Affordable for Whom? Meeting Diverse Housing Needs in High-Cost Cities
Jointly sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University
Opening Address
HENRY CISNEROS, Founder and Chairman, CityView/Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Biography Presentation
Conference Welcome
CARL TURNIPSEED, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Biography MP3 Audio File
Mr. Turnipseed introduces the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose federal mandate is to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has another mission: to promote the economic development of the New York region. By fostering partnerships to promote the exchange of ideas, it expands the region?s capacity to respond to issues of economic development. One key regional economic issue is the cost of housing and the limited supply available to low and moderate income households whose needs are complex and shifting. This conference focuses on the housing programs in large older cities that address these needs in the context of rapidly rising housing and high housing costs. The following sessions are intended to help leaders and practitioners broaden their visions and programs for their respective cities.
SHAUN DONOVAN, Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
Biography MP3 Audio File
As Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Shaun Donovan adds his perspective on the issue of affordability in New York City. He describes a tour he took of the South Bronx with the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Directors, which showed them a microcosm of the recent changes in New York City. Walking by Charlotte Gardens, an historic symbol of urban blight, visitors saw the ranch houses that were built for $50,000 and today sell for $500,000. In a few blocks they were able to retrace the revitalization of the City of New York. Over the years, HPD has been a leader in transforming abandoned neighborhoods into thriving communities. Now, however, the City faces new challenges. Residents of these transformed neighborhoods experience many benefits but also confront issues of affordability. Today, as we strive to retain a diverse population and workforce, we are focusing on the City’s future social as well as economic needs. New York City has a great deal to learn from cities like Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, which are addressing affordability issues in innovative ways.
VICKI BEEN, Professor of Law and Director, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University
Biography MP3 Audio File
Professor Been speaks about housing affordability in New York and other hot urban markets. She introduces the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, which works to provide objective research on the effects that both public and private investments have on neighborhoods. Over the years the Furman Center has studied HPD’s successes in developing affordable housing, and research demonstrates that investments in housing have led to incredible improvements in neighborhoods. The Furman Center also issues many calls for changes in the regulatory system; the recently updated “Reducing the Cost of New Housing Construction in New York City” study offered more than 90 recommendations about reducing high housing construction costs.
Session 1: CURRENT AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Moderator: VICKI BEEN, Professor of Law and Director, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University
ANDREW HAUGHWOUT, Research Officer, Macroeconomic and Regional Studies Function, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Dr. Haughwout presents how the housing market has changed over the past two decades. He first mentions the tremendous home price appreciation that has occurred in the past ten years. This growth has been unusual in how much real growth we have seen and how sustained this growth has been, but the sources of this appreciation are not clear – how much of this appreciation is coming from the supply, and how much from demand? When interest rates are low, and stay low for an extended period of time, we expect to see large and sustained increases in home prices. As this has happened, affordability has declined because home prices have increased sharply relative to family income. Higher-priced homes have appreciated the most. One notable factor is location, and when examining appreciation in different cities one can observe the tremendous variation in housing markets across the country.
The next question, then, is whether these decreases in affordability have a negative impact on long-term economic growth. As recent reports in the The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have stated, the increase in housing prices has been pushing middle-class residents out of New York. However, data does not show any relationship between housing affordability and economic growth. Housing prices increase due to heightened demand, and this will often lead to declining affordability, but there is not much evidence that changes in affordability affect the growth of cities.
JEFFREY LUBELL, Executive Director, Center for Housing Policy
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Mr. Lubell takes a closer look at the federal government’s role in affordable housing over the years. Unfortunately, in recent years the federal government has not been as active in housing. Federal spending has greatly surpassed revenues, resulting in a growing federal deficit. In 1996 the nation experienced a short period of surplus, but by 2000 we saw a sharp reduction in revenue, even as expenses continued to increase. This revenue loss is largely due to tax cuts. Funding for domestic discretionary programs as a whole fell as a share of GDP from 2003-2006; this decline is projected to continue through 2011.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget increased between 2000 and 2002, then fell in 2003 and is projected to take a more significant decline in 2007. The question now remains: will the situation get worse? This year’s HUD budget sees increases and decreases. Cities are confronting declines in Community Development Block Grants, which are now 31 percent less than what was enacted in 2004, and the Public Housing Capital Fund is down 24 percent. Hope VI is proposed to be eliminated. HOME funding has stayed fairly constant over time. Section 8, both project- and tenant-based, has experienced reported increases from the budget authority; unfortunately the number of families this program is serving has actually declined, resulting in the loss of 100,000 actual assisted households since 2004. This diminished federal role in housing is particularly difficult because housing costs have risen. Cities need to consider how they can raise additional sources of revenue and retain the subsidies that they currently have. Cities must be creative about the grants they give, and work to keep units affordable over longer periods of time.
WILLIAM APGAR, Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Biography MP3 Audio File
Professor Apgar presents a report on the state of the nation’s housing. The country has gone through a remarkable period of economic growth in the 1990s and 2000s, for which the housing sector has been a key factor. Yet, not all of this housing prosperity has been widely shared. First and foremost, our economy is on a dual track, in which some people are quite prosperous while others struggle, and nowhere is this more true than in New York City. The top 20 percent have benefited from substantial wage and income growth, while wages and income have been flat or even declining for the bottom 20 percent. Ultimately, if we do not train lower- income individuals for higher wage positions, we will continue to witness this wide income disparity. Budget cuts in job training and education, along with many other budget cuts, will have large effects on the housing market and on people’s ability to afford this housing. We can all agree that one cannot afford to live on minimum wage, but housing has become unaffordable to the middle class as well.
Harvard University produces an annual report on the state of the nation’s housing, and each year it shows that affordability is declining. A recent MacArthur Foundation-funded report focused solely on rental housing. Even while we hold homeownership as an ideal, it is important that we do not discourage the development of affordable rental housing. We must also work on the housing cost front: over the past twenty years, the building industry has been relatively innovative, and most increases in housing costs have been a result of increase in land costs. Cities can also accomplish things in their own backyards, like finding underutilized land. However, cities cannot change the landscape on their own. We must collaborate to increase densities throughout regions and decrease the pressures on appreciating central cities. We must understand that when we downzone areas we are condemning our children to a life of high cost housing. The questions remain: will the changes occur? Will there be a change in the budget situation? Will we change our zoning practices? How can we change NIMBYism? Cities need to follow New York City’s lead, and look for places they can up-zone or re-zone, and then work to create regional alliances. We must also continue to focus on making work pay, and give individuals a fighting chance by creating some affordable places for them to live.
Session 2: EXPANDING THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP AND SHARED EQUITY MODELS
Moderator: SARAH GERECKE, Chief Executive Officer, Neighborhood Housing Services of NYC
Biography
ALAN MALLACH, Research Director, National Housing Institute (Montclair, New Jersey)
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Mr. Mallach discusses the model of shared equity housing. He begins by introducing New York City’s model, the limited equity cooperative, which has become one of the most successful forms of shared equity housing. This model works for many different housing types, under a number of different housing conditions. Major variations of shared equity housing include community land trusts and deed restrictions or covenants to keep housing affordable. These strategies are not intended to increase housing supply, but rather to provide access to homeownership to a large number of households for whom conventional homeownership is not a realistic option. Using shared appreciation models can increase access to homeownership, and create a long-term affordable housing stock in markets where appreciation has taken place. By using the shared appreciation model, a city can create a support system for home buyers which helps them preserve their ownership and better manage the risks of homeownership.
To implement shared equity models, certain issues must be addressed. First, clear goals or policies need to be created and then a consensus must be reached as to which policies are being pursued and why they are being pursued. Second, clear ground rules need to be established. People who get involved with shared equity homeownership need to understand the caveats of these deals. Third, clear legal authority and clear legal documents must exist. Finally, Mr. Mallach discusses the prospect of developing these projects to scale. He believes that once the basic systems are in place, there are no impediments towards moving to scale, and the decision is essentially a policy choice. There is no simple right or wrong answer, but shared equity housing is an important strategy for preserving homeownership for low- and moderate-income individuals.
MARY KAISER, President, California Community Reinvestment Corporation (Glendale, California)
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Ms. Kaiser describes CCRC’s experience raising equity funding for moderate-income homeownership housing. Their fund is a front end equity fund, designed for developers who do not have the equity but are motivated to develop affordable housing. CCRC was able to raise $40 million dollars for their first fund, and their first project came on line in April 2006. The organization is working to balance Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) qualifications as well as targeting towards a more moderate-income population, between 80 and 100 percent of AMI. Staff have found that generally banks are most concerned that these houses are producing some affordability, and have been less focused on meeting the CRA qualifications. Their target return to investors is mid- to low-teens, designed to keep more affordability in the product as opposed to mid-20s that other funds promise. Their focus has been on deals that involve $1-3 million dollar investments. Cities need all levels of housing – the idea behind CCRC’s fund is to add another tool to the city’s arsenal of affordable housing developments.
MELINDA MARBLE, Executive Director, Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation/Home Funders (Boston, Massachusetts)
Biography MP3 Audio File
Ms. Marble describes Home Funders, an affordable housing development fund targeted towards low-income renters. The project attempts to record the cost of units in homeownership projects, and to create a small number of rental units that are affordable to people making 20 to 30 percent of median income or less. Building on the Paul and Phyllis Fireman Foundation’s mission to end family homelessness in Massachusetts, Home Funders began looking at the patterns of homelessness in Massachusetts over a ten-year period, and decided to tackle the issue. Home Funders is a funding collaborative involving about a dozen organizations, geared towards rallying community support to address the shortage of low-income housing for the poorest families. The organization believes that with the right mix of resources, focus, and will, organizations can create a solution to homelessness, and housing is a large piece of the answer. Home Funders’ mission is to create 4,000 mixed-income housing units in ten years, with about 1,000 of these units reserved for families in the lowest income bracket, about 30 percent of AMI or below. They will accomplish this mission by encouraging innovation in development strategies, leveraging city and state resources, and streamlining the development process.
ROBIN SNYDERMAN, Housing Director, Metropolitan Planning Council/REACH (Chicago, Illinois)
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Ms. Snyderman explains the Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) model, which is a general term to describe a number of ways that employers can invest in housing solutions. As Fannie Mae describes it, EAH is a win, win, win situation. It is a win for the employee, who gains housing assistance from the employer. It is a win for the employer, who sees reduction in turnover and recruitment costs. In Illinois employers have received a substantial amount of positive media attention; EAH can spotlight the housing policy issue at a very personal level, which tends to attract positive coverage. Finally, it is a win for local communities, which experience less traffic, and gain former commuters who now invest in the community. Snyderman further adds that it is a win for policy groups, as they gain additional champions when employers start to invest in housing solutions. This project was first inspired by the Silicon Valley Manufacturing model, which has a fund of over $30 million dollars, raised from employers, which is focused on housing investments. In the basic model, employers decide who they want to serve (for example, nurses, or people earning less than 80 percent AMI), and then contract with a local non-profit. The business does not need to get involved again until it provides the check to the employee.
EAH’s first success story was of a business owner who had a manufacturing plant in the western Chicago suburbs that produced smoke alarms. He decided to try EAH and set aside $5,000 for each person who graduated from the housing program. Seventeen people closed on homes, and the employer reported that not only did he recoup his investment, but he made money, and proceeded to take the story to the state. Now other employers get a dollar for dollar match from the State of Illinois, in addition to a tax credit in which employers get 50 cents for every dollar. To date, REACH has signed on 60 employers throughout the region. These policies must be brought to scale. Currently there is a bill in Congress, Housing America’s Workforce, sponsored by Senators Clinton, Smith, and Martinez. It is modeled largely after the Illinois program. It involves a federal tax credit, and it waives taxability of the subsidy received by the employee. It also includes money for evaluation. Ms. Snyderman believes this is a good bill, not only because it is able to leverage private sector investment but also because it reframes the dialogue for federal officials who need a new way to talk about affordable housing issues.
Session 3: CREATIVE STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
Moderator: MARC JAHR, Market Director, Citibank Community Development
Biography MP3 Audio File
Mr. Jahr introduced panel 3, “Creative Strategies for Developing Affordable Rental Housing.” He explained that developing affordable rental housing in New York City is particularly important because more than five million of the City’s eight million residents live in rental housing units. Therefore, figuring out how to preserve and develop affordable housing is critical to this city, and remains important in cities and suburbs throughout the United States as well.
CHARLES LAVEN, President, Forsyth Advisors/New York City Acquisition Fund
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Mr. Laven describes the basic concept behind the New York City Acquisition Fund (NYCAF). For 30 years, developers in the City have not had to pay for land due to the the stock of in rem tax-foreclosed stock. As this basic vehicle for free acquisition disappears over the next few years, developers will have to pay for land. Though New York City has many tools for affordable housing development, the City does not offer access to working capital, which can be used to acquire land, thereby giving the developer time to put together the financing package. The NYCAF, then, is a response to the need for short-term bridge loans to acquire land, allowing the developer time to apply for the various subsidies necessary to develop affordable housing. Borrowers who wish to acquire land can go to a number of partner agencies and request a loan, with a standard application, and with a commitment from HPD or HDC. The funding itself provides guarantees, which offer insurance on top of the loans. One of the keys to the success of this program is the fund’s delegation of underwriting to experienced Community Development Financial Institutions and to HDC, creating many access points. The fund also allows for a high advance rate so capital can be used for all aspects of the predevelopment phase. The NYCAF is an attempt to create a new tool in New York City that will enable affordable housing developers to respond quickly to opportunities to acquire land. It does not, however, write down the cost of land, and so the rising cost of land will continue to be a hurdle to the development of affordable housing.
DOUGLAS PORTER, President, Growth Management Institute (Chevy Chase, Maryland)
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Mr. Porter discussed the process of implementing inclusionary zoning (IZ) policies in hot markets. He examined IZ programs in Montgomery County, Maryland (outside of Washington, D.C.), Boston, Denver, San Diego, and San Francisco. Montgomery County has developed 12,000 units of moderate-income housing, and another 10,000 units through a lower-income program. Based on these successes, Montgomery County’s program has been the model many other cities have used to set up their programs. It uses market forces to incorporate affordable units into mixed-income projects, without extracting a tremendous amount of extra funding.
IZ policies can be mandatory or voluntary, though typically only mandatory programs have been effective. The definitions of “affordable” units also vary. The Boston program has developed 600 units already, and generated $15 million dollars of in lieu payments. It is being administered by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), which is an extremely powerful public organization. The Denver program has only recently been launched, but is now in a position to really take off, and it has already developed about 1,000 units. San Diego started its program about three years ago, generating 1,300 units to date. The San Francisco program has been in place since 1992, but has progressed slowly. Overall, these programs have shown mixed success, yet many other cities have been discussing inclusionary zoning as an affordable housing development technique. Before more big cities can begin to implement these plans there are a number of hurdles to overcome, including developer opposition, fragmented opinions, complex regulatory environments, and expensive housing construction costs.
EMILY YOUSSOUF, President, New York City Housing Development Corporation
Biography Presentation MP3 Audio File
Ms. Youssouf introduced the New York City Housing Development Corporation, which is the nation's number one issuer of bonds for multi-family affordable housing. This achievement is due in part to the support of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Donovan of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. HDC has increased its number of outstanding bonds, issuing a record $1.4 billion of bonds in 2005 alone. In 2004, HDC developed a tool to rehabilitate and upgrade housing for seniors originally financed through HUD’s Section 202 Program. The 202 refinancing program uses tax exempt bond financing, and allows developers to get as of right federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. This financing frees up revenue for sponsors to add additional services to their housing developments. Pooled financing has brought economies of scale to preserve a great number of units. The main challenges HDC has faced in the process have been coordination among many entities, dissemination of information, and ensuring Fannie Mae’s comfort with HUD 202 use agreement limitations and the appropriation risk on Section 8. Housing bonds are a tool that can be used in any location in the country to increase affordable development.
SESSION 4: POLICY CHOICES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Moderator: PAUL GROGAN, President, The Boston Foundation
Biography MP3 Audio File
Mr. Grogan introduced his panel, “Policy Choices for Local Governments.” Mr. Grogran began by discussing a “mobility of commitment” in public service, and how public service work is of vital importance, particularly in an era with little national leadership on issues such as housing. He described the extraordinary leadership in affordable housing in Boston, Chicago, and New York City, and how new and sophisticated partnerships were being formed, particularly with community development corporations. Mr. Grogan then discussed how in the late 1970s there was a tremendous pessimism about cities, and there was a consensus that even our greatest cities were dying. Today, we wrestle with new problems generated by some seemingly implausible successes. Neighborhoods have been revitalized; dead markets have been restarted. New questions are posed, the most central of which is “What is the vision of the city that drives our initiatives?” Mr. Grogran concluded his opening remarks by stating that these and other concerns are the fascinating dilemmas of a new era.
JUDITH CALOGERO, Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal
Biography MP3 Audio File
Commissioner Calogero sees the state’s primary role in housing as one of providing a support mechanism for programs and services in the cities and communities across the state. The diversity of New York State is one of its greatest assets, but also creates one of its greatest challenges. DHCR works to develop strategies that can adequately serve Buffalo, Long Island, New York City, and the Adirondack Park. In the Adirondack Park, for example, people who work there can no longer afford to live there, and are being squeezed out of their towns because of the existing high demand for second homes. In response Commissioner Calogero has worked with Adirondack Park to establish a land trust. In Buffalo, DHCR aims to encourage growth in response to population decrease and works to persuade people to move to the downtown areas.
Of all the cities in the state, however, New York City is the only city that has recognized the importance of housing at the State level. Thanks to the work of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Donovan, housing has received high priority. At DHCR, staff work hard every day to be a part of the Mayor’s vision. Beginning with their $11.5 million dollars in Tax Credits, which DHCR hopes will bring about $95 million dollars in equity, this has been a tremendous year for affordable housing development. The State follows issues in Washington, since it is critical to get the attention of Congress and the Senate. In New York City, DHCR has experienced success because of the strong relationship between the City and State, and the strength of the staffs in each of these organizations. DHCR has been working to respond to Governor Pataki’s vision, and to the changing needs in New York. A year ago DHCR created the Access to Home program, which provides financial assistance to property owners to make units accessible for low-income persons with disabilities, and then NY/NY III, which will provide an additional 9,000 supportive housing units; both exemplified for New York State the success that can be achieved when agencies work together.
SHAUN DONOVAN, Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
MP3 Audio File
Commissioner Donovan began with a word on the importance of vision, proclaiming Mayor Bloomberg a leader on the affordable housing issue, and stating that the success of New York is due to the Mayor’s political will but also to a political demand that housing be part of the agenda. The Mayor views affordable housing both as an urgent matter of social justice and as a key economic development issue, and the City needs to address not only abandonment – an issue of the past – but also the challenge of affordability. The alternative is to risk losing New York City’s status as a leader in creativity and employment and with a highly diversified economy. In order to maintain this status, we must create healthy, mixed-income neighborhoods.
The City of New York’s approach has four key elements: finding new land; creating incentives to develop housing for new populations; harnessing the private market to provide opportunities for affordable housing development; and preserving government-assisted affordable housing. For the first approach – creatively using private and public land – a variety of financial tools and creative zoning are key. For the second approach, developing housing for new populations, a multi-pronged strategy is required. In New York, this includes providing down payment assistance, creating opportunities for coops and condos, crafting a new middle class production program, and continuing the commitment to supportive housing. For HPD the answer is to focus on integrating diversity in our built environment, buildings, and neighborhoods. On the third approach, harnessing the private market, Commissioner Donovan referred to the success of HDC, and to the 421a tax incentive program, which has been reoriented for use not just for market rate development (which often does not need it in the contemporary market) but for affordable housing. The challenge in such a situation is to calibrate housing strategies with the City’s differing markets, leveraging all available opportunities. In regard to the final approach, preserving government-assisted housing, the Commissioner described the challenge of crafting policies that seem ideal now but that may be less beneficial down the road. The expiring use issues the City now faces are emblematic of this dilemma – the City must consider what the long-term impacts of its decisions will be.
JOHN MARKOWSKI, Commissioner, Chicago Department of Housing
Biography MP3 Audio File
Commissioner Markowski discussed that Chicago has three distinct types of neighborhoods – gentrified and high cost neighborhoods, low-income areas that have seen widespread disinvestment, and those that are in-between and could move either way. Most development activity today in Chicago is in the disinvested areas, where it is easiest to find affordable or in fact City land on which to build. Chicago’s policy of selling land for affordable housing for $1 is a demonstration of its commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities. He also discussed the positive economic impact affordable housing can have on a lower-income neighborhood, when it serves as the first building block in a quest to rebuild systems, public facilities, stores, and more.
Under Mayor Daley’s guidance, Chicago has committed more than $3.7 billion to assist more than 125,000 people. Chicago and the State of Illinois have been active in generating new policies and programs, including various tax credits and incentives, statewide rental subsidies, an anti-predatory lending campaign, foreclosure prevention measures, and the creation of new resources at the local level. While these measures have been successful, more money and creativity are needed to help the approximately 160,000 Chicago households with incomes below $20,000 and who do not reside in affordable housing. According to Commmissioner Markowski, Mayor Daley and his staff have been active in trying to help these residents by securing Earned Income Tax Credit funds for residents. In addition, a large local rental subsidy, paid out of the City’s corporate budget, assists approximately 2,000 households a year. Density bonuses are also being used to harness market forces and benefit affordability. Commissioner Markowski also praised the Chicago’s Tax Increment Financing District: with more than 135 districts within the City’s limits, Chicago uses a dedicated portion of the new tax revenue accruing through a revitalized area to subsidize affordable production and to create opportunities for homeownership.
CHARLOTTE GOLAR RICHIE, Chief and Director, Boston Department of Neighborhood Development
Biography MP3 Audio File
Ms. Golar Richie began her talk by highlighting her familial and social connections with the City of New York, and mentioning how heartening it is to return to the City and see how improved her “second home” has become. As in Boston, long-ignored New York neighborhoods such as Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Crown Heights are now attracting market attention, and this presents a great opportunity. She then discussed that although the scales of Boston, Chicago, and New York may be different, many of the challenges are the same, such as expiring use, homelessness, high housing costs, continued blight in some neighborhoods, and cuts in federal resources.
Ms. Golar Richie then focused in on one particular challenge: the pricing out of the middle class, those making between $60,000 and $90,000 a year. This is a difficult group to provide for, as they are above 80 percent of the AMI and therefore disqualified for federal subsidy, yet they are not wealthy enough to buy in what is largely a renter’s city. Many of these families have difficulty purchasing homes in the City, and thus look to move. The City of Boston is currently working to craft a strategy that meets the homeownership needs of this group, but the City is not prepared to redirect resources from the lower-income Bostonians. The City does recognize, however, that it is at risk of becoming a city of the rich and the poor. Thus the agency is working to develop mortgage products, which could increase possibilities for these families to afford higher priced homes. The new strategy includes a middle-income “Reach Up Mortgage Program,” which provides an interest rate subsidy that allows would-be buyers $15,000-20,000 more in purchasing power than they would normally qualify for; a “Homebuyer Investment Fund” that provides down payment assistance; and the use of a shared appreciation mortgage, which leverages private investment and City funds and through which, when the property is sold, the investors realize a return on their investment. Finally, Ms. Golar Richie discussed Boston’s revised “Leading the Way” housing plan. Originally a three-year plan to produce or assist 7,500 units of housing, the City has moved on to “Leading the Way II,” which calls for the creation of 10,000 new units in the next four years.