 

to harmonize the programs so that they, to the maximum extent 

possible, deliver the best affordable housing possible while also 

eliminating the difficulties that can sometimes arise in the process 

of layering different funding sources? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Sure. You are absolutely correct that the layering 

that happens in the development of these projects is extraordinary. 

On the one hand, we call it leveraging and we say it is a good 

thing. On the other hand, it creates extremely complex deals that 

require lots of expertise to put them together and to figure out how 

to blend funds that have different reporting requirements, different 

terms of affordability, all of those kinds of things. 

And it should be noted that having all of those things increased 

the cost of the projects, and so the more layers you have, the more 

costly the project is going to be. 

So certainly there is room to figure out how to make the rules 

more harmonized. I think in the tax credit program there has been 

an effort—I’m sorry. 

Mr. CLAY. My time is up. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Okay. I’m sorry. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. I thank the chairman and the ranking member. 

Ms. Crowley, what is it that you were trying to say? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Recognizing that problem is one that the White 

House and HUD started to work on very early on in the Obama 

Administration and they have a working group between Treasury 

and HUD to try to solve some of those problems. 

Mr. ELLISON. Ms. Crowley, what is the Common Sense Housing 

Investment Act, and do you support it? And if so, why? 

36 

Ms. CROWLEY. The Common Sense Housing Investment Act is 

your bill that would make modest changes to the mortgage interest 

deductions and modernize it to bring it into the 21st Century, and 

in the process of doing so, would help a much greater number of 

low- and moderate-income homeowners who don’t benefit from the 

mortgage interest deduction now and would also free up billions of 

dollars in revenue that could be devoted to solving the housing 

problems of the very poor. 

It is a brilliant bill, and we support it. And not only that, we organized organizations and State and local elected officials across 

the country in a campaign to support the bill. There are more than 

2,000 now, and they are found in every single congressional district. So we have support for the bill from every district. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do you think it has the potential to help people 

who are very low-income? The fact is that there are programs that 

help people who are working poor, but what are the problems and 

challenges of housing for people who are at the very low level of 

the income scale? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Do you mean extremely low-income? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Ms. CROWLEY. Okay. So that is the population for whom there 

is the greatest shortage, and that is the population to whom most 

of the funds in your bill would be directed towards trying to solve 

their housing problems and filling the void that exists now in the 

rental housing stock. 

The beauty of it is that not only would the bill create more 

money to be able to do housing that is affordable to the lowest-income people, you also make the tax code more fair and simpler, and 

provide tax benefits to low- and moderate-income homeowners who 

don’t get a tax benefit now because their incomes are not high 

enough, or their mortgages are not high enough, or both, to benefit 

from the mortgage interest deduction. 

And so we would expand the number of homeowners who get a 

tax break for having a mortgage by 16 million under your proposal, 

and 100 percent of those are people with incomes under $100,000 

a year who don’t benefit from it now. 

Mr. Capuano has left, but he posed a question to me about it, 

to which I now have the answer. One of the things in your bill is 

that we would cap the size of the mortgage for which you could 

claim the deduction at $500,000. You can borrow more than that; 

you just don’t get a subsidy above $500,000. 

In his district, 9.2 percent of the mortgages between 2011 and 

2013 were for over $500,000—less than 10 percent. Most people 

don’t borrow that much money. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. So there is this little school in my district 

called Jefferson Elementary. It is a wonderful school. The problem 

is that 40 percent of the kids who go there leave a shelter to go 

to school every day. 

That is not the only school like that. I bet you Ms. Todman has 

schools like that here in D.C., and they are all over the United 

States. 

What does it mean for a kid who is leaving a shelter to go to 

school to be able to get into some stable housing that might be provided for by investments in extremely low-income families? 

37 

Ms. CROWLEY. I think it makes the difference between success 

and failure in a child’s life. You only have to imagine what it would 

be like for you or for your children if you didn’t have a stable home 

to go to every night and to be moving from place to place, living 

with uncertainty, never having a sense of anything that is your 

own. Even the best of shelters are not great places. I ran shelters. 

They are not good places for people to live. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do the kids feel the stress of it? 

Ms. CROWLEY. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could you talk about that a little bit? 

Ms. CROWLEY. The process of being displaced is stressful for 

every member of the family, and when Mom is unhappy and depressed and doesn’t know where she is going to turn, and when 

Dad knows that he can’t provide for the family, the kids feel that. 

They live that. They experience that. And all of that damages family well-being. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

I yield back the time I do not have. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, I am the last questioner of the day here, and we are 

certainly—my colleagues have certainly discussed a lot of different 

things, and I think they have done a good job of going through the 

various areas that we wanted to explore today. And with that, my 

questions are kind of random, so bear with me because I want to 

try and fill in the blanks a little bit from what we didn’t discuss 

or things that you brought up that sort of piqued my interest. 

Ms. Crowley, you had a slide and the second slide you had, on 

the bottom there you have—you said there are the low-income people and said a lot of their space—their units are occupied by highincome individuals. Did I hear you right on that? 

Ms. CROWLEY. If you look at the slide—and for folks in the audience, the Congressman has the hard copy— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Yes. 

Ms. CROWLEY. If you look at that, what it means is this—the top 

band, the 19.6 million units, those are units that rent in the range 

that is affordable for people who earn between 50 and 80 percent 

of area median income. But if you don’t have to live within your 

income band, you can rent below that. 

And a large number of these units that are affordable at 30 percent for this population are actually rented by much higher-income 

people. And so there is the constant downward pressure on the 

units. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I guess my question is, are you saying 

that we should free up more lower-income housing units because 

there are a few people who are occupying them now who really can 

afford other things? That is my question. 

Ms. CROWLEY. We can’t do that, because it is a free market. 

These are people who are renting based on what is there, and so 

these are higher-income people who don’t pay more than 30 percent 

of their income for their housing as a result of the way the market 

is set. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Very good. 

Mr. Evans and Mr. Fennell, the title of the hearing today references private sector participation, and so my first question, obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:32 Sep 18, 2015 Jkt 095058 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\95058.TXT TERRI
38 

ously, is are there enough private sector dollars out there to do the 

kind of investments we need to be able to move our projects along 

here, or are we hamstrung by the lack of availability of capital 

right now? 

Mr. EVANS. I would just say, as an example, the number of tax 

credit applications per year that don’t get funded are all backed 

by—they are applications that have funding or financing available 

to make those projects happen. So there are probably thousands of 

units that the money is there to create— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. The capital is there, you believe. 

Okay. 

Does the current interest rate affect the availability of capital at 

all? 

Mr. FENNELL. In the global sense, yes, it has some impact. But 

I don’t think it is— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Normally, you would do the projects 

based on the availability of the cash flow, is that right? So the interest rate would play a part only to the extent that it has to be 

able to cash flow that cost of operation of the loan and the cost of 

operation of the facility. Is that roughly it? 

Mr. FENNELL. Correct. It puts pressure on your pro forma. It 

puts pressure on your financing as you are trying to finalize— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. But the interest rate doesn’t generally 

hamstring the project because that is something that is normally 

figured in. I guess is one of the things I am trying to get to. Is that 

a fair statement? 

Mr. FENNELL. Correct. It is one of the dynamics at work. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. We are always looking for ways 

to try and stretch our dollars, and I think that is what we want 

to try and do here is find ways we can take existing dollars and 

do a better job of spending them. 

One of the things—I was at a meeting earlier this morning and 

somebody suggested that we consolidate. We have 5,000 different 

housing authorities in the country. Is there a way we can consolidate those to have more—or an individual or group be able to manage more and therefore have less administrative costs and use 

those dollars then to plow back into our projects here? Is that possible? 

Ms. Todman, I am sure you have some ideas on that? 

Ms. TODMAN. I would be happy to run the housing authorities in 

suburban Maryland, but I am sure they wouldn’t want me to. But 

having said that, we do have housing authorities that are smaller 

in nature that are creating locally derived consortiums, and working together to have some economies of scale, so that is happening. 

But I would suggest that they made that decision locally and it 

is working for them, and I would suggest that is probably where 

the decision-making on that should be. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Are there incentives that could be put 

in place that would speed that along? 

Ms. TODMAN. To the extent it is something that folks locally 

want to do, I am sure you can incentivize some smaller housing authorities to do that. Whether or not it is right for them is a different question. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

39 

I normally don’t do this, but I would like to give all of you some 

homework today, if you don’t mind. I think that you have been a 

fantastic panel and what I would like to do—I am sure each one 

of you has some ideas on making—this is a government program 

and we are dealing with government agencies here. I am sure there 

are ways that you see in your work, and then each one of you has 

a little different perspective here, a little different area you are 

working in, that can be made more flexible, that would help you 

be able to save money, and make us stretch our dollars. 

So if you wouldn’t mind, I know some of you have suggestions 

in your testimony. I saw some of your suggestions. 

But if you have some ideas where, given the flexibility to be able 

to go between pots of money or be able to use monies differently 

or be able to have more flexibility with whatever—not necessarily 

start a new program, not necessarily reinvent the wheel here, but 

take an idea that you can stretch the dollars out and not—and help 

more people with the same dollars. If you have ideas like that, 

would you be willing to just contact our committee and write a letter to us and give us those ideas? Because that is what we need 

to be able to do our job here, is to help more people be able to help 

you that way. 

The second thing I would ask is, I know that there are always 

a lot of ideas for pilot projects. I have tons of people come through 

my office every day, literally, and each one of them has an idea and 

say, ‘‘If you would do this, we could restructure this over here and 

make it work, and it would be a way we can save money and do 

a better job with what we are doing.’’ 

The government is the last place you want to come to to have 

something be done efficiently and well. So if you would—if you 

have ideas for pilot projects—and you guys live in the everyday 

world. You know what works and what doesn’t work. 

If you have ideas like that, if you would include those in there— 

and obviously it is not something that is going to cost tons of 

money, but if it costs a little bit more money, that is fine because 

if you restructure something and you are able to get a huge cost 

benefit from just a few more dollars added to it, I don’t have a 

problem with that. I would be certainly willing to take a look at 

that. 

But I think you guys know what works. You deal with these 

issues every day. And to me, that is what we need—that is why 

you are here. We want to listen to you. 

You have been a very good panel. 

So with that, I don’t have any other questions. 

Ranking Member Cleaver, I believe we are ready to go. 

Without objection, I would like to submit for the record a statement from Representative Patrick Tiberi of Ohio. 

Without objection, it is so ordered 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

40 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41) 

A P P E N D I X 

April 16, 2015 

42 


95058.001
43 


95058.002
44 


95058.003
45 


95058.004
46 


95058.005
47 


95058.006
48 


95058.007
49 


95058.008
50 


95058.009
51 


95058.010
52 


95058.011
53 


95058.012
54 


95058.013
55 


95058.014
56 


95058.015
57 


95058.016
58 


95058.017
59 


95058.018
60 


95058.019
61 


95058.020
62 


95058.021
63 


95058.022
64 


95058.023
65 


95058.024
66 


95058.025
67 


95058.026
68 


95058.027
69 


95058.028
70 


95058.029
71 


95058.030
72 


95058.031
73 


95058.032
74 


95058.033
75 


95058.034
76 


95058.035
77 


95058.036
78 


95058.037
79 


95058.038
80 


95058.039
81 


95058.040
82 


95058.041
83 


95058.042
84 


95058.043