Posts by Cheryl Cort

Prince George's County has consistently had more pedestrian fatalities than any other jurisdiction in the region or in the state of Maryland. Between 1999 and 2010, Prince George's suffered an average of 25 fatalities per year, far eclipsing the 16 deaths on average in Maryland's second worst county, Baltimore County. Prince George's even has more pedestrian fatalities than the District of Columbia, which has far more pedestrians.

Prince George's planners won't address this problem without a law specifically allowing them to. This proposed bill would give the Planning Board the authority they need.

Councilmembers Mel Franklin (District 9) and Eric Olson (District 3) are leaders on pedestrian safety issues, and proposed CB-2 to help foster more walkable development and improves safety and access.

The bill asks county planners to determine adequate walk and bike facilities for new developments, similar to the current provisions for roads. If the area lacks needed infrastructure, the developer may be required to construct the most critical missing sidewalk or bicycle links.

The bill caps the cost for the developer at a modest 35¢ per square foot of commercial development, and $300 per housing unit. It also only imposes these new rules for developments in the county's designated urban centers and corridors, which are the most conducive to walking and bicycling.

This bill is a reasonable approach to a real problem. It works with developers to produce a better final product, and to reduce the costs of traffic.

Everyone benefits when more people walk and bike instead of drive. The developer can pay for less expensive transportation infrastructure, residents and businesses enjoy better and safer access to nearby destinations, and surrounding communities experience less automobile traffic.

The County Council will conduct a public hearing on the bill on April 24, at 1:30 pm at the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro. If you live or work in Prince George's County, contact the County Council or speak at the hearing, and urge them to support this bill.

Click here to send the Prince George's County Council an email in support of CB-2.

For example, in Montgomery County, the state will build a $63 million interchange at Georgia Avenue (MD 97) and Randolph Road, to speed up traffic near the Glenmont Metro station. With ramps and longer crossings, the interchange will further degrade pedestrian access to nearby shopping from residences.

For the amount spent on this project, the county could build much of the long-discussed Georgia Avenue bus rapid transit project from Wheaton to Olney instead.

Montgomery County is pushing another grade-separated interchange at the Veirs Mill Road (MD 586) and Randolph Road. Based on past experience, we can expect that the planned Veirs Mill bus rapid transit project (the county's largest bus route) will continue to lose out to the expensive interchange for priority.

The interchange would not only compete for funds with this proposed rapid bus corridor, it would also make conditions much worse for the many pedestrians who cross these roads to stores and bus stops at the intersection. Read the whole list of the county's priority transportation projects here.

In Prince George's, despite numerous setbacks, the 6,000-acre greenfield Westphalia development project outside the Capital Beltway and miles from the nearest Metro station still maintains a top ranking on the list from local elected officials. The price tag for the road infrastructure to serve this massive tract of largely undeveloped land is $460 million.

The transportation projects would convert Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4) into a freeway from the Capitol Beltway to Woodyard Road (MD 223), and add 4 interchanges along the way. The Westphalia plan calls for adding 14,000-15,300 new residential units and up 6 million square feet of commercial space.

The county transportation lists also contain important transit, bike, and pedestrian projects, but often these proposals languish while road projects advance. Other important transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and complete streets solutions never even make the list. We need to fund projects that meet the growing demand for more transportation choices that save time, energy, and money.

If Marylanders are asked to pay more, each dollar must be invested wisely. Residents need better and more affordable transportation choices. So where should this money go?

First, let's fix Maryland's existing infrastructure, like our aging roads, bridges and transit systems. Then, let's build modern transit to move more people efficiently and competitively, while providing alternatives to congested highways like the Beltway, I-95, and I-270. It's long past time for critical rail investments like the Purple Line, Baltimore Red Line and MARC expansion, and better bus service.

At the local level, state revenue to local governments should go to fix and maintain local street connections, sidewalks, and bikeways for existing communities.

Moreover, given high unemployment, smart growth transit options can help the economy. Public transportation and road maintenance are the biggest job creators. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, investments in road maintenance projects create 9% more jobs than spending on new highway capacity; increasing transit capacity creates 19% more jobs than new highway capacity.

If Marylanders are going to pay more, we deserve to know what the money will buy. We need a bill that that specifies smart, fix-it-first policies for the state. Otherwise, we're just throwing our money into the dark.

In its Planned Unit Development (PUD) application, the developer has asked for an exception from Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) on the library site (but not the fire station site), along with several other exceptions which often happen in PUDs. IZ requires offering 8% of housing units to households earning 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less.

The developer, Eastbanc, and the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) claim that the entire value of the development rights are being used to pay for the new library and fire station, and there's no additional subsidy left over for the IZ units on the library site or more affordable units on the fire station site.

Originally, the District had promised 52 affordable housing units for very low income households (at 60% AMI) above the fire station site, but DMPED doesn't appear to be offering the needed additional subsidy for this component.

This is a big disappointment. We would prefer to see the District provide the financing to create the 52 very affordable units above the fire station. That would be far more beneficial than simply following IZ. At this point, unfortunately, the proposal is to give the library development with the 164 units above an IZ waiver, and to build housing above the new fire station, including the IZ units required for that fire station parcel alone.

The question of how to deal with the shrinking footprint of affordable housing in this complicated public-private development deal is a hot topic. Chris Otten, an organizer with the DC Library Renaissance Project, sent an alert asking people to attend tonight's hearing and oppose the project because of the affordable housing exception request.

We think this is short-sighted, and dismisses the value of the new library and fire station as major public benefits. A good compromise would be to move the IZ units to the fire station site, if DMPED does not come through with the financing for the preferable 100% affordable project above the fire station.

The PUD process does allow for outstanding public benefits, like a new library, to enable relief from IZ standards. The DC Office of Planning has accepted this, calling the new library and fire station exceptional amenities that fulfill the PUD's standard for allowing relief to some zoning requirements. We think it's possible that IZ could be part of a feasible project at the fire station site, if the Zoning Commission presses for it.

Some DC activists are fundamentally opposed to public-private partnerships, which leverage private development to help pay for public benefits. We share the concern that the public land valuation process should be more transparent so we can ensure city residents are getting a good deal. But better utilizing scarce land with great public facilities, new housing, and commercial space should also be recognized for the benefit that it is.

DC lost the opportunity to build mixed-use libraries at Benning Road and Tenleytown, both of which offered affordable housing and other amenities. These projects would have used funds budgeted for renewed public facilities and private development rights. In the West End case, where there's no budget to fix the library, the public benefits couldn't be clearer. If we do not advance this mixed-use project, we keep the obsolete library and fire station and wait for the city to find the money to pay to replace them one day.

We also lose the benefits a mixed-use building offers: a café connected to the library and separate community meeting space that can be used outside of library hours. These features were sought by residents discussing other library projects, but were unrealized as all other libraries were rebuilt as single-use, stand-alone buildings. A mixed-use building also better utilizes precious city space with hundreds of new homes and shops, within walking distance of downtown.

This is the essence of the notion of public land for public good. Rather than building a small replacement library on a city-owned plot, let's take full advantage of the site and add housing (especially affordable housing), a café, and other community amenities. On future public land deals, the Gray Administration should continue to ensure that the full value of a city-owned site is used—to create exciting new public facilities, and to create new places to live and work, especially more affordable places for those with limited incomes.

We have an important opportunity to create a state-of-the-art public library and fire station, save the city tens of millions of dollars, and deliver added benefits through an innovative mixed-use building design. That's why we should support this innovative project. For more, read my testimony to the Zoning Commission in support of the project.

Without an independent financial analysis of the developer's reasons for asking for the rollback, the public has no way of knowing if this is necessary or a good deal. And if the Council passes this, it sets a precedent that any community benefit required by law can be renegotiated at any stage of the agreement.

The Southwest Waterfront is one of the earliest projects to advance as part of the city's Anacostia Waterfront Development plan. Cutting back the affordability requirement is a bad precedent. The city often touts its 30% affordable housing set aside as it shows its plans to redevelop public land with private partners.

The deal for the Southwest Waterfront has been in the works for several years, but this move to cap the affordable housing on site was sudden. The Council advertised its November 19th hearing on the bill only a few days before. The bill has already sailed through its first procedural vote and is heading to its second and final one tomorrow.

Backtracking on this commitment—with little public notice or debate—casts into question how the city conducts a competitive process to give land to the private sector. The Southwest Waterfront lands were awarded after more than a dozen development teams proposed to meet the city's standards for community benefits and offer exciting mixed-use market rate projects that conformed with redevelopment plans.

The developer has offered verbally to include some portion of the new housing above the capped amount as affordable to households earning 100% of area median income, or over $100,000 for a family of four. Since DC's median family income is a little over half of area median income, this hardly seems like a good deal. It doesn't fulfill DC's commitment to use its land resources to address the tremendous housing challenge that many of DC's working families face.

Rather than simply accepting this offer, the District needs to sponsor an independent evaluation that includes input from affordable housing experts and the broader public. And it should set a precedent against opening up commitments to community benefits at the last minute and with little notice.

If provisions of the law need to be revisited, we should have a fair public debate informed by independent analysis to assess if the deal is still a good one for the public.

Click here to send the D.C. Council a message saying we shouldn't rush to rollback important commitments made on affordable housing.

Cheryl Cort is Policy Director at the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

In our latest report, Building Stronger Communities, we outlined both common sense solutions and innovative strategies to address this challenge, which we hope will inspire the new leaders in Prince George's County. We released this report in conjunction with our partner, Partnership for Renewal in Southern and Central Maryland (PRISCM).

Rev. Dr. Michael C. Turner, Sr., president of PRISCM and Pastor of the Miracle Center of the Faith Missionary Baptist Church in Capitol Heights has seen these challenge first hand in his congregation.

"We need leadership from a new County Executive and a new Director of Housing. While the County gives back unspent money to the federal government, many of our congregants cannot find a decent apartment to rent or a home they can afford to buy. Now is the time to transform how we meet the housing needs of our community," he said.

Source: Prince George's County FY 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan

Our report, Building Stronger Communities, provides detailed findings and recommendations aimed at transforming the County's housing programs. We encourage the adoption of national best practices to meet the needs of Prince George's families struggling with high housing costs, poor housing conditions and other challenges. Despite the challenges highlighted in the assessment, the incoming administration offers hope for new leadership.

The Democratic nominee for County Executive, Rushern Baker, is running unopposed for the general election and the presumed County Executive-elect. During Baker's campaign, he frequently spoke about the need to focus development around the county's 15 largely undeveloped Metro stations and address residents' need for affordable housing. This is a hopeful sign for a county with so much unrealized potential.

The report provides a detailed assessment of the data and key challenges to existing housing programs. While residents in all jurisdictions face major housing affordability challenges, the statistics for Prince George's are stark:

• 46 percent of Prince George's households pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing, which is considered unaffordable by US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), compared to the D.C. region's average of 38 percent;
  
• By the end of 2009, the county counted 45,300 troubled home loans;
  
• Some 40 percent of renters cannot afford the median monthly rent of $1,131.

Boosting residents' incomes with increased local employment growth, improved education and training are part of the equation to helping families avoid paying more than they can afford for housing. Making housing more affordable to struggling families is also an important part of the solution. The county, however, has been beset by poorly performing housing assistance programs and weak leadership. According to HUD and an independent auditor's assessment, ineffective Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) program management has plagued the County:

• In winter of 2010, the County returned over $2 million in unspent HOME grant money to HUD;
  
• The County's FY 2010 allocation of HOME funds was already reduced by $2.2 million because of previous shortcomings within DHCD to spend allotted funds;
  
• Prince George's County in the 17th percentile nationwide in program performance for HOME grant funds;
  
• In spring of 2010, the County almost lost $2.8 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and was warned by HUD that it had failed to spend down funds in time for three consecutive years.

The County does not provide any of its own resources to leverage federal and state housing assistance. Given the substantial need, and diminishing resources, residents are looking to the incoming County Executive to fix the troubled agency and make quality housing for moderate and low income Prince George's families a higher priority.

Despite the poor record of DHCD, the County recently showed outstanding success. A one-time grant from the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) of $10.8 million was given to the County to address the home foreclosure crisis. The County's NSP effort has been well administered and has met its goals of assisting over 600 households in purchasing foreclosed homes. NSP's success demonstrates that the County has the talent to execute a federally-funded program successfully when the outcomes of the program are given enough priority.

Our report outlines ways to improve DHCD's performance and more broadly address Prince George's residents' housing needs through new public policy actions:

1. Create a comprehensive strategy that identifies housing needs across a range of households (including income, size and composition), audits existing capacity to meet those housing needs, and strategizes with a diverse set of public and private sector stakeholders to make recommendations to fill gaps in capacity and resources.

2. Build capacity in the Department of Housing and Community Development to accomplish the County's housing goals by cultivating agency leadership and staff that demonstrate expertise in housing finance, effectively administering federal and state housing resources, and aggressively managing the County's interest in development deals.

3. Build capacity among small local nonprofits to help meet the County's housing goals by establishing a mentoring program between these nonprofits and high capacity housing development organizations. These partnerships could produce County-supported demonstration projects that would improve the County's housing stock while increasing the capacity of the smaller nonprofits.

4. Improve the existing housing stock by efficiently utilizing existing resources like HOME, CDBG, and state tax credits; establishing new, locally-funded resources like a housing trust fund and an acquisition fund; and using land use and zoning tools to promote mixed-income development.

5. Establish housing policies and processes that support development projects that fit the County's larger goals, are competitively selected, meet stringent underwriting requirements and are a good investment given the time and resources required.

6. Demonstrate political willingness to support and invest in a diverse range of housing options by aggressively backing DHCD to meet the county's housing needs and soliciting participation from industry investors, policy experts and non-profit developers through advisory committees and project review panels.

   Economic development and household wealth are built on the foundation of stable families and communities. The County has many opportunities to strengthen the economic base of moderate and low-income households who need quality housing that won't place excessive strain on their family budgets. Leadership at the highest levels is needed to create a comprehensive vision, goals and effective administrative procedures to execute programs.

   Drawing in the contributions of stakeholders outside of government, the new administration has the opportunity to transform the County' approach to addressing the housing needs of its residents and help more families enjoy the stability of decent, quality housing they can afford.

   Cheryl Cort is the Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

IZ requires new housing developments to set aside a small portion of units at more affordable rates. In exchange, the developer gets to build additional units than the zoning would otherwise allow. The widespread affordable housing policy became DC law in 2006, but implementation was delayed until last summer, well after the housing market crashed. Thus, we must wait for a new housing development pipeline to start producing again.

In the case of for-sale units, IZ offers opportunities for lower income families to build wealth while realizing the other important benefits of homeownership. DC's IZ program uses the change in the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) to calculate a maximum resale price an owner may receive for his or her unit. It uses the annual rate of change over the previous ten years to smooth out fluctuations in the AMI. For example, an IZ owner who bought her unit in 2006 for $200,000 and sold it in 2008 could potentially sell it for approximately $211,800 (plus any capital improvements made). This equals an appreciation of almost 3% per year. Over the same period, an owner of a market-rate home would have had to deal with the 11-percent decrease in the area median home values. Programs like DC's IZ can help families who buy at affordable, below-market prices weather downturns in the market better than those owning market-rate homes. IZ homeowners may even have the opportunity to sell for a gain when the market is flat or down.

IZ helps low- and moderate-income residents keep living in emerging neighborhoods, even as land prices rise. This inclusive policy is a direct way to ensure that lower income residents share in the positive effects of the District's revitalization. It also helps reduce commuting costs and times for workers who serve vital roles in DC's communities.

Manna suggests lifting all resale price restrictions from an IZ unit after 5 years. Montgomery County abandoned this policy years ago after losing most of its affordable IZ units when these short-term affordability restrictions expired.

Learning from Montgomery and other jurisdictions around the country, the DC IZ law is designed to build a permanent stock of affordable housing for future generations of buyers and renters. Still, it also allows homeowners wealth-building opportunities and protects them on the downside in declining housing markets.

Manna cites problems with mixed income developments that predate IZ. Many of these problems stem from the way the programs were administered. Now that the IZ program will create many similar units across the city, the DC Department of Housing and Community Development is creating a more effective stewardship framework to address many of the shortcomings of these earlier ad hoc efforts.

DC IZ's approach to long-term affordability is based on successful, time-tested efforts across the country. Hundreds of local governments are using such tools to balance affordability with asset-building opportunities for lower income families. Since low- and moderate-income DC residents and workers still face formidable barriers to affordable homeownership despite the downturn in the housing market, we need all the tools we can muster to provide more housing choices in transit-accessible and amenity-rich neighborhoods.

Cheryl Cort is Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth and spokesperson for the D.C. Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning.