Text: S.Hrg. 116-125 — EXAMINING BIPARTISAN BILLS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCESS AND SAFETY
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
[Senate Hearing 116-125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING BIPARTISAN BILLS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCESS AND
SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
CONSIDERING BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION INTRODUCED DURING THE 116TH CONGRESS
THAT IS INTENDED TO EXPAND ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND/OR IMPROVE
THE SAFETY CONDITIONS WITHIN CURRENT FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING
__________
NOVEMBER 7, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-566 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
BEN SASSE, Nebraska JON TESTER, Montana
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona DOUG JONES, Alabama
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TINA SMITH, Minnesota
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
Gregg Richard, Staff Director
Laura Swanson, Democratic Staff Director
Matt Jones, Counsel
Beth Cooper, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Megan Cheney, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk
Jim Crowell, Editor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Crapo.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Brown................................................ 2
Prepared statement....................................... 25
WITNESSES
Ivory N. Mathews, Interim Executive Director, Housing Authority
of the city of Columbia, South Carolina........................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Warren........................................... 47
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 47
Mark Yost, President and CEO, Skyline Champion Corporation, on
behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Warren........................................... 48
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 50
Senator Sinema........................................... 57
Peggy Bailey, Vice President for Housing Policy, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities.......................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Brown............................................ 57
Senator Warren........................................... 58
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 59
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Letter submitted by the American Academy of Pediatrics........... 61
Statement submitted by the Health Justice Advocacy Clinic,
Columbia University Law School................................. 62
Letter submitted by the National Association of Realtors......... 70
Letter from the Next Step Network, submitted by Chairman Crapo
and Senator Cortez Masto....................................... 72
Thank you letter to Senator Brown................................ 73
Letter submitted by the National Low Income Housing Coalition.... 80
Letter submitted by Prosperity Now............................... 82
Letter submitted by the National Housing Law Project............. 83
(iii)
EXAMINING BIPARTISAN BILLS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCESS AND
SAFETY
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, Chairman of the
Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Chairman Crapo. This hearing will come to order.
Today the Committee will receive testimony from leaders in
the housing community on bipartisan opportunities in this
Congress to expand access to affordable housing, to improve the
safety conditions within current federally assisted housing,
and to consider how we might better target some of our existing
housing resources to meet unaddressed need.
Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for being here and
taking the time to be with us for this important discussion.
Joining us today are Ivory Mathews, interim executive
director of the Housing Authority of Columbia, South Carolina;
Mark Yost, president and chief executive officer of the Skyline
Champion Corporation; and Peggy Bailey, vice president for
housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
For purposes of today's hearing, we are focused on
examining three bipartisan pieces of legislation in particular
that have been introduced in the 116th Congress.
S. 2160, the CO ALERTS Act, which was introduced in July by
Senators Scott and Menendez and has the support of five
Republicans and five Democrats on this Committee;
S. 1804, the HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act,
which was introduced in June and has five bipartisan
cosponsors, including Senators Cortez Masto, Scott, Cramer, and
Smith;
And H.R. 4300, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities
Act, which has bipartisan interest in the Senate and is moving
quickly through the House of Representatives on a strong
bipartisan basis.
The CO ALERTS Act would require the installation and
maintenance of carbon monoxide alarms in most forms of
federally assisted housing, in any dwelling unit containing a
fuel-burning appliance, fireplace, furnace, or enclosed garage.
Currently, the majority of federally assisted housing
programs have no such requirement, despite similar requirements
in 37 States and the District of Columbia.
At least 13 individuals living in federally assisted
housing have died due to carbon monoxide poisoning since 2003,
including 4 in the past year.
In April, Secretary Carson announced that HUD would
undertake a rulemaking process to establish such a requirement
across all of HUD's public housing and rental assistance
programs.
This bill would also require the HUD Secretary to provide
guidance to the public housing agencies on how they can better
educate tenants on health hazards in the home.
The HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act would
provide confirmation to State and local jurisdictions who
receive HUD funding through programs like the Community
Development Block Grant or HOME Investment Partnerships Program
that manufactured housing is an eligible affordable housing
option for which communities can receive public funding for
construction and repair.
In other words, local jurisdictions would have a broader
menu of options available as they seek to meet the unique
affordable housing needs of their community.
The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act was advanced
unanimously out of the House Financial Services Committee in
September and awaits floor consideration.
It would authorize HUD to allocate vouchers under its
Family Unification Program more directly to any public housing
agency that requests an allocation in order to provide timely
assistance to an eligible youth who is aging out of foster care
and at risk of losing their safety net overnight.
The bill would also extend the length of a family
unification voucher by up to 24 months for eligible youth who
are either participating in HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency
Program, working toward a degree, or are participating in a
career pathway.
These individuals would also be eligible for any additional
supportive services made available in connection with any
housing assistance program of the agency that provides the
voucher.
I commend HUD and Secretary Carson for their ongoing work
on a number of the issues we will discuss today, including the
forthcoming rulemaking on carbon monoxide alarms and HUD's new
``Foster Youth to Independence'' initiative.
Each of the three bills we are examining today have been
thoughtfully put together and have strong bipartisan support.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these
legislative proposals, and I also look forward to working with
Members of the Committee to identify other items with
bipartisan support in the affordable housing space and
elsewhere.
Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Chairman Crapo. Thanks to the
three witnesses for your contributions on these issues.
I would like to start by taking a moment to acknowledge and
remember the passing of one of our former colleagues, Senator
Kay Hagan of North Carolina. This is our first hearing since
she passed away. She served well on this Committee in her 6
years in the Senate, and I just want her family to know that we
think often of her.
Mr. Chairman, I have often said that the ``housing'' part
of this Committee's name does not get the attention it should.
Today's hearing is an important, but small, step toward giving
the affordable housing crisis we have in this country the
attention it deserves.
Right now, nearly 11 million households spend more than
half their income on housing. That is one out of four people
who rent. And seven of the ten fastest-growing jobs do not pay
enough to afford a one-bedroom apartment.
It is not an urban problem; it is not a rural problem; it
is not a small-city problem. It hits nearly every community in
our great country.
Instead of working to solve this crisis, the Trump
administration is making it worse--proposing deep cuts to the
HUD budget, dismantling fair housing protections, advocating
for a housing finance system that would make mortgages more
expensive and harder to get.
Fortunately, Members on this Committee are taking some
steps to address some of the challenges we face. As the
Chairman said, we will look at this bipartisan legislation to
address three unique housing issues.
The HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act, introduced
by Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Scott--thank you both--
would require communities to consider manufactured housing as
they develop strategic plans to address local housing and
community development needs with Federal grants.
Manufactured housing is home to 22 million people and meets
critical affordable housing needs across the country, a lot of
them in my State of Ohio.
Senator Menendez and Senator Scott's CO ALERTS Act responds
to two tragic deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning in HUD-
assisted housing earlier this year.
No one should have to fear that her home is going to poison
her. Their bill would finally require carbon monoxide detectors
in all federally assisted units that have CO risk to prevent
more of these preventable deaths.
It would take a step toward ensuring that everyone, no
matter their income, can be safe.
Finally, we will discuss the need for a program to address
the housing needs of young people exiting foster care across
the country.
Twenty thousand young people ``age out'' of foster care
every year. Think about the challenges that they face. All of a
sudden you are on your own; you do not have the same family
safety net to fall back on that others may have. You are trying
to find a job, or you are trying to enroll in school. Many face
housing instability; up to one-third will experience
homelessness at some point during this transition.
Jeremy from Hamilton County, Ohio, Cincinnati, shared with
my office that he entered foster care at 10; he aged out at 18
with no permanent home. He entered college, found himself
homeless during college breaks. Imagine. Imagine. Jeremy
persevered. He became an advocate for others because no young
people should have to experience what he did.
Ohio's foster care youth, alumni, and allies set out to
solve this problem. They put forth the ideas that became the
bipartisan Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act so that
foster care alumni nationwide can have a place to call home.
This legislation has the support of 100 organizations and
55,000 current and former foster youth.
Congresswoman Dean introduced this bill in the House; this
week, Senator Grassley and I, with a big assist from Senator
Reed, introduced this bill in the Senate.
It provides additional resources in more communities, and
it encourages local housing and child welfare agencies to work
together to serve our young people.
This is just the first step.
Carbon monoxide is not the only way people are poisoned in
their homes. There are many health hazards in homes across this
country, especially in old housing stock, in places like
Appalachia and inner-city Cleveland. There are severe housing
shortages in urban and rural areas and in Indian Country. We
face expiring assistance contracts on thousands of affordable
units in rural communities. We see a growing need for
affordable senior housing options.
We have to tackle this crisis from all sides. Corporations,
frankly, are not paying workers enough to afford a place to
live. On the other side, we need to create more safe,
affordable homes. I am glad that the word ``housing'' is making
its way back into the title of this Committee, Senate Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Brown.
I will indicate right now that I may have to leave to go to
a vote in the Judiciary Committee on a markup that we are
holding. Unfortunately, we seem to double up our hearings quite
regularly around here, and so I apologize at the outset if I
have to step out rapidly.
With that, we will now proceed to the witnesses' opening
statements. First of all, your written testimony has been
entered into the record, and I encourage you to each try to
wrap up your initial comments in 5 minutes as we have got a
clock there in front of you. We want the Senators to have time
for their questions. And I always remind my colleagues to pay
attention to your 5-minute time requirements as well.
With that, Ms. Mathews, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF IVORY N. MATHEWS, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Ms. Mathews. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and
Members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, thank you for the opportunity to testify during
today's critically important hearing in support of the CO
ALERTS Act of 2019.
My name is Ivory Mathews, and I am the interim executive
director of the Housing Authority of the city of Columbia,
South Carolina. Founded in 1937, Columbia Housing currently
provides housing assistance to over 6,000 families in Richland
County. I am here today to support the CO ALERTS legislation.
The bill ensures families living in federally assisted housing
are safe by requiring carbon monoxide alarms in Section 202,
Section 811 public housing, and Section 8 housing in accordance
with the International Fire Code.
I would like to begin this testimony by honoring Calvin
Witherspoon, Jr., and Derrick Caldwell Roper who lost their
lives as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning on January 17,
2019, at the Allen Benedict Court public housing community in
Columbia. Our deepest sympathies are with the Witherspoon and
Roper families, and we are here today in memory of these
individuals.
On January 18, 2019, following the deaths of Mr.
Witherspoon and Mr. Roper, over 400 Allen Benedict Court
tenants were evacuated from their homes out of an abundance of
caution. An emergency relocation plan was implemented to secure
replacement housing for the families and to minimize, to the
greatest extent possible, the hardships faced by the families
who were being permanently displaced.
Columbia Housing worked diligently to assess and meet the
individual needs of each family. All residents were offered the
option of being temporarily housed at area hotels until
permanent housing was found.
The health and safety of our residents remained our highest
priority during this time. Columbia Housing partnered with the
South Carolina Association of Social Workers to provide
residents with free behavioral health sessions that would help
to offset day-to-day stressors associated with their emergency
relocation. Wrap-around services were also provided by city and
county governments to help with associated costs and
inconveniences like laundry services, transportation to places
of worship, transportation to doctor's appointments, food
preparation, and after-school activities. Donated cash, gift
cards, volunteer hours, goods, and services were provided by
area colleges and universities, social groups, sororities and
fraternities, faith-based communities, and private citizens.
After the emergency relocation, Columbia Housing worked
diligently to ensure that the impacted families were quickly
moved to permanent housing. Housing options provided to
families included other available public housing units and
housing choice vouchers to secure permanent housing in the open
market in efforts to eliminate any rent burden on the families.
All costs associated with the moves were paid by Columbia
Housing. We remain grateful for the outpouring of support
received from the community and the South Carolina HUD Field
Office.
Additionally, Columbia Housing installed carbon monoxide
detectors in its occupied public housing units and required
carbon monoxide detectors in privately owned Section 8 units.
The CO ALERTS legislation would make it possible for other
housing authorities across the country to do the same.
Moving forward, it is the desire of the city of Columbia
and Columbia Housing to transform the Allen Benedict Court
community. Built in 1939, Allen Benedict Court consists of 244
townhome units in 26 buildings on a 15-acre site located
adjacent to historically black educational institutions,
Benedict College and Allen University.
Unfortunately, like many other housing authorities with
older public housing property, we do not currently have the
financial resources to move forward with the redevelopment of
Allen Benedict Court. Today there is an estimated $70 billion
backlog of capital needs for the public housing stock
nationwide which continues to grow at approximately $3.5
billion per year. This backlog includes many health and safety
items. Additional funding is needed to address these issues.
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, Members of the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am honored
to have had the opportunity to testify before the Committee and
provide a perspective on the importance of the CO ALERTS Act of
2019. It is my pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Brown [presiding]. Ms. Mathews, thank you so much.
Mr. Yost.
STATEMENT OF MARK YOST, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SKYLINE CHAMPION
CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING INSTITUTE
Mr. Yost. Thank you, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown,
and Members of the Committee. My name is Mark Yost. I am
president and CEO of Skyline Champion. We have 65 years of
homebuilding experience with 38 manufacturing facilities
throughout the United States and in Canada. Skyline Champion
employs over 7,000 employees and is one of the largest
homebuilders in North America, producing a wide variety of
manufactured and modular homes, park-model RVs, and modular
buildings.
I appear before you today on behalf of the Manufactured
Housing Institute where I serve on the board of directors and
as vice chairman of MHI's National Modular Housing Council. MHI
is the only national trade organization that represents all
segments of the manufactured housing industry.
Manufactured housing is the largest form of unsubsidized
affordable housing in the United States and the only type of
housing built to Federal construction and safety standards.
Today 22 million people live in manufactured homes, and in
2018, we produced nearly 100,000 homes or approximately 10
percent of single-family housing starts.
While new site-built homes are generally priced above
$200,000, manufactured homes are often priced below $100,000.
As a result, manufactured housing accounts for 80 percent of
new home starts under $150,000.
My testimony today is focused on Senate bill 1804, the HUD
Manufactured Housing Modernization Act of 2019. MHI strongly
supports S. 1804 and commends Senators Cortez Masto, Scott,
Smith, Cramer, Young, and Tester for coming together to
introduce this bipartisan bill. The bill requires localities
receiving CDBG, HOME, Housing Trust Fund, and McKinney-Vento
homeless funds to appropriately include residential
manufactured housing in their comprehensive housing
affordability strategies and community development plans, also
referred to as their ``Consolidated Plans.''
The adoption of this legislation would break down barriers
to affordable housing by increasing the focus on manufactured
housing. As you know, manufactured homes serve many housing
needs across the range of communities, from both rural areas to
metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, what we see nationwide is a
growing number of State and local restrictions that
discriminate against people and families who seek the dream of
home ownership through manufactured housing.
HUD called attention to these discriminatory practices in
its September Housing Finance Reform Plan, noting, and I quote,
``Policies that exclude or disincentivize the utilization of
manufactured homes can exacerbate housing affordability.'' In
today's age, we do not need to exacerbate the problem of
housing affordability. We need to solve the problem of housing
affordability in the country.
S. 1804 is crucially important to this because localities
allocate their CDBG and HOME funds, which nationally are about
$4.5 billion per year, based on the annual plans, and in turn
are based on the comprehensive plans done locally and
incentivizing them to use affordable housing. The best form of
affordable housing in the country that is unsubsidized is
manufactured housing--which is critical to this.
My written testimony includes other suggestions for the
Committee regarding overcoming zoning and land planning
policies that either limit or prohibit the placement of
manufactured products. HUD has preemption authority under the
Manufactured Housing Construction Safety Standards Act. This is
a statutory mandate to intervene when State or local regulatory
requirements are inconsistent with Federal construction
standards for manufactured homes.
While HUD occasionally uses its authority to pursue
individual cases, I would ask that the Senate encourage HUD to
better enforce its preemption authority. This would galvanize
HUD's statutory obligation to facilitate the availability of
affordable homes.
In closing, I thank the Committee today for your invitation
and providing me the opportunity to share ideas of how we can
prioritize the importance of manufactured housing when it comes
to addressing the shortage and crisis of solving the affordable
housing crisis in the country.
Again, I thank you, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Yost.
Ms. Bailey, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY BAILEY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR HOUSING POLICY,
CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Ms. Bailey. Thank you. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member
Brown, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am Peggy Bailey, vice president
for housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. The center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy
institute that conducts research on a range of Federal and
State policies affecting low- and moderate-income families. We
believe that Congress can take three steps to improve access to
housing and supports for youth leaving foster care.
First, pass H.R. 4300, the Fostering Stable Housing
Opportunities Act of 2019, which was recently introduced by
Senators Brown and Grassley and that has the support of over
100 organizations representing over 55,000 foster youth from
across the country. This work has been spearheaded by Foster
Action Ohio, an organization that is led by foster care alumni,
who not only supports the legislation but played a central role
in the designing and drafting of the bill.
Second, accept the proposed funding increases in the Family
Unification Program targeted at foster youth that are included
in both the House and Senate 2020 appropriations bills.
And, third, protect LGBTQ youth from discrimination and
ensure their access to housing and social services supports.
Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of households eligible for Federal
rental assistance do not get it due to limited funding.
Families may wait years to receive assistance, and an
overwhelming demand has prompted most housing agencies to stop
taking applications. Youth who leave foster care are
particularly vulnerable, and they are disproportionately at
risk of homelessness and housing instability.
Of the 400,000 or so children in foster care, 20,000 age
out each year. These young adults often have limited or no
family financial or emotional support. They can struggle to
continue their educations or get jobs, and if they get jobs,
which most of them do, they are often paid low wages.
Subpopulations of these youth face additional burdens.
Black or Hispanic youth, who are over-represented in foster
care, may face racism and discrimination when trying to access
housing, jobs, and educational supports. And LGBTQ youth are
also over-represented in the foster care system and face unique
challenges, like job discrimination and trauma that can be
harder to overcome if they are uncertain about how they will
afford a place to live.
About one in four foster youth who are 21 report they have
been homeless at least once during the prior 2 years, and as
many as one in three experience homelessness by age 26.
Some State agencies with some Federal funding and oversight
stand in for parents who cannot care for their children.
Evidence shows and, I am sure, personal experience by many here
today validates that most American parents contribute to their
children in various ways, including helping pay for housing
well past 18 and even 21. It is not unreasonable to think
foster youth need similar help.
Young people who have left foster care are eligible for
housing choice vouchers, but there is a severe shortage of
vouchers overall. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development makes a small pool of vouchers, known as Family
Unification Program or FUP vouchers, available to State and
local housing agencies that partner with child welfare agencies
to help at-risk youth. But the geographic reach of FUP vouchers
is limited. Only one out of every eight of the more than 2,200
housing agencies nationwide are authorized to administer them.
And nearly 20,000 FUP vouchers that are in use right now go to
only 1,000 former foster youth. Understandably, most FUP
vouchers go to families to help prevent the need to move a
child from home to foster care or to help families reunite with
their children once they are placed in foster care.
H.R. 4300, which the House Financial Services Committee
passed unanimously, would make FUP vouchers more effective for
foster youth. And as Chairman Crapo explained, it would
authorize HUD to make FUP vouchers available to every housing
agency that now administers vouchers and wants to administer
FUP vouchers, as long as the agency meets program requirements
and funds are available. It would also encourage housing
agencies and child welfare agencies to connect youth to
supports that help them become independent, and it would let
youth use their FUP vouchers for up to 5 years, which is 2
years longer than the current limit, if they are working,
engaged in educational supports, or meeting other requirements.
And it would provide supplemental funding for housing agencies
to support these partnerships with child welfare agencies.
In addition to passing H.R. 4300, Congress should also pass
the $20 million increase in the House and Senate versions of
the 2020 appropriations bills to expand FUP vouchers for at-
risk foster youth. That would enable more than 2,000 young
people who have left foster care and are at risk of
homelessness to live in decent, stable housing.
Congress should also urge the Administration to withdraw
Department of Health and Human Services and HUD proposed
regulations to roll back equal access and antidiscrimination
protections for LGBTQ people. The proposed rules would put
LGBTQ people, including young people generally and former
foster youth specifically, at risk of sleeping on the street or
taking dangerous steps to access housing.
Thank you very much for opportunity to testify today, and I
would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
Senator Scott, begin.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Good morning
to the panel. Thank you all for being here this morning on a
very important topic, a number of important topics.
I would like to take a moment to give a special thanks to
Ms. Ivory Mathews for joining us today from my home State of
South Carolina. I commend her for her hard work and dedication
to helping improve the lives of my constituents in South
Carolina. From her amazing work in Greenville to her addressing
the tragic situation in Columbia, I am very confident that with
her at the helm our families are in safer hands. Thank you for
your expertise, your leadership, and your passion for helping
those folks who are most vulnerable in our society.
The start of this year was one of tragedy for our community
in South Carolina. I would like to honor Calvin Witherspoon,
Jr., and Derrick Caldwell Roper, who tragically lost their
lives in what were, sadly, entirely preventable deaths as a
result of carbon monoxide poisoning on January 17th of this
year. This tragedy only galvanized my need to ensure that we
are committed to protecting our most vulnerable citizens like
Calvin and Derrick and the 239 other families at Allen Benedict
Court public housing community in Columbia.
That is why I worked with my colleague Senator Menendez on
finding a bipartisan solution to put a stop to any more deaths
like those in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Virginia,
Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee. That is over 14 deaths in
public housing across this country since 2003. Fourteen deaths
too many.
I also want to thank Secretary Carson and his staff at HUD
for their commitment to addressing this problem and for moving
forward with a $5 million grant program to help our public
housing authorities to purchase and install CO detectors.
Ms. Mathews, CO poisoning can happen quickly and without
warning, resulting in entirely preventable deaths if proper
measures are taken. We have a patchwork of State laws and
regulations when it comes to carbon monoxide prevention. In
Utah, for an example, a State that has seen a 25-percent
increase in carbon monoxide poisoning in just the last year,
only new residential structures regulated by the State
residential code are required to have CO detectors. How would a
bill like CO ALERTS help close the loophole nationally in our
federally assisted housing when it comes to stopping this
silent killer? Ms. Mathews.
Ms. Mathews. Thank you, Senator Scott. The CO ALERTS Act
will save lives, and the Senate should pass this bill.
Especially since HUD has made it clear that it is waiting on
congressional action, it is important for our industry that we
have those mandatory guidelines that are in law so that no
other housing authority or family have to experience such a
tragedy as we experienced in Columbia, South Carolina.
Senator Scott. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for that. Just a
note that in the last 2 weeks there were two incidences of
carbon monoxide poisoning in Detroit. We have to find a way to
stop this silent killer.
Last, I would also like to bring your attention to Senator
Cortez Masto's bill that I colead on manufactured housing.
Affordable home ownership can come in many forms, residential
manufactured housing being one of those. This is a safe and
affordable housing option for more than 22 million working
families. In South Carolina, it is particularly important as
nearly one of five homes are prefabricated. Our bill would open
the door for more affordable housing options for individuals
and families across the country.
Mr. Yost, can you explain how manufactured homes fill an
important role in providing lower-priced, more affordable
housing as the HUD report indicates?
Mr. Yost. Thank you, Senator Scott. And, yes, South
Carolina is a very popular State for manufactured housing. As
you know, there are 376,000 manufactured homes in your State.
Senator Scott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yost. About 20 percent of your homes are manufactured
housing. I think what manufactured housing does is it allows us
to supply an affordable price point. The average site-built
home today is going for $294,000, excluding land. The average
manufactured home is $72,000. It is a big difference when
people are fighting for affordability every day.
So at the end of the day, this bill, S. 1804, really allows
us to spread manufactured housing across the country and give
people the choice of having an affordable option so that they
can support their family.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Yost.
Mr. Ranking Member, I just want to thank the witnesses
again for being here today and for giving us important
testimony that will help us help the most vulnerable in our
society.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Senator Scott.
I have questions for Ms. Mathews and, Ms. Bailey, I will
start with you. I appreciate that a number of you mentioned on
the panel and the dais the Fostering Stable Housing
Opportunities Act that Senator Grassley and Senator Reed and I
are working on. Ms. Bailey, you outline in your testimony the
challenges facing youth who age out of foster care. Walk
through again what this bill will mean for young people aging
out, why it makes their lives better.
Ms. Bailey. Well, housing, as we know, for anyone is a
foundation to be able to go to school, work, and lead a healthy
life, and given that these youth often have low wages, it just
makes that affordability gap bigger for them. Without this
housing, they could have years spent homeless or, even worse,
maybe in jail and prison and other bad outcomes that we know
that happen when people are at risk of homelessness.
So this bill would give youth that first step in being able
to have a safe, stable place to live so that they can build
their futures.
Senator Brown. You had mentioned the challenges facing
LGBTQ young people and people of color. How will this bill help
them overcome some of the immense colleagues they face?
Ms. Bailey. Just like with youth in general, they face--
housing will play a huge role in being able to make those first
steps as they enter into adulthood. LGBTQ youth, black youth,
Hispanic youth who are all over-represented in the foster care
system are also over-represented in homelessness, over-
represented in jails and prisons, and face disparities when
trying to access health services.
Housing plays a huge role in being able to reverse all of
those poor outcomes, and this bill will give them that
assistance that they need to avoid those challenges in the
future.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Ms. Mathews, we know that fewer than 300 public housing
agencies have access to current FUP vouchers that are targeted
to foster youth. How would a bill like this be used in your
communities?
Ms. Mathews. In our community, we partner with South
Carolina Department of Social Services and many nonprofit
organizations that house individual youths that are currently
in foster care. And for many, many years, it is a constant
struggle to help find housing resources for those families
because we do not have the dedicated resources available like
what will be approved in the bill that Ms. Peggy mentioned. And
I think that it is tremendously important to have a bill like
this passed in law and for us to have the resources so that we
can help those families, those youth, transition and stabilize
their lives. Housing is the first part of being able to
stabilize their lives as they transition into adulthood. So we
certainly support it, and it would be tremendously beneficial
in our community.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Follow up on that, Ms. Bailey, in this way, if you would,
please. We know what an important social determinant of health
stable housing can be. We know that low-income people and
people of color, their infant mortality rates are higher, their
maternal mortality rates are higher, significantly higher.
Given your background at the intersection of housing and
health, talk about how stable housing impacts people's health.
Ms. Bailey. You know, I think it is important, in thinking
about health, to think about not just someone's physical and
their primary health needs, but also their mental health and
substance uses as a disorder and disease, too, that housing
helps people be able to access the doctor. If they have a
chronic health condition, it allows them to store their
medication, to have access to healthy food. And then just the
stability of knowing that you can pay for your place to live
and avoid homelessness is a comfort that so many families are
not able to have.
I think, last, people experiencing homelessness are exposed
to severe weather, cannot take care of infections, and have
to--and they must stand in line at shelters in order to be able
to have access to that shelter and, therefore, cannot engage in
a lot of services and then work.
So housing is the foundation for everything that we think
about when it comes to improved health care, and also we know
that people experiencing homelessness access emergency room
care and are over-institutionalized, which is expensive for the
health care system. Without access to housing, all of these
poor outcomes are experienced in the health care system.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify before the
Committee today.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle who wrote the legislation that we are considering at
today's hearing.
Before I begin my questions, I would like to take a moment
to point out the fact that it has now been 534 days since our
last markup in this Committee, which was when we considered
legislation modernizing the CFIUS process. If you go all the
way back to the last nonsecurity bill, which was S. 2155, it
has been 689 days. That is nearly 2 full years.
This is particularly unfortunate because there are a lot--
well, there is a whole host of bills that are being discussed
on both sides that I really think Republicans and Democrats
could agree on. And when it comes to housing affordability, it
has been really challenging to find a bipartisan approach that
we can get to, to actually make the major changes that are
necessary if we want to fix what is going on in FHA. I truly
believe that reform of the Federal Housing Administration and
the way that it operates within HUD is critical. But it is
going to take a bipartisan effort.
Everyone here is well aware of the fact that the FHA is
broken, and yet at this stage of the game, we have yet to be
able to come to a bipartisan agreement on how we want to fix
it. And so I would challenge all of us once again to sit back
and, look, if we really want to make changes in this, it is
going to take a bipartisan effort to get it done. And I would
be more than willing to work with any member on either side of
the aisle to try to find that step forward.
I guess we would also have to be honest as we look at the
bills before us today, which are important ideas that I think
should move forward through the markup process. But they are
only going to move the needle so far. If we really want to make
housing affordable for the long term, we have to tackle the
tough issues confronting us in fundamental housing finance
reform. The thought of Congress coming together to solve major
problems does not have to be a foreign concept. Heck, if you
take a look at most of our States--I will give South Dakota as
an example--in a matter of 40 days and 40 nights, the
legislature gets together; they work through; they look at
every single bill that comes before them. They pass a balanced
budget, and then they go back and they live with the rest of
the citizens and the laws that they have created. I think that
same type of an attitude has to be shown within Congress.
Here in the Senate Banking Committee, we have had luck in
leaning in to difficult housing problems in the past, and I
have to offer my commendation to Chairman Crapo for his
bipartisan work on the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer
Protection Act. It is better known as ``Johnson-Crapo''. It has
been 6 years since we have actually had that discussion. That
would be an excellent place from which to start on GSE reform.
And while I know that there would be many ideas for amendments,
I hope we can include Johnson-Crapo in a future markup along
with amendments that would make it better.
Now, with that being said, I do want to ask--I know that my
colleagues have already had a chance to ask some questions
about some of the legislation before us, but what I would like
to do is ask a follow-up question in a way. From a high-level
perspective, what are some of the additional steps that you
would like to see this Committee taking to promote housing
affordability? This is almost like an open-mic opportunity for
you, but from your perspective, can you share with us what you
would like to see in terms of what might be options that would
help in affordable housing? If anyone would like to step
forward. If not, I will just go down the line.
Ms. Bailey. I do not mind going first. I could go first.
What we would like to see, first and foremost, is a major
expansion to the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Housing choice
vouchers have been shown to be extraordinarily effective in
being able to stabilize families and individuals in their
housing in a very efficient way. You know, sometimes when we
think about solving the affordable housing crisis, we think of
it as solving entirely for homelessness, and it is not.
Homelessness is a part of the problem, but overall many people
have someplace to live; they just simply have a hard time
making ends meet. And if we could give them--if we could make
sure that everyone who needs it can afford their housing--and a
housing choice voucher is a way to do that--we would go a long
way to solving the crisis.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Other thoughts, Mr. Yost?
Mr. Yost. Senator Rounds, thank you for the question. I
think there are two things that come to mind immediately. The
first thing is I would encourage the GSEs to do their duty to
serve that they have actually put in writing for 2019 and 2020
for the creation of a secondary market for chattel lending. I
think that creation of a secondary market will create a more
competitive financing environment for affordable housing and
allow participants to get into it.
Many times, even with the expense of chattel lending, a
manufactured home is actually a cheaper alternative than
apartment rent and single-family housing options.
Senator Rounds. Before you go on, just because I know I am
going to run out of time, but, Ms. Mathews, would you like to
make any comments as well? Then I am going to run out of time.
Ms. Mathews. Yes, thank you, Senator Rounds, for the
question. I particularly really support some of the tools that
are already in existence, like the extension of the Rental
Assistance Demonstration Program. That is a very valuable tool
that allows us to garner some private and public partnerships
to expand more affordable housing. We know that federally there
just is not enough dollars that exist that will allow us to
address all the deferred capital needs. But any of the
legislation or bills that are on the table that will allow, you
know, for more public-private partnerships to expand more
affordable housing.
Senator Rounds. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brown. Thanks, Senator Rounds.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you, witnesses, for your excellent testimony.
Let me begin and also recognize Senator Kay Hagan, who
served this Committee and this Congress with great distinction.
She was an extraordinary person.
Let me also say I come at this from two perspectives: an
authorizer on this Committee and an appropriator. I am the
Ranking Democrat on the Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development Subcommittee of Appropriations. And echoing Senator
Brown's comments, the President's budget that he sent up was
less than adequate, a $12 billion cut in affordable housing and
economic development programs, including HOME and public
housing--Ms. Mathews, you would have a lot of problems trying
to survive on that budget--and the Community Development Block
Grant Program, one of the most popular programs throughout the
country.
Fortunately, through the leadership of Senator Collins and
all my colleagues, we were able to vote on a bipartisan basis
for a very strong appropriations bill, 84-9, and I thank all of
them for that. Roughly $48 billion more in discretionary HUD
resources can go to affordable housing, can go to homeless
populations, can go to community development opportunities, and
can go to environmental remediation. And this goes to your
point about carbon monoxide. There is another very dangerous
thing, and that is lead, lead exposure in public housing and
lead exposure in some rental housing. We can get at that and we
must. So we have made some progress. We hope we can go to
conference and even get more resources for the housing
programs.
I want to commend my colleagues on the legislation they
have submitted. It is just thoughtful and it is important, and
we need to move quickly on it. But I would be remiss if I did
not mention a piece of legislation I have just introduced with
Senator Collins, S. 2801, which would extend permanently the
authorization for the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness.
Since they began planning and coordinating with all these
Federal departments, we have seen a reduction--this is from
2010 to today--a reduction in many of these numbers in terms of
overall homelessness and veterans' homelessness.
So I would just turn to Ms. Bailey and ask for your
comments on the importance of the Interagency Council.
Ms. Bailey. Yeah, the Interagency Council on Homelessness
has played a vital role in being able to coordinate Federal
agencies, as you said. I have been working on these issues
since almost the creation of the Interagency Council or when it
first at least started to get legs in the early 2000s and
mandated that communities should make 10-year plans to end
homelessness and really spurred the way for our rethinking
about homelessness as an intractable problem but a problem that
we can solve.
The way that they have done that, the most is, as you
mentioned, with veterans. I think 78 communities, or close to
that, have ended veterans' homelessness, and three States, and
without the Interagency Council's work, to not only help the VA
target resources but also the Department of Health and Human
Services and HUD toward that problem is exactly what the
Interagency Council was meant to do.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. You are right, I
think included in those 78 communities are Abilene, Texas;
Lexington, Kentucky; Little Rock, Arkansas; Poplar Bluff,
Missouri; and 71 counties in Mississippi. So this is reaching
into rural areas which have veterans, and we need to deal with
them, and I think that is appropriate.
I am slightly off topic, but I think it is important. I
want to follow up, Ms. Bailey. The Housing Trust Fund and the
Capital Magnet Fund is a great source of resources for
affordable housing, and every community in this country is
facing an affordable housing crisis. If you go to the big
cities such as San Francisco and Boston, everyone is being
priced out of the market. But now you are going to smaller
communities, and for reasons that Mr. Yost suggested, including
zoning and every other thing, you cannot build affordable
housing.
How important is the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital
Magnet Fund, in your view, Ms. Bailey?
Ms. Bailey. Given the affordable housing crisis that we
have, every resource is important, but the Housing Trust Fund
really helps make sure we are targeting housing resources to
the lowest-income people.
What I do not think everyone understands all the time is
that the low-income housing tax credit is great and is our
largest investment in capital resources, but it only makes
housing affordable for people who are at 60 or 80 percent
median income, in the $40,000 range for income.
What the Housing Trust Fund does is allow for dollars to be
coupled with the low-income housing tax credit to make units
affordable for people at lower-income levels, especially people
with no incomes or at extremely low incomes, in the 30-percent
area of median income range.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. I want to thank
Mr. Yost and Ms. Mathews, too, for your great work. Thank you
very, very much.
Senator Brown. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Chairman Crapo for holding a hearing on these important
housing bills, including the CO ALERTS Act. And I hope the
Committee will consider in its agenda having several other
housing-related opportunities. I think this is one of the most
critical elements of our economy and in the lives of our
families, and I hope we can do more.
In the age when bipartisanship is supposed to be dead,
Senator Scott and I were able to work together and introduce
this life-saving bill. Carbon monoxide is a true silent killer.
It is tasteless, colorless, odorless, and yet all it takes is a
few minutes of exposure to face serious health risks like brain
damage and death. But, luckily, this danger is entirely
preventable. Carbon monoxide alarms are a proven way to alert
families to a grave health threat, but a CO detector is not a
luxury accessory for well-to-do homeowners. It is a basic life-
saving necessity that belongs in every home, and that includes
public housing.
Unfortunately, while Federal assisted housing units must
include smoke detectors, there is no such requirement for
carbon monoxide alarms, and that is unacceptable. My State of
New Jersey is one of the 27 States that requires CO detectors
in private dwellings, but Federal public housing is exempt from
these requirements. In 2019 alone, four public housing
residents died from completely preventable carbon monoxide
poisoning. Two of those deaths took place in South Carolina, a
State that like New Jersey requires carbon monoxide alarms.
There is no excuse for not taking action today to save lives,
and HUD has publicly stated that Congress needs to act. And I
hope that our bipartisan bill that adopts International Fire
Code standards requiring alarms to be present to detect carbon
monoxide emitted from aging appliances, forced-air furnaces,
fireplaces, and attached garages happens.
As the winter fast approaches, residents fire up their
furnaces, and the risk of carbon monoxide increases. It is time
for the Senate to follow the House of Representatives that
overwhelmingly passed the CO ALERTS Act.
And so in this regard, I am going to stick just to this
line of questioning, though I am tempted with very few housing
opportunities to broaden it. But as I just mentioned, Ms.
Mathews, in South Carolina, like New Jersey, the State has
carbon monoxide detector requirements. But despite the presence
of State laws, two public housing residents died from carbon
monoxide poisoning in South Carolina earlier this year.
In accordance with State law, were there carbon monoxide
detectors in these public housing units?
Ms. Mathews. Senator Menendez, I joined the Columbia
Housing Authority on July 1, 2019, and it is my understanding
that there were no carbon monoxide detectors installed in these
public housing units.
Senator Menendez. Do State officials, to your knowledge,
conduct regular health and safety inspections for carbon
monoxide detectors in public housing which is federally funded?
Ms. Mathews. No, I am not aware of any State agency
responsible for conducting health and safety inspections of
carbon monoxide detectors.
Senator Menendez. And the reason is that HUD does not
inspect for carbon monoxide detectors because there is no
Federal carbon monoxide detector requirement. And despite State
laws, all four of the carbon monoxide-related deaths in public
housing this year occurred in States that have some type of CO
alarm requirement but do not inspect federally assisted housing
units for them. It is clear that we need to close the gap.
Earlier this year, a HUD spokesman said Congress can fix
this by passing legislation requiring carbon monoxide detectors
for those living in HUD housing units where detectors are
needed, and I hope that this hearing motivates us to do so.
Ms. Bailey, do private property owners who decide to
participate in HUD's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
have to abide by Federal health and safety standards, such as
having smoke alarms in their buildings?
Ms. Bailey. They do. Yes, they do. Their inspections are
required.
Senator Menendez. So I ask that question as a predicate to
saying so wouldn't requiring private landlords who accept
housing vouchers to comply with carbon monoxide alarm
requirements similar to those that already exist for smoke
alarm requirements be consistent with our existing practice of
requiring private landlords who choose to participate in HUD
programs to take certain steps to guarantee the health and
safety of their residents?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, it would, and it seems like it is a
responsibility for Federal dollars to go to housing that is
safe for people.
Senator Menendez. And so, finally, Ms. Bailey, your
organization, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities,
states that public housing assistance currently helps about 1.9
million seniors, 2.4 million people with disabilities, 6.3
million people and families with children. Isn't it important
for the Federal Government to protect these groups of fellow
citizens, well over 10 million to 11 million, from the dangers
of carbon monoxide?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Brown. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Brown. I want to thank
you and the Chairman for having this hearing, and I want to
thank the folks who are on the panel today. And I just want to
know, because I do not want to go into a realm you are not
familiar with, but how many folks have had experience with the
HUD-VASH Program? Raise your hand if you have, because then I
have got a question if you have.
Ms. Mathews. [Raises hand.]
Senator Tester. So in your experience, how adequate is that
program for meeting the needs out there for veterans? And, by
the way, I have got a bill to expand it to include other than
honorable discharge veterans because a lot of these folks get
PTSD and then they get booted out of the military through no
fault of their own, through their experience. So the question
is: Right now, how effective is that program in meeting the
needs of homeless veterans?
Ms. Mathews. In Columbia, South Carolina, we currently
administer 414 HUD-VASH vouchers.
Senator Tester. For homeless vets?
Ms. Mathews. For homeless veterans.
Senator Tester. And how many homeless vets do you have left
over?
Ms. Mathews. Oh, boy. Probably four times as many.
Senator Tester. Four times as many? So that program could
be expanded. You could utilize those HUD-VASH vouchers to meet
the needs of the people who served our country?
Ms. Mathews. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you very much.
And this is for anybody who wants to answer this. As the
Ranking Member pointed out in his opening statement, we have
got housing issues with affordable housing, workforce housing
throughout this country. It does not matter if you are talking
urban areas or rural areas. In fact, I would say that in
Montana it is probably the biggest inhibitor for economic
development that we have right now because there is simply not
any housing. And if you are in a real small town, the housing
is dilapidated, so we have got another problem there.
So what is the best way to encourage workforce housing? At
the Federal level, what can we do to encourage more housing to
be built that people can afford? Is there any certain programs
that you guys look at and say, ``You know what? This is really
effective; this is good. It does the job. If there was more
emphasis put on this program, it could really make a
difference''? Anybody can answer.
Ms. Bailey. Well, with being able to utilize the low-
income housing tax credit and the National Housing Trust Fund,
those are two places where investment in being able to develop
housing units is critically important.
Senator Tester. OK.
Ms. Bailey. And then as I said earlier, being able----
Senator Tester. What was the second one, low-income----
Ms. Bailey. The National Housing Trust Fund.
Senator Tester. OK. Go ahead. Keep going.
Ms. Bailey. And then additions to the Housing Choice
Voucher and other rental assistance programs is also vitally
important because those two programs alone cannot make sure
that housing is affordable for the lowest-income people.
Senator Tester. I am going to get to manufactured housing
in a minute, Mr. Yost, but have either of you utilized the low-
income housing tax credit? Go ahead.
Ms. Mathews. Yes, we have utilized the competitive 9-
percent tax credit and the 4-percent bonds.
Senator Tester. And in your utilization of it, has it
resulted in positive impacts on the housing market?
Ms. Mathews. It certainly has.
Senator Tester. Do you fully utilize all the credits that
are available, or could you use more?
Ms. Mathews. We could certainly use more.
Senator Tester. And you could put them to work and they
would be as effective as the ones you have now?
Ms. Mathews. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. OK. Cool. Thank you guys very, very much.
This is a big problem. I mean, it just is a big problem.
Mr. Yost, you put out some figures, and, by the way, I am a
cosponsor of the bill, and I believe in what you do. When my
kids were thinking about moving back to farm before they
realized they were not going to make enough money, I almost
bought a manufactured home, and they are pretty damn
impressive. But the numbers you put forth are amazing. You can
build it for about half of what you build a onsite stick-built
home--or not half; a quarter. A quarter of what you build an
onsite stick-built home. I have just got to ask, because those
figures are almost too good to be true. When you put forth
those figures, are you putting them forth within the same
region? Because a house in Montana, because of the price of
land, not in all cases but in most cases, is far less. Are we
comparing apples to apples here? You are not comparing the
stick-built onsite homes in, say, a place like California
versus a place like Montana?
Mr. Yost. So as an example, in Montana--the figures that I
am quoting are national averages. But in Montana, for example,
the national average for a home is $294,000, no land, just the
house itself. For a multisection, meaning a larger home, in
Montana it is about $126,000 for kind of a comparable home.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Yost. So at the end of the day, manufactured housing on
a per square foot basis is about $50 per square foot because of
the process, techniques, and automation we have, versus site-
built, which is $111 per square feet.
Senator Tester. And you also gain efficiency in workforce,
right?
Mr. Yost. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. And you also gain efficiency in--I would
assume you have got different plans, but you probably do not
have a different plan for every house you build, right?
Mr. Yost. We have a lot of plans.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Yost. We do several thousand models.
Senator Tester. And you also gain efficiency in bulk buying
of everything, from shingles to steel to lumber, right?
Mr. Yost. Yes, sir. Economies of scale.
Senator Tester. So I just have a request.
Mr. Yost. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. If you guys could put one of your plants in
Indian Country where they do not have enough housing, yet they
have a hell of a workforce, it would be great. I think it could
really be a win-win deal. And there are some tax advantages for
you to do that.
Mr. Yost. I will come see it.
Senator Tester. I would be more than happy to help you out.
Mr. Yost. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Senator Tester. Yeah.
Senator Brown. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I want to thank the
Chairman and Ranking Member for prioritizing a hearing on the
desperate need for affordable housing. You have heard it from
the Members here. I am in Nevada. This is the number one issue
all over, whether you live in an urban or rural area in the
State of Nevada. We have been having roundtable discussions,
talking about how we make it pencil out, how do we bring
affordable housing.
So one of the areas I am focused on and a lead sponsor of
is the Manufactured Housing Modernization Act, so I want to
talk a little bit about that. And I want to thank Senators
Scott and Smith and Cramer and my colleague Senator Tester for
joining me on that bill.
I would like to place into the record letters of support
for Senate bill 1804 from the following organizations:
Prosperity Now, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and Next
Step, without objection.
Senator Brown. No objection.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
I also am a cosponsor of Senator Scott and Senator
Menendez's bill, the CO ALERTS Act, and look very favorably on
and will be supporting H.R. 4300 as well.
But let me jump back to affordable housing, because after
my discussions in my State with so many stakeholders about the
need for affordable housing, I do realize we need to pass the
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act; we should expand the
low-income housing tax credit by 50 percent, helping to build
more than 3,400 additional affordable homes in Nevada over the
next 10 years, and millions more nationwide.
I have to say, Ms. Bailey, thank you so much for putting in
perspective the distinction between the low-income housing tax
credit and the HTF. Everything has to work in conjunction with
one another. I think what I find after talking with so many of
the stakeholders is that there is not one single financing
piece that is the answer. You have to kind of cobble it
together and work with local government, the private sector,
the builders, everybody, to get that done. And it requires
stakeholders coming together to make that happen.
So I appreciate so the conversation today, but, Mr. Yost,
thank you for being here. I am going to follow up on what
Senator Tester talked about with Indian County. I sit on Senate
Indian Affairs as well. I attended a hearing just recently on
mortgage lending in Native American communities, and the
witnesses mentioned the importance of manufactured homes as an
affordable and sometimes only housing source for tribal lands.
Now, you have talked about the costs of a manufactured
home. Can you please speak to the quality of manufactured
homes? I have seen many very attractive manufactured homes, and
I also hear sometimes concerns about the quality, the
durability of manufactured homes. But can you talk a little bit
about that, if you do not mind?
Mr. Yost. Of course. I think that the durability and
sustainability of manufactured homes is light years more
advanced than it was decades ago. Just like computer
technologies advanced, just like manufacturing advanced, homes
have come a long way from where they were previously. So right
now today they are built in factories with exacting standards,
so they are not exposed to the elements, mold and mildew. All
the materials are indoors. Basically, they go through a
production process with exacting tables and measurements.
Actually, you know, most houses for our industry ship down
the freeway at 50 miles an hour. So when you think about that,
they are actually built to withstand the shipping and moving
over the road system. So they are actually very well built
overall. And they are more energy efficient. If you go to our
plants and factories, what you will see is the amount of scrap
and waste is minimized versus onsite construction, which
generally has dumpster after dumpster that goes to landfills.
So, overall, I think the sustainability of our product is not
only just more cost-effective; it is more effective in the
aggregate for the quality. And you have seen some of the
pictures in the written testimony.
You know, we put two homes on the National Mall just
recently, and we had thousands of people come through. And I
was standing in a home, and a young lady came up to me and she
said, ``They directed me over here to see the manufactured
house. Do you know where it is?'' And I said, ``You are
standing in it.'' And they are like, ``My God, this is
beautiful.'' And, you know, that is what I mean. When we can
give someone a beautiful home that they are proud of for the
price point we are talking, that is what it is all about.
Senator Cortez Masto. And I think that is important, and
that is the reason why I wanted to make sure--and why I
introduced the bill, to make sure that we are including
manufactured homes in our planning in local government and
State government in identifying areas for affordable housing,
because it has come a long way.
Now, with that said, I do not think that we ignore any type
of manufactured housing, right? I think every manufactured
housing--and I have several in my communities in my State. We
should be ensuring that they have all the resources they need
to maintain them, update them, make sure that they are also a
part of our concerns, and get the funding that is necessary at
the Federal level, right?
Mr. Yost. [Nods head affirmatively.]
Senator Cortez Masto. I so appreciate it. Thank you for
supporting the bill.
I would like to clarify a couple of things, though, with
respect to the bill, S. 1804. It does not require participating
jurisdictions to allocate HUD funds for manufactured homes. It
requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
publish rules requiring local jurisdictions to consider
manufactured housing when putting together their consolidated
plans. And the bill asks all jurisdictions to consider the role
that manufactured housing plays for the very reasons that we
are talking about today.
And so my final question, I guess, Ms. Bailey, is to you.
Does it make sense for community leaders to consider the
millions of families living in manufactured housing when they
consider housing policy decisions in their communities?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely. So as we have said continually
today, there is a huge affordable housing crisis, and every
option should be on the table. In Matthew Desmond's book
``Evicted'', he highlights the people living manufactured
housing and the need to make it affordable and high quality and
safe for people. And manufactured housing plays a vital role in
many communities in the affordable housing space.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I know my time is up. I
just have to say thank you for the hearing. This is such an
important issue across the country, particularly in Nevada. I
so appreciate our ability to highlight the affordable housing
crisis that we have and look for solutions to addressing it. So
thank you again.
Chairman Crapo [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Jones.
Senator Jones. I am inclined to say just ``Ditto'' for
everything my friend said here. But I will ask a couple of
questions, particularly of Mr. Yost.
I do want to follow up with what Senator Cortez Masto asked
about, manufactured housing and the modernization. Obviously,
Alabama has got a significant percentage of our housing that is
manufactured housing in many different forms. So I want to
follow up on the modernization a little bit, but specifically
with regard to safety. That is a huge issue in a State like
Alabama that sees any number of natural disasters that come
through every year.
Could you talk about that a little bit and the improvements
in the safety of manufactured housing over the last couple of
decades?
Mr. Yost. Yes, thank you, Senator Jones. And, yes, you are
very familiar with manufactured housing. You have got 15
factories in your State, and about 17 percent of your housing
is manufactured housing.
Senator Jones. Right.
Mr. Yost. Overall, the safety and improvements on the
safety front have been monumental in manufactured housing, not
only within the plants but also externally. So now with the new
codes that have been out there, basically manufactured housing
is built to stronger wind zones, and time after time what we
have see is now with the strong regulations and flood
requirements that have elevated the homes for flooding and wind
zone issues, I think they are a nonevent. We have actually seen
manufactured housing withstand hurricanes and natural disasters
much more severe than--to greater standards than site-built
homes.
Senator Jones. All right. Well, great. Thank you so much.
Ms. Bailey, I want to follow up on the carbon monoxide and
the CO ALERTS Act that we have got here. Clearly, and I really
appreciate Senator Scott and Senator Menendez for this
legislation and how important it is. But Alabama also has, like
many States, a fairly aging housing stock these days. And as
important and as dangerous as carbon monoxide is, I think we
could all agree there is probably a fair amount of other
dangers in these housing stocks as well.
I wonder if you might could just address that and give us
an overall--a little bit of a discussion about how healthy the
housing market is these days. And are you concerned about any
other threats other than carbon monoxide that are facing
federally assisted households?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. So
one issue in older housing is mold--and we are worried about
that for kids with asthma--and vermin and roaches and other
infestations. But lead is also a huge issue, too. We know that
lead poisoning harms children, especially young children, and
we need to do more to help abate lead in housing.
Another issue that we are concerned about is neighborhoods
overall. We have done work to show that people receiving
Federal assistance, even within the voucher program that is
made to be able to be used wherever someone should be able to
choose where they live, are overly concentrated in high-poverty
neighborhoods that are often disinvested, which means they do
not have parks, they do not have grocery stores and other
amenities that we know help keep people safe. And people in
high-poverty neighborhoods are also overexposed to air
pollution and other environmental hazards.
Senator Jones. Well, thank you for that. I take it from
your testimony that while all of these bills are just wonderful
and I support them all, we have still got a ways to go in the
housing market, in affordable housing and safe housing in the
United States.
Ms. Bailey. Most definitely. We need to spur the energy
that has been created lately to increase the availability of
affordable housing itself and then invest in housing, whether
it is private housing or public housing, to make sure that
everybody has the foundation of safe, affordable housing to
live and thrive in in the future.
Senator Jones. Well, great. Thank you all for being here.
Thanks to the Chairman and Ranking Member for this hearing.
Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you. Again, I apologize for having
been gone for most of the hearing. We got into a bit of a
tussle in the Judiciary Committee. But that is not unusual
either.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Crapo. Before we wrap up, Senator Brown has----
Senator Brown. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you again
for the comments that all of you made. This was a really
important hearing, and I appreciate so much Senator Tester
asking all of you what do we do, steps one, two, three, four,
to provide affordable housing for people. So thank you. I would
like to enter into the record a letter of support for the
Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act from a number of
organizations, including Action Ohio--thank you for your
comments about Ohio, Ms. Bailey--an organization representing
Ohio foster youth and alumni. We may have additional letters
also for the record.
Chairman Crapo. All right. Thank you. And without
objection.
That does wrap up the questioning. I will forgo my
questions. I do want to say that you may get some additional
questions from some of the Senators. Those questions will be
due from the Senators on Thursday, November 14th, and we ask
each of you, if you do get additional questions, to please
respond to them as quickly as you can. I believe that it is
pretty clear we have got strong bipartisan support here on each
of these pieces of legislation, and it is my hope and
expectation that we will be able to move expeditiously to get
them to the floor.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Today, the Committee will receive testimony from leaders in the
housing community on bipartisan opportunities this Congress to expand
access to affordable housing, to improve the safety conditions within
current federally assisted housing, and to consider how we might better
target some of our existing housing resources to meet unaddressed need.
Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for taking the time to be
with us today for this important discussion.
Joining us today are Ivory Mathews, Interim Executive Director of
the Housing Authority of Columbia, South Carolina; Mark Yost, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Skyline Champion Corporation; and
Peggy Bailey, Vice President for Housing Policy at the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities.
For purposes of today's hearing, we are focused on examining three
bipartisan pieces of legislation in particular that have been
introduced in the 116th Congress.
This includes S.2160--the CO ALERTS Act, which was introduced in
July by Senators Scott and Menendez and has the support of five
Republicans and five Democrats on this Committee;
S.1804--the ``HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act'', which
was introduced in June and has five bipartisan cosponsors, including
Senators Cortez Masto, Scott, Cramer, and Smith; and
H.R. 4300--the ``Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act'',
which has bipartisan interest in the Senate and is moving quickly
through the House of Representatives on a strong bipartisan basis.
The CO ALERTS Act would require the installation and maintenance of
carbon monoxide alarms in most forms of federally assisted housing, in
any dwelling unit containing a fuel-burning appliance, fireplace,
furnace, or enclosed garage.
Currently, the majority of federally assisted housing programs have
no such requirement, despite similar requirements in 37 States and the
District of Columbia.
At least 13 individuals living in federally assisted housing have
died due to carbon monoxide poisoning since 2003, including four in the
past year.
In April, Secretary Carson announced that HUD would undertake a
rulemaking process to establish such a requirement across all of HUD's
public housing and rental-assistance programs.
The bill would also require the HUD secretary to provide guidance
to public housing agencies on how they can better educate tenants on
health hazards in the home.
The HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act would provide
confirmation to State and local jurisdictions who receive HUD funding
through programs like the Community Development Block Grant or HOME
Investment Partnerships program that manufactured housing is an
eligible affordable housing option for which communities can receive
public funding for construction and repair.
In other words, local jurisdictions would have a broader menu of
options available as they seek to meet the unique affordable housing
needs of their community.
The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act was advanced
unanimously out of the House Financial Services Committee in September,
and awaits floor consideration.
It would authorize HUD to allocate vouchers under its Family
Unification Program more directly to any public housing agency that
requests an allocation in order to provide timely assistance to an
eligible youth who is aging out of foster care and at risk of losing
their safety net overnight.
The bill would also extend the length of a family unification
voucher by up to 24 months for eligible youth who are either
participating in HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency program, working towards
a degree, or are participating in a career pathway.
These individuals would also be eligible for any additional
supportive services made available in connection with any housing
assistance program of the agency that provides the voucher.
I commend HUD and Secretary Carson for their ongoing work on a
number of the issues we will discuss today--including the forthcoming
rulemaking on Carbon Monoxide alarms, and HUD's new ``Foster Youth to
Independence'' initiative.
Each of the three bills we are examining today have been
thoughtfully put together, and have strong bipartisan support.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these legislative
proposals and I also look forward to working with Members of the
Committee to identify other items with bipartisan support in the
affordable housing space and elsewhere.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Thank you, Chairman Crapo for holding today's hearing, and thank
you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
I'd like to start by taking a moment to acknowledge the passing of
one of our former colleagues, Senator Kay Hagan.
Senator Hagan contributed so much to this Committee and was a
fierce advocate for the people of North Carolina. Our thoughts and
prayers are with her family.
I have long said that the ``housing'' part of this Committee's name
doesn't get enough attention. Today's hearing is an important, but
small, step toward giving the affordable housing crisis we have in this
country the attention it deserves.
Right now, nearly 11 million households spend more than half of
their income on housing, and 7 of the 10 fastest growing jobs don't pay
enough to afford a one bedroom apartment.
This is not an urban problem or a rural problem--it hits nearly
every community in every State.
And instead of working to solve this crisis, this Administration is
making it worse--from proposing deep cuts to the HUD budget, to
dismantling fair housing protections, to advocating for a housing
finance system that would make mortgages more expensive and harder to
get.
Fortunately, Members on this Committee are taking some steps to
address the housing challenges we face. Today we'll look at our
Members' bipartisan legislation that would address three unique housing
issues.
The HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization Act, introduced by
Senators Cortez Masto and Scott, would require communities to consider
manufactured housing as they develop strategic plans to address their
local housing and community development needs with Federal grants.
Manufactured housing is home to 22 million people and meets
critical affordable housing needs across the country, including in
Ohio.
Senators Scott and Menendez's CO ALERTS Act responds to two tragic
deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning in HUD-assisted housing earlier
this year.
No one should have to fear their home is going to poison them.
Their bill would finally require carbon monoxide detectors in all
federally assisted units that have carbon monoxide risk, to prevent
more of these avoidable deaths.
It would take a step toward ensuring that everyone, no matter their
income, can be safe in their home.
And finally, we'll discuss the need for a program to address the
housing needs of young people exiting foster care across the country.
Every year, 20,000 young people ``age out'' of foster care. Think
about how challenging this time can be--all of a sudden you're on your
own, you don't have the same family safety net to fall back on that
others may have. You're trying to find a job or enroll in school. Many
face housing instability, and up to one-third will experience
homelessness at some point during this transition.
Jeremy from Hamilton County, Ohio, shared with my office that he
entered foster care at age 10 and aged out at 18 with no permanent
home. He entered college but found himself homeless during college
breaks. Jeremy persevered and he became an advocate for others, because
no young person should have to experience what he did.
Ohio's foster care youth, alumni, and allies set out to solve this
problem. They put forth the ideas that became the bipartisan Fostering
Stable Housing Opportunities Act, so that foster care alumni nationwide
can have a place to call home. This legislation has the support of
nearly 100 organizations and 55,000 current and former foster youth.
Congresswoman Dean introduced this bill in the House, and this
week, Senator Grassley and I introduced this bill in the Senate.
This bill provides additional resources in more communities, and it
encourages local housing and child welfare agencies to work together to
better serve our young people.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to moving on each of these bills
before the end of the year.
But this is just the first step.
Carbon monoxide isn't the only way people are poisoned in their
homes--there are many health hazards in homes across this country,
including lead, that we need to do a lot more to combat. There are
severe housing shortages in urban and rural areas, and in Indian
Country. We face expiring assistance contracts on thousands of
affordable units in rural communities. And we see a growing need for
affordable senior housing options.
We have to tackle this crisis from both sides. Corporations frankly
are not paying workers enough to afford a place to live. And we need to
create more safe, affordable homes--and preserve the ones we've got.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF IVORY N. MATHEWS
Interim Executive Director, Housing Authority of the city of Columbia,
South Carolina
November 7, 2019
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, thank you for the opportunity
to testify during today's critically important hearing in support of
the Carbon Monoxide Alarms Leading Every Resident to Safety Act of 2019
(CO ALERTS Act of 2019).
My name is Ivory Mathews, and I am the Interim Executive Director
of the Housing Authority of the City of Columbia, South Carolina.
I am here to today to support increased access to carbon monoxide
detectors in federally assisted rental housing through the CO ALERTS
legislation. The legislation ensures families living in federally
assisted housing are safer from carbon monoxide poisoning by requiring:
Carbon monoxide alarms in Section 202, Section 811, Public
Housing, and Section 8 federally assisted housing, in
accordance with Chapters 9 and 11 of the International Fire
Code (IFC). The IFC requires carbon monoxide alarms in units
that have potential carbon monoxide sources like gas-fired
appliances, fireplaces, forced air furnaces, and attached
garages;
Carbon monoxide alarms in Sections 514 and 515 rural
housing, in accordance with Chapters 9 and 11 of the IFC;
HUD to provide guidance to public housing agencies on how
to educate tenants on health hazards in the home, including
carbon monoxide poisoning and lead poisoning; and
HUD, in consultation with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, to conduct a public study on requiring carbon
monoxide alarms in housing not covered by the IFC.
Established in 1937, the Housing Authority of the City of Columbia,
South Carolina, (Columbia Housing) is the largest housing authority in
the State of South Carolina. Columbia Housing was formed to provide
federally subsidized affordable housing to low-income families.
Since 1937 Columbia Housing has provided housing assistance to low
income families in Richland County, South Carolina, utilizing
traditional programs, including Public Housing and Section 8 Housing
Choice Vouchers (HCV) funded by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). In recent years, Columbia Housing has
updated 10 percent of its housing portfolio with modern mixed-income
developments and continues to search for ways to expand affordable
housing throughout the City and County.
Today, we provide rental assistance to over 6,000 families through
the HCV Program, Public Housing program, and properties that we own
and/or manage. Columbia Housing owns and/or manages a real estate
portfolio of 36 traditional Public Housing communities with 1,684
units, seven Mixed Finance/Low Income Housing Tax Credit communities
totaling 425 units, and ten market rate workforce housing communities
consisting of 249 units. In addition to these multifamily rental
communities, Columbia Housing administers 4,031 tenant-based vouchers
including 414 HUD-VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) vouchers,
and 200 Mainstream Vouchers. Columbia Housing also administers resident
support and service programs under various HUD and non-HUD grants,
which include the Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS)
program, the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, the Housing
Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) program, the Continuum of
Care (CoC) program, and a First-Time Homebuyers Program.
I would like to begin my testimony this morning by honoring Calvin
Witherspoon, Jr. and Derrick Caldwell Roper, who lost their lives as a
result of carbon monoxide poisoning on January 17, 2019, at the Allen
Benedict Court Public Housing community in Columbia. Our deepest
sympathies are with the Witherspoon and Roper families, and we are here
today in memory of these individuals.
On January 18, 2019, over 400 Allen Benedict Court public housing
tenants were evacuated from their homes out of an abundance of caution.
An emergency relocation plan was implemented to secure replacement
housing for the families and to minimize, to the greatest extent
possible, the hardships faced by the families who were being
permanently displaced.
All residents were offered the option of being temporarily housed
at area hotels. While most residents selected that option, a few
elected to temporarily relocate with friends or family members.
Columbia Housing also worked with area school districts to coordinate
transportation and secure special permission for primary and secondary
school age children who were being housed in eight hotels and new
residences outside of their school zones in order to remain in those
school districts for the remainder of the school year. We also secured
temporary housing for pets. We worked with pet hotels and animal
shelters to care for residents' pets until new suitable pet-friendly
housing was secured. Columbia Housing worked diligently to assess and
meet the individual needs of each family.
The health and safety of our residents remained our highest
priority during this time. Columbia Housing partnered with the South
Carolina Association of Social Workers to provide residents with free
behavioral health sessions that would help to offset day-to-day
stressors associated with their emergency relocation. Wrap-around
services were also provided by City and County governments to help with
associated costs and inconveniences like laundry services,
transportation to places of worship, transportation to doctor's
appointments, food preparation, and afterschool activities. Donated
cash, gift cards, volunteer hours, goods, and services were provided by
area colleges and universities, social groups, sororities and
fraternities, faith-based communities, and private citizens.
After the emergency relocation, Columbia Housing worked diligently
to ensure that the impacted families were quickly moved to permanent
housing. Housing options provided to families included other available
public housing units and Housing Choice Vouchers to secure permanent
housing in the open market in efforts to eliminate any rent burden on
the families. Columbia Housing later received an allocation of 237 new
tenant-protection vouchers (TPVs) on February 23, 2019, from HUD in an
effort to assist families with securing permanent affordable housing.
This amount was enough to provide all families residing in Allen
Benedict Court with a TPV. All costs affiliated with the moves for each
family were paid by Columbia Housing in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Act requirements. Columbia Housing remains grateful for the
outpouring of support received from the community and the South
Carolina HUD Field Office.
Construction began on Allen Benedict Court on June 30, 1939, and
was funded with a development grant provided under the low-rent public
housing program. The community consisted of 244 townhome units in 26
buildings on a 15-acre site located adjacent to Benedict College and
Allen University, historically black educational institutions founded
in the late 1800s.
The 1970s brought a new vision to Federal housing assistance as
several new programs were developed to subsidize privately owned rental
properties and the Brooke Amendment capped tenant contributions toward
rent at 25 percent of family income. Policy changes, partnered with
market changes, such as the postwar housing boom and increasing rates
of home ownership resulted in public housing serving the poorest
tenants. Although Congress eventually began providing operating and
capital subsidies, and tenant rent contributions increased to 30
percent of tenant income, these funds have never been sufficient to
adequately operate and maintain the properties. Congress has
underfunded the Capital and Operating fund for the public housing
program for decades.
During the 1980s, concern continued to grow about the state of the
existing public housing stock--both the physical soundness as well as
the social health of public housing communities.
In 1992, the HOPE VI Program was developed as a result of
recommendations by the National Commission on Severely Distressed
Public Housing, which was charged with proposing a National Action Plan
to eradicate severely distressed public housing. The Commission
recommended revitalization in three general areas: physical
improvements, management improvements, and social and community
services to address resident needs.
Columbia Housing redeveloped its largest public housing community,
Saxon Homes, under the HOPE VI program using multiple mixed-finance
methods. The new community includes 93 home ownership units and 196
mixed-income units.
In 2005, Columbia Housing, working with a planning firm, formed a
Master Plan to redevelop Allen Benedict Court and stimulate private
reinvestment in the neighborhood under the HOPE VI Program. Columbia
Housing applied for the very competitive HOPE VI program in 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, and 2010. Columbia Housing did not receive a HOPE VI grant
for Allen Benedict Court.
In 2012, Columbia Housing applied for and was successful in
receiving a Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant for the redevelopment
of Allen Benedict neighborhood. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
promotes a comprehensive approach to transforming distressed areas of
concentrated poverty into viable and sustainable mixed-income
neighborhoods. Choice Neighborhoods links housing improvements with
necessary services for the people who live there. This includes
schools, public transit, and employment opportunities.
In 2017 and 2018, Columbia Housing applied for a Choice
Neighborhoods Implementation Grant. The Choice Neighborhoods
Implementation Grant supports those communities that have undergone a
comprehensive local planning process and are ready to implement their
``Transformation Plan'' to redevelop the neighborhood. The
implementation grant would have assisted Columbia Housing in the
redevelopment of Allen Benedict homes and transformation of the
surrounding community. Unfortunately, Columbia Housing was not
successful in receiving a Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant.
After years of seeking special funding for the redevelopment of
Allen Benedict Court, based on the condition of the property, Columbia
Housing had no option but to seek demolition for the property under
HUD's Section 18 Demolition/Disposition provisions. The demolition will
occur upon the conclusion of ongoing investigations related to the
carbon monoxide leak. Although residents will not move back into Allen
Benedict Court, Columbia Housing assisted all displaced residents
through placement at other public housing properties or through a TPV.
It is the greatest desire of the City of Columbia and Columbia
Housing to transform the Allen Benedict Court community along with its
adjacent neighbors to the site, Benedict College and Allen University.
However, we do not have the financial resources to move forward with
the redevelopment. We will continue to work through a joint public-
private partnership utilizing all available resources in the private
sector to develop a new community that will once again provide a safe
and healthy living environment for families and children.
On April 18, 2019, HUD sent a Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
Notice to all public housing authorities and private owners of HUD-
subsidized housing reminding and encouraging agencies to maintain
working carbon monoxide detectors when required by local regulations.
The notice further encouraged owners operating in areas without such
regulations to consider installing detectors. This notice was issued as
a part of Secretary Carson's efforts to support decent, safe, and
sanitary housing in HUD's low-income housing assistance programs and to
protect families living in federally subsidized housing from
potentially deadly carbon monoxide.
Today, there is an estimated $70 billion-dollar backlog of capital
needs for the Public Housing stock which continues to grow at
approximately $3.5 billion per year. This backlog includes many health
and safety items. The 2019 Appropriations Act, enacted on February 15,
2019, set aside $30 million dollars of Capital Funds for emergencies
and natural disasters. Not less than $10 million of this set-aside must
be used for emergency capital needs related to safety and security
measures. HUD subsequently set aside $5 million of this $10 million to
purchase, install, repair, and replace carbon monoxide detectors. These
funds are very important to affordable housing providers' ability to
adequately comply with measures that will facilitate a safer home for
all. Additional funding is critical to ensure all public housing
authorities are able to purchase needed carbon monoxide detectors.
Columbia Housing installed carbon monoxide detectors throughout its
public housing properties prior to the notice of funding availability.
As referenced in a correspondence from Senator Tim Scott and
Senator Robert Menendez to the HUD Secretary Ben Carson,
``unfortunately, this type of incident [carbon monoxide poisoning] is
not isolated to Columbia, South Carolina. According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, over 50,000 people go to the emergency
room every year due to carbon monoxide poisoning. The most vulnerable
of our populations are the most at risk, including children, elderly
individuals, and people with disabilities.'' This is why Columbia
Housing, along with the City of Columbia, South Carolina; South
Carolina Housing Authority Executive Directors Association; and the
Carolinas Council of Housing Redevelopment Codes Officials support the
CO ALERTS Act of 2019 (letters of support are attached).
Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, Members of the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am honored to have had this
opportunity to testify before the Committee and provide a perspective
on the importance of the CO ALERTS ACT of 2019. This concludes my
testimony. It is my pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK YOST
President and CEO, Skyline Champion Corporation, on behalf of the
Manufactured Housing Institute
November 7, 2019
Thank you, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to testify this afternoon about
legislative proposals to address the shortage of affordable housing in
the country.
My name is Mark Yost and I am the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Skyline Champion Corporation. With over 65 years of
homebuilding experience and 38 manufacturing facilities throughout the
United States and western Canada, Skyline Champion employs over 7,000
people and is one of the largest homebuilders in North America with
over 3,000,000 people choosing our home, to call their own. We build a
wide variety of manufactured and modular homes, park-model RVs and
modular buildings for the multifamily, hospitality, senior, and
workforce housing sectors.
I am appearing before you today on behalf of the Manufactured
Housing Institute (MHI) where I serve on the Board of Directors and as
the Vice Chairman of MHI's National Modular Housing Council.
MHI is the only national trade organization that represents all
segments of the factory-built housing industry. MHI members include
home builders, lenders, home retailers, community owners and managers,
suppliers, and others affiliated with the industry. MHI's membership
also includes 49 affiliated State organizations. Almost 85 percent of
the manufactured homes produced each year come from MHI member
companies.
While all of the bills before us today are important, I am here to
focus principally on S. 1804, the ``HUD Manufactured Housing
Modernization Act of 2019''. MHI strongly supports S. 1804, which would
require localities receiving Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Housing Trust
Fund, and McKinney Vento Homeless funds to appropriately include
residential manufactured homes in their comprehensive housing
affordability strategies and community development plans, which are
formally referred to as a locality's ``Consolidated Plan.''
Adoption of this legislation would complement ongoing efforts by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and others
to break down barriers to affordable housing by providing a greater
emphasis on the use of affordable manufactured homes in the formal
housing and community development planning process, including giving
local citizens the opportunity to comment and participate in such
efforts through the Consolidated Plan process.
The bill would also likely increase the use of CDBG and HOME funds
for affordable manufactured housing home ownership use, since the
Annual Plans that localities use to allocate CDBG and HOME funds in
their communities are required to reflect the priorities identified in
their Consolidated Plans.
S. 1804 Will Help Break Down Barriers to Affordable Manufactured
Housing
S. 1804, sponsored by Senator Cortez Masto (D-NV) and cosponsored
by Senators Scott (R-SC), Smith (D-MN), Young (R-IN), and Cramer (R-
ND), requires HUD to issue guidelines to States and localities relating
to the appropriate inclusion of residential manufactured homes in their
comprehensive housing affordability strategies and community
development plans, called the Consolidated Plans. Such plans are
required under Part 91 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations
to receive Federal funds under HUD's formula grant programs, such as
the CDBG Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Housing
Trust Fund, for jurisdictions and for assessing performance and
tracking results.
MHI supports this bill and we appreciated working with the bill's
sponsor and cosponsors to ensure the bill would positively promote
manufactured housing across America. As a result, the bill presents the
following formal ``FINDINGS'' about manufactured housing:
1. Manufactured housing is a significant source of unsubsidized
affordable housing in the United States.
2. Nearly 22,000,000 people in the United States live in
manufactured housing, which opens the door to home ownership
for families who, in many housing markets, cannot afford to buy
a site-built home.
3. Manufactured housing is the only form of housing regulated by a
Federal building code, which includes standards for health,
safety, energy efficiency, and durability, and is found on land
owned by the homeowner and land leased by the homeowner in
communities owned and operated by private entities, nonprofit
organizations, or resident owned communities.
4. Manufactured homes can open the door to home ownership for
millions of families; they can appreciate in value and be an
effective long-term affordable housing solution for some
families and communities across the United States.
S. 1804 will serve as an impetus for States and localities to
recognize the importance of manufactured housing in addressing the
affordable housing shortage in the country. Currently, State and local
discriminatory zoning and development restrictions make it nearly
impossible to site manufactured homes hurting people and families who
seek the dream of home ownership. This bill demonstrates that both
Congress and the Administration view manufactured housing as a top
priority for addressing the affordable housing shortage in the country
and that States and localities must remove barriers to this affordable
home ownership option.
Additionally, a locality's Comprehensive Plan serves as the general
basis for establishing how the locality is going to use its CDBG and
HOME funds, which currently total around $4.2 billion nationally, and
are required to be used for the benefit of low- and moderate-income
families and individuals. Localities are allocated these funds for
housing and community development purposes through their Annual Plan,
which in turn is required to reflect the priorities and objectives in
their Comprehensive Plan.
Thus, we confidently expect that enactment of S. 1804 will result
in an appropriate increase in HOME and CDBG funds being used for
manufactured housing, which will increase affordable home ownership
opportunities for low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
Addressing Our Country's Affordable Housing Shortage
Families across the country grapple with a housing market that
currently fails to provide sufficient supply, driving up costs, and
setting home ownership out of reach for too many. Freddie Mac recently
reported that 82 percent of renters view renting as more affordable
than home ownership--an increase of 15 percent from February 2018.
Included in the same report, which details survey data on affordability
issues, Freddie Mac presented the following data, illustrating
Americans' experiences with housing affordability:
51 percent of Americans have made spending or housing
changes to afford their monthly housing payment.
44 percent of renters and 35 percent of owners who had
trouble affording their housing payment over the last 2 years
reported having to move to afford housing costs.
Over half of workers employed in the essential workforce
(e.g., teachers, nurses, and law enforcement) have made housing
decisions with their student loan repayment obligations in
mind.
Half of owners and 44 percent of renters in the essential
workforce say they had to make different housing choices to
afford daycare.
On September 5, 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and HUD
issued Housing Finance Reform Plans. Both plans recognize the critical
need for more affordable housing and identify regulatory barriers as an
impediment to affordable housing.
The HUD Plan included a section dedicated to manufactured housing,
entitled ``Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing
Including Manufactured Housing''. That section stated that ``policies
that exclude or disincentivize the utilization of manufactured homes
can exacerbate housing affordability challenges because manufactured
housing potentially offers a more affordable alternative to traditional
site-built housing without compromising building safety and quality.''
More generally, the White House, HUD, and other parties in
Washington are focusing on removing barriers to the development of
affordable housing. In June, the President signed the Executive Order
Establishing the White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers
to Affordable Housing. Commenting on the creation of the Council, HUD
Secretary Carson noted that ``we can increase the supply of affordable
homes by changing the cost side of the equation.''
Similarly, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies' most recent
``State of the Nation's Housing'' report suggests that if current
inventory shortages persist, costs will continue to rise. The press
release for the report states, ``To ensure that the market can produce
homes that meet the diverse needs of the growing U.S. population, the
public, private, and nonprofit sectors must address constraints on the
development process.'' This is where manufactured housing presents an
unparalleled opportunity to provide marketwide relief.
Manufactured Housing Is Critical in Addressing Our Affordable Housing
Needs
In 2018, our industry produced nearly 100,000 HUD Code homes,
accounting for approximately 10 percent of new single-family home
starts. These homes are produced by 34 U.S. corporations in 130 plants
located throughout the United States.
Manufactured housing is the largest form of unsubsidized affordable
housing in the U.S. and the only type of housing built to a Federal
construction and safety standard. It is also the only type of housing
that Congress recognizes as playing a vital role in meeting America's
housing needs as a significant source of affordable home ownership
accessible to all Americans. Today, 22 million people live in
manufactured housing and the industry employs tens of thousands of
Americans nationwide.
As efficiency in production is inextricably linked to a market's
ability to meet supply demands, manufactured housing outperforms other
housing production processes. Our homes are built to a Federal building
code in a climate-controlled facility, away from the hazards and delays
associated with outdoor construction. Our industry uses economies of
scale to reduce the cost of materials and assembly line techniques and
advanced production techniques to reduce overall material waste. These
methods and practices are better for the environment and create savings
that are passed on to the people who purchase manufactured homes.
Manufactured housing is one solution that is helping address the
shortage of affordable housing in this country and make the dream of
home ownership an affordable and attainable reality for millions. The
affordability of manufactured homes enables individuals to obtain
housing that is often much less expensive than renting or purchasing a
site-built home, with the average price per square foot of a
manufactured home being half the cost of a site-built home, excluding
land. Indeed, the recently released Housing Finance Reform Plan report
by HUD states that ``manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting
the Nation's affordable housing needs.''
While the shortage of affordable housing has affected individuals
and families across the economic spectrum, there is an inventory
shortage for entry level, affordable, site-built housing. New site-
built homes are generally not priced below the $200,000 price point;
however, the vast majority of new manufactured homes are priced below
$100,000. As a result, manufactured housing accounts for 80 percent of
new home starts priced under $150,000.
Moreover, studies show that current manufactured housing residents
are highly satisfied with their decision to live in a manufactured
home. A national study commissioned by MHI, which focused on the
profile and experiences of current manufactured housing residents,
found that an overwhelming 90 percent of current manufactured
homeowners were satisfied with their home and 62 percent anticipated
living in their home for more than 10 years:
Resident Satisfaction
90 percent of residents are satisfied with their homes.
71 percent of residents cite affordability as a key driver
for choosing manufactured housing.
62 percent of residents anticipate living in their homes
for more than 10 years.
38 percent of residents don't anticipate ever selling their
home.
87 percent of residents are likely to recommend living in a
manufactured home to others.
Additionally, the manufactured housing industry has created a new
product category that has the potential to address this shortage of
housing inventory while simultaneously providing the types of amenities
and features that consumers seek in higher priced site-built homes.
Known as CrossModT homes, these manufactured homes are a point of
entry for home buyers who would not have previously considered
purchasing a manufactured home. They have the potential to reach areas
of the country where manufactured housing has, in the past, been zoned
out by discriminatory land use regulations at the State and local
level. CrossModT homes are placed on a permanent foundation, qualify
for conventional financing, and are virtually indistinguishable from
higher-priced, site-built options. This new class of factory-built home
can also be appraised using comparable site-built homes under special
financing programs developed by our industry and the Government
Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Prior to developing the CrossModT product, MHI conducted a national
study to better understand what underserved, prospective home buyers
wanted and needed when considering purchasing a home. The results of
this study have allowed the industry to create a product that provides
consumers high-quality homes they find desirable, and at a price they
can afford. When asked what home features were most important to them,
MHI's study found that prospective home buyers rated the following
items as most important (all of which are provided for in the CrossModT
product), in this order:
1. Garages
2. Energy Efficient Features
3. Pitched Roof
4. Premium Finishes
5. Upgraded Exterior
Zoning and Land Planning Restrictions on Manufactured Housing
Manufactured homes serve many housing needs in a wide range of
communities from rural areas where housing alternatives are few and
construction labor is scarce and/or costly, to higher-cost metropolitan
areas as in-fill applications. However, zoning and land planning
ordinances have a profound impact on housing patterns. In particular,
restrictive local ordinances--which can include significant limitations
or prohibitions against manufactured housing--can act as barriers to
affordable housing.
Moreover, zoning ordinances that are exclusionary or restrictive
with respect to manufactured housing can clearly violate the Fair
Housing Act, as HUD and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have publicly
recognized. According to a November 10, 2016, Joint Statement of HUD
and DOJ, titled ``State and Local Land Use Laws and Practices and the
Application of the Fair Housing Act'':
Examples of land use practices that violate the Fair Housing
Act under a discriminatory effects standard include minimum
floor space or lot size requirements that increase the size and
cost of housing if such an increase has the effect of excluding
persons from a locality or neighborhood because of their
membership in a protected class, without a legally sufficient
justification.
Across the country, there are countless State and local zoning,
planning, and development restrictions that either severely limit or
outright prohibit the placement of a manufactured home. These practices
discriminate against people and families who seek the dream of home
ownership through manufactured housing. Examples of these
discriminatory practices include:
1. Outright Bans--Adoption of ordinances that eliminate or ban the
placement of manufactured homes in cities, localities or
municipalities.
2. Zoning Barriers--Changing zoning laws after developers have
purchased land to prevent the development of manufactured
housing communities.
3. Segregated Zoning--Banning manufactured homes as a ``permitted
use'' in residential zones and segregating them into one
special overlay zone in one area of the city. These areas are
usually far away from essential services and/or the homes act
as buffers to commercial zones.
4. Lot Size--Requiring a certain number of acres for placement of a
manufactured home on private land.
5. Value--Setting an arbitrary and capricious value that a
manufactured home must meet before it can be sited in a city,
locality or municipality.
6. Age--Prohibiting placement or movement of a home based upon its
age.
These examples reflect a growing trend whereby local jurisdictions
adopt land planning ordinances and utilize code enforcement that
excludes manufactured housing without considering whether such action
intentionally discriminates, or results in disparate treatment, against
a protected class of persons.
Actions That Can Be Taken To Improve Manufactured Housing Availability
In addition to passage of S. 1804, there are other actions that can
be taken to improve the availability of manufactured housing in
jurisdictions across the country. The manufactured housing industry has
long advocated that, not only must HUD be more assertive in enforcing
its preemption authority under the Manufactured Housing Construction
Safety and Standards (MHCSS) Act, but the Department has a statutory
mandate to do so when State and local regulatory requirements are
inconsistent with Congressional intent.
MHI has called on HUD to issue an updated policy statement
concerning Federal preemption under the MHCSS Act and the Manufactured
Housing Improvement Act of 2000. While HUD has used its authority to
pursue individual cases where State or local jurisdictions have
introduced requirements that are incompatible with the HUD Code or
development restrictions that prohibit manufactured homes, the
Department must go further and update its ``Statement of Policy 1997-1:
State and Local Zoning Determinations Involving the HUD Code''.
Updating this statement would galvanize HUD's pledge to facilitate the
availability of affordable manufactured homes.
Conclusion
In closing, MHI appreciates the opportunity to offer our ideas to
the Committee about how to prioritize the importance of manufactured
housing as the most affordable option to address our shortage of
affordable housing in the country. As noted in our testimony, MHI
strongly supports S. 1804, the ``HUD Manufactured Housing Modernization
Act of 2019''. We urge the Committee and full Senate to pass this
legislation, and stand ready to work with the Committee on other ways
to reduce barriers to affordable housing and to ensure that
manufactured housing helps enable the American dream of home ownership.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEGGY BAILEY
Vice President for Housing Policy, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities
November 7, 2019
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Peggy Bailey, Vice
President for Housing Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. The Center is an independent, nonprofit policy institute
that conducts research and analysis on a range of Federal and State
policy issues affecting low- and moderate-income families. The Center's
housing work focuses on increasing access and improving the
effectiveness of Federal low-income rental assistance programs.
Seventy-five percent of households eligible for Federal rental
assistance do not receive it due to limited funding. \1\ Families may
wait for years to receive housing assistance, and overwhelming demand
has prompted most housing agencies to stop taking applications
entirely. \2\ According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at
Harvard University, this contributes to over 47 percent (20.5 million)
of renter households spending more than 30 percent of their income on
housing costs, and almost 25 percent (11 million) spending more than 50
percent of their income on housing. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``Three Out of Four
Low-Income At Risk Renters Do Not Receive Rental Assistance'', 2017,
https://www.cbpp.org/three-out-of-four-low-income-at-risk-renters-do-
not-receive-federal-rental-assistance.
\2\ National Low Income Housing Coalition, ``Housing Spotlight:
The Long Wait for a Home'', Fall 2016, https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
files/HousingSpotlight-6-1-int.pdf.
\3\ The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University,
``The State of the Nation's Housing'', 2019, https://
www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gap between housing costs and people's incomes isn't getting
better. Recent Census data show that, after adjusting for inflation,
between 2001 and 2018 rent costs including utilities grew by 13 percent
but incomes rose only .5 percent. (See Figure 1.)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
When people struggle to pay the rent, they not only face financial
and housing instability, but they are also at heightened risk for a
host of negative health outcomes. More generally, high housing costs
worsen the adversity that people with low incomes experience, forcing
them to face a persistent threat of eviction and make difficult choices
between paying the rent and paying for medicine, food, heating,
transportation, and other essentials. High costs may also compel people
to live in housing or neighborhoods that are rife with health and
safety risks. These consequences can contribute to ``toxic stress'' and
other mental health conditions that alone can be devastating but can
also exacerbate physical health conditions for adults and children. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ David L. Stern, Andrea K. Blanch, Ph.D., and Sarah M.
Steverman, ``Impact of Toxic Stress on Individuals and Communities: A
Review of the Literature'', Mental Health America, September 2014,
https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/sites/default/files/
Impact%20of%20Toxic%20
Stress%20on%20Individuals%20and%20Communities-
A%20Review%20of%20the%20Literature.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth leaving the foster care system are a particularly vulnerable
group and are disproportionately at-risk of homelessness and housing
instability. These young adults often have limited or no family
financial or emotional support, they can struggle to continue their
educations or succeed in jobs, and if employed, often are paid low
wages. They are navigating the adult world at a young age, with few of
the resources--both financial and the support of caring, mature
adults--that middle- and high-income young adults often rely on.
Federal and State policymakers have an obligation to do more to
help these young people, who have been the responsibility of both
Federal and State government during formative years, to transition
successfully to independence. This testimony focuses on what can be
done to help more young people who have exited foster care to find
decent, stable, affordable places to live, which is so important to
protecting them from further hardship and trauma and helping them to
transition successfully to adulthood.
Specifically, it's essential that Congress:
1. Advance H.R. 4300 Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of
2019, which:
a. Expands foster youths' access to Housing Choice Vouchers by
streamlining the administration of the Family Unification
Program (FUP).
b. Incentivizes housing agencies by allowing HUD to distribute
additional administrative support to agencies that serve these
young people.
c. Allows housing agencies to lengthen the duration of assistance
for foster youth who are working, in school, receiving
training, engaged in substance use treatment services, are
parents of young children, or have documented medical
conditions that limits their ability to work or attend school.
2. Accept the proposed funding increases in the FUP targeted to at-
risk foster youth that are currently included in both the House
and Senate fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills.
3. Protect youth from discrimination and ensure access to housing
and social service supports.
High Rates of Homelessness Put Foster Youth at Risk and Deepen the
Challenges They Must Overcome To Transition Successfully to
Independence
Of the approximately 400,000 children in foster care, some 20,000
young people age out of foster care each year; in some States this
happens at age 18 while other States extend foster care modestly to
ages 19 to 21. \5\ \6\ Foster youth enter adulthood facing challenges
that place them at a severe disadvantage relative to other young
people. While large shares of other young adults live at home with
their parents--or attend a residential college or university--and
receive substantial financial and emotional support from their parents,
foster youth typically have few financial resources and receive little
or no family support. In addition, many enter adulthood with histories
of trauma, incomplete educational preparation, and poor job skills. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For background: National Conference of State Legislatures,
Extending Foster Care Beyond 18, http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-
services/extending-foster-care-to-18.aspx.
\6\ ``Children Exiting Foster Care by Exit Reason in the United
States'', National Kids Count, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/
tables/6277-children-exiting-foster-care-by-exit-
reason?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/2/2-53/false/871,870,573/2632/13050.
\7\ Amy Dworsky, et al., ``Midwest Evaluation of the Adult
Functioning of Former Foster Youth'', Chapin Hall at the University of
Chicago, 2011, https://www.chapinhall.org/research/midwest-evaluation-
of-the-adult-functioning-of-former-foster-youth/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on their representation in the United States as a whole
compared to their representation in the foster care system, a
disproportionate share of youth exiting foster care are Black or
Hispanic and may face racism and discrimination when seeking housing,
jobs, and educational supports. \8\ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) young people are also over-
represented in the foster care system and face unique challenges--such
as job discrimination and trauma that can stem from not being accepted
by their families and communities of origin--as they transition to
adulthood that can be more difficult if they are uncertain how they
will afford a place to live or take care of other basic needs. Young
people who exit foster care strive to make progress--about three-
quarters are either enrolled in an educational program or working at
age 21--but their experience in foster care, lack of financial
resources, and the lack of support from caring, mature adults can make
it difficult to transition successfully to independence. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Child Welfare Information Gateway, ``Foster Care Statistics
2017'', Numbers and Trends 2019, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/
foster.pdf.
\9\ ``Highlights From the National Youth in Transition Database
Survey: Outcomes Reported by Young People at Ages 17, 19, and 21'',
Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families,
Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/cb/nytd-data-brief-5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deepening the challenges, many of these young people struggle to
find a stable place to live. About 1 in 4 former foster youth who are
21 years old report having been homeless at least once during the prior
2 years, while other surveys find that as many as 1 in 3 experience
homelessness by age 26. \10\ Not surprisingly, foster youth make up a
large share of the broader population of youth who are homeless--as
many as one-half according to one survey. \11\ Surveys also indicate
that, of the foster youth who experience homelessness, more than half
experience homelessness repeatedly or for extended periods. \12\ Often,
the experience of homelessness extends well into adulthood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See ``Highlights From the National Youth in Transition
Database Survey: Outcomes Reported by Young People at Ages 17, 19, and
21'', op cit.; and Amy Dworsky, et al., ``Homelessness During the
Transition From Foster Care to Adulthood'', American Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 102, No. S2, 2013, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC3969135/.
\11\ ``Family and Youth Services Bureau Street Outreach Program:
Data Collection Study Final Report'', Administration for Children and
Families Children's Bureau, 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/fysb/data-collection-study-final-report-street-outreach-
program.pdf.
\12\ Amy Dworsky, et al., 2011, op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homelessness and other types of housing insecurity make it very
hard for young adults to succeed in school or work. While few studies
focus on homelessness' effects on the educational achievement of foster
youth, there's reason for concern. Numerous studies find that
homelessness undermines children's school achievement generally, and
studies find that a larger-than-average share of foster youth are
already not making adequate progress in school at the time of their
emancipation. At age 19, for example, nearly half of foster youth have
not completed high school, and nearly one-third still have not by age
21. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ``Family and Youth Services Bureau Street Outreach Program:
Data Collection Study Final Report'', op cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homelessness also increases foster youths' risk of rape and
assault, substance use, depression, and suicide. \14\ A survey of
homeless youth in 11 cities found, for example, that 15 percent had
been raped or sexually assaulted, 28 percent had agreed to have sex in
exchange for a place to spend the night, and 32 percent had been
beaten. Almost two-thirds reported symptoms of depression, and more
than one-third reported using hard drugs. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding Foster Youths' Access to Housing Vouchers Is Part of the
Solution
Federal and State agencies have a special responsibility to help
former foster youth transition successfully to adulthood. State
agencies--with some funding and oversight from the Federal Government--
have legal custody of children in foster care and are responsible for
ensuring they receive adequate care. These agencies in effect stand in
for parents unable to care for their children. But most American
parents continue to help their children in various ways after they turn
18 (or even 21).
In light of foster youths' extreme vulnerability and the special
responsibility that Federal and State agencies have for them, Congress
should do more to help them transition successfully to independence.
Child welfare agencies clearly have an important role to play, and
policymakers have approved several major pieces of legislation in
recent years aimed at encouraging and equipping child welfare agencies
to expand services and support for young people up to age 21, and even
beyond in some cases. \16\ But Federal, State, and local housing
agencies also have important roles to play, and Congress should look
for opportunities to strengthen their roles, in part by strengthening
the housing assistance programs they administer, as well as to improve
the coordination of housing and child welfare agencies in supporting
former foster youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For instance, the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 and the Families First Prevention
Services Act of 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One important tool is the Federal Housing Choice Voucher program.
Created in the 1970s, the housing voucher program helps low-income
people pay for housing they find in the private market. A network of
2,200 State and local housing agencies administer the program. More
than 5 million people in 2.2 million low-income households use housing
vouchers. Nearly all of these households contain children, seniors, or
people with disabilities.
Rigorous research consistently finds that housing vouchers sharply
reduce homelessness, housing instability, overcrowding, and other
hardships. \17\ Indeed, housing vouchers have played a central role in
policymakers' successful efforts to reduce veterans' homelessness,
which has declined by nearly 50 percent since 2010, evidence that well-
resourced, targeted programs can move the needle on a difficult
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``Housing Vouchers Work'', Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, 2017, https://www.cbpp.org/housing-vouchers-work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing vouchers are also cost-effective and flexible. For
instance, because they are portable, families may use them to move to
safer neighborhoods with quality schools and other opportunities that
can improve their health and well-being, as well as their children's
chances of long-term success. (Many young adults who have left foster
youth are young parents, making this evidence relevant for this
population.) Housing agencies may also ``project-base'' a share of
their vouchers--that is, link the housing voucher to a particular
housing development where, for example, residents may have access to
services that help them to remain stably housed and improve their well-
being. Project-based vouchers are used successfully in supportive
housing, for example, which connects affordable housing with mental
health and other services that support people and help them remain
stably housed, and has been used successfully to reduce homelessness
among people who have lived on the street or in shelters for long
periods, including youth exiting the foster care system. \18\ Project-
based vouchers may offer opportunities for housing agencies to partner
with child welfare agencies and community partners to link housing and
other forms of support for former foster youth learning to navigate the
adult world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ehren Dohler, et al., ``Supportive Housing Helps Vulnerable
People Live and Thrive in the Community'', Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, May 31, 2016, https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/
supportive-housing-helps-vulnerable-people-live-and-thrive-in-the-
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young people who have left foster care are eligible for Housing
Choice Vouchers. But, as stated above, there's a severe shortage of
housing vouchers overall: only 1 in 4 eligible households receives a
voucher or other Federal rental assistance due to limited funding, and
applicants typically wait years to receive aid. Under authority
provided by Congress and the President, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) makes a small pool of vouchers (Family
Unification Program or FUP vouchers) available to State and local
housing agencies that partner with child welfare agencies to help at-
risk youth and families. But there are only 20,000 FUP vouchers in use
total and only a small share of the vouchers go to former foster youth.
The geographic reach of FUP vouchers is limited. Only some 280
agencies--or roughly 1 out every 8 of the more than 2,200 housing
agencies nationwide--are even authorized to administer FUP vouchers.
\19\ Because the vast majority of housing agencies administer vouchers
within a limited geographic area (State housing agencies are a major
exception), this limits youth and families' access to FUP vouchers
based on geography, in addition to the overall shortage of the
vouchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A list of housing agencies that administer FUP vouchers is
available on the HUD website, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/
documents/Copy-of-FUP-Awards-All%20Years.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most FUP vouchers go to families, not former foster youth. Of the
nearly 20,000 FUP vouchers that are currently in use, less than 1,000
are being used by former foster youth, according to HUD. \20\ Most FUP
vouchers, understandably, go to families to help prevent the need for a
child to be removed and placed in foster care or to families that, with
a voucher, will be able to reunite with children placed in foster care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ HUD PIH Notice 2019-20, https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/
documents/PIH-2019-20.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streamlining and Strengthening FUP Vouchers for Foster Youth
The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2019 (HR 4300),
sponsored by Representatives Dean (D-PA), Turner (R-OH), Bass (D-CA),
and Stivers (R-OH), would institute several important changes to
improve the efficacy of FUP vouchers for foster youth. Specifically,
the bill, which the House Financial Services Committee recently
reported out on a unanimous, bipartisan vote, would:
Streamline the FUP voucher allocation process to enable many more
housing agencies to make them available to eligible foster youth.
Historically, HUD has been required to allocate FUP vouchers to housing
agencies through a cumbersome, time-consuming competitive process that
has limited the number of housing agencies that administer FUP
vouchers. This, combined with inadequate funding, means that some
foster youth have no chance of receiving a voucher; if funding is
increased, additional agencies could become eligible to administer FUP
vouchers, but the benefits would remain concentrated in too few
geographic areas. The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act would
authorize HUD to make FUP vouchers available to every housing agency
that currently administers vouchers and would like to administer FUP
vouchers, so long as the agency meets program requirements (and subject
to the availability of funds). The goal of this more streamlined
process is to enable housing agencies to receive a voucher from HUD
when a child welfare agency requests one on behalf of an at-risk young
person. This ``on-demand'' process--particularly if paired with
additional vouchers, as proposed by both the House and Senate
appropriations bills--would better meet the needs of at-risk foster
youth, particularly in communities where FUP vouchers are not currently
available.
Support foster youths' participation in educational, training, and
work activities. The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act also
encourages housing agencies and child welfare agencies to connect youth
to supports that can help them become independent. It also would allow
youth to use their FUP vouchers for up to 60 months (i.e., 24 months
beyond the current limit of 36 months) if they are enrolled in
educational or training programs, or are working. Supporting youth for
an extended period can be critical to helping them complete educational
or training programs and provide an incentive for them to engage in
activities that help them advance towards independence.
Provide supplemental funding for housing agencies to support their
partnerships with child welfare agencies and connect youth to services
and other resources in the community.
It is important to note that 71 organizations representing foster
youth from across the country--spearheaded by Foster Action Ohio, an
organization that is led by foster care alumni and supported by the
National Center for Housing and Child Welfare--not only support the
Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act but have played a central
role in designing and drafting the bill. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See support letter for H.R. 4300--https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5a7dcc2a0100277e36127414/t/
5dc1d1645882823ab7680c1b/1572983140803/
Thank+you+letter+to+Reps+Dean+Turner+Bass++Stivers+2019+FINALMOST+1.0.pd
f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding More FUP Vouchers for Foster Youth
These important policy changes must be accompanied by additional
funding for FUP vouchers in order to expand the availability of rental
assistance for former foster youth and enable more of them to avoid
homelessness during their transition. Fortunately, there are
opportunities on this front, as well. Both the House and Senate
versions of the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year
2020 include $20 million to expand the availability of FUP vouchers for
at-risk foster youth. This funding would enable more than 2,000 young
people who have exited foster care and are at-risk of homelessness to
live in decent, stable housing. The House bill also includes an
additional $20 million for FUP vouchers (i.e., $40 million in total for
FUP, some of which would be used to provide housing vouchers to at-risk
families). Congress should make it a priority to include these funds--
including the additional funding for new FUP vouchers for at-risk
families in the House bill--in the final fiscal year 2020
appropriations legislation that it will negotiate in coming weeks.
Protect Youth From Discrimination
As mentioned above, LGBTQ youth are over-represented in the foster
care system. LGBTQ people are at high risk of experiencing violence,
homelessness, and poor outcomes that threaten their mental and physical
health. \22\ Unfortunately, the Administration has put forward two
proposed rules--one from the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and one from HUD--that would put LGBTQ people, including young
people generally and former foster youth specifically, at higher risk
of sleeping on the streets or taking dangerous steps to access housing.
These rules would permit federally funded homeless shelter providers,
including those serving runaway and homeless youth, and other social
service providers to deliver vital services to this population. \23\
\24\ Congress should call on the Administration to withdraw the HHS and
HUD proposed regulations that would to roll back equal access and
antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``LGBTQ Youth and the Foster Care System'', Human Rights
Campaign and Foster Club, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/
resources/HRC-YouthFosterCare-IssueBrief-FINAL.pdf.
\23\ ``Revised Requirements Under Community Planning and
Development Housing Programs'', https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2506-AC53.
\24\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, ``Health and Human
Services Grant Regulation'', 45 CFR Part 75, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/hhs-grants-regulation-nprm.pdf.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
FROM IVORY N. MATHEWS
Q.1. In Massachusetts, more than 375,000 people live in
households with the support of Federal rental assistance, the
majority of whom are seniors, children, or individuals with
disabilities. \1\ Commonwealth residents living in State-
supported housing public units are protected by a 2005 law
requiring most buildings to have a carbon monoxide alarms, but
Federal law still does not require these life-saving alarms for
federally assisted housing--putting hundreds of thousands of
individuals across the country at risk. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ``Federal Rental
Assistance Face Sheets: Massachusetts'', https://www.cbpp.org/research/
housing/federal-rental-assistance-fact-sheets#MA.
\2\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development, Public Housing Notice, ``DHCD Carbon Monoxide
Alarm Compliance Program for State-Supported Public Housing''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your written testimony you mentioned the estimated 70
billion dollar capital needs backlog in public housing. How
does this backlog impact affordable housing providers' ability
to comply with health and safety needs, including the purchase
and installation of carbon monoxide detectors?
A.1. The 70 billion dollar capital needs backlog impacts our
ability to maintain the properties to current building codes,
including the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. The
age of the properties combined with the lack of capital funds
drastically impacts affordable housing providers' ability to
adequately increase the useful life of the properties.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM IVORY N. MATHEWS
Q.1. The CO ALERTS Act of 2019 requires public housing agencies
to ensure the installation of carbon monoxide alarms in each
dwelling unit with gas utilities.
Please estimate the cost of installation of a carbon
monoxide detector per unit? Does the cost vary by the number of
bedrooms?
A.1. The standard stand-alone carbon monoxide detector retails
for roughly $45 per unit, depending on the type. CO detectors
come in several options: battery-operated, AC-powered, and some
come incorporated into smoke detectors. Installation of these
types is typically less than $20 per unit.
There are also system connected carbon monoxide detectors
that are installed by the manufacturer. Installation of these
types can range from a few hundred dollars to thousands,
depending on the sophistication of the system.
Chapter 9 of 11 of the 2018 publication of the
International Fire Code sets forth guidelines requiring the
installation of carbon monoxide detectors inside every bedroom,
outside of standard sleeping areas, and one on every floor of a
home.
Q.2. Based on your experience and the statutory language, what
is the estimated cost for carbon monoxide detector installation
per appropriate unit in order to be compliant with the CO
ALERTS Act?
A.2. Based on my experience and interpretation of the statutory
language, the estimated cost for the installation of a standard
stand-alone carbon monoxide detector is approximately $150
(materials and labor) for a one story one bedroom unit.
Q.3. Please elaborate on your ideas to expand public-private
partnerships to address the affordable housing crisis.
A.3. There is an urgent need to develop more affordable housing
across the country. One of the tools to address the affordable
housing crisis is the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act
of 2019 (S. 1703/H.R. 3077).
Since its creation in 1986, the housing credit has created
over three million new homes for low-income individuals;
virtually no affordable housing is produced without using the
credit. It's an important tool utilized by Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) like mine, who use the housing credit to
enter into innovative public-private partnerships to both
develop new affordable housing and preserve the Nation's
existing affordable housing stock. The housing credit is a
particularly critical component to Rental Assistance
Demonstration deals.
However, the limited availability and the popularity of the
housing tax credit have made it very competitive in many
States.
The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2019 (S.
1703/H.R. 3077) is bipartisan legislation to expand and
strengthen the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Specifically, the
bill would increase the availability of the housing credit by
50 percent over 5 years, permanently authorize the 4 percent
housing credit, and make other changes that would help make it
a more effective tool.
The housing credit has a proven track record of producing
affordable housing and I hope you will join on as a cosponsor
in support of this important legislation.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
FROM MARK YOST
Q.1. In your written testimony, you stated that manufactured
housing provides one solution to the national shortage of
affordable housing, and that manufactured homes constitute 80
percent of new home starts that are priced less than $150,000.
Many manufactured homeowners rent the land underneath their
homes, making the affordability of their housing dependent on
the actions of the land owner. Private equity firms have begun
purchasing a substantial number of Manufactured Housing
Communities (MHC), and now own more than 150,000 home sites.
\1\ Private equity firms seek to make high returns on their
investments, and residents in private equity-owned MHCs report
the companies have instituted significant rent increases that
may be unaffordable for current residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Private Equity Stakeholder Project, ``Private Equity Giants
Converge on Manufactured Homes'', February 2019, p. 3, https://
pestakeholder.org/wp-content/uplonds/2019/02/Private-Equity-Glants-
Converge-on-Manufactured-Homes-PESP-MHAction-AFR-021419.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How has the rise of private equity ownership of MHCs
impacted the affordability of manufactured housing?
A.1. Despite a few anecdotes cited in the news and by some
advocacy groups, the evidence does not demonstrate an overall
negative impact on affordability. Nationwide, in recent years,
site rent increases in manufactured home communities have
averaged only 3 percent per year, which is below average
housing cost increases experienced in both single-family and
rental housing over the same period. Moreover, the vast
majority of manufactured home communities are professionally
owned and operated and provide high quality, affordable, and
sustainable housing across the United States. To verify our
assessment, in 2018 MHI commissioned an independent, national
research project, which determined that the majority of land-
lease community residents are ``highly satisfied'' with their
housing choice.
Q.2. Owners of manufactured homes who can no longer afford the
rent on their land may be forced to sell or abandon their homes
if they have to move or are evicted, due to the high cost of
relocating a manufactured home. Has the Manufactured Housing
Institute seen any impact of increasing private equity
ownership of MHCs on the number of manufactured homeowners
forced to abandon their homes due to unaffordable rent
payments?
A.2. It is important to recognize that, in certain situations,
private equity ownership of MHCs is needed to sustain the
community and protect homeowners from a forced sale or having
to abandon their homes. Funds are necessary to complete long-
overdue infrastructure repairs, provide maintenance, and
modernize an aging community. Simply put, there is no single
MHC ownership model that is more appropriate or beneficial than
any other. That is why we see a range of ownership structures,
including independent ``Mom and Pop'' communities, resident-
owned associations, small-business models, and communities
owned and operated by sophisticated investors, which may
include private equity ownership.
Moreover, it is critical to keep in mind that raising rents
and evicting tenants is counter to the prevailing business
model of every land-lease community owner-operator who relies
on stable rents and high occupancy. Like the owner of an
apartment complex or other rental housing type, landlease
community owners have every interest in ensuring they can
provide quality residential services while also ensuring that
the community remains competitive in the local housing market
so that occupancy remains high. These considerations are the
same for resident-owned communities as for investor-owned
communities--and both take rent increases very seriously.
Factors that may drive rent increases apply equally to all
housing types, including resident-owned communities,
condominiums, cooperatives, homeowners' associations,
apartments, single-family detached homes, townhomes, and
Government-supported housing. Residents in all housing types,
whether single or multifamily housing, will experience
increases in costs over time due to maintenance expenses,
infrastructure improvements, taxes, insurance, and inflation,
as well as the long-term trend of increasing market valuation
of real estate and rental rates.
Q.3. What protections are necessary to ensure that individuals
and families who own manufactured homes do not have their home
ownership put at risk by predatory rent?
A.3. In a March 2016 letter to the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA), the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
recommended several protections for residents of land-lease
communities (e.g., pad lease protections). MHI's letter was in
response to FHFA's proposed rule for the ``Enterprise Duty to
Serve Underserved Markets''. These recommendations included
protections such as minimum lease terms and advance notice of a
pending rent increase. Many of MHI's suggestions were
incorporated into the final Duty to Serve Rule. Further,
several jurisdictions already have laws in place that further
protect manufactured-home homeowners. For example, most States
require written, advance notice of rent increases, and the fact
that rent increases could occur in the future is usually
disclosed prior to occupancy.
MHI's National Communities Council, which is comprised of
community owners, managers, operators, and individuals or
companies whose business model supports the development,
finance, or operation of MHCs, recently reaffirmed its
commitment to ensuring that community residents are protected
and provided with the highest quality of lifestyle by adopting
a national Code of Ethics.
MHI also focuses on education, training, and best practices
to help guide community owners and managers in the management
of their communities. This includes MHI's Accredited Community
Manager training and certification, as well as seminars,
webinar courses, and other educational events throughout the
year.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM MARK YOST
Q.1. What is the risk of hidden dangers like carbon monoxide
poisoning in manufactured homes? In light of the comments you
gave about the safety of today's manufactured homes, how do
manufactured homes ensure the safety of families from hidden
household dangers like carbon monoxide, fire, lead poisoning,
and mold or mildew?
A.1. In modern manufactured homes, there is minimal risk of
hidden health-safety dangers, including exposure to unsafe
levels of carbon monoxide. This is because the Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act (MHCSS Act),
including the implementing regulations in the HUD Code, require
manufacturers to comply with strict construction and safety
standards before a home is certified for sale. This robust
Federal standard (often more stringent than State and local
standards for site-built homes) ensures consistency and
reliability in home safety regardless of where a home is
located. The Construction and Safety Standards in the HUD Code
include health and safety requirements concerning:
Fire safety, exit facilities, and emergency egress
Wind loads and windstorm provisions
Snow and roof load provisions
Electrical systems and approved wiring methods
Formaldehyde emission levels
Window safety glazing protections
The HUD Code's Model Installation Standards also include
site preparation and installation requirements applicable to:
Flood hazard areas
Site drainage and runoff
Ground moisture control
Finally, the HUD Code accommodates State and local
requirements, so manufacturers can design and build homes that
include fire suppression systems (i.e., fire sprinklers), and
carbon monoxide and radon gas detection and mitigation systems.
In fact, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), our
industry's most prominent advocate in Washington, has long-
supported the adoption of voluntary HUD Code construction
standards should a locality require additional health-safety
requirements in residential applications, such as fire
suppression systems. In addition, on January 31, 2020, HUD
published in the Federal Register a Proposed Rule that included
an update to the HUD Code to require the installation and
designate the location of carbon monoxide detectors in
manufactured homes, which MHI has consistently supported.
Q.2. During the hearing, you stated that building a
manufactured home is much more sustainable or energy efficient
than constructing site-built homes. Please provide details of
the average energy costs for your units in different types of
climates.
A.2. The construction of a manufactured home produces
significantly less waste than the construction of a site-built
home. The controlled environment of the factory-built process
not only offers consumers unmatched quality and affordability
due to technological advancements and other advantages, but the
industry has also become a pioneer in the development of
processes that value efficiency and reduce waste. With an
emphasis on safety and energy efficiency, MHI and its members
are constantly developing new initiatives and technologies,
such as comprehensive recycling programs. Today's modern
manufacturing plants are so efficient that in fewer than 2
weeks they can build a home that is ready for delivery and
installation with no more scrap waste than can fill a 55-gallon
garbage barrel. Everything else is reused or recycled.
With respect to the energy efficiency of manufactured
homes, just like site-built homes manufactured homes are
constructed and fitted with energy efficient features that are
tailored to the climate demands of the region in which each
home will be sited. Just like a site-built home, apartment
building, or condominium complex, a manufactured home's utility
and energy costs are affected by the climate of their locality,
and each manufactured homeowners' energy and utility needs will
differ based on the climate of their locality.
Q.3. In markets where you offer homes that are more energy
efficient than the standard home you offer, do you quantify the
cost savings these homes offer and how these can offset higher
initial costs?
A.3. While the MHCSS Act and the HUD Code require minimum
energy efficiency standards, manufacturers today produce homes
that perform far beyond those minimum standards. Whenever
possible, Skyline Champion also works in coordination with its
retail partners to offer energy efficient upgrades and other
optional features that provide additional cost savings to the
consumer. Our goal is to empower consumers by providing them
with several options at different price points, so they can
decide what best fits their personal housing needs and
financial profile. Information on the functionality and long-
term cost savings advantages that come with certain energy
efficient upgrades and optional features can be provided by the
vendors and retailer partners that manufacturers work with.
Q.4. How many manufactured housing plants are located in
Nevada?
A.4. Currently, there are no manufactured housing plants in
Nevada.
Q.5. If you have data on manufactured homes by age and by
State, please share that. For example, how many manufactured
homes built prior to 1980 are in each State? What about homes
built after 1994?
A.5. Attached is a breakdown of the number of occupied
manufactured home housing units in each State (Attachment 1),
and the number of new manufactured homes shipped by State in
2018 (Attachment 2). There are 63,237 occupied housing units
that are manufactured homes in Nevada, which is 5.8 percent of
all occupied housing units in the State. In 2019, 810 new
manufactured homes were shipped to Nevada.
Attachment 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Q.6. If you have data on manufactured home communities by
State, please share that information. How many manufactured
home communities exist in each State?
A.6. There are almost 40,000 land-lease communities in the
U.S., with 4.2 million estimated home sites. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, 37 percent of all new manufactured homes
are placed in communities.
Q.7. Nevada has tremendous capacity for solar power. In what
ways should the modernization of manufactured homes include
energy-efficient products like solar panels and the like?
A.7. While the MHCSS Act and the HUD Code require minimum
energy efficiency standards, manufacturers today produce homes
that perform far beyond those minimum standards. Whenever
possible, Skyline Champion also works in coordination with its
retail partners to offer energy efficient upgrades and other
optional features that provide additional cost savings to the
consumer. These features can include solar panels.
Q.8. Please explain how manufactured homes might appreciate in
value and allow home buyers to sell their home and earn a
financial benefit on the sale.
A.8. Just like a site-built home, several factors can affect
the value of a manufactured home, including its age, size,
location, how well it is maintained, and how often it has been
updated. No single factor dictates valuation, and it is not
uncommon for homeowners to sell their homes for a profit. The
Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) 2018 Q2 Housing Price
Index Report included an article illustrating that, according
to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's data, manufactured homes have
experienced pricing trends vastly similar to site-built homes;
the report reflects that since 1995, prices have increased by
approximately 120 percent for manufactured homes, compared to
roughly 140 percent for site-built homes.
Q.9. Please describe the various housing finance options your
staff (including those of your subsidiaries and affiliated
companies)--in factories or on lots--recommend or share
information about to buyers.
What financing options do you mention to buyers?
Do you require staff to advise eligible borrowers of both
personal property and mortgage loans?
Do you market homes in languages other than English?
If you do, what financing options are those buyers
provided?
Do those buyers receive financial documents in the language
used to market to them?
A.9. As noted in my testimony, other promising funding sources
for affordable manufactured housing rentals are the HUD CDBG
and HOME programs, which provide billions of dollars each year
to localities for housing and community development activities
for low- and moderate-income families. CDBG and HOME can be
used not just for the cost of manufactured homes being rented,
but also for the infrastructure costs of the communities in
which the units are located.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
FROM MARK YOST
Q.1. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) plays a pivotal
role in financing the construction of affordable housing. With
respect to manufactured housing and modular housing, what role
does LIHTC play in securing the necessary financing to deliver
safe, affordable homes for Arizona families?
A.1. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) provides
critical equity financing for construction and substantial
rehabilitation of affordable rental housing units. However, the
majority of manufactured homes are occupied by homeowners,
where the family or individual owns the unit. Unfortunately,
the LIHTC cannot be used in circumstances where the
manufactured home is owned by the homeowner, regardless of
whether the homeowner also owns the land upon which the home is
cited.
However, we are beginning to see developers of manufactured
home communities electing to rent out the manufactured home
units on affordable terms. While we are not aware of widespread
use of the LIHTC for this purpose, we do see this as a
promising option to provide critical equity to help fund these
units in such communities in order to promote and enhance
affordability.
As noted in my testimony, other promising funding sources
for affordable manufactured housing rentals are the HUD CDBG
and HOME programs, which provide billions of dollars each year
to localities for housing and community development activities
for low- and moderate-income families. CDBG and HOME can be
used not just for the cost of manufactured homes being rented,
but also for the infrastructure costs of the communities in
which the units are located.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN
FROM PEGGY BAILEY
Q.1. Ms. Bailey, I have been working to develop a project-based
``renters' credit'' that would help create additional units of
deeply targeted affordable housing.
How would a project-based tax credit aimed at housing
providers help to create affordable units for low-income
households?
A.1. A project-based renters' tax credit would be an important
new measure to make rents affordable to the lowest-income
families, who are far more likely than other families to pay
very high shares of their income for housing and to be at risk
of eviction and homelessness. States would allocate credits to
rental housing owners, who would reduce rent and utility
charges to 30 percent of the tenant's income and receive a
Federal tax credit in exchange.
The credit would be a flexible tool that States could use
to advance a range of key policy priorities. For example,
States could use the credit to support housing for families
with children in high-opportunity neighborhoods with strong
schools, to prevent displacement in gentrifying urban areas,
for supportive housing that will help further reduce chronic
homelessness, or to enable low-income seniors or people with
disabilities to live in the community rather than being placed
in nursing homes or other institutions.
The credit would complement the existing Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC), which has proven highly effective in
supporting construction and rehabilitation of affordable
housing but generally does not on its own make units affordable
to the poorest families. The renters' credit would reduce rents
to levels extremely low-income families can afford in LIHTC
developments and other buildings.
Q.2. HUD recently put forward a Proposed Rule on ``Disparate
Impact'' that would undermine Fair Housing Act protections
against discrimination.
What effect would the Proposed Rule have on renters?
A.2. HUD's proposed rule would make it significantly harder for
renters and others to fight discriminatory housing policies and
practices that restrict access to housing or perpetuate
segregation and other disparities. The proposed changes would
overwhelmingly tip the scales in favor of landlords and other
defendants, letting them keep policies and practices that
prevent people of color, women, families with children, people
with disabilities, and other renters from having the fair
access to housing that the Fair Housing Act was intended to
protect. By severely limiting renters' ability to bring and win
a disparate impact claim, the proposed rule would effectively
permit discriminatory housing practices against renters to
continue and increase.
Low-income renters already have limited affordable housing
options. Renters' incomes have long trailed rising housing
costs; between 2001 and 2018, after adjusting for inflation,
median renter household income rose by just 0.5 percent while
rents rose 13 percent. Being denied access to housing due to
discriminatory policies or practices narrows renters' potential
housing pool even more. With fewer options, families may have
to accept substandard housing, pay more for rent than they can
afford, and have little choice about in which neighborhoods
they live, all of which can threaten families' economic and
educational outcomes and risk housing instability and
homelessness. The proposed rule could also undermine the LIHTC
program's ability to improve neighborhood choice by making it
substantially harder to stop practices that relegate LIHTC
developments to low-opportunity, ``minority concentrated''
neighborhoods.
Renters with disabilities and renters of color--the two
groups most likely to report experiencing housing
discrimination--could be particularly affected.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN
FROM PEGGY BAILEY
Q.1. In your written testimony you discuss how LGBTQ+ young
people are over-represented in the foster care system. What
unique challenges do LGBTQ+ youth face in transitioning out of
foster care, and how would the Fostering Stable Housing
Opportunities Act of 2019 help prevent these young people from
experiencing homelessness?
A.1. LGBTQ+ youth exiting foster care can often face additional
challenges getting employment due to discrimination of people
who are gender nonconfirming and therefore may find it even
more difficult to afford a place to live. LGBTQ+ youth also can
face discrimination when accessing homeless shelters because
shelters may restrict access based on gender identity and
sexual orientation. The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities
Act of 2019 would make assistance for youth aging out of foster
care more widely available, now only 230 of the over 2,200
housing agencies administer this assistance, and it would allow
assistance to be extended longer than the current 2 year
maximum, if youth engage in certain activities such as school
or employment. However, this bill alone isn't enough. Congress
must also provide additional funding for Family Unification
Program (FUP) vouchers to ensure that every LGBTQ+ youth
exiting foster care can avoid homelessness and have access to
safe, affordable housing.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM PEGGY BAILEY
Q.1. If passed, my bill (S. 1804 or ``HUD Manufactured Housing
Modernization Act'') requires the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development publish rules mandating that local
jurisdictions consider manufactured housing when putting
together their Consolidated Plans. Based on your expertise, how
do you think local jurisdictions might consider manufactured
housing in their Consolidated Plans?
A.1. Manufactured housing is often the most readily available
affordable housing in a community. Local jurisdictions should
consider all elements of manufactured housing in their
consolidated plans to ensure that existing housing stock is
properly maintained and that opportunities to add manufactured
housing are identified. This includes zoning for new
manufactured housing to address the affordability crisis and
homelessness, ensuring community development activities such as
public transportation, parks, and business incentives, take
place near manufactured housing, families in manufactured
housing have access to high performing schools and low crime,
and community revitalization efforts target older manufactured
housing stock to ensure that high quality affordable housing
stays in the community.
Q.2. Based on your experience, what might the impact be on the
affordable housing crisis if manufactured homes became a more
mainstream, affordable residential option for home buyers and
renters?
A.2. If manufactured housing became a more mainstream housing
option, it could reduce the cost to develop affordable housing
units and therefore reduce rental costs for families. In some
communities where land is inexpensive, the cost reductions
could be significant. Manufactured housing is also quicker to
develop. There are examples where it has been used to quickly
address homelessness and housing instability for certain
populations, such as veterans.
Q.3. Should manufactured home community preservation be a goal
for jurisdictions? Can consolidated planning help identify such
communities?
A.3. In communities where manufactured housing is high quality
and a readily available source of affordable housing,
manufactured home communities should be preserved. Consolidated
planning can identify these communities and allow policymakers
to plan for the infrastructure investments needed to preserve
homes and maintain quality.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
