Chapter 5

Housing

Element

CHAPTER 5: HOUSING

⬚ figure

Housing Element

Overview ¹

THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIBES THE importance of housing to neighborhood quality in Washington, DC and the importance of providing housing opportunities for all segments of the population throughout Washington, DC. ²

The critical housing issues facing Washington, DC are addressed in this element. These include:

• Ensuring housing affordability across all incomes and household sizes;
• Furthering fair housing opportunities, especially in high-cost areas;
• Fostering housing production to improve affordability;
• Preserving existing affordable housing;
• Promoting more housing proximate to transit and linking new housing to transit;
• Restoring or demolishing vacant or underused properties;
• Conserving existing housing stock;
• Maintaining healthy homes for residents;
• Promoting homeownership;
• Ending homelessness; and
• Providing housing integrated with supportive services for older adults, vulnerable populations and residents with disabilities. ³

In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan identified most of these issues. The District has implemented many actions in response, including:

• Funding the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) with $100 million per year for affordable housing;
• Applying Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) requirements to a variety of residential uses, including new market rate buildings, row house conversions, penthouse habitable space, and the prioritizing proffers of additional affordable housing through Planned Unit Developments (PUDs);
• Requiring District-owned land sold for housing to include 20 to 30 percent of the units as affordable;
• Launching the Housing Preservation Trust Fund and leveraging private sector dollars to preserve expiring affordability;
• Reviewing and comprehensively updating the zoning regulations to encourage accessory dwelling units, reduce parking requirements, and encourage residential development;
• Encouraging the overall production of housing, particularly in the Central Washington Planning Area, that has resulted in twice the annual rate of production as before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; and
• Moving families experiencing homelessness out of DC General Hospital and into short-term family housing units across the District. ⁴

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

However, as Washington, DC remains attractive to and retains higher-income households, rising demand and competition has and will put upward pressure on rents and a greater number of lower-income households will experience greater pressure from rising housing costs, leading to residents leaving or bearing a housing burden. Thus, greater public action is needed to fulfill the vision of an inclusive District. 500.4¹

Housing in the District must also be understood through a racial equity lens. Forty-nine percent of white households are owner-occupied, while only 35 percent of Black and 30 percent of Latino households are owner-occupied, and the median value of Black-owned homes is less than that of white homeowners. Black and Hispanic households have the greatest rent burdens, at 35 and 39 percent. These gaps are a result of historic, systemic practices such as redlining, racial covenants, and predatory lending that limited access to housing, restricted wealth building opportunities for communities of color, and created highly segregated development patterns. Even while the District has grown in population, the District’s low-income residents have experienced displacement pressures. Of adults experiencing homelessness, 86 percent are Black, while only 47 percent of District residents are Black. While this element often uses income to describe groups and provides overall averages, it is critical to disaggregate data to understand housing considerations experienced by different race, age, and gender groups, and to consider and implement housing policies and actions in this racial equity context to address historic gaps and current challenges. 500.5²

Housing issues affect every facet of the Comprehensive Plan. They influence land use and density decisions, shape infrastructure and community service needs, determine transportation demand, and even drive employment strategies for District residents. At the most basic level, it is the availability of safe, decent, affordable housing across all neighborhoods that will determine whether the District’s vision for an inclusive District will be realized. The type of housing constructed or preserved, the cost of that housing, and where it is built will influence whether the District can attract and retain families with children, maintain neighborhood diversity, improve health and educational outcomes, and provide economic opportunity for all. 500.6a³

Section 224 of the Framework Element of the Comprehensive Plan explains the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Generalized Policy Map (GPM), and zoning. By District Code, the “Zoning maps and regulations, and amendments thereto, shall not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan . . .” The Zoning Commission considers the text, policies, and maps in reviewing zoning designations. Section 227 in the Framework Element includes the definitions for the categories used on the Future Land Use Map, such as Low Density Commercial or Medium Density Residential. These categories are not zoning but are used by the Zoning Commission in reviewing various zoning requests. Each land use category definition identifies a representative zoning

district appropriate to this designation, and states that other zoning districts may apply. The Comprehensive Plan policies and FLUM play an important role in guiding future growth, including housing. 500.6b

What is the Difference Between Housing Affordability and Affordable Housing?

Housing affordability is a broad measure of whether or not housing is affordable to a range of households. Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing are considered to be burdened by housing costs, while those who pay more than 50 percent are severely burdened. Therefore, housing affordability is the extent to which a broad range of households pay less than 30 percent of their income on housing. An important part of affordability are neighborhood assets that help keep transportation costs low, such as reducing the need for car ownership and use. 500.7a

Broad affordability is a function of the overall market supply being able to meet rising demand. New supply can improve affordability by letting new residents move to Washington, DC without taking an existing unit, and by allowing existing residents to trade up, thereby freeing up an existing unit for someone else to occupy. For instance, 40 percent of new units become occupied by households moving from outside the District, while 51 percent are occupied by households moving from within the District, and the remainder are households mixed with both District and non-District residents. 500.7b

Affordable housing in the Comprehensive Plan is defined as housing in which occupancy is limited to households earning 80 percent or less of the median family income (MFI) of an area as annually determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (References to deeply affordable housing throughout this element refer to units available to households earning 40 percent or less of the MFI.) HUD standards are used by many federal programs that fund affordable housing. The price of this housing is maintained at a level below what the free market would demand using restrictive deeds and covenants and financed by grants, mortgage subsidies, vouchers, tax credits, or through land use tools. The maximum monthly cost to a household of affordable housing is limited to 30 percent of the targeted household’s income limit (which varies according to the number of people in the household). Different affordable housing programs are benchmarked, or targeted, to specific levels of median family income (MFI). Affordable housing developments often set prices near or at the top of their targets, while eligibility is open to households across their range of income targets. This can lead to residents of affordable housing having monthly housing costs that, although subsidized, are higher than 30 percent of their actual income. Public housing, vouchers, and a few small federal programs are exceptions in which each household’s monthly housing cost is based on their specific income.

The benchmarked, or targeted, incomes for the Washington metropolitan area in 2017 are shown in Figure 5.1 below. The figure shows the major programs for affordable housing and the incomes eligible for each. In 2017, the MFI for a family of four was $110,300¹. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the terms extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate- income correspond to up to 30 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of the MFI, respectively.

It is important to note that use of a regional MFI skews high for the District. In 2017, for example, the actual median household income, rather than MFI adjusted by family size, was $82,372 in the District and $99,669 for the DC metropolitan area. Affordability in the District is further skewed given the District’s comparatively higher market rate housing costs. The 2017 median value for homes in the District is $607,00 compared to $424,000 for the metropolitan area. Further, the regional MFI does not disaggregate and consider information by race, an important consideration given the income gap for communities of color in the District, with the MFI for Black households in the District less than the MFI for White households. The 2017 median income for Black families in the District is $51,114 (less than 50 percent of the MFI), while it is $190,957 for white families in the District. Proportionately, this means that more Black families are likely to fall within the extremely low and very low-income categories, as shown in Figure 5.1, below. Fewer Black households will be able to afford housing in the low- or moderate-income categories. 500.7c

Example: If a single mother of two earned $15.50 per hour, her annual income would be approximately $32,200 and fall within the extremely low-income category. If she spends 30 percent of her income on housing, she could afford to pay only $886 per month on housing. Finding decent housing or any housing at this price range is a challenge in Washington, DC. 500.7d

By contrast, market rate housing is defined as housing with rents or sales prices that are allowed to change with market conditions, including increased demand. Some market rate housing may be naturally occurring affordable housing that moderate and some low-income households can afford. However, the supply of naturally occurring affordable units can be unstable due to potential pressure from both sides. With too little demand, decreasing rents are insufficient to cover maintenance and the units fall into a state of disrepair and become vacant and underused. With too much demand, the units are rehabbed into higher cost units. Rent-controlled apartments are counted as market rate units because there are no occupancy restrictions. The District’s rent control law stipulates that, under usual circumstances, rents on market rate apartments built prior to 1975 may rise only as fast as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for older adults and tenants with disabilities and the CPI plus two percent for everyone else. 500.7e

** Regional MFI is used rather than the District’s median income because it is the federal government benchmark commonly used to qualify for funding subsidies. 500.7f

Figure 5.1

Sample of Housing Programs, 2017 Income Limits and Main Household Targets ¹

* HOME and CDBG 80% MFI Income Limits are capped by the Nation’s Median Family Income, which currently approximates 65% of the area’s MFI.

Washington, DC’s housing stock is varied in type and size, with developments since 2006 shifting the makeup of the District’s housing. Figure 5.2 shows the number of units by type, year built, size, and vacancy rate and how these have changed over 17 years. The figure shows that owner/renter rates have fluctuated. In addition, Figure 5.2 shows that, despite a modest increase in the number of detached/attached single-family homes, which represent 75 percent of large units (three or more bedrooms), a shift toward multi-family units has been consistent. The shift is also visible in Figure 5.3 New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017. Washington, DC’s housing stock is becoming both older and newer as pre-1939 buildings are being preserved and remodeled to have more units while post-World War II buildings are more often torn down and the sites redeveloped to add new, modern apartment buildings. Of the 281,000 occupied housing units in 2017, 42 percent were owner-occupied, and 58 percent were renter occupied.

Thirty-seven percent of the housing units in the District are single-family units, and over 34 percent of the housing stock was built before 1940.¹

Figure 5.2: District’s Housing Stock, 2000, 2010, and 2017²

Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006, the increase in housing demand and costs has been ongoing, driven by a national recession and recovery, demographic shifts, low interest rates, regional economic growth, falling crime rates, renewed confidence in District government, and improvements in public services. Rising costs have accelerated since the recovery began in 2010, with the median sales price of single-family homes increasing 7.3 percent per year, condominiums increasing 2.8 percent per year³, and average rents increasing 2.9 percent per year between 2000 and 2017.⁴ Part of the increase is attributable to declining interest rates, which went from eight percent to below four percent between 2000 and 2017. Declining interest rates enabled a 37 percent increase in home buying purchasing power and contributed to rising prices.⁵ The increase in demand has propelled an increase in housing costs, affecting both renters and homeowners but raising homeowners’ value. With higher prices came greater down payment and mortgage requirements, making

it more difficult for renters to transition to homeownership. Given income and wealth disparities, and a higher percentage of renter households, housing affordability is increasingly difficult for communities of color. 500.11

The increase in demand has also resulted in a significant increase in the production of housing that has only accelerated since the recession ended in 2009. Figure 5.3 shows the recent trends in housing units issued permits. The figure shows that average annual production of housing for the years after the national recession is more than double (4,483 units per year from 2011-2017) the average production in the District prior to the recession (1,991 units per year from 2002-2007). There is evidence that this new production has slowed the rising costs of renting or owning multi-family units. 500.12

Even more dramatic has been the volatility of single-family home values. Between 2000 and 2005, the median sales price for a single-family home in

Figure 5.3: New Housing Units Authorized: 2000-2017¹

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census, DC Office of Planning (OP)

the District rose 174 percent, from $178,250 to $489,000. However, prices then dropped 23 percent in just two years between 2007 and 2009 due to the national financial collapse, causing many homeowners to lose equity in their most important investment. Prices since 2010 have started to rise rapidly again at about 7.3 percent per year. Condominiums and cooperatives—once considered starter homes for first-time buyers—have also increased, but more modestly as production expanded the competitive supply. Figure 5.4 shows that the median sales price of condominiums rose sharply from $138,000 in 2000 to $377,950 in 2005. Condominium prices then stayed

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

mostly flat until 2010, when they started to rise at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year.¹ 500.14

As prices have risen, the percentage of residents able to comfortably afford the median priced home or apartment has dropped. In 2001, 34 percent of the District’s for-sale housing would have been affordable to a family supported by a full-time schoolteacher. By 2004, that figure had dropped to just 16 percent. By 2017, the percentage of homes in the District that a full-time schoolteacher could afford had partially recovered to 19 percent.² This was due to a variety of factors, including higher wages, decreasing interest rates, the drop in values after 2007, and the increasing availability of condominiums that are less expensive than single-family homes. Nevertheless, the tightening availability of moderately priced housing is hindering the District’s ability to retain and attract moderate- income households. 500.15

Figure 5.4 shows the change in housing value and purchasing power from 2000 to 2017. The figure illustrates how median sales prices of single-family and cooperative/condominium homes have changed in relation to changes in the purchasing power³ of married-couple families and non-family households. It shows that sales prices of single-family homes, while volatile, have tracked the purchasing power of married-couple families, whose incomes grew 3.9 percent per year since 2006, but whose purchasing power increased 7.0 percent per year as interest rates decreased. Over the same time, married couples in the District grew by over 14,600 new households, or just under half of all new households since 2006. 500.16

⬚ figure

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Rents have also risen, making it more difficult for many to afford to live in the District. Between 2006 and 2017, at 3.4 percent per year, rents in Washington, DC rose faster than the MFI of the region, which grew by only 1.8 percent per year. Much of the increase in rents was due to new amenity-rich buildings that attracted higher income households to the District. However, even rents in buildings built prior to 2006 rose at a rate of 2.7 percent per year.¹ As a result, between 2006 and 2017, nearly 18,300 fewer affordable units were available to households earning equal to or less than 60 percent of the MFI (See Figure 5.10b Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability). There are many reasons in addition to rising rents for the overall reduction in the number of lower cost units, including demolition of older buildings and conversion to condominiums. 500.18

The rising costs have continued a crisis of affordability, particularly for the District’s lowest-income residents. Over 20 percent (56,700) of all households in 2017 were severely burdened by housing costs, and another 16 percent (44,600) of households were burdened. Residents must set aside a growing share of their earnings for housing and utilities, leaving less disposable income for health care, transportation, food, other basic needs, and the ability to set aside savings to prepare for the future. The greatest share of burdened and severely burdened households are the 39,500 rental households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI.² The market has also become more segmented, with dwindling housing choices for working families and the middle class in general. Expanded housing options for lower- and middle-income households have become limited, and the opportunity for many residents to build individual wealth through homeownership has become more difficult. Racial representation differs across income groups, and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by increasing housing costs and diminishing supply of affordable options. The District’s Black and Hispanic households experience higher levels of rent burden that increase the likelihood of displacement. 500.19

For existing residents who were already homeowners, the price fluctuations represented a source of wealth as their homes appreciated in value but also a source of risk as some lost significant equity in their family’s single largest investment, which could help them put their kids through college or retire in relative comfort. The strength of the District’s housing market has also created opportunities to solve some of the very problems it is creating. The recent boom has raised real estate values, incomes, and sales, generating millions of dollars in new revenues for housing programs through deed and recordation taxes dedicated to the District’s HPTF. The pending availability of several large sites for redevelopment creates housing construction opportunities that did not exist five or 10 years ago. 500.20

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

The IZ Program, which requires most new residential buildings of 10 units or more to set aside between eight and 12.5 percent of the project toward affordable units, has now delivered almost 600 affordable units as of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, with another 800 expected over the next several years, at a pace of close to 200 affordable units per year. The program is particularly beneficial for two reasons. First, it retains the affordable units for the life of the project; second, it produces units in high-amenity, high-cost neighborhoods, where land prices make it very expensive to financially subsidize affordable housing. An expanded IZ program that would encourage additional affordable housing and extend program applicability is under consideration. 500.21

Housing is a regional market that provides a wide array of choices that vary by location, size, building type and age, accessibility, and other factors. The difficulty in expanding the supply of moderately priced housing across the region will continue to create a market dynamic where higher-income households drive the cost of housing. Housing costs within the District are among the highest in the region and reflect the premium placed on being close to the region’s core. Allowing all District residents to have the choice to secure housing in their communities is a growing challenge as redevelopment and highly competitive offerings are readily available in surrounding jurisdictions. 500.22

Moderating the cost of housing and expanding opportunities will require a regional effort. It will take sustained multi-jurisdictional coordination and partnerships, such as an analysis of the regional impediments to fair housing and other approaches, to increase the supply of housing and better meet demand at all incomes. For instance, it will be difficult to improve affordability in the District, even though the pace of Washington, DC’s housing production doubled after the recession, when production across the rest of the region is down 38 percent.¹ 500.23

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

While housing is a regional market, it is also a very personal choice tied to family, community, and the unique identity shared by residents living in Washington, DC. The fact that many residents place a priority on maintaining their identity as Washingtonians partially explains why 71 percent of the District’s residents moving within the region stay within Washington, DC. The rate of retention is actually the highest for extremely low-income households, with 77 percent staying in the District. This is due in part to Washington DC’s investment in public transit and affordable housing, keeping housing and transportation costs low relative to the rest of the region. However, the same migration data suggests that lower-income households tend to move to Wards 7 and 8, where 90 percent of residents are Black. Migration data must also be considered in the context of race. In addition, the District is experiencing difficulty in retaining moderate-income households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the MFI, with only 60 percent of them choosing to stay in Washington, DC.¹ 500.24

On a neighborhood level, the recent boom in housing demand has challenged the District’s ability to enable lower-income residents to stay in their neighborhood and grow inclusive and racially and economically diverse communities. Approximately 60 percent of those moving to Wards 7 and 8 are very low-income households, while only 17 percent of those moving to Ward 3 are very low- income.² The District is increasing the rate of developing new and preserving existing affordable housing, with approximately 1,700 affordable units delivered per year since 2015.³ While some of this production is occurring in the very neighborhoods where such housing is already concentrated, changes in the way investment decisions are being made, such as preferences for projects in high-cost areas are shifting production to higher-cost neighborhoods, where there is less affordable housing. A housing needs assessment conducted by the Urban Institute for the District in 2015 suggests that more affordable housing is needed District-wide, especially in high-cost areas and for those households earning less than 30 percent of the MFI. 500.25

Map 5.1 illustrates the location of affordable housing projects in the District, overlaid on a map that characterizes neighborhoods by an index of housing costs versus neighborhoods that are Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), as defined by HUD. With the exception of a few projects, there is very little affordable housing built in neighborhoods with high housing costs. If left unchecked, these patterns will continue to concentrate lower-income residents in some neighborhoods and find them scarce in others. 500.26

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Map 5.1:

Affordable Housing Projects by Neighborhood

Index of Housing Costs and R/ECAP ¹

⬚ figure

Source: DHCD, HUD, HousingInsights.org

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

While the market for housing has been robust since 2010, there is no guarantee this trend will continue indefinitely. The lessons from the financial mortgage collapse of 2007 suggest that softer demand due to rising interest rates or other risks could test the resiliency of Washington, DC’s housing market. Measures to increase affordable housing must be mindful to account for market dynamics and the burden placed on the private sector so that forward momentum can be sustained. This may require additional bold steps by District government, such as the recent increased allocation of funding in 2015 to the HPTF from deed recordation and transfer taxes and other sources. 500.28

One of the critical issues facing Washington, DC is how to retain and create more housing units that are large enough for families with children. In 2006, 21 percent of District households were composed of families with children. By 2017, households with children had fallen to below 20 percent because they experience difficulty finding units they can afford. This percentage is substantially lower than the 33 percent rate for the region and 31 percent rate for the nation. However, other cities, such as San Francisco, New York, and Boston, also experienced declines in the percentage of households with children since 2006. 500.29

Family households with children need larger housing units with more bedrooms. Of the existing housing stock, only 34 percent of the units have three bedrooms or more, which is a slight decline from 2006, when 35 percent of units had three or more bedrooms. Eighty-nine percent of recent new construction has been apartments, of which only two percent had three or more bedrooms.¹ Of new condominium units built since 2006, less than 10 percent had three or more bedrooms.² Because the vast majority of Washington, DC’s capacity for growth is in multi-family development, the District will need to look to apartment buildings to add larger family-sized units. 500.30

Many residents of Washington, DC have a strong desire to stay, whether they have recently moved here or their family has lived in Washington, DC for multiple generations. As touched upon in the Framework Element, Washington, DC experienced a tremendous increase in the number of younger adults between the ages of 20 and 39 years since 2006. This has led to an increase in children between the ages 0 and 14 years, and young adults are finding their housing needs change as they start new families. The increase in young children is an early indication of their parents’ desire and intention to stay in Washington, DC. At the same time, the District is also expecting an increase in older residents. A broad retention strategy is needed for these new and existing families and the overlapping housing needs of older adults to maintain the health and equity of the District. 500.31

The availability of single-family housing and housing with more rooms are two factors that are positively correlated with retaining family households.

other factors are also important, including affordability, crime, childcare, parks, and school quality. 500.32

Who is moving in and out of the District? Figure 5.5 shows the demographics of migration in and out of the District. It shows that, in 2017, nine percent (65,522) of the District’s population moved into Washington, DC that year. Out-movers during the same year numbered 60,873. During the same period, in-movers were less likely than out-movers to be families with children, Black, or homeowners and more likely to be low-income. While this tells a District-wide story, within various neighborhoods affordability issues are reshaping neighborhood demographics; for example, neighborhoods in Southwest Washington have seen extensive new development that attracted younger, more affluent, and whiter residents, while losing both residents of color and lower-income residents. 500.33

Figure 5.5: Migration in and out of the District, 2017¹

Source: U.S. Census ACS 2017, OP

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Overall, key indicators suggest that demand for housing will remain strong in the District. However, it is important to recognize that events, such as the 2020 public health emergency, may change this outlook. Still, indicators including the historically strong employment market, improving schools, and a walkable urban lifestyle that is attractive to a new generation of residents will likely continue to drive housing demand. The increase in young children (zero-14 years) is an early indication of their parents’ desire and intention to stay in the District. Retaining new and existing families is important to Washington, DC’s vibrancy and health. 500.35

In order to meet this demand, it will be critical to continue, and support, the overall production of both market rate and affordable housing. Without new development and an increased supply of these units, rising costs caused by these demand pressures will increasingly restrict the types of households who can afford to live in Washington, DC. New production will take the pressure off the existing housing supply and allow it to serve a greater range of household incomes. 500.36

This Housing Element seeks to address the challenges of rising costs and other housing needs through its policies and actions focused on the production of new market rate and affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing. It is organized into four major sections. The first addresses housing production, including both market rate and affordable housing. The second addresses housing preservation, focusing particularly on anti-displacement strategies and housing maintenance. The third section addresses homeownership and fair housing laws. The final section covers the needs of those experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, older adults, and others who are not adequately served by the private market. 500.38¹

Housing Goal 501

The overarching goal for housing is to provide a safe, decent, healthy,and affordable housing supply for current and future residents in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods by maintaining and developing housing for all incomes and household types. The overall goal for the District of Columbia is that a minimum of one third of all housing produced should be affordable to lower-income households. The short-term goal is to produce 36,000 residential units, 12,000 of which are affordable, between 2019 and 2025. 501.1

The overarching goal for housing is to provide a safe, decent, healthy,and affordable housing supply for current and future residents in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods by maintaining and developing housing for all incomes and household types.

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Policies and Actions

H-1 Homes for an Inclusive City ¹

This section of the Housing Element addresses housing production, both for market rate and affordable units. ²

Washington, DC must sustain a high rate of housing production to meet current and projected needs through 2025 and remain economically vibrant. Over the next 15 years, through 2035, the District’s housing stock is forecast to increase from a base of about 310,000 ³ units in 2015 to 397,000 units in 2035. Between 2015 and 2020, 23,000 additional units are expected to be built, based on projects that are now under construction, soon to break ground, or by conversion to smaller units. Mayor’s Order 2019-036 initiated the goal to accelerate the rate of housing production between 2019 and 2025 to achieve 36,000 new units, 12,000 of which are affordable, which will be needed by 2025 to improve affordability and the long-term balance between demand and supply. This is equivalent to 5,100 additional units per year. This is higher than the rate of production experienced during 2010-2015, and demand pressures suggest there is a need for even more. However, the District issued permits for an average of 4,483 units of new construction per year after recovering from the national recession, indicating this target of 5,100 units per year is not out of reach. Figure 5.6 illustrates the goal for both total and income-restricted affordable units per Figure 5.4 and how the goal would extend through 2030 and 2050. These goals provide measurable benchmarks that will require public, non-profit, and private sector action to achieve. Prioritizing affordable housing production is critical to reducing existing disparities in access to housing, particularly for communities of color. ⁴

Figure 5.6:

Total Residential and Affordable Unit Goals: 2018-2050 ⁵

Source: OP, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (DMPED)

As noted in the Land Use and Framework Elements, Washington, DC already has the land resources to meet this demand. But land alone is not enough to ensure the production of housing, and housing production alone does not guarantee that a portion of the new units will be affordable to all households. The approach needs to vary with the characteristics of the site and surrounding conditions. For instance, infill housing development in Neighborhood Conservation Areas typically has infrastructure but can be constrained by lot sizes and is dependent on surrounding market strength. Redevelopment of ground floor uses along the District’s Main Street mixed-use corridors is often delayed until market demand drives housing prices high enough to overcome the return provided by the existing uses. Neighborhood Enhancement Areas need not only comprehensive infrastructure investment but also catalytic projects to demonstrate the viability of further private sector investment. Finally, large sites with significant capacity need major infrastructure investment to knit them into their surrounding neighborhoods. 502.4¹

A multi-pronged strategy is needed to facilitate production, address regulatory and administrative constraints, and deliver a substantial number of the new units that are affordable to District residents, particularly to moderate and lower income residents. Potential regulatory strategies to maximize housing production might include regulatory relief, such as flexibility with zoning height and expedited entitlement review and permitting. Financing strategies might include tax credits and abatements and other financing tools. The 2006 Comprehensive Housing Strategy established many of the basic tenets of this strategy. Additional information is provided in the text box titled The Comprehensive Housing Strategy on the following page. 502.5²

Participation from private sector investors is critical to achieving Washington, DC’s housing goal and presents several challenges as they pursue investment opportunities. Some locations remain underused within the permitted density for a variety of reasons. In some locations, existing ground floor uses produce a sufficiently high return that discourages and delays redevelopment. In other locations, the increased construction costs needed for taller building types sometimes lead investors to use lower density, less expensive methods that underuse a site’s potential development capacity. Finally, development of new supply tends to slow down as soon as supply starts to meet demand, and the pace of absorption and revenue growth slows or declines below investors’ expectations. These are economic realities that all cities face. 502.6³

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

The Comprehensive Housing Strategy

The housing policies of the Comprehensive Plan were introduced in 2003, when the DC Council passed the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Act, creating a task force charged with developing recommendations on the housing needs of current and future residents of the District. It included strategies for preserving and creating mixed-income neighborhoods; assessing the quality, availability, and affordability of rental housing; creating homeownership opportunities; preventing displacement; assessing housing for persons with disabilities; promoting moderate-income housing; and increasing the District’s population by 100,000 residents.¹

The 2006 task force report, Homes for an Inclusive City, presented seven recommendations for improving housing affordability and growing the population. Foremost among these was the production of 55,000 new housing units, including 19,000 affordable units, and the preservation of at least 30,000 existing affordable units. The report includes strategies to increase the homeownership rate, provide direct assistance to 14,600 low-income renter households, and include affordable housing in the new neighborhoods to be developed during the next 15 years.²

Subsequent task forces have built upon the original strategies found in Homes for an Inclusive City and developed additional policies found in the Bridges to Opportunity and Housing Preservation Strike Force final reports. These efforts focused on strategies and initiatives such as providing wraparound supportive social service contracts into affordable housing investments. In addition, the District submitted to HUD the 2016-2021 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, which includes data analysis, resident participation, and the development of an implementation program on how the District would expend funds from federal programs, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership.³

Many of the original strategies in Homes for an Inclusive City were carried forward into the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The policies from the subsequent task force are included and built upon in the amended Comprehensive Plan. This is an important step toward their implementation and will move the District one step closer to achieving its housing goals.⁴

H-1.1 Expanding Housing Supply⁵

Expanding the housing supply is a key part of the District’s vision to create vibrant neighborhoods. Along with improved transportation and shopping, better neighborhood schools and parks, preservation of historic resources, and improved design and identity, the production of market rate and affordable housing is essential to the future of the neighborhoods. It is also a key to improving the District’s fiscal health. The District will work to facilitate housing construction and rehabilitation through its planning, building, zoning, permitting, inspection, and taxation programs,

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

recognizing and responding to the needs of all segments of the community to achieve an adequate and diverse housing supply. The first step toward meeting this goal is to ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land is available to meet expected housing needs. Public investment in high-quality public infrastructure, including transportation, public space, schools, and libraries, is also critical to ensuring that all neighborhoods provide a high degree of access to opportunity. Regulatory processes should encourage, not discourage, the creation of new housing. 503[^.1]

The supply of housing should grow sufficiently to slow rising costs of market rate rental and for-sale housing. Expanding supply alone will not fulfill all of Washington, DC’s housing needs at lower income levels, but it is one important element of the strategy to ensure unmet demand at higher price points does not further hasten the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing. 503[^.2]

Policy H-1.1.1: Private Sector Support

Encourage or require the private sector to provide both new market rate and affordable housing to meet the needs of present and future District residents at locations consistent with District land use policies and objectives. 503[^.3]

Policy H-1.1.2: Production Incentives

Provide suitable regulatory, tax, and financing incentives to meet housing production goals, prioritizing affordable housing production in support of the targets in Policy H-1.2.2. These incentives should continue to include zoning regulations that permit greater building area for commercial projects that include housing than for those that do not, and relaxation of height and density limits near transit. Strongly encourage incentives and strategies that result in the production of more deeply affordable housing, such as the use of income averaging across a range of affordable housing income levels. 503[^.4]

Policy H-1.1.3: Balanced Growth

Strongly encourage the development of new housing, including affordable housing, on surplus, vacant, and underused land in all parts of Washington, DC. Ensure that a sufficient supply of land is planned and zoned to enable the District to meet its long-term housing needs, including the need for low- and moderate- density single-family homes, as well as the need for higher-density housing. 503[^.5]

Policy H-1.1.4: Mixed-Use Development

Promote moderate to high-density, mixed-use development that includes affordable housing on commercially zoned land, particularly in neighborhood commercial centers, along Main Street mixed-use corridors and high-capacity surface transit corridors, and around Metrorail stations. 503[^.6]

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

⬚ figure

Portner Flat used the District’s TOPA and PUD regulations along with acquisition financing from DCHD to double the number of on site affordable units in the U Street neighborhood.

Policy H-1.1.5: Housing Quality

Require the design of affordable and accessible housing to meet or exceed the high-quality architectural standards achieved by market-rate housing. Such housing should be built with high-quality materials and systems that minimize long-term operation, repair, and capital replacement costs. Regardless of its affordability level, new or renovated housing should be indistinguishable from market rate housing in its exterior appearance, should be generally compatible with the design character of the surrounding neighborhood, and should address the need for open space and recreational amenities. 503¹

Policy H-1.1.6: Housing in Central Washington

Absorb a substantial component of the demand for new high-density housing in the Central Washington Planning Area and along the Anacostia River. Through regulation and incentives, encourage affordable housing production. Absorbing the demand for higher-density housing within these areas is an effective way to meet housing demands, maximize infrastructure and proximity to jobs, create mixed-use areas, and minimize the cost pressure on existing residential neighborhoods throughout the District. Market rate and affordable mixed-income, higher-density downtown housing also provides the opportunity to create vibrant street life and to support the restaurants, retail, entertainment, and other amenities in the heart of Washington, DC. 503²

See the Land Use, Urban Design, and Area Elements for related policies.

Policy H-1.1.7: Large Sites

Accommodate a significant share of the District’s projected housing demand in new neighborhoods developed on large sites. Prioritize housing, particularly affordable housing preserved for long-term affordability. These neighborhoods should include or have access to well-planned retail, public schools, attractive parks, open space and recreation, as well as needed supportive services for older adults and persons with disabilities and enable resilient, innovative neighborhood- level energy systems. The new neighborhoods should include a variety of housing types, including housing for families, older adults, and other needed types, serving a diverse population and a variety of income levels. 503³

Policy H-1.1.8: Production of Housing in High-Cost Areas

Encourage development of both market rate and affordable housing in high-cost areas of the District, making these areas more inclusive. Develop new, innovative tools and techniques that support affordable housing in these areas. Doing so increases costs per unit but provides greater benefits in terms of access to opportunity and outcomes. 503⁴

See also the Land Use Element policies on transit-oriented and mixed-use development.

Policy H-1.1.9: Housing for Families

Encourage and prioritize the development of family-sized units and/or family-sized housing options which generally have three or more bedrooms, in areas proximate to transit, employment centers, schools, public facilities, and recreation to ensure that the District’s most well-resourced locations remain accessible to families, particularly in areas that received increased residential density as a result of underlying changes to the Future Land Use Map. Family-sized units and/or family-sized housing options include housing typologies that can accommodate households of three or more persons and may include a variety of housing types including townhomes, fourplexes and multi-family buildings. To address the mismatch between meeting the needs of larger households and the financial feasibility of developing family-sized housing, support family-sized housing options through production incentives and requirements that address market rate challenges for private development that may include zoning, subsidies or tax strategies, or direct subsidy and regulatory requirements for publicly owned sites. ¹

Action H-1.1.A: Annual Housing Reports and Monitoring Efforts

Develop an annual State of the District Housing Report, which improves the quality of information on which to make housing policy decisions. Include information on current conditions, trends and needs, such as the availability and affordability of units by income, tenure, building type, number of bedrooms, and production patterns and capacity by Planning Area and other characteristics. Include information on the demand for, housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households. Assess the availability of housing for Black communities and other communities of color, seniors, families, people with disabilities, and vulnerable communities. The report should also include a framework for evaluating progress toward measurable goals. Create a Housing Oversight Board composed of residents representing different incomes and household types, and for profit and nonprofit developers, that would review this report and provide an assessment each year on the effectiveness and outcomes of the District’s housing programs. ²

Action H-1.1.B: Regional Planning for Expanding the Supply of Housing

Pursue intergovernmental agreements and initiatives with the jurisdictions of the metropolitan region that expand the housing supply and broaden affordability throughout the region, and that do not leave the responsibility solely to any one jurisdiction. ³

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Action H.1.1.C: Research New Ways to Expand Housing

Continue research to expand market rate and affordable housing opportunities in Washington, DC, such as expanding existing zoning tools and requirements and evaluating housing concepts that emphasize permanent affordability, such as social housing and community land trusts. Consider a broad range of options to address housing constraints, which could include updating the Height Act of 1910 (a federal law) outside of the L’Enfant Plan area, if it can promote housing production. 503.14

Action H-1.4.D: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

Complete the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing to advance fair housing, more equitably distribute housing, and take steps to address identified impediments. 503.15

H-1.2 Ensuring Housing Affordability¹

Washington, DC faces numerous affordable housing challenges. It has both a greater share of the region’s low-income residents and the region’s most rapid decline in the availability of housing to serve these residents. In 2005, the median income for a family of four for the region was $89,300, but it was just $55,750 in the District. Census data indicates that by 2017 the gap had narrowed by almost half. In fact, between 2005 and 2017, the share of the District’s households earning below the regional median income declined from about 75 percent to 52 percent of households. Due to a growing number of higher-income households being attracted to Washington, DC, housing prices in the District are increasing at a faster rate than almost any jurisdiction in the metropolitan area. The share of District renters who paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing jumped from 39 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in 2004. In 2017, the estimated share of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing had fallen to 36 percent of all households. Similarly, the share paying more than 50 percent of their incomes declined from 23 percent in 2004 to 20 percent by 2017. Data suggests this is not due to improving affordability but rather the in-migration of higher-income households and the out-migration of lower-income households. Further, outcomes must be reviewed by race, considering the previously noted lower incomes and higher rent burdens faced by Black and Hispanic households. 504.1

In Washington, DC and across the nation, home prices have fluctuated dramatically since 2006. Prices in the District peaked in April 2007, soon after the adoption of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. While the collapse of the national mortgage markets did not affect Washington, DC as badly as some parts of the country, many neighborhoods did suffer from high foreclosure rates and severe decline in values, and these neighborhoods are in areas

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

with predominantly Black and Hispanic populations. Among the hardest hit neighborhoods were those along Eastern and Southern Avenues in the Upper Northeast, Far Northeast and Southeast, and the Far Southeast and Southwest Planning Areas, such as Washington Highlands, North Michigan Park, Bellevue, and Capitol View. In addition to the national mortgage collapse, the problems were exacerbated by limited access to competitive mortgages, and predatory subprime lending, which was disproportionately directed at low income and Black and Hispanic households. By 2017, single-family home values in some of these neighborhoods, especially those in Wards 7 and 8, were finally exceeding their previous peaks achieved in 2007. However, condominiums are still experiencing declining values in some neighborhoods, stemming from failing homeowner associations, maintenance, and other problems. 504.2

Single-family home values elsewhere in the District have more than just recovered. Values have gone up most rapidly in the moderately priced neighborhoods to the north and east of downtown. Neighborhoods such as Trinidad, LeDroit Park and Bloomingdale recovered rapidly and experienced annualized sales price increases of from eight to almost 11 percent a year between 2009 and 2017[^p25-xvi]. Price increases in high-cost neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park were less dramatic, but they also experienced the least decline as a result of the mortgage crisis. As a result, they continue to be out of reach for most District residents. 504.3

Economic forecasts suggest that many of the jobs that will be created in the District during the next 10 years will not provide the compensation needed to pay for housing in Washington, DC. Occupations that pay the lowest third of wages are expected to represent 45 percent of the job growth. For example, some of the District’s fastest growing occupations are expected to be home health and personal care aides, which pay an annual wage of $ 29,000[^xvii]. For a single wage earner, this would qualify them for the deepest level of subsidy to rent a one- bedroom apartment, with almost no chance to purchase a condominium or single- family home. Even a two-income household with such salaries would be unable to afford market-rate homeownership. As the gap widens, there may be several consequences. Residents may work unreasonably long hours or multiple jobs, double up in overcrowded apartments and houses, live in unsafe or substandard housing, or give up living in the District altogether, enduring long commutes into Washington, DC each day. Black and Hispanic residents are more heavily represented in these job categories and earn lower incomes, as not ed earlier. This points to worsening racial inequality in housing access and affordability, displacing residents who would otherwise choose to remain in the District. 504.4

The District has been working to preserve the affordability of existing housing opportunities for lower-income residents and to ensure that a substantial share of the housing built in the next 20 years is affordable for

them. The District’s HPTF is now the largest per capita source of locally dedicated funding for affordable housing of any city in the country. An array of financial and regulatory tools and programs already are in place, some linked to federal housing programs, some created by District government, and others originating through partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors (see Figure 5.7 for a list of the major housing programs in the District). 504.5¹

The District also has been pursuing legislative and regulatory measures that require affordable housing in new development. In addition to IZ, a 2013 District law requires District properties sold for residential development to provide 20 to 30 percent of the units as affordable depending on proximity to transit. The law targets a range of extremely low-income to moderate-income households, and long-term commitments to maintain affordability which depend on the tenure of the project. For many years, Washington, DC has also had a policy requiring developers seeking commercial density bonuses to provide affordable housing or pay into the HPTF. The previous Comprehensive Plans created the foundation for these actions, which is carried forward in this Element. 504.6²

More deeply affordable housing production and preservation is needed to advance racial equity in housing because of the racial income gap. As shown in Figure 5.8, the proposed allocation of new affordable units should be 40 percent available to extremely low-income households, and 30 percent allocated each for low- and very low-income households. These targets would prioritize production and preservation of housing affordable to more of the District’s residents of color. Achieving these targets requires actions from the public, non-profit, and private sector. Statutory and regulatory measures, including zoning, are necessary but not sufficient to produce very-low- and extremely-low-income rental housing and ownership opportunities for a range of households. Budgetary decisions at the federal and District levels are also essential to enable the continued operation of quality housing for these income levels. Resource choices also must be made between new housing production and preserving or restoring affordable housing stock. And, while the District has set ambitious goals to increase both market rate and affordable housing production, affordable housing production is lagging, requiring renewed assessment of how to effectively allocate and use limited resources. To advance racial equity in housing, an effective allocation of resources is needed for housing preservation and production targeted to very-low and extremely-low-income households. 504.7³

Policy H-1.2.1: Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Production as a Civic Priority

The production and preservation of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households is a major civic priority, to be supported through public programs that stimulate affordable housing production and rehabilitation throughout all District neighborhoods. 504.8

Policy H-1.2.2: Production Targets

Consistent with the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, work toward a goal that one-third of the new housing built in Washington, DC from 2018 to 2030, or approximately 20,000 units, should be affordable to persons earning 80 percent or less of the area-wide MFI. In aggregate, the supply of affordable units shall serve low-income households in proportions roughly equivalent to the proportions shown in Figure 5.8: 30 percent at 60 to 80 percent MFI, 30 percent at 30 to 60 percent MFI, and 40 percent at below 30 percent MFI. Set future housing production targets for market rate and affordable housing based on where gaps in supply by income occur and to reflect District goals. These targets shall acknowledge and address racial income disparities, including racially adjusted MFIs, in the District, use racially disaggregated data, and evaluate actual production of market rate and affordable housing at moderate, low, very-low, and extremely-low income levels. 504.9

Policy H-1.2.3: Affordable and Mixed-Income Housing

Focus investment strategies and affordable housing programs to distribute mixed-income housing more equitably across the entire District by developing goals and tools for affordable housing and establishing a minimum percent affordable by Planning Area to create housing options in high-cost areas, avoid further concentrations of affordable housing, and meet fair housing requirements. 504.10

Figure 5.7:

Major Housing Programs in the District 504¹

Source: 2019 DC Office of Planning

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Policy H-1.2.4: Housing Affordability on Publicly Owned Sites

Require that 20 to 30 percent of the housing units built on publicly owned sites disposed of for housing, co-located with local public facilities, or sites being transferred from federal to District jurisdiction, are reserved for a range of affordable housing with long-term commitments to maintain affordability, seeking to maximize production of extremely low- and very low-income for rental units, and very low- and low-income households for ownership units and family-sized units. Prioritize the provision of affordable housing in areas of high housing costs. Explore strategies at these redeveloping sites to enable seniors in the surrounding community to have opportunities to age in place, and to provide housing opportunities for residents at risk of displacement in the surrounding community. Consider Universal Design and visitability. ¹

Policy H-1.2.5: Moderate-Income Housing

In addition to programs targeting persons of very low and extremely low incomes, develop and implement programs that meet the housing needs of those earning moderate incomes with wages insufficient to afford market rate housing in the District. ²

Policy H-1.2.6: Build Nonprofit Sector Capacity

Actively involve and coordinate with the nonprofit sector, including faith-based institutions, to meet affordable housing needs, including housing construction and housing service delivery. Partner with the nonprofit sector so that public funding can be used to leverage the creation of affordable units and to expand access to housing through counseling, education, tenant rights services, and increased awareness of funding opportunities. Faith-based institutions represent a significant opportunity for the development of affordable housing and community facilities in Washington, DC and the provision of affordable housing and care of those in need is within their charitable missions. Faith-based institutions own nearly 6 million square feet of vacant land in the District and an estimated 4 million square feet of land with improvements. Much of the land owned by these institutions is in residential neighborhoods, adjacent to commercial corridors and have some type of residential zoning that limits them to low density development. These institutions may need technical support but have expressed their interest and commitment and can be willing partners in providing space for affordable housing. ³

Policy H-1.2.7: Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing

Provide zoning incentives, such as through the PUD process, to developers proposing to build affordable housing substantially beyond any underlying requirement. Exceeding targets for affordable housing can refer to exceeding the quantity or depth of affordability otherwise required. The affordable housing proffered shall be considered a high priority public benefit for the

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

purposes of granting density bonuses, especially when the proposal expands the inclusiveness of high-cost areas by adding affordable housing. When density bonuses are granted, flexibility in development standards should be considered to minimize impacts on contributing features and the design character of the neighborhood. 504.15¹

Policy H-1.2.8: District Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA)

Support the DCHFA’s activities to finance new construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental and owner units, including vacant and abandoned units. 504.16²

Policy H-1.2.9 Advancing Diversity and Equity of Planning Areas

Proactively plan and facilitate affordable housing opportunities and make targeted investments that increase demographic diversity and equity across Washington, DC. Achieve a minimum of 15 percent affordable units within each Planning Area by 2050. Provide protected classes (see H-3.2 Housing Access) with a fair opportunity to live in a choice of homes and neighborhoods, including their current homes and neighborhoods. 504.17³

Policy H-1.2.10 Redevelopment of Existing Subsidized and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing

Prioritize, encourage, and incentivize build-first, one-for-one, on-site, and in-kind replacement of affordable units, including larger family-sized units. In addition, encourage and incentivize relocation and right of return plans when projects redeveloping affordable housing seek additional density beyond that permitted by existing zoning. Work to identify and coordinate financial assistance to ensure long-term affordability, preferably permanent or for the life of the project, when projects meet these criteria. 504.18⁴

Policy H-1.2.11 Inclusive Mixed-Income Neighborhoods

Support mixed-income housing by encouraging affordable housing in high-cost areas and market rate housing in low-income areas. Identify and implement measures that build in long-term affordability, preferably permanent or for the life of the project, to minimize displacement and achieve a balance of housing opportunities across the District. 504.19⁵

⬚ figure

The District’s Commercial Linkage Requirement

In 1998, the District adopted zoning provisions that linked the granting of bonus density in commercial development projects to requirements for affordable housing. The linkage recognized that the demand for housing in Washington, DC was driven in part by new commercial development and rising land values. The linkage provisions are currently triggered by:

• The approval of a discretionary and otherwise appropriate street or alley closing, which results in the provision of additional non-residential square footage by the DC Council;
• The provision of habitable, non-residential penthouse space; or
• The approval of a discretionary and otherwise appropriate zoning density increase, which results in the provision of additional non-residential square footage by the Zoning Commission or the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 504.21a

In such cases, applicants are required to construct or rehabilitate housing that remains affordable to low-income households for at least 40 years, or pay into the District’s HPTF. If the applicant agrees to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing, the square footage of housing that must be built varies from 25 to 50 percent of the density increase being granted, depending on if the housing is provided on-site, off-site, or in a high housing cost area. Applicants can use any of a number of tools to build the housing, such as partnerships and joint ventures. If the applicant agrees to pay into the HPTF, the payment must equal at least half of the assessed value of the square footage of the density increase being granted, plus the square footage of any preexisting housing demolished as a result of the non-residential development. Additional provisions relating to the timing and valuation of the improvements apply. 504.21b

The linkage requirements include several exemptions, such as projects that are already subject to housing, retail, arts, or historic preservation requirements; projects approved prior to 1994; and projects located in enhanced/new neighborhood or enhanced/new multi-neighborhood centers. The Zoning Commission also has the authority to grant exemptions from this requirement based on certain findings relating to Comprehensive Plan consistency. 504.21c

Action H-1.2.A: Commercial Linkage Assessment

The 2006 Comprehensive Housing Strategy recommended that one-third of the units produced in the District in the next 15 years be targeted to persons earning 80 percent of the MFI or below. Figure 5.8 shows the proposed allocation of these units to low-, very low-, and extremely low-income groups. 504.22

Action H-1.2.B: New Revenue Sources

Continue to identify and tap new sources of revenue for programs such as the HPTF to produce affordable housing and keep rental and owned housing affordable. These new sources should add to the portion of the deed and recordation taxes dedicated to the HPTF, such as the feasibility of earmarking a portion of residential property tax revenue increases for the fund. 504.23

Action H-1.2.C: Property Acquisition and Disposition Division Program

Continue the District’s Property Acquisition and Disposition Division (PADD) Program, which acquires property and provides for long-term leaseback or low- cost terms to private developers that produce affordable homeownership and rental housing. 504.24

Action H-1.2.D: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits

Expand for-profit builders’ use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits as one tool to provide new or rehabilitated affordable housing in the District. 504.25

Action H-1.2.E: Leveraging Inclusionary Zoning

Review and consider expansion of the Inclusionary Zoning program as needed to encourage additional affordable housing production throughout the District. Examine and propose greater IZ requirements when zoning actions permit greater density or change in use. Factors supporting a greater requirement may include high-cost areas, proximity to transit stations or high-capacity surface transit corridors, and when increases in density or use changes from production, distribution, and repair (PDR) to residential or mixed-use. Consider requirements that potentially leverage financial subsidies, such as tax-exempt bonds. 504.26

Action H-1.2.F: Establish Affordability Goals by Area Element

Establish measurable housing production goals by Planning Area through an analysis of best practices, housing conditions, impediments, unit and building typology, and forecasts of need. Include a minimum share of 15 percent affordable housing by 2050, along with recommendations for incentives and financing tools to create affordable housing opportunities to meet fair housing requirements, particularly in high housing cost areas. 504.27

Action H-1.2.G: Continuum of Housing

Conduct a periodic review, at least every four years, of private development and federal and local housing programs in conjunction with a needs assessment to ensure that programs target the applicable gaps in the supply of housing by unit and building type, location, and affordability and include racial equity evaluations. 504.28

Action H-1.2.H: Priority of Affordable Housing Goals

Prioritize public investment in the new construction of, or conversion to, affordable housing in Planning Areas with high housing costs and few affordable housing options. Consider land use, zoning, and financial incentives where the supply of affordable units is below a minimum of 15 percent of all units within each area. 504.29

Action H-1.2.I: Land Trusts

Support community land trusts (CLTs) in their ongoing efforts to produce, secure, and steward rental and ownership housing and commercial spaces that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Preventing the displacement of current and future low- and moderate-income District residents and businesses should be the focus of CLTs. 504.30

Action H-1.2.J Affordable Housing and Nonprofit and Faith-Based Institutions

District agencies should work collaboratively with nonprofits and the faith community to investigate zoning options to reduce procedural burdens and facilitate the development of affordable housing and community services on properties under their control, particularly sites in lower density neighborhoods. 504.31

H-1.3 Diversity of Housing Types ¹

The housing stock in the District has varied in size and type over time. As Figure 5.9 shows, in 2000, about 44 percent of Washington, DC’s housing units consisted of studios and one-bedroom units. The percentage of small units declined to 38 percent, mostly through the loss of studios, before rebounding to 42 percent by 2017. In 2000, units with four or more bedrooms comprised just 11 percent of the total units. By 2017, this had risen slightly to just below 13 percent. Three-bedroom units have declined by almost two percent since 2006. Of all unit types, only two-bedroom units have consistently grown in number, increasing from 24 percent in 2000 to almost 26 percent in 2017. 505.1

Between 2011 and 2016, more than 90 percent of new housing in Washington, DC was multi-family housing. As this trend continues, the District faces the possibility of a less diverse housing stock. As Figure 5.3

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

shows, row house units represent a declining share of all housing. Therefore, the District will become more dependent on apartment buildings to provide family-sized units. The conversion of single-family row houses, which by right may include a second unit, into multi-unit buildings may be further eroding the supply of three- and four-bedroom units in the District. Going forward, there is limited opportunity for new subdivisions of large, detached homes to provide housing for more families. ¹

The housing needs of District residents represent a wide spectrum. Students and young professionals may seek studios, small apartments, or shared housing. Young families may seek small condominiums, townhouses, or small homes in emerging neighborhoods. Families with children may seek homes with three or four bedrooms, a yard, and perhaps a rental unit for added income. Singles and couples with no children may seek single-family homes or apartments. The growing population of older adults may seek to remain in their existing homes or downsize to smaller houses or apartments nearby, while others will want or need retirement communities, assisted living, or congregate care facilities. Overall, larger units are more adaptable to changes in demand than smaller units given their ability to serve a wide range of households from individuals seeking to share housing, to new growing families, to multigenerational households. It is difficult to determine if these changing needs will compete with or complement each

Figure 5.9:

Distribution of Housing by Number of Bedrooms in Washington, DC, 2000-2017 ²

⬚ figure

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 2017, DC Office of Planning

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

other. For example, will older, down-sizing residents naturally provide a turnover of larger units to young growing families, or will there be an overlap of competing needs? 505.4

Given the shortage of available land in areas with some of the highest housing costs, promoting accessory dwelling units is one way to provide housing options for persons at all income levels and support the transition from older to younger households. Large homes may easily accommodate what is commonly called an in-law suite on the top floor or lower level, or above a garage, in place of a garage, or in a separate unit out back. An accessory dwelling unit can accommodate a low- or moderate-income family, a student, or an older adult who is unable to continue to fulfill the full burdens of homeownership. The added rental income can help a younger household qualify to purchase the home. 505.5

An important part of growing inclusively is to develop and maintain, across neighborhoods and throughout the District, a diverse housing stock of all sizes and types that can fit the needs of the variety of households, including growing families, singles, couples, and aging residents who, in order to remain in their neighborhood may need to transition from living independently in their home to alternative housing. Recent housing production has not provided the diversity of housing types needed in the District. Market-driven development provided higher- end, multifamily units that attracted largely white, affluent, and smaller households. Ninety-one percent of new housing growth between 2006 and 2018 has been in multi-family buildings that add considerable supply but tend to have units that are smaller in size (see Figure 5.10a). At their most extreme, market pressures may result in displacement as affordable large rental units are converted to upscale condos or apartments. More often, these pressures mean that families are having a harder time finding suitable housing in Washington, DC. This is supported by the 2017 vacancy rate which was 13 percent for studios and one- bedroom units, but just eight percent for units that were three bedrooms or larger.¹ Housing production that could serve families, seniors, and moderate- and low-income households has not kept pace. This disproportionately affects residents of color. 505.6

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

⬚ figure

Policy H-1.3.1: Housing for Larger Households

Increase the supply of larger family-sized housing units for both ownership and rental by encouraging new and retaining existing single-family homes, duplexes, row houses, and three- and four-bedroom market rate and affordable apartments across Washington, DC. The effort should focus on both affordability of the units and the unit and building design features that support families, as well as the opportunity to locate near neighborhood amenities, such as parks, transit, schools, and retail. 505¹

Policy H-1.3.2: Tenure Diversity

Encourage the production of both renter- and owner-occupied housing, including housing that is affordable at low-income levels, throughout the District. 505²

Policy H-1.3.3: Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing

Promote the development of neighborhood-based assisted living, adult day services with dementia care, and skilled nursing facilities. Zoning and health regulations should be designed to promote an increase in supply, security, and affordability of housing for older adults. 505³

Policy H-1.3.4: Cooperatives and Co-housing

Encourage cooperatives, shared housing, and co-housing (housing with private bedrooms but shared kitchens and common areas) as a more

affordable alternative to condominiums. Explore how both housing types might support multigenerational households. 505.11¹

Policy H-1.3.5: Student Housing

Require colleges and universities to address the housing needs of their students and promote the use of such housing by their students. 505.12²

Policy H-1.3.6: Single Room Occupancy Units

Allow the development of single room occupancy (SRO) housing in appropriate zone districts. 505.13³

Please consult the Land Use Element for policies on row house conversions to multi-family units.

Action H-1.3.A: Create Tools for the Production and Retention of Larger Family-Sized Units in Multi-Family Housing

Research land use tools and techniques, including development standards, to encourage the development of residential units that meet the needs of larger families, with a focus on financing affordable units in high-cost areas. 505.14⁴

Action H-1.3.B: Technical Assistance for Condominiums and Cooperatives

Develop technical assistance and innovative management models to assist in the long-term maintenance and sustainability of condominiums and cooperatives. 505.15⁵

H-1.4 Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization 506⁶

Housing programs alone cannot create a livable, inclusive District. Linking housing programs to efforts to reduce poverty, improve schools, provide quality retail and upgrade services, such as childcare and job training is an important part of attracting and retaining residents. Renovation of schools, libraries, health centers, parks and playgrounds, sidewalks and bike lanes, and other neighborhood amenities affect a community’s social opportunities and can influence housing choice. These actions will attract new supply to a wider range of underinvested areas and broaden Washington, DC’s affordability. Economic development initiatives can generate income and employment, which create the means to expand housing opportunities. These types of investments can help to affirmatively further fair housing choice across the District. Data on public safety, employment, income, education, and other variables can help guide investment to improve housing equity and the quality of life in all District neighborhoods. 506.1⁷

Starting in 2000, the District targeted capital investments to several formerly underserved areas for economic and social recovery. Twelve areas were designated as Strategic Neighborhood Improvement Program (SNIP) areas,

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

with accompanying investments in housing, schools, streetscape, parks, and other public facilities. One of the shared characteristics of these areas was the opportunity for infill development on scattered vacant and abandoned sites.¹

While SNIP is no longer active, its focused approach provided important lessons for neighborhood revitalization. For instance, total public investment in Columbia Heights included the Metro station, new and existing affordable housing, five new public spaces or recreation centers, and three new or totally remodeled public school facilities and targeted the reduction of vacant or underused properties. The Metro station is now the most heavily used outside of downtown. Home value appreciation since 2000 has been one of the highest in Washington, DC, and it has some of the highest market rate rents. The Columbia Heights neighborhood is also one of the most diverse neighborhoods, where approximately 18 percent of the housing supply is subsidized affordable rental housing; however, the area also experienced displacement of lower income Black and Latino residents.²

Similar efforts have been made through the PADD Program, which acquires and disposes of vacant properties to private and non-profit developers through a land subsidy. The program requires that 30 percent of the new units created in each bundle of properties are sold to households at or below 60 percent of the MFI (see text box entitled Home Again/Property Acquisition and Disposition).³

On a much larger scale, the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) has rebuilt entire communities through the federal HOPE VI Program, which is now called the Choice Neighborhoods Program, replacing deteriorating public affordable housing projects like the Frederick Douglass and Stanton Dwellings with new mixed-income neighborhoods like Henson Ridge. More recent sites within the Choice Neighborhoods program include Kenilworth/Parkside, which received local planning approval in 2016. Similar efforts have been proposed through NCI (see text

Home Again/Property Acquisition and Disposition

⬚ figure

Home Again/PADD

Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) Home Again Initiative, which became PADD in 2008, was launched in January 2002 with the goal of creating homeownership opportunities for persons of all incomes. PADD is responsible for acquiring and disposing of vacant and abandoned properties in the District, as well as stabilization of the vacant properties it owns. Initially, the program focused on nine neighborhoods with a higher average of such vacant and abandoned properties: Columbia Heights, Ivy City/Trinidad, Near Northeast, Shaw/LeDroit Park, Rosedale, Deanwood, Marshall Heights, Anacostia, and Bellevue. PADD is working to dispose its current inventory. As it does, it should strategically acquire vacant buildings and land.⁴

The New Communities Initiative

New Communities Initiative (NCI) is a District-led initiative that has the potential to reduce crime, improve neighborhood schools and health services, and create economic opportunities for affordable housing residents. The initiative is a partnership between the District government and the private and nonprofit sectors to produce new housing, reduce violent crime, and create a healthy environment for families in some of Washington, DC’s most vulnerable neighborhoods. 506.4a1

NCI is using District local and capital funding sources, tax exempt bonds, low-income housing tax credits, federal funds, and private investment to create mixed-income housing opportunities in these areas. One-for-one replacement of older publicly assisted housing units with new affordable units is necessary to avoid displacement and the net loss of affordable units. In addition, the initiative attempts to use surrounding public and private parcels to build the replacement affordable housing first and minimize temporary displacement of residents from their neighborhood. Market rate and moderate-income housing units are included in each project to cross-subsidize the affordable units and create a mix of incomes and unit types in each project. 506.4a2

NCI seeks to advance many community development and housing goals, such as promoting affordable housing across all incomes and household sizes, furthering fair housing opportunities, and preserving affordable housing. NCI aims to eliminate substandard housing and provide public housing residents with affordable replacement housing in the new community as it is redeveloped. 506.4a3

Planning for the first new community (Northwest One) started in 2004. The first component, completed in 2011, was the new Walker Jones Elementary School, and the first three buildings of replacement housing were completed in 2011, 2013, and 2014. A major portion of the remaining project received predevelopment approvals in 2016. In the end, the Northwest One New Community Plan will replace more than 500 units of subsidized housing in this neighborhood with a total of 1,500 units of mixed-income housing. 506.4a4

Three additional communities (Barry Farm, Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings, and Park Morton) were added and are in various stages of review and completion. Over the next 10 years, a total of 10 mixed-income developments will provide new community amenities, such as schools, libraries, and recreation centers in each neighborhood. When completed, the four projects within NCI will upgrade 1,500 affordable units within larger mixed-income communities totaling 5,000-6,000 new units. 506.4a5

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

In implementation, NCI projects have taken significantly longer than anticipated and not always aligned with the expectations of the affected communities or commitments of the initiative to redevelop communities with older public housing into mixed income neighborhoods while avoiding the displacement of residents and a net loss of affordable housing. 506.4a6

The first demolition for Northwest One began in 2008, while the anticipated completion of the last stage with over half of the affordable replacement units is set for 2023. While providing around 1500 units to replace the original 520 units, a third of which are affordable to low-income or extremely low-income households, respectively, and a third of which are market rate, the District was not able to meet its displacement goals and instead showed that its commitment to existing low-income residents must be stronger. 506.4a7

The District rescinded on the commitment to build first at Barry Farm and residents were moved for demolition that began in 2019. The build first commitment currently remains in place for Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings and Park Morton. Although a 2014 evaluation found that building first would be costly and slow for Park Morton, the District is continuing to seek ways to avoid a full relocation of the community’s residents prior to rebuilding. The three projects have resulted in the relocation of nearly 1,000 households to temporary housing. This creates an imperative for the District to cultivate continued community connections for displaced residents and remove all obstacles to returning, such as tenant eligibility screening. 506.4a8

box entitled The New Communities Initiative). HOPE VI redevelopments often resulted in the original residents moving to other communities and the new developments having fewer affordable units than the prior properties. The policies for Choice Neighborhoods and NCI place more emphasis on minimizing displacement, ensuring a right to return, and one-for-one replacement of affordable units, although the polices are not yet showing different results.

Federal funding, not only for neighborhood revitalization efforts but also routine maintenance of public housing and other dedicated affordable housing, has fluctuated but remained far below the minimum needed for capital repairs and improvements for decades. This creates an increasingly difficult challenge for the District in meeting the housing needs of extremely-low-income households. DCHA is working to repair or redevelop approximately 2,600 affordable housing units with immediate critical needs and establish a longer-term plan for the remaining capital needs within its portfolio of publicly assisted housing, as described in the August 2019 Working Draft of Our People, Our Portfolio, Our Plan. To support DCHA’s 20-year Transformation Plan, the District can contribute resources to supplement federal shortfalls; enhance existing policies, tools, and

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

programs for resident protection and engagement; and support the capacity of DCHA to use proven and emerging approaches for housing production, preservation, public housing operations, and other housing opportunities.¹

Policy H-1.4.1: Restoration of Vacant Housing

Target neighborhoods with a higher presence of vacant and abandoned buildings and make the restoration of vacant housing units a major government priority. Where restoration receives public funding, ensure that a substantial share of the renovated units are made available to persons with disabilities or are deeply affordable. ²

Policy H-1.4.2: Opportunities for Upward Mobility

Provide opportunities for residents of District-owned and District-assisted housing to achieve self-sufficiency and upward mobility. Specifically, explore mechanisms for residents of District-owned and District-assisted housing to become homeowners. At the same time, work to replace units purchased with new District-owned and District-assisted housing stock. ³

Policy H-1.4.3: Focusing Housing Investments

Direct housing improvement funds to neighborhoods with the greatest potential for sustained improvement, based on demographics, market forces, equity considerations that consider existing racial gaps in housing access and opportunity, and historic and current barriers, the presence of neighborhood partners and anchor institutions, and similar factors. ⁴

Policy H-1.4.4: Public Housing Renovation

Public housing is a critical part of meeting the demand for affordable housing and preventing displacement. Continue efforts to transform underfunded public housing projects to create equitable mixed-income neighborhoods. An equitable mixed-income neighborhood is one in which residents describe the neighborhood as safe for them and responsive to their concerns and ideas. Inform and engage the affected community throughout the redevelopment process. Target such efforts to locations where private sector development interest can be leveraged to assist in the revitalization, and support community programs and services that assist with creating and maintaining equity. Redevelopment of public housing must achieve all applicable strategies listed in 510.4a. ⁵

Policy H-1.4.5: Scattered Site Acquisition

Encourage the acquisition of individual properties on scattered sites for use as affordable housing to deconcentrate poverty, provide more opportunities to low- income persons to attend long-standing high-performing schools in their neighborhoods, and promote and support the integration of low-income households into the community at large. ⁶

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Policy H-1.4.6: Whole Neighborhood Approach

Ensure that planning and new construction of housing is accompanied by concurrent planning and programs to improve neighborhood services, schools, job training, childcare, services for older adults, food access, parks, libraries, community gardens, and open spaces, health care facilities, police and fire facilities, transportation, and emergency response capacity. 506.11¹

Action H-1.4.A: Renovation and Rehabilitation of Public Affordable Housing

Continue federal and local programs to rehabilitate and rebuild the District’s affordable housing units, including the Choice Neighborhood program, Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program, capital and modernization programs, the CDBG Program, and the District-sponsored NCI. 506.12²

Action H-1.4.B: Home Again Initiative/PADD

Continue support for PADD as a strategy for reducing neighborhood vacancies, restoring an important part of the District’s historic fabric, and providing mixed- income housing in neighborhoods with a significant presence of vacant or abandoned residential properties. 506.13³

Action H-1.4.C: DCHA Improvements

Continue improving the operations of the District’s existing publicly assisted housing, Housing Choice Voucher, and Local Rent Supplement Programs, including the Family Self Sufficiency program, voucher homeownership, the use of submarket rents to increase use of vouchers in high-cost neighborhoods, and the RAD Program as needed for financing capital needs. Support residents’ aspirations and skill building, such as through coaching, resident hiring and workforce development programs. 506.14⁴

Action H-1.4.D: Tax Abatement

Consider geographically targeted tax abatements and other financial incentives to encourage market rate housing with affordable housing that exceeds minimum IZ standards in areas where housing must compete with office space for land, similar to the former Downtown Tax Abatement Program. Abatements should consider the potential created by the conversion of existing office space to residential. The potential costs and benefits of tax abatements must be thoroughly analyzed as such programs are considered. 506.15⁵

Action H-1.4.E: Additional Public Housing

Support DCHA’s planning goals for its public housing units by developing strategies to meet the needs of existing units and create additional units. Use subsidies from HUD under the public housing Annual Contributions Contract (ACC), RAD, and other sources. Identify methods to use DCHA and HUD programs and resources to acquire or develop additional publicly

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

assisted housing dedicated to extremely-low-income households for the life of the building or in perpetuity. 506[^.16]

Action H-1.4.F: Non-Housing Investment in Areas of Concentrated Poverty

Make non-housing neighborhood economic and community development investments and preserve existing subsidized affordable housing in R/ECAP (as defined by HUD) to improve neighborhood amenities and attract private sector investment to expand housing supply. 506[^.17]

Action H-1.4.G: Co-Location of Housing with Public Facilities

As part of Facility Master Plans and the Capital Improvement Program, conduct a review of and maximize any opportunities to co-locate mixed-income, multi- family housing, emphasizing affordable housing, when there is a proposal for a new or substantially upgraded local public facility, particularly in high-cost areas. 506[^.18]

H-1.5 Reducing Barriers to Production [^p43-507]

The development of housing may be hampered by both governmental and non- governmental constraints. Governmental constraints include lengthy delays in permit processing and plan approval; insufficient coordination among agencies and utilities; zoning regulations, which may not reflect contemporary housing trends; and even prohibitions on certain types of housing. Non-governmental constraints include the high cost of land and rising interest rates. Although much progress has been made, serious barriers still exist. Fear of these barriers, and their costs, keep some developers from undertaking projects in Washington, DC at all and some homeowners from registering their basement units or other rental uses of their property. 507[^.1]

Policy H-1.5.1: Land and Building Regulations

Ensure the District’s land regulations, including its housing and building codes, zoning regulations, construction standards, and permitting fees, enable the production of housing for all income groups. Avoid regulations that make it prohibitively expensive or difficult to construct housing. 507[^.2]

Policy H-1.5.2: Permitting Procedures

Minimize the cost and time associated with development processing while still addressing community and environmental concerns. Explore measures to improve the permitting process, provided that such measures are consistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 507[^.3]

Policy H-1.5.3: Modular Construction

Ensure that the District’s building and housing codes permit the appropriate use of modular and manufactured construction techniques, and other

⬚ figure

“Take the risk of giving homeownership loans to low income renters to encourage as many renters to become owners as possible.”

— PARTICIPANT AT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP.

construction methods that may reduce housing costs without compromising building or design quality. 507.4¹

Policy H-1.5.4: Financial Incentives

Consider tax incentives, reduced permitting and infrastructure fees, underwriting land costs, and other financial measures to reduce the cost of affordable housing construction. 507.5²

Action H-1.5.A: Smart Housing Codes

Update and modernize the District Housing Code to reflect the current trend toward smart housing codes, which are structured to encourage building rehabilitation and reuse of housing units built before modern building codes were enacted. 507.6³

Action H-1.5.B: Data Management

Maintain electronic inventories of existing housing and potential development sites for the benefit of residents, developers, and policy makers. This information should be used to track housing development and promote better-informed choices regarding public investment and affordable housing development. 507.7⁴

Action H-1.5.C: Reducing Cost of Public Financing

Coordinate and better leverage the resources of the District’s housing agencies to reduce the cost of financing. Use technology to expedite the processing and distribution of affordable housing funds, track and monitor applications for such funds, and improve operating procedures for District financing of affordable housing and housing services. 507.8⁵

Action H-1.5.D: Support of Accessory Dwelling Units

Study whether recent zoning changes are sufficient to facilitate the creation of accessory dwelling units, or whether barriers to their creation still exist, and remove unnecessary obstacles to their creation. Incorporate racial equity considerations into the study. Investigate the benefits of financially supporting accessory dwelling units and design a pilot program to increase the number of affordable housing units through accessory dwelling units. 507.9⁶

Action H-1.5.E: Remove Regulatory Obstacles

Continue to identify and review regulatory impediments to the production of market rate and affordable housing. Remove unnecessary and burdensome regulations and propose more efficient and effective alternatives for achieving important policy and regulatory goals. 507.10⁷

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

H-1.6 Sustainability and Resilience ¹

Policies to promote resilient housing specifically address housing that can withstand potential physical and resulting economic shocks from major hazards and stresses. Such shocks can destabilize the housing market and threaten affordability especially for vulnerable residents. Affordability and sustainability policies can keep residents housed and safe. For example, energy and water efficiency reduces household expenses and deepens housing affordability for District residents. Inclusive housing enhances the community’s ability to respond, as one, to chronic stresses and unanticipated shocks. Combined resilient and inclusive housing provides residents with the financial capacity and social networks to absorb, recover from, and overcome current and future challenges facing the District. ²

While Washington, DC continues to incorporate the latest best practices into its building codes, there are additional opportunities to promote more sustainable and resilient housing. New construction and design techniques can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and buffer occupants from any harmful effects of future climate conditions or potential floods that will occur during the expected useful life of built structures. As important as building resilience into new housing, the District should also consider ways to strengthen resilience and increase the adaptive capacity of its older residential building stock, including in historic districts. ³

The benefits of creating safer and more sustainable housing for all residents go beyond reducing the risk to life and property from shocks or stresses. It decreases demands on emergency response, such as allowing people to shelter in place versus evacuating Washington, DC or going to public shelters during disaster events. It also decreases the potential for disruptive impacts on vital services, commerce, and the economy by reducing the number of vulnerable people who will end up being physically displaced by economic or other forces following such events. ⁴

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) fosters sustainability and resilience. Concentrated residential housing combined with a mix of other uses around Metro stations and high-capacity surface transit corridors reduces District residents’ reliance on automobiles, thereby reducing GHG emissions. It is also proven to reduce a household’s combined cost of housing and transportation. This can free up disposable income to increase the rate at which households save for future needs. Affordable housing near public transit can ensure that low-income households also receive these benefits. A 2011 study conducted for the District by the Center for Neighborhood Technology found that, on average, District households spent 26 percent less on transportation than the rest of the metropolitan area. It is important to consider this in the context of the differing transportation modes available to and used by lower income residents, as well as the potential benefits to them from TOD development. The reduction in transportation costs

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

provides greater affordability for the typical household living in the District than one living farther out, where housing is less expensive but more dependent on automobiles. Finally, housing in pedestrian-friendly, transit-rich environments proved to be more resilient to the price fluctuations caused by the foreclosure financial crisis. This protected homeowner equity from significant damage. 508.4¹

Policy H-1.6.1: Resilient and Climate-Adaptive Housing

Incorporate current best practices for resilient, climate-adaptive design in the adoption and enforcement of the District’s building and housing construction codes. Base the codes on projected future climate or natural hazard conditions for the District informed by the best available data. 508.5²

Policy H-1.6.2: Rehabilitation of Vulnerable Housing

Improve the structural resilience of existing housing units that are at risk from natural hazards through the promotion of mitigation techniques, such as building upgrades and elevating electrical or mechanical equipment above designated flood elevations. 508.6³

Policy H-1.6.3: Permanent Post-Disaster Housing

Support households affected by large-scale disasters either by successfully retaining them in their homes and avoiding displacement or by returning them to safe, suitable, and affordable housing promptly through technical assistance and clear and comprehensive reconstruction guidelines. Include special emphasis on rebuilding homes in locations and according to standards that make them more resilient to future shocks and stresses. 508.7⁴

Policy H-1.6.4: Retrofits for Sustainability

Use low-interest loans and other incentives to encourage retrofits that improve energy efficiency, reduce water use, and lower home heating and cooling costs, thereby reducing energy use, GHG emissions, and monthly housing expenditures. 508.8⁵

Policy H-1.6.5: Net-Zero, Energy Efficient Housing

Encourage new housing units in the District to be net-zero energy and water efficient. 508.9⁶

Action H-1.6.A: Monitoring and Updating Data to Support Recovery from 2020 Health Emergency

Monitor and update appropriate data to support 2020 public health emergency response and recovery efforts. Such data will include a wide range of housing factors and drivers, such as jobs, population, housing supply and demand. Collect data to support racial equity analyses and responses. 508.10⁷

Please consult the Land Use, Transportation and Environment Element for additional policies and actions on sustainability, resilience, and transit-oriented development.

H-2 Housing Preservation: Retaining Housing Opportunities ¹

Along with increasing housing and affordable housing supply, preservation of housing in the District is critical. This section focuses on two aspects of housing preservation: retaining affordable housing units specifically and retaining existing housing stock generally. ²

The affordability of the District has been declining over the past five years, even though funding for affordable units has increased. This has been due to a combination of both the expiration of federal subsidies and rising market rents and sales prices. Between 2006 and 2017, the number of rental units affordable to households earning less than 60 percent of the MFI decreased by close to 18,300 units. Figure 5.10b also shows that the number of rental units affordable to those earning more than 60 percent increased by approximately 44,800. Over the same period, the median sales prices of homes rose almost 7.3 percent per year, while condominiums rose 2.8 percent per year. Between 2006 and 2017, the area’s MFI rose by an average compounded rate of less than 1.8 percent a year. These changes have been especially hard on the District’s lowest-income residents, particularly renters who are older adults and those on fixed incomes. These impacts are likely experienced more broadly and deeply for communities of color, given the racial differences in median family income. ³

An important part of housing preservation is the maintenance and modernization of existing housing stock and its components, such as heating

Figure 5.10b: Change in Supply of Rental Units by Affordability: 2006-2017 ⁴

Source: U.S. Census ACS PUMS, OP

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

⬚ figure

Rental housing comprises almost 60 percent of the housing stock and is the main housing option for those just entering the workforce and those without the initial resources to purchase a home.

Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund

The Public-Private Affordable Housing Preservation Fund proposed by the Preservation Strike Force and created in Fiscal Year 2017 is one important step to ensure the District does not lose expiring affordable housing. The innovative fund mixes both public and private dollars to provide rapid bridge acquisition and predevelopment financing. Capitalized in 2017 with $10 million of public financing and $30 million in initial capital from private partners, the fund could leverage a total of $80 million toward the preservation of expiring affordable housing. ¹

and air conditioning systems. Almost 62 percent of the housing units in Washington, DC are in buildings that are over 55 years old, and many are over 100 years old. The rise in home prices has been accompanied by a rise in building material and labor costs, making it expensive for many owners to care for their properties. In some parts of the Washington, DC, lack of maintenance by absentee landlords may jeopardize the longevity of the housing stock and negatively affect neighborhood character. Maintenance and energy upgrades will continue to be an issue in the future as the existing housing stock grows older and construction, utility, and maintenance costs increase. ²

H-2.1 Preservation of Affordable Housing ³

The Homes for an Inclusive City task force report stated that roughly 30,000 affordable and inexpensive market rate housing units throughout the District were at risk of being lost. This is more than 10 percent of the Washington, DC’s housing stock, and it is home to many of the District’s most vulnerable residents. To avoid displacement, the District will need to channel a greater share of the revenues being created by the strong housing market into new programs that preserve affordable units. This must be a priority in the District’s high-cost areas, as well as its lowest-income areas. Preserving affordable units in higher-income neighborhoods is especially important given the high cost of producing new units. ⁴

Many of the units that are at risk currently receive their funding through the federal Section 8 program. The program was initiated in 1974 and placed 20- to 40-year affordability contracts on apartment buildings. Thousands of these contracts are now expiring, with many of the units being converted to market rate rentals. Similarly, tax credit affordable housing projects, which largely started in the 1990s, are now expiring after 30 years of affordability requirements. The Preservation Strike Force Report estimated that, between 2016 and 2020, expiring subsidies will place approximately 13,700 units at risk. Many are located in developing neighborhoods, and there are few incentives for building owners to keep them affordable. ⁵

Publicly subsidized affordable housing options had decreased by 2006, with the expiration of Section 8 contracts and other subsidies, and with the District moving forward with the demolition of 3,000 public housing units to make way for mixed-income projects at East Capitol Gateway, Ellen Wilson, Henson Ridge, Wheeler Creek, and Arthur Capper Carrollsburg. Among these, only Ellen Wilson and Capper Carrollsburg included one-for-one replacement units for each subsidized affordable removed. ⁶

What Is Displacement?

Displacement is an issue that many residents and policy makers are concerned about and is a critical challenge when attempting to achieve an equitable District. But it is also not a clearly defined term; it often relates to observation of neighborhood change at a high level, as well as situations in which a household is forced to move from its residence at the individual level. For purposes of clarifying processes and use for the Comprehensive Plan, there are three forms of displacement: physical displacement as households must move when the properties they occupy are redeveloped, economic displacement as housing cost increases in the neighborhood force the household to find other housing options, and cultural displacement as residents lose a sense of belonging or shared identity in their neighborhood due to neighborhood change or growth. While these may relate, they each have different planning responses. 510.3a

How Displacement Affects Washington, DC

Information about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units, illustrated in Figure 5.10b, along with the decline of the number of lower-income, primarily Black households, which can be found in the Framework Element, indicates that Washington, DC has experienced significant displacement in many neighborhoods and across the District. National-level studies suggest that, by some measures, the District is the U.S. city most affected by both the increasing demand for housing from higher-income households and the decline in the number of lower-income households. 510.3b

Between 2006 and 2017, Washington, DC experienced a decline of more than 15,600 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI; 9,250 households were homeowners, and 6,350 were rental households. Capitol Hill and other Northeast neighborhoods experienced the greatest decline, with a decrease of 5,950 households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the MFI. During this time, the data suggests there was a modest increase of extremely low-income households District-wide; most moved to Wards 7 and 8 and to Upper Northwest/Northeast, where many have ended up paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. 510.3c

Addressing Displacement in Washington, DC

Washington, DC has one of the strongest sets of anti-displacement programs in the country, which includes rent control, eviction protection, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA), locally subsidized rents, tax assessment caps, and tax credits for low-income and older homeowners. 510.3d

Yet, protecting all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable, from the forces that lead to displacement clearly continues to be one of the greatest challenges to growing an equitable and inclusive District. The number of residents affected by physical displacement is relatively small on an annual basis and they can be provided assistance more easily than the significantly larger number and range of households facing economic displacement from rising housing costs caused mainly by a lack of supply. Minimizing the impacts of physical and economic displacement requires balancing the cost-effective

approach of preserving mixed-income housing in some locations and expanding housing supply, particularly affordable housing, in others through new construction and redevelopment. Achieving such balance will require a greater understanding of neighborhood submarkets, a more sophisticated approach to the allocation of funding, and difficult discussions among community stakeholders regarding approaches to increasing density. Addressing the broader economic displacement goes well beyond the responsibility of any single development. The District must strengthen existing policies and develop new ones to counteract and mitigate physical and economic displacement. 510.3e

The decline in the number of low-income homeowners, who are more insulated from rising housing costs, is an indication of cultural displacement. Older lower- income households face many life changes or may pass their property on to heirs, leading to a natural turnover in residents and new faces in the neighborhood. Those who stay, experience the loss of long-term friends, neighbors, and local businesses, and often are confronted by the ever-increasing lure from the economic gain of selling. Confronting this form of displacement will require greater neighbor-to-neighbor and broader civic engagement. Housing policy can serve to retain vulnerable residents but minimizing the impact of cultural displacement means maintaining community cultural institutions and businesses, creating civic spaces and events that cross cultural divides, and balancing different needs. The efforts should invite all to participate, interact, and grow a common experience and identity, encouraging new residents to respect the identity of the neighborhood they are joining. Information about focusing efforts in this direction can be found in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Those efforts, along with policies of the Housing Element, will help ensure that, as neighborhoods change and evolve, neighbors continue to see that there is a place for them in their community and to share in the benefits of living in Washington, DC. 510.3f

Displacement is a District-wide issue. All residents have a stake in addressing it because it affects both current and future residents. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan, along with the District’s housing programs and initiatives, will bolster the manner in which all forms of displacement are addressed. 510.3g

In addition to policies contained in the Housing Element, see also the Arts and Culture Element and refer to the Office of Planning’s Equity Crosswalk for policies and actions that address cultural displacement. 510.3h

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Looking to the future, Washington, DC will need to strengthen existing and add new programs to preserve its affordable stock, particularly its subsidized rental units. Rental housing comprises almost 60 percent of the housing stock and is the main housing option for those just entering the workforce and those without the initial resources to purchase a home. Low-income renters are already more likely to pay more than half of their incomes on housing than any other group. In 2006, a proposal for a District-sponsored rent subsidy program (similar to Section 8) called the Local Rent Supplement Program was implemented to offset the expiring federal subsidies and help other households who are cost-burdened. The proposal called for direct rental assistance to 14,600 extremely low-income renters. The program has been expanded over the past several years from 2,800 households to over 5,700 and a total cost of $100 million per year.¹

Strategies for the Redevelopment of Existing Dedicated Affordable Housing

Many of Washington, DC’s affordable housing developments are aging past their functional lives. This means that, in addition to the affordability controls expiring, the structures and systems are sometimes in a state of disrepair, inefficient, and without modern amenities. Redevelopment or substantial rehabilitation to provide decent, safe housing and prevent displacement from lack of habitability is essential. Redevelopment, however, creates short- and long-term displacement risks. As the cost of housing rises, the need for income-restricted affordable units becomes even greater. Affordable housing properties may contain a layering of project-and tenant-based subsidies at the federal and local levels, as well as naturally occurring affordability. In many cases, many different types of subsidy may exist in one building, which presents a challenge in prescribing singular strategies to prevent displacement of low-income residents. Redevelopment or rehabilitation of income-restricted affordable housing should use the following strategies, ordered by priority, to minimize displacement, maximize the return of tenants to their community, and retain affordable housing:

• Include tenants’ right of return to a replacement unit under the same tenancy qualifications. Provide a comprehensive relocation plan for tenants prior to redevelopment.
• Implement one for one replacement of income-restricted affordable units at the same affordability levels, and for the unit sizes needed by existing residents. Replace family sized housing in a manner that meets tenants’ housing needs and the needs of households on the waiting list that are the hardest to house in the private market, including the preferences of multi-generational families.
• When redeveloping the property, build replacement affordable units first prior to any off-site physical relocation from existing affordable units, or provide appropriate offsite affordable units as new permanent housing within the project neighborhood, if necessary due to site constraints.
• Projects accepting tenant-based vouchers must accept tenant-based vouchers following redevelopment.

In addition to the strategies listed above, redevelopment of affordable housing should increase the capacity of housing overall, including new dedicated affordable and market-rate units in mixed-income communities.²

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Policy H-2.1.1 Redeveloping Existing Dedicated Affordable Housing

Redevelopment of public housing must make every effort to achieve all strategies in 510.4a. Redevelopment of income-restricted affordable housing by other parties should implement as many of the strategies in 510.4a as possible. The availability and certainty of land use and financial and regulatory incentives to make the projects feasible are critical to achieve these strategies. ¹

Policy H-2.1.2: Preserving Affordable Rental Housing

Recognize the importance of preserving rental housing affordability to the well- being of the District and the diversity of its neighborhoods. Undertake programs to preserve the supply of subsidized rental units and low-cost market rate units, with an emphasis on preserving affordable units in high-cost or rapidly changing neighborhoods, where the opportunity for new affordable units is limited. ²

Policy H-2.1.3: Expiring Federal Subsidies

Preserve 100 percent of expiring subsidies for affordable housing units, particularly those in Section 8-based projects and projects funded with low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt bonds, wherever possible. ³

Policy H-2.1.4: Avoiding Displacement

Maintain programs to prevent long-term displacement resulting from the loss of rental housing units due to demolition or conversion, and minimize short-term displacement during major rehabilitation efforts, and the financial hardships created by rising rents on tenants and other shocks or stresses. Employ TOPA, DOPA, and other financial tools, such as the HPTF and the Preservation Fund. In addition, provide technical and counseling assistance to lower-income households and strengthen the rights of existing tenants to purchase rental units if they are being converted to ownership units. ⁴

Policy H-2.1.5: Conversion of At-Risk Rentals to Affordable Units

Support efforts to purchase affordable rental buildings that are at risk of being sold and converted to luxury apartments or condominiums to retain the units as affordable. Consider a variety of programs to own and manage these units, such as land banks, DOPA, TOPA, and sale to nonprofit housing organizations. ⁵

Policy H-2.1.6: Long-Term Affordability Restrictions

Ensure that affordable housing units that are created or preserved with public financing are protected by long-term affordability restrictions and are monitored to prevent their transfer to non-qualifying households. Except where precluded by program requirements, affordable units should remain affordable for as long as possible and align with the length and magnitude of the subsidy. For land disposition and affordable housing tied to zoning relief,

affordability should last for the life of the building, with equity and asset buildup opportunities provided for ownership units. 510¹

Policy H-2.1.7: Rent Control

Maintain rent control as a tool for moderating the affordability of rental properties and protecting long-term residents, especially older adults, low-income households, and those with disabilities. In considering refinements to the rent control program, the District should be careful to determine whether the proposed changes improve effectiveness, fairness, and affordability without discouraging maintenance and preservation of rental housing units. Rent control should be primarily considered a tenant protection and anti-displacement tool, and therefore should not be utilized to define or assess progress toward income restricted affordable housing production and preservation goals. 510²

Policy H-2.1.8: Direct Rental Assistance

Develop and fund programs that provide direct rental subsidies for extremely low-income households (earning less than 30 percent of MFI), including persons experiencing homelessness and families in need of permanent shelter or rapid rehousing. Continue support for federally funded rental assistance programs, including public housing, project-based Section 8, other project-based rental assistance, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 510³

Policy H-2.1.9: Redevelopment of Affordable Housing

As dedicated affordable housing reaches the end of its functional life, support maintaining or expanding the quantity of dedicated affordable housing in the redevelopment of the site to the greatest extent feasible, in line with the District’s goals as identified in the Framework Element including those for racial equity and equitable development, and with all applicable redevelopment strategies as referenced in Policy H-2.1.1. 510⁴

Action H-2.1.A: Rehabilitation Grants

Maintain a rehabilitation grant program for owners of small apartment buildings, linking the grants to income limits for future tenants. Such programs have been successful in preserving housing affordability. 510⁵

Action H-2.1.B: Local Rent Supplement

Expand the Local Rent Supplement Program for both tenant and new project- based support targeted toward public and privately held extremely low-income housing and housing for formerly homeless individuals and families. 510⁶

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Action H-2.1.C: Purchase of Expiring Subsidized Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing

Implement and use DOPA to acquire, preserve, and dedicate new affordable housing through a process that will maintain the properties with long-term affordability requirements. ¹

Action H-2.1.D: Affordable Set-Asides in Condo Conversions

In a condo conversion, 20 percent of the units should be earmarked for qualifying low- and moderate-income households. In addition, condominium maintenance fees should be set proportionally to the unit price so that otherwise affordable units do not become out-of-reach because of high fees. ²

Action H-2.1.E: Housing Registry

Maintain a registry of affordable or accessible housing units in the District and a program to match these units with qualifying low-income households. ³

Action H-2.1.F: Affordable Housing Preservation Unit

Establish and maintain a division within District government to systematically and proactively work with tenants, owners of affordable housing, investors, their representatives, and others associated with real estate and housing advocacy in Washington, DC to establish relationships and gather intelligence to preserve affordable housing and expand future opportunities by converting naturally affordable unassisted units to long-term dedicated affordable housing. ⁴

Action H-2.1.G: Expand Acquisition Funding for Preservation

Continue funding for public-private partnerships to facilitate acquisition and early investments to leverage greater amounts of private capital for the preservation of affordable housing. ⁵

Action H-2.1.H: Improve Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Program

Improve the preservation of affordable housing through TOPA and TOPA exemptions by providing financial incentives to TOPA transactions, including predevelopment work, legal services, third-party reports, and acquisition bridge financing. The effort should include tracking mechanisms to collect accurate program data and evaluate outcomes for further improvement in the program. ⁶

Action H-2.1.I: Anti-Displacement Strategy

Track neighborhood change, development, and housing costs to identify areas of Washington, DC that have experienced, are experiencing, or are likely to experience, displacement pressures. Collect, disaggregate, and monitor data to consider income and racial characteristics of the neighborhoods and households affected by or at risk of displacement.

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

Conduct racial equity analyses that identify the policies and underlying forces contributing to any inequities. Such analyses must consider different sources of displacement pressures, including a lack of new housing in high-demand neighborhoods and effects new development may have on housing costs in adjacent areas. Monitor best practices and identify new strategies for displacement prevention. Use the information to create a District-wide anti-displacement strategy, prepare reoccurring reports, improve program performance, and identify targeted areas within which to deploy resources to prevent displacement and help residents with the highest displacement risks stay in their neighborhoods. Examine ways to support low-income residents in areas that have already experienced rapid displacement, such as those in Mid-City and Near Northwest. 510.22

H-2.2 Housing Conservation and Maintenance ¹

Despite the advancing age of Washington, DC’s building stock, most of the District’s housing is in good condition. The number of vacant and abandoned units has continued to decline since 2006[^] and reinvestment in housing stock has occurred in all parts of Washington, DC. There are still threats, however. Demolition by neglect remains an issue in some neighborhoods, while other neighborhoods face the risk of housing being converted to non-residential uses, such as medical offices and nonprofits. The long-term conservation of housing requires policies and actions that promote housing rehabilitation, upkeep, and modernization while discouraging conversion to non-residential uses. 511.1

As noted above, housing conservation programs are particularly important for the District’s older adults (residents 60 years old and above), many of whom are on fixed incomes. Older adults make up 11 percent of the District’s population, but they represent over 27 percent of its homeowners. These older adults may need low-interest loans, grants, tax credits, income from home sharing arrangements and accessory dwelling units, and other programs and arrangements that reduce the financial burden of homeownership. Similar efforts are needed to assist extremely low-income households. Their housing units are often overcrowded and have structural problems and code compliance issues that affect their habitability. 511.2

Policy H-2.2.1: Housing Conversion

Discourage the conversion of viable, quality housing units to non-residential uses, such as offices and hotels. Use, and as needed update, zoning regulations to avoid the loss of housing in this manner. 511.3

Policy H-2.2.2: Housing Maintenance

Support voluntary, philanthropic, nonprofit, private, and District-sponsored programs that assist residents in the upkeep of their homes and properties,

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

particularly programs that provide low-interest loans and grants for low-income residents, older homeowners, and people living with disabilities. 511.4¹

Policy H-2.2.3: Tax Relief

Maintain and simplify tax relief measures for homeowners, especially older adults and those with low incomes, faced with rising assessments and property taxes by using common income definitions and progressive relief according to need. These measures should reduce the pressure on long-term residents, especially low- income owners, to sell their homes and move out of the District. 511.5²

Policy H-2.2.4: Healthy Homes

Implement programs to reduce and mitigate potential health hazards in older homes, such as lead pipes, mold, and carbon monoxide. Programs to increase the environmental sustainability of the housing stock and residential construction are also encouraged. 511.6³

Action H-2.2.A: Housing Code Enforcement

Improve the enforcement of housing codes to prevent deteriorated, unsafe, and unhealthy housing conditions, especially in areas of Washington, DC with persistent code enforcement problems. Ensure that tenants are provided information on tenant rights, such as how to obtain inspections, contest petitions for substantial rehabilitation, purchase multi-family buildings, and vote in conversion elections. 511.7⁴

Action H-2.2.B: Sale of Persistent Problem Properties

Address persistent tax and housing code violations through negotiated sales of title sale of properties by putting properties in receivership, foreclosing on tax- delinquent properties, enforcing higher tax rates on vacant and underused property, and through tenants’ rights education, including use of TOPA. Whenever possible, identify alternative housing resources for persons who are displaced by major code enforcement activities. 511.8⁵

See the Historic Preservation Element for additional policies on homeowner tax credits.

Action H-2.2.C: Tax Relief

Review existing tax relief programs for District homeowners and consider changes to unify and simplify programs to help low- and moderate-income households address rising property assessments. Consider using the MFI as a standard for establishing need and eligibility. 511.9⁶

Action H-2.2.D: Program Assistance for Low- and Moderate-Income Owners

Continue to offer comprehensive home maintenance and repair programs for low- and moderate-income owners and renters of single-family homes. These

programs should include counseling and technical assistance, as well as zero interest and deferred interest loans and direct financial assistance. 511.10

H-3 Homeownership and Access ¹

Homeownership gives individuals a stake in the community and a chance to share in its growing prosperity. It can help foster civic pride and engagement, improve family stability, and enhance support for local schools and services. Importantly, homeownership provides a long-term asset to build long-term personal wealth. Affordable homeownership programs provide families with the benefits of value appreciation of their homes, one of the most important tangential benefits of owning instead of renting. For these reasons, the District has had a long-standing policy of helping its residents become homeowners and promoting the construction of new owner-occupied housing in Washington, DC. 512.1

An important part of ownership is access to financing and real estate opportunity. In the past, the practice of redlining (i.e., withholding home loan funds in certain neighborhoods) by certain lenders made it more difficult to secure home loans in parts of Washington, DC. This practice, along with covenants, and other land use and financing restrictions, reflected systemic racism that discriminated against groups by race, as well as ethnicity and faith, resulting in many of the gaps today in homeownership, wealth, and access to opportunity by the District’s communities of color. Enforcement of fair housing practices is important not only to stop unfair lending practices but also to address affordable housing opportunities in high-cost areas, discrimination against renters, single parents, persons with HIV/AIDS, vulnerable populations, older adults, and persons with disabilities. 512.2

H-3.1 Encouraging Homeownership ²

Nationwide, about two-thirds of all households are homeowners. In the District, the 2000 census reported the homeownership rate was just 41 percent. After 2000, the homeownership rate slowly increased to 46 percent until 2006; then the national mortgage collapse caused sharp increases in foreclosures and many lost their homes. Homeownership has since declined and by 2017 stood at 42 percent in Washington, DC. Instability in the homeownership market and limited access to credit has caused many to select rental housing. These national factors are affecting all cities, but the District still has one of the lowest rates of homeownership in the country, well below Philadelphia (53 percent), Baltimore (45 percent), and Chicago (43 percent), although higher than the 32 percent rate in New York and the 34 percent rate in Boston. The ownership rate in the District has increased four percentage points since 1980, when 35 percent of Washington, DC’s households were homeowners. Homeownership for white residents is 49

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

⬚ figure

Meeting the need for moderate-income housing

percent, but only 35 percent for Black residents and 30 percent for Latino residents. ¹

Home prices create a significant obstacle to increasing the homeownership rate. In September 2015, only 38 percent of the homes on the market with two or more bedrooms were affordable to the median income family, and this does not reflect the significant disparity in median income by race, with white households at $143,150 and Black households at $35,563. While the recent increase in the supply of condominiums has improved homeownership prospects somewhat, the options for multigenerational families continue to be limited. ²

DHCD administers several programs to help residents purchase homes. These include PADD, which acquires tax-delinquent properties and bids them out to small developers who fix up the properties and sell or rent them primarily for affordable housing. It also includes the Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP), which offers interest-free and low-interest loans to qualified residents for the purchase of houses, condominiums, or cooperative apartments. The District also provides grants and deferred loans to government employees who are first- time homebuyers. These programs are an important part of the District’s efforts to provide moderate-income housing for its residents (see text box entitled Meeting the Need for Moderate-Income Housing). ³

Meeting the Need for Moderate-Income Housing

As housing prices have outpaced income growth in many U.S. cities, housing advocates and policy makers have called for initiatives to provide moderate-income housing. Moderate-income housing refers to housing designed for people in professions that are essential to a community but do not offer sufficient wages to afford market rate housing. These professions include administrative support, clerical occupations, and service jobs, and account for one-third of the jobs in the American workforce. In the District, Black residents hold the majority of service jobs, at 54 percent, highlighting the need to also address housing barriers from a racial equity perspective. ⁴

Even with two working parents in the service industries, a family would have a difficult time purchasing a home or renting a suitable apartment in the District. Janitors, schoolteachers, licensed nurses, police officers, childcare professionals, and other service workers have been priced out of the District market and many other markets across the country. New programs, such as employer-assisted housing and down payment assistance for public sector employees, are being pursued to provide more options and keep these essential workers in Washington, DC. ⁵

In 2013, Washington, DC piloted a partnership with three employers called the Live Near Your Work (LNYW) Program. The partnership matched a contribution made by employers to provide down payment assistance to encourage employees to live close to their work. Housing tends to be more expensive the closer it is to major job centers. The LNYW Program pilot demonstrated the value of the assistance toward encouraging employees to live closer to work. Evaluations of similar programs across the country have documented the savings in travel time and costs, improvement in employee quality of life, and benefits to the employers in terms of employee performance and turnover. ¹

Policy H-3.1.1: Increasing Homeownership

Enhance community stability by promoting homeownership and creating opportunities for first-time homebuyers in the District. Provide loans, grants, and other District programs to raise the District’s homeownership rate from its year 2016 figure of 39 percent to a year 2025 figure of 44 percent. These programs and opportunities should acknowledge and address the significant racial gaps and barriers to home ownership. Increased opportunities for homeownership should not be provided at the expense of the District’s rental housing programs or through the displacement of low-income renters. ²

Policy H-3.1.2: First-Time Buyer Income Targets

Structure homeownership and down payment assistance programs to benefit working families with incomes between 50 percent and 120 percent of the MFI. ³

Policy H-3.1.3: Asset Development Through Homeownership

Support paths to homeownership that build and sustain equity and develop assets for the transfer of intergenerational wealth, especially for low- and moderate- income households. ⁴

Action H-3.1.A: HPAP Program

Maintain and expand the District’s HPAP by periodically reviewing and establishing appropriate amounts of assistance to continue advancing affordable homeownership for low-income households. ⁵

Action H-3.1.B: District Employer Assisted Housing Program

Strengthen the District government’s existing Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) Program by increasing the amount of EAH awards and removing limitations on applicants seeking to combine EAH assistance with HPAP funds. ⁶

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

⬚ figure

Working together, the Human Rights Act of 1977,...

Action H-3.1.C: New EAH Programs

Encourage major employers in Washington, DC to develop EAH programs for moderate- and middle-income housing, including:

• Private sector employee benefit packages that include grants, forgivable loans, and on-site homeownership seminars for first-time buyers;
• Federal programs that would assist income-eligible federal workers who currently rent in the District;
• Programs designed to encourage employees to live close to their work to reduce travel time and cost and increase their quality of life; and
• Linking EAH efforts with performance-based incentives for attracting new employers. ¹

Action H-3.1.D: Individual Development Accounts

Invest in programs that support Individual Development Accounts that assist low-income persons to save for first-time home purchases. ²

Action H-3.1.E: Neighborhood Housing Finance

Expand housing finance and counseling services for very low-, low-, and moderate-income homeowners, and improve the oversight and management of these services. ³

Action H-3.1.F: Foreclosure Prevention

Develop public-private partnerships to raise awareness of foreclosure prevention efforts and to offer assistance to households facing foreclosure. ⁴

Action H-3.1.G: Protect Homeowner Equity

Research, identify, and implement as appropriate tools to protect the equity of homeowners and help lower-income and older adult homeowners recover from volatile market forces and adverse events that threaten their equity and status as homeowners. ⁵

H-3.2 Housing Access ⁶

The District established its commitment to fair housing under the Human Rights Act of 1977 (DC Law 2-38, DC Code Sec 2-1401 [2001 ed]). This commitment is bolstered by federal regulations, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Together, these laws prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status, personal appearance, gender expression or identity, family responsibilities, political affiliation, family status, matriculation, source of income, place of residence or business, or status as a victim of an intrafamily offense. ⁷

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Despite anti-discrimination laws, District residents may still be unfairly denied housing on the basis of the factors listed above. Common forms of discrimination include refusal to rent, steering to particular neighborhoods by real estate agents, setting different terms for the sale or rental of housing (such as higher security deposits for certain groups), advertising to “preferred” groups, denial of loans or imposition of variable loan terms, and the use of threats and intimidation. In addition, voucher holders often have difficulty finding a landlord willing to accept them. The District works to address these challenges through the full enforcement of fair housing laws. 514.2¹

The requirements of fair housing apply to both the private and public sectors. Local governments are charged with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), and the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that public sector actions, such as land use, zoning regulations, and patterns of affordable housing investment, can unfairly limit housing choice, even if the consequences were unintended. For instance, to avoid disparate impacts on protected classes, public sector decisions should provide the opportunity for both multi-family housing and affordable subsidy investment in higher-cost neighborhoods that provide greater opportunity because of access to good jobs, schools, transit, and other services. 514.3²

Figure 5.11 displays the allocation of affordable units in the District by Planning Area. It demonstrates that the Far Southeast and Southwest Planning Area has 15,517 affordable units, which represent 31 percent of Washington, DC’s affordable units and 50 percent of the Planning Area’s total units. Similarly, it shows that the Rock Creek West Planning Area has 471 affordable units, which represent one percent of that Planning Area’s total number of units. 514.4³

Figure 5.11:

Affordable Units by Planning Area in 2017 ¹

Source: HousingInsights.org, OP

Furthering fair housing includes taking action to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, foster inclusive communities, address significant disparities in housing need, and provide access to opportunity. Historic growth patterns and development reflected in Map 5.1 and Figure 5.11 illustrate the concentrations of affordable housing investment. Since 2006, the District has made great strides, including revising the zoning regulations to facilitate a wider range of housing opportunities, developing the IZ Program, and changing how affordable housing investment decisions are made. However, with residents concentrated along lines of race, ethnicity, and wealth, more needs to be done. ²

Policy H-3.2.1: Fair Housing Enforcement

Strongly enforce fair housing laws to protect residents from housing discrimination. Provide education, outreach, and referral services for residents regarding their rights as tenants and buyers. Provide education and outreach to landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and others on their obligations when housing is made available. ¹

Policy H-3.2.2: Compliance by Recipients of District Funds

Nondiscrimination and full compliance with the District’s fair housing laws shall be required for all housing developers and service providers receiving financial assistance from the District. ²

Policy H-3.2.3: Prohibition on Redlining

The practice of “redlining” local neighborhoods shall be prohibited in compliance with the federal Community Investment Act of 1977, which prohibits the practice of redlining local neighborhoods. ³

Action H-3.2.A: Cultural Sensitivity

Require all District agencies that deal with housing and housing services to be culturally and linguistically competent. ⁴

Action H-3.2.B: Fair Housing Education

Undertake a Fair Housing Act education program for all relevant staff persons and public officials so they are familiar with the Act and their responsibilities in its enforcement. Maintain programs that raise the public’s awareness of fair housing rights and responsibilities, including educational events, compliance training, affirmative marketing training, and other outreach efforts that further fair housing and eliminate discrimination. ⁵

Action H-3.2.C: Lending Practices

Continue to monitor private sector lending practices for their impact on the stability of neighborhoods, and develop responses if instability is identified. ⁶

Action H-3.2.D: Overcoming Impediments to Fair Housing

Develop strategies to overcome impediments and obstacles to the delivery of affordable housing in high-cost areas, such as rapid site acquisition, risk reduction, and expedited project selection and processing. ⁷

H-4 Housing for Vulnerable Populations and Persons with Disabilities ¹

In 2017, among Washington DC’s 693,972 residents, thousands of vulnerable populations and persons with disabilities required targeted help finding, paying for, and maintaining affordable housing. These individuals and families included persons experiencing homelessness, older adults, LGBTQ youth and adults, and persons living with other challenges, such as disabilities, HIV/AIDS, behavioral health issues, victims of domestic violence, citizens returning from correctional facilities, and youth being discharged from foster care and the juvenile justice system. Vulnerable populations and residents with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to displacement, experiencing homelessness, and other housing hardships. They often lack the income needed to afford safe, decent housing and the services that will help them lead stable, healthy lives. ²

H-4.1 Integrating Vulnerable Populations and Persons with Disabilities ³

One of the basic premises of the District’s vision is that housing serving vulnerable populations and those with disabilities should be accommodated in all of Washington, DC’s neighborhoods and not heavily located in a handful of areas; the current distribution is uneven. While it would be unrealistic to propose that each neighborhood should have an identical number of such facilities, more can be done to avoid concentrating housing in a handful of areas. Every neighborhood should be a high-opportunity neighborhood, and all residents should have access to housing opportunities. ⁴

Steps can also be taken to reduce the stigma associated with housing for vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities and to improve its compatibility with the surrounding community. This will become even more important in the future, as displacement pressures downtown and elsewhere create additional challenge to maintain and operate some of the District’s emergency shelters and those providing services to vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities. Given limited budgets, the rising cost of land tends to drive housing for vulnerable populations or persons with disabilities to the most affordable areas of the District—the very places where these uses already are concentrated. A history of racist policies has led to Black and Hispanic residents disproportionately experiencing homelessness, being part of the foster care system, interacting with the juvenile justice system, living with HIV/AIDS, serving time in correctional facilities and experiencing behavioral health issues. So, actions to improve housing opportunities is a matter of racial equity. Washington, DC is

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

committed to investing in community-based housing options and services that encourage independent living across all Planning Areas. 516.2

Policy H-4.1.1: Integration of Vulnerable Populations and Residents with Disabilities

Integrate residents with disabilities or vulnerable populations through housing that includes wraparound supportive services throughout Washington, DC rather than segregating them into neighborhoods that already have a significant presence of such housing. 516.3

Policy H-4.1.2: Emphasis on Permanent Housing

Emphasize permanent housing-first solutions for persons with disabilities or vulnerable populations, rather than building more temporary, short-term housing facilities. Permanent housing is more conducive to the stability of its occupants and generally has greater support from communities than transient housing. 516.4

Policy H-4.1.3: Coordination of Housing and Support Services

Coordinate the siting of housing for persons with disabilities or vulnerable populations with the location of the key services that support the population being housed. The availability of affordable public transportation to reach those services also should be considered. 516.5

Policy H-4.1.4: Protecting the Housing Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Vulnerable Populations

Protect the housing rights of all vulnerable populations or residents with disabilities through laws pertaining to property taxes, evictions, and affordable tenancy. 516.6

H-4.2 Ending Homelessness ¹

Homelessness in the Washington, DC, on any given night, is a significant problem that has become worse in the wake of the current housing boom. In January 2005, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) estimated that 11,419 people were experiencing homelessness in the region, including 2,694 who were chronically experiencing homelessness. More than half of those experiencing homelessness and two-thirds of those chronically experiencing homelessness lived in the District. Provisions to assist those living without housing must include emergency shelter that accommodates seasonal change and weather variations, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing. On many levels, the need for such facilities and services outpaces supply. The shortfall will worsen if regional partners and colleagues do not match Washington, DC’s efforts, with more persons living without housing in the District. 517.1

⬚ figure

The number of housing units specifically designed for persons with disabilities, particularly units in facilities with services to help cope with these disabilities, is far short of the actual need.

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

By 2017, the number of persons experiencing homelessness declined to 11,128 persons across the region, and the persons experiencing chronic homelessness declined to 2,522. However, persons experiencing homelessness in Washington, DC now represent over two-thirds of the region’s population living without housing and 70 percent of those chronically experiencing homelessness. The sharpest increase in Washington, DC has been in families living without housing, which increased 22 percent to 3,890 persons between 2012 and 2017. Increases in the number of families experiencing homelessness strain shelter capacity and affect the District’s ability to serve other vulnerable populations, such as single adults with disabilities. Longer shelter and hotel stays were leading to a need for more shelter units, while rising costs are making it more difficult to provide services and secure housing for those in need. Homelessness has enormous social and economic consequences, resulting in increased medical, legal, and incarceration costs, as well as shelter costs. 517.2[^517.2]

In 2015, the District published Homeward DC, a collaborative effort by the District Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) intended to prevent housing loss and quickly stabilize and safely shelter individuals and families who are living without housing. The plan emphasizes permanent housing solutions and community support networks. Its goal is that any household experiencing housing loss will be rehoused within an average of 60 days or less, with homelessness reduced by 65 percent by 2020. The efforts aim to transform the system to focus on crisis response, helping people quickly get back on their feet. ICH has drafted and will publish Homeward DC 2.0: 2020-2025, which builds on the lessons learned from the first five years of Homeward DC implementation and identifies additional strategies to advance the District’s efforts to address homelessness in Washington, DC. 517.3[^517.3]

The goal of Homeward DC is to provide housing first, moving people to permanent housing as quickly as possible, accompanied by necessary supportive services. While individuals and families may face housing loss in the future, homelessness will be prevented whenever possible. When it does occur, it will be a rare, brief, and nonrecurring experience. 517.4[^517.4]

With the closing of the DC General facility, Washington, DC is expanding transitional family housing in all eight wards and will also continue to implement plans and assist specific subsets of the population living without housing, such as youth and veterans. Blacks are disproportionately affected by the drivers of homelessness, representing 85 percent of those experiencing homelessness in the District. These drivers include income and wealth gaps, discrimination in the criminal justice system, and credit disparities. For instance, the Solid Foundations DC plan to end youth homelessness states that a disproportionate share (24 percent) of youth experiencing homeless identify as LGBTQ or other and are exploring targeted solutions for vulnerable communities who are at risk of victimization for sexual exploitation, behavioral health, and other problems. Washington, DC will

also continue to provide year-round access to shelter, which is especially important during the winter months and in heat emergencies. Provisions to assist those experiencing homelessness must include emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, along with supportive services. However, the need for such facilities and services outpaces supply. Rising housing costs will continue to place more families at risk of homelessness. 517.5¹

Policy H-4.2.1: Ending Homelessness

Reduce the incidence of homelessness to rare, brief, and nonrecurring events in Washington, DC through prevention efforts, development of permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness in all District Planning Areas, and active coordination of the placement of persons experiencing homelessness into housing that best fits their needs. 517.6²

Policy H-4.2.2: Neighborhood-Based Services for Persons Living Without Homes

Encourage the provision of services for persons living without homes through neighborhood-based permanent supportive housing and SRO units. The smaller service model can reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to surrounding uses, improve community acceptance, and also support the reintegration of persons experiencing homelessness back into the community. 517.7³

Policy H-4.2.3: Increasing the Permanent Supportive Housing Supply

Increase the supply of permanent supportive housing affordable to extremely low-income households to reduce the length of shelter stays, free up additional shelter capacity, and provide stable long-term housing for those who are living without housing or at risk of living without housing. 517.8⁴

Policy H-4.2.4: Homelessness Prevention and Crisis Response

Expand programs to stabilize high-risk households before they arrive at the shelter door by researching the common causes of homelessness and implementing targeted homelessness prevention programming, especially for those transitioning out of institutional settings such as foster care, correctional facilities, or behavioral health facilities. Continue efforts to create a more effective crisis response system to address homelessness, focused on helping individuals and families get back on their feet as quickly as possible. 517.9⁵

Policy H-4.2.5: Reducing Housing Barriers for Persons Experiencing Homelessness

Reduce the barriers that prevent persons and families experiencing homeless from finding affordable and supportive housing. Overcome onerous

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

eligibility requirements and restrictions based on credit, income, and criminal history by providing incentives to landlords willing to housing that escaping homelessness. Improve business processes and information systems, including user tests, to decrease the time it takes for individuals and families to complete paperwork and locate and lease-up an available rental unit. 517.10¹

Action H-4.2.A: Homeward DC

Implement the recommendations outlined in Homeward DC: 2015-2020, which updates and expands on the Homeward DC: Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and continues the District’s efforts to make homelessness in the District rare, brief, and non-recurring. Homeward DC recommended strategies to expand homelessness prevention strategies, improve the quality of the District’s emergency shelter facilities, and increase the number of permanent supportive housing units and tenant-based rental subsidies available for populations experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Homeward DC 2.0 builds on the recommendations outlined in Homeward DC and highlights additional strategies to advance these efforts. 517.11²

Action H-4.2.B: Emergency Assistance

Expand the emergency assistance program for rent, security deposit, mortgage, or utility expenses for very low-income families with children, older adults, and persons with disabilities to prevent homelessness. 517.12³

Action H-4.2.C: Ending Youth Homelessness

Implement Solid Foundations DC: The Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness. The plan includes strategies for youth homelessness prevention, expanded outreach and reunification, additional youth shelter capacity, improved support services, continuing education, and capacity building programs for organizations that support the emotional, physical, and social well-being of at-risk youth. 517.13⁴

Action H-4.2.D: Discharge Coordination

Maintain discharge programs from the foster care, health care, and the criminal justice systems that prevent homelessness and provide a safe transition to independent living. 517.14⁵

Action H-4.2.E: Landlord Recruitment

Develop and test pilot programs designed to incentivize landlords to house individuals and families exiting homelessness. Evaluate strategies and make recommendations on maintaining and improving an ongoing program. 517.15⁶

C I T Y W I D E E L E M E N T S

H-4.3 Meeting the Needs of Specific Groups ¹

The housing needs of the District’s most vulnerable populations vary among each group. Some require housing with specific physical attributes, such as wheelchair ramps or bathrooms with grab bars. Some require housing with on-site support services, such as meal service or job counseling. Most simply need housing that is safe, secure, and affordable. It is important to consider the racial composition of these groups and how historic or current racial barriers to housing opportunities may affect needs. Communities of color are disproportionately represented in the vulnerable populations discussed below; for example, 69 percent of DC residents living with HIV/AIDS are Black. Those who most commonly benefit from supportive services are the several groups profiled below. ²

In 2017, 118,275[^] District residents were age 60 years and over, including 12,133 residents 85 years and over. As the baby boom generation matures and as average lifespan increases, the population of residents aged 60 years and over in the District is expected to increase dramatically. By 2030, there will be 141,275[^] residents aged 60 years and over, of which 12,000 will be 85 years and older. In addition, first-time homelessness among older adults on fixed incomes continues to increase, as they face ever increasing affordability challenges. A broad range of environments will be needed for older adults, serving residents across the income spectrum. ³

The Age-Friendly DC initiative, launched in 2012, identified 75 strategies across 10 broad topics to allow residents of all ages to remain in community-based settings as they age. Additional programs will be needed to help older adults age in place through home retrofits. New forms of cooperative and shared housing may be explored, and additional facilities will be needed that offer on-site nursing and health care in a congregate environment. As already noted, higher levels of assistance will be required to help older adult homeowners on fixed incomes and to protect renters who are older adults from displacement. More intergenerational living facilities also may be needed; in approximately 2,881 households, grandparents are responsible for the care of their grandchildren; almost 89 percent of grandfamilies living in the District are Black. ⁴

A disproportionately large share of the region’s population of persons with disabilities resides in Washington, DC. Approximately 94,400 District residents — or 13 percent of the total population — are persons with disabilities or live with a person with a disability. Nearly one-third of Washington, DC’s population of persons with disabilities lives below the poverty level. Many of these adults are unable to work and need supportive services and accessible housing options. ⁵

Mobility limitations affect nearly 48,000 District residents. Thousands of residents need basic modifications to so that they can live well in their own homes. New units should be visitable to residents who are living with

disabilities and enable residents to age in community. Visitability refers to apartments and single-family housing that can be lived in or visited by persons who have trouble with steps or who use wheelchairs or walkers. Visitability improvements are also needed to remove physical barriers, even in homes that do not currently house persons with mobility challenges, so that persons with limitations can visit others. Persons with disabilities may also require medical and personal care assistance in daily living activities. The number of housing units specifically designed for persons with disabilities, particularly units in facilities with services to help cope with these disabilities, is far short of the actual need. Moreover, many persons with disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and face an enormous gap between their income and the cost of their housing. 518.5¹

Each year, the correctional facilities system in the District releases more than 5,000 people. Many return to the District, usually without the means to pay for market rate housing and, in some cases, without the skills or means to find a decent job. Many return to neighborhoods experiencing high crime and poverty, remain chronically unemployed, and find shelter in group homes or shared housing. Unstable housing and a lack of employment undermine returning citizens’ success and can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and violence in the District’s lowest-income neighborhoods. The Department of Corrections and the Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen Affairs have prioritized reentry programs to protect public safety and reduce recidivism, including housing strategies. In 2016, the District passed the Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act, which bans landlords from asking about an applicant’s criminal record until a conditional offer has been made. 518.6²

In 2015, 15,200 persons with HIV/AIDS lived in the District, or about 2.2 percent of the population. This compares to a national rate of 0.3 percent and exceeds the World Health Organization’s threshold (one percent), indicative of a continued HIV epidemic. Several research studies indicate that persons with HIV/AIDS experience elevated housing instability and homelessness relative to the general population. Stigma and discrimination may cause additional hurdles to obtain and retain appropriate housing. Data from the federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program indicates an unmet need for tenant-based rental assistance for 1,239 persons with HIV/AIDS. 518.7³

Over 15,000 District adults have been diagnosed as having a serious behavioral health issue by the Department of Behavioral Health based on treatment services delivered in 2016. Behavioral health issues can seriously limit one’s ability to find employment, earn a living wage, and lead an independent life. Stable, permanent housing can increase independence and help those with behavioral health issues achieve other life goals. Such housing is often paired with case management and appropriate supportive

services, such as crisis intervention, ongoing counseling, and health assessments. 518.8

The DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) receives over 30,000 calls for service each year for domestic violence-related incidents. Some of these calls result in the need for safe housing for the victim. The inventory of such housing is very limited. Domestic violence also creates unique challenges for the victim, including the potential for personal harm if using the traditional shelter system. Many victims also may experience trauma, and some have children who also need to be accommodated. DHCD has designated a Housing Navigator on its staff to leverage housing contacts and find safe housing for victims of crime and domestic violence. By calling the DC Victim Hotline, victims can be directed to resources. 518.9

Policy H-4.3.1: Short-Term and Emergency Housing Options

Ensure that adequate short-term housing options, including emergency shelter and transitional housing, exist for persons with disabilities, including people living with HIV/AIDS, harm-reduction units for substance abusers, detoxification beds and residential treatment facilities, safe housing for victims of domestic violence, halfway houses and group homes for returning citizens, and assisted-living and end-of-life care for older adults. 518.10

Policy H-4.3.2: Housing Choice for Older Adults

Provide a wide variety of affordable housing choices for the District’s older adults that enable them to age in their neighborhoods either by supporting their ability to remain in their homes or by providing new opportunities within multi-unit buildings that include Universal Design and intergenerational options. Take into account the income range and health care needs of this population. Recognize the coming growth in the older adult population so that the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing for older adults meets Universal Design standards and becomes a major District priority. Acknowledge and support the establishment of senior villages and wellness centers throughout Washington, DC that allow older adults to remain in their homes and/or communities and age in place. 518.11

Homesharing

A new strategy and a key component of the Age-Friendly DC Housing Domain is homesharing. This strategy assists older adults to age in their current homes by sharing their housing costs with another and has been gaining steam among several age-friendly jurisdictions across the country. Homesharing has multiple benefits, including reducing housing costs and isolation and providing peer support and safety. 518.11a

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Policy H-4.3.3: Neighborhood-Based Housing for Older Adults

Encourage the production of multi-family housing for older adults in those neighborhoods characterized by large numbers of older adults living alone in single-family homes. This will enable older adults to remain in their neighborhoods, maintain connections with fellow residents and neighbors, and reduce their home maintenance costs and obligations. ¹

Policy H-4.3.4: Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Work toward a target of designing 12 percent of the new housing units added to the District’s stock over the next 20 years specifically to meet the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities through Universal Design. These units should be spread evenly across affordability brackets. Facilitate and promote broader visitability standards in new construction and major renovations that enable people who have trouble with steps or who use wheelchairs or walkers to participate socially and reduce their isolation. ²

Policy H-4.3.5: Housing for Returning Citizens

Create adequate housing plans for people exiting the correctional system so that they do not experience homelessness, including the removal of barriers to returning citizens living in affordable housing. Returning citizens should not be concentrated in assisted housing projects, but allowed to find housing throughout Washington, DC. Rental housing providers should not be allowed to discriminate against returning citizens. ³

Policy H-4.3.6: Persons with Behavioral Health Issues

Support the production of housing for people with behavioral health issues through capital and operating subsidies. Improve the availability and coordination of such housing with wraparound behavioral health and other human services. Steps should be taken to prevent the eviction of persons experiencing behavioral health issues from publicly financed housing, so long as they are following the rules of tenancy, and to maintain each individual’s housing if they need to be hospitalized. ⁴

Action H- 4.3.A: Incentives for Accessible Units

Create financial incentives or provide appropriate flexibility in zoning rules and public space regulations for homeowners and landlords to retrofit units to make them accessible to older adults and persons with disabilities. Encourage the production of units that are visitable, ADA-accessible, or universally designed in new housing construction. ⁵

Action H- 4.3.B: Incentives for Older Adult Housing

Remove barriers and explore incentives, such as density bonuses, tax credits, and special financing, to stimulate the development of assisted living and care facilities for older adults that serve a mix of incomes, particularly in areas of high need and on sites well served by public transportation. ⁶

CITYWIDE ELEMENTS

Action H-4.3.C: University Partnerships and Older Adults

Explore partnerships with local universities to develop intergenerational student living arrangements with older adults living near campus. 518.18

Action H-4.3.D: Aging in Community

Establish programs to facilitate low-income older renters aging in place. Examples include tenant-based vouchers or other rental assistance to older adults on fixed incomes or funds for renovation of multi-unit buildings, individual apartments, and single-family homes to create appropriate housing options for older adults to age in community. 518.19

i Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, OP. ii CoStar.com iii OP analysis of changes in interest rates and American Community Survey (ACS) changes in median incomes. iv Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors, OP. v OP analysis of BLS Occupational Wage Data, Interest Rates, and RBI stats Sales Data for 2016 vi Purchasing power is defined as 25 percent of gross monthly income toward principle and interest on a 30-year mortgage at the average interest rate for that year, plus a 10 percent down payment. vii CoStar.com viii U.S. Census ACS 2017 PUM data, OP. ix U.S. Census Survey of Building Permits, OP. x U.S. Census ACS 2012-2016 PUM data, OP. xi U.S. Census ACS 2012-2016 PUM data, OP. xii DMPED xiii OP analysis of U.S. Census Survey of Building Permits and CoStar data xiv OP analysis of Office of Tax and Revenue Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) data xv OP Round 9.0 COG Forecast and analysis of OCTO's Master Address Repository xvi Zillow HVI 6/09-6/17 xvii DOES Forecast and BLS Occupational Wage data xviii CoStar.com

(blank page)