Live at the Forum: Subsidized Housing Opportunities near Transit and the 50+ Population

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Emily Salomon on October 28, 2009 at 9:03am

The report includes a figure about who benefits the most from housing near transit. While the policy solutions in the report push for transit-oriented developments, how do older households in living in areas with "high amounts of limitations" cope with meeting their transit and other service needs? How can communities meet the needs of these older adults, especially in rural areas?

Permalink Reply by Allison Brooks on November 4, 2009 at 4:01pm

It is challenging to provide efficient transit service in places with more dispersed populations. That said, rural communities and places with transportation limitations can focus on creating nodes of activities that will serve to bring people together and provide services and amenities in one localized place. For example, having special events, health services, farmers markets, book fairs, etc, in centralized locations in a community at specific days and times can help people plan their rides, put less of a stress of paratransit, help provide public transportation to get people from where they are to where they need to go. Rural and suburban places can do a better job of creating these more compact nodes of activity, rather than allowing the sprawl of big box retail and other services that make it incredibly difficult for a person with limited transportation means to take care of errands and other needs through paratransit or through relying on friends and family. The cost of driving can also be a burden on those with a limited income.

Permalink Reply by Rodney Harrell, PhD on November 4, 2009 at 4:33pm

These are very good questions and tough challenges for communities.

(The figure that Emily references is on page 33 of the report, and describes the differences between situations where housing near transit provided minimal benefits or greater benefits)

First, the key to areas with a high amount of limitations is that they can significantly reduce the amount of limitations with the right policy changes. Implementing complete streets policies, adhering to ADA requirements (and even exceeding requirements with good sidewalks, waiting areas, etc.) can reduce the problems associated with individdual physical limitiations, as can improving the reliability of the transit service. For those who do not understand the system, good, clear, easy to understand signage and documents can address the needs of many who do not understand the system.

For the community-level limitations, we argue for good planning practices that lead to mixed-use, walkable communties. Improving the local economy can be tough, but if cities can create enough shopping and other services nearby, residents will benefit. On the transportation side, improving and developing well-planned transit networks and transit systems with highly-trained employees that are sensitive to the needs of older adults, will lead to frequent, reliable, and accessible service that will take anyone to the places that they need to go.

In these ways, a metropolitan area can reduce limitations and more people can maximize the benefits of housing that is near transit. I look at "housing near transit" as just a starting point with many potential benefits. Communities must put the pieces together so that people of all ages and incomes can maximize those benefits.

While we don't focus on rural areas in the paper, the same principles apply. Just as older "far from transit" residents on the fringes of metroplitan areas were often isolated and lacking benefits, so are those in rural areas who are far from town with no way to get to the things they need. Just as those in downtown areas (such as Minneapolis) had access to more shopping, restaurants, cultural and religious centers, etc., those in rural communities may benefit from being closer to town. Placing "senior housing" on the outskirts of town is the problem - residents can benefit from being more connected. If there is local bus service in these areas, they should meet the needs of older adults as well.

My recommedation is that older persons need a range of adequate options, in urban, suburban and rural areas, and the needs of older adults in the areas of housing, transportation and land use should be considered along with those of younger persons - this is behind our principle of integrating housing, transportation, and land use. Our recommendations are not limited to urban or suburban areas - these policies should always be addressed in a comprehensive manner, and should take into account the needs of all. While the policies and strategies may change, the considerations should remain the same

Permalink Reply by Keith Wardrip on October 29, 2009 at 6:53am

The report talks about the importance of preserving affordable housing near transit and in walkable communities. In your report, you analyze subsidized properties within 1/2 mile of transit nodes but also use a 1/4 mile radius under the assumption that older adults may not walk as far to use public transit. Does it follow that researchers and policymakers need to define the expressions "near transit" and "walkable communities" differently for older adults than for the rest of the population? And are there any studies that evaluate how far older adults are willing to walk to access public transit?

Permalink Reply by Rodney Harrell, PhD on November 4, 2009 at 3:23pm

Usually, TOD is measured as a half-mile radius. As you note, we used both the 1/2 mile and 1/4 mile measure for our statistical analysis to make sure that the "near transit" was relevant to older adults. There have been a few studies that evalute the willingness of older adults to walk, but the ones that I have seen usually focus on the time it takes to walk.

Researchers and policymakers do need to use more than the common 1/2 mile radius to measure these areas, but one of our findings was that when places are well designed, older persons (including some of the 80+ population) can benefit from transit that was 1/2 mile away. Well-designed areas with well-designed sidewalks, places to sit and rest if necessary and destinations for shopping, eating, etc. can make a longer walk much more reasonable. We need to look at both the 1/4mile radius and the 1/2 mile radius for transit, but also on the development patterns and amenities within that area.

Finally, I'll make a plug for "complete streets" policies that ensure that the right-of-way is benefits all users, whether they are walking, driving, bicycling, using wheelchairs, etc. We need these and similar policies for TOD that encompass the needs of all.

Permalink Reply by Rick Rybeck on October 29, 2009 at 7:57pm

Transportation Infrastructure (roads & transit) are generally created to facilitate development. Yet, the result is often a sharp rise in land speculation & prices near interchanges and transit stations that drive (affordable) development away to cheaper, more remote sites. Some Pennsylvania jurisdictions (e.g. Harrisburg) have reformed their property taxes by reducing the tax rate on building values and increasing the tax rate on land values. This reduces speculation (and land prices) while also reducing the cost to build, improve and maintain buildings that provide housing or business locations. Should this technique be listed among the policies for more affordable housing and economic development near transit? I have attached a brief article.

Attachments:

• TRPHJE - (Rybeck) 09-06-26.doc, 43 KB

Permalink Reply by Allison Brooks on November 4, 2009 at 3:12pm

Thanks for this example. Its important to identify mechanisms by which jurisdictions can capture the value that is created through public transportation investments, and then reinvesting that value back into those neighborhoods through preservation of existing affordable housing, new affordable housing and other community amenities.

Permalink Reply by Rick Rybeck on November 4, 2009 at 3:17pm

I think that this technique can be thought of as a double benefit. First, the implementation of this property tax reform reduces land and building prices. Thus, even to the extent that subsidies may still be required, those subsidies will go much farther when the market rents are kept down. Second, as you mention, the recaptured values can be used for a variety of community amenities, including housing subsidies.

Permalink Reply by Rebecca Cohen on November 3, 2009 at 10:10am

Can you recommend any resources for housing practitioners and researchers that want to collect data about the at-risk rental housing stock in their communities?

Permalink Reply by Todd Nedwick on November 4, 2009 at 3:09pm

There is a very helpful discussion thread about this subject on this preservation forum. The particular discussion thread is called "States-Localities/At-Risk Housing/Data Collection".

The discussion thread includes a summary of various successful approaches to collecting data on at risk housing and creating "early warning systems". Included is an overview of how the Oregon Housing Acquisition Project has developed a strategy for collecting at risk affordable housing data and their outreach to affordable housing owners. Also included are the approaches of the Shimberg Center in Florida, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The discussion thread can be accessed here: http://forum.housingpolicy.org/group/rentalhousingpreservation/foru...

Permalink Reply by Emily Salomon on November 4, 2009 at 2:37pm

Do rental housing preservation efforts specific to housing for older adults differ from preservation efforts for other types of subsidized units?

Permalink Reply by Todd Nedwick on November 4, 2009 at 3:28pm

The aging in place of older residents often requires owners to address the special needs of this population. Many older adults in affordable housing would benefit if their properties were recapitalized in a manner that better serves the needs of aging seniors for many years, including adding or improving supportive services.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page