In a recent episode of the TV show The Good Doctor, the main character, an autistic surgeon, wants to 
minister to his friend who is undergoing chemo. The surgeon tries reading a novel aloud, pushing electrolyte juice, taking his friend’s vitals. The friend, sick and exhausted, tells the surgeon to leave. The rebuffed surgeon shouts, “I’m trying to help you, and you’re not being a compliant patient!”
I wish every nonprofit volunteer, employee or board member would absorb that scene and ponder why we want to help — and what inadvertent burden we place on those we are intent on helping.
Imagine having to live your life relying on the gifts others want to give. Some gifts come with a power imbalance: What the recipient needs or wants is completely the giver’s choice whether to share. Does the recipient feel pressured to show gratitude and make the giver feel good? Or to change his or her behavior to meet the giver’s expectations?
What if the gift is not a good fit, such as building a subsidized apartment building on the edge of town, even though the prospective tenants would prefer to live in a mobile home park in the center of town or in a micro-unit downtown or own their own home?
Instead of gifts that proscribe how someone must live, why not create opportunities that level the playing field?
The original mission of Community Home Trust did just that. Moderate-income folks who had steady income to qualify for a mortgage could buy a house, townhouse or condo at a below-market price in exchange for accepting below-market appreciation, so that the home could stay permanently affordable.
They got a much nicer home than they could afford on the open market, and when they sold, they reaped the equity. CHT says that on average, its homeowners receive $12,000 to $15,000 when they sell, enough for a down payment on a modest house on the open market. They have the opportunity to build wealth through homeownership, just as the rest of us with solid finances do.
Recently some CHT board members proposed shifting toward more subsidized rentals for the low-income. (A couple of years ago, CHT bought an apartment complex in Carrboro that was going belly up and rents those units to people who have housing vouchers. And CHT plans to partner with two other nonprofits to dip a toe into the master leasing business model.)
While many nonprofits in town serve low-income residents, CHT is the only nonprofit serving the moderate-income demographic. Aspiring homeowners earning 60% to 115% of the Area Median Income would be shut out of the Chapel Hill real estate market if not for CHT.
In the TV show, the tension resolved when the surgeon stopped trying to do what made him feel better and simply sat with his friend, which took the pressure off.
The lesson for us? Stop trying to make ourselves feel better at the expense of those who are vulnerable. Sometimes simply creating opportunities that level the playing field is the best help.
— Nancy Oates
Terri
/ February 18, 2019I don’t understand your point, Nancy. The greatest need for housing in southern Orange County is for our lowest income residents. Those individual don’t qualify for the traditional CHT housing.
In response to that need, we have been putting more effort into create low income rentals, in addition to the homes created by the inclusionary zoning that CHT owns. CHT has been asked to manage those low income rental units–which they hire a management service to do. It’s not a competition between the traditional CHT units and the low-income rentals.
Nancy
/ February 18, 2019You’re right, Terri. My point isn’t clear. I may rework it later today.
We have a lot of different demographics we need to make room for. Several nonprofits already focus on the very low income, including the town’s public housing. If CHT switches its focus, it now competes for those grant and private donor dollars that other nonprofits are competing for. The competition is not internal (homeownership vs. rental) but external (CHT rental vs. all of the other nonprofits already providing rental).
CHT bought The Landings in Carrboro and pays a management company to manage them. As for the master leasing, CHT holds the risk by agreeing to pay Glen Lennox, so CHT is vetting the tenant applications. The town has given some money to cover the delta between rent charged to tenants and rent paid to Glen Lennox. Justice United has agreed to additional money to make up the difference. And IFC has agreed to provide the social work services.
Terri
/ February 18, 2019As far as I know, CHT is not getting into the development business. They are a management group. If you know what happened at The Landings when it was managed by a commercial group, it makes sense for CHT or some entity known to the towns to oversee the management. There is a very long list of very low income people (residents) looking for housing and very few options for them. A commercial entity has no way of knowing who those folks are, right now. And any of that housing that is developed with federal or state money has to take anyone who applies, whether they are a current resident, been on another agencies list for years, etc. We have a long way to go to getting our affordable rentals handled smoothly.
Plurimus
/ February 19, 2019this discussion clearly explains why there is no such thing as “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH) debunking the myth that creating more market rate housing (supply) necessarily addresses affordable housing (demand). What I would be concerned about is what I would call “workforce” housing (60 – 120% of AMI) for those who do not qualify for traditional affordable housing programs.
Nancy
/ February 19, 2019CHT started out developing land trust housing. The Legion Road townhomes was its debut project. Then town council passed its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and 15% of units in new developments were to be affordable (half at 65% AMI and half at 80% AMI). So CHT began managing those. Now that housing stream has dried up (the town can’t require rentals to meet the IZO, but can only accept an offer of affordable housing when a rezoning is requested), CHT is considering getting back into the development business. Should it be rentals for the 30-60% AMI demographic or homeownership for the 60-115% AMI demographic?
Plurimus
/ February 19, 2019If the number of units were equal I would vote for the latter option if I were on the TC. I dislike the “either/or” nature of the question though. I would like to see the different permutations. Obviously the TC needs to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.
I think the record of the developer should be considered too, not all have shown a commitment to AH and some are clearly doing the minimum.
Nancy
/ February 19, 2019Town council doesn’t get to vote on this, unless CHT asks the town for money. And CHT would do the project management itself so it would oversee the quality.
Terri
/ February 20, 2019‘this discussion clearly explains why there is no such thing as “naturally occurring affordable housing”
Of course there is naturally occurring affordable housing. It’s sprinkled throughout towns and county. The challenge is to stop those neighborhoods from being gentrified with big new houses that overwhelm the size and design of the older homes.
Plurimus
/ February 20, 2019http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/arb_tod_report_13-310.pdf
“The story of neighborhood decline in the United States is oft-told. While early researchers naturalized processes of neighborhood transition and decline, the drivers of decline are anything but natural and stem from a confluence of factors including: federal policy and investments, changes in the economy, demographic and migration shifts, and discriminatory actions.”
No one is disputing market forces, but the decisions that make it easy to build new housing or that decay property values and in turn lead housing to filter downward and become more affordable is not “naturally occuring”. Its a stupid term promoted by “New Urbanists” who try to reduce effects by implying there is nothing that can be done to change it or that by building more luxury housing the problem of affordability will solve itself.
Plurimus
/ February 20, 2019Hi Nancy; if the council has no input then I defer to the CHT mission statement: “Community Home Trust seeks to strengthen our community with permanently affordable housing opportunities.” That seems to leave open the possibility of permanently affordable rentals?
I think CHT has shown it is up to the job if they choose to expand their mission.
Either way, it does not change my opinion on what the outcome should be.
Terri
/ February 20, 2019“No one is disputing market forces, but the decisions that make it easy to build new housing or that decay property values and in turn lead housing to filter downward and become more affordable is not “naturally occuring”. ”
Naturally occurring affordable housing isn’t rundown housing as you imply. It’s neighborhoods like mine, Northwoods, the Ephesus Church neighborhood that have small to moderately sized homes without all the fancy amenities developers today include to raise the cost of their structures.
Plurimus
/ February 20, 2019Oh you mean “workforce housing”