1. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) Finding the Right Site1
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) Finding the Right Site
San Diego Housing Federation October 13, 2016 JUSTIN D. BIGELOW M DAVE KROOT
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing—Finding the Right Site
High housing costs, historic segregation by ethnicity and income, and the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing complicate site selection. Panelists will discuss state and federal mandates and HUD's AFFH Tool to navigate affordable housing production in San Diego County from the perspective of both local governments and developers.
goldfarb lipman attorneys

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Taking actions reasonably expected to further fair housing
Combating discrimination
Increasing housing choice
Overcoming patterns of segregation
Fostering inclusive communities
Decreasing disparities in access to opportunity
Replacing segregated patterns with integrated and balanced patterns
Transforming racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity
Fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws
24 C.F.R. § §
First-come first serve selection is favored by many public lenders because it continues to be considered a “neutral” admission strategy.
On the next slide, I list excerpts from various funding programs, because they guide toward the traditional first-come/first-serve policies. But, they also acknowledge or suggest that lists can be reorder to accommodate certain preferences.

3. Local Role Program participants covered by the AFFH rule:
Public housing agencies (PHAs)
Jurisdictions required to submit a Consolidated Plans in connection with CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, or ESG funding
Duty extends to all of a program participant’s activities and programs relating to housing and urban development
CSH asked that I take a step back, first, and talk about waiting lists and lotteries. Affordable Housing has historically been administered through chronological admissions, waiting lists and lotteries. Tenant selection by first come first serve waiting lists or lotteries is intended to eliminate corruption, abuse and discrimination. Waiting list and lotteries limit housing providers discretion and subjectivity in tenant selection. They are designed to be objective.

4. Local Strategies Housing Element Comparable to a Consolidated Plan
Component of General Plan
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Existing & Projected)
Identify Sites & Accommodate Units
Analysis of Constraints on Housing
Establish Programs
Comparable to a Consolidated Plan
For example, HUD’s HOME regulations require tenant selection in chronological order insofar as is practicable.
The HUD multifamily handbook calls for chronological admissions once preferences are accounted for.
HCD’s current UMRs call for tenants to be selected based on order of application, lottery or other reasonable method approved by the Department.

5. Local Strategies Zoning for Affordable Housing Rezoning
Increasing Density
Relaxing Height Limits
Reducing Parking Requirements
Permitting Accessory Dwelling Units

6. Local Government Strategies
Inclusionary Policies
Housing can be built on-site or off-site, or fees can be collected & later used for affordable housing development
For-Sale housing inclusionary programs are permissible
Rental housing inclusionary programs are subject to Palmer
Incentive or Concession confirmed in contract
Nexus study to discern impact
Options: In-lieu Fees, On-Site or Off-Site Units, Land Dedications

7. Local Strategies Expanding Funding Sources: HOME, CDBG, HOPWA, ESG
Tax Increment Financing
Infrastructure Financing Districts
Community Revitalization & Investment Authority
Bond Issuance
Local Housing Trust Fund

8. Local Strategies Density Bonus Other Governmental Concessions
Infrastructure Districts
Rent Stabilization & Eviction Controls
Expanded Fair Housing Ordinances

9. Local Strategies Financing
HOME, CDBG, HOPA, ESG
Infrastructure District
Bond Issuance
Local Housing Trust Fund
Establishing program and funding criteria designed to further fair housing
Preferences that overlay tenant selection often work to modify chronological admissions processes, but may also raise program funding and/or fair issues because they prioritize one type of tenant over another.
Housing for the homeless is widely accepted and funded and generally, we have advised that housing providers with a mission and services to house the homeless may grant a preference to homeless families and individuals. Additionally, HUD has issued two recent notices intended to expand housing opportunities for the homeless through preferences.
Preferences for people with disabilities or specific types of disabilities are more complicated, but supportive housing providers have made them work in many instances.
[Other preferences we often see include local preferences, preferences for families with children, single gender, youth – all of which raise fair housing questions.]

10. Local Constraints Competing Political Interests
Program participant may not have land use or other “opportunity” controls
Balance economics, administration and fair housing goals
The HEARTH Act interim rule contrasts with the tenant selection and preference rules in other housing programs.
The Hearth Act Interim Rule applies only to certain housing programs, but other lenders and developers seeking to house the most vulnerable and underserved may start to rely on assessment systems as well.
The Hearth Act calls for a centralized or coordinated assessment system to facilitate entry to housing by the homeless. An assessment system is much different from a chronological selection system – because you start to look at applicants as individuals as opposed to numbers. And you look closely at their needs and abilities. Your preference may end up running to people who are in most need of the services offered at the housing, and that need will need to be quantified in some way.
In a community that is trained to avoid discrimination in tenant selection and that is used to first-come first serve, lotteries and chronological waiting lists and that still struggles through preference issues, a more personalized tenant selection process is going to cause legitimate concern.