Organize!...Organize! How to Get $2 Billion for Affordable Homes San Francisco BayArea voters approve bold new investments after housing advocates ignite successful electoral strategy.

Organize!How to Get $2 Billion for Affordable HomesSan Francisco Bay Area voters approve bold new investments after housing advocates ignite successful electoral strategy. By Sharon Cornu

The San Francisco

Bay Area is known for innovation, political action, and extreme

housing costs. In 2016, voters and nonprofits were able to put the three together to win $2 billion in new investment at a critical time.

Bay Area job growth and global capital have intensified housing pressure in the nine-county region. Tech companies flood the real estate market with dollars that long-term residents simply cannot

compete against. One county gained 50,000 new jobs in five years while building just 3,000 new homes. Teachers, first responders, and essential workers can’t live near

their jobs, which puts additional stress on transportation systems.

Voters saw this problem clearly in 2016. They told pollsters that the No. 1 issue they wanted leaders to address—above schools, safety, health care, and even traffic—พรเร affordable housing. But where could investment come from? Californias governor and legislature had taken away $1 billion in annual funding for housing for low-wage workers, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans by eliminating rede­velopment agencies. Coupled with federal cuts, some counties had an 89 percent reduction in affordable housing investment.

A Political Program with DataThe Non-Profit Housing Associa­tion of Northern California (NPH)

This model - strategy, data, and resident

engagement - offers a powerful opportunity

for the future.

has advocated on behalf of the Bay Area affordable housing industry for nearly 40 years. In 2014, the board hired Arme Fishman as executive director because of her record at East Bay Housing Organizations, where she led groundbreaking campaigns and initiated an innovative resident organizing program. With sup­port from the board and this new leadership—including hiring me as NPHs first political director—the organization launched a political program with strategy, data, and resident mobilization at the center.

NPH conducted a short-term pilot program among likely voters living in San Francisco affordable housing developments during the 2015 mayoral election. With sup­port from the California Housing Partnership, NPH matched a list of subsidized apartment addresses to Californias voter database and then shared targeting lists for clusters of likely voters with property managers. In an off-year municipal election, low-income, senior, veteran, and disabled affordable housing residents voted at nearly the same rate (43.3 percent) as the general electorate (45.5 percent). This turnout was a testament to the strong community organiz­ing history and capacity of San Francisco community development organizations. It was also a road­map for victory in other counties.

Armed with confirmation that affordable housing residents can affect elections, NPH worked to build a regional voter database for 2016. Funding from the San Francisco Foundation allowed development of special algorithms

and queries. There was a steep learning curve in translating the data, but NPH discovered more than 52,000 registered voters were living in developments managed by its members. NPH rolled up its sleeves to develop programs that would grow its base, inform residents, and increase turnout.

Building an Electoral Base Through Resident Engagement

NPH began convening resident service directors to discuss voter registration and engagement potential. It first put a call out to members： “Whether you are called service providers, community engagement, or property manage­ment—we want to talk to the folks who work with residents directlyT By casting a wide net, NPH was successful in bringing to the table a wide variety of members with opportunities to engage residents. The community convened to share best practices and recommend pro­gramming, including how to adapt voter registration and voter educa­tion programs in order to preserve resident privacy and trust. Subse­quent meetings included message training, legal considerations, and success stories from practitioners.

Many organizations had ongoing voter registration efforts, but reviewing hard data about the number of registered voters by property revealed opportunities to broaden our electoral base, expand to new locations, and improve existing programs with low rates of registration. Measuring is the first step in identifying how to improve, and NPH members

responded with voter registration campaigns in many counties, with striking results where there were ballot campaigns to increase housing funding underway.

In San José, First Community Housing hosted multiple trainings for service providers to engage with hundreds of residents in conversations about housing needs. One NPH member, EAH Housing, trained maintenance personnel, knowing that they are trusted community members, to circulate registration forms. (NPH has no conclusive data about the results of this tactic, but some maintenance supervisors updated their own registration because the forms were readily available.) Community partners, including Pacific Institute for Community Organizing and its affiliate Faith m Action, helped NPH deliver trainings and webinars.

Following lessons learned during the 2015 pilot program,NPH made it a priority to proviae voting information in residents’ home languages. The organization distributed 11，000 posters and flyers promoting registration and voting in Arabic, Cantonese, English, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Viet­namese. Onsite staff could order materials directly from NPH’s web­site and orders were shipped daily.

Strategic PartnershipsWith resident engagement underway, the organization dove deeply into coalitions in three large Bay Area counties to determine public support and help shape the campaigns.

NPH and its members invested in polling voters in each county, sometimes more than once, to find the strongest arguments and most persuadable voters. While NPH had conducted conceptual planning in the past, these polls were focused on direct questions

to voters： Will you vote “yes” for this measure?

The nonprofit built stronger and sometimes new partnerships with local leaders and advo­cates to ensure measures were placed on the ballot, and earned unanimous votes by each county’s board of supervisors. It reached out to business, labor, enwonmental, health care, and social service organizations. It targeted organizations that par­ticipate in electoral politics and could bring their own resources to a campaign, beginning with the elected officials who. would have to vote to place measures on the ballot: county supervisors.

The role of residents and advocates in securing supervisor support can’t be overemphasized. While NPH had strong polling and powerful political leaders on board, the compelling personal narratives of current residents who benefit from affordable homes and want more for their community drove the meetings5 emotional high points. Some speakers, who

increase funding

for housing.

homelessness and they developed a policy with an emphasis on the creation of affordable housing for chronically homeless families and residents. In Oakland (Alameda County), the eviction epidemic, which seized the homes of

had once been homeless, were currently employees at affordable housing developments. Their stories became a critical part of campaign communications, includ­ing media outreach, mail, and digital storytelling. Specifics of the measures were shaped by commu­nity experience and expectations in each county. Leaders in San José (Santa Clara County) were focused on the rapid expansion of

thousands of families in historically African-American neighborhoods, was a motivator to create afford­able rentals, a first-time homebuyer program, and develop an Oppor­tunity Fund to support additional local needs. In San Mateo County，

elected officials and voters (as seen in two rounds of polling) did not have the appetite for a bond and the two-thirds vote threshold that would require. So instead, NPH 샀

shelterforce.org Shelterforce 47

organized support for Measure K，

NPH discovered that an extension of an existing sales more than 52,000 tax measure that provides funds

registered voters lived in for developing affordable housing.developments managed

by its members, so it developed programs that would grow its

base, inform residents, and increase turnout.

Mobilizing All Our ResourcesAs NPHs political director, I spent a few days each week providing strategic, logistical, and train­ing support to NPH members, campaign consultants, and elected officials. Each campaign was managed by a professional consulting firm and staffed by field organizers, but NPH ร nousing community was the engine. Evelyn Stivers, executive director of theHousing Leadership Council (HLC)

of San Mateo County，

RESOURCESNon-Profit Housing Association

of Northern Californianhi.org/go/35113

California Housing Partnership Corporation

n M •0 rg/g o/l6700

Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo CountynhLorg/go/22338

San Francisco Foundationnhhorg/go/22628

sv ⑥ Homenhi.org/go/71189

East Bay Housing Organizationsnhi.org/go/72440

The Advocacy Fundnhi.org/go/64747

Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment

nhi.org/go/65451

took a sabbatical to manage the Measure K campaign. Leslye Corsiglia of SV@Home (Santa Clara County) demonstrated bound­less talent for securing endorsements as well as her past experience in field campaigns. East Bay Housing Organiza­tions (EBHO) and NPH co-led a campaign office for get-out-the- vote activities on the last four days. The three campaigns were prop­erly resourced. More than $5 million was raised and spent on

direct mail, media, television adver­tising, and voter contact NPHs Fishman led a fundraising team that worked the big, bold action message to ensure that the housing community delivered on commit­ments for critical resources. NPH, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, contracted with The Advocacy Fund, a project of the Tides Foundation, to aaa 501(c)(4) report­ing capacity and a general-purpose ballot committee as required by California campaign finance law.

NPH made good use of diverse resources to build its base sup­port. The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), a valuable commu­nity partner, made direct calls to targeted voters in the summer, asking about housing concerns and sharing information about the ballot in the fall. Sophisticated predictive dialer equipment was provided by ACCE as well as Working Partnerships USA, a labor affiliate, and Clifford Moss, a campaign consulting firm. A mix of volunteer and professional callers reached more than 50,000 voters in Santa Clara County and 25,000 in Alameda County.

In the final lour days, NPH was astounded by the number of executive directors and housing developer employees who stepped forward to make calls and drop door hangers. While the vote

margins in Alameda and San Mateo counties overwhelmingly supported the respective county measures, it took two weeks of counting mailed and provisional ballots in Santa Clara County before victory could be declared with certainty. With a margin just over 8,000 votes, the votes of 14,000 Santa Clara residents of affordable housing were decisive.

It was a good election day for housing measures beyond the Bay Area as well. Ihe City of Los Angeles passed Measure HHH, a $1.2 billion bond for homeless­ness reduction and prevention. Some rent stabilization measures supported by EBHO and HLC also passed. The Bay Area affordable housing community has moved from conducting political action through gatekeepers and lob­byists to building an electoral base and direct capacity. Once NPHs final data is imported with new partners and contacts from these campaigns, the organizations contact list will grow as much as 20 percent. New capacity for resident registration and engagement, renewed and refreshed community partner­ships, and a reputation for keeping promises and delivering results on the ground will support the nonprofits legislative program and assistance to members in local jurisdictions. This model— strategy, data, and resident engagement—offers a powerful opportunity for the future, o

To comment on this article, visit nhi. org/go/i86/Cornu or mite to [email protected].

SHARON CORNU is the political director for the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and an adjunct professor ofpublic policy at Mills College. She formerly served as deputy mayor in Oakland， California, as managing director of a statewide political consulting firm, and as executive officer in a regional labor center.

Shelterforce Volume 38, Number 2

Publisher Harold [email protected]

Editor Miriam Axel-Lutemiriam ⑧ nhi.org

Senior Editor Lillian M [email protected]

Associate Editor Keli A. Tianga [email protected]

Communications Assistant Terri L. Cleggterri ⑤ nhi.org

Copyeditor Elizabeth OgussPrint Design Jess MerrillWeb Design Gridwork Design

National Housing Institute

Executive Director Harold [email protected]

Associate Director Miriam Axel-Lute ทาiriam⑥nhi.org

Administrative Assistant Terri L. Clegg terri@nhL 이느

Senior Fellows Alan MallachJohn E. Davis

Research Fellow Jerry KlobyBoard President John AtlasBoard VP Diane sternerBoard Secretary Patrick Morrissy

Board of 미rectors

Roland V. Anglin, Cleveland state UniversityJohn AtlasPeter Dreier, Occidental College Martin Johnson, Isles Inc.Marcia Marley, BlueWave NJWayne Meyer, New Jersey Community CapitalPatrick Morrissy, HANDS Inc.Wendy McNeil, RWJBarnabas HealthSteven Most, The TurnAround TeamCarole Norris, ICF InternationalPhyllis Salowe-Kaye, NJ. Citizen ActionDaryl Shore, Prudential Social InvestmentsGregory อ. Squires, George Washington UniversityDiane sternerWoody Widrow, RAISE Texas Robert 0. Zdenek, National Community Reinvestment Coalition

Shelterforce (ISSN 0885-9612) is published four times a year by the National Mousing Institute. Editorial and Advertising: 60 South Fullerton Ave., Suite 202,Montclair, NJ 07042. Subscriptions: RO. Box 3000,Denville, NJ 07834. E>man: [email protected], voice: 973-509-1600, fax: 973-509-1602. Postmaster send change of address to: RO. Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834. Periodicals postage paid in Hanover, PA 17331.

Subscription rates: Single copy, $10.50; yearly libraries and other organizations, $42; individuals, $24; students, $17; foreign, $44. Copyright ©2017. All rights reserved. No portion of this magazine may be reprinted without the permission of the publisher except where otherwise noted.

Shelterforce is listed ¡ท the Alternative Press Index.Visit Shelterforce online at shelterforce.org.

CONTENTS ฒ86SPRING 2017

Affordability: What Does It Mean? How Do We Measure It?6

8

12

15

18

20

How Much Is Enough?

The 30 Percent standards BlindersBY DANIEL KAY HERTZ

เท Defense of the 30 Percent standard -In Some CasesBY CHRISTOPHER HERBERT, ALEXANDER HERMANN,

AND DANIEL McCUE

Housing Need Is Even More Skewed by Income Than We ThoughtBY ANDREW AURAND

The Math Doesn’t Add UpBY RICHARD HEULER

East Bay Housing Organizations

joined with other Bay Area groups

to get housing funding passed last

The Secret History of AMINovember. (See page 46.)

BY JARRETT MURPHY

22 When Deep-Income Targeting Doesn't Hit the MarkBY TOM CO니」SHAW

24 How to Build a Case for Community Development and Affordable HousingIn the new administration, housing programs will feel the pressure of budgetary cuts and tax reform. Advocates should be careful not to put down other programs in the process of defending their own, or everyone will lose. BY CHRIS ESTES

26

30

36

Will Limited Equity Co-ops Make a Comeback?Federal programs and cultural attitudes that helped launch a majority of the large limited- equity cooperatives across the nation are long gone, but at a smaller scale, this model of resident-controlled, long-term affordable housing may be experiencing new interest.BY LILLIAN M. ORTIZ

Where the Left and Right Agree (Sort of)A roundtable focusing on regulation and housing supply with Ingrid Gould Ellen, Jamaal Green, Rosarme Haggerty, Rick Jacobus, Greg Maher, Alan Mallach, and Charles Wilkins.

Thoughts on the Unnatural Occurrence of Cheap Housing

4 Editor's Note

5 Industry News 46 Organize!49 From the Blog

51 The Answer

CDCs and affordable housing developers have an opportunity to prevent displacement,preserve affordability, and improve the habitability of neglected housing. BY STEVE KING

Shelterforce is made possible by the generous support of:

Kresge Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

John อ. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation The Ford Foundation • Bank of America Foundation

JP Morgan Chase Foundation • Citi Community Development NeighborWorks America • PNC Bank Foundation

Wells Fargo Housing Foundation • Surdna Foundation Hyde and Watson Foundation • Ocwen Financial Corporation

... and the support of readers like you.Visit nhl.orq/qo/donate

38 Creating a Sanctuary for Youth in Camden, New JerseyLearning from the health world's understanding of trauma can create better outcomes for service organizations-and better workplaces too.BY NATASHA 0. FLETCHER AND ASIA N. KING

42 Making the Right ConnectionsA health center in New Orleans has partnered with a legal services agency to better help patients by addressing the social determinants of health. This "medical-legal partnership’’ is part of a growing trend that’s taking place across the nation. BY KATY RECKDAHL

shelterforce.org Shelterforce 3