Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:36:11.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Capitalism: How Housing Advocates, the Private Sector, and Government Forged New Low-Income Housing Policy, 1968–1996

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

David J. Erickson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The commonly accepted story about the U.S. welfare state is that it developed between the 1930s and the late 1960s and then suffered a series of policy and political setbacks during the 1970s, which triggered a political backlash. Conservative politicians from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan successfully harnessed white middle-class anger over government programs in order to roll back the welfare state. At first glance, the fate of federal programs that subsidize apartments for low-income tenants confirms this narrative: the federal government created housing programs during the New Deal; it added to them significantly during the 1960s. In the late 1960s and 1970s, bad press, conservative attacks, and policy mistakes triggered cutbacks in the 1980s.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 167 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Reagan, Katherine O. and Quigley, John M., “Federal Policy and the Rise of Nonprofit Housing Providers,” Journal of Housing Research 11, no. 2 (2000): 305Google Scholar.

2. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit is a tax coupon to corporate investors who put equity capital in apartment buildings rented to low-income tenants. To be considered “low income,” one must earn less than 50 to 60 percent of the local area's median income as measured by an annual survey by HUD. Since income is tied to the local wage level, it varies from county to county.

3. Measured in 1993 dollars, the median monthly gross rents paid by poor households living in unsubsidized housing jumped from $366 in 1974 to $408 in 1993. Meanwhile, the number of low-cost apartments had dwindled, many of them lost to the urban-renewal bulldozer, condominium conversion, and gentrification. Between 1973 and 1983, the number of unsubsidized low-rent apartments ($300 a month in 1993 dollars) fell from 5.1 million to 3.6 million; by 1993, the number had fallen to 2.9 million. At the same time, the number of families in poverty increased significantly. Dreier, Peter, “The New Politics of Housing: How to Rebuild the Constituency for a Progressive Federal Housing Policy,” Journal of the American Planning Association 63, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1997. Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program. GAO/GGD/RCED-97–55, Washington, D.C., 1999, 5Google Scholar. The GAO study found that almost a quarter of LIHTC units was built for elderly tenants. Nearly five percent was targeted to tenants who had special needs, e.g., formerly homeless, living with AIDS, mentally ill. The balance of the units was designed for individuals and families. The data the GAO acquired on residents provided by tax-credit property managers also indicated the following:

• approximately 64 percent of the households were headed by women

• nearly 44 percent of the households were headed by a person under the age of 35, about 26 percent by a person between the ages of 35 and 54, and about 29 percent by a person age 55 or older

• approximately 53 percent of the heads of households were white, 33 percent were black, 11 percent were Hispanic, and 3.5 percent were of other races (43)

5. Orlebeke, Charles J., “The Evolution of Low-Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999,” Housing Policy Debate (2000): 11, 2, 495Google Scholar.

6. Congressional Budget Office based on data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

7. http://www.ncsha.org/uploads/HsgCreditFactSheet.pdf (visited 5/1/03).

8. National Affordable Housing Act, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate, 100th Cong., 2d sess., on the goal to Implement an Effective New National Housing Policy, 14, 21, and 28 September 1988, 332.

9. This is the CDBG amount net of earmarked program set-asides (e.g., Youthbuild), but including the amounts variously described as the Secretary's Discretionary Fund or Special Purpose Grants, since data on these amounts are not included in a number of the early HUD Budget Summaries.

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition tabulations of annual HUD Budget Summary data. The amount allocated each year is based on a per capita allotment—1.25 per person. The amount is granted each year for ten years. The amount that is given to any particular project is usually the present value amount for the ten-year stream of credits and therefore is more like 70 percent of the total amount that is awarded. LIHTC—tabulated from material from the NCSHA. Budget authority: In the early years, many credits went unused and were rolled over to subsequent years, but all the credits were used in the year they were issued.

10. Katznelson, Ira, “Was the Great Society a Lost Opportunity?” in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980, ed. Fraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary (Princeton, 1989)Google Scholar. Katznelson, for example, argues that the pro-welfare-state Democratic party lost ground in the 1970s because Keynesian fiscal policy exacerbated the stagflation of that time and urban political machines withered, losing their ability to incorporate white ethnics into the party, while the white South defected (204).

Edsall, Thomas Byrne with Edsall, Mary, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (New York, 1991), 4Google Scholar. For the Edsalls, the labor-dominated Democratic party reached a political high point with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the increased focus on minority rights pushed them too far to the left, while the Republicans moved to the political center. However, Hirsch, Arnold in Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960 (Chicago, 1998)Google Scholar and Sugrue, Thomas in The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality In Postwar Detroit (Princeton, 1996)Google Scholar argue convincingly that the divisions in the liberal ranks were already apparent before the civil rights movement.

There are many books that make the claim that the welfare state has withered since the 1970s, including Edward, and Berkowitz, Kim McQuiad, Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Twentieth-Century Reform, 2nd ed. (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Levine, Daniel, Poverty and Society: The Growth of the American Welfare State in International Comparison (New Brunswick, N.J., 1988)Google Scholar; Katz, Michael, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Patterson, James T., America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900–1985 (Cambridge, Mass., 1986)Google Scholar, and Trattner, Walter I., From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 4th ed. (New York, 1989)Google Scholar. Critics shrank the welfare state in favor of allowing markets to have a greater sway in distributing goods, according to Katz, Michael in The Price of Citizenship (New York, 2002)Google Scholar and Gilbert, Neil in Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility (New York, 2002)Google Scholar. To Katz, this development starkly contrasts British sociologist T. H. Marshall's classic 1950 characterization of the welfare state as “the subordination of market price to social justice.” Katz writes, “While the tension between capitalism and equality remains as powerful as ever, today it is social justice that is subordinate to market price” (1).

11. DeParle, Jason, “Slamming the Door,” New York Times Magazine, 20 10 1996, 52Google Scholar, and the Washington Post, “Saving HUD: One Department's Risky Strategy for Radical Change,” 6 February 1995, A4.

12. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 101 Cong., 23 05 1989 (Washington, D.C., 1989), 6Google Scholar.

13. The federal budget numbers also challenge the standard story. Direct expenditure spending did dip in the 1980s (see the second chart in the text) and some programs—especially for the poor—have been eliminated or scaled back since the Great Society. But overall tax expenditures and direct expenditures continued to grow throughout the 1980s, albeit at a slower rate than the preceding twenty years. (See Howard, Christopher, The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States [Princeton, 1997], 35.)Google Scholar

14. Salamon, Lester M., ed., The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (New York, 2002)Google Scholar; Smith, Steven Rathgeb and Lipsky, Michael, Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting (Cambridge, Mass., 1993)Google Scholar; Hacker, Jacob, The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (New York, 2002)Google Scholar; Klein, Jennifer, For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, 2003)Google Scholar; Christopher Howard, The Hidden Welfare State; and Zelizer, Julian, Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (New York, 1998)Google Scholar.

15. Walter W. Powell, “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization,” Research in Organizational Behavior 12:295–336, 303.

16. Zelizer, Taxing America, 8. “Tax policy community: political party officials, leaders and experts from umbrella business and financial associations (such as the Chamber of Commerce), staff members of the executive and congressional branch, bureaucrats and administrators, university professors, independent specialists, editors and writers of the specialized policy media, and participants in think tanks.”

17. An interesting subtheme of these three presidential reports is that their chairmen reflect their zeitgeist. Kaiser was the master builder of prefab wartime housing (Greg Hise's book Magnetic Los Angeles has a good chapter on Kaiser Family Homes). McKenna was an ideologue who pushed the market as the solution for everything. And James Rouse and David Maxwell represented the decentralized approach to housing. Rouse founded the Enterprise Foundation, a capacity-building nonprofit intermediary, and Maxwell was the CEO of Fannie Mae, another important facilitator of the decentralized housing network—especially through its purchases of low-income housing tax credits.

18. For this article, I interviewed two key policy entrepreneurs that helped shape the debates over the Community Development Block Grant in the 1970s and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit in the 1980s. I also read these, and other, debates closely in the Congressional Record in addition to the many government reports that informed those debates. Finally, I found a tremendous amount of information in trade journals, such as Shelterforce, Journal of Housing and Community Development, Journal of the American Planning Association, and National Real Estate Investor. I also read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post to get a different perspective on these policy debates.

19. A Decent Home: The Report of the President's Committee on Urban Housing, Kaiser, Edgar F., chair (Washington, D.C., 1969), 1Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., 3.

21. J. Orelebeke, “The Evolution of Low-Income Housing Policy, 1949–1999,” 495.

22. Kaiser Report, 3.

23. Ibid., 5.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 2.

26. Ibid., 22–23.

27. It assumed an annual GDP growth rate of 5.5 percent with a 4 percent unemployment rate. The analysts admitted that the models did not hold if there were problems of inflation. In fact, the ten-year period from 1969 to 1979 had an average level of unemployment rate of 6 percent and an average annual inflation of 7 percent. Calculated from information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm# content (visited 3/25/03). John J. McCusker, “What Was the Inflation Rate Then?” Economic History Services, 2001, URL : http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/ (visited 3/25/03).

Economic growth was sluggish, too. From 1970 to 1976, the growth rate for real GDP was 2.3 percent, picking up by the end of the decade with a growth rate of 4.7 percent up to 1979. Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, “The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1789–Present,” Economic History Services, April 2002, URL: http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/ (visited 3/25/03).

28. I heard Theodore Lowi mention this at a Cornell University Reunion presentation, 7 June 2002.

29. Orelebeke, “The Evolution of Low-Income Housing Policy, 1949–1999,” 496.

30. Newman, Oscar, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

31. Biles, Roger, “Public Housing and the Postwar Urban Renaissance, 1949–1973,” in From Tenements to the Taylor Homes: In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth-Century America, ed. Bauman, John F., Biles, Roger, and Szylvian, Kristin M. (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press), 152Google Scholar.

32. Bratt, Rachel G., “Public Housing: The Controversy and Contribution,” in Critical Perspectives on Housing, ed. Bratt, Rachel G., Hartman, Chester, and Meyerson, Ann (Philadelphia, 1986), 335–361Google Scholar. See also von Hoffman, Alex, “Why They Built Pruitt-Igoe,” in From Tenements to the Taylor Homes, ed. Bauman, , Biles, , and Szylvian, , and Henderson, Google Scholar, “Tarred with the Exceptional Image,” American Studies 36 (Spring 1996): 31–52Google Scholar.

33. For a review of the problems in federal housing programs in the early 1970s, see McCaughry, John, “The Troubled Dream: The Life and Times of Section 235 of the National Housing Act,” Loyolya University Law Journal 6 (Winter 1975): 1–45Google Scholar.

34. Interview with David F. Garrison, senior fellow and deputy director, Greater Washington Research Program, Brookings Institution (15 August 2003).

35. Interview with David F. Garrison (15 August 2003).

36. HUD's first secretary, Dr. Robert C. Weaver, who was president of the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing, agreed with the idea of decentralizing resources and decision making to the state and local level provided there were safeguards against abuses. “No one can, I think, categorically say it is going to work. But heavens, if you have bad administration, even with a great degree of Federal supervision, you can have some pretty bad results, as we have seen.” U.S. Congress, House. Housing and Community Development Legislation—1973. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 93d Cong., 1st sess., part 1 (Washington, D.C., 1973), 455.

37. When an apartment was built, it was often not worth having, according to Lindsay, because the city had to meet certain federal construction guidelines while constrained on building costs. “We in New York City, as you well know, over the years have cut corners, had inferior designs on all kinds of things to get in under cost limitations.” U.S. Congress, House. Housing and Community Development Legislation—1973, 481.

38. Ibid., 1199 and 1201.

39. Ibid., 1723.

40. The Report of the President's Commission on Housing, McKenna, William F., chair (Washington, D.C., 1982)Google Scholar.

41. McKenna Report, xvii.

42. Ibid., xviii.

43. GAO, Reports and Testimony: April 1990 (Washington, D.C., 1991), 17Google Scholar. (Citing “Resolving the Savings and Loan Crisis: Billions More and Additional Reforms Needed,” by Charles A. Bowsher, comptroller general of the United States, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. GAO/T-AFMD-90–15, 6 April 1990.)

44. McKenna Report, xvi.

45. Ibid., 17.

46. Ibid., 223.

47. Ibid., 107.

48. Ibid., 171.

49. Blakely, Steve, “House Panel OKs $17.7 Billion Housing Plan,” Congressional Quarterly, 2 05 1987, 843Google Scholar. This often-cited drop in appropriations could be misleading. Actual outlays did not drop as dramatically because of appropriations from prior years.

50. A Decent Place to Live: The Report of the National Housing Task Force, chaired by Rouse, James and Maxwell, David O. (Washington D.C., 1988)Google Scholar, ii. Also important in the Task Force's evaluation was a series of twenty draft reports prepared by scholars and practitioners under the direction of Professors Langley C. Keyes and Denise DiPasquale of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each of the papers was examined and several authors appeared as speakers before the task force. That collection of papers was published as Building Foundations: Housing and Federal Policy, ed. DiPasquale, Denise and Keyes, Langley C. (Philadelphia, 1990)Google Scholar.

51. Maxwell/Rouse Report, 10.

52. Ibid., 11.

53. Ibid., 19.

54. Ibid., 24.

55. Ibid., 28.

56. Ibid., 19.

57. Stegman, Michael A., “The Fall and Rise of Public Housing,” Regulation 25, no. 2 (2002): 68Google Scholar.

58. Rovner, Julie, Morehouse, Macon, and Kuntz, Phil, “Bush's Social Policy: Big Ideas, Little Money,” Congressional Quarterly, 10 12 1988, 3459Google Scholar.

59. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Congressional Record Senate—S8198.

60. Even though my research of the Senate debates over tax incentives for housing seemed to reveal a tremendous amount of ignorance in how tax expenditure worked, there were clearly congressional members who knew exactly what they were (see Christopher Howard, The Hidden Welfare State).

61. Kaltenheuser, Skip, “Housing's Moment on Capitol Hill,” Mortgage Banking, 03 1990, 29Google Scholar.

62. Zuckman, Jill, “PROVISIONS: Housing Authorizations,” Congressional Quarterly, 8 12 1990, 4091Google Scholar.

63. Congressional Record Senate—S13253.

64. Jack Kemp—Senate Hearing: Hope: Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (Senate—17 November 1989), Congressional Record Senate—S15944.

65. Senator Robert Kasten (R-Wis.), in ibid., S15942.

66. Senator Connie Mack (R-Fla.), in ibid., S8881.

67. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Ia.), Senate Hearings for the National Affordable Housing Act (Senate—27 June 1990), Congressional Record Senate—S8851.

68. Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.), Congressional Record Senate—S8852.

69. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) Congressional Record Senate—S8198. Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.) agreed: “Most important, Mr. President, is the recognition in the structure of the bill that each and every community in America has different needs, different resources, and different populations to serve. No longer will the Federal Government mandate its solution to the perceived problems of States and localities.” Congressional Record Senate—S8872. Bond's official Web site says that he believes “government and taxes should be no bigger than necessary.” http://bond.senate.gov/biography/history.cfm—(visited 21 March 2003).

70. Jack Kemp—Senate Hearing: Hope: Homeownership And Opportunity For People Everywhere (Senate—November 17, 1989) Congressional Record Senate—S15943.

71. Ibid., S15944.

72. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), Congressional Record Senate—S13253.

73. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), Congressional Record Senate—S13254.

74. Davidson, Joe, “House Clears Bill That Would Result in Big Boost in U.S. Housing Support,” Wall Street Journal, 26 10 1990, A16Google Scholar.

75. Kaltenheuser, Skip, “Housing's Moment on Capitol Hill,” Mortgage Banking, 03 1990, 29Google Scholar.

76. Interview with Barry Zigas, 12 August 2005. On TRA 86, see Cathie Martin, Shifting the Burden: The Struggle over Growth and Corporate Taxation (Chicago, 1991), 159. TRA 86 was an attempt by Congress to expand the base of taxpayers, reduce the number of tax expenditures and loopholes, and lower tax rates for all income groups and corporations.

77. Zigas interview.

78. Ibid.

79. Peterson, Iver, “Prospects Rise for Housing Legislation: Federal Measure Seeks to Help Home Buyers,” New York Times, 11 06 1989, R1Google Scholar.

80. New York Times, editorial, “Best Vehicle for Affordable Housing,” 18 November 1989, A26.

81. Cravatts, Richard, Wall Street Journal, 18 01 1989, A16Google Scholar.

82. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 101 Cong., 23 05 1989 (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar.

83. Ibid., 6.

84. Ibid., 177.

85. Ibid., 235.

86. As an example, Edwin Feiler, a for-profit developer and president of the National Association of Home Builders, said in his testimony that he represented 157,000 builders. “Affordability is the key word in housing today because prices have gone up, interest rates have gone up, costs have gone up, and incomes have not gone up to the same degree. I feel like the low-income housing credit is an effort to meet that problem head on” (Ways and Means Hearing, 101 Cong., 185).

87. McQuiston, Julian A., “Tax Credits Fuel Growth of Affordable Housing,” Journal of Housing and Community Development 53, no. 6 (11–12 1996): 19Google Scholar.

88. Pacelle, Mitchell, “An Expected Bush Veto of Tax Bill Poses Threat to Building Low-Income Rentals,” Wall Street Journal, 19 10 1992, C17Google Scholar.

89. Cummings, Jean L. and DiPasquale, Denise, “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years,” Housing Policy Debate 10, no. 2 (1999): 294CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This type of return was common for tax equity investments that I underwrote as a taxcredit acquisitions analyst for Edison Capital in the mid-1990s.

90. News Conference with Coalition of U.S. Mayors Who Are Urging Congress to Vote an Extension of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Moderator: Paul Grogan, Room 2222, Rayburn House Office Building (Federal Information Systems Corporation Federal News Service, 2 10 1991)Google Scholar.

91. Grogan, Paul, “Points of Urban Light,” Washington Post, 19 07 1992, C3Google Scholar.

92. Shelterforce 14 (January–February 1992): 12.

93. Chester Hartman, “Feeding the Sparrows by Feeding the Horses” Shelterforce 12, 14.

94. Paul S. Grogan and Benson F. Roberts, “Good Policy, Good Politics,” Shelterforce 13.

95. Ibid.

96. Fifteen years was the minimum period for compliance with rent restrictions. State tax-credit-allocation organizations had the option of raising the compliance period and, over time, most states did raise it to fifty-five years.

97. Ibid.

98. Shelterforce, 14, 15.

99. Clancy, Patrick, “Tax Incentives and Federal Housing Programs: Proposed Principles for the 1990s,” MIT Housing Policy Project (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Real Estate Development, 1988), 9Google Scholar.

100. Extension of Remarks, Thursday, 3 January 1991, 102d Cong., 1st sess., 137 Congressional Record E 58, 137, no. 1.

101. Extension of Remarks, Friday, 1 November 1991, 102d Cong., 1st sess., 137 Congressional Record E 3640.

102. Ravo, Nick, “Tax-Credit Program on Borrowed Time,” 24 11 1991, New York Times, R3Google Scholar.

103. Ibid.

104. Senate, Wednesday, 22 July 1992, 102d Cong., 2d sess., 138 Congressional Record S 10070, 138, no. 104.

105. Los Angeles Times, editorial, “Housing Credit Extension Is a Must—And Riots Tell Us Why,” 2 June 1992.

106. Shashaty, A. R., “Archer VB. Clinton: The Rematch.” Affordable Housing Finance 5 (05–06 1997)Google Scholar: 4. Cited in Smith, Steven Rathgeb, Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, ed. Boris, Elizabeth T. and Steuerle, C. Eugene (Washington, D.C., 1999), 202–203Google Scholar.

107. McQuiston, “Tax Credits Fuel Growth of Affordable Housing,” 14–19.

108. “New Republican Caucus Formed to Promote Affordable Housing,” National Real Estate Investor 38, no. 13 (12 1996): 74Google Scholar.

109. Ibid.

110. Seiberg, Jaret, “Bankers Join in Bid to Rescue Low-Income Housing Credits: Series 1,” American Banker 160, no. 243 (19 12 1995): 1Google Scholar.

111. Ibid.

112. Seiberg, 1—“The San Francisco-based Giant Announced a $100 Million Tax Credit Investment in Early December, Raising Its Total Investment to $316 Million.”

113. Ibid.

114. David Rogers and Bruce Ingersoll, “Two GOP Insurgents for House Seats in the South Cash in on Their Ties to Patrons in Washington,” Wall Street Journal, 1 November 1996, A14.

115. http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-15/poll/poll_gfx2.html–(viewed June 29, 2004).

116. Jacobs, Barry G., “Archer Abandons Plan to Sunset LIHTC,” National Real Estate Investor 39, no. 8 (08 1997): 30Google Scholar.

117. McQuiston, “Tax Credits Fuel Growth of Affordable Housing,” 19.

118. Mishra, Upendra, “Using Tax-Exempt Bonds to Finance Affordable Housing,” National Real Estate Investor 39, no. 6 (06 1997): 64Google Scholar.

119. http://www.ncsha.org/uploads/HsgCreditFactSheet.pdf (visited 5/1/03).

120. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/index.cfm (visited 20 April 2003).

121. Coming of Age: Trends and Achievements of Community-Based Development Organizations, 4th National Community Development Census (Washington, D.C., 1999), 5Google Scholar.

122. Ibid., 11.

123. Ibid., 16.

124. Goetz, Edward, “Local Government Support for Nonprofit Housing: A Survey of U.S. Cities,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1992): 420–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125. http://www.ncsha.org/section.cfm/8/28 (visited 8 April 2003).

126. Terner, Ian Donald and Cook, Thomas B., “New Directions for Federal Housing Policy: The Role of the States,” Building Foundations: Housing and Federal Policy, ed. DiPasquale, and Keyes, , 115Google Scholar.

127. It also serves tenants who are not as poor as the older HUD programs, such as Section 8.

128. Vidal, Avis C., “Can Community Development Re-invent Itself?” Journal of the American Planning Association 63, no. 4 (Autumn 1997): 429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129. Bauman, David, “Budget—Accounting for the Deficit,” National Journal, 14 06 2004, 3Google Scholar.

130. Weisman, Jonathan, “Bush Plans Sharp Cuts in HUD Community Efforts,” the Washington Post, 14 01 2005, section A01Google Scholar.

131. The coalition included the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the National Community Development Association, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. U.S. Newswire, 8 February 2005, “Mayors, County Officials, and Business Leaders Denounce Elimination of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” (WASHINGTON, 8 February 2005 (U.S. Newswire via COMTEX) http://www.comtexnews.com (visited 11 February 2005).

132. A standout example of tailoring a project to fit the clientele was Eden Issei Terrace in Hayward, California. The developer, Eden Housing, built the project for senior citizens in a largely Japanese neighborhood. It was designed with much lower cabinets and countertops to accommodate shorter tenants, most of whom were under five feet tall. Interview with Janet Falk, nonprofit affordable housing consultant based in the San Francisco Bay Area, 13 February 2005.

133. [Garrison Interview] One can also see the similarities to Robert Putnam's ideas of social capital (Putnam, Robert D., Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community [New York, 2000])CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD: Back in Business. Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary,” Washington, D.C., cited in Bratt, Rachel G., Housing for Very Low-Income Households: The Record of President Clinton, 1993–2000, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 10 2002Google Scholar.

135. Cummings and DiPasquale, “The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit,” 272.

136. Wilensky, Harold, Rich Democracies: Political Economy, Public Policy, and Performance (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002), 608Google Scholar.

137. Kennedy, David M., Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York, 1999), 469Google Scholar.

138. Harvey, David, The Conditions of Post Modernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Malden, Mass., 2000), 39Google Scholar.