Posts about Affordable Housing
See all of the interviews here.
Left to right: Muriel Bowser, Tommy Wells, Vincent Gray, Jack Evans, Andy Shallal. Images from the candidate websites.
Mayor Gray has pledged to spend $100 million a year on affordable housing, and recently also agreed to devote half the city's surplus to affordable housing once the rainy day fund gets paid down. What does that money get for DC residents, and is it enough?
Gray touted 47 affordable housing projects that are underway, all across the city, which he said can "buy down" the cost of housing, particularly rental housing. Will those 47 projects make a real dent in our housing problem? He said,
I think it's a significant dent in the housing need in the city, but I think hopefully we'll set a tone in terms of the culture, to say that we've got to have economically diverse housing in the city. The commitment in the housing plan I put together is that we would either create or preserve 10,000 units by 2020.
We already have reached the point where over 2,000 units have been created or are under construction, and the pace is picking up. 10,000 is not going to solve the problem. It is a huge down payment, a huge investment.
I think, too, as opportunities become available in the city with additional resources, I want to continue to invest in housing.
Tommy Wells argued that the government has not made it enough of a priority, especially in public land deals from the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development.
We have large tracts of land, from the McMillan Reservoir to Walter Reed to Reservation 13 to Poplar Point. If we start with the idea that our city needs affordable housing, then instead of looking at which developer can make money on this and then add on affordable housing
— affordable housing on those tracts and those developments have been the secondary priority.
Wells specifically mentioned that DC has not built independent living facilities for seniors. He also suggested DC find more "creative" ways to use buildings, like the Martin Luther King, Jr. Library downtown.
We have real estate on top of MLK Library. The Mies [van der Rohe] bldg was built for 5 stories. The structure is there. That is one of the most desirable places to live in the country. It's also one of the most expensive. If we thought of that as being the possibility of affordable housing for seniors, the place whereHe also accused the government of not being "smart" enough with its investments to ensure there is affordable housing in areas that will soon become more desirable. "We need to be land banking today on every route we're planning for the streetcar," he said. "We know the land value is going to go up. We need to be land banking along the streetcar lines so that we don't come back and say, 'Oh gosh, now this is so expensive, we need more cash out of the Housing Production Trust Fund in order to have less housing than we would have had if we had been smart to begin with."
— I can't think of a better place to live as a senior. You're on top of a library, you have services, medical services, the Y nearby...
Both Wells and Bowser talked about the problems of preserving affordable housing as well as creating more, and said that even DC's current investment will only do so much. Bowser said,
$100 million will get us little. If we do it for 10 years we'll get 10,000 new units. Our waiting list for public housing closed at 70,000 people. That already demonstrates a gap. We could spend a billion dollars and still have 10,000 people who are still in need of an affordable unit. An affordable housing strategy can't just be about creating units. It has to be about preserving and investing in the units we have.Bowser also pointed the finger at the Gray administration, which she said has slowed development projects on public land to a "trickle."
When I first got on the council, we were approving city-initiated projects every month. Now it's a trickle of projects that come out of the Deputy Mayor's office. It's a trickle coming out of DHCD. And there's just not enough urgency around the creation of [affordable housing] units, and we need to get more.
More than that, we see projects getting canceled and rolled back. I can't tell you the concern over the Deputy Mayor's office canceling the Park Morton project, or Lincoln Heights. So I can tell you there's interest in developing housing in DC.
Do we have to incentivize it in some parts of the city, yes. Do we have to have some government involvement, absolutely. But I haven't seen at this point anybody saying that I don't want to build anything in DC.
Jack Evans claimed credit for the Housing Production Trust Fund existing in the first place. "Everyone you talk to is going to take credit for that, but the bottom line is, it was a piece of legislation that had been in existence that Mayor Williams, myself, and Councilmember Fenty decided to put in place and fund."
Evans also talked about his efforts to extend rent control, and to provide tax breaks for homeowners.
I championed the tax cap that started out at 25%, went down to 10%, and I'm looking to see if we can even lower it further so that people in the city, all across the city, who own homes won't find themselves in the situation where their property taxes are driving them out. And on the senior level, again I have a bill that moved out of my committee, that if you're a senior citizen and you earn less than 60,000, are 75 years old and lived in your house for 15 years, you don't have to pay property taxes at all. ...
Last night I was over at Thomas house, a senior building, and many of the residents there were talking to me about how they have homes and how helpful this will to be for them to stay in their home instead of going into a retirement home.
Evans mentioned that residents of east of the river neighborhoods say they don't want all the affordable housing over there, but spread throughout the city. He said he wants to put that housing everywhere. When I asked how some would go in Ward 3, west of Rock Creek Park, he said it should happen when there is new construction involving public land, but didn't specify further where that public land might be.
Bowser also brought up this concern from east of the river. She cited Inclusionary Zoning as a way to get affordable housing elsewhere, and seemed confident that initial "kinks" could be worked out.
Andy Shallal would go further and increase the amount of housing DC requires under inclusionary zoning. IZ "asks something from developers that receive so much. We need to ask for much more, much higher percentages." Similarly for public property, he said, "We have to be mindful of how we use that public property, and not just give it away willy nilly, to make this city a pawnshop for developers."
Watch the complete housing discussions with the candidates:
See all of the articles here.
It's not that easy to find specific policy issues where Charles Allen and Darrel Thompson disagree. Both candidates vying to succeed Tommy Wells talk about affordable housing, jobs, seniors, and education.
Indeed, in their freeform statements about affordable housing, both cited the need to ensure housing for families as well as singles and roommates. Compare the candidates' initial statements on affordable housing:
The biggest difference between Charles Allen and Darrel Thompson is in their political paths. Allen worked as Wells' chief of staff and knows city policy backward and forward. Thompson also has a long record in public service, but at the federal level working for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; he has not been very active in local politics or policy in the recent past.
Thompson has been a quick study and has compelling values for the ward, though ones not very different from Allen's. Thompson said the ward needs "new leadership," but when pressed, did not articulate much in the way of specific objections to Tommy Wells' tenure, while Allen is running on the record he and Wells built.
When I asked each candidate about how DC would add the 41,000-105,000 new housing units it needs in the next 20 years, both cited Hill East as a place with substantial development opportunities. While continuing to emphasize the need for family housing, Allen also said we need to add housing by using existing buildings in "smarter or more flexible ways," like accessory dwellings:
We're a community full of alleys. We have a lot of homes that have carriage houses or they have alley access properties. To be able to allow those to be legal residences is important. It's important because it allows for that housing to be created.
It's also important because
— I'll bring it back to affordability. If you have a property that has a carriage house, you're looking at rising costs in the city. Being able to have that be part of your rent is actually a great part of making your home help you in terms of achieving affordability.
In a subsequent email, Thompson said he also supports this proposal. He wrote, "With the growing rate of the population in our city, we need to provide more housing and this is a way to do that. Additionally, allowing homeowners to collect income on their property increases the affordability of owning their home, especially seniors on fixed incomes."
When I asked him about housing supply during the interview, Thompson also talked about being "smart," using the same word as Allen, but also said "we've got to make sure we don't overbuild," and that "there are developments on the table in Ward 6 that have split neighborhoods because residents didn't feel like they had the input."
Was Thompson talking about the Hine school development, the mixed-use project at Eastern Market Metro? Among other things, yes, and he had this to say:
Clearly something didn't go right. A lot of folks are outraged. I've talked to folks throughout Ward 6 and that part of Capitol Hill often, and folks feel like
— some feel like it's too large. I think it's too large. I think under the current proposal we've got right now it's important we go back and look at this again.
Even talking about the affordable housing units that are offered, they're not like the market rate units. So we're creating housing for 2 different classes of people and making sure people clearly know that's what we did. That's not right.
We're talking about building something that's much larger than anything else in the surrounding neighborhoods. So I think, again, we should have proper community input; input that actually is meaningful and is adhered to before we sign off on projects. It's important. Lots of folks would like to see that project done, including myself, but not under the current proposal.
On this, Allen does not agree. I asked him over email for his view, and he wrote:
This is a project that will create a vibrant mix of housing, retail, office, market space, and important affordable housing in the heart of Capitol Hill and on top of a Metro station. Fitting the character and context of the community is crucial and I believe the Advisory Neighborhood Commission did an outstanding job of managing the complex array of issues and interests put before them.To get the best sense of Thompson and Allen unfiltered, watch the whole 10-15 minute housing exchange I had with each. In upcoming days, we'll look at the two candidates' views on education and transportation.
In regard to affordable housing, a much needed mix of affordability will be created in both the north and the south buildings, including dedicated affordable housing for seniors to help ensure our city prioritizes successful aging-in-place within our neighborhoods.
The project has been the focus of countless community meetings, living room conversations, and many hundreds of hours of public work by the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission, neighbors, the project's Community Advisory Committee throughout the decision-making and zoning process.
We conducted the interviews at the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw library and the Gibson Plaza apartments, a mixed-income market rate and affordable housing building also in the Shaw neighborhood. Both locations are now in Ward 6 following the 2012 redistricting (but we talked to the Ward 1 candidates there, too). Thanks to Martin Moulton for organizing the space and recording and editing the videos.
Yesterday, we looked at how our expenditures vary by income, and an important question came up: Do the income figures include government assistance programs? The answer is mostly yes.
Image by the author.
The chart above shows the percentage of total income by source for consumer units at different income levels. Income includes benefits from programs such as Social Security, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Unemployment Insurance. It excludes benefits that are paid directly to a service provider, such as Medicaid or Housing Choice Vouchers, but those amounts are also excluded on the expenditures.
The major source of income that is not accounted for here, or in yesterday's graphs, is refundable income tax credits. That mechanism helps close the gap between after tax income and expenditures slightly for lower income households, but there is still, on average, a significant shortfall that must come from a nongovernmental source.
Everyone's spending habits are basically the same. But rising housing and transportation costs hit low-income households hardest.
Consumer spending by income. All images by the author.
Data from the Bureau for Labor Statistics show that people of all income levels tend to spend similar percentages of their budgets on each expenditure category, with some exceptions. For example, as income rises, Consumer Units (defined as families living together, financially independent individuals, or groups of unrelated individuals who budget jointly) dedicate an increasing percentage of their budget to personal insurance and pensions.
Consumers at the lower end of the income spectrum spend a disproportionately higher percentage of their budget on housing costs. But on most other measures, including transportation, health care, and entertainment, the percentages across income levels are fairly equivalent, as shown in the graph above.
But these percentages represent share of total expenditures, and not all Consumer Units are operating with a balanced budget. A comparison of income and expenditures shows that lower-income families and individuals tend to spend more than they earn while higher-income units are able to stash some of their earnings away. The graphs below attempt to illustrate this:
Low-income households spend more than they earn.
When you change the denominator in the first graph from Total Expenditures to Annual Income, a more accurate depiction of our spending habits is revealed. Consumers earning between $5,000 and $30,000 per year spend 62% of their income on Housing, 24% on Transportation and 23% on Food. That's 109% of their income gone just on these three basic necessities.
Low-income households are burdened by high housing and transportation costs.
This modified version of the first graphic presented gives a fuller representation of household finances at different income levels in the US. It paints a pretty bleak picture for low-income families and individuals.
A version of this post originally ran at R. U. Seriousing Me?
Andrew Fellows came to College Park from Silver Spring in 1991 as a grad student at the University of Maryland and never left. Now mayor and newly elected to a third term, Fellows wants to draw staff and faculty back to this college town, all while making it more environmentally sustainable.
Andy Fellows, mayor of College Park. Photo by the author.
It's Thursday morning at the Starbucks in College Park, perhaps the main thoroughfare for college students in this 30,000-person city. Fellows walks in quickly. If you're not looking up at the time, you'll miss him. A hand shoots out.
"Morning, Mayor," says a man from a lounge chair.
"Hey, how are ya doin?" says Fellows.
In November, Fellows was reelected in the city's first contested election in 24 years. Fellows, whose day job is regional director at Clean Water Action, agreed to meet me for one of the first interviews since then.
What are the executive powers of mayors of small municipalities like College Park?
Mayor Fellows: Almost none...the city council sets policy. I have a vote on council matters, but only if it's a tie. Then we have a city manager who is full-time: basically who runs the city, and implements the policy that we settle.
It's not really my authority, but it's my ability to meet with leaders. When I was sworn in, I said that I wanted to improve the relationship with the University of Maryland and also with Prince George's County. So I spend a chunk of time meeting with people and talking with people about ways we could work together and improve relationships. I'm a little bit of an ambassador for College Park.
Could you tell me a little about your work [at Clean Water Action]?
Mayor Fellows: Clean Water Action is a national organization. We have about a million members around the country. I coordinate our program in Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. Our mission is both to make democracy work and get people involved in the decision-making process on environmental issues, and also to implement the Clean Water Act, which is to make the water of the United States more fishable and to make sure there's safe and affordable drinking water. It's partly political because we do endorsements and we do election work, and it's also education and outreach.
It seems College Park is a bit of a hotbed for non-profit environmental work. Did that activity and organizing attract you to the city in the first place?
Mayor Fellows: It's part of being a college town where those types of groups tend to be here. In a sense it did attract me. But then again I didn't really work in environmental work at first. I worked at Citizen Action, which did do environmental work but they worked with other issues as well.
I've attempted to make it a point not to bring my Clean Water agenda to being the mayor at College Park, but it overlaps in the sense that I'm a green mayor. I'm an environmentally-minded mayor. So I want to encourage as much sustainability as possible.
What are some of the challenges that are unique to College Park instead of other nearby municipalities?
Mayor Fellows: I think the unique opportunity we have, and in some ways the challenge, is being home to the flagship campus to the state of Maryland. Because of that we have a lot of count-down issues. Sometimes it's the tension of people who are renting and living short-term and maybe have a different lifestyle than their neighbors: partying and noise. That's a lot of what the Quality of Life Workgroup does, is address some of those issues.
But also with planning, transportation, and economic development issues. The university has a lot of power and the city doesn't have final authority on land use; the county does. So, our focus is on coordinating our efforts with the university and the county to make sure that we're working together.
What are you proud of having accomplished?
Mayor Fellows: Well a lot of the university faculty don't live here in town, and so one of the things that we recognize for the university to be more sustainable is having them living closer to the university so that they can bike or walk to work.
The reason they don't is education. The public schools of Prince George's County don't have a good reputation, so education has always been a top priority of mine. But the city of College Park didn't run education. We do now that we are helping to run a new charter school called College Park Academy, that just opened this fall...It's in a former Catholic school called St. Mark's. We will be creating a full-time location for the College Park Academy, but we're still in the process of doing that.
To me that's a really concrete accomplishment of getting the university, the city, and the county to work together to improve public education opportunities for kids.
Where does affordable housing rank on the list of the city's priorities?
Mayor Fellows: It's pretty high, but affordable housing is one of those issues that's mostly related to students. Of course, that's not true in a lot of parts of Prince George's County. I think for us in College Park, we've got a pretty good amount of diversity of income and affordable housing.
We imposed rent control and rent stabilization to address what we felt were students being ripped off by landlords who were charging really high rates. A lot of the parents of students can afford high rates. So the rents around here in the group houses were going up. So we did two things: one, we put rent stabilization in place, and then we went to war with the landlords, which took a while to get going.
What were some of the provisions of your rent control?
Mayor Fellows: You could only raise the rent a certain percentage of the value of the property.
Are student advocacy groups active on this front?
Mayor Fellows: The Student Government Organization and the Graduate Student Government have somewhat engaged in housing issues. Their big issue is getting more housing. Because, the market says, in theory, that if you have enough housing, the prices will come down because of supply and demand.
Where does smart growth fit into all of this?
Mayor Fellows: Smart growth for me is the more we can build around transit areas, areas with transportation infrastructure, so that people aren't as dependent on cars. And for us it's working. We're actually decreasing the amount of vehicle trips on Route 1 because of the fact that students living so close to campus don't have to drive to campus, which reduces cars on the road.
Okay, let's switch gears. What's the strangest thing a constituent has ever said to you?
Mayor Fellows: Well, the first thing that comes to my mind… I'm not really sure if it's strange, but it's strange to me. We put up speed cameras a few years ago, and sure enough people got caught speeding. But I was amazed that people would call me up, the mayor, and complain about being caught for speeding. Basically, their attitude was, "How dare you put up a speed camera ad how dare you fine me for breaking the law." It was so weird to me.
What are some of your personal challenges that you've faced since becoming mayor?
Mayor Fellows: My personal challenge is probably time. I end up working 60 or 70 hours a week. And it's work I love doing. So it's figuring out, "how do I prioritize and get things done in a way that's effective, but doesn't drive me crazy?"
Also, being patient, which is somewhat of a strength of mine because I'm a pretty patient guy. But some things don't happen overnight or really quickly. The most sustainable things are the ones where people take a lot of community ownership or a lot of people involved in the project to get people going together. It's bottom up and not top down. And that also takes time.
A version of this post appeared on Jimmy's Writing Samples.
Wednesday marks the start of 2014, but what about further into the future? We asked our contributors what they hope to be writing and reading about on Greater Greater Washington in 10 years.
Dan Reed: I'd like to write about how the region's ethnic enclaves, from Langley Park to Annandale, have become the new hot spots, drawing investment from around the globe as the cool kids finally realize there's a big world outside DC, and it's got much better food. Meanwhile, the Rockville Metro station gets renamed "Chinatown."
Jim Titus: I hope to read that that Metropolitan AME complains about DDOT's insensitivity to churches, while the city makes excuses. Church officials complain that CaBi needs to completely empty its 60-bike dock early on Sundays, to prevent the dock from exceeding capacity at the 11:00 AM service.
But DDOT says the real problem is that the new "trikeshare" three-wheelers used by most elderly parishioners each take up two spaces. Church officials concede that the dock never fills at the 7:45 service, which is generally attended by younger members.
Michael Perkins: Goal for the next five years is for DC to take the experience in San Francisco to heart and get serious about managing their curbside parking. Adjust hours and prices to ensure people can find a space if they're willing to pay what it's worth.
Ben Ross: Construction of a new Metro line through downtown DC, and new rail lines in the suburbs. And a reorientation of the Montgomery and Prince George's transportation departments, like DC and Arlington, to operate urban complete streets rather than suburban highways.
Canaan Merchant: 1) Hopefully I'll be reading about construction on a number of new transit lines. 2) Hopefully we'll see so many people on bikes that we'll need to discuss how to handle bicycle congestion. 3) How the city has adapted under new buildings that have broken the current height limit. 4) What the city has planned for an RFK site that is now focused on providing new housing/retail for the city and not more stadiums and parking lots. 5) How the Columbia Pike streetcar has aided in transforming the corridor and led to calls for streetcar expansion throughout Northern Virginia.
Chad Maddox: How the region has successfully absorbed many more residents while simultaneously managing to keep housing relatively affordable. Also, how the District has become a national model for its efforts to eliminate concentrated poverty and residential segregation in its borders.
Tracey Johnstone: That better coordination among local transit agencies, combined with the implementation of free transfer among subway, light rail, bus, and streetcar increased transit usage by over 25%.
Adam Froehlig: In a controversial effort to address chronic bike congestion on the MVT and the 14th St Bridge path, NPS and DDOT implement all-electronic bicycle tolls. A local bike commuter is quoted in the news as saying it will force him to switch to driving while another complains that the revenues will go to the private collector and WMATA instead of to path and bridge repairs.
And after years of false starts, the District finally implements a mileage tax. The effort is seen as a colossal failure as non-DC-registered cars are exempt and the elimination of the gas tax prompts Maryland drivers to suddenly flood DC streets such as Benning Road and Georgia Ave to take advantage of the cheaper DC gas.
Neil Flanagan: I'd like to hear Montgomery officials getting anxious about how successful Prince George's Smart Growth program has been. That it's putting pressure on DC to drop rents, but won't someone think about the historic Greenbelt gas station that's going under?
Also, "Daddy, what's a Millenial?"
There is a debate raging in Washington, DC, about how to best balance two equally valid but competing public objectives with the city's affordable homeownership programs: wealth creation and preservation of housing affordability.
Homeownership is critical to wealth creation for low and moderate-income families. Home equity represents fully 60% of low-income households' wealth, dwarfing the value of retirement accounts and financial assets. The most important way that households gain equity is by paying down their mortgage; appreciation certainly helps, but in most markets, in most time periods, it is secondary.
But preserving affordability is critical too. In an era of fiscal constraints, local programs are facing increasing pressure to ensure public subsidies are spent wisely and equitably. For example, two key supports for local homeownership, HUD's CDBG and HOME programs have been cut in real terms by 2/3 and 1/2, respectively, since their peak.
Even for local programs like DC's Inclusionary Zoning program or public lands dispositions (which rely on "density bonuses" or discounted land prices in exchange for building low-income units), the units produced are still a scarce resource.
Three ways to make homeownership affordable
There are three different schools of thought about the best way to provide affordable homeownership in high-cost markets. The first, the traditional model, is where an owner has no or minimal constraints on profiting. This approach maximizes wealth creation, but does so at the expense of affordability preservation, as typically all subsidies are lost after a short period (e.g. 5 or 10 years).
A second approach, "subsidy recapture," requires that owners repay the subsidies they received to buy the home, but allows them to capture all the home's appreciation. (This is not altogether different from Council Bill 20-604, the "Affordable Homeownership Preservation and Equity Accumulation Amendment Act of 2013.") A third model, "shared equity," requires that owners leave part of the subsidy in the home to make it affordable to the next buyer, while allowing the first owner to realize a portion of the home's increasing value.
Shared equity is complex, but it's increasingly seen as promising because of the balance it offers between the equity gains for the initial homeowner and sustaining the public subsidy in the unit. This is especially significant when trying to preserve the economic diversity of rapidly changing neighborhoods.
How could DC use the expanded Housing Production Trust Fund?
If Mayor Gray wanted to spend all of the $100 million he proposed adding to the Housing Production Trust Fund on subsidizing homeownership for low-income families, how many homes would he provide under each approach? Assuming each home requires $100,000 in subsidy and it takes DC 10 years to deploy the $100 million, the city could, after 25 years, provide 1,000 homes to families under the traditional approach.
Assuming a rate of moving of 6% (the national average for homeowners) and a 5% growth in home prices (reasonable for the District), a subsidy recapture program would provide approximately 1,500 homes, half again as much as the traditional program. Every resale, would return the $100,000 subsidy back to the city, which it could use to reinvest in providing homes in the same manner.
However, $100,000 10 years later doesn't buy what $100,000 buys today. Think of the changes to home prices in Columbia Heights over the past decade, and now in Petworth.
How many affordable housing units are created through the social equity (red), subsidy recapture (orange), and traditional (yellow) methods.
The shared equity model could provide nearly 2,200 homes during the same time span, for the same public investment. Why is there such a difference between the subsidy recapture and shared equity models? The shared equity approach attaches subsidies to a specific set of homes that resell, while the subsidy recapture approach must subsidize the purchase of new homes with each resale, and housing prices are accelerating far faster than incomes. You can tweak the assumptions that created this figure, but the basic principle holds.
Shared equity and creating wealth
But what do these equity restrictions mean for buyers' ability to create wealth? Thankfully, we have real evidence from operating programs to inform this. With colleagues at the Urban Institute, I undertook the first cross-site study of seven shared equity programs across the country to examine their outcomes for buyers.
Of the seven programs we examined, upon resale, buyers earned an average internal rate of return of 26% annually. This calculation only measures return from appreciation, not savings gains through paying down a mortgage. These are pretty sizable returns for individuals, and well in excess what people could have made if they had invested their money in the stock market or in a savings account.
Of course if there were no equity restrictions, they would accrue much higher gains, but affordability would be lost upon resale. What then about differences in equity gains between the subsidy recapture and shared equity approaches? Assuming buyers put 5 percent down on a $200,000 home, that home prices rise by 5% annually, and that median incomes increase by 3% annually, the annual rate of return for shared equity program would be 21 percent, and the subsidy recapture would be 29 percent.
What should DC do?
The tradeoff between wealth creation and affordability preservation is real: the more subsidies the first buyer receives, the better off he or she is, and the worse, all else equal, is the second interested buyer. And there are well-intentioned people on all sides of the debate. I don't presume to have the final word on this debate in DC, but it seems that historically, the city has undervalued future owners while providing outsized assistance to a smaller set of first buyers.
Further, there is no clear justification for letting equity restrictions expire after 5 or 10 years, as is commonly done. If the city wants to provide greater equity gains, it can simply adjust the index used to be more generous.
There is good reason that shared equity models are on the rise nationwide, and especially in high-priced cities like DC. It's just too expensive for the city to provide traditional homeownership support, and the shared equity model creates more units than a subsidy recapture approach, while still allowing for sizable wealth creation. Washington, DC, has become one of the most inequitable cities in the country. It's time for robust solutions that will preserve a healthy income mix in the city for decades to come.
The views expressed are my own, and shouldn't be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
- Is a walkable neighborhood out of reach for you?
- What's the point of supermarket gas rewards if you don't drive to the store?
- Design could make or break the 11th Street Bridge Park
- Fun on Friday: Play the Mini Metro game
- Adding 15-minute Circulator routes would dilute the Circulator brand
- Comparing Metrobus and Metrorail farebox recovery is apples and oranges
- DC Council race reviews: At-large and chairman